Replies

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter?

This question shows the essential identity between the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists: projection of one's wants onto scientific questions. In scientific inquiry, one takes what one gets, not what one wants. Asking whether one originated from non-personal matter is a biochemical question (not part of evolutionary theory however). Asking if one wants to think he originated from non-personal matter is question about feelings. The main objection of scientists to the Creationist-Post-Modern-Deconstructionist view of scientific inquiry is that CPMD's place feelings above evidence.

The athiestic scientist wants us to think that he has no vested interest in their NOT being a personal God to whom he is obligated. But he does. It is not good pretending that science proves there is no personal God - how could it? The evidence for thought behind what we see in the bees, the flowers is so obvious that to NOT believe there is thought behind what we see reveals a prejudice that is NOT scientific but arises from a rebel's heart. Yes, you can "Say" you have come to your "feelings" about their "NOT being a Creator" but those feelings are there because you DO NOT WANT to be responsible to a Creator. IN SCIENCE ONE TAKES WHAT ONE GETS???? SO you think you have come to NOT BELIEVING in a personal Creator through scientific cold pure logic do you? FEELINGS above evidence? I'll say you do. What sins of thought word and deed are you trying to not feel guilty for?