Evolution or Intelligent Design? Comments on Richard Dawkins Book ' Blind Watchmaker'

After I wrote my hub labeled "Proof of God's Existence," I received some comments about why my article showed my "ignorance." This didn't bother me, by the way, because I eat up criticism: How can I improve my work, without criticism?

One who responded to my article referred me to a book entitled, "The Blind Watchmaker - Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design," by Richard Dawkins. I decided to buy the book and read it, in hopes of reducing my ignorance on the subject.

I am almost a third of the way through the book, and I have enough comments to warrant another hub. Ideally, I should wait until I read the book so I can make a more comprehensive case in what I think about the book, but that might mean the hub would be too long. Another reason I'd like to begin now, is so I can make the comments while the subject matter is still fresh on my mind.

One might think I should comment on the original words from the horse's mouth (Darwin's book), but Dawkins reported in his book that we know more about molecular biology now than Darwin did. Therefore, I must comment on the latest available arguments presented by the conclusions from that additional knowledge.

First of all, I should admit that Dawkins makes a good point. Because of his arguments and the evidences he presents, I can't - so far - do too much refuting in the way of his logic and conclusions. But while I'm admitting this, I must remind the reader that I have always admitted to believing in evolution, but through a designer of sorts. Dawkins' argument, however, tends to force the idea that a designer is more unlikely than likely. But his conclusions are based, it appears, on his pre-conceived notions of what a designer is, or that a designer must necessarily fit his own perception of how a designer might act or what habits or qualities he/she would have. Because of these preconceived notions, I feel to conclude that his argument against the existence of a designer - based on that alone - is flawed.

Also, I have a bone to pick with Dawkins on the way he uses both sides of the coin to promote his point: On the one hand, he slams a statement from a theist as showing what he calls "an Argument from Personal Incredulity," then he proceeds to state his own "personal incredulity" on another idea in making a point for his side:

Dawkins quotes people who say something along the lines of: "It seems highly improbable that an organ as complex as the human eye can evolve by itself." Of that kind of thinking, he says: "The Argument from Personal Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted. In some cases it is based upon simple ignorance." I cannot argue with that kind of reasoning, but I can hold him to the same standards, can't I? Later on, he says (on page 92), concerning how the twisted skull on a bony flatfish shows that one of its eyes moved from one side of it body to the other, "Its very imperfection is powerful testimony of its ancient history, a history of step-by-step change rather than of deliberate design. No sensible designer would have conceived such a monstrosity if given a free hand to create a flatfish on a clean drawing board." On page 93, he writes, when describing how the cells are oriented in the retina of vertebrates: "Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side NEAREST the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwwards." He goes on to say that this tends to inhibit clear vision, because the light has to travel through these "wires" and through the back ends of the light cells before reaching the light-responsive part.

My first complaint is his usage of "No sensible designer..." and "Any engineer would naturally assume...": He's doing the same thing he accused the theists of doing. But he called their argument weak. Can we therefore say that he is returning an equally weak argument when he "supposes" what an engineer or designer would think or do - especially one of a caliber and type unfamiliar to us? We have no idea what kind of entity or intelligence would have undertaken this task, nor do we have an inkling as to what methods he/she used, or what his/her/their motive was. One may say, "Well, those who believe in the Bible believe God is perfect." This may be true, but it misses the point. Dawkins is still basing his premise on his own perceptions, or on things used by the believers in a religious tome. What kind of sense does it make to disbelieve in the claims of theists, yet use their "false" beliefs or premises to make what they call a scientific conclusion?

My second complaint is Dawkins' thoughtless accusation that a proper design of the eyeball would have resulted in more perfect perception. Again, Dawkins is demanding a condition he "believes" to be ideal. But why do we need perfect perception on all surfaces of our retinas? As I described in my first hub about the existence of God, our fovea seems to be sufficient in helping us to perceive detail. If I were to be able to see an ant on my window sill carrying a load ten times its size while trying to concentrate on a problem in my computer, I might consider perfect perception a curse, especially if I had only a slight case of ADD, which I do suffer from, occasionally. Furthermore, the very existence of the fovea directly and implicitly acknowledges the fact that there is imperfect vision throughout the rest of the retina: not only does the fovea have a more dense helping of cones to increase fidelity in perception, but they're smaller, to be able to pack in more of them. Also, material through which light passes is reduced at the fovea, to allow a much more clear image. Therefore, at the risk of proffering a "weak" "argument of incredulity," and sounding "ignorant," I'd say that the existence of just these four related conditions (backwards rods in non-fovea areas, indentation at the fovea, and added and smaller cones at the fovea) begs the term, "compensative purposing through four-dimensional problem-solving," which seems to be a rare or non-existent occurrence in unsupervised natural selection.

Dawkins further complains of how the nerves dive down into a hole at the back of the retina to form the optic nerve to the brain. He says that this creates a blind spot. Well, he's brought up another condition which causes to me explain its existence by using the term, "compensative purposing through four-dimensional problem-solving." The brain fills in the details of that blind spot (as shown in my first hub), and easily so, because by some quirk of nature or evolution or, should I be bold enough to say "design," that blind spot is not located at the back of the eye, but is, instead, off center, and - to boot - among these "backward" rods he complains about, which area - I'd say "conveniently" - cloaks the existence of the blind spot by not showing anything very clearly around it.

In his argument, Dawkins' has given an example of "aberration" without showing the balancing effects for it. He has concluded from this example that there is no intelligent design. Well, since I showed a balancing effect for his purported aberration, can I, with the same logic, declare that this is strong evidence FOR intelligent design - especially seeing that the aberration was solved (to sufficient extent) using multiple solutions?

At the end of this series of commentaries for Dawkin's book, I will probably offer my own reasons for why we shouldn't "suppose" that certain conditions should exist, such as the popular belief that God should show perfection his his creations. But for now, I'll sign off, and allow the reader to absorb - and comment on - what has been said so far.

More by this Author


Comments 98 comments

Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

The fovea has a greater concentration of light-sensing cells (the "rods" and "cones") but has the same problem as anywhere else in the vertebrate retina: nerves leading from the sensing-cells go UP into the path of oncoming light, forming a film of nerves blocking this same incoming light. There is no conceivable set of circumstances where this would be an advantage to eyesight, in the consideration of any designer. If it is, why didn't this designer make the eyes of octopuses, squids and snails the same way? THEY have nerves leading out the back of the eye without interfering with the light. No, the simplest explanation is the best: eyesight developed in random ways across the evolution of different branches of species, with no designer or certainly not any INTELLIGENT one.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

If we saw any better, we'd walk around with green ghosts in front of us (persistence of vision). "Well," you say, "then God should have given us the capacity to withstand bright things." I say, "All things are relative. Besides, you're forgetting what I said in the hub: Why do we have to suppose that God's creations be perfect? 1 Cor. Chap. 15 acknowledges that our bodies are imperfect. This is a Christian scripture you are supporting when you mention such imperfections. Why build a perfect eye in an imperfect body? Octopi probably need better vision, since the water obscures their view.

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, people became miserable. The Bible admits that. It's possible the human body already had these imperfections, and if so, God ceased to protect them from their threats because of the origial sin, and people began to die. God, being able to know the future, probably saw to the imperfections so he could carry out his threat of what would happen if Adam and Eve disobeyed his directive. All this "imperfecion" talk supports biblical ideas.

Also, you forgot what I said about how the backwards photo cells conveniently hide the blind spot. I also said I would be too easily distracted if I had perfect perception in my peripheral vision. And I know people who have a lot more ADD than I have. I see quite a bit of purpose in how things are situated at the moment.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Rambo, I'm not sure how you justify this "imperfection" thing? For just one moment try to put on open minded hat rather than an "rationalize every point away" hat. I read your hub with an open mind with hope that your logic is convincing, because I'd love to have eternal life.

Are you really stating that we are imperfect and live in an imperfect world created by a perfect being because the perfect being saw the future and new we would be imperfect and eat the apple? Do you not see how irrational that is? The only way this fits is if God himself is flawed and can't see the future. If God is perfect and can see the future than he is lacking in compassion. God would have compassion if we are created in his image. It just doesn't make any sense.

I guess it's possible I misunderstood you and if that's the case I apologies. I have been interested in your writing because I'm fascinated with how far one goes to rationalize their belief system. When given the evidence of the evolution of the eye (I believe I sent you a youtube link for this a while ago) you still seem to think the eye was designed exactly as it is today. When given evidence of the imperfection of the eye you seem to claim it's imperfection makes it perfect.

So, please do a favor for me and explain how you justly the imperfections in humans, the world and in turn God.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

I don't rationalize: When I see something that is assumed in science, I attack it. I have my own ideas of science, which is based on my experiences. My experiences cannot be proven. But they happened to me. Therefore, what science produces that is consistent with my experiences, I'll embrace. Like I said, I'll accept evolution because of the evidences. But because of my experiences, evolution to me is laced with ideas about God. To me, this is fact, and "proof" of God. To you, it's a mere claim, and I don't blame you if you don't accept it, because you haven't had my experiences.

