Intelligent Design belittles God,

| 169 Comments

Catholic Online has published an article in which the director of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Father George V. Coyne speaks out, once again, against the perils of intelligent design.

Father Coyne observes that

Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.

But Father Coyne goes much further

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.

Father Coyne corrects several of the flaws in the Cardinal’s (Schoenborn) claims:

“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’”

The words of a dedicated scientist and a person of great faith.

169 Comments

I just wish there were more of us who were religious and stated that ID is definitely not in ‘support’ of God as clearly as that.

Father Coyne has shown his dismay at Intelligent Design before.

“Intelligent design isn’t science, even if it pretends to be,” said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes. ANSA reported that the Jesuit priest made his remarks at a conference in Florence.

The comments show some “interesting” myths about Darwinian theory

And other great quote, showing the continued appeal by some ID proponents to an obvious argument from ignorance, even though they deny it strongly

Among believers, Father Coyne said, there’s an unfortunate tendency to “latch onto God” when scientific explanations fall short. “One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so they can fill them with God,” he said.

After all, we all know that life is designed because of the purposeful arrangement of parts.…

Now can someone tell me what is wrong with this statement?

Combine this with the obvious conflation of terms such as complexity and information which merely reflect our ignorance and one quickly is forced to dismiss ID as being scientifically vacuous.

This is good stuff. Let’s just hope the faithful flock listens…

The other take on this is that some people want their religion to be superior to all others by having the imprimatur of science. Then their superior righteousness gives them political justification to impose their wills on others. Isn’t that the general message of the Wedge document? It would produce what could be called a “protoscientific theocracy.”

Well, that’s told the Cardinal! I wonder if he’s regretting having been talked into writing that article and having the Discovery Institute’s PR company get it placed at the New York Times.

Father Coyne’s opinion about the theological status of evolution is not unlike that of the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, who said the following in response to the controversy about the teaching of creationism at Emmanuel College in England a couple of years ago:

“I find what this school is doing sad for a number of reasons. First, the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it. This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn’t just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself. God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has, as it were, woven creation from the bottom upwards: with matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me. The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit.”

Frankly, I’m having a hard time figuring out which religions besides Christianity ID really “helps”. Take the “aliens did it” argument. What about the aliens? “Designed”, ad infinitum?

That aside, ID really does belittle the idea of God. Would a perfect creator, who wants people’s faith in his existence irregardless of proof, really be so sloppy as to leave signs of his handiwork just lying around? Even as philosophy, ID is pretty vacuous.

This article supports the idea that God is not the great cosmic puppeteer up in the sky moving the quarks and leptons around making everything happen for some mysterious purpose but interacts with believers in a totally spiritual way separate from empiric investigation. This idea has been pooh-poohed by contributors to PT in the past as being meaningless but in fact it is a crucial belief among many main stream Christians who reject the teaching of ID in highschool science classes and support evolutionary biology. These people are our allies.

These people are our allies.

I’ll choose my own allies, thanks. In my experience, the religious folk claiming a special relationship with the gods can be just as dominating as the religious folk claiming science supports their religion.

Another page at Catholic Online quotes Benedict XVI:

In fact, only supernatural charity, like that which flows continually from the heart of Christ, can explain the exceptional flowering down through the centuries of male and female religious orders and institutes, and other forms of consecrated life.

Is the pope here claiming empirical evidence for the existence of gods?

What apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process?

This position refutes ID at the cost of accepting an even more absurd idea: that an entity that doesn’t interact with the universe can be meaningfully said to ‘exist’.

You might as well say that God used evaporative cooling to chill my piping-hot soup because he loves me.

Renier Wrote:

This is good stuff. Let’s just hope the faithful flock listens…

As someone who grew up Catholic in east Tennessee, I can say that the ID/creationist base of fundamentalist Protestants will pay no attention whatsoever to what someone in the Vatican says. We got plenty of leaflets in the door or the supermarket explaining that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. But maybe some Catholics and other moderate Christians deceived by the Intelligent Design Hoax will listen.

You might as well say that God used evaporative cooling to chill my piping-hot soup because he loves me.

