the end of christianity

[shunyadragon]

First of all, not so fast. :) Please give me your source on this lack of belief in evolution in one form or another - for ex., percentages as per what age groups.

There are a number of polls available on this topic, and yes the percentage believing in literal Bible Creation ranges from ~40% to 55%+. Those who actually support an evolutionary process that is Divinely guided fares only a weak second with 20 to30%, and among those are many that do not accept the science of evolution entirely or only partly, ie OEC Creationists.

Se here for many poll results http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Example of a poll here

[URL

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm[/URL]]
1999: Fox News

2006: CBS Poll:

A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that:

"Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. ... Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

Poll results:
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution Group of adults God created humans in [their] present form. Humans evolved, [but] God guided the process." Humans evolved [but] God did not guide [the] process. Everyone 55% 27% 13%

© source where applicable

Lack of belief in evolution undermines what other sciences ? The science you are concerned about - you said it, is "evolution." What sciences are being undermined ?! And the reason for this low science literacy in the U.S. you say is because of a 50% lack of belief in evolution ?! Evolution is the mother of all the other dependent sciences now I guess.

It impacts all the fields of Biology, particularly Genetics, Geology and Biochemistry. No, not the mother of all the other dependent science, but all the above sciences are intimately interwoven into evolution.

Polls on this site also show that as education increases, support for evolution also increases. Scientist, particularly those in related fields overwhelmingly support evolution. as noted here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

© source where applicable

You aren't reading my posts and I have made myself abundantly clear again and again. Read me, and don't then come trolling for me. Now on this page all-of-a-sudden the issue has become evolution. I WAS/AM TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN ARGUMENT - THOSE THREE ESSENTIALS OF DESIGN SCIENCE THAT MODERN-DAY I.D. DOES BRING FORTH FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THAT IS IT. So, you know where you can wedge the wedge report, for all I care ?! And what does it matter if The Discovery Institute secretly considers the God to be the Christian God. Muslims consider their Allah to be the God...and so forth and so on.

What the Discovery Institute does and supports matters a great deal, because they are the primary proponents for ID in the world. The Wedge documents state that the primary argument for a 'higher intelligence' for ID arguments is the God of Christianity, and also among recent Islamic proponents the Abrahamic God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims they call Allah.

The only way it would matter is if science textbooks made their way into classroom THAT SAID THE GOD IS: _____. I would not blame you if you cried foul about that if that did happen. I would be right there with you, saying, No.




>[/quote]

[gharfish]

gharfish

That is what people do on this board. Did you not know that? Ae you not promoting your own religious agenda when you post here?

..........

In saying that, I was playing on what you said; that I.D. people are using it to "promote their own religious agenda." .....The "movement" was going to "undermine all science."

BTW, the third design argument science essential is the apparent fine tuning of the universe. (Somehow you hadn't remembered what I said over and over again to you.)




>

[The Pixie]

gharfish

Why do you finish all your posts with a white greater than (">") symbol?

In saying that, I was playing on what you said; that I.D. people are using it to "promote their own religious agenda." .....The "movement" was going to "undermine all science."

Okay... So what?

Are you claiming that the ID movement does not have a religious agenda, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or that it is okay for them to have a religious agenda because I do in this thread?

BTW, the third design argument science essential is the apparent fine tuning of the universe. (Somehow you hadn't remembered what I said over and over again to you.)

Sorry, my mistake. Should have got that.

Fine tuning is quite different to specified complexity and IC as it is making the case that the universe is designed, rather than life. Fine tuning can be explained by a number of scenarios:
1. God created the universe
2. The universe is but one of many (multiverse), the vast majority of which did not have the right set of fundamental constants, so no life formed to wonder about fine-tuning
3. It is all quantum. At the Big Bang a number of quantum states appeared, each with itys own set of constants. Those wave functions that were not viable collapsed, to leave this one
4. An intelligent agency created the universe, but once it was set in motion, this agency did not intervene in how it unfolded (see Denton's "Nature's Destiny"
5. Something else beyond my imagination

The fact is that we really do not know. That is the position mainstream science takes anyway. So-called ID "science" claims otherwise. Can you think of any scientific way (as you claim this is ID science) to choose between the above five option? Or will you continue to avoid discussing the ID arguments?

