Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Reviewers have not been kind to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, professor of something called "the public understanding of science" at Oxford. Critics have found it to be the atheist's mirror image of Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism - long on in-your-face rhetoric and offensively dismissive of all those holding an opposing view.
Princeton University philosopher Thomas Nagel found Dawkins's "attempts at philosophy, along with a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak." Prof. Terry Eagleton began his London Review of Books critique: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Dawkins's "central argument" is that because every complex system must be created by an even more complex system, an intelligent designer would have had to be created by an even greater super-intellect.
New York Times reviewer Jim Holt described this argument as the equivalent of the child's question, "Mommy, who created God?"
Nagel provides the grounds for rejecting this supposed proof. People do not mean by God "a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world" but rather a Being outside the physical world - the "purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world."
He points out further that the same kind of problem Dawkins poses to the theory of design plagues evolutionary theory, of which Dawkins is the preeminent contemporary popularizer. Evolution depends on the existence of pre-existing genetic material - DNA - of incredible complexity, the existence of which cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
So who created DNA? Dawkins's response to this problem, writes Nagel, is "pure hand-waving" - speculation about billions of alternative universes and the like.
As a charter member of the Church of Darwin, Dawkins not only subscribes to evolutionary theory as the explanation for the morphology of living creatures, but to the sociobiologists' claim that evolution explains all human behavior. For sociobiologists, human development, like that of all other species, is the result of a ruthless struggle for existence. Genes seek to reproduce themselves and compete with one another in this regard. In the words of the best-known sociobiologist, Harvard's E.O. Wilson, "An organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA."
THAT PICTURE of human existence, argues the late Australian philosopher of science David Stove in Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution, constitutes a massive slander against the human race, as well as a distortion of reality.
The Darwinian account, for instance, flounders on widespread altruistic impulses that have always characterized humans in all places and times. Nor can it explain why some men act as heroes even though by doing so they risk their own lives and therefore their capacity to reproduce, or why societies should idealize altruism and heroism. How, from an evolutionary perspective, could such traits have developed or survived?
The traditional Darwinian answer is that altruism is but an illusion, or a veneer of civilization imposed upon our real natures. That answer fails to explain how that veneer could have come about in the first place. How could the first appeal to higher moral values have ever found an author or an audience? David Stove offers perhaps the most compelling reason for rejecting the views of those who deny the very existence of human altruism: "I am not a lunatic."
IN 1964, biologist W.D. Hamilton first expounded a theory explaining how much of what appears to us as altruism is merely genes' clever way of assuring the propagation of their type via relatives sharing that gene pool. The preeminent defender of Darwin - Dawkins - popularized this theory in The Selfish Gene.
Among the predictions Hamilton made is: "We expect to find that no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but that everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first cousins," because those choices result in a greater dissemination of a particular gene pool.
To which Stove responds: "Was an expectation more obviously false than this one ever held (let alone published) by any human being?" Throughout history, men have sacrificed themselves for those bearing no relationship to them, just as others have refused to do so for more than two brothers. Here is a supposedly scientific theory bearing no relationship to any empirical reality ever observed. Stove offers further commonsense objections: Parents act more altruistically toward their offspring than siblings toward one another, even though in each pair there is an overlap of half the genetic material. If Hamilton's theory were true, we should expect to find incest widespread. In fact, it is taboo. Finally, the theory is predicated on the dubious proposition that animals, or their genes, can tell a sibling from a cousin, and a cousin from other members of the same species.
SOCIOBIOLOGY, Stove demonstrates, is a religion and genes are its gods. In traditional religion, humans exist for the greater glory of God; in sociobiology, humans and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes. "We are... robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes," writes Dawkins. Like God, Dawkins's genes are purposeful agents, far smarter than man.
He describes how a certain cuckoo parasitically lays its eggs in the nest of the reed warbler, where the cuckoo young get more food by virtue of their wider mouths and brighter crests, as a process in which the cuckoo genes have tricked the reed warbler. Thus, for Dawkins, genes are capable of conceiving a strategy no man could have thought of and of putting into motion the complicated engineering necessary to execute that strategy.
Writing in 1979, Prof. R.D. Alexander made the bald assertion: "We are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact to use our lives, in production." And yet it is obvious that most of what we do has nothing to do with reproduction, and never more so than at the present, when large parts of the civilized world are becoming rapidly depopulated. Confronted with these obvious facts about human nature and behavior, sociobiologists respond by ascribing them to "errors of heredity."
