Epistemology, Evolution, and Evil, oh my!

John,
Thanks for the response. I’d be happy to jump in and take a poke at some of your comments. So, for the sake of clarity instead of obfuscation, I’ll simply respond to each major point/issue and comment below.

Paula also told me that she thought like me before she took on the belief of Christ, and like I told her I used to think like both of you as well before I chose to educate myself on real evidence.

Well John, I’m not sure what your background is, but I owned a firm that specialized in international recruitment of the world’s top scientific talent. The firm was KerrFairchild International and we were considered one of the premier biotechnology specialist firms with a worldwide reach for engaging the cream of the crop of scientific talent. Our work enabled us to speak to some of the best scientific minds of our day as well as have some influence and connection with the top PhD candidates and post docs in areas of chemistry, biology, molecular biology, pharmacology, medicinal chemistry and neurology. The beauty of having such a good mix of friends in various disciplines was the perspective and analysis they could give, and did give, when we became more than work associates and actually developed friendships. Scientists would be the first to admit that much of their neo-darwinian assumptions governed their view of science and life. I would offer that we also met quite a few that were creationists and simply applied the scientific method in the same manner without diving into philosophy or theology…neither of which scientists are usually very gifted or comfortable with.

An additional reason these relationships were beneficial was due to the perspective our friends were able to give when we discussed issues of worldviews and hammered down their assumptions of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. Also, they were able to give tremendous insight into their minimal training in areas of the relationship and nature of reality and how that affected scientific progress or regress. Most realized that without coming to thought out conclusions regarding certain issues of philosophy, science and its meaning and or its application is muddled behind sloppy presuppositions of what is real, or how science should be pursued/used. Some of this sounds as if metaphysical or philosophical issues are unnecessary since the scientist is only concerned with objective empirical data. I don’t know one true scientist that would actually agree that they don’t carry their scientific, philosophical, and even theological assumptions on the sleeve of their white lab coat. I have yet to meet one scientist who assumes some robotic and immune objectivity that lesser mortals don’t have. They all agree that their conclusions (scientifically as well as philosophically) are affected by their presuppositions.

Let me give you a bit of an example of what I’m talking about before we get into arguing evidences.

If you have an understanding of the history of philosophical thought, you realize that secular materialism (or at least the view of such system) was the chief proponent of empirical philosophy and construction. It comes from philosophers who had doubts about the rationalists theory of knowledge and many philosophers searched for a theory of knowledge that would be consistent with ordinary human behavior (of which they would discount behavior which almost all peoples shared; like the view that life and being are more than “things” and “senses,” and an almost universal belief in something greater than themselves), even though they had limited observation within their cultural context and were not able to answer common metaphysical questions which have animated man philosophically for thousands of years.

Instead of asking or seeking absolute certainty in knowledge about an “alleged” real world, they tried to discover where we get our information from and what degree of reliability it possesses. These philosophers gave up asking questions about the non visible realm, and started with their sense experience as the source and basis of what we know, and have tried to construct an account of knowledge in terms of sense experience.

This theory grew out of the struggles in 17th century England, at a time when that country was rapidly developing, commercially and industrially. People were just beginning to realize the possibilities that were before them in controlling and utilizing the physical world. So, many philosophers came to regard age-old metaphysical questions, and questions for absolute knowledge as fruitless. Again and again those thinkers would proclaim that their aim was not to discover the real, indubitable truths of the universe, but only to develop probable hypotheses about the world around us.

Yet, what is so glaring about those writers (scientifically as well as philosophically), as well as those of our day, is that they all follow a certain epistemological method in their search for truth (no matter their label of “truth”). The problem with most scientists, philosophers, and theologians is that they rarely seriously reflect upon exactly what epistemology they are using. They have unconsciously picked up their approach to truth, and the way we should interpret this world, in much that same way a dog picks up fleas. They end up with a haphazard mix of ideas that conflict and methodologies scientifically and philosophically that don’t shake hands.

Scientists, philosophers, theologians, and the average joe (you and I) usually don’t reveal underlying presuppositions and epistemological assumptions that govern us because we are ignorant of them ourselves. We don’t even realize the hidden principles that affect our search for the truth.

