God in His creation.

[Lisa]

The Bible tells us that the Lord is visible even in His creation. I learn concepts and am horrible with exact scripture references. Can you scholars help me out here? I see God in His creation all of the time. Ever notice the incredible varierty of color and beauty in the birds or the flowers. Although similar they are all different. Shape, color, size, behavior each is unique and fascinating in its own way. For me the ultimate in the Lord's creation and complexity is a bug. Yes, I'm weird that way. I like bugs, especially bottom dwelling stream instects (Macrobenthic insects). It is amazing how complex these things are; every leg has numerous joints, their mouths have numerous moving parts, and the immature stage ussually looks radically different from the adult. At the genus level identification may be determined by the size of a "hair", the prescence of a "thumb" on a mouth part, or the location and shape of a hard skeletal plate (sclerite). When even these "simple" things are so complex how can evolution even be considered? A random beneficial mutation? Since when? How/where do you see the Lord in his creation?

[DENNY]

I was surprised by Jim's comment since I have always welcomed his discussion on all the issues. The comment he was referring to that I didn't allow posted simply contained a lot of falsehoods about my argument. He had banned me from his site prior to this exchange anyway so it wasn't relevant.

Jim assumes a very narrow view of science. He will only accept methodological naturalism as well as uniformitarism in his approach to science. There are many other interpretations of the evidence; however, as with most atheists, he has simply closed him mind to all the options available.

Genesis 1 is an interesting chapter because it really maps out a process of Creation that seems to follow an evolutionary model. You start with water, then organic life, then sea life, then birds, then land animals. The Genome also shows large leaps between kinds with varieties of kinds being closely related in the Genome.

I really believe that the Genome itself demonstrates a common designer and the signature of God is in the Genome which has a distinct commanality within a kind with slight variations being shown among a species of the same kind.

While Theistic evolution is always a possibility, the Scripture seems to indicate that God made each kind which then appears to have adapted to its environment (reflecting the diversity in nature).

We don't have any significant evidence of movement between kinds that happened by a slow gradual process over long period of times. The fossil record only has a few so-called claimed transitional fossils; however, without the biology that hung on the fossils, we really don't know how similar or different these animals were. In reality, there should be millions of transitional fossils; however, they just do not exist.

The Smithsonian has 50 million fossils; however, only a handful are considered transitional fossils which is very inconsistent with the theory of evolution. We should actually have more transitional fossils than actual fossils of animals that are currently recognized as being alive now.

While Christians can always move to Theistic evolution, it just appears that all the evidence when considered does not support macro evolutionary changes. The evidence only seems to support something more akin to the literal reading of Genesis 1.

However, I think you are right to believe that you don't get mankind from a blind explosion. This belief takes a leap of faith that is much greater than a belief in God. Jim seems to think that an explosion of energy somehow leads us to human life; however, we don't have any evidence for abiogenesis or for macro-evolution taking place. We simply have alot of the godless making conjectures and speculating at this point.

If you sit back and take a look at the big picture, a rational person will conclude that God exists. While everyone agrees that mircroevolution takes place, we don't have any demonstration that macro evolution (jumps between kinds) takes place in nature.

We are currently experiencing something in America called Scientific Fascism. If you don't accept the evolutionary model, you can be expected to be punished by being denied grants, etc... It is called viewpoint discrimination. When you have a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian and 93% of scientist are Darwinian, you can rest assured that we have a type of Scientific Fascism in play at the scientific level. The latest revelations of Climategate illustrate what Darwinians are doing to exclude and silence their opponents. ID proponents complain about this current scientific structure on a regular basis.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

Jim stated, "it was my intention to point out that abiogenesis, as an example area of the study into origins, is not based upon a merely "atheistic" hunch, but is an established area of legitimate study which produces falsifiable results—which should be of a great deal of interest to anyone, religious or otherwise, who wishes to delve deeper into the question of how cells which would become life on Earth originated"

I certainly support the study as all Christians support scientific inquiry; however, before abiogenesis can be falsified, it first has to be verified. Abiogenesis is clearly a work in process and a valid one. The problem with Darwinian folks though is that they lack morality. If you have ever seen the inside of the cell, you would immediately recognize that it is a very complicated system that defies simple explanation. The fact that Dawkins goes around claiming they have almost created life from non-life is clearly dishonest propaganda on his part which causes Christians in general to distrust any conclusions he comes to. We all saw what happened with climate gate and all Christians know Darwinians horrific methods to censor their critics.