[The Pixie]

ApologiaPhoenix

Pix: Can you talk me though why God decided to create people not already aligned with God?

AP: He didn't. They don't align themselves by their own freewill.

People start off unaligned, right? They then, having free will, can choose to align themselves.

So my question was: Why did God set up the system so we start unaligned? He is all powerful, so he is presumably capable of setting up the universe such that we are born aligned, right?

New question: Why did God curse us with free will, knowing that it would result in most of us going to hell?

First off, can you demonstrate that most people will miss it?

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Second off, how many is too many that God should not create the world? (And then where does this should come from?)

Again, this is trying to reconcile the majority of people ending up in hell, with God being all-loving and all-powerful. If we accept he is not all-powerful, then no problem; he saves as many as he can, but is not capable of preventing most from going to hell. If he is not all-loving, then no problem; he saves the ones who stroke his ego, and the rest can (literally) go to hell. but an all-loving God would want to save everyone, and an all-powerful God would be able to.

You're dealing with a false view of omnipotence. God can't create someone with a forced free choice. That's a contradiction. When God creates people free, they are free to either choose or not choose.

So this again raises the question: Why curse us with free will?

Moral God. What does that even mean?

A perfectly moral God would have the capability to do both good and evil, but would always choose to do good.

Pix: This is not about finding fault with God, it is about finding fault with the hypothesis that God (a perfectly moral, all-loving being) exists.

AP: No. It's about finding fault with God. After all, it's been "God should not have done X."

Here is an anology:

When Newton proposed his laws of motion, they explained a lot of things. Suddenly there was a law that described how things fell, but also explained the orbits of the planets and the moon. But one planet was anomalous. The orbit of Mercury did not fit. Scientists did not blame Mercury for that, they blamed the theory. They recognised that there was something wrong with Newton's laws of motion, and eventually those laws were replaced by relativity.

Here we have a theory that there is a God who is all-loving and all-powerful. Sure, this explains many things, but as with the orbit of Mercury, there are some serious anomolies. I am not blaming God for those anamoloies, I am blaming the theory. I am recognising that there is somethung wrong with the theory that there is a God who is all-loving and all-powerful.

By the way, I am an atheist. I do not believe God exists. Why bother to find fault in an imaginery being?

Pix: Sure, picking up something hot causes pain, so we let go, and minimise the damage to ourselves. I can see an argumnt that God blessed us with the ability to feel pain so we could react accordingly. On the other hand, I really would not call the suffering of the recent earthquake in Haiti a "gift". Would you?

AP: No, nor did I say it was. I am speaking of a general reality and you switched to a specific. There are people who have leprosy in India who can't tell the rats are chewing off their fingers because they can't feel pain. So far, we haven't been able to create a functioning pain system to help these people.

I thought we were discussing "natural evil" such as the recent earthquake in Haiti; see for example my post #60, which is about earthquakes (though not specifically the one in Haiti). Seems to me you switched the discussion around. This discussion was about the problem of natural evil; why events (such as the earthquake in Haiti) that cause great suffering happen.

Pix: But if he loved us infinitely, he would chose to do so.

AP: Because?

Hmm, I wonder what you understand love to be?

For me, it implies wanting the very best for your loved one; to minimise their suffering and maximise their happiness.

So let me get this straight. You think this God is doing things that are terribly immoral and then you complain that you weren't created eternally with him unable to get away?

No, I think God does not exist. I am an atheist; atheists do not believe in God.

I think these terrible things happen because there is no all-loving, all-powerful God watching over us to stop them happening.

Again, I question that most people do. I do not deny that the evil happens. I deny that there is no good reason. You have said you are against needless suffering. Fine. Then prove that there is no good reason for God to allow any of this to happen.

