Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"get a clue. How many millions were sacrificed on the altar of state sanctioned atheism in the 20th century, ie: Communism, Socialism, Facism (all related)?"
Religion has been around far longer than those politcal concepts have, even long before Christianity was invented.
"Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!"
Does that go for the Crusades and Inquisition as well?
"I never mentioned one word about Jesus, the bible, etc; However that seems to be the preferred response of naturalists when someone DARES question how life can evolve without a guiding force, ie: Q: What caused the Big Bang? A: Religious Nut!!!!"
Well, my point is that it comes down to evidence versus simple belief. The Scientific method demands proof, whereas Faith is apparently enough in and of itself. Oftentimes, it is recommended not to question God's intent in regards to such difficult questions (I'm reminded of George Carlin's question about God and the rock.)
I do think there is an "intelligent design". The sheer complexity of the human body, with all of its systems and interactions required for "life" demand such. A better question would be: is the design, itself, also evolving? Life on earth does change, and will continue to do so, but are we what was what was intended, or are we not at the final product yet, or have we passed our shelf life already?
It's obvious that there are guiding forces - but I don't think it's one supernatural being looking down on all of us. There are many predictable and reproducible causes and effects of life, some of which we are now on control of ourselves (for better or worse), but all of this is based on quantifiable research and math. There are definite patterns of actions and reactions in all known forms of life. Whether or not you think this is the nature of the system, itself, or that someone else set all this up, wound up the key, and just let it go seems to be the difference of opinion here. I think the system, itself, is capable of regulating itself (much like the human body), whereas other people need to believe that there's a central intelligence pulling all the strings, if for no other reason than to give life an overall purpose other than simply existing.
"did the micro-chip populate itself with transistors? Or did the acid and base jump out of the test tubes and mix themselves?"
I'm not sure why you continue focusing on such odd examples. How does this compare to evolutionary biology and origins of life - or is this more of the de-evolution you were referring to? Maybe you should try in terms of when the scientists finally got Dolly's (the sheep) mammary cells to divide and differentiate correctly. That would make a lot more sense.
Wheat bread!! There's an example for you! Just kidding. Anyway, it's been real. We can go around and around for days if not months. BTW: I almost majored in Behavioral Psych, so I appreciate what empiricism means. I also believe that there are things that science has yet to explain, meaning it may eventually explain, or it may never explain. Lack of an explanation does not mean something does or does not exist. For example, your "Who created God" example: My take on that is that it's a chicken and the egg scenario. I don't know which came first, I only know that there are chickens and there are eggs in the world.
No hard feelings I hope. Man, you guys are REALLY going to hate my guts when I start writing a column for the new site.