For example: The empirical sciences follow the synthetic, a posteriori, inductive method in which they move from human experience and observation to all things including God. The inductive method attempts to move from:

The parts to the whole
The particular to the universal
From the finite to the infinite
From human experience to truth
From the effects to the cause
From the evidences to God

This method is called synthetic because the scientist is combining a number of individual experiences into a single universal “law.” After obtaining the same result from a particular experiment time after time, the scientist, at some point, will feel that he can make a universally true statement which will cover all future experiments. This is what is called a scientific “law.” He is starting from and with his own personal experiences and then making the leap to a universal law.

It is called a posteriori because the conclusion is arrived at after the experiments take place. He is not beginning with the universal law and then testing to see if it is true. The law is developed after experience.

It’s inductive in that nothing conclusive can be proven. All he can logically conclude from induction is a certain degree of probability. The so-called “law” or concept has either a low, medium, or high probability of being true.

If you have studied logic, you know that if you want a universal in the conclusion, you must have at least one universal in the premise. You can’t logically make the leap to a necessary truth no matter how many particular experiences you pile up. Since the inductive method begins only with particular human experiences, its conclusions are only probably true to some degree of certainty.

But since God cannot be weighed or measured in a laboratory, theology is not and should not be considered an empirical science (though we could argue exceptions here). The truth for the Christian is that Christian theology didn’t come from “below,” that is from its ultimate cause through human experience, but form “above” which we would call special revelation. We can talk more about that if you wish.

The Christian who thinks consistently would conclude that we ultimately use an analytic, a priori, deductive method which moves from:

The whole to the parts
The universal to the particular
The infinite to the finite
Truth to human experience
Cause to effects
God to the evidences

We don’t begin with human experience as the measure of all things including God, we begin with God as the measure of all things including human experience.

It’s considered analytic because we begin with God as the “given” of special revelation and then deduce various theoretical implications from it. Meaning that our “given” is our first principle, founding principle, opening presupposition, or starting axiom which forms the basis of a system and from which the details of the system are deduced.

We all are faced with beginning somewhere as our given. If the implications or deductions from that “given” are demonstrated to be true, then the “given” must be true as well. John, you start with the “given” that our beliefs are “manmade” and are used to satisfy the agenda of the powerful. If you are a materialist, you start with your “givens,” if you are a secularist, you start with your “givens” and if you are an atheist, you start with your “given” that God doesn’t exist, and that the supernatural doesn’t exist. You may even assume in your “given” that the bible is man made, fallacious, and nothing but the mythology of wishful man. Then from your given you construct your thoughts and arguments to support that given.

In geometry the “given” concepts are called axioms. Geometry begins with certain concepts which are unproved, but from which the rest of geometry is deduced. Theology also has its axioms or beginning principles. That’s why I don’t hesitate to begin with God as our “given” our “axiom” or our “a priori.” The doctrine of God is a priori because it did not originate from human experience, but from special revelation.

I also use a deductive method. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid while an inductive argument (which is how empirical science argues) is merely probable or improbable. I don’t begin with your human experience or mine to prove God exists. Scripture begins with God as the explanation for the existence of man and not vice versa. God is the measure of all things- including man, not the other way around.

Every theology or philosophic position has a starting point enabling it to get under way. Euclid’s work on the “Elements,” was written around 300 B.C., and stated the five postulates or unproved principles concerning lines, angles, and figures from which he deduced geometry.

What distinguishes my Christian axiom from rival ones like yours is not that Christian axioms are “a priori;” all axioms are. No one can consistently object to Christianity being based on a non demonstratable axiom. If you or any secularist exercise your privilege of basing your theorems on axioms, so can I, and so can all Christians. If you refuse to accept our axioms, then you have no logical objection to my rejecting yours.

I am completely within my rights in starting with a belief in God. I have the right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in whatever philosophical, theological, or scientific work just as other philosophers take for granted the existence of the past, or of other people, or the basic claims of physics and science.

So, since God exists and He made man in His own image, then science is exactly what we would expect to find. Why? Science presupposes an intelligent universe. But this is only possible, if it is the product of a higher intelligence. This is why it is perfectly natural for us to ask: What is the purpose of this? What does it do? What is it for? Of what value is it? How does it work? What role does it play in the environment?

If the universe were simply the product of chance, plus matter, plus time, then science would have never developed because the universe would be random and without design or purpose. The universe would be unintelligible due to its contingent nature. No one would ask about the purpose of something, if the universe were purposeless. No one would be amazed at the design of things, if the universe were random.

We assume that we can figure things out because everything has a purpose and manifest design. We assume that things do not “just happen,” but that they have a cause and an explanation. So, the existence of science is a monument to the existence of the God who created an intelligible universe.

