Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Mentioning Intelligent Design Upsets Some People
Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.

Hard-core atheists have failed to realize that they have already lost. How do I know this? Every time I turn around there is some article in Time or MSNBC postulating that multiple universes exist. And those who postulate that readily admit that this universe is so fine-tuned to allow for life, there must be other universes...otherwise God exists. And we can't have that.

So from plate techtonics, the moon, a stable orbit, Jupiter being at just the right spot, the weak and strong nuclear forces being just right, the complexity of a single-celled organism, etc., etc., etc. the opponents of Intelligent Design face an uphill battle.

I only know of one side that is afraid of debate and is using dogmatic hegemony to shut down that debate. I'll give you a hint. That side doesn't consist of Intelligent Design folks.

My thought was always with the thought that something can't come from nothing, so how can their be no God? Of course I know there is a criticism of that in the fact that wouldn't something have to create the Creator? But whatever.

How about some Ed Wade talk? I can't believe his contract has been extended two years? Are the Phillies trying to turn off fans on purpose? Are they trying to run this organization into the ground??

I can't start posting about Ed Wade without crying. I will get it to it.

Your insight about something can't come from nothing is incredibly insightful. The argument would have to be a first cause which is uncaused b/c you can't have an infinite regression backwards. If you didn't have a start (an uncaused cause) you could never get to the present, b/c the time before the present is infinite.

R.C. Sproul argues the point you made very well.

Very good Chris. Very proud of your insight.
Why does the “right” think we need to teach creationism/intelligent design along with evolution in public schools but should only teach abstinence when it comes to sex ed – why does needing to “teach both sides” only come into play when they are trying to crowbar something into schools but not when it comes to teaching kids how not to get pregnant and drop out of school?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?