But they shouldn’t, and here’s one who isn’t.

Favorite quotes:
on topic-
The trouble with this idea of “God’s thumbprint” is, first of all, it denies the fact that it’s ALL thumbprint. And so, I don’t want to say that this is proof of God, but that over there was just accident.

Somewhat off topic, but very well put-
The trouble is that some people think they can use science to prove God. And that puts science ahead of God; that makes science more powerful than God. That’s bad theology. In fact, some philosophers have said that’s what led to atheism in the eighteenth century — the fallacy of the God of the gaps. You say, “I have no idea how this could have happened. It must have been God’s design.” And then fifty years later, somebody explains how it did happen, and you say, “I don’t need God anymore.” If your faith is based on science, that’s a very shaky kind of faith.

If the universe is this good, then it’s worth our while to spend the time and money studying it, even if it’s not going to get me rich, even if it’s not immediately going to give me better crops or fancier Teflon or any of those other excuses. It’s the motivation behind why we’re all here doing this stuff. It’s because we’re in love with the truth, it’s because we’re in love with this physical universe, and our love of the universe is what gives us the courage to spend our lives studying it. So, our science is based on our religion. You can’t do it the other way around.

But even if the atheist is wrong about God’s existence, does that mean that the “believer’s” vision of God is right?

I was referring to the God of Abraham, in any case, if there is a God, then people will have to figure out which one of the many religions is the true God.

To wit, my maternal grandparents were well versed in the Bible and could hold their own in many a debate. However, grandfather was an atheist & bookdealer, while grandma was a Buddhist and professor. For him, there were too many contradictions, such as the flat-earth etc and besides, if there was a loving God, why WWI & WWII? For her, she couldn’t fathom simply accepting a gift from God, she believed that one has to work for redemption and Buddhism seemed logical.

So most atheists, even if they have a doubt about their atheism, still aren’t going to “fear” God.

Of course “fear” need not accompany “doubt”. However, I think there is a subtle but significant difference between “doubt about their atheism” and what I originally stated, “acknowledge that there might be a Creator”.

That statement was in response to your original two potentials that science might do.

I reject the notion that Believers fear science because:
1) it can’t disprove the existence of God as we believe Him to be (1 Cor 13:9-10). Impasses may occur from time to time, but in due time, new answers will crop up to resolve the issue. I think most Christians find science intriguing and each new discovery is like a some sort of 4-D jigsaw puzzle piece and trying to figure out where it fits, even tho we have no reference picture to go by. Until all the pieces are in place, we can never know the totality of it all.

Quick detour–Stem Cells. We’ve been beaten ad nauseum about how ESC was the key, therefore, the govt MUST fund research. Never mind the moral and ethical objections of creating then destroying human embryos. Never mind that science had yet to find a single success story using ESC, yet adult stem cell research was succeeding in many areas. Now comes two new processes that reportedly can create ESC from skin cells w/o the need to create & destroy embryos. Here we had people willing and demanding that the ends justify the means, even tho it couldn’t be guaranteed, when all along the ethical solution probably just needed more effort to discovery.

2) if science proved the existence of God it cannot destroy faith, it would re-affirm it (1 Cor 13:12). To wit, Moses saw & conversed with God, yet he needed faith to carry out his mission. Likewise with every other Biblical character that interacted directly with God. Remember Job & Satan’s wager that he would lose faith?

However, atheists do have a reason to fear science because if science proved the existence of God, then the atheist has a problem. To realize (acknowledge) that there IS a God, then they had better get right with Him.

Gotta run…

“Tossing in the requirement for scientific article is a canard. Even if such an article has never been published, it does not diminish the assertion that “Science is always trying to ‘disprove’ the idea of God.” Granted, the phrase is a generality…”

That’s all I was saying. It’s so much of a generality as to be untrue and/or meaningless.

“Dawkins, among others, is using his credentials as a scientist and leveraging his subject matter expertise to beat down any “idiot” foolish enough to believe in a God.”

Okay, but when did Dawkins (and a few others) become the standard-bearers for all scientists?

“That’s not my contention, altho it would not surprise me if a few [scientists] were drawn into science as a result of wanting to disprove God.”