First, can you prove that God does have a good reason, or do you just take this on faith? Even if you do not know what that reason is, could you suggest what it could be? If you could think of just one reason that it could be (and that holds up to scutiny), you will destroy my argument, even if that reason is not the right one.

Let us suppose that God has some goal, X
To achive that goal, people suffer
God is omnipoent, so he can do anything.
Achieving goal X without suffering is something
Therefore God can achieve X without anyone suffering
Therefore suffering is not required to achive X
Therefore the suffering is needless
Therefore God chose for people to suffer needlessly

Now all you have to do is find some X where the above logic fails.

I'm not saying God is guilty of anything at this point. Why did the earthquake in Haiti kill more than those in Chile? Because the people in Haiti live under a bad government so they can't be taken care of. The main problem is the wickedness of man.

Can you rationalise the suffering of everyone in every earthquake, every tsunami, every volcane, every lightning strike, every mudslide, avalache, flood, in that way? Seriously?

The reality is that people die because of natural disasters (acts of God). Sure, the "wickedness of man" is a contributary factor in some cases, but not all. There are people who have suffered, people who have died, because of random "acts of god", not involving the wickness of man.

Does the fact that Haiti had a bad government really absolve God of all responsibility? How many of those who died had any choice in their government (where was that free will exactly)?

You consider being able to love freely a curse?

You call "love me or spend eternity in hell" being able to love freely?

Free will is surely a curse if the result is most of humanity ends up in eternal suffering.

Are you at all empathic? How would you feel being in heaven while the majority of humanity suffers in hell? Would you feel sympathy, or just smug?

And in all of this, there was no idea of good given. I'm not also asking about just actions. I'm asking about anything. I have to eat to survive. Why make food that tastes good? I have to drink. Why make water so refreshing? Humans have to reproduce. Why make the process so enjoyable? God could have made a world in black-and-white. Why is it in color?

Most of these things have been built into us by evolution. Consider two animals, identical, but one finds water refreshing, the other does not. The former will tend to stay hydrated and so in better condition, and able to last longer when suddenly water is scarce. The former will tend to out compete with the latter, and (if this is a genetic trait) the gene for finding water refreshing will dominate in the population. Same idea for reproduction. A man and woman who enjoy sex will tend to have a lot more babies than a man and woman who do not. The gene for enjoying sex spreads through the population. Flowers use colour to attract insects for pollination. Many animals use it to attract mates. Humans (and related primates) can see colour so we can more easily find food. Humans can only see three colurs (red, green and blue; everything else is a combination of those three). Most birds and a few fish can see four colours. I wonder why God created a much more colorful world for zebra fish than for us?

AP: I want to know that if there is no ultimate good, why is there any good at all?

Pix: There are a number of reasons. Here are a couple:
People are to a large extent defined by their culture. If the culture says murder is wrong, they are rised with that belief, and will in turn pass that belief to their on children.

AP: I don't care about what the culture believes, but rather if what the culture believes is true.

Sorry, I have no idea how this comment relates to your previous question.

But if the culture is the standard, the culture cannot better themselves. There has to be some standard outside of the culture whereby the culture can know if it is getting better of it is getting worse. If a culture goes from being pro-slavery to anti-slavery for instance, neither is better or worse. They're just different. If they switch again, that's also neither better or worse, it just is.

Again, how does this relate to your question about why people do good?

Pix: Why do you think people do good, by the way?

AP: Because God has set people to desire him, the ultimate good, and if they do not choose him, they will always choose a lesser good. The only way anyone can choose anything is if they perceive it to be a good.

Do you think all man are incapable of doing things that they do not perceive to be good? I think that that is wrong. I think people do things that they know are wrong, whether that is driving to fast, or adultery, or murdering someone to make some money. They know it is wrong, but they do it anyway because the end result is (or seems) beneficial.

Furthermore, if God has set people to desire him, where is the free will?

Is it Ipso facto false then because the people who often support it are Christians?

