LOL. Stein's been reading too much late-era Normal Mailer.

April 21 is the show, and methinks that the NR guy is overwrought about this. Stein notes that his main beef is not directly with science itself, but rather with "scientists telling them what to do." In other words, the quibble is not with the technological advances made possible by science, but rather the moral desert that happens from purely materialistic philosophy.

Which, yes, involved Hitler. Here an interview that points out that Darwin's philosophy is prominent in Mein Kampf.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/OlaskyHit…

Which, yes, involved Hitler. Here an interview that points out that Darwin's philosophy is prominent in Mein Kampf.

Making this comparison is like judging Christianity based on the history of the inquisitions. Not all pursuit of science has been on sound moral footing, but the same can be said of religion.

I don't think it's fair to tar science with with Hitler's ghoulish experimenters any more than it's fair to tar Christians with the legacy of dark-age Catholics.

Why is it unfair to point out that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and legions of other Communists taught Darwin before introducing Marx, Rob?

Sorry, friend, but this is an ugly historical fact; science unmoored from the moral claims of tradition and religion has repeatedly led to genocide and war–in a way that makes most every previous atrocity pale in comparison–by orders of magnitude.

And again, you've got to read this in its context, which includes what Stein notes about Auschwitz, and it includes also the fact that the film itself is a plea for open minded science, not the end of it.

Derbyshire, again, bobbles this one something fierce by ignoring the context.

Sorry, friend, but this is an ugly historical fact; science unmoored from the moral claims of tradition and religion has repeatedly led to genocide and war

I could say that religion more often than science has led to genocide and war (the body count is still mounting in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).

I tire of people impugning atheists (and I take this personally because I am one) by invoking secular regimes like Mao, Stalin, etc. (Hitler, I'd add, was quite spiritual if not exactly Christian though I think sometimes those of you with religion need the difference between "atheism" and things like "paganism" pounded into your skulls). It's tiresome. I mean, how many people have the Muslims murdered in the name of their religion? How about the Catholics? The Crusades? How many protestants and Catholics have killed each other in England throughout the ages? And Ireland?

For being grounded in tradition and morality, killing in the name of religion has a much higher body count than killing in the name of atheism.

But setting all that aside, do you really think that this line of argument excuses creationism which ignores a gigantic body of science about the age of this planet and its changes throughout eons of history? Science which, frankly, has little to do with morality and a whole lot to do with just the age of rocks and things?

You expect me to believe creationists when they tell me the earth is only 2,000 years old based on nothing more than some notion that they have a monopoly on morality?

This is why creationists aren't taken seriously.

All of you should see the movie Expelled before you jump to conclusions about Stein. Intelligent Design is not creationism nor is it religious in the traditional sense of religion. It does not advocate any religion deity over another. It does not lend itself to any formal practiced religion. Creationism belongs to biblical reference and is related to Jewish / Christian doctrine.

Intelligent design simply says that there is more to development of life than evolution can explain. He points out that there are many holes in the evolution theory starting with the beginning of life which Darwinian Theory can not explain. But he also points out that there is a place for evolution in the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Considering that it takes roughly 180 complex amino acids to create even the most simple, living single cell organism, the odds of this happening randomly are like 1 in a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion.

Don't be too quick to judge Ben Stein. He is in good company with this one.

Rob,

Also, Hitler DID use Darwin's writings to justify the killing of Jews. In his mind he was cleaning the gene pool. So Stein was making a statement based on historical fact. The Nazi's also used Darwin's theory to advance their "Pure Race" experiments when they attempted to breed the perfect Arian.

Ben Stein is not anti science, he is against the movement in the world to stifle contrary science.
Just like the Global Warming crowd is doing.

likwidshoe,

And what created the big bang? Or was it ….magic?

Today, we know more about what goes on inside a cell, and DNA and related science than Darwin could ever imagine. Evolution and Darwinian Theory is a good primer but it is not the total answer. Evolution still can not explain the missing link between man and ape.

God invented science to allow man to do good things with it.

mdmdc,

–evolution does not claim or pretend to have an answer for where life came from, how it started,

Actually, evolutionist science does claim that life crawled out of the ooze. Only problem is they can not recreate that claim in a lab. No one can.

