Creationism: An Insult to the Collective of Human Intelligence

Raymond,

I apparently wasn't very clear regarding one key point regarding my understanding of scripture. Here is another attempt to explain myself.

A person who dies without believing on Jesus will not have any further opportunity to believe. Death in unbelief establishes a person's committing of the unpardonable sin, the only sin that anyone will ever be judged for. The reason they will be judged for it is that, during their lifetime, God himself will personally make the plea to each individual to believe on him and accept the fact that he has already forgiven all of their sin unilaterally. Rejecting the direct plea from God is tantamount to calling him a liar but even that is already forgiven. Holding onto that unbelief unto death is God's definition of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (God gives plenty of time for people to consider it). This one sin is the only cause of eternal separation from God and his kingdom, also know as damnation.

I do appreciate your respectuful treatment of me in this forum even though we clearly disagree. That is what I meant earlier when I said "your considerate questions are the exception here and deserve a response". I did not mean to imply that you had any intellectual void which you thought I could fill.

It has been a pleasure conversing with you. If all atheists could approach theists the way you do I think the world would be a much better place. I do realize that there are theists that are as rabid in their dealings with atheists as those I call anti-theists are in dealing with theists. The world would be better if they learned howe to be civil as well.

Well, just to be sure, I looked up the definition of Gnostic and I'm sure that you didn't mean to say this about me: "intelllectual, knowing, shrewd, clever" I make the case that a functional idiot can accomplish saving faith and s/he has no need to understand the bible while doing so. It is really a profoundly simple transaction between God and people. This is the opposite of Gnosticism as it refers to "salvation". Nevertheless, from those to whom much is given, much is required.

God creating a religious system

Well, if we were to imagine a universe in which a God did exist and he/she/it set up a religious system, then that system must have had a purpose. This purpose would differ depending on whether it's a vain and insecure God forcing everyone to worship him, a good moral god who wants to create a utopia, or a bored childish god that just wants to watch us run like rats in a maze. If the God that created the religious system saw that the purposes he set it up for weren't being fulfilled he'd either scrap the project and start anew [the story of noah's ark], punish the individual people or even all of the people in the system [method of the greek/roman gods], attempt to correct the system in some way, or get bored of the system and just let it run its course. If the God performed one of the first 3 options than they're wouldn't be room for the overall corruption of the religious system even with faulty human nature. The God would simply punish the people repeatedly and make sure they follow the rules [Similar to the Book of Judges from the Judeo-Christian bible]. However, If he decided to perform option 4, that would be another matter entirely.

Option 4 means the God doesn't care anymore. Eventually people would revolt against the corrupt religious leaders and either form their own religion or realize that God isn't important because he either doesn't care or doesn't exist [French Revolution and islam coming from christianity which itself is an offshoot of Judaism]. This option also means that this "true religion of God" could eventually be forgotten; though, even if it wasn't forgotten the God had already given up on it anyway.

Not believing in a God that's real

With the Dawkin's video, You're right that he didn't answer the question but instead reflected it upon the person who asked the question. Like I said though, If there is a God and you don't believe, then there's different outcomes depending on the God. A Good moral God means that if your good in life you get rewarded in the afterlife regardless of your religion and beliefs. A Deist God that just left the universe to its own devices wouldn't care what you believe. A Vain God would punish all those that didn't worship him. And so on...The consequences for not believing in a god that's real would depend on the "real god"

Believing in a God that isn't real

First and foremost, If you believed in a God that isn't real you'd believe in lies. Being a member of a religion would warp your view of reality and make you see people of different faiths differently either as ignorant fools, as people that needed to be killed, or as people that must be converted to think just like you do. You'd also waste money paying to a church that worships something that isn't real. The dietary restrictions of a religion would also affect a person's life. Some religions prohibit eating beef, pork, and various other foods, some even in cases of life and death. I LOVE beef and pork personally, and I think my life would be a a bit more disappointing without them. There's also time wasted in church services, in sunday schools, and following the religions moral rules and outlines. While in church you could have been enjoying a game on TV and while in sunday school you could have been hanging out with friends. And the religion's moral rules and outlines? One example is prohibiting birth control and abortion which means young girls are more likely to get pregnant and have to take care of a baby that they're not ready for. This leads to poverty and hard times in life - if you make it through the hard times things get better eventually. Believing in a god that isn't real also gets rid of the incentive to study and research things and spreads false ideas. An example of this is trying to make creationism and intelligent design - both pretty much the same thing - into a "science" that replaces the theory of evolution. Oh and depending on your religion's influences you might be told evolution and global warming aren't real, that woman should be subservient to men, that types of slavery are ok, that medicine is a lie and only prayer can cure disease, that vaccinations are tools of the devil, that people who don't think or believe what you do should be converted or killed, etc. There's a quote i remember about some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who believe that babies are sinful and “They spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted.” This is a form of "love" to "break in" the child so that its ready to be submissive to God. How harmful believing in a God that isn't real is depends on what you think the God wants, What your religion tells you the God wants, what your religion tells you about the world, and what rules your religion forces you to follow. It all depends really. If your a deist...then the only problem is you believe in something that's not real.

