Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule they are commanded to do so the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
If it didn't happen by happenstance how did it happen?
By evolution from a simpler and less efficient enzyme. Mutation, followed by natural selection.
OK, the amino acids form (happenstance)
In the conditions believed to exist in pre-biotic Earth (very unlikely happenstance)
In proximity (happenstance)
To create a enzyme (happenstance)
Which survives, multiplies and evolves into something that uses polymers of nucleotides to code for polymers of amino acids (miracle).
It is irrational to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why not just believe in God?
Cytochrome c isn't an enzyme, BTW.
Which survives, multiplies and evolves into something that uses polymers of nucleotides to code for polymers of amino acids (miracle).
Humankind has historically considered that which they don't fully understand a miracle. As we learn more and more about nature, the space in which miracles can exist has been contracting alarmingly. If you're committed to looking for God in the gaps; doesn't it worry you that the gaps are narrowing?
The prize is obviously a scam. Their very 'discussion' is not a balanced survey of the literature, but rather a account of Yockey's very conbtroversial ideas. As I've written already, Yockey's contention that the Shannon entropy of a sequence has nothing to do with thermodynamic entropy is simply wrong; it's a portion of the thermodynamic entropy.
Creationists have cleverly adopted the scam of setting up a debate or prize with supposedly fair ground rules, challenging evolutionists; it's when you get into the details you discover the scam. I myself accepted a challenge, right here on FR, to debate some creationist sports-medicine type, with the only proviso that the debate be for $1 rather than the $10,000 he wanted. He refused. What am I to conclude from that?
Abiogenesis research is at a very early, exploratory stage. Most of the research at the moment focusses on exploring possibilities for the most primitive biological processes. Expecting a well-developed theory for the evolution of RNA at the moment is premature.
I posted a neat quote by Einstein on this topic in a thread titled Researchers Design And Build First Artificial Protein. It was at post 14.
Maybe you are rational :-)
Cytochrome c isn't an enzyme,
You're the one who suggested the evolution of an enzyme, remember. That amino acids form then create cytochrome c along with an enzyme which bond isn't helping your case.
Humankind has historically considered that which they don't fully understand a miracle.
True
As we learn more and more about nature, the space in which miracles can exist has been contracting .
True and this is good.
If you're committed to looking for God in the gaps; doesn't it worry you that the gaps are narrowing?
I am certain beyond any doubt that God exists in the gaps and elsewhere. I personally think the gaps have enlarged or solidified, anyway, over the last generation, but that's not the point.
I'd believe in God even if the steady-state universe had never been debunked or fruit flys were successfully bred into bees. I've seen the light, had the Amazing Grace expericence etc. etc. It's real. Jesus did rise. As wonderful and good the laws of physics are, and the study of them, it is not all there is.
I screwed up. I like it when it happens early in the month; it means I can be infallible until 1/1/04 :-)
Ive tried for hundreds of posts to explain carefully and with many sources that the issue is information, not chemistry. The focus of all these physicists and mathematicians and information theorists has been on the prescriptive information content of the DNA the instructions. This is what separates life from non-life, so they want a plausible theory for how those instructions might have arisen from non-life.
I had hoped this line of inquiry would be important to the biologists and chemists on this forum, even though Pattee warned that such professionals would not be interested.
But to some of us, it is essential to determine how the original bootstrap of instructions arose, because if evolution is viewed as cellular automata (autonomous biological self-organizing complexity) - then it potentially resolves a host of enigmas which fuel the crevo debates: the lack of new phyla after the Cambrian explosion, the seemingly parallel evolution of such things as eyeness across phyla, the rise of functional complexity, the finite timeline of the geological record.
Thank you so much for the vigorous debate, RWP!
Any new technique has to prove itself. It proves itself by bringing new insight to a field, and making new predictions that could not be derived from existing methods. Information theory has, quite simply, not done this in biology or chemistry. When it proves itself useful, it will attract interest.
Couple that with the clear agenda of people like Yockey and Dembski, and the lack of respect for this branch of mathematics is heightened.
Thank you for your e-mail this morning. I am well thank you and I hope the same for you.
I have been aware for some time that creationists have cited my work to support their views. This may be because I have shown in my publications and in my book that materialist-reductionist scenarios of formation of life by chance, self-organization or epitaxy on clay particles can not form a genome in a prebiotic soup. There is no geological evidence that a primeval soup ever existed. I quote the Bible, especially Hebrews 11:1, when I think it appropriate but I also quote other literature as well.
[...]
Both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable [W. W. Norton & Co. 1996] and Dembski's book distort the theory of probability.
There is nothing in my publications that indicates I support Intelligent Design.
My question now to ID'ers is whether they can justify their appeal to Hubert Yockey's work and, if they cannot, if such appeals will end? IMHO, this is very unfair to Hubert.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"There is no geological evidence that a primeval soup ever existed."
What does he know? He's just not looking hard enough!
Good. That means I get a "one free screw-up" card. And I do need them on occasion. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.