Now . . . concerning imperfection: Who can claim our bodies are perfect? Nobody! The reason we know this, is because we get sick and die. Yet we - as we are now - were created by some type of intelligent designer. I am just a few inches away of "knowing" that as fact, because of - again - my experiences. There's no way I can pass on to you that knowledge. Therefore I'm not trying to impose on you my conclusions about God.

But because I "know" I was created by a god of sorts, and because I know my body isn't perfect, then I pull together facts (some of them my own), logic, Christian scriptures, historic facts, and the result is - nothing that can be called "justifying" or "rationalizing," but - my concept of why God created less than perfect biological contrivances. These conclusion make perfect sense, if you can follow their reasoning. You can convince me that they don't make sense if you address and refute each one of my arguments presented in this hub and in my comments.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

By the way, the fact that God permitted imperfecion in the world is evidence that he is, rather, FULL of compassion. This is difficult to explain, and I don't have the time, now. I'll come back later and talk about it, or write another hub.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Sorry Rambo, with the utmost respect... You can't "know for a fact" that god exists. Even those who have had a near death experience can't be trusted because of the lack of blood to the brain. I've had dreams that I thought were real, but they turned out to be just dreams. All in my mind. Again, can't be trusted. If I said I know for a fact the no god exist, does that mean no god exists? No, it's just an opinion.

Please do right a hub explaining your evidence of how a God full compassion would create an imperfect world causing pain and agony to his children. If I inflict pain on any or all of my children is that evidence of my compassion? But please write and I will read your rationalization.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Eating a piece of fruit does NOT turn our retinas inside-out from the pressure of sin! What a ridiculous idea. YOU try inverting the skin on an orange without breaking it. It's topologically impossible. You are saying that God made sinless man imperfect somehow, or that imperfections only came later the INSTANT a piece of fruit was eaten. Neither make sense. And after I told you and told you, you still seem to claim that areas in the eye like the fovea or the Blind Spot are some special exceptions. No, ALL parts of the retina have a film of nerves ABOVE the light sensing cells, IN THE PATH of oncoming light. There are no sensing-cells at the Blind Spot, for all the nerves accumulate there and finally leave the eye in an ass-backwards configuration.

We also have a heck of a lot of peripheral vision anyway; the brain is ALREADY set to ignore a lot, but what measurable advantage does OBSCURED vision ever bring?


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad Man and Pierre, thank you for your comments. Rad, I told you I was one inch away from knowing. This means I don't know for sure. But things that happen in my life give testimony and evidence that He exists. For example, I've had silent conversations with someone I thought was God, or an angel who represented Him. This person invited me to pray for someone who was unfair to me (the Bible says "Pray for those who despitefully use you"). I told him I was too mad at her. He said, "Maybe if you pray for her, it will solve the problem in her life that causes her to be unfair to you."

I was surprised at this concept, but I didn't want to pray for her. I hated her too much. From this, I concluded that it was, indeed, a communication from outside myself, because I loathed the idea of praying for her. Nevertheless, because I thought this suggestion was from God, I did the prayer. It was one of the hardest things I ever did in my life, but I did it, and it was somewhat insincere. Nevertheless, I did it, and I did it every day. After a week, without telling the woman I was praying for her, she said, "Y'know, Sam, my husband doesn't belittle me any more! I don't know why, but it sure feels good!" (That was the problem that caused her to do those things to me; long story, but if you want it in detail, I'll send it or write another hub.)

Another time, I had a dream. The next day, it came true word-for-word, action-for-action. This story is found in the hub titled "My Prophetic Dream." On another occasion, after thoroughly studying a chapter in scripture - reading the footnotes and drawing diagrams - a new understanding of the chapter came into my being, accompanied with an overwhelming feeling of love. New knowledge came into my mind that I doubt I could have come up with by myself. On another occasion, I received more insight into the scripture I quoted above, about praying for your enemies. I've been surprised by the self-evident truths in some scriptures that came to me by way of some transcendental feeling of peace and love. This isn't all, but it should be sufficient. These, and stories I've heard from people I trust to be sincere are what have brought me to within an inch of knowing there is a god. Furthermore, my behavior for believing has more completely solidified that strong belief. There are certain promises associated with certain commandments or directives. When I live those directives, I get the promise. When I don't, I don't. It's like a mathematical formula. Mathematical formulas are science!

I'll comment further, later.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Another story: I have a position in the priesthood of my church. One woman who had diabetes, had a sore on her foot. For a year, it wouldn't go away. Because of diabetes, it wouldn't heal. The doctors were wondering how and when they should amputate. NOTE: They had already lost hope the foot would heal. The woman asked me for a blessing. I relied on her faith and my priesthood blessing to heal her, as was done in the New Testament. Soon, her foot healed, and she was walking on it normally, after having spent a year on crutches.

After living a life full of these types of "miracles" and spiritual experiences, don't you think it would be quite careless to ignore it all and denounce a belief in God?


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Compassion: When we tell our children no, and punish them for disobeying, are we lacking compassion? Or are we showing we love them by helping them to learn how to think, how to choose right from wrong, how to avoid negative consequences, etc? In scripture, God says he chastens those He loves. It's for their good. Us humans definitely need to learn a few important things in life, as evidenced by our continual errors and downfalls. If you need more on that, tell me, and I'll be glad to respond.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, I did not say sinning would turn anything inside out. I said that we always had them backwards, and we always had weaknesses in our bodies. God protected man during his innocent years by offering the fruit of the tree of life, and the perfect fruit found in the garden of Eden.

After Adam and Eve sinned, they were driven from the garden, and had to eat the fruit of the world, which was corrupt. This ceased to protect the pair and their posterity from the weaknesses in their body, and they eventually died.

By the way, I don't know of this condition as a fact. I'm only speculating, trying, as I've said before, to marry science with religion, or with my religious experiences. In other words, I acknowledge that things are backwards and imperfect in our bodies. But because I had so many "miracles" and spiritual experiences that are consistent with what the Bible teaches, I therefore am attempting to marry the two concepts. If someone were to prove to me that the Bible and its teachings were false, I would gladly concede my beliefs. I'm not the type that would doggedly believe in something that has been disproven. Besides, then I could live a more selfish life, couldn't I?

Trying to marry two seemingly opposing concepts is like the following analogy: I'm born and raised on an island with no technology. God comes to me and tells me all atoms are colorless. I then look around me, and I see that the world is full of color; the trees are green, the sunsets are orange and red, and the ocean is blue and green. I tell people that all atoms are colorless. They say, "You're crazy! Can't you see the color?" So I immediately set about to figure out why atoms can be colorless, and appear as being colored at the same time. I stab at it, not knowing if I have the right answer, but I rest, knowing that some day I'll know why God said that all atoms are colorless.

You and I know that all atoms are colorless, right? And you and I still see colors. I'm sure you know why.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Rambo, I hope your faith works for you and you live a long healthy life. Your logic seems a little flawed to me though. I could use the same argument and say "when I was 12 years old I wanted to be 6 ft. tall so I prayed three times a day for 6 years and came up 6 inches short, so God did not answer my prayers so therefore this is no God. I idea of praying for the health of another is ridiculous. 9.99 times out of 10 that person would get better with or without prayer. Cancer doesn't discriminate. It hits everyone. Unfortunately telling someone with cancer that they didn't prey enough only makes matters worse because then they feel guilt.

If you're studying something and you suddenly get new insight, that doesn't mean it came from God. Give you're self some credit. I struggle with ongoing problems for weeks sometimes. Then the solution comes suddenly, it didn't come from God. It came from me. When bad things happen, don't blame the devil. The devil made me do it. No, take responsibility. Good Luck Rambo. I'll keep following. If you try to marry Religion and Science you have to justify the short comings of one or the other. This I find entertaining.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

One more thing: In my hub titled "Do the Innocent Really suffer?" you'll find a reason why it might be necessary to have an imperfect world for God's creations. This is a concept that - as the article will show - an atheist friend of mine had to agree with.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Yeah, Rambo, you make yourself silly justifying your nonsensical stories always as if there is only one explanation, and that explanation is always God. Not even a related explanation like Buddha or Ahura Mazda, but the particular local concept of God you were raised on! You expect us to believe stories of voices in your head, always leaning to your prejudices? The ancient Indians of this continent sent their boys on "dream quests" to find their "spirit-animal". All of society was biased, telling them over and over again that spirit-animals existed, they were met on dream quests, no one ever told them any differently, and lo and behold, a half-starved, delirious boy sees Crow, or Badger, or Bear, (but oddly enough, never saw Jesus Christ.) Well, that belief in spirits wastes time, so we train people NOT to think about religion most of the time. It makes them more productive and they focus on work better. Even YOU benefit from our current cultural habit of not thinking about God 24/7 or even part of the time. It's the foundation of the success of Western society. Compared to your ancestors, you do the work of dozens, hundreds because of it.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad Man, thank you for your well-wishes. I'll regard what you said as your opinion, and I won't fault you for your opinions, because they are based on your experiences, of which I'm not a part. I would like, however, to differentiate your experiences from mine, which will, of course be my own opinion: I've had the same kind of experience you had, about a solution coming to you. Once, I tried to program a computer to count in the base six system. I pondered over it, made attempts, failed, and tried again. Late into the night, I finally gave up, deciding to resume in the morning. Just as I began to relax in bed, the solution for how to do it came into my mind. So I got up again, and finished that section of the program.