It would surprise me a great deal if anyone (short of an actual satanist) would devote one’s entire livelihood and income into such an endeavor. Very few atheists have the a “calling” to atheism in the same manner as believers have to faith.

Furthermore, as another commenter said, science itself is agnostic. It is the search for truth without an agenda.

“Let me give another example: scoffers like to tag Believers as “flat-earthers”.”

The name invokes that of early Christian scholars who interpreted the Bible (wrongly, I agree) that the earth was flat. It is not meant to suggest that people today who believe in the Bible believe in a flat earth; it is meant to suggest that those who look to the Bible as a scientific text often come to the wrong (and comical) conclusions.

“As Pascal noted, if God exists, then the atheist has two painful choices, burn or repent. “

But even if the atheist is wrong about God’s existence, does that mean that the “believer’s” vision of God is right?

Even if an atheist were to concede that he could be wrong about God’s existence, it’s another large leap for him to admit that God will punish him for his lack of faith. So most atheists, even if they have a doubt about their atheism, still aren’t going to “fear” God.

“When one looks at Genesis’ 6 stages of creation, the order of events pretty much parallels the chain of events posed by our best secular theories, with the primary issue being the timeline. In that case, what’s with the phobia of secular scientists in even discussing ID/creationism?”

Well, many clearly do discuss ID/creationism, if only in the negative. So it’s not a phobia.

And when they discuss it, their main thrust is that it is not “science” by its very nature, and therefore has no place in science classrooms. The crux of ID is “Well, we can’t explain everything, so there must be an invisible hand at play”. That’s fine as a philosophy (or religious standpoint), but since the goal of science is to explain what and why things are, ID is explicitly anti-science (”anti” meaning “the opposite of” rather than “in opposition to”).

“So why don’t we drop the animus and toss all the theories out there and let the students figure it out for themselves?”

Well, won’t they anyway? Didn’t you? Didn’t I?

Part of the problem with “tossing all the theories out there” is that you would have to let in ALL the theories (yes, including the “Flying Spaghetti Monstor” theory, Scientology, etc.) Since most students first encounter evolution as part of biology class, you would pretty much have to scrap the rest of the school year’s curriculum. Same to with “earth sciences” and other scientific subjects. In essence, you would be turning the science curriculum into religious survey curriculum. (I suspect most people at some level or another realize this, which is why there is a push among believers for ID to be taught in schools).

More importantly, those kind of lessons don’t belong in a SCIENCE class any more than evolution and “big bang” theory being preached from a pulpit. Time and place, my friend, time and place.

The problem is that Darwin’s theory does not hold up under the data. As stated above, micro-evolution (the change of organisms over time to adapt to changes in the enviornment) is readily apparent, and is borne out by the fossil record. The other aspect, macro-evolution (in which all species evolved from a common ancestor) is refuted by the fossil record. If Darwin were correct, then how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion (the period in the fossil record in which a great number of species appear virtually overnight (in geological terms))?

Darwin himself admitted that at the time he devised his theory, the fossil record did not support it, and hoped that future discoveries would bear him out. They haven’t. It seems to me that a good theory makes use of available data, not hinging on data to-be-determined-at-some-future-date.

That is the major criticism that ID proponents have of Darwinian evolution.

Except that The God Delusion isn’t a scientific article in a scientific publication.

Tossing in the requirement for scientific article is a canard. Even if such an article has never been published, it does not diminish the assertion that “Science is always trying to ‘disprove’ the idea of God.” Granted, the phrase is a generality, however, Dawkins, among others, is using his credentials as a scientist and leveraging his subject matter expertise to beat down any “idiot” foolish enough to believe in a God. Hence the logical extension to the following:

Please explain what you mean by “vested emotional interest”. Do you truly believe that scientists become scientists for that reason — to disprove God?

That’s not my contention, altho it would not surprise me if a few were drawn into science as a result of wanting to disprove God. Just as some are drawn into it as a result of being inspired by Star Trek, Nova etc. I meant exactly what I wrote — there are atheist scientist that will irrationally refuse to consider any evidence or theory that might support Biblical claims.

For them it is an emotional force that drives them to lash out at any hint of injecting God into the discussion of science. Call it God Derangement Syndrome or GDS. May I present such a example?