"there is no solid basis for why Darwinism should be the standard or any extended explanation for why there is no allowance for anything else."

The theory of Evolution is taught in Science classes because it is science. There are other hypothesis and ideas on how things came to be such as solopsism, Raelianism, and last thursdayism. These things are like Creationism and ID in that they are not proven scientific theories, do not have credible supporting evidence, and thus are not taught in science classes. However, they do have a place in mythology, religion, and philosophy classes. Furthermore, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive because they can coexist in models such as "theistic evolution".

"The whole basis for Darwinism is built on a philosophical materialism and metaphysical naturalism."

Science does not assume that nature is all there is. It merely notes that the natural world is the only objective standard we have and as such science is the study of the natural universe. Science is a realm of hard evidence from the natural world that can be pointed to in order to resolve disputes about the natural world. Objects that would be "supernatural" can't be reliably studied and thus aren't science. That's the realm of theology and/or mythology.

"While you can say that Creationist and ID arguments have been debunked by science, all that has been used is a science of evolving matter but never any solidified theory for origin."

Evolution is the diversification of life. How life originated is irrelevant to evolution. As long as life exists, the theory of evolution still applies.

"However, there is not an explanation as how these processes came about or how such complex beings came to be."

Evolution does explain how complex beings came into being. And as for an explanation of how the processes came to be, no theory explains everything. It's rather silly to condemn evolution for not achieving Godhood. Can the process that create gravity be completely and absolutely explained? No. Does that mean the theory of gravity must not be a credible theory? Of course not. Science has relative knowledge about the natural world. Absolute knowledge is claimed by religions.

"With the supposed evidence of the evolution of man, given the amount of supposed change that has occurred, the race will eventually reach of utopia of knowledge and understanding of things."

Nothing is perfect or absolute. Though science has made great advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism, on the other hand, has never led anywhere...

"It really is a debate over the philosophy of science rather than religion or science proper."

The philosophy of science is that the natural world is all that we know and can accurately study and observe.

"ID is in the business of making origin claims rather than predictability claims."

Claims without evidence are still nothing more than baseless claims.

"Is it not also circular logic to say that you disprove creationists by using sources that support your claim?"

An example of circular logic - God is real because it says so in the bible, and I know the bible is true because God wrote it.

Now if you say I have a blue truck and I say I have a red truck and I show you proof that I actually have a red truck but no blue truck, then I've just shown you that you are wrong and I am right using my sources of evidence. That's not circular logic. Having sources that both show you are correct and that the opposite side is wrong just means you have really good sources of evidence.

"While you may claim to not have faith, it is true that you do."

Faith is believing in something without evidence or good reason to. Since evolution has been proven using evidence I'm inclined to disagree.

"The only difference is that it is not in God but that of a godless nature."

Evolution says nothing about God. One can believe in both God and evolution at the same time. You merely choose not to.

"Christian or theistic in general, who are seeking to do good science while showing that a Creator is ultimately responsible."

Bias doesn't make for good science unfortunately.

"We say that disagreement is welcome but the overall state of academia is hostile towards it."

Disagreement with evidence and proof to support your position is appreciated. Disagreement because of unsupported personal beliefs is another thing entirely.

"It is by now no secret that the university and academia control the culture."

And we are appreciative of this. It was not so long ago it was not so. Below is part of a speech from the 1860's fron Ingersoll, still relevant in our day.

In every college truth should be a welcome guest. Every professor should be a finder, and every student a learner, of facts. Theology and intellectual dishonesty go together. The teacher of children should be intelligent and perfectly sincere.

Let us get theology out of education.

The pious denounce the secular schools as godless. They should be. The sciences are all secular, all godless. Theology bears the same relation to science that the black art does to chemistry, that magic does to mathematics. It is something that cannot be taught, because it cannot be known. It has no foundation in fact. It neither produces, nor accords with, any image in the mind. It is not only unknowable but unthinkable.

Through hundreds and thousands of generations men have been discussing, wrangling and fighting about theology. No advance has been made. The robed priest has only reached the point from which the savage tried to start. We know that theology always has and always will make enemies. It sows the seeds of hatred in families and nations. It is selfish, cruel, revengeful and malicious. It has heaven for the few and perdition for the many. We now know that credulity is not a virtue and that intellectual courage is. We must stop rewarding hypocrisy and bigotry. We must stop persecuting the thinkers, the investigators, the creators of light, the civilizers of the world.