I'm aware of that capacity in the mind to send things to the subconscious. The subconscious works on it, then when it's done, and when you relax, it spits it back up into the conscious mind. All of us agree that this exists.

But that experience was vastly different from my spiritual experiences, in many ways - the ways I told you about. My subconscious solutions were never accompanied by the type of enlightenment that comes from what I'm convinced is the Holy Ghost. I can see how a solution that you haven't thought of before can happen, because the mind is capable of putting two and two together and figuring it out. Also, I don't think I'd ever give myself the idea to do something that I loathed to do. Finally, the subconscious solutions never came with an overwhelming love that was so strong as to want to relay it to others.

You're right about not telling people they should have prayed to get better. That's the diplomatic within you.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Compassion - If I as my child to preform a task I know they will fail at and I make it painful when they fail. I am lacking in compassion. If I put a 5 year old on a motor bike naked on a sandpaper road. I have no compassion. Did your God not know Adam and Eve would fail? If your answer is yes the he lacks compassion and is cruel. If you answer no, they your God doesn't know the future. Then we get into free will.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, I see you don't know me very well. Read more of my articles, and you'll see I don't necessarily focus on the god that's familiar to me. I give credit to all, and don't deny any, and I consider their believers as being sincere. I'll make that my next project: to gather together my comments that show this. BTW, I consider you sincere as well, and I wish we weren't butting heads, but I feel I have to defend the things that I think are truth.

I've heard NDE stories where people have seen personalities they thought were the ones taught them in their religion. Guess what? I believe all of them! Like I said in another area, whatever is out there, is so advanced and complex, we can't even dream of how it's configured.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad Man: Yes, if you did those things to your child you would seem to be lacking in compassion.

God's foreknowledge and methods: He is so advanced and far above us (as the Bible says), that it is futile to try to consider whether He is real or not - or justified or not - based on the facts at hand. To make a judgment about Him or His existence based on our finite brain and knowledge would - in my opinion be quite a careless act.


Rad Man 5 years ago

With all do respect Rambo, you are rationalizing Gods behavior. If you and I wouldn't be cruel and only sociopaths would do it, why justify it by saying our little brain can't understand? Yes our little brains can understand what is right and what is wrong.

I do apologies for being confusing at times. I just reread my comments and my dyslexia can at times confuse. I sometimes miss words or put the wrong words in. It makes me look incapable. It's just a small part of me. Just pretend English is my second language and all is good.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Is it really called "rationalizing," or is it called accepting it based on faith? I'm doing what the Bible invites us to do: Accept it on faith and let the Holy Spirit teach you what He deems necessary. According to the Bible, God's ways are too far above ours to fully understand. If I didn't trust the Bible, then I wouldn't be who I claim to be and I'd be a hypocrite.

You mean my brain can decide what's right and what's wrong? I feel like I've already decided that, but you don't agree. If our little brains can understand what is right, and what is wrong, then why do we (or I) keep misunderstanding the differences, and form so many different arenas of the same genre? By the way, it isn't just me doing this; it's the whole world.

No worries about being confusing. I do that all the time.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Ridiculous. We have even beaten God's flight-speed record. HE only moves in such a way "as lightning is seen in the East, and is heard in the West". That's the speed of sound. We beat that in 1947. So I'll tolerate no more unproven SPECULATION that "God's ways are too far above ours". All your talk after that is unproven, speculations. Then you go into our tiny brains (that God created? Again is this an example of Unintelligent Design?)


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Have we beaten God's record in creating life? BTW, the scriptures don't say God moves like lightening; that scripture is referring to how we will perceive him when He comes. Just thought you might appreciate that clarification.

Christians (especially I) believe that there is a better world waiting for us. That one will be the perfect one you are saying God should create. And it will be perfect, because God wants it to be. I know this is unproven, but I've never claimed I can prove any of this. As far as speculation goes, the idea of God's ways being above ours isn't speculation, at least on my part. It's from the source of what defines my religion.

Our brains, as they currently stand, are extremely amazing instruments. If God made them to His perfect specifications before we completely matured, think of all the problems we would face.


Rad Man 5 years ago

When left with God being either cruel or false (because he can't see the future). You start the "He is so advanced and far above us" nonsense. Can't argue with that. No facts there. If that didn't work you could have used the "blind faith" out. Blind faith is the real problem. (Raymond Lahey, former head of the diocese of Antigonish, N.S., told an Ottawa court Wednesday that he possessed and imported child pornography for personal use. In August 2009, he brokered a $15-million settlement for victims of sexual abuse by priests of the diocese of Antigonish dating back to 1950. At the time, Lahey said sorry to the victims on behalf of the church.) Blind faith is for suckers Rambo. We need to open our eyes. If it doesn't make sense it's nonsense. Blind faith was the main reason for the dark ages. Europe thought everything we need to know was in the bible anyone who thought different could be killed.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Who said anything about blind faith? I don't claim to employ that.

About facts: When one believes in the Bible, and uses it illustrate his belief, how can that not be considered facts? Don't confuse facts with evidence.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Sam,

I don't have a lot of time right now but I have to ask how you adhere to ID (creationism) when the basis of that belief system is non-scientific? ID came out of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, renamed The Center for Science and Culture, who originally published the book "Of Pandas and People", a creationist textbook. This didn't fly with our jurisprudence system, so Discovery Institute found a way to alter the message (so they thought) to Intelligent Design as code name for god. This still did not work (see Kitzmiller v Dover Area Board of Eductation).

So now, the tactic has changed again to "teach the controversy." Problem is, there is no controversy to teach, other that the false controversy created out of whole cloth by the Chritian evangelical right wing who are more intent on establishing a Christian theocracy than on promoting reason and science.

Finally, here are the words of the Discovery Institute itself as to their goals - including the goals of promulgating ID:

(From The Wedge Document, The Discovery Institute, 1998)

(Governing Goals

•To defeat scientific materialism...

•To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.)

How can you possibly want to support people whose designs are not on intelligence but theocratic power?


Rad Man 5 years ago

Faith you have, but you don't employ blind faith? Because it is written in the bible that God is so advanced and far above us you except that as truth when evidence of his cruelty exists. You are blindly excepting the bible as truth. Blind faith. That is a FACT.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, my plunge into the two genre (evolution and its opposite) is only a few days old. From all that I read, it seemed to me that the opposite of evolution is "intelligent design." If that is not the case, then I can change that, and thank you for the heads up. What should I call my belief system: "Creationism?" "Belief in God?" You tell me.

Perhaps my niche, though, is not either, because I do believe in evolution, but as directed by a god. What do you call that?

As far as adhering to something that isn't scientific, I'll give you a simple explanation, something I've explained before, but perhaps you didn't read that part: To me, the existence of a god is scientific, because I have seen, heard, felt, done and heard of things from what I believe to be God, or granted by God in my own experience. I'm not claiming that it is scientific for others, because it happened only to me. For you, my belief or adherence is not scientific; therefore, you are not expected to accept it.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad, I don't see evidence of God's cruelty. As I mentioned before, He sends angels to soften our pain, or has built a mechanism into us that helps us to not feel it, or endure it, as shown in the story of Viktor Frankl in my hub, "Do the Innocent Really Suffer?" This is evidence of His compassion.

I didn't refer to the scripture about God's ways to show my faith in it, I used it to demonstrate that we can't make a judgment about God based on our limited capacities.

I don't have blind faith in the Bible. I test its precepts constantly by doing what the Bible invites us to do. When positive things happen in relation to those acts, this confirms my faith in its precepts, and my faith is slowly transferred to knowledge.

I know the Bible shows flaws, and that's due to the passage of time while the Bible has gone through many translations and editings. I realize the Bible is a collection of writings chosen by men after the ascension of Jesus. Therefore, I acknowledge the idea that some things about Christianity were left out, and that other irrelevant things were put in. I have lists of things that are not consistent in biblical settings, or that that conflict with each other. This definitely shows that I don't exercise blind faith.

I also profess to remain aloof of interpretations by men. Popular Christianity states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are embodied in one corporeal entity. I don't buy this, because the Bible doesn't say that. It says the three are one, which I believe, but it doesn't say they are found in one body or entity. They are one, as explained in Jesus's Intercessory Prayer (in the book of John, I think): One in purpose.

My faith is in the basic teachings of Jesus as confirmed by the Holy Ghost and other associated writings, as I've mentioned before. I don't pick and choose which are correct; I respond to the logic of what fits together as confirmed by associated biblical commentary and witnesses, and as confirmed by the Holy Ghost, a crucial element in belief, as promised in the Bible.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Interesting, so we don't really feel pain? I've watched christians die and let me tell you they feel pain both in the body and the mind. The best we can hope for in life is a fast painless death.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Well, as I've mentioned before, God and His angels help us to endure one way or another. We come out stronger in the end.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(I do believe in evolution, but as directed by a god. What do you call that?)