No. ID as it is currently practiced is pseudo-science.

It makes three fundamental claims:

1. Specified complexity. This fails as science because Demski has failed to do anything with it. His single calculation considered the proteins of the bacterial flagellum coming together in one event, ignoring evolution. Further, it is a negative argument, claiming that if something cannot be explained by one theory, then Dembski's pet theory must be correct. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

2. Irredicible complexity (IC). This fails as science because Behe's claims about various systems have all been refuted - he just refuses to admit it. Further, it is a negative argument, claiming that if something cannot be explained by one theory, then Behe's pet theory must be correct. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

3. Fine-tuning. ID offers one possible solution for fine-tuning, but there is nothing to suggest that the ID scenario is any more likely than any other.

None of these claims amount to anything, and yet leading IDists claim that this is science. Further, it is documented that these people have a religious agenda for promoting ID.

All that said, ID could be science. Disciplines such as forensics and archaeology prove that design detection can be scientific, and I see no reason why ID should not be approached in a similar manner. ID is not intrinsically pseudo-science, but ID as practiced today clearly is.

[headheart]

BTW, the third design argument science essential is the apparent fine tuning of the universe. (Somehow you hadn't remembered what I said over and over again to you.)
>

It seems the olde fine tuning was a little off.

Have you watched the Richard and Stephen chat?
Stephen identified two possible options, 'a benevolent designer' or 'what Dawkins said'

Peace,
HH

ps. Here is a link to a TWC discussion, which explored many of these ideas. "Hellboy, Science and the Eternal Universe"
ps2: In particular the Shadowmaster's reference to set of lectures titled "Science and Creation" (( Part 3 + 4 )) on post #551 - Part 1 + 2
ps3: Game time.

[gharfish]

gharfish

Why do you finish all your posts with a white greater than (">") symbol?

That is colored white. It acts as a spacer, so that there is an area of white page below the end of my writing and my signature - just an aesthetic thing.

Okay... So what?

Are you claiming that the ID movement does not have a religious agenda, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or that it is okay for them to have a religious agenda because I do in this thread?

I know that most of the more influential leading scientists are Christians, so they must believe the intelligent designer/Creator is the Christian God. Like shunyadragon said, "they secretly believe..." !

She/He'"It" doesn't have to be this named/'known' God, however. That is, the writings never say so, for the science - the theories, do not support any one God, neither already named nor unnamed and unknown. It/they are alien, as far as I.D. can tell.

Sorry, my mistake. Should have got that.

Fine tuning is quite different to specified complexity and IC as it is making the case that the universe is designed, rather than life. Fine tuning can be explained by a number of scenarios:
1. God created the universe
2. The universe is but one of many (multiverse), the vast majority of which did not have the right set of fundamental constants, so no life formed to wonder about fine-tuning
3. It is all quantum. At the Big Bang a number of quantum states appeared, each with itys own set of constants. Those wave functions that were not viable collapsed, to leave this one
4. An intelligent agency created the universe, but once it was set in motion, this agency did not intervene in how it unfolded (see Denton's "Nature's Destiny"
5. Something else beyond my imagination

The fact is that we really do not know. That is the position mainstream science takes anyway. So-called ID "science" claims otherwise. Can you think of any scientific way (as you claim this is ID science) to choose between the above five option? Or will you continue to avoid discussing the ID arguments?

I.D., with it's design argument does claim to know that there is a God or God's of some kind and they're the universe creator; you're right to say so. OTOH, the mainstream science certainly does claim to know, for ex., that life first arose by chance and there absolutely was not a supernatural cause. That is a positive belief in the other direction.

I personally don't much care where mainstream science might go along these lines in the future. If intelligent design-generated textbooks made their way into our public schools, then I would care if the authors tried in any way to identify the personal specifics of someone or somones who did the designing. But no such books will ever make their way into classrooms! It isn't going to happen.