We really need a much more open system in science that does not assume one set of assumptions as valid inquiry. While methodological naturalism hold one interpretation, we really shouldn't limit science to simply one method which sits on unjustified assumptions. In fact, it limits the realm of scientific inquiry and funnels all the money into a system that has become a propaganda machine.

When you have 93% of scientists claiming to be agnostic or atheists in a clearly overwhelming Christian country, you know that scientific fascism is at work. Science should never demand a lockstep militant orthodoxy that censors and punishes everyone who disagrees with them. We have all heard the Creationists as well as the Intelligent Design folks give testimony to the viewpoint discrimination that currently exist.

Our current system is not one that should be trusted and that really is the bottom line. We have a huge number of examples where Darwinians have falsified information, suppress information and censor data that does not agree with their preconceived assumptions about science. All Christians accept science that can be demonstrated; however, the militancy that currently affect the scientific community is directly related to avoiding being punished by a community that is biased and engages in open discrimination against their critics. The most recent is not even allowing the Intelligent Design folks to show a movie at a public institution that is suppose to promote scientic inquiry

When a number of scientists signed the Dissent from Darwin. Darwinians literally went around persecuting those folks trying to force some to recant. This just should not be happening on an issue like Darwinian evolution that has not been demonstrated and is merely conjecture based on evidence that can be interpreted many different ways.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

The Darwinians have once again manipulated the data and have been caught. Richard Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who is attempting to demonstrate Darwinian evolution. He came up with a computer simulation to discredit Intelligent Design. Lenski has been caught manipulating the data by front loading the simulation.

Is anyone surprised? Darwinian simply lack the necessary morality to do honest science which means they need critics.

You can check out the story here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/winston_ewert_william_dembski....

[Lisa]

Hey Wow! That's some interesting reading! Go for it! It's great to see real issues being brought out for thought. What a fun way to show both sides.

First things first. Let's stop accusing one another of being without morals. I know, I know there are things that show a lack of morality... However, lets keep this to the sharing of information, knowledge and resources.

Luminary, I love the angels you bring to a discussion. Christians believe evolution...not accepted. Of course not! They would get mowed down by other Christians so seldom speak up. I think because evolution requires that many things come from one original kind it cannot be. Genesis appears to show that many types were created simutaneously. There is some good reading on the topic. Don't remember titles and authors so need to do some digging. Yes sometimes we do argue for the sake of arguing over stuff that may not matter.

Jim, even you accept mutation from type to type only on a bacterial level? Could there be a hole in your argument?

What if the lightening that allowed those RNA and DNA building blocks to form sparked when God spoke the earth into existence? Could parts of both views be right? Could we, as Luminay believes, be splitting hairs over foolish things? Are we pulling hair out over the How and missing the WHY? Science is not designed to answer the How. Could both our views of the How be too narrow?


Umm...the pattern used for taxonomy and nomenclature is high school biology. Saw it presented long ago even in the out dated texts found in the rural High School I attended. Frankly think it is mans tempt to organize something complex into a neat package for easy understanding. If Genetics backs it up. then the orignal workers did a good job.

Cell complex? You betcha. Completely fascinating too. It was a professor's comment regarding the complexity of a cell that got me back to pondering my then unused faith. Somewhere in my posts I have already given the quote. Going to make you hunt to find it....feel free to comment on anything you find intersting while you're at it just stay on topic.

Enjoy yourselves,
Lisa

[DENNY]

Lisa,

I think you have to call into question the morality of the godless. By definition, they don't believe in absolutes and only believe in a form of consequentialism.