Sam,

I really don't know, either. I can tell you that your position is the same as the official position of the Catholic Church, though. They have said there is no discrepancy between faith and evolution. That would have to mean some type of directed evolution or at least an instigating creator who allowed evolution to occur.

ID itself, though, is non-science. Michael Behe himself admitted under oath during the Kitzmiller trial that ID did not fit the definition of science used by any recognized scientific association and that the only way to claim it was science was to broaden the definition of science to include even astrology as science.

(To me, the existence of a god is scientific, because I have seen, heard, felt, done and heard of things from what I believe to be God, or granted by God in my own experience)

Sam,

This is the problem made by many believers - trust in their limited sensory abilities.

Let me point out that not all that long ago we were certain because of the way we watched the sun move across the sky and the way we felt the earth beneath our feet as stationary and unmoving that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved.

The rational question is what is more likely - was it a bit of undigested meat as Scrooge hypothesized or was it really a ghost of Marley?

Keep in mind, A Christmas Carol is fiction...


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, the conclusions we made about the earth being the center of the universe were made by men doing their own thinking. My conclusion about God is the result of what I'm convinced is the Holy Ghost, who knows about everything. That's a big difference!


Rad Man 5 years ago

Sorry Rambo, no difference at all. All in your head. I can tell you I had a talk with Santa and he told me not to be naughty. If you are hearing voices perhaps some meds might help.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Wait a minute, back up here. ANGELS now? Prove angels exist. You keep invoking God, spirits, now angels...do you REALLY think you can just spout anything you want that comes off the top of your head in an argument? What are these "angels" and what is their role in Creationism? You are full of phony rationalizations, like a puppet-master bringing up a greater and greater variety of puppets to tell your Punch & Judy type story. But I repeat again: you can't buttress your unsupported claims by making yet MORE unsupported claims.

And the attempt to humble humans by saying we didn't create artificial life is false. We DID, in 2010. Follow the news. Totally artifically made DNA animated a cell emptied of DNA. We will certainly beat God's speed and variety in creating life very, very soon.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Winston, the conclusions we made about the earth being the center of the universe were made by men doing their own thinking. My conclusion about God is the result of...)

Sam,

I am confused. You are saying that the geocentric model was wrong because it was a conclusion made by men doing their own thinking, but YOUR conclusion about God is correct because it is made by a man doing his own thinking.

I do not grok.

What is the objective evidence for a ghost, holy or not? What - other than the subjectivity of feelings - separates belief in god and belief in the tooth fairy?

What can we not do or not accomplish without a god that entails a god to do or to accomplish? If there is no practical, real world necessity to believe in god, then why do it?


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad Man, thank you for your opinion.

Pierre, thank you for your opinion, and read here

http://hubpages.com/education/SufferingIsMinimal

about why I mentioned angels. I thought I brought this hub up before. If not, sorry.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, read it again carefully; the HG taught me. Not my thinking, except to seek out supporting evidences of what the H.G. taught me.

Difference: My belief in the tooth fairy was not brought by the H.G. The evidence of the H.G. is found within me. For this reason I stated before that you are not expected to believe what I say.

Reason to have God: He has helped me heal gangrene (see this hub or yours), he taught me why we should pray for our enemies, which worked for me (see my comment that includes the story of a woman who was unfair to me), he has comforted children and other innocents who suffered, or lessened their pain (see "Viktor Frankl" and the link in the comment to Pierre), he healed my niece's hand that was slammed in a van door (that had to be pried open) instantly (see "Kayleen - the True Story of a Tormented Girl" within my list of hubs), he told me if I pay tithing I wouldn't lack (that has happened, even when my income was cut down to 25%), he warned me about a young woman who was plotting to ruin my marriage (see "My Prophetic Dream" in these pages), and he has given you and me the love of writing and - in my case at least - art and music, and I'm convinced he made me bright, as you once confessed.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(I'm convinced he made me bright, as you once confessed.)

Sam,

There is no doubt you are bright. I hope you are not surprised that I find you personally likeable, as well. I do think you are honest, and that is a characteristic that goes far with me.

I do think your beliefs are misguided. That doesn't make me think I am superior in any way.

We are all equally human.

As for you reasons, there is nothing in them other than subjective belief, is there? Did you watch a sliced-open hand wound miraculously close?

I have to point once again that god does not seem to like amputees and he does not regrow missing limbs. What god does seem to have a fondness for is taking credit for subjective issues for which he is not a mandatory part.

I believe you are honest, as I said. Your listed evidences of necessities of god are not valid - you have only offered a list of things which you believe should be attributed to god.

People could go to church on Sunday, hear preachers and sing songs, and live their lives in fear of god, regardless if there were a god or not.

I am asking for one single illustration of any objective accomplishment that is impossible for a human to physically attain if that human lacks a belief in god.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, thank you for the nicer tone. Maybe the temple IS clouding my brain as you mentioned in your hub, because I'm having a hard time knowing exactly what you want in your last paragraph. But let me tell you this: I grew up with the adopted father of Kayleen (whose story I referred you to). He has a twin brother, "identical." Their father could not tell them apart. I knew them well enough to tell them apart over the phone, or by looking at their silhouettes. In short, I knew the father of Kayleen inside-out, almost. I know him well enough to know he didn't lie when he told me Kayleen's hand was crumpled, in the jagged shape of the door jamb of the van after they first pulled it out. It had been in there long enough to try to open the door from both sides, make sure the door was unlocked, run into the rest stop, ask for help, wait for a volunteer to get his tire iron out of his truck, and then pry open the door (it was slammed so tight on her hand, that it wouldn't open). She was inside the van, and her fingers were sticking out the other side. My cousin had taught his children about how faith healed people through a blessing from a priesthood holder in the New Testament. Kayleen's faith was so strong, that she was convinced her hand would heal if her father gave her that blessing. When he finished the blessing, he was surprised to see that her hand looked as good and fresh as the other hand.

You can explain that as happening because she had soft bones, or for whatever other reason, but I can't do it, because of other things that happened continuously in that family. My cousin is more faithful than I am, and has a better gift. He has stories of helping the dumb to talk, the bind to see (I think), and other such healings. He has seen in dreams his children before they were born, and accurately predicted their gender. There's quite a list. One reason my cousin is so favored (in my opinion) is because the type of person he is. Here's an example: A car hit his 14-year-old son, one day, who was thrown over the top of the car and landed behind it. The boy wasn't hurt. When my cuz talked to the driver, the driver gave him his lawyer's number. My cuz said he wouldn't need it. Surprised, the man asked why. My cuz said, "He wasn't hurt! Everything's okay!" The man walked away in a daze, surprised. You and I know that my cuz could have easily made 100M on that.

I can't do any better than that in the way of miracles; it's the best I can give you, in addition to my own experiences above. But essentially, nobody should expect to see miracles just to prove a point, because the whole idea of Christianity is "believe and have faith." In scriptural accounts, when someone insisted on seeing a "sign," it was usually granted in the form of the petitioner's misfortune.

Again, regarding your last request: The heart of what you're asking escapes me. Are you saying that I'm believing that a person who doesn't believe can still have God intervene in his ife?


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

As I think about it, you better ignore that part about healing the blind, until further notice. I was remembering another one that involved another "voice problem."


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Again, regarding your last request: The heart of what you're asking escapes me.)

Sam,

I am not asking you to not believe - that is your choice. All I am asking for is a single example offered by reason of an objective validation of the existence of god.

For example, we humans cannot fly without an airplane or some other such flying device. Ergo, that flying device is objectively necessary for man to fly.

What objectively observable deed can a man not do (like growing a new limb on an amputee) unless he believes in god?

If there is nothing, then god is not an objective requirement but a subjective one, and only fulfills subjective needs.

(It they are subjective, they may not be real. So the belief and the belief in the miracle both may not represent reality. Opinions can be wrong.)

It is the arena of subjectivity where we use evidence, as our beliefs are inductively based. We do not seem to ask for as much evidence of god as we do that there is no excrement in our food supplies.

It seems odd we believe with so little reason.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Are you asking, then, proof that God exists? If not, I must be getting senile, because you're still talking gobble-de-gook for me. If you want proof, I've been mentioning all along that it doesn't exist - at least proof that others can accept.

The only proof that exists is in the experience of those who, for example, saw Jesus talking to them many days after his crucifixion. Tell me if I'm on the right track.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(My first complaint is his usage of "No sensible designer..." and "Any engineer would naturally assume...": He's doing the same thing he accused the theists of doing.)

Sam,

I, too, find Dawkins at times to be heavily biased, but I believe he acknowledged that bias in his preface. If my memory serves, he admitted to offering a lot of his opinion in the book, mixed in with the science.