The fine tuning of the universe argument, based on order, involves parameters that must each fall within a narrow range in order to make life possible. Some of those are, notably:

~ strong nuclear force constant
~ weak nuclear force constant
~ gravitational force constant
~ electromatic force constant
~ ratio of electromatic force constant to gravitational force constant
~ ratio of electron to proton mass
~ ratio of protons to electrons
~ expansion rate of the universe
~ entropy level of the universe
~ mass density of the universe
~ velocity of light
~ age of the universe
~ initial uniformity of radiation
~ fine structure constant
~ average distance between stars

Those parameters above have to do with the *universe. There are others that have to do with our *sun-planet-moon system. These other parameters have to do with life here on earth in particular.

Briefly, they are about the earth's axial tilt 'w'/ surface temperatures, it's distance from the sun 'w' / water cycle, the earth's crust thickness 'w' / oxygen & volcanic/tectonic activity, gravitation interaction with the moon 'w' / oceans, atmosphere/rotational period/climate, gravity on earth itself 'w' / atmosphere...water loss/toxic gases, length of day
w' / temperatures...wind velocities.


I first read of this from Hugh Ross and later read a book by Paul Davies, titled "The Mind of God," that goes into the fine tuning part of the design argument (and more).




>

[shunyadragon]

The only way it would matter is if science textbooks made their way into classroom THAT SAID THE GOD IS: _____. I would not blame you if you cried foul about that if that did happen. I would be right there with you, saying, No.




>

You missed a clear point in the Wedge Document, The purpose of the ID movement is demonstrate that GOD IS THE CREATOR.

[gharfish]

You missed a clear point in the Wedge Document, The purpose of the ID movement is demonstrate that GOD IS THE CREATOR.

I have no idea what the wedge document says. I said that if textbooks made their way into our public schools that said that the God is: _____, then I would be right there with you saying that that is wrong to do. Why would I protest that as (as if!) a scientific conclusion ? Well, because NONE of the I.D. science can possibly identify an intelligent designing universe creator by name and/or personal characteristics. A school textbook of that sort would be departing from science at some point and becoming a religious text. This should not happen. I seriously doubt that such textbooks, identifying God, would ever get into schools or be accepted in secular colleges. Don't you doubt that too, shunyadragon ? Are you at all worried ?




>

[ApologiaPhoenix]

ApologiaPhoenix

People start off unaligned, right? They then, having free will, can choose to align themselves.

So my question was: Why did God set up the system so we start unaligned? He is all powerful, so he is presumably capable of setting up the universe such that we are born aligned, right?

No. That's not what power can do. Power cannot force free love. For love to be what it is, it is to be chosen.

New question: Why did God curse us with free will, knowing that it would result in most of us going to hell?

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

To which I say this is concerning the ministry of Jesus to his hearers. Interpreters like B.B. Warfield said the same thing. Indeed, few did respond to the ministry of Jesus when it was going on. Rev. 7 meanwhile tells of a great multitude in Heaven no one can number.

Again, this is trying to reconcile the majority of people ending up in hell, with God being all-loving and all-powerful. If we accept he is not all-powerful, then no problem; he saves as many as he can, but is not capable of preventing most from going to hell. If he is not all-loving, then no problem; he saves the ones who stroke his ego, and the rest can (literally) go to hell. but an all-loving God would want to save everyone, and an all-powerful God would be able to.

No. An all-powerful God cannot force you to freely will. Again, I don't accept your premise that the majority end up in Hell.

So this again raises the question: Why curse us with free will?

So you would prefer forced servitude? I take it I won't ever hear you complaining about slavery in the OT then. Right?

A perfectly moral God would have the capability to do both good and evil, but would always choose to do good.

Moral God. What does this mean?

Here is an anology:

When Newton proposed his laws of motion, they explained a lot of things. Suddenly there was a law that described how things fell, but also explained the orbits of the planets and the moon. But one planet was anomalous. The orbit of Mercury did not fit. Scientists did not blame Mercury for that, they blamed the theory. They recognised that there was something wrong with Newton's laws of motion, and eventually those laws were replaced by relativity.