As Stove tartly observes: "Because their theory of man is badly wrong, they say that man is badly wrong; that he incorporates many and grievous biological errors." But the one thing a scientific theory may never do, Stove observes, is "reprehend the facts."
It may observe them, or predict new facts to be discovered, but not criticize those before it. The only question that remains is: How could so many intelligent men say so many patently silly things? For Dawkins, the answer would no doubt be one of those evolutionary "misfires," such as that to which he attributes religious belief.
LOL!!! Shouldn't they rather just allow themselves to be selected OUT? For the good of the human race, of course? They're messing with evolution and natural selection right there themselves.
LOL. Time to join you.
Here are some areas where there doesn't appear to be much conflict between science and Scripture.
In the beginning... The big bang theory.
-The earth was *formless and void*-the proto earth and solar nebula theory
-Let there be light - light takes time to travel and a celestial body needs to be a certain mass to ignite so there would have been a time without light.
-God created man from the dust of the earth - Shaped from clay [origin of life]--http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515522/posts
- Eccles 1:6 Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along; and on its circular courses the wind returns. The circulating system of winds
The universe expanded - Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Evidence for Universe Expansion Found http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597606/posts
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Gravitation, magnetism, strong and weak molecular forces.
Strange, isn't it, how scientists keep making these *discoveries* only to find the Bible there thousands of years before them telling them things that the people of those days had no way of knowing. How would they have gained the knowledge? It's almost like somebody would have had to tell them or something...
§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom. The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows, how to repress the sentiments of strong indignation, in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject, (now, happily, for the most part abolished by recent enactments,) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man, in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation, and a deep sense of justice. "The second species," says he "of non-conformists, are those, who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists, and protestant dissenters; both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church; with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material, though erroneous, reasons; but many of the dissenters, upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or, (which is often the case,) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such, as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church; and, if this can be better effected, by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do; the disposal of offices being matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."
§ 1842. And again: "As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain, if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."
§ 1843. Of the English laws respecting papists, Montesquieu observes, that they are so rigorous, though not professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt, that can possibly be done in cold blood. To this just rebuke, (after citing it, and admitting its truth,) Mr. Justice Blackstone has no better reply to make, than that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigour; and, indeed, if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them. The meanest apologist of the worst enormities of a Roman emperor could not have shadowed out a defence more servile, or more unworthy of the dignity and spirit of a freeman. With one quotation more from the same authority, exemplifying the nature and objects of the English test laws, this subject may be dismissed. "In order the better to secure the established church against perils from nonconformists of all denominations, infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there are, however, two bulwarks erected, called the corporation and test-acts. By the former of which, no person can be legally elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he has received the sacrament of the Lord's supper according to the rights of the church of England; and he is also enjoined to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, at the same time, that he takes the oath of office; or, in default of either of these requisites, such election shall be void. The other, called the test-act, directs all officers, civil and military, to take the oaths, and make the declaration against transubstantiation, in any of the king's courts at Westminster, or at the quarter sessions, within six calendar months after their admission; and also within the same time to receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the church of England, in some public church immediately after divine service and sermon; and to deliver into court a certificate thereof signed by the minister and church-warden, and also to prove the same by two credible witnesses, upon forfeiture of 500l, and disability to hold the said office. And of much the same nature with these is the statute 7 Jac. I. c. 2., which permits no persons to be naturalized, or restored in blood, but such as undergo a like test; which test, having been removed in 1753, in favour of the Jews, was the next session of parliament restored again with some precipitation." It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.
it talks about under sea fountains as if they were common knowledge.
job 38 16 Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
gen 7:11 the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
prov 8:28
when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
"If evolution works so well then ".. why do Whales have feet? Why do we have a Pancreas? Why do have an appendix? Why is the Octopus eye better than ours? Why do we have wisdom teeth?"
Well obviously, Whales were once land animals, the Pancreas probably had a function, the Octopus eye evolved better than ours etc etc.
You know all of that is part of the unpredictable nature of evolution right?
Like the Marianas Trench? I wonder where they could have got a concept like that?
You mean besides producing something as useless as insulin?
Because its better more cogent more honest than the others.. and more logical.. Especially the main ones..
Which interpretation or translation of the Bible is "right"? Those scriptures that supposedly align with science are open to interpretation.
