Replies

Note to materialists who may read this: I can't prove what I believe, and think that if some intelligence did prove that what my faith tells me, none of us would be smart enough to understand it.

>>To say that the nonmaterial evolved from matter requires a materialistic explaination which I have not yet heard. If you can please explain.<<

I can speak only for myself. I believe that physical things are real, and are related to some forms of life in some way that humans are incapable of understanding, at least with their present brains and senses. I say "some forms of life" because there could exist forms of life that do not need what we call a "body."

I don't believe that life evolves from, or can be created by, a clever arrangement of organic chemicals. I think that life can manifest itself in "bodies," but bodies are not the living beings. I don't see why bodies can't "evolve" to allow a different form of life (sometimes a higher form, sometimes lower, sometimes just different) to manifest itself somehow in the evolved body. Whether the life form evolved into a different lifeform before the matter evolved, or the pre-existing life form which has always existed, manifested itself in the evolved body, who knows? In neither case, according to what I believe, would life evolve from matter.

Here I can just hear the gears turning in a materialist mind. "Why all this speculation? The theory that life began from a certain arrangement of matter would work just as well, and is much simpler." One answer is, call it intuition. I just think it's appallingly arrogant to think that life is that simple. A theory that God created everything would be even simpler.

I think science may be correct about many aspects of evolution, but I think it's likely that science will have a different view of evolution, and many other things, a thousand years from now. And I hope that some day science will have a humbler view of its own capabilities, and perhaps "evolve" into something that has a greater respect for life. Some scientists do believe in God, and have that humility I am speaking of.

I could say that materialists do not have that humility I mentioned, but I suppose it's possible that some know that there is a lot we do not understand about life, but believe that the things we don't know could be defined as "physical." For example, could there be a materialist who believed that God or angels are composed of something physical, even if that substance is not known to current science?

I don't believe that life evolves from, or can be created by, a clever arrangement of organic chemicals.

You may not, but the naturalist materialist believes that life evolved from matter ordered by natural laws and nothing else. If matter gives rise to nonmatter please explain how this happens. What is the matter which makes up the theory referred to as evolution,.. or thought...what type of matter is thought made of?

I don't follow most of your other musings, but, but I will respond to your comment regarding science by saying, that most of scientific inquiry is done honestly and with a desire to discover an order imposed upon this universe. There are agendas, however, which are observed and need to be addressed, and materialist evolutionary theory is one that needs to be held accountable to the truth. Mr.Stein was only asking questions, mostly regarding academic freedom, and the responses he got, along with many who were the victim of the wall of scientific political correctness deserve an answer in a constitutional republic which hold certain truths to be self evident. Following the evidence and analysis, even if it results in the wrong conclusions is the methodology which has favored the assent of scientific understanding since its beginning. That certain power players demand conformity to their world view has nothing to do with science and everything to do with secular proselyzation.