I could speak in the same manner with morality, beauty, and meaning. Since God exists, then we would expect to find that man is a moral being who makes moral judgments according to a moral code that exists independent of his approval or disapproval. The non-moral cannot be the Origin of the moral. Without God as the infinite reference point, and the Origin of truth, morality is impossible.

Since God exists and He made man in His own image, then the existence of beauty in art is exactly what we would expect to find. Aesthetics is possible only if we assume God’s existence as the Great Artist. True beauty is in the eye of the Beholder of all things because God is the measure of all things including beauty.

That people naturally strive to find meaning to their existence and the things around them is exactly what we would expect to find if we begin with God. Particulars cannot have meaning without an infinite reference point. If you begin with man as the measure of all things and attempt, inductively, to find a sufficient basis for truth, justice, morality, beauty, or meaning, you will fail because that which is finite and relative by nature, can never become infinite and absolute by nature because you want it so.

Don’t get me wrong, you don’t sound uneducated to me at all but I believe that all ideologies including Christianity are fictitious. My belief doesn’t come from my parents or my pastors, because I have had my share ideology from both, but rather educated conclusion of the facts we have in front of us.

Sure, of course you would. That is your given principle that governs your assessment and even your ability to cogently think through counter information such as that which I’m offering. I’m not saying I don’t do that either, we all do, but the existence of God or the validity of the Bible is not dependent upon your opinion of it, or your rejection of God. God exists apart from my or your opinion. Even your opinion that you are educated and therefore have conclusions based on facts assumes a great deal. That’s not an insult, it’s just an observation. The facts you have in front of you won’t be suitable because facts that are immaterial or without agreeable “givens” as in your starting supposition, will be outright rejected due to your presuppositional position. No matter the evidence to the contrary, if you choose to ignore that evidence due to your axiom, all my evidentiary arguing will simply fall on deaf ears.

Let me ask you a more direct question: What evidence would suffice for you to believe; 1- that God does in fact exist, and 2- that the Bible is in fact a reliable source to learn about God? Perhaps you can tell me what evidences or “facts” would satisfy you.

Let’s see, you said that evolution is a “fallacious theory, mathematically impossible, and blind chance process of natural selection,” that’s not exactly true and I think we both know that.

Well, I would ask what is “exactly true.” Can you define truth for me? How would you know if it is true or not in your system of thought? And no, we don’t “both know that.”

Evolution and creation are both theories, but what is a theory? It’s the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. So, just because a theory can’t be proven to be exact does not make untrue.

Well, I think I deal with this in my lengthier comment in the beginning. But, for the sake of it, let’s just say that a theory that can’t be proven should not also be taught as scientific law by which it governs all further theories since the theory of evolution is actually an axiom for many scientists. When evidence of a designer comes into play, it is rejected because their opening presupposition that evolution is true is not in agreement with creation.

It’s not just that the “theory of evolution can’t be proven to be exact,” which is the reason I reject it. It simply doesn’t comport to reality and the evidences to the contrary. Perhaps you can tell me your definition of evolution. Do you mean macro or micro evolution? If you are not familiar with the difference, let me just offer some clarification.

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Evolution begins with certain “givens” and works from there to prove itself, which is why we have several extensions in geochronological assumptions. When it is found that certain functions could not have developed through the process of Macro-evolution, the evolutionist slaps an extra billion or two years onto the time table to help their theory.

What we can do is take both theories and present the evidence before them.
A few pieces of evidence to support evolution are DNA, fossils, and homology.

Great, if you are familiar with such evidences that clearly prove the theory of evolution through DNA, fossils, and homology, by all means fire away. I think you’ll have a bit of a challenge finding such hopeful proof.

You see, with DNA it’s not enough to explain how DNA might have gathered into strands by random chance; evolutionists must also explain the machinery to interpret DNA. In other words, it’s not enough to explain how random letters could eventually fall into the order S-E-E-T-H-E-D-O-G-R-U-N. These letters still don’t mean anything unless you have a pre-existing language system for interpreting those letters! ‘See the dog run’ has meaning, but only to a modern English-speaker.

Biochemist Dr Duane Gish observes about the human genome: ‘The genetics are so incredibly complex and can be so marvelously interrelated that it’s absolutely going to demand an intelligent source. The idea that all of this could have come about by random accidents, genetic errors, and so forth is just simply beyond comprehension.
He explains, for instance, that cells must have an incredibly sophisticated editing process to ensure that each gene is reproduced error-free. ‘If life did not have that editing process right at the very start, then it would just mutate right out of existence,’ he explains. All those errors would slip through—they’d make nonsense, and that would be the end of it. The fact that we have to have that editing process from the very beginning means it had to be created to be there to be effective and to do that work—or life could not exist.

