Replies

One part science and one part religion... Stir.

Add your own spices.

"Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, says Calvin, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity displayed in our belief in the existence of other persons, or an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is in an epistemically defective position-rather like someone who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks that she is a cleverly constructed robot that has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness. Thus the believer... reverses---Freud(darwin) and Marx claiming that what they(atheist) see as sickness(God) is really health and what they see as health(atheism) is really sickness(psychosis)."

In this day and age, anyone who still believes in a Creator who went about making and intervening in this world according to Scriptures ought to ask themselves why they believe the Judeo-Christian version over the Hindu one? Why don't they instead believe in reincarnation like the Tibetan Buddhists? Why don’t they believe in getting 72 virgins if they die for their cause? Others do! Most Creationists supposedly, seriously weighing the physical evidence won't challenge the inconsistencies and contradictions of their acquire beliefs. Instead they look for weaknesses that appeal to them in present theories. One comes to mind. They claim "Punctuated Equilibrium" or the lack of intermediate fossils of evolving species to fill in the gaps between those discovered is proof that Evolution is seriously flawed. Apparently, their logic is you can't fit the pieces of the puzzle together until the puzzle is together. It's always circular reasoning that supports their beliefs or non beliefs.

The more extensively and deeper one looks, the less the Universe looks designed. It just looks adequate.

Could it be the evolutionists who are being irrational?

It usually is.

Some useful references:

Major Scientific Problems with Evolution

EvolUSham dot Com

Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution

The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist

Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.

Creation and Intelligent Design Links

Evolutionist Censorship Etc.

Catastrophism

Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.

Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places

Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.

Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.

Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities

Whole books online

Blind Atheist

I do have another question regarding the assessment, or acknowledgment, that the world looks designed. If it looks designed, it could be equally explained by either the unconscious "design" of natural selection, as the author argues, or the conscious design of a Creator. If someone looks at the natural realm and observes that it looks designed but thinks that it can be accounted for by natural selection, then they are identifying empirical equivalency between two different explanations. Empirical equivalency means the observable data can be explained by two alternatives equally. In this case, the observation of design can be attributed to natural selection or conscious design. The evidence is equal for both. That's what it means to say that the world looks designed but natural selection can account for it. My question is, why opt for the evolutionary explanation if there are two different explanations that will equally do the job?

Wellllll... A sufficiently powerful & intelligent being could indeed magically create all the fossils in the world and place them in such a way as to make things look like it had all evolved. He could also have created the whole universe Last Thursday, complete with our false memories of time before that, etc. etc. ad absurdum. The Invisible Diabolically Subtle Trickster hypothesis is always an option, in any scientific question.

That, of course, explains nothing. But Koukl then claims he has independent evidence that there really is such a magical God-person out there. Unfortunately he forgot to actually tell us what that evidence was. Must've been an oversight.

Oh please tell me that this Koukl guy just forgot the </sarcasm> tags because I can't believe that he's serious. Has he ever heard of methodological naturalism?
Or is he really that dense to propose that if you have a natural and a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon then you should pick the supernatural one?

Sheesh, this guy should try Last Thursdayism.

Designed by Natural Selection

Winnowed by natural selection is more like it.

What is the compelling evidence that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? Frankly, I know of none.

Frankly, you seem to think that "Occam's Razor" is the brand name of the weapons used by the 9-11 terrorists.