E
edwest2
Guest
If you study atheist, humanist, marxist, bright, free thinker and similar web sites, a simple pattern emerges: man and science are the new gods. Atheism and paganism are being heavily marketed. Comedians form the core of the Ministry of Propaganda. Lewis Black will tell you: There’s no such thing as bad language. Bil Maher will tell you: religious belief is a neurological disorder. Chris Rock cannot stop talking about graphic and perverted sex. Meanwhile, the best and the brightest on Wall Street have plunged the world into economic chaos. And all they do is deal with numbers.Dear Ed,
Thank you for this post because it also helps explain Post 190 by buffalo who also indicated that if science did not include God in any of its explanations, then it excluded God. I especially liked “God is active and detectable in nature.” I think there was a lst century historian which referred to this phenomenon. So, please keep posting your thoughts.
However, I would like to approach God being included in biology textbooks from a different, not necessarily an opposing, angle.
May I offer my personal opinion of the either/or position of either/or including or excluding God in science textbooks. I do understand why this position is being taken…because of the problem of “atheistic evolution”.
With contract law, you are using the mutually exclusive “or” which is correct because that is what the legal system has determined. In my opinion, comparing science to the legal system is like comparing apples to giraffes. I can’t quite put this into the right words–I’m still learning about this topic–but the science concept should be more like a free spirit (not to be confused with a freethinker).
The idea of academic freedom was one of the points of the recent Ben Stein documentary. Whether or not he presented enough evidence to back up his point is for others to decide. My point is that science should have the freedom to explore inside and outside the universe. If science were truly free than it would not be necessary to use the mutually exclusive “or” regarding God’s presence. Then there would be the reverse of a sentence in post 190. Instead of " Every gap we close makes the concept of God weaker." there would be “With every gap in our scientific knowledge closed, the concept of God grows stronger and stronger.”
Blessings,
grannymh
The Church teaches anyone can detect God through natural reason but people here are pretending atheists don’t exist and deflecting clear information that they do. They deflect the atheist connection to science while PZ Myers and a host of others are promoting it. No plumbing manual, or inanimate object will tell people who they relly are. Scientists have decided that all they see is all there is. The atheists like the idea. It helps their cause.
There was never a God of the Gaps. That’s a meaningless slogan. The reality is that evolution is filled with clever, but unprovable assertions. Punctuated equillibrium - of course. Given enough time, literally anything is possible. What rubbish. If I left all the parts to a bicycle on the ground for 5 billion years, exactly nothing would assemble itself.
Peace,
Ed