As it relates to the fossil record, you certainly will be challenged to find those transitional/intermediary species that the fossil record would be full, not absent of. Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument—evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones. Yet they are unwilling to admit to the magnitude of the problem. Scientific American states the problem in this way, and it answers with an unsupportable claim that there are numerous intermediate fossils.

Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms/givens. Evolutionists interpret the sequence of layers as a sequence of ages with different types of creatures; creationists interpret them as a sequence of burial by a global flood and its after-effects. This makes better sense of phenomena such as ‘living fossils’ and finding creatures such as the coelacanth, which isn’t found in rocks ‘dated’ younger than 70 million years.

Different kinds of fossils do not occur randomly. Instead, they tend to be found at specific horizons, and these horizons can be located in rocks all over the world. For example, the evolutionist asks us why a layer of rock containing trilobites is never found to contain dinosaurs, and why a layer with dinosaurs is always found above one with trilobites and never the reverse. Fossil succession can be viewed in terms of solitary fossils, commonly called index fossils. Otherwise, groups of fossils can be used. These are often called fossil assemblages or assemblage zones. The essence of fossil succession, however, remains the same whether individual fossils, of groups of them, are used.

For approximately the last two hundred years, this succession of fossils in sedimentary rock has been used to argue that the earth has undergone successive events. For instance, trilobite-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when trilobites were the dominant life form on earth, and dinosaur-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when dinosaurs were dominant on the earth. However this view is weakened because the range of fossils from one supposed time period keeps extending and overlapping fossils ostensibly typical of another period of time in the past.

As it relates to homology, that is perhaps the weakest position the evolutionist could ever argue from since it is more “artistic license” then factual evidence. As you know, homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, evolutionary homologists have been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. Yet, a review of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution. I would be happy to offer a more extensive treatment of homology if you are so interested. For now, I’ll get to your other questions/statements.

Natural selection has been proven to occur in nature, but that fact only enforces the thrive of evolution. Although there is nothing mathematically impossible about it.

When evolutionists try to argue for their presuppositions of the fish-to-philosopher type, it requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. Evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.
In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (read Genesis). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’ This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, yet the evolutionist has no problem wishing their worldview in the face of numerical/mathematical facts.

What is mathematically impossible is the bibles claim of the earths age, which from many different analysis of creationists is between 9 to 15 thousand years old.

I would not argue over what is not clearly given us in Scripture. I have no idea how old the earth is because God has not revealed such information to us. I would fully argue against the “billions of years” theories in Old Earth geochronology for many reasons.

We have many different tests on fossils and rocks that have proven, without a shadow of a doubt that this earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. There is much more evidence to support evolution than there is for creation.

Really? You seem to be more confident than evolutionary geochronologists. Let me give you some examples from our so called “evidence” to support modern dating methods:

In 1969, there was found a crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman. What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years. This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia.
But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly, the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’ estimate and launched Mungo Woman to national and international fame. Jane Balme, of the Centre for Archaeology at the University of Western Australia, put it succinctly, ‘There’s a general perception that there is a competition to get the oldest date and there’s kudos in it.’
Certainly, there was kudos in this date. At 26,000 years, Mungo Woman was nearly twice as old as the previous oldest date for Aboriginal settlement of Australia, and possibly the earliest human cremation in the world.
Then, in 1974, Bowler and Thorne found a skeleton sprinkled with powdered red ochre in a grave only 450 metres away. This one was well preserved and similar to the skeletons of modern Aborigines. Because the new skeleton, Lake Mungo 3, was found in the same sand bed (technically the same stratigraphic horizon), ‘he’ was assigned the same age as Mungo Woman. Thus Mungo Man became famous too—one of the world’s earliest ritual burials (even though the sex of the individual is still in dispute).

The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years. Being older than the carbon-14 dates, Mungo Man acquired a new stature on the world evolution scene. So, the earlier ‘reliable’ carbon-14 ages were abandoned in favor of the thermoluminescence ones.