Currently 93% of "scientists" working the field of biology are atheists or agnostic. Since our country is overwhelming Christian, the only explanation for this lockstep mentality is scientific fascism which is also immoral. Everyone knows that scientists work under the gun. If they fail to conform to the modern day system, they are fired, denied tenure, don't get their work published, denied grant money and mocked by those who control the system.

Creationists, Intelligent Design, and now Climate Gate skepics are all complaining about the scientific fascism that currently exists. I honestly don't believe we can argue that godless folks are moral when they have a pattern of immoral behavior which manipulates data, suppresses data, cherry-picks data and even destroys data while ridiculing everyone who questions them. Dawkins argues that his critics ought to be ridiculed which is the climatic hypocrisy of a scientist. A real scientist welcomes criticism; however, Dawkins says that skeptics should be mocked. I personally don't believe that you can put a non-Christian in charge of any scientific endeavor because they are not able to rise above the criticism and resorting to mocking those who disagree with them.

Climate Gate demonstrates beyond all shadow of a doubt that the science was junk based on speculation rather than science. Darwinian evolution is the same junk science. The current system only allows methodological naturalism combined with uniformitarian acceptance which is only one narrow view of science out of many other competing systems.

In fact, Jim was less than honest in his attack on me. He tried to make it look liked he backed me up into a corner which he never has. I simply took his own words and demonstrated how even Jim longs for the love of God. The love of God is something that Jim wants in his life. The love of God will be end result of his search for truth. You can check out the link here.

http://zdenny.com/?p=1659

Here is another critique of mine of Jim's anthropic argument:
http://zdenny.com/?p=967

[Lisa]

I used to work with some of those atheist scientists as a technician. They of course did things in their personal lives that are amoral. They were not Christian and acted like it. I did not, however, find reason to accuse that group of bad science. That does not mean it does not happen. I know it does. I do think though that we need to be careful not to put all scientists in one box.

[luminary2009]

Lisa, evolution does not rule out the simultaneous development of different species. You know it's interesting that there is an assumption (and even in "scientific" discussions) that evolution requires that there was one original organism from which all else has evolved. This must not be the case at all. Simultaneous development of life is certainly possible and, in all likelihood, was a necessity.

I think it also helps to remember that evolution, first of all, represented that species evolve and varies over time according to its surroundings and by way of mutations. This aspect of evolution is commonly accepted nowadays and continues to be fully visible within each of our life times as we see species of trees, plants, and animals adapt (and humans even facilitate by cross-breeding of animals and via genetically modifying plants and animals).

That one species evolved into another (the real challenge of evolution for many Christians) also appears to be gathering some evidence as to its viability by way of new archaeological digs and via DNA and epigenomic findings. Time will tell, however, as there is still debate around some findings.

For me to say evolution is not possible, puts the limits of human understanding on God's power. What I think we may certainly be overlooking in a discussion like this (both scientifically and religiously) is that God or the Life Force, as one may choose to say, is inherent in all of creation. Thus life, as we understand it on plant Earth, could certainly have evolved in multiple simultaneous forms and fashions and in a variety of times.

One other thought... the description of the creation or evolution of species as described in Genesis does not have to be interpreted as simultaneous. We are merely told that God created all of the life forms on the planet during the fifth creative period (the fifth day). Over what period of time and in what manner is not specified. This can certainly be seen to correlate with what many scientists see as the time period in which life did appear on the planet.

My main thought on this topic is that we collaborate between religion and science; that we not attempt to limit God; that we not paint ourselves into unnecessary corners; and that we not credit to our own knowledge (scientific or religious) too much understanding since we are so severely limited in terms of what we actually know.

Lisa said:

Hey Wow! That's some interesting reading! Go for it! It's great to see real issues being brought out for thought. What a fun way to show both sides.

First things first. Let's stop accusing one another of being without morals. I know, I know there are things that show a lack of morality... However, lets keep this to the sharing of information, knowledge and resources.