For instance:
"Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Gravitation, magnetism, strong and weak molecular forces."
You got gravitation, magnetism and molecular forces from that? HILARIOUS. If you are saying that the Hebrew creation story is closest to science, then excuse me while I burst out laughing. But are you saying that you accept the THE BIG BANG THEORY now? That is wonderful.
Is the old testament literal? AM I supposed to believe that Noah's Ark actually happened? Am I supposed to believe that men lived for 900 years? That Samson killed an army with a jawbone? What about Dinosaurs? Where do they fit in?
If all of these are fables, then that renders the whole book of Genesis unreliable. THe later books (Judges, Kings) are a mixture actual history and myth (like the Trojan War). How do I seperate fact from "parable" (myth)?
Why would God kill a guy for refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law (Onan)? Why did God authorize mass murder and slavery?
Why would a God, who never shows himself, expect you to believe him (whatever that means) under threat of eternal damnation? (The Hebrew God is kind of a jerk)
If I am going to believe on the Hebrew God, which sect should I believe in?
If "being saved" is so important why does god force the entire human race to make a a guess as to his existence? ANd then based on that guess, decides whether you go to heaven or hell?
And then there are similiar myths that appeared at that time like GILGAMESH and other Babylonian myths.
And then there's the Hindu belief:
"Hindus thus do not see much conflict between creation and evolution. An additional reason for this could also be the Hindu concept of cyclic time, such as yugas, or days of Brahma in approximately 4.3 billion year cycles (unlike the concept of linear time in many other religions). In fact, time is represented as Kaala Chakra — the Wheel of Time."
4.3 billion years? That sounds just about right.
All of this fails to put a DENT into the Theory of Evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it.
I misspoke on the Pancreas, forgive that error. It'll happen when its 15 against one.
But how can we survive without an Appendix, if it is so vital?
And why do whales have feet?
"Because its better more cogent more honest than the others.. and more logical.. Especially the main ones.."
How does one determine the honesty of a creation myth? THe more logical part is highly debatable.
You know of something else that holds things together?
If you are saying that the Hebrew creation story is closest to science, then excuse me while I burst out laughing.
No, I'm saying that science corroborates Scripture. So what parts of Scripture that science corroborates are wrong? I believe that the universe had a beginning as stated in the Bbile. Science came to that same conclusion thousands of years later, too, after Einstein tried to fudge it with his cosmologic constant to make it appear steady state. Was the Earth not formless and void? Do the winds not circulate? Did the universe not expand? How can you tell me Scripture is wrong about those things and just a bunch of myths and science is right, when science came to those same conclusions thousands of years later? Then you'd have to say science is wrong about those things happening.
Why would a God, who never shows himself, expect you to believe him (whatever that means) under threat of eternal damnation? (The Hebrew God is kind of a jerk)
He did show Himself and it's well recorded. His name is Jesus and He Himself tells you what you need to know about God. No problem there with having to *guess* about His existance.
Which interpretation or translation of the Bible is "right"?
Google it. There's plenty of material out there and you can find more than enough to answer your question. Or you can even find copies of the original manuscripts and translate them yourself. Then you don't have to bother with guessing, you can see for yourself.
All of this fails to put a DENT into the Theory of Evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it.
Probably because all those issues you raised weren't addressing the ToE. Duh!
Unpredictable? Then what use is it?
We can survive without arms, legs, eyes, ears, gall bladder, all manner of organs that are useful and make life a lot easier and more pleasant. Who ever said the appendix was that vital? Or wisdom teeth? Other animals have better eyes than ours. So what? So what's the point? Is that supposed to be argument against ID?
You may consider this a technicality, but it isn't. YHWH, The Word, The Logos, did indeed exist prior to the virgin birth. Jesus, Yeshua, the sinless son of man, did not. It is the sinless blood of our kinsman, indwelt by the Word, shed at the cross that paid the price of our redemption. If Adam were anything other than the first man, from whom all men are descended, then Yeshua could not have paid our debt with efficacy.
In the same concrete way Scripture corroborates these scientific theories, it also corroborates evolution:
Ecclesiastes 3:18
I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."
Amazing again that the Bible predicted the success of the theory of evolution thousands of years before Darwin.
You're entitled to an opinion; you're also entitled to make the choice that defines your eternal destination.
Your hateful words don't harm me, they harm you.
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.