And what created the big bang? Or was it ….magic?

Hey, I'm willing to admit that evolution and an intelligent creator aren't mutually exclusive things.

What pisses me off is people trying to tell us that man walked around with dinosaurs and the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Ben Stein is not anti science, he is against the movement in the world to stifle contrary science.

So what are the religious nuts who want to ban teaching evolution doing? Is that not stifling as well?

Conveniently, Stein leaves that part out of his movie.

Evolution still can not explain the missing link between man and ape.

That doesn't mean there isn't one. Why long did it take us to find out that animals like the giant squid existed?

The basic fallacy most creationists adhere to is the idea that because science is imperfect it is inherently wrong.

I freely admit that science hasn't filled all the holes on evolution, or creation, but it has provided the best answers we have so far. That those answers fail to fit in conveniently with the dogma of religions hailing from the dark and ignorant ages of humanity is hardly a pertinent point.

The only dividing factor in evolution and intelligent design is that later suggests that some guiding power is behind it all. How does that hurt anything? The science of evolution has the premise that everything is the result of random pot luck.

Flip a coin if you like.

Not too worry.
He's only shilling for his own movie.
He needs more ticket sales.
Someone has to pay.

mdmdc,

Those evolutionists, who are purest, and agnostic, insist that life is not the act of a greater power. They then fit it into their theory. And after all, it is ONLY a theory. As I said earlier, evolution fits into inteligent design.

Rob,
You need to drop the "creationist" aspect of this argument. Intelligent Design and Ben Stein is not creationist based in the theory.

I agree, the bible is not a science book. It was written 500 years after Christ was killed.
We need to take religion with a grain of salt.

Just watch the movie. It is a quick 90 minutes.

I really do thinkthat Ben Stein haslost it. I do agreethat thosethe teach ID sould not be shunned and loose their jobs.

But ID is just another name for creationism. Darwimism does not say anything about the Big Bang.

And the Militant Darwinist are called Social Darwinist and they are idiots that use Darwin to kill others not like themselves. Rev Wright is using it, Blacks use Left Brain and whites use Right Brain is what the KKK used to justify thier idiotic stance that whites are better than blacks. And that is not true Darwinism. Margeret Snager used Social Darwinism to say we should abort black kids and Itlalian kids This is not Darswinism either. that is saying that Mitt Romney is just like the pedophiles in Texas.

Darwinism does not explain everything,but it is the best Thery of how animals evolve.

He said "science leads you to killing people."

In the context of the influence of science within political ideology he may have a point. I really don't care though. It is typical of ideological opponents to attack the single remark of Stein and ignore the facts brought out in "Expelled".

For all you who are so put out by the thought that creationists believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth answer this: what the hell does it matter to you either religiously, ideologically, or politically if others hold to something you all forsake — faith? and… What difference does it make politically?

The issue Stein brings out is similar to that in "Indoctrinate U". Higher education and the institutions closely aligned therewith, have all but written legislation to ban any sort of thought which it disagrees with. That is the more important issue than how old the earth is.

…his anti-evolution movie…

I thought the larger theme was about the left's control of the education system, leading to an elimination of choice and a narrowing of discourse. Oh well.

In all fairness, Eugenics, as practiced by Hitler and others(including Margaret Sanger) was a perversion of the teachings of Darwin, and so is the stuff put out by modern "evolutionists". Darwin himself was a man of God. Secular humanists, like they did when they devised Eugenics, have perverted his teachings to justify the elimination of God from the creation process.

Good point, RG! The lefties completely ignored science in the matter of DDT and malaria, didn't they? They cared more about power and control than they did about the millions in Africa who would die as a result. Not so scientific.

Lots of links with no facts. Not so good.

Unlike evolution, which may one day cure AIDS (the virus evolves in accordance with Darwin's theory), Creative Design is not going to give us any new answers.

So, to paraphrase, who cares if it's correct? EVOLUTION HO!

The theory of evolution will do nothing to cure AIDS. What nonsense.

There is a huge scrap pile of abandoned scientific theories on the earth.