Luminary, I love the angels you bring to a discussion. Christians believe evolution...not accepted. Of course not! They would get mowed down by other Christians so seldom speak up. I think because evolution requires that many things come from one original kind it cannot be. Genesis appears to show that many types were created simutaneously. There is some good reading on the topic. Don't remember titles and authors so need to do some digging. Yes sometimes we do argue for the sake of arguing over stuff that may not matter.

Jim, even you accept mutation from type to type only on a bacterial level? Could there be a hole in your argument?

What if the lightening that allowed those RNA and DNA building blocks to form sparked when God spoke the earth into existence? Could parts of both views be right? Could we, as Luminay believes, be splitting hairs over foolish things? Are we pulling hair out over the How and missing the WHY? Science is not designed to answer the How. Could both our views of the How be too narrow?


Umm...the pattern used for taxonomy and nomenclature is high school biology. Saw it presented long ago even in the out dated texts found in the rural High School I attended. Frankly think it is mans tempt to organize something complex into a neat package for easy understanding. If Genetics backs it up. then the orignal workers did a good job.

Cell complex? You betcha. Completely fascinating too. It was a professor's comment regarding the complexity of a cell that got me back to pondering my then unused faith. Somewhere in my posts I have already given the quote. Going to make you hunt to find it....feel free to comment on anything you find intersting while you're at it just stay on topic.

Enjoy yourselves,
Lisa

[luminary2009]

Jim,

As you've pointed out, hiding from the truth, regardless of which side of a discussion we may be on, is disabling. It's unfortunate that this happens (both in the world of science as people dispute new paradigms or fight for grants or pretend that what we sometimes deem as evidence can be mis-categorized; or in the world of religion when we fear that the truth will somehow undermine our faith and thus violate our own standards to "protect" ourselves from it).

I'm a big believer in our collaborative search for the truth and hold out what is perhaps an unreasonable hope that in digging even more deeply into the nature of our universe and its origins and our origins on this planet that we can find truths even more amazing than we can currently fathom. For Christians it would be helpful for us to remember that it was Jesus, after all, who said, "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

In the same way I encourage religious believers to have the faith and courage to look deeply into the findings of science (because I do believe they'll find God there too), I always invite people of science who may not be religious to look deeply into the world of Spirit because I believe that the mysteries of science are there too.

Ultimately, in the years to come, it's my hope and prayer that we'll reunite the worlds of science and religion because the collaborative study of the seen and unseen will get us so much closer to understanding the depth of our existence than either will do on its own.

Much peace and prosperity to you!


Jim Gardner said:

"That one species evolved into another (the real challenge of evolution for many Christians) also appears to be gathering some evidence as to its viability by way of new archaeological digs and via DNA and epigenomic findings. Time will tell, however, as there is still debate around some findings."

I agree with the general theme of your reply here, luminary2009—but I would just add that we have been WAY beyond gathering "some evidence" for several decades now. There is, in fact, an abundance of mutually corroborative, independently acquired data from every field of scientific study you have listed here and my more besides.

I think the real challenge we face in explaining this to people who are being actively deceived into believing that intellectual honesty and religious faith are non-overlapping magisteria; forced to adopt the many mistruths which are propagated about evolution—isn't made any easier by the very fact there is so much data on the side of natural selection, in comparison to the complete lack of data on the creationist side of things, that this almost makes it appear as if science is deliberately ignoring the claims of those who hold religious views; or that science is somehow holding back information which might corroborate the truth-claims of creationism's most well known supporters, like Michael Behe and The Discovery Institute, for example.

Raising awareness of the fact that any such attempt to bury genuinely new data is not only made impossible by the self-same system of peer review which creationists refuse to understand—and the additional spur from intellectual competition both in academia and private industry—we still nevertheless find ourselves dealing with the anti-science movement's insistence upon being shown evidence which, in reality, they have been shown thousands of times before—which they simply refuse to acknowledge.