Correct.

Here we have a theory that there is a God who is all-loving and all-powerful. Sure, this explains many things, but as with the orbit of Mercury, there are some serious anomolies. I am not blaming God for those anamoloies, I am blaming the theory. I am recognising that there is somethung wrong with the theory that there is a God who is all-loving and all-powerful.

Yes. It's what's wrong with your understanding. That there is an end he must meet and he must do it through the means you've determined. I don't see this. I see him using the best means to get the desired end.

By the way, I am an atheist. I do not believe God exists. Why bother to find fault in an imaginery being?

For the same reason I find fault with Allah's character in Islam.

I thought we were discussing "natural evil" such as the recent earthquake in Haiti; see for example my post #60, which is about earthquakes (though not specifically the one in Haiti). Seems to me you switched the discussion around. This discussion was about the problem of natural evil; why events (such as the earthquake in Haiti) that cause great suffering happen.

Yes we were. I did not discuss a specific event. I cannot give a reason for a specific event. I can only give a general reason. I believe in God still because of independent reasons outside of the problem of evil and because of those, I believe there is a good reason that something is allowed and that is justified.

And if you think I haven't thought about the Haiti earthquake, head down to the Premier Christian Radio forum in the intervarsity section.

Hmm, I wonder what you understand love to be?

Seeking the good of the other.

For me, it implies wanting the very best for your loved one; to minimise their suffering and maximise their happiness.

And that would depend on your definition of happiness. What do you take happiness to be and where can it be found?

No, I think God does not exist. I am an atheist; atheists do not believe in God.

I know that very well, but his existence is assumed for the sake of argument in the Problem of Evil or else there is no argument.

I think these terrible things happen because there is no all-loving, all-powerful God watching over us to stop them happening.

If you were shown that such existed, would you believe there was an explanation for why these things happened?

First, can you prove that God does have a good reason, or do you just take this on faith? Even if you do not know what that reason is, could you suggest what it could be? If you could think of just one reason that it could be (and that holds up to scutiny), you will destroy my argument, even if that reason is not the right one.

That's not my burden. You're offering this as a defeater for God belief. I have stated above why I believe in a good God in the face of evil. It's up to you to show me why that is wrong. Since I believe in the resurrection, I believe he exists and thus accept he has a reason and if I don't know it, which I don't, well you've only proven that I'm not omniscient and if that was your goal, well done. I would have conceded it.

If the argument is to succeed however, you must demonstrate that there is no good reason. An inability on my part proves only my ignorance. An inability on your part shows that the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Let us suppose that God has some goal, X
To achive that goal, people suffer
God is omnipoent, so he can do anything.
Achieving goal X without suffering is something
Therefore God can achieve X without anyone suffering
Therefore suffering is not required to achive X
Therefore the suffering is needless
Therefore God chose for people to suffer needlessly

I disagree with point 3. I do not hold that God can do anything and I don't know of any classical theologian who accepts that definition of omnipotence.

Now all you have to do is find some X where the above logic fails.

No. I just showed I don't accept your premises.

Can you rationalise the suffering of everyone in every earthquake, every tsunami, every volcane, every lightning strike, every mudslide, avalache, flood, in that way? Seriously?

Can I? No. Nor did I say I could. I also don't accept the stance of rationalizing it. It assumes that there is no good reason for this to begin with.

The reality is that people die because of natural disasters (acts of God). Sure, the "wickedness of man" is a contributary factor in some cases, but not all. There are people who have suffered, people who have died, because of random "acts of god", not involving the wickness of man.

Your calling them acts of God does not mean they are. I have no reason to believe God is managing every earthquake, lightning bolt, tornado, etc. I say he allows, but he is not the efficient cause of each.

Does the fact that Haiti had a bad government really absolve God of all responsibility? How many of those who died had any choice in their government (where was that free will exactly)?

Yes. Our choices are limited by other people. That doesn't make our will less free. When I was growing up, I had my choices limited by my parents. Also, you've yet to show God has done anything wrong. I still don't accept that premise.