On the above issue, though, I think you are wrong. I do not believe Dawkins is arguing against design but against intelligence in the design. An inefficient design does not contribute much evidence for intelligence - you could claim evidence for a not-real-bright designer, maybe. I think his argument is that if the designer showed little intelligence in the design, then the claim of intelligently designed is highly speculative. Your counter argument doesn't impress, either, as the claim of limitations on the knowledge about the designer could well mean that the results came about from natural selection, after all, and thus no design occured.

You are correct that Dawkins presumes human-like intelligence without knowing motives, needs, etc., but as design by humans is done by engineers it is reasonable to compare a human engineer with some thing that is powerful enough to plan, design, and initiate the creation of the human eye. After all, these are not arguments of deduction but of induction, so a comparison does not prove but only offers evidence of.

You are correct that there is no concrete evidence that the eye came about totally by natural selection, but science has shown that the possibility of that mechanism to be quite high.

On the other hand, the only evidence we have for intelligent design according to Michael Behe himself is that some biological systems appear too complex to have come about by natural selection.

That means the only evidence we have is opinion based on interpretation of sensory images.

The last time we based our scientific beliefs on opinion of our interpretation of our sensory findings was when we decided the earth was the center of the universe because we did not "feel" the earth beneath our feet move and we "observed" the sun to move across the sky.

No matter how you slice it, the history of the ID movement is based on creationism backed by The Discovery Institute to further a religious right wing political objective.

And don't think for a moment that group doesn't realize that people like yourself can be more easily duped because of your confirmation bias, and will obfuscate facts to make it easier for you to accept their proposals.

I like what you said above - that you believe evolution was the method god chose to utilize. I have no qualms about you believing that, but hope you would also accept that natural selection as the mechanism of change does not violate that idea, either.

Evolutionary theory does not make a statement for or against any god or gods. Dawkins does.

For the record, I wasn't nearly so impressed with his chapters and thoughts about abiogenesis. I think he was stretching to support his bias at that point.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Like I mentioned before, I'm new to this area of science. When I wrote the article with the eye, I had no idea what monster was lurking under the bed. I do appreciate the opportunity to learn all this, so to expand my horizons. I'm glad there are people on HubPages that are not afraid of hurting feelings.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Sambo, you claim the risen Jesus is "evidence"? Where is the evidence of the hundreds of dead bodies rising out of the graves and "prophesying" to people just after Jesus died? Mentioned in one of the Gospels, quite a crazy story, isn't it? Any literate Romans or Arabs ever write about it?


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, you make a good point. It would be interesting to see if Josephus wrote about it. I don't know if he is considered a credible historian, but I'll check it out.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, I checked Josephus and did an internet search, and found nothing. So either it didn't happen, or the writers of history smothered it.

If it did happen, here are a few possibilities: Some experts say the verses that tell of the "graves opening" are inserted between their adjacent verses after the book of Matthew (where this story is found) was originally written. I don't know what that really means, but could have something to do with it. Another possibility: Those who arose were long dead, so the people witnessing this probaby shrugged them off as strangers claiming strange things. Third scenario: Matt. 28:11-15 shows that people were paid a lot of money by the chief priests to tell the story in a different way. The chief priests were basically in control, and were probably those responsible for the crucifixion. Therefore, they evidently did this to save themselves embarrassment. Verse 15 says: "So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the jews until this day." I learned in school that history is often controlled by those in power.

I'm not saying this is what happened: I'm just presenting possibilities, one of them being, as I said above, "Maybe it didn't happen."


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

No, very flimsy rationalizations. The Bible is either true or it's false. The Bible does NOT present this verse as a mere "supposed story" or "invented story" but as literal fact. Do YOU believe hundreds of dead bodies rose up from the graves at that time, in that city? If you say maybe it didn't happen, what OTHER stories in the Bible are just paid falsehoods? Maybe ALL of them?


Rad Man 5 years ago

Rambo, I hate to gang up on you, but your rationalizations as Pierre and I have mentioned do not add up to anything. I do find it interesting, but mostly I find it perplexing. Every time you are cornered you go to the obvious. We have to have faith (which you claim is not blind faith). I claim all faith is blind. When confronted with evidence, you rationalize. I do believe you are very smart and thoughtful. I'm sure much smarter than me, but I have found intelligence isn't everything. Some of the smartest people were and are wrong. Use these gifts to be introspective. Question.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, I'm unlike the rest of the Christian world concerning the Bible: I think the texts of the Bible were originally written by men who experienced a few spiritual things. (Of course, we know Jesus existed, as shown in history. Of course, we know he taught a few things that were revolutionary, but that were good for man and the spirit. Of course, we know that his reasoning was amazing when it came to outsmarting those pharisees; I mean what an epiphany, to invite the adultress's accusers to cast the first stone at her! So we know he was an amazing man; after all, they began a new calendar in his name.) So we know there is some good in the Bible.

On the other hand, I believe those writers occasionally put in things that perhaps weren't quite right, or that were their opinion or bias. Those texts were written by mere human beings, like those we find around us today. So there are going to be errors or misrepresentations of basic Christianity. Furthermore, through the ages, some writings were lost, and others were included. Missing patches of texts were filled in by educated guesswork. All was the work of man. In addition, changing culture and (therefore) semantology has changed certain meanings of words or terms found within the bible.

If something in the Bible says God's word is perfect and without error, that could be right, but it wasn't referring to the Bible, because it hadn't been published, yet. It is men - mere human beings like us - who have given the Bible this unfair label of being perfect and infallible. They mistake the verbal or taught "word" or the "Word" which is Jesus, for the text of the Bible we have today.

With this disclaimer, then, the Bible cannot be considered entirely false if there are untrue statements or sections within it. If you don't believe in Christianity, and if you claim it to be false because unthinking Christians gave it the trait of being "the perfect word of God," then you are depending on something you don't believe in to make that conclusion.

One way to tell what is true or what is false in the Bible is to ask God. He'll send the Holy Ghost to those who sincerely ask.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

No, you are spouting nonsense and now you talk about mysterious Holy Spooks that are supposed to give me the answer. Why can't YOU give me the answer?? Hmm? You invent stories of spooks that make no sense, and say the sense is hidden over with those same spooks.

And it's not "of course" that Jesus existed. It is most likely that Jesus was a mere character in a play by Ovid, about a leader fomenting a rebellion in Palestine. But the lower-classes were not used to Greek drama; they thought it was a religious "morality play" about REAL people and so gradually the story of Jesus was taken as real. Later, when the monks charged with preserving the fragments of Latin writings came upon the actual play by Ovid, they decided to junk it to keep the "reality" of Jesus alive.


Mandrake_1975 profile image

Mandrake_1975 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

Good hub, but in my opinion Richard Dawkins is nothing more than the Ann Coulter of the Theism-Atheism debate. He's just out to sell books through culture shock.

"the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place." --Richard Dawkins (The Dubliner Magazine)

How do you deal that kind of stupid? Who would say such things unless they were either filled with hate for Catholics (or theists in general) or out to self-promote through "shock value?"


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Of course, we know Jesus existed, as shown in history.)

Sam,

There is no historical record of Jesus. The closest things to historical evidence are the gospels which have unknown authors which were written by non-contemporaries of the supposed Jesus decades after it is claimed he lived. The earliest gospel was Mark, written about 40-50 C.E., while Luke and Matthew are dated to 60-70 C.E., and John 90-95 C.E. The authors are unknown. The best that can be said for these writings is that they would represent hearsay evidence in a court of law today. It is not that they are invalid - but for determining ancient history they represent the worst possible type of evidence (single source, biased), and they are the only evidence that mentions Jesus by name. So the historicity of Jesus, though widely accepted, is not as well-documented or proven as is the crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar and his army.

(Of course, we know he taught a few things that were revolutionary, but that were good for man and the spirit.)

We don't "know" any such thing. The information in the bible about Jesus comes from writers who never met Jesus and who recorded the oral traditions of the early church.

We know they recorded legends about what a character named Jesus supposedly said - real or not real, accurate or not accurate, we do not know.

(Of course, we know that his reasoning was amazing when it came to outsmarting those pharisees; I mean what an epiphany, to invite the adultress's accusers to cast the first stone at her!)

No, we don't know any such thing. This particular story is known by bible scholars to have been an addition placed into the text in a later century (3rd century if memory serves). It is not in the earlier texts. Most likely it is fiction, about as impressive as the story of picking the door with the either the girl or the tiger. In fact, if Frank Stockton had lived in the 2nd century we might well have the bible parable of the Lady and the Tiger used by Jesus to baffle the Pharisees.

(So we know he was an amazing man; after all, they began a new calendar in his name.)

All we know about Jesus is what the authors of the books of the new testament claimed - a Jesus whose roots varied from gospel to gospel, whose conditions of birth was considered critical to the two authors who wrote about it, but not to anyone else, and who was found after his birth in two different places (a house or a stable) according to which author you read, and who died on different days (the day of preparation for passover or the day after the preparation for passover) depending on which story you believe.