There are lots of Religions on another pile. Came and went.

Somehow for over 6000 years worship of the one true God has persisted from then till now.

Not yet abandoned. What Stein was saying and correctly in my opinion is that reason and philosophy will lead you to Hitlerian rationale.

It's sad and I don't think science is the answer. Science is a moving target. Faith in God is Unchanging.

Kenny: It's quite probable that secular humanism enabled the spread of AIDS through declaring homosexuality "just another lifestyle", and "if it feels good, do it."

The site really does account for all the crap you guys spout.

Lots of links with no facts. Not so good.

Dodgedness

Somehow for over 6000 years worship of the one true God has persisted from then till now.

Bandwagon

Kenny: Good points, all!

Argument Ad Nauseam (I'm also a bit guilty of this one here)

"It is interesting to note that, in the forward to the most recent edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, a leading evolutionary biologist, Professor L. Harrison Matthews, F.R.S., recognizes that "Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

"If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measureable, and, therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science." "There is no way to prove that changes within present kinds eventually change those kinds into different, higher kinds."

"Thomas Huxley, probably more responsible than any other one man for the acceptance of Darwinian philosophy, nevertheless recognized that: "creation in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being." Why? The presence of such massive complex design demands a pre-existent Designer, as random mutations over time can never result in complex design.

I should point out to Rob that Christians do not claim the earth is two thousand years old, but 6,000 to as much as 10,000. If you say bullshit, I ask how do you know, were you there? If not, you are basing your billions of years theory on an atheistic religious faith.

Lastly, while Rob can be a very reasonable atheist, I must point out that most of the greatest scientists in all human history were Christians and believed in the Divine Creation model for life. Further, there are a great many, innumerable reputable scientists today that believe either in special Creation, Divine Creation, Intelligent Design or at a minimum admit that evolutionary theory is as much faith based as is that of the Creation model.

None of this gets us anywhere because atheists and so-called secular scientists are in matter of fact adherents to a model of life that is faith based, as it cannot be absolutely established by observable, empirical scientific methodology. Thus, we have two competing faith based systems for explaining the existence of all life, both using the exact same data, with one struggling to prove what they cannot prove and the other predicting what the data eventually establishes as being fact.

Dougee, in wide round numbers, how old do you think the earth is?

Neiman, in wide round numbers, how long have homosapiens walked the earth?

Honestly, about 12,000 to 20,000 years old.

Should have been a CE instead of an ME. A geology class could have done you wonders Dougee.

Now hold on…I really want to know how dougee has come to believe those numbers.

dougee?

Should have been a CE instead of an ME. A geology class could have done you wonders Dougee.

CE classes are too easy. I wanted something with a challenge.

Now hold on…I really want to know how dougee has come to believe those numbers.

Sorry, was watching Bill's interview with Hillary. But I do believe that because of my religious beliefs. I am not afraid or ashamed of my Christian faith where I will hide that fact like many other Christians. I know that I believe it mostly by faith but then again any person who believes that the earth is billions of years old has to do so with a certain degree of faith.

Wow, Hannitized, I admit my beliefs and am not scared to say so. I am pretty sure I have already heard and been called any childish name that you can come up with.

Dougee, I see that you are more of a man that Neiman. He typically cowers from challenging topics. Thank you for your answers.

I hope you are able to dismiss the private messages you must certainly be receiving.

Dougee, how do you account for what is now accepted as a scientific base line, the carbon dating process?

dougee, have I attacked you here?

The Earth has been around a lot longer than the current version of "science", but the believers in science are unshaken in their faith.

r, you think the earth is older that what scientist currently believe?

r, how old do you think the earth is?

r, how old do you think the earth is?

Mickey, does ID use science to approximate the earths time line or animal time lines?

rbb: How old do you believe the Earth is? Do you believe what the scientists say? Why do you believe that? Do you have any way of verifying it for yourself, or is it based on faith?

How old do you believe the Earth is? Do you believe what the scientists say? Why do you believe that? Do you have any way of verifying it for yourself, or is it based on faith?

Robert108: Perfect response! I wish I had used that approach. Now let us wait for him to detail how he investigated the matter for himself, rather than just accept by faith the dogma of certain scientists!

