Do Talking Snakes Exist?

by Rusty Entrekin

In this brief excerpt from the mockumentary Religulous, read how Bill Maher slyly entrapped unsuspecting Arkansas Senator Sen. Mark Pryor. My comments are interjected in blue.

Maher began with the...

Athanasius

I suspect we could go on with this for a very long time, with your rather tenacious skepticism driving you to challenge me on nearly everything I say, from the general to the specific.

When you make contenious claims around here you can expect to be challenged on them. I guess the nature of an editorial is that your are looking at a broader view, and so will touch on a much wider ranger of issues.

Of course, faith or disbelief in God is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting evidence pointing to God's existence, a little of which I have endeavored to present. It is also often a matter of subjective interpretation of the evidence based upon our underlying motives and consequent presuppositions.

To a degree yes, but not entirely. I came to the issue open-mindedly originally, though there must have been some background pre-conceptions I accept.

It is my belief that scientists tend to approach these questions with more of an open mind than creationists. Creationists start from the Bible, and go on from there, rejecting or re-interpreting anything that does not fit their own interpreation of the Bible. Scientists are rather more likely to follow the evidence, to overturn the established ideas (Darwin and Einstein are excellent examples of that). It is worth remembering that scientists have a wide range of presuppositions, coming from numerous faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists.

But even more critical than accepting the testimony of God's handiwork, is the matter of God making Himself known to each man individually. This is one reason why the Bible teaches that faith is not of ourselves - it is a gift freely offered by God to all who will accept it. If God is independent of the universe but it dependent upon Him, then God must reveal himself to man to be known by Him.

As the story of Doubting Thomas shows, some people need more evidence than others. I guess I am more like Thomas.

Originally posted by The Pixie

It is my belief that scientists tend to approach these questions with more of an open mind than creationists. Creationists start from the Bible, and go on from there, rejecting or re-interpreting anything that does not fit their own interpreation of the Bible. Scientists are rather more likely to follow the evidence, to overturn the established ideas (Darwin and Einstein are excellent examples of that). It is worth remembering that scientists have a wide range of presuppositions, coming from numerous faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists.
.

Theistic science, it is true, adopts the presupposition that there is a Creator as an underlying philosophy of science. Just as there are also those who adopt metaphysical naturalism as an approach to science, we ought to be free to adopt the philosophy of science we choose.

Unfortunately the predominant philosophy of science, methodological naturalism, prohibits theistic explanations in science. I think it inhibits many scientists from being as open as they might otherwise be to the idea of a Creator and stifles free inquiry into anything but naturalistic explanations in science. Agnostic science is the most open minded philosophy when it comes to origins, and I think the only possible government-sponsored approach that truly meets constitutional requirements. For a fuller discussion by me of this intriguing subject, see http://www.creationdefense.org/117.htm.

Originally posted by The Pixie

As the story of Doubting Thomas shows, some people need more evidence than others. I guess I am more like Thomas.

Then here's praying that like Thomas, you get all the evidence you need. Best wishes to you.