You call "love me or spend eternity in hell" being able to love freely?

False choice. It assumes our innocence before God. The better analogy is that we've been given a death sentence and God has offered us free pardon.

Free will is surely a curse if the result is most of humanity ends up in eternal suffering.

Asserted but not shown.

Are you at all empathic? How would you feel being in heaven while the majority of humanity suffers in hell? Would you feel sympathy, or just smug?

I would be in the eternal fellowship of the triune God whose happiness is in himself. Evil cannot overcome the joy of God.

Also, this isn't about empathy. This is about right and wrong. I'm looking at this purely from a logical point of view. I am not saying this in the context of a pastoral counselor, to which I would deal with someone personally suffering very differently.

Most of these things have been built into us by evolution. Consider two animals, identical, but one finds water refreshing, the other does not. The former will tend to stay hydrated and so in better condition, and able to last longer when suddenly water is scarce. The former will tend to out compete with the latter, and (if this is a genetic trait) the gene for finding water refreshing will dominate in the population. Same idea for reproduction. A man and woman who enjoy sex will tend to have a lot more babies than a man and woman who do not. The gene for enjoying sex spreads through the population. Flowers use colour to attract insects for pollination. Many animals use it to attract mates. Humans (and related primates) can see colour so we can more easily find food. Humans can only see three colurs (red, green and blue; everything else is a combination of those three). Most birds and a few fish can see four colours. I wonder why God created a much more colorful world for zebra fish than for us?

And again, a story is given, but is there any basis for this? Is there a tribe of humans somewhere or pre-human ancestors that did not find water refreshing? Do we have any documentation from them that they did not find sex enjoyable? Do we have any indication?

Also, are you telling me that it is true that water is refreshing and sex is enjoyable? If so, then I have to ask why that is. It might have helped us to survive, but that doesn't explain why it is that way when it would have been a necessity. In fact, even if you accept an evolutionary viewpoint, it doesn't do away with God. I can say God created it that way so we would survive.

Sorry, I have no idea how this comment relates to your previous question.

It was about doing good. You told me some cultures believe something is good. I don't care if they believe it is. I care about if it is good or not.

Again, how does this relate to your question about why people do good?

To do good assumes there is a good to be done.

Do you think all man are incapable of doing things that they do not perceive to be good? I think that that is wrong. I think people do things that they know are wrong, whether that is driving to fast, or adultery, or murdering someone to make some money. They know it is wrong, but they do it anyway because the end result is (or seems) beneficial.

Note I said they perceive it to be a good. The person commits adultery for the good of a better relationship or the pleasure of sex or both. The person murders for the good of money. All people do things only because they have a goal in mind of what is good. They are constantly in search of the good and the only reason you choose something is because of a perceived good.

Furthermore, if God has set people to desire him, where is the free will?

They can resist it, like you are.

No. ID as it is currently practiced is pseudo-science.

It makes three fundamental claims:

1. Specified complexity. This fails as science because Demski has failed to do anything with it. His single calculation considered the proteins of the bacterial flagellum coming together in one event, ignoring evolution. Further, it is a negative argument, claiming that if something cannot be explained by one theory, then Dembski's pet theory must be correct. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

Actually, it doesn't have to come together in one movement at all afaik. Theistic evolution is not incompatible with ID. Second, I would say that the specified complexity is the evidence just as Darwin himself requested.

2. Irredicible complexity (IC). This fails as science because Behe's claims about various systems have all been refuted - he just refuses to admit it. Further, it is a negative argument, claiming that if something cannot be explained by one theory, then Behe's pet theory must be correct. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

I've heard this charge, but I have not seen it backed.

3. Fine-tuning. ID offers one possible solution for fine-tuning, but there is nothing to suggest that the ID scenario is any more likely than any other.

Except implausibility of counter-theories.....

None of these claims amount to anything, and yet leading IDists claim that this is science. Further, it is documented that these people have a religious agenda for promoting ID.