Dougee: You are not alone in your faith here! There are many of us that believe as you do!

I think the universe is as old as God wants it to be.

Who invented time? After all, if you're talking about how old something is, then the definition of time is of utmost importance, isn't it? Do you believe everything the scientists tell you?

BTW, I applaud your blind faith in science.

Don't bogther trying to get answers or a debate RBB, they are not interested in honest debate, they are only interested in attacking anyone not agreeing with their conservative beliefs. I won't anymore and I certainly won't respond to them. Ask Wolf among others, these guys are not nice people.

And honestly Dougee, drop your balls already. I merely said "wow".

I happen to be a man of faith, and in my faith, I believe when the bible said 7 days he was talking about his understanding of time, as it was merely a mans interpretation of gods words anyway.

So you believe one thing, I believe another. I didn't attack you. Calm down. You are acting like Proof.

Who invented time? After all, if you're talking about how old something is, then the definition of time is of utmost importance, isn't it?

Exactly, r108, the time to which we measure everything is based on the earths rotation upon itself and around the sun so it's really limited to our solar system. Ok, some will argue that we are only using our concept of time as a reference but that doesn't answer how time evolve after t=0, the instant that the universe began (the so-called Big Bang).

I know what I know today based on the best science data in hand.

Unless you developed that information yourself, you know nothing; you only believe what others tell you. What's your direct perception of the age of the universe?

It seems to me one of the many areas where darwinism goes wrong is looking at the assembly line as proof of naturalism. It's kind of like walking into Ford manufacturing and observing the automation of the assembly line and ignoring the active intelligence providing that information which directs the automation. Similarly darwinism ignores the intelligence evidenced by the information replete in the assembly line of life.

And honestly Dougee, drop your balls already. I merely said "wow".

Hannitized, I said that in my previous post because I have heard people begin with saying that and then launch into vile personal attacks. If you weren't going to go there then I apologize.

I happen to be a man of faith, and in my faith, I believe when the bible said 7 days he was talking about his understanding of time, as it was merely a mans interpretation of gods words anyway.

The reason I believe the earth was created in 7 days as we know them now to be is because of Genesis 1:3-5. Verse 5 says "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."

This is why I believe it was 7 standard days. A day was daylight and nighttime. I personally believe the Bible is literal truth. I just personally don't understand why an individual would be a part of a religion if they didn't believe that what the religion believed was true. But that's just me. I'm kinda passionate about this issue.

I know I don't understand everything about how creationism happened but I believe the Bible when it says that God lets everything be known in His own time. I just have faith that this is truth.

This is why I believe it was 7 standard days.

This is what happens w/o science. Everything is a fucking miracle. Ain't it just amazing Dougee, that you can move around without being plugged into a power outlet? Must be a effing miracle, eh? God's work for sure!

colossal ignorance?

I just have faith that this is truth.

bring a fucking argument. then talk shit.

Maybe the concept of "God" is nothing more than an evolution of the brain.

Chance or Creation, they're both out-there theories. Nothing is obvious about this subject, despite what some of the faithful insist.

r108
tart. unlike you i do not claim that my ability to comprehend has purchase on any eternal truths.

To all my conservative friends out there:

I am a scientist (proud of it, too; it was a lot of work) and also a non-believer.

I can't attach the moniker "athiest" because I grew up in a christian home and some ideologies attached to you when young, linger. So I would say that over time I lost my faith. There are too many ‘things' out there that I have a hard time believing a ‘just' God would allow.

However that may be, I do find large differences in vast numbers of religions and believe strongly that if the whole world converted to Christianity, in its modern form, we would be the better for it.

I believe in some parts of the theory of Darwinism and find no area in which Intelligent Design (what little I know of it) would conflict with that belief. I would also sooner accept I.D. than I would the theory of the Big Bang.

R108 is existentially correct if that is the proper term. Faith exists everywhere in all forms and in all manners and matters. When I wrote my thesis on the degradation of cell surface receptors for idiopathic Parkinson's Syndrome, I spent an inordinate amount of time with mechanisms that were only indirectly related to my research. I did so because I knew that in defense of my thesis I could receive queries as to my methods and the understanding of these would be useful. However, (to my point) no matter how far I inquired and investigated background information it always remained that I needed faith that the previous research was valid.