Having this explained time and time again must get tiring for certain armchair apologists. ZDenny's reply above, for example, is a virtual carbon copy of something she posted to my blog 6 months ago, which I then spent weeks and weeks attempting to explain to her, only to then find that on her own site she was posting non-linked (ping back disabled) articles which were entirely contradictory of everything I had taken the time to clearly and calmly explain to her. She even included some of the same phrases and British English spellings I had used in my original correspondence, as if she had simply cut and paste whole sections of text—altering the general gist of what was said to suite her pre-existing opinion rather than acknowledge the facts I had taken the time to present.

This constant up-hill slog for people like myself, who simply want to explain what a wonderful world of discovery and awe people are missing out on, by settling themselves with half-baked ideas that have literally been debunked hundreds and hundreds of times before, doesn't get any easier—but I'll never stop trying.

By way of an example of the kind of thing we're up against, here is an excerpt from the closing statements in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, presided over by Bush appointed ultra conservative Judge John Edward Jones III, who said:

“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

To which the tax exempt Discovery Institute, who relies on donations from extreme rightwing militant evangelical front-groups replied:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

[DENNY]

I think it is important to realize that Jim is important to the Lord. I have been praying for him for months now as the Lord placed him on my heart. His atheism is rooted in his idea of Darwinian evolution which he believes justifies atheism; however, even Darwinian evolution would be a design if it were true. Darwinian evolution does not even justify atheism.

The motive behind Jim's evangelism is spiritual. There is no rational reason to explain why a person would believe in Darwinian evolution. The theory adds nothing to our existence. In addition, it is not even helpful to people involved in science. Since Darwinian evolution in theory takes millions of years to even make a difference, it is a theory that has no practical use to us at all!

Since Darwinian evolution has no practical use, it really does not belong in the world of science. Since it has never been observed or demonstrated, Darwinian evolution is as useful as knowing that your great-great Grandpa wore socks. It is information that is pretty useless!

The fact is that the data can be interpreted in many different ways. It is important to realize that no one was there and no one saw what took place in the past. Since Darwinian evolution cannot be observed or demonstrated, it really is simply a useless idea that has no relevance to our world today.

In essence, Darwinian evolution only provides a model based on assumptions that cannot be justified. The so-called evidence is not conclusive since everything that lies in the past which has not been observed by humans is pure speculation.

The fact is that we have more empirical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ because the resurrection was confirmed by human observation. The resurrection was demonstrated and observed by human eyes who looked upon our Savior seeing the holes in his hands realizing that His claim to being the Son of God was true.

Since all knowledge is based on probability, it would seem much more rational to place your faith in Jesus Christ. Darwinian evolution has not been demonstrated or observed; however, the resurrection has been demonstrated and observed and recorded for antiquity so that all can come to know the love of God which is found in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The fact is that if Jim accepted science, he would accept the resurrection because it has been demonstrated and observed; however, at this point, he still think that believing in things that have not been demonstrated or observed such as Darwinian evolution is more rational. Jim simply has to take a step into the world of actual science that depends on human observation in order to become a Christian.

[luminary2009]

Jim,
So much meat in your last reply... the question is, where to begin?

What strikes me first is your question about spirituality. At a conference on Science and Spirituality that I once attended, a prominent laser chemist made an interesting distinction. Religion, he said, is one of the many forms that spirituality takes (he added to the list of other forms - friendship, charitable service, family, care of the sick and dying, relationships of all kinds - people, community, and so on). Spirituality, he suggested, is the core essence of what makes us human beings -- it is sourced from within, he said.

For me, I would suggest that spirituality is a manifestation of the source of our being, that which drives us to reach or highest potential. Naturally, the challenge for all of us is that we also seem to possess an ego (which some suggest is an over-exaggerated adaptation of basic tropism). When we decide that our need to "be right" supersedes our willingness to adhere to those more noble aims that you spoke of (peace, respect, intellectual honesty, etc.), which lie at the heart of most spiritual and cultural traditions, our ego's desire to satisfy itself leads to the type of collective mishaps we often create as people.

For Christians (and those of other spiritual paths as well), there is a sense or a belief that by learning to master our ego (or what the scientist Guillory calls the "normal self.") and surrendering to God or allowing that deeper spiritual sense from within to lead our lives, we create outcomes that are healthier for all (Guillory, interestingly refers to this spirit-centered self as the "natural self" or "real self").