Then, in 1999, Thorne (not to be outdone) and other scientists from the Australian National University published a new comprehensive study on the age of Mungo Man. They used different samples of bone and sand and different dating methods—electron-spin resonance (ESR), optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL), thorium-uranium (Th/U) and protactinium-uranium (Pa/U). And the results from all the different methods agreed closely. Their conclusion? Mungo Man was 62,000 years old! Bowler and Magee described this 20,000-year stretch as ‘commendable in intent.’

There was just one small problem. The new date meant that the history of Australian occupation would have to be rewritten and it also affected the ideas of human evolution in other parts of the world. And Australian archaeologists were still embarrassed by the Jinmium rock shelter fiasco, where a claimed age of 116,000 years was later reduced to 5,000 years.

So, Bowler stubbornly refused to accept the new dates. In his protest to Journal of Human Evolution, he said ‘For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.’ In other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be. The dates are wrong because they are based on wrong assumptions/givens. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago. The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem.

About your claim that Anthony Flew “switched sides,” that’s a pretty big stretch. This is a very intelligent man that thinks very much like me.

I have the entire article here: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm Feel free to read through it. By the way, I never said he became a Christian. He is only a theist, which is a catastrophic blow to his atheist colleagues. He’s now being dismissed as senile because their favorite poster boy is switching sides to admit that evidence is too strong to hold to an atheistic interpretation of our origins.

So you see how you twisted the facts there? He did not convert from evolution to believing in Christ as you indirectly implied, but rather has come to the conclusion that there might have been a supernatural being, aka god, that could have helped in the process of evolution. He has never claimed to disprove or discredit the Darwin theory; he has just introduced the possibility of something more before the evidence at hand. The problems with most modern religious people like yourselves is that you have fallen victim to the very same criticism you give about evolutionists, you said:

I didn’t twist any facts. I try very hard to make sure I’m clear on points and facts. Please don’t assume what I “indirectly implied” when all I was trying to show was that someone as well thought of as Dr. Flew, must concede that blind chance evolution for origins without a designer of some sort is intellectually untenable.

It seems like you are the one that is dismissing the real life physical proof and blindly following you own ideology.

Well, I don’t’ see any “real life physical proof.” On the contrary, I think the burden of proof is upon the evolutionist to prove their case. Which of course, they can’t because the theory itself is not provable based upon the only criteria scientific humanists are willing to argue from, which is empirical data.

I really wonder how much time you have spent researching facts and data on these issues. I can tell you, as one who was an anti-theist as well as an evolutionist for most of my life, I have poured over the so called “proofs” and find none convincing. Again, this should be expected when we think and argue presuppositionally.

This is what prevents the human race from progressing in the evolutionary process and will end in world destruction in the name of god.

Well, I won’t bother with the artists, scientists (past and present), philanthropists, philosophers, politicians, poets, and a host of other Christians that happen to have benefited your and my life in innumerable ways. The problem is not so called religious types, or non-religious types, the problem is sin, and every human being not only sins but is a sinner that quickly points out the wicked ways of the world instead of seeing the wicked ways in their own heart. Progress doesn’t come in the form of information alone. We won’t progress if we simply acquire more data. The appropriate application of information is called wisdom, and in order to be wise and use information and data appropriately, you must have some basis upon which you make certain decisions that tend towards wisdom instead of folly. What would that be for you? If it is your own conclusions…why should they matter in a blind chance, evolutionary, materialistic humanism? What basis would you use to tell another that there is or is not progress? Why would anyone listen to you if all is relative? How could you actually make any claim to what is good/bad, right/wrong, without having a foundation from which you make such claims as your own absolute standard which governs you and your decisions?

Darwin is simply a man with a theory, a very possible theory, and had he known what is known today his book would have been much different. Much like the thousands of books that are out today.

Exactly. He was a man with a theory that has outlived itself. As we continue to see advances in ion microscopy and other ways in which we can view and understand life at a molecular level. We will have to conclude, along with many scientists that have switched sides, that his theory simply is not one that is applicable today. The more we learn about life and what we assumed were “simple cells” the more we see that there must have been a designer behind such complexity. Life at the molecular level is indeed “irreducibly complex” and should be seen with awe, not with filters of by-gone theories that hinder the progress of science with “givens” that are not conventionally agreed upon, nor have veracity and comportment to reality.

As a theorists Darwin has made assumptions as to why he believes thing are the way they are. That is something all theorists do, that’s what makes it a theory. That does not mean there is no evidence to prove it, it just means there are missing links.

Yes, many missing links, which at the end of the day reveals a poor theory in need of discarding.

Although when it comes to religion, creationism and the theory of god there isn’t a shred of evidence other than books past down from one corrupt government to another.