So I disagree with the statement "…there is no way that any of this could have happened by random chance" as strongly as I do with , "…and science provides us with all the proof that evolution is responsible for the existence of man."

what's wrong with no big bang and no God? what is it about us that needs a beginning and an end?

Nothing, as far as I am concerned. I choose to believe that there was a hand behind all the science that we are discovering and re-discovering.

I maybe wrong, but at least I don't cut the science part out of my faith. Things have to happen in some way, it just doesn't happen. There is a mechanism behind creation in my mind. But, that's just me.

Kenny: Good points, all!

Argument Ad Nauseam (I'm also a bit guilty of this one here)

Reducto Ad Absurdum.

Reducing your opponents arguments to the absurd.

All of my claims are 100% accurate. Feel free to debate me on them instead of Robert saying he agrees with me, Ok, pumpkin?

LDS:

To all my conservative friends out there, I am a scientist…

Aha! I knew it!

…. Not just another pretty face.

There are too many ‘things' out there that I have a hard time believing a ‘just' God would allow.

The explanation (not scientific proof) offered in Scripture is that humanity is a fallen race. That humanity is separated from God in that state. That Jesus Christ died to provide a just means for humanities forgiveness and acceptance (ie, reconciliation). That humanity is allowed to continue in this state because "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

While there is not way to scientifically prove or disprove any of this, it is does explain the reason for injustices in this world.

There are too many ‘things' out there
that I have a hard time believing a ‘just' God would allow.

A common emotion-based mistake. If there were no Free Will for humans, there could be no Salvation. If Faith in God were the only choice, we would be no better than animals, following their genes from birth until death. Instead, we have a choice. Those "things" to which you refer are all human choices. Without Wrong, there is no Right. God is One, but most of us don't have actual knowledge of that, and so act as if we are separate from God, which leads to error.

I'd also like to say that Stein's only dumb move was going on TBN. That alone questions credibility IMO. TBN is nothing more than theatre and feigned piety. I assume it was strictly a marketing effort on Stein's part, but a dumb move at that.

There are too many ‘things' out there that I have a hard time believing a ‘just' God would allow.

Sally, Sorry to continue to comment on this quote, but it is so rich. The irony is that your 'sense of justice' is offended by those 'things' God would allow. Where do you think a 'sense of justice' which should be swift and without hypocrisy comes from? And what is justice? Who decides what justice is? Surely if justice is without hypocrisy it cannot be relative. Methinks the evidence for the existence of God is not only material but immaterial.

I would assume you would acknowledge that the attempts of science to explain the immaterial such as life, love, liberty, justice, good, evil, etc. has been inadequate to say the least.

HG,

Out of the six articles you mention, five are subjective and are not within he purview of science and as such attempts to explain them (by science) are not just inadequate they are nonexistent; unless you view psychology or philosophy as science, which I do not.

Whether or not science has done an adequate job of explaining the one material item "life", is the whole point isn't it? Certainly it can be said that science has spent a great deal of time investigating the principle. And "who decides what justice is?" I do. You do. Only liberals are willing to suspend judgment and claim that to do otherwise is infringing on the rights of people to do as the please.

I think you should re-read my previous post. I don't deny the exsistance of a God nor that that God would exhibit all those qualities attributed by Christians. When a look at the extensive and marvelous works within a single cell of the body, I can't help but wonder if it was a God that designed this magnificent achievement. But whether Doc assumes it is arrogance or not, I also cringe at the sight of evil and weep for those who have the misfortune to live under the tyranny of evil; thus I arrogantly question the validity of a supreme being that would allow this suffering.

Your scripture offers comfort to you that all injustice will be satiated and that retribution is forthcoming. I for one, want a reconciliation in my lifetime.

Hanntized:

I happen to be a man of faith, and in my faith, I believe when the bible said 7 days he was talking about his understanding of time, as it was merely a mans interpretation of gods words anyway.