As for superstitions, I imagine that one day we will look back and laugh at many of the beliefs we have held as true (both as people of religion and science). I am reminded of a conversation that I had with one of Richard Feynman's protege's who laughed at we he called the superstitions of science (beliefs that the models used to describe phenomena like atoms, molecules, etc.have become so fixed in people's minds that we've come to act as if the models are real portraits of the things they were meant to approximate).

It is often the same with religion. In an attempt to describe the ineffable, the words of those from the past have become over-literalized. This is further complicated when one considers the profound cultural and linguistic differences that exist between those who originally scribed ancient writings and those of us who read them now in a completely different context.

For me, this is where "spirituality" comes into play. For by seeking to understand the deeper implicate meaning as well as the explicit meaning, I have a better chance of understanding on some level, what the original writer may have been trying to communicate. By listening to the interpretation of my heart and my mind, I come closer to knowing the depth of their experience.

At the end of the day "science" which is ultimately the pursuit of knowing, travels a parallel (and not so divergent path) with the pursuit of knowing taken up by a "believer." We are all seekers, driven by some deep call to know from whence we came and why. Whether we are ever able to discover the answers to all of our many questions is doubtful. But in our seeking, both the scientist and the believer commune with something larger than themselves. Call it the Great Mystery, God, or the Unknown, on some level we're talking about the same thing.

As I mentioned in your profile, when you first signed on, I'm glad to have your input into the discussions here and the invitation you provide for all of us to explore our religious and scientific beliefs more deeply.



Jim Gardner said:

luminary2009: "I always invite people of science who may not be religious to look deeply into the world of Spirit because I believe that the mysteries of science are there too."

I couldn't agree more. But I also fervently believe and hope that it will one day be possible to elucidate fully on what we actually mean by words like 'spirituality' by the use of reasoned terms, free of nonsensical guesswork and illogical superstition. I also believe and hope that this will lead us all into a new age of humanity, where war and hatred are not only rejected out of hand but made impossible by a collective respect for and renewal of the principal of interpenetrating opposites.

I do not say and have never accepted that people who believe in a spiritual aspect are deluding themselves—although clearly many of my detractors do not always extend the same courtesy towards me, when they assume I must be emotionally wanting in some way, simply because I reject the contradiction which says that the only way to be free is to be enslaved. If I had a £1 for the amount of times I've been prayed for by people who make it clear to me that their requests for intercession are being begged of a vengeful and capricious god, I'd be a very rich man—and a very dead one at that, if there were indeed any such being actually listening to these petulant and insular demands.

Clearly there is something happening physiologically and emotionally to people who describe themselves as "a believer" which must be explained if we are to make the necessary steps forward in neurology and psychology which will, eventually we hope, unlock the secrets of the mind and benefit all of humanity—regardless of race, age, religion or otherwise. Because it is also clear that the vast majority of believers are perfectly happy individuals with a balanced and healthy outlook on life and a respect for the views of others.

It's interesting to note, however, that many of those who will describe themselves as 'spiritual', who will then act in ways which are a complete contradiction of what it means to truly accept the truth of what we already know about the human condition and how we came to be the complex animal we are, are defended and protected by other people "of faith" simply because they share a common upbringing into a particular religion or belief system arrived upon in adulthood. This is the surest sign one could wish to hope for that such people have had their ability to think clearly and for themselves on such matters as the logic of scientific discovery, have had their subjectivism hijacked by the complacency of arrogant certainties—which is a very dangerous thing for any society to accept as merely someone's religious right—when this unwieldy and easily abused freedom often informs a person's political and social actions, in ways which so often negatively impact upon the rights of other people. (Luke 6:31)

This statement, however, immediately poses a problem for those of us who argue in favour of objectivism, because the cognitive bias of choice among radicalised evangelicals is one which will show them the same arrogant certainty in others as they exhibit to everyone else, precisely because they have an emotional commitment to the same kind of bad choices as are held by those who, perhaps, worship financial materialism, far more than they worship their claimed 'spirituality'.