Yet, you claim knowledge. Instead of making claims of positive knowledge, what is the negative knowledge you are aware of about the new testament? You said it has errors because it is manmade - what are those specific errors? Did three wise men attend the birth of Jesus or was it shepherds? Was Jesus located in Bethlehem in a house or in a stable?

Why were Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, because of a census that history has no record of being ordered or for no known reason? Which miracles were false? Which disciples were fictional?

You indicate in your comment that those items you describe led to knowledge about Jesus, so you must accept those accounts as biblically accurate, yet you claim inaccuracies are commonplace in the bible. I would like to know the specifics as to which accounts are right and which are wrong, as otherwise your claim sounds more like a method to rationalize the bible's contradictions and inconsistencies non-specifically while retaining the claim that any part you describe is truthful and accurate.

Your claim in essence is this: We know the bible is inaccurate, but according to the bible, yadi, yadi, yada...a clever trick, but what warrant do you then have for your claim? The same warrant the snakeoil salesman uses: trust me.

I actually think you are close to an understanding of what really happened. Mere men wanted their beliefs to win converts, so they took the old Jewish scrolls and created a legend and tried to make it appear to fulfill ancient Jewish folklore: a classic example is the difference in the texts describing the fulfillment of prophecy that the messiah would enter Jerusalem riding a donkey - in one version, the author has Jesus riding a donkey and a colt at the same time - straddling two creatures. Other versions have only one donkey.

There have been lots of apologetic attempts to rationalize this one-mule/two-mule discrepancy. But none of them seems to be a better explanation than the non-apologetic reason, that someone who wanted to make it appear that Jesus fit the Jewish messiah legend but who wasn't good at Hebrew made a mistake in translation when he read the Hebrew and thought it was imperative in order to create the illusion of a fulfilled prophecy that the messiah ride two creatures simultaniously. So that is the story he wrote.

That explanation not only makes sense but fits the known facts. Better, I think, than simply saying, trust me.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Pierre, I suppose I can't refute an opinion based on your experiences. But I did give you my own answers: I told you my belief system based on my spiritual experiences, as supported by biblical texts.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Mandrake, thanks for stopping by and offering your opinion. Yes, it does sound like sensationism.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, my understanding is that the first four gospels were written by eye-witnesses, though I know a few decades after the fact. I have a vague memory - from my studies that perhaps one wasn't contemporary, and got his data from one of the others, or from Mary, Jesus' mother.

Josephus, a historian, mentioned Jesus in "Antiquities of the Jews," B. XVIII 3:3. He also called him the Christ, and reported that he visited his disciples on the third day. The so-called "Early Christian Fathers" also talked of Jesus and his teachings. His name is mentioned in other writings starting as early as 50 C.E., which, I understand, is about 20 years after his reported ascension.

My wife's dragging me away from the computer, to attend some type of mother's day celebration. I'll have to continue later.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Hi, Sam,

Yes, I know how it is - hard to organize intelligent responses at times. I also do not pick apart imprecise memory or need to look up data as a fault of an arguer. It is better to have a clear understanding of facts before taking a position than after.

So as an aid, I contribute this:

(Commentary of Matthew's Gospel:)

"Like the other three Gospels the book is anonymous."

(The New Bible Commentary - Edited by Professor F. Davidson M.A. D.D., Assisted by The REV. A.M. Stibbs M.A. and The REV. E.F. Kevan M.TH. - Page 771).


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Also this for clarification:

(Josephus...was was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader.)

Also, today pretty much everyone but the most stubborn apologist admits the major passage about Jesus in Antiquities is a forgery.


Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Josephus' writings got "interpolated". That means a monk living long after Josephus decided to add to his words when recopying the only copy of it, insert an irrelevant aside about someone called the "Christ", in a passage which had nothing to do with him. It was of course dishonest, immoral, and entirely in keeping with Catholic procedure.

I do not find what Richard Dawkins says about Catholics to be hyperbole in nature. Catholic indoctrination teaches people to go against their own natures in everything, including if they have an honest nature.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Okay! Okay! (Holding my spread-fingered hands up and backing away). Ladies and Gentlemen, from your other comments and hubs, I know you're meaning business and that your claims are well-researched, and that I'll probably lose this argument if I continue on this course.

However, I want you to know I don't come TOO blind to this conversation (I've read a bit more supra-biblical literature besides Josephus and the E.C.F.). However, maybe not enough. And what I HAVE read may be too biased, and not objective. So before we continue, tell me this: What do you think of the book "Reinventing Jesus - How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture" by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Sam,

I am not going to provide details of evidence, but simply will rely on my overall impressions, so if you want to label this opinion I have no complaints.

My experience has shown me that apologetic authors and theistic-political organizations begin with an assumption and then exlude contrary data while overvaluing confirming data.

The other side - scientists and reason - have no such axe to grind and simply try to uncover reality-based truth. When this side does take on theism, it is to point out the flaws that are being expressed as public fact, not simply to attack religion.

The working premise of all apologetics is that the Christian belief is accurate and reliable. Maybe it is.

But the one way not to find out is to make that assumption without evidence, as the starting point of any investigation.

The starting point should be neutral - the facts and evidence should build from there and lead to the most likely conclusion.

In apologetics, as well as in creationism and ID, there is no objectivity - there is confirmation bias magnified by degrees of faith. It is difficult to get a realistic portrayal from bias.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Thank You Win.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Great hub! I disagree with the opinion, but love your logic and writing. Good work sir.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Thank you Tex, if you'll let me call you that.


Maralexa profile image

Maralexa 5 years ago from Vancouver, Canada and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico

I agree, great hub! and great writing. I also love the humour with which you write.

NO, you can not refute his logic then use it to justify your own explanations. No matter how logical your logic is ;)

I can not quote scriptures (as other Hubbers can so effectively) to prove ID but, for that matter, can not quote Darwin or other scientists to prove evolution.

I have gone deep in my research of Darwin's principles or 'proofs' of evolution and find that they have been disputed and disproved. So it seems that although Darwin's theories do not hold up, this does not alone prove creationism or ID.

I notice that Stephen Hawking believes that 'Nature' is what created life and that means that both the creation and the evolving of life follows mathematical laws. He admits he does not know what these laws are yet.

"Knowing everything there is to know about the universe" is his declared goal in life.

Hawking also states: " You cannot understand the glories of the universe without believing there is some Supreme Power behind it."

I mention Hawking because a man of his intellectual stature believes it is more important to discover 'why' the universe exists rather than just 'how' it exists. His belief that 'nature' created life (the entire universe) following the laws of mathematics (intelligent design?) does not mean that God did not. It just means what I call God, he calls Nature. And no, life did not begin, adapt or evolve by chance. That is too improbable. And Hawking's field is "probabilities."

So, bottom line: Darwin's theories of how life began have been disproved scientifically and, although this alone does not prove an intelligent being created life, the fact that there is ID within the entire universe is more likely (probable) than not according to top scientific thinkers and mathematical probability.

And none of this adddresses what (or who) created the big bang. Scientists agree that whatever "begins to exist has a cause". And that "this cause is 'uncaused',changeless, timeless, and immaterial." - The Big Bang: William Lane Craig, co-author of Oxford University Press' Theism, Atheism and Big Bank Cosmology.

QED

I look forward to reading more of your hubs and the comments that follow.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Maralexa, What proof do you have that Darwin's theory has been disproved scientifically?

Last I heard ID was disproved in a US court of law. Perhaps you have new evidence that should be shared with the scientific community?


Maralexa profile image

Maralexa 5 years ago from Vancouver, Canada and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico

Hi Rad Man. Thanks for following up on my comments.

I have no axe to grind nor a need to prove my beliefs, especially no need to prove my beliefs as "the truth" or scientific fact. I have seen some compelling evidence that suggests some critical parts (3 Parts) of Darwin's theory do not hold up today. Since writing my comments a little while ago and having done further research, I now have only 2 parts of his theory to criticize. As to the 3rd part I am eagerly awaiting further information.

I hope you will excuse my lengthy comment.

I understand that Darwin based his theory of the origin of the species in part on the premise that creating life happens naturally when conditions are right. The Miller/Urey experiment was stated to prove that theory. Harold Urey was a Novel Prize winner who suggested that earth’s primitive atmosphere would have been right for ‘organic compounds’ to emerge. Stanley Miller, University of Chicago, tested this experimentally. He, Miller, recreated the primitive atmosphere of the earth and used electricity to act as lightening. As a result he created amino acids: the building blocks of life.

However, Miller assumed that the early earth’s atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Their choice of gases may have been based on physical chemistry that said these gases would provide a chemical reaction. NASA scientists showed that primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen but rather, water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

In 2010, evolutionary biologist William Martin criticized Millers experiment methodology and findings. Martin stated, among other things, that the ‘trap’ Miller used (the trap was part of Miller’s apparatus in his experiment) was unrealistic due to the fact that it was meant to protect any organic matter formed from too much electricity (the very thing that was supposed to have created them). The other point Martin made was that Miller produced the wrong results. The type of amino acids that produce proteins are made of left-handed amino acids, not both right-handed and left-handed. So there was no life or ‘lifeability, to Miller’s amino acids. Also the tar-like substance in which Miller collected the results of his experiment would have been quite toxic and not support life.