If you are a Christian, God does not give you or anyone else the right to edit His Word, nor is it open to any private interpretation. God makes His Word clear, He does not cause us to twist in the wind grabbing for any human interpretation. God speaks of six days and nights for all Creation, He makes the time frame for a day clear when He speaks of the greater light (Sun) to rule the day and a lesser light (Moon) to rule the night. Then He uses the word ‘day' to separate His Special Creative acts, that same word for ‘day' is used many, many other times elsewhere in Scripture and unless the word ‘day' is modified by the use of other words in context, it always means a 24 hour day. So, the Word ‘day' is meaningless unless we can know what time frame is involved, otherwise if we arbitrarily (without clear, Divine justification) say 'day' means an indeterminate period of time in Genesis One, then we must apply that same definition in every other instance the exact same word for ‘day' is used elsewhere and thereby the word ‘day' ceases to have any meaning at all. No, God said ‘day,' the same ‘day' used elsewhere meaning a 24 hour period of time, He then clearly separated day by morning and evening, which is how we measure ‘day' now.

It is an old, cheap atheist game to say that God's Word is subject to anyone's private interpretation, or to claim that the Word was written by mere men who could make mistakes. We are told that every word in Scripture is by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is God breathed and chosen scribes guided by that Spirit wrote as God directed them to write and the accuracy over the history of the Jewish scribes is so perfect that this fact alone proves God controlled His Written Word. Further, Jesus, the living Word, God the Son confirmed the accuracy of Scripture during His earthly ministry. If God is real, as I know Him to be, then He would have to want to communicate His Person, Way and Will to His Human Creation perfectly, and He would control every aspect of its being accurately communicated.

Now, you may according to Free Will, accept or reject His Word, what you are not allowed to do is edit His Word by saying it meant something other than what it clearly states.

LayDownSally: Robert108 has explained Free Will very well, as he has often done here in the past and so I will not beat that horse to death.

Let me just add the story about the minister and the atheist barber to explain my view of Free Will versus blaming God for the world's woes. The barber complained about how God could allow all the misery in the world and used it as his justification for his atheism. Just then a man with dirty long, unkempt hair walked by on the other side of the street. The minister turned to the barber and complained why he allowed that man to walk around with his hair looking so bad. The barber in self defense replied that it wasn't his fault, if the man came to him and asked for help he would wash it, cut it and make the man look like a new fellow. "Exactly," the minister responded. "We are all dirty and unhealthy inside and do bad things to other people, which explains all the misery in the world; but if we just ask God, He will wash us and make us new people inside, he will cut out all the bad things and makes us new, good creatures." So, it is a matter that most men choose not to seek God's help, not that God wants all the misery in the world.

As to Darwinian Evolution (Godless science) and Divine Creation, if you would read my first comments on this thread, I explained that neither theory can be proven, both require a large amount of faith, both are religions. It is interesting to me that most of the great scientific minds throughout human history, the idols of secular science, were purists as to science, but were almost to a man believers in God. We are never asked to have blind faith, but rather faith based on knowledge, wherein the only logical answers to the great scientific questions can be found in God and Divine Creation, while Darwinian evolution simply does not, it cannot fit into most of the available scientific data.

There is one problem atheists and even lapsed Christian scientists cannot answer: "There is overwhelming evidence of incredibly complex design throughout all the known universe, down to the tiniest molecule. Yet, how can there be such massive evidence of complex design without our demanding the pre-existence of a Designer?" Evolution cannot result in higher, more complex organisms, as such changes always result in loss of complexity and loss of energy.

Obviously, one is 'free' to reject or edit God as a matter of Free Will; but such rejection or editting will not change one word or alter the Truth
one iota!

I agree.

In fact, you have viciously attacked me, in the most personal terms, many times in the past. I didn't attack you this time; you were sounding a little self-righteous, and I pointed it out.
No need to go off the deep end again, Neiman.

I am heading back to work now for a few hours, so you have the field to yourselves.

Many chastise Global Warming Zealots for saying 'the debate is over'. And then turn to the topic of evolution and chastise any who question it.

Sorry about the double post (you can delete this and the other).