In behavioural science this is known as 'The Dunning–Kruger Effect'—which is a cognitive bias in which a person who is unskilled in a particular area will immediately assume that their knee-jerk instinct to reject a certain idea out of hand, is one borne of common sense or the reaction "any normal person" would exhibit towards a given proposition. This leads the person to, in fact, artificially inflate their own interpretation of something which they don't actually fully understand, whilst at the same time assume the inverse about the intellectual capacity of those who point out their mistakes.

This partly explains why, so often, the only "evidence" which is cited against, for example, evolution by natural selection from behind the veil of rightwing religious extremism, is usually always based upon negative conjecture about the motivation of "atheistic" or "secular society"—as opposed to actual evidence based upon positive research and falsifiable data. This is also why the very act of suggesting to someone that there is a far higher statistical likelihood that their beliefs are not true, than there is that their beliefs hold some basis in fact, is often met with the derisory assumption that the inverse must also be therefore true of those who support the scientific method—and that this alone demonstrates a bias towards materialism.

Indeed, in this very chat thread, I am accused of "intellectual dishonesty" in the very same paragraph of at least two logical inconsistencies—to which the commentator made proud their reference without embarrassment—as if to satirise the effect of this phenomena without intention. I think we both know to whom I refer and I think we both know why this makes so many of their posts virtually unreadable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[DENNY]

1. Creationists also believe in natural selection so it appears your argument is without warrant again Jim.

2. Peer-review is something all Creationist understand Jim because we are subjected to viewpoint discrimination constantly. The current system excludes those who disagree with what they consider to be a consensus; however, you don’t have consensus when people still disagree with the theory. We don’t have a consensus at this time on these issues as evidence by the Behe’s in the world which simply are excluded from the debate because they disagree.

3. You then quote a non-scientist (a judge) as being a qualified arbitrator in the matter. Jim, do you really think this is convincing to anyone?

4. You then accuse God of being, “vengeful and capricious god” which all Christians don’t find convincing. In order to spend eternity with God, you have to become a part of the life of God. Since we are unholy being sinners, we need the blood of Jesus Christ to cover our sins so we can be reunited to the life of God becoming a part of His Kingdom.

In the OT, the Holy Spirit had not been poured out on all men. As a result, God was constantly clearing the weeds so that his plants can grow. The judgment of God was actually done out of his love for His children. When there was no law, mankind had become so corrupt that all mankind was destroyed in the flood (except for Noah and his family). The law was meant to keep evil which was a disease in the OT from spreading. The NT is different because the cure is the love of God which can change any heart.

5. You then argue, “subjectivism hijacked by the complacency of arrogant certainties” The fact is that Darwinian evolution is merely a theory that has never been observed or demonstrated. The evidence for Darwinian evolution can be interpreted by others including people like Behe differently. You simply won’t allow this type of flexibility in your system revealing that you are the one who has an “arrogant certainty” I suspect you may be guilty of the 'The Dunning–Kruger Effect'

6. Lastly, Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified because it has never been verified. The theory remains outside the realm of scientific investigation since it cannot be observed or demonstrated. The evidence that does exist is best interpreted by the Intelligent Design model. The idea of transitions between kinds has never been demonstrated or observed.

[DENNY]

I guess I don't know what you mean. It just seems like you don't want to argue things on their merits. You have closed your mind to every other worldview and think yours is the only correct one.

At least Behe is open minded enough to believe that if Darwians are able to demonstrate their theory, then he would accept it; however, the facts as they stand right now support Intelligent Design. Darwinian evolution cannot explain the jumps in the fossil record, the jumps in the genome, the lack of an evolutionary ladder to man, irredicible complexity and it fails to explain why even proteins create different forms (it just does on the basis of a blind faith of mindless evolution as Dennett calls it). It is all a part of an awesome design and how you can miss the beauty of the design is beyond me. It can only be explained on a spiritual level. You seem to think it is just a big accident that rides on almost an infinite series of accidents.

God Bless...