A question for an anti-Evolutionist

Whether life developed by evolution or not isn't the point at all.

Either way of creation would be equally great.

My point is not to those like yourself, who believe a creator started everything by setting natural laws in motion to bring about life as we see it.

My point is those who believe that life came into being without a creator; they are far more faithful in their belief system. Abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the law of biogenesis, which states factually that life comes from life. Life doesn't come from non-life.

Whether life developed by evolution or not isn't the point at all. The point is it takes more faith to believe life spontaneously appeared, than it does to believe a creator had a hand in it.

My point is those who believe that life came into being without a creator; they are far more faithful in their belief system. Abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the law of biogenesis, which states factually that life comes from life. Life doesn't come from non-life.

Whether life developed by evolution or not isn't the point at all. The point is it takes more faith to believe life spontaneously appeared, than it does to believe a creator had a hand in it.

Faith in science is the same as faith in God.

Like many things, The size or shape of your faith doesn't matter. It's all in how you handle it.

That quite untrue. What a clever little sex joke though.

"There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain

The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.

Such a conception of faith treats belief in all non-empirical statements as acts of faith. Thus, belief in the external world, belief in the law of causality, or even fundamental principles of logic such as the principle of contradiction or the law of the excluded middle, would be acts of faith on this view. There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction. Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions of all varieties, and all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith.

Well, since I can't find anybody who believes in creationism, I guess I'll hijack my own thread and respond to you. If I may. (I've just read a bunch of your posts and you seem very level-headed). So, in the spirit of inquiry:

Each of your sentences gets me thinking. Regarding Nature and Physics:

It's certainly possible that God created the universe and the laws of physics, designing them to allow for the evolution of intelligent life (and they do seem miraculously tuned to that specific end -- so there's one piece of evidence for God right there). That would be pretty a pretty awe-inspiring achievement.

It's also possible that God breaks the laws every now and then. After all, just because something happens the same way a thousand times in a row doesn't mean it will happen that way again. From the scientific perspective, we're going to assume not (but that is an issue of faith).

However, from the theological perspective it seems to me just as suspect: God is omnipotent: why would we assume that the Universe was created flawed, and then patched up to allow for our existence?

With regard to Magic:

I hear this word used quite casually. What does it mean? If it means something which we can't explain, we're surrounded by it. If it means something which is, by definition, impossible, then saying that religion is magic (again, by definition!) and therefore impossible is an empty platitude.

The word magic is used like a battle-hammer by the pro-science posters. I would be intrigued if someone were willing to get rigorous about its meaning.

Finally, what is easier to believe in:

You, at least, seem to find it easier to believe in science than magic; or maybe I'm wrong and you have struggled with the issue.

Instead, I would suggest that what's going on here is that it's easier to believe in what you already believe in than to change beliefs. None of us is exempt from this particular character flaw.

Everybody filters and weighs the evidence according to how well it supports our world-view. Did you ever hear the adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Sounds good; but aren't "extraordinary claims" different for everyone; and aren't they just those claims which challenge a person's world-view?

Got to get back to exercising. I look forward to any thoughtful response.

--Allie

Ok, well as long as you know its no different then believing in a magic pink unicorn creating the universe then it's all good to me.

If we examine Dr. Spencer's claims, this should become obvious. He claims that the statement 'there is no God and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes' is a statement of faith. First, we must note that there are three distinct statements here. One, 'there is no God'. Two, 'there can't be a god'. And three, 'everything evolved from purely natural processes'. Dr. Spencer implies that each of these claims is on par with such statements as 'there is a God', 'Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior', 'Jesus' mother was a virgin', 'a piece of bread may have the substance of Jesus Christ's physical body and blood', 'God is one being comprised of three persons', etc.

The statement 'there cannot be a god' is clearly not an empirical statement, but a conceptual one. Anyone who would make such a claim would make it by arguing that a particular concept of god contains contradictions, and so is meaningless. For example, to believe that 'some squares are circular' seems to be a logical contradiction. Circles and squares are defined so as to imply that circles can't be square and squares can't be circles. James Rachels, for one, has argued that god is impossible, but at best his argument shows that the concepts of an all-powerful God and one who demands worship from His creations are contradictory. The concept of worship, Rachels argues, is inconsistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian God concept.

Some people need to believe in magic, as the alternative is either too painful, or too incomprehensible.

Umm no. For many of those people, such as myself, it's not a matter of the alternative being an issue. It's simply experience dictating that the alternative, the lack of magic or an omnipresent being, is not true. That's up to each person's own experience. I'm not sure why that offends you so much.

I'm curious; why did my stating my opinion come across as being offended?

So how did your experience dictate to you that a Universe without magic or omnipresent being is not true?

Heck, I'm just just trying to unravel the above statement to figure out which side of the debate it favors....

Double negatives suck...

Umm no. For many of those people, such as myself, it's not a matter of the alternative being an issue. It's simply experience dictating that the alternative, the lack of magic or an omnipresent being, is not true. That's up to each person's own experience. I'm not sure why that offends you so much.

created the entire Earth, Solar System, and Universe in a week? ... assuming it was all made by a big person with a beard.

Creating the Earth in a day is self-contradictory. A day is the time it takes the Earth to rotate. It has no meaning until the creation is complete. Do you think that notion is over the head of the person that wrote Genesis?

Yes. According to the author, God created light and separated light from darkness and day from night on the first day, but he doesn't create the light producing objects until day four.

Even working from a rationalist perspective, isn't it more likely that Genesis was intended as poetry than that the early Jews let an imbecile write their holy scriptures?

here's my 2 cents worth...

Hiro raises a good point. What has happened directly to you, in your life, that has led you to absolutely believe that a mythical being created the entire Earth, Solar System, and Universe in a week? Have you got any proof or are you just assuming it because it's easier?

I'd never attempt to force someone to snap out of a certain frame of mind if they're comfortable, but I've got to say, seeing the world from an atheistic angle is an amazing experience. I think it makes you appreciate how lucky we are to be here, and how beautiful the universe is, more than assuming it was all made by a big person with a beard.

Even working from a rationalist perspective, isn't it more likely that Genesis was intended as poetry than that the early Jews let an imbecile write their holy scriptures?

The strongest difference I've seen with people of a Pagan path, such as myself, and people who are "aggressively" Atheist or simply Christian, is that the Pagans only need their own experience to be happy with their faith, and respect others who feel the same way. The latter two groups seem to require that others prove their beliefs in order for them to be validated.