Further, and again this is still discussing the Miller experiment, it was/is known that Miller produced only 3 of the 75 amino acids required to create a functional amino acid (chain).

Many of the right kinds of amino acids would have to combine in the right order and proportions under their own volition to make one type of protein, and a protein itself has a minimal complexity threshold of at least 20 amino acids for it to function. All this would have to happen while other molecules are reacting with the ‘correct’ amino acids. Then, this is just what I understand, the correct peptide bonds need to attach to the proteins in the correct places for the protein to ‘fold’ to make it functional. And then, and to me this is staggering, you have to get a couple of hundred proteins with the right functionality to join together to make a living cell.

With the discovery of background radiation in the universe in 1965, the Big Bang theory was developed showing that the earth was approximately 14 billion years old and that the earth itself is probably 5 billion years old. But, again apparently, the earth took a long time cooling down to where is could support life. If life “emerged’ only 400 million years ago. That is not enough time for chemical life to emerge by random chance

This is one of the areas where the probabilities of all these correct parts joining together in the right way at the right time is astronomical. And for this to happen just by chance seems less likely (to me) than Intelligent Design.

2.) I also understand that Darwin based his theories of common descent on Haeckel’s drawings of embryos. Apparently Haeckel’s drawings were ‘alleged’ to be false, that he used different aged embryos (ones that fit his theory) in his drawings. I also understand that others contend that the drawings used in school textbooks are not those of Haeckel. And, importantly, that Haeckel’s idiosyncratic theories assume common descent but are not critical to it. (This loose situation leaves me wondering how this material can be found in school textbooks and can still be taught. For me, this is too much controversy and not enough proof – on either side.)

3) the lack of fossil records showing the transition from one species to the next. I had believed that there was a lack of fossils showing transitions from one species to the next. However, I am willing, no eager, to change my mind as new evidence is shown. See the material below:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2C Copyright © 1994-1997 by Kathleen Hunt http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h... [Last Update: March 17, 1997]

This is copied directly from the website mentioned above.

Quote: I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:

1. A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.

2. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds).

3. Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes.

4. A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.

5. As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."

End of quote from Kathleen Hunt.

My personal position:

I am a Christian and do honestly believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I do not believe that Darwin’s theories of the origin of species and evolution of species contradicts the fact that God created the universe. However, I do feel that if (even part of) Darwin’s theories are unsupportable then those parts at least should be removed from school text books. Otherwise, I applaud Darwin for articula


Maralexa profile image

Maralexa 5 years ago from Vancouver, Canada and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico

....final words....continued from comment above.

Otherwise, I applaud Darwin for articulating his vision and demonstrating his theories.

I do not accept that a court of law ‘proves’ that evolution is fact or not. Nor do I believe a court of law, no matter how high a court, ‘proves’ the existence of God or Intelligent Design. It would seem to me that the scientific method should still be used to prove, as far as it is possible to prove, scientific claims.

It seems unfortunate that some critical aspects or ‘evidence’ for Darwin’s belief that organic life could come from inorganic matter, within our solar system or without, were discredited so much. Whether the discredit is worthy or not. It is a shame. Also, if Darwin were alive today I bet he would reword his theories to incorporate the latest scientific facts and proofs.

When I read Origin of the Species (many years ago) it did not seem to me that Darwin was against God or that he was an atheist or even an agnostic. It seemed to me he was extremely interested in showing how life could have started. He was also interested in showing how life could evolve to the point of human beings. And, he wanted to show how this could have happened in the length of time the earth has been habitable or at least conducive to the earliest life.

I expect that much within Darwin’s theory of evolution will be shown to be correct and extremely worthwhile. I do not think that Darwin’s theories yet prove that anything like the origin of life from inorganic material could have happened without the guidance of Intelligent Design.

Respectfully submitted.


toobsucker 5 years ago

The little fact that the theory of the selection of the luckiest randomness has never been observed to be valid does not seem to bother Dawkins for some reason.

But what is worse is Dawkins mind can't see how logically ridiculous this theory is in building highly complex, highly precise and highly conserved systems

Ask any PC programmer or engineer to build a program or design by this method and they will laugh at you. All programs and intelligently designed systems must have highly precise functional elements that are prevented from moving to keep the system stable. The genome is no exception

What Dawkins failed to mention in his book is most of the genome, thus functional DNA sequences that code for them, are not subject to any evolutionary mechanisms. Dubbed the ultra conserved (unable to evolve) elements, they in fact falsify Darwinian evolution, however the liberal philosophical mind has yet to figure this out.

But what is amusing is the nonfunctional "Junk DNA" (another failed prediction) turns out to contain the ultra conserved functional command & control center for the system, along with holding "species specific blueprints" for genome reorganization (Discovered by Barbara McClintock) to a previous functional state.

When evolution experiments were preformed on bacteria by randomly mutating their DNA sequences (Barry Hall & Joseph Cairns ) a small percentage of the bacteria do a system restore to the sequences, (reverse the effects of Darwinian evolution) and they survive. The bacteria that are unable to reverse the mutated sequences die.

In 2011 molecular biology is now well aware subjecting the species specific conserved elements to random changes destroys the biological system thus the species.

Simply put if the species changes (evolves) its highly specific functional conserved elements, the species becomes less fit, and it slides down Mt. improbable very quickly.

Science has quietly abandoned selection as a force to build new body plans. Selection is now clearly understood to remove information from the gene pool. Dawkins stopped debating creationists right on time

Some of the new mechanisms are HGT (of highly conserved genes), genome reorganization, phenotypic plasticity and other forms of info swapping. But Dawkins mechanisms of selection acting on random mutations is now clearly understood to be invalid

Dogmatic personal philosophies can blind a man to simple logic & reason


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

toobsucker your telling me that genome are not subject to any evolutionary mechanisms. But for evolution to be truth it would required the change of the DNA structured to created a new species would it not?

Can you explain the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationist?


toobsucker 5 years ago

I'M saying most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. There are observable evolutionary changes, however they are from the selection of pre-written genes. Atheistic evolution requires the entire system to be subject to evolutionary change or complex functional genomes can never arise

Most DNA sequences are highly conserved because of they were not, the proteins they code for would not function properly.

=====

All creationists believe in I.D. Not all intelligent design proponents believe in creationism. Creationism is the biblical (Jews Christians & Muslims) version of I.D.

Those who believe in I.D. but do not the biblical account of it, are not creationists.

Intelligent design does not identify the designer, creationism does.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"No sensible designer would have conceived such a monstrosity if given a free hand to create a flatfish on a clean drawing board."

These types comments are my favorite from evolutionists. Their concept of design is not met, therefore there can be no designer. It's a classic argument from incredulity, or perhaps a reverse-argument from incredulity ;) ... "I don't see how this could have been designed, therefore it wasn't."


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

nicomp lol


Rad Man 5 years ago

I find some of your comment both amusing and upsetting. You refuse to see evolution as a possibility despite all the evidence before you. The color of your skin, the length of your limbs, the shape of your eyes. The very fact that humans have evolved or adapted to any environment is evidence of evolution. Science has shown that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. No organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" has been found. A team of Swedish scientists have demonstrated the ease with which natural selection can produce eyes.

I find it amusing that so many can't understand evolution, but can understand the existence of a God that has existed forever and created everything you see in a week. You have no direct evidence of such a God. You seem to think that because you don't understand something it must have been created by a God or Gods. Amusing.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"You have no direct evidence of such a God."

And you have no direct evidence of evolution. You have the same facts as the creationists and you choose to interpret them differently.

Regarding your Swedish scientists: just because something could have happened doesn't prove it did happen.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

By the way, I Googled "A team of Swedish scientists have demonstrated the ease with which natural selection can produce eyes." and found an *exact* match at http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index...

You really should read the story more thoroughly before you borrow text from it. It's a computer simulation based not on random biologic processes but directed assumptions from intelligent designers. oops.

Also take a close look at what they used as a starting point. It's a real eye-opener. ;)


Rad Man 5 years ago

But I do have evidence of evolution. As I mentioned the color of my skin is evidence of an adaptation to an environment. Humans adapt physically to environments. The people of the far north look different than the peoples of central Africa. Thats just the evidence that I can see. There is also fossil evidence of course. By introducing the scientists looking at the evolution of the eye, I was merely showing that science will someday answer more question just like they did for the flagellum.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Rad Man: if skin color is evidence of evolution for adaptation to the environment, then so is the invention of sun block. JUST KIDDING. ;)


Rad Man 5 years ago

Ha, actually it is. Invention is what separates us from other hominoids and homo sapiens including the Neanderthals. Neanderthals showed no creativity with respect to tools for at least 400 000 years. So invention is indeed human. Resent DNA evidence shows all humans outside of Africa have Neanderthal DNA. This is no surprise to me as I see evidence of Neanderthal traits in my own family. ;-)


toobsucker 5 years ago

"No organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" has been found"

Incorrect. All the molecular machines (over 300) are highly conserved. The ribosomes alone is unable to evolve and identical in all species.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/04050...