That was, IMO, the sole motivation for
your correcting me today.

Wrong. In spite of your repeated attempts to bully me, all of which have failed, I bear no animus toward you; in fact, I pity you.

Choose between reason and faith, between rational thought and evidence, and blind adherence to authoritive dictates from a primative time and world. There have always been good and bad people.

Why?

Because morality have nothing to do with religion. Morality is a product of natural selection, a nessessary adaptation for social living and species survival. Religion is a man-made construct invented to expliot and pervert these innate tendancies to behaviours that produce constructive outcomes for individuals via community. Science and its products are tools, nothing more, and the abuse of these tools have more often then not been at the hands of the religious. I might add that science is not anti-semetic, only anti-unreason, but the religious are anti-science and anti-reason (while benififting from science). They substitute sound thinking with conviction and repeatition, and are even more prone to immorality and murder then we of the secular ilk (consider the racially motivated murder of Palestians, seem moral to you?).

Neiman: You're such a victim. Poor baby.

Sorry guys, i think ive gotten replies mixed up.

I arrogantly question the validity of a supreme being that would allow this suffering

. Hopefully the next time God creates a universe, He will consult with you, Sally.

That's what I find so encouraging about you Dave.

R108,

I appreciate your sane and amiable response. I sincerely mean that.

The problem I have extends beyond choice: It's the child who dies after being infected with a viral disease from a mosquito bite and the anguish of the parents who have done nothing "ungodly", it's the grandfather on his way home to celebrate the birth of a grandchild who is killed near a railroad crossing because the train ‘slips the track' and derails.

In each of cases, and there are many, many more…there was no discernable un-godly acts on their part or by anyone else. Just terrible consequences.

At the same time, the very evil among us are left to prosper.

One of the reasons that macro-evolution — the belief that all life began spontaneously from inorganic material and then, over time, subdivided into all of the life forms we see today — has a hard time gaining acceptance is that it is hard to believe. The story is filled with plot problems, the most significant of which is "From where did all of the material which makes up the universe originate?" The macro-evolutionary story told by scientific materialists requires us to deny the existence of many things that intuitively we know to be real: free will, moral accountability, purposeful existence, and a sense of transcendent justice.

One wonders if the real agenda behind those who oppose Intelligent Design is a desire to avoid having to wrestle with the idea of the reality of a transcendent God who will not submit to examination by His creatures, but who, instead, will sit in judgment over their actions. This debate is nothing new. It is as old as human history. A brief look through the Bible reveals people who would mock God, suppress knowledge of His existence, and encourage others to do the same. The obligation of those who reject a scientific materialist view of the world is to continue to advance counter arguments, to insist that real knowledge exists, and can be accessed, even outside the realm of scientific inquiry, and to avoid developing the stance of the wounded. It is those with the scientific materialist presuppositions who are victims of their own worldviews. They should not be objects of our scorn, or recipients of hate, but instead they should be respectfully opposed, and held up in our prayers that they might come to know the One who made them.

Carrick:
A road map still doesn't tell us how those items got there in the first place.

It has been said that if the only tool a person has is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. In other words, the tools people have at their disposal limit the kinds of things they can do. Science, properly understood, uses its tools to observe, record, experiment upon, and draw conclusions about the physical universe. When the object of the inquiry is the material world, these tools work very well. But if you try to take these tools, which work so well in the natural world, and try to apply them to the supernatural world, they will not function. However, scientific materialists are so enamored of their tools that they have concluded that if the scientific tools do not reveal the supernatural world, then the problem is not with the tools, it is with the very existence of the supernatural world. They have committed the fallacy that C.S. Lewis exposes in his book, Miracles: "If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience."

Sojourner, Well said!

The question I have for people like yourself is that it appears to me that you reject anything your eyes see or ears hear that is inconsistent with your interpretation of the scriptures.

Carrick, The things we observe can be explained through scripture. That is, scripture offers an explanation that is consistent with our observations. You act as though evolution is the only explanation. Evolution may be the only materialistic explanation but for centuries science wasn't the exclusive means of all truth many today make it out to be.

the very evil among us are left to prosper.

Especially when liberals are in power.