And many people have a secular agenda for promoting naturalistic evolution. I don't give a darn about the agenda. I care about the evidence.

All that said, ID could be science. Disciplines such as forensics and archaeology prove that design detection can be scientific, and I see no reason why ID should not be approached in a similar manner. ID is not intrinsically pseudo-science, but ID as practiced today clearly is.

Fine. Then do tell how you think ID could be applied accurately to biology.

[Jaecp]

I have no idea what the wedge document says. I said that if textbooks made their way into our public schools that said that the God is: _____, then I would be right there with you saying that that is wrong to do. Why would I protest that as (as if!) a scientific conclusion ? Well, because NONE of the I.D. science can possibly identify an intelligent designing universe creator by name and/or personal characteristics. A school textbook of that sort would be departing from science at some point and becoming a religious text. This should not happen. I seriously doubt that such textbooks, identifying God, would ever get into schools or be accepted in secular colleges. Don't you doubt that too, shunyadragon ? Are you at all worried ?




>

I suggest you read it,

Here is the PDF,

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

It is hard to read in parts,

Here is a transcription, which lacks some of the pictures they used.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

Ghar, you really need to read this. It is a document, a fairly short one, written by people with an ulterior motive and the intention to hide this motive, deeply, in trying to undermine modern science. It is really serious stuff and I am worried when you gloss over it.

[gharfish]

Why should I get concerned (like you) and read it ? Come on. I mean, are textbooks that do identify God, following intelligent design arguments, going to be coming out in the public schools ? I don't think so.



>

[Jaecp]

Because it is tied to the core of ID,

Ghar, its written by people who agree with you religiously, by people who support the same arguments that you support. What possible hard could befall you from reading this document? I am actually kinda surprised that you hadn't read this before.

As for schoolbooks, the answer to that will become clear as you read the memo, seriously man, its too long to copy into a post and it is of central importance to the discussion that has arisen in this thread.

[gharfish]

Because it is tied to the core of ID,

Ghar, its written by people who agree with you religiously, by people who support the same arguments that you support. What possible hard could befall you from reading this document? I am actually kinda surprised that you hadn't read this before.

As for schoolbooks, the answer to that will become clear as you read the memo, seriously man, its too long to copy into a post and it is of central importance to the discussion that has arisen in this thread.

But the discussion was taken to arise there and my discussion was not ever from there. It was never about evolution for one thing and it was only about the design argument in those three essentials. I made this clear. No, I haven't ever read the wedge document and I do not know what it is. I didn't want or try! to talk about the ID movement and somebodys hope to introduce textbooks. Even though there are a number of Christians who are leading ID scientists, I say there will never be textbooks that say (after presenting design arguments) that the intelligent designer (God), boys and girls, is: _____ ! Seriously, how could they ?

What's so hard to get about me saying that there is some real honest-to-goodness science that does well support that there IS an "intelligent designer" universe-creating being (or beings working in concert) that most everyone simply and naturally calls God ?!


>

[technomage]

I didn't want or try! to talk about the ID movement and somebodys hope to introduce textbooks.

You cannot have one without the other, Ghar. Without the ID Movement, there is no ID. None.

What's so hard to get about me saying that there is some real honest-to-goodness science that does well support that there IS an "intelligent designer" universe-creating being (or beings working in concert) that most everyone simply and naturally calls God ?!

Because it's not true. You may honestly and sincerely believe it is true, and I do not accuse you of lying, but your sincerity does not make your statement true.

[gharfish]

You cannot have one without the other, Ghar. Without the ID Movement, there is no ID. None.

No, there can be "I.D." design argument science apart and standing on it's own...as science. Maybe you should tell me what your own understanding of the movement is and why the science of it can not be and exist without it - the movement!

Because it's not true. You may honestly and sincerely believe it is true, and I do not accuse you of lying, but your sincerity does not make your statement true.

Yes, I know. While I do think there are design arguments, like those three essentials, that do point to a universe creating being, you do not.


>