Let me give another example: scoffers like to tag Believers as “flat-earthers”. Implication being that because certain religious authorities took umbrage at Copernicus & Galileo’s scientific work & discoveries, such as the world is round & the universe doesn’t revolve around the earth, therefore Judeo-Christian faith and/or the Bible is at odds with the truth. If so, can one of those brainiacs explain Genesis 22:17, Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7? Odds are they can’t be bothered with such “nonsense” because of their vested emotional interest, or as pointed out by Trish in #22, “it’s rejection of thought”. As for those “religious authorities”, they were WRONG, plain and simple, but not because the Bible told them so.

Are you making this up as you go along?

No. Are you? All I did was turn your original statement around to show that while yours was illogical on the surface, the irreducible truth remains that to acknowledge the existence of a creator is to owe your existence to the same.

As mentioned by others, atheists operate on a belief system just as Christians do. If one choses to not to have faith, he still has faith, not proof, that his is the right choice.

Why should people of no-faith be threatened by accountability to a higher power? Every person is accountable to a higher power of SOME sort or another, whether it be parents, teachers, employers, the police, etc. I don’t know of anyone, believer or not, who feels “threatened” by accountability to higher powers.

Nice try at deflection. To the “unknown” Believer, if Hades isn’t a “threat”, then your strawman is fireproof. The higher power here is the atheist’s creator, not some elevated authority figure. As Pascal noted, if God exists, then the atheist has two painful choices, burn or repent.

But as I said (and you’ve acknowledged), the first scientists, who were believers, DID conduct science. In fact, many men of science are and were believers.

Due respect, but I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

Come again? I was just coming full circle to show why the first scientists were believers and that faith in a purposeful life is what drives mankind forward.

Atheism is, in a manner of speaking, faith-based. Not evolution. You can call something “faith-based” all you like, but you really should stop and consider what that phrase means.

There is undeniable proof of the central tenets of evolution. It is, for example, observable at the micro-level. We can observe it, record it, repeat it. Faith is not required when you have two plus two equaling four.

Technically, you are correct, however, plenty do treat evolution as a faith all of its own. Meaning that evolution, is not limited to kind after kind, but is the answer to everything, even such that all life descended from one bacteria what emerged from the primordial soup. Come to think of it, what do you suppose “dust” is in Genesis 2:7? Dehydrated P-soup?

When one looks at Genesis’ 6 stages of creation, the order of events pretty much parallels the chain of events posed by our best secular theories, with the primary issue being the timeline. In that case, what’s with the phobia of secular scientists in even discussing ID/creationism?

As for micro-level, about the only thing we’ve witnessed is the evolution of superbugs. We’re still waiting to see the next evolutionary stage of any critter or fish. That said, as interesting as the Discovery Channel series on the Caveman was, it is still a matter of faith, not fact, that we evolved from apes.

To “Deep thoughts” (#14) who writes: “every article of clothing has a designer and buildings have their architects. cannot the earth and everything in it have a designer as well?”

Certainly. And can’t evolution be thought of as the mechanism by which the “designer” designed the earth and everything in it?

In other words, why couldn’t God have created us through the process of evolution, just as he “created light” through a scientifically-verifiable celestial body we call Sol (or the Sun)?

Sure! As long as we’re clear on the concept that Biblically speaking, evolution could not begin until death entered the garden of Eden as a result of sin (original sin).

Did dinosaurs exist? Of course, Job 3:8 & 41:1 and Psa 74:14

Is it possible that the Garden of Eden was a safe & walled garden and that there was other, untamed life outside the garden? Yes, that’s debatable.

So why don’t we drop the animus and toss all the theories out there and let the students figure it out for themselves? Surely that can’t be too difficult or dangerous for them to suss out on their own, especially when we expect demand that 11-year olds make life or death decisions regarding their bodies w/o parental involvement.

Come to think of it. That’s pretty ironic since those same schools probably require that kids be escorted by parents from cars up to the schoolhouse door lest they get run over by a bus or something.

Greg–
Am I misreading your post? Are you really saying the only reason you accept evolution is because it’s easier? How sad. It isn’t true that the theory is not fully understood. The theory is as man invented it. What is not understood, or too often ignored or misinterpreted, is the factual evidence involved.