I think I answer this in my response to your first statement.

Bibles are books written by men who are prone to error and have personal agendas. Therefore, believing in creationism and dismissing physical proof of evolution only prove that religious people accept an idea blindly and without question. How can one live their life worshiping a lie, a fable?

If I believed it was a lie or fable, I wouldn’t be typing such a lengthy response. And before you jump to assumptions here, perhaps knowing that I didn’t accept what I believe with my brain turned off, and neither should you.

I believe it to be simply fear, fear of not knowing what happens after you die. We are all so scared of dying that we accept this promise of pearly gates, 70 virgins or whatever other promise of a superficial afterlife to make ourselves feel better about dying, nonsense.

Believe what you will. I can only speak for myself, not for those whose motives may be good or bad. Again you make assumptions of what we can or cannot know. How do you know this? Can you give me your best epistemological explanation for all things?

I think Christians need to start doing their homework and stop confusing fact from fiction.

Well, I think this is an interesting quote from you, but simply saying that Christians should “start doing their homework” doesn’t answer the glaring problems in your worldview. I guess I could say the same in return, but tit-for-tat usually is not very profitable.

I have chosen physical proof over ideology. I believe in human kindness and I don’t need to make up an invisible man with a book of rules to guide that path for me. I’m sure if there is a god, and he reveals the truth of his word to me it would probably go something like this:

Really? But your physical proof needs to be interpreted by metaphysical filters, like logic and morality. Can you explain to me their origins? Also, your so called “physical proof” to life cannot ultimately be lived out consistently because you make decisions each day without “proof” necessary. You make leaps of assumptions in your worldview, but demand empirical evidence when you have none to prove your own assumptions.

As it relates to human kindness, what is the basis upon which you would even be able to discern or expect others to follow suit? What is kind in an evolutionary worldview?

“John, great job! You have taken the brain I gave you and used it to find the truth. You might not have all the answers, but that’s ok because that’s what I am here for. I am happy that you have not fallen for these man-made interpretations of who I am and have chosen the path of a thinking man. How could I possibly punish you for not following a book that was written by man and used for most of the chaos the earth has shown us? Welcome to the afterlife.”

Ok, so what is truth? How would you know it’s true? For a so called source or creator to say good job you’ve “used the brain I gave you to find truth” is really amazing since it assumes there is “truth” to be found. What is truth to you? How do you define it? To what do you compare truth and error? Is it logic? If so, then you have some explaining to do with the existence and origins of a binding, universal, and timeless metaphysical (since it doesn’t reside primarily in the brain) thing like logic.

So pray away, and while you are at it pray for Bush too, because if your ideology is correct he’s going to need it.

I don’t know what this means. Are you assuming because I’m a Christian that I’m a Republican as well?

Ok, I’ll give you the part about the wars. I should have said most wars are fought do to religion and/or a derivative of it. Never the less all wars have used religion to promote and recruit.

Well, I would be more historically comfortable with you saying that individuals were recruited to promote a certain “ideology” since that is historically accurate. But this really doesn’t mean anything. Every major decision is based upon some ideology. This is stating the obvious.

Religion is not only responsible for wars but also torture (Spanish inquisition), slavery (good ole USA), extermination (Holocaust), and many other atrocities you can’t seem to find in modern school books. Religion comes down to nothing but belief and it’s these man made beliefs that get manipulated to satisfy the agenda of the powerful in that time.

Well, whatever chant, mantra, saying, or ideology individuals attempt to use to justify their injustice, you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I would probably stand with you and upbraid anyone that attempted to defend the holocaust, inquisition, and so on. But I can do it from a moral and logical foundation. Can you? Even if you are disgusted by what Hitler did, in your worldview, what moral high ground could you argue from to tell him he shouldn’t do what he did? What would you say to him to get him to stop? Don’t Mr. Hitler, its wrong! Why? It’s simply evolution in action, survival of the fittest. Don’t Mr. Hitler, the majority of people think you’re wrong! Big deal, the majority of my country thinks its right. Plus, I should be able to do what is right for me, and you should be able to do what is right for you. Don’t judge me! Don’t tell me what to do! Don’t shove your ideology down my throat! What are you some religious nut who judges others decisions?

Having a worldview like yours doesn’t much carry the compulsion to stop evil and do good if you can’t even define it.

I’m getting tired, so sorry for trailing off here at the end. I hope this helps and I appreciate your thoughts.

David