"Ribosomes are complex molecular machines made of RNA and proteins. They translate the genetic code to carry out protein synthesis in all cells. According to Bejerano, "ribosomal sequences are highly conserved because they are essential to all? forms of life."

"Ribosomes are crucial. If anything goes wrong with them, the organism will not survive," Bejerano

"The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species"

"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Haussler

=====

Most DNA sequences are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. If they were the biological program would crash just as any information system would crash if subjected to random changes.

Proteins do not evolve like Darwinian evolution predicts. This is why the fossil record is nothing but stasis and sudden appearance throughout

"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," ? Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

=====

Stop reiterating the lies you hear from other atheists , do your research for yourself.

UCE falsify Darwinian evolution


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"By introducing the scientists looking at the evolution of the eye, I was merely showing that science will someday answer more question just like they did for the flagellum."

So... that's faith. hmmm...


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

toobsucker very nice article, but I usually stick to fossils and every fossil I have seen are always complete the fossils show no sign of evolving to a new species. But evolution religion like's to give illustrations of transitional fossils that artist drawn. Instead of actually showing the fossils if they had any. If we are to base scientific fact on drawings then the theist can draw a picture of God and proof that god exist nice logic.


Rad Man 5 years ago

toobsucker you completely miss the boat. No organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" has been found. What this means is we can't find any evidence that it could have evolved. The bacterial flagellum was thought to be one by ID'ers, but were proven wrong in a court of law. No ID in science class.

What you are talking about is completely different. Just because something has not evolved in a long time does not mean it did not evolve. Your article is discussing the evolution of DNA, I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions. Your article even talks of "genome variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are changes in individual genomes that are often used in genetic testing to distinguish one human from another". Tell me to do my homework. You did yours wrong.

No one ever address my evidence for evolution in the physical adaption of human to an environment.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"The bacterial flagellum was thought to be one by ID'ers, but were proven wrong in a court of law. No ID in science class."

Your first mistake is your attempting to prove evolution by hypothesizing in the wrong direction. Evolution is not proven valid by reducing proteins to a different functional state, evolution is proven valid by forward evolving proteins folds (building upwards not reducing backwards). Evolutions only evidence is slowly and constantly changing proteins or morphology can never take place

Miller succeeded in proving one subunit of the flagellum had a function, Miller did not succeed in proving that subunit is capable of changing its proteins while retaining functionality so not to be eliminated by N.S.

I suggest you study protein misfolding/sampling problems. Darwinian evolution is 100% dependent on forward evolving proteins, and not at all dependent on proteins being reduced to another functional state.

===========

"What you are talking about is completely different. Just because something has not evolved in a long time does not mean it did not evolve"

You do not seem to understand you have no evidence what so ever these highly conserved proteins did evolve. You assume they evolved based from your dogmatic evolutionary presuppositions.

And you do not seem to understand there are no mechanisms to change the UCE. A valid theory must demonstrate valid mechanisms. Evolutionary science can not demonstrate by what mechanisms did the UCE get specifically arranged, and by what mechanisms did they suddenly disengage from all evolutionary mechanisms after becoming functional.

Stating "Just because they can't be changed now does not mean they have always been that way", is worthless to a scientific theoretical formula. And without valid mechanisms you do not have a valid theory, you have a unsubstantiated speculation

========

"No one ever address my evidence for evolution in the physical adaption of human to an environment."

No I.D.er denies slight variations exist. What you have failed to understand is all these variations are the result of pre-written information already on file, and no radical changes to proteins are ever observed. This is why stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record

Lucky random mutations being selected for have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution

Dawkins is completely clueless


toobsucker 5 years ago

Correction

Lucky random mutations being selected for have nothing to do with the evolution we observe

Dawkins is completely clueless


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The bacterial flagellum was thought to be one by ID'ers, but were proven wrong in a court of law. No ID in science class."

Now a court of law is science. I love where this is going.


Rad Man 5 years ago

toobsucker, I'm not sure where you get your misguided information from, but it's interesting to say the least. "Dawkins is completely clueless"? But you know everything. I know a few biologist that according to you must be clueless. It's interesting that (most) well educated people, according to you are clueless. Dawkins, Darwin and Einstein are clueless I guess. But you...


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

"The bacterial flagellum was thought to be one by ID'ers, but were proven wrong in a court of law. No ID in science class."

Epic


toobsucker 5 years ago

"I'm not sure where you get your misguided information from, but it's interesting to say the least. "Dawkins is completely clueless"? But you know everything. I know a few biologist that according to you must be clueless"

The egos in science are not about to publicly admit they were wrong.

Look up "The Altenberg 16". Theses are 16 prominent evolutionists that are now well aware selection of random changes do not build new body plans. They are discussing new mechanisms


Rad Man 5 years ago

You live in a fantasy world. Biologist would line up to make a name for themselves. So you think everyone is clueless and there is a conspiracy. Darwin and Einstein may someday be proven wrong in some respects. Einstein perhaps soon. Regardless the evidence for evolution by far outways ID. ID was just a way to reintroduce creationism to science class. It failed. The rest of the world has moved on.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

I can't resist... I am so sorry...

Since some folks herein have anointed 'the courts' as a final arbiter for all things science, here are some Supreme Court decisions by which evolutionists must also abide:

Separate but equal:

http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0839368

Abortion:

http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0842237

Dred Scott:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandfor...


Rad Man 5 years ago

Oh, I see what you are getting at with these. The courts don't always make the right decision. I agree with that 100%. Interesting that all three court cases had connections to religion. This is why I agree strongly with the separation of church and state. Religion has no place in court or government. Just look at the middle east as an example of what happens when the courts are ruled by religious leaders. Remember the inquisitions? The southern US fought for the right to keep slaves well after the rest of the world gave up the practice largely because of what was written about slavery in the bible. See http://rad-man.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-get-our-mora...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Rad Man: Dude, you wrote this:

"The bacterial flagellum was thought to be one by ID'ers, but were proven wrong in a court of law. No ID in science class."


toobsucker 5 years ago

"You live in a fantasy world. Biologist would line up to make a name for themselves"

Yes and the name they would receive among their peers is what all biologist are trying to avoid.

Are you completely unaware of the numerous on going & vehement debates between Darwinian evolutionists and intelligent design proponents?. You have egos battling for intellectual supremacy here.

You live in a fantasy world if you believe any evolutionary biologist actually wants to provide evidence that makes ALL the top scientists look like intellectual dunces

Naturalism is the religion of science, that would be like a notable pastor falsifying his religion and expecting to be congratulated by his fellow pastors.

Darwinian evolution/naturalism will be falsified within 10-20 years. Write it down. Godless science will then turn to ALIENSDIDIT....anything but God will be acceptable.

Its funny men that still do not know everything that exists in our own solar system can make such bold and arrogant assertions on what life forms do and do not exists throughout the entire universe.

It is only the liberal philosopher (which science is permeated with) that can come to theoretical conclusions based on what they do not know rather than from what they do know.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Right now a group of physicists are attempting to prove Einstein wrong. Trying to prove neutrinos can go faster than light. That's how science works. One make a hypothesis and tries to disprove it. There is no conspiracy. Science will eventually find holes in Einstein and Darwin's theories, but not the holes you are looking for. Just because we want to have a creator doesn't make it so. You should find evidence of a creator yourself. Good Luck with that.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"Science will eventually find holes in Einstein and Darwin's theories, but not the holes you are looking for. Just because we want to have a creator doesn't make it so. You should find evidence of a creator yourself. Good Luck with that"

Your logic and reasoning fails on many levels. It is impossible for you to know what holes will be or will not be found before they are found. How is it you can assert you know "the holes I'M looking for" will not be found when you (as well as science) have no idea where the holes are located?

The evidence for a creator is glaringly evident. The cell has multiple overlapping coded language systems and totally conserved (unable to evolve) proteins. Unable to evolve elements falsifies the theory that predicts 100% of the system evolved.

And you realize just because you do not want a creator to exist does not make it so. Logic dictates if its determined the cell could not have arisen by chemical reaction, a creator is the ONLY other alternative for the cells existence. Anyone that does not understand this fails at critical thinking

And lastly if you assert a God like intelligence can not exist, logic dictates you must give the reason why. One can not say other life can exist, but exclude a God like life form without reason.

You are like most liberals that make decisions based on emotions/philosophy and not logic and reason


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

@toobsucker: SETI is another interesting project that contradicts macro-evolution: scientists scan radio waves for patterns. A pattern, to them, implies intelligence.

However, the patters in DNA are interpreted differently and assumed to have spontaneously generated.


toobsucker 5 years ago

Correct, well over 90% of evolutionary predictions are assumed with no evidence. Evolutionary science makes excuses for every failed prediction. They just invent unsubstantiated hypotheses like punctuated equilibrium (really really fast evolution) without any mechanism to show for it to explain away the lack of evidence.

And the ignorant public falls for it

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working