In the end, there isn’t any debate here, because one side will not allow all the evidence to be considered. That’s a shame.

Sad? Don’t be silly. It’s quite obvious that some form of evolution has occured over 4.5 or so billion years. it fits the available data. Whether we understand all the exact details is beside the point. And yeah, it’s a shame that your side doesn’t want to listen to reason.

what I’m saying is that the ID thing changes nothing about evolution and adds a layer of complexity on top of it. If the Designer isn’t God (I’ll play that game for a bit) then we have to figure out what he is in addition to evolution.

I’m not even saying that God doesn’t exist or didn’t create everything. It’s perfectly reasonable to state the God created the big bang 13.7 bil years ago, the Earth 5 bil years ago, evolution, etc.

Even stranger, I also happen to believe that people are smart enough to eventually figure out how God’s Machine works. It may take awhile, though…

Oh, by the way. Most people are wrong about what a theory is. A theory is not a guess. The process is guess + supporting data = hypothesis. Hypothesis plus lots of supporting data plus the ability to make predictions plus the ability to encompass the available observations = theory.

Here’s a much better explanation.

“Theory” as used by the layman is a very different creature from the way it’s used by scientists.

You have to understand what “theory” means in scientific terms: it is a means of describing the overarching phenomenon that appears to govern a host of hard evidence. In other words, theory is how fact is interpreted: and there is MOUNTAINS of evidence–hard data–that is best explained by evolutionary theory (there are particular aspects WITHIN evolutionary theory that are debated among what most of you folks here claim are “evolutionists”–this however doesn’t warrant throwing out evolution in broader terms).

Gravity is also a theory, so is General Relativity. Both of these, which I presume you would accept as being convincing explanations of the physical world, don’t actually have as much support in terms of testable, repeatable data across so many different scientific disciplines as evolutionary theory does.

Anyway, some of you no doubt will never be convinced of this line of argument, for reasons that have been well covered above. Oh well. However, proposing ID as an alternative or rival theory is pure nonsense. Despite La Shawn’s insistence otherwise it IS a negative theory as its only “work” is to poke at evolution–it offers no other testable means of learning anything about life’s origins, including its most basic claim: a testable means of proving that something couldn’t have evolved, and therefore must have been intelligently designed. It’s creationism masquerading as science. You are free to tout creationism all you like (it’s a free country), but trying to pass it off as science is absurd.

Finally, if it really is that “[God] did it,” where does that leave us? Where do we go from there? Why learn anything more about anything?

Evolutionary theory is totally agnostic (Dawkins’ PERSONAL views about God notwithstanding). Whether God created things or not is immaterial: science seeks to understand HOW and WHEN, not so much why or by whom. If discerning how and when life was “created” is threatening to you, then your faith is on MUCH shakier ground than it should be.

And incidentally, nobody has ever satisfactorily answered where it all came from, whether you’re talking the singularity or God himself. Now THAT is a juicy mystery!

ID fills in the “jumps” with the theory of some intelligence responsible for them.

The problem is none of us will be around long enough to see evolution disproved or radically modified to explain new data. By the time you find out if ID is correct, your chances of telling your friends are somewhat limited.

The debate makes for great and fun arguments until the activists step in and mess it up.

Number theory, theory of relativity, these are theories. Evolution is not considered a mere theory any more than the theory of relativity is.

Just as you are doing, ErikZ. You are very smug in your assertion that religion exists to “comfort the ignorant”, etc., proudly putting yourself above the poor slobs believe in a “god” from whom your pseudoscience can strip power. God is much bigger than that. I don’t fault you for saying such things; it’s ignorance of religion that makes you speak so. But I do believe you should learn more about the subject you address. Understanding the operation of the world God created does not diminish Him; it glorifies Him.

Greg–
Am I misreading your post? Are you really saying the only reason you accept evolution is because it’s easier? How sad. It isn’t true that the theory is not fully understood. The theory is as man invented it. What is not understood, or too often ignored or misinterpreted, is the factual evidence involved.

In the end, there isn’t any debate here, because one side will not allow all the evidence to be considered. That’s a shame.

Happy Thanksgiving, and God bless you all.