Actually, that is what they’re saying (or, at least, believing). The nice thing is that they are not taking you to court to make you aknowledge it. I am much happier with people that can accept their god on faith than with those who must prove god exists “scientifimagically”.

buddha Wrote:

I’ll choose my own allies, thanks. In my experience, the religious folk claiming a special relationship with the gods can be just as dominating as the religious folk claiming science supports their religion.

But without us theistic evolutionists, how would you be able to convince the other side that you can have your cake and eat it too?

Of course, if all you want to do is play defense and keep creationism from invading the classroom, I suppose you can do without us. But if you actually hope to educate and convince this rather large group (that is trying to destroy you) you should probably be a bit more tolerant.

I sometimes wonder whether having all these Catholics (Miller, etc.) speak out sometimese backfires. After all, as was pointed out, the fundies don’t like the Catholics very much - I’m sure their “doctrinal laxity” or whatever would be said might further alienate some of them.

(Incidentally, why has the comments field been moved to the start of the comments? This is somewhat annoying if one wants to read the comments and then contribute.)

But if you actually hope to educate and convince this rather large group (that is trying to destroy you) you should probably be a bit more tolerant.

We’re scientists and rationalists. We don’t tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can’t doesn’t bring people to our side, we don’t want them.

Christians should make it clear that messages of anti-theism and anti-Christianity can also come from pseudoscientific poseurs from within their own ranks, like Dembski. For this, I applaud Father Coyne. If the only life line sustaining ID is the popular notion that it advances apologetics of God, regardless of its failure as a scientific research program, then we need to hear more of this.

Caledonian wrote:

We’re scientists and rationalists. We don’t tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can’t doesn’t bring people to our side, we don’t want them.

That’s easy for you to say. You’re not the one trying to form a sensible and productive policy and get large numbers of voters to support it; nor are you the one taking the heat if anything goes wrong.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: democracy simply doesn’t work.”

buddha Wrote:

I’ll choose my own allies, thanks. In my experience, the religious folk claiming a special relationship with the gods can be just as dominating as the religious folk claiming science supports their religion.

Perhaps so, but at least they aren’t trying to masquerade their religious beliefs as science and force the state to teach them to my children. In other words, they aren’t lying to our faces, and expecting us to be stupid enough not to notice.

We’re scientists and rationalists. We don’t tailor our message for maximum spin. If presenting the truth as clearly and completely as we can’t doesn’t bring people to our side, we don’t want them.

There’s a difference between being objective and being a bombastic jackass, however. You might not tailor a message for maximum spin, but if more scientists tailored their messages for actual readability and understandability outside their specific discipline (even with much more brief papers), you would eliminate many of the problems we currently have.

One cannot exist in an ivory tower and ultimately refuse to communicate in understandable terms, and then expect people to just magically believe you about your field. That’s as much of a leap of faith as believing in God, which you seem highly averse to.

As to the bit about God and the Catholic beliefs on it (as espoused by Coyne), he’s saying that he believes God exists on faith, and that there is not scientifically testable empirical evidence for this. He’s saying it’s a matter of how you interpret the evidence in a philosophical sense, and certainly there is not an effort to ram it down anyone’s throat here. I find this fully acceptable in any society where there is free exchange of ideas, even if I don’t personally agree with him. He’s not trying to teach this in school (in fact, I suspect he’d advocate against it from what he said), so what’s the problem, really?

Keith Douglas wrote:

I sometimes wonder whether having all these Catholics (Miller, etc.) speak out sometimese backfires. After all, as was pointed out, the fundies don’t like the Catholics very much - I’m sure their “doctrinal laxity” or whatever would be said might further alienate some of them.

(See #76405 above)

Geez! Now we don’t have to worry about just the Catholics, either!

Check out the following:

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science (We’ve reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. The next step in our campaign is outlined here.)

Lurker Wrote:

Christians should make it clear that messages of anti-theism and anti-Christianity can also come from pseudoscientific poseurs from within their own ranks, like Dembski. For this, I applaud Father Coyne. If the only life line sustaining ID is the popular notion that it advances apologetics of God, regardless of its failure as a scientific research program, then we need to hear more of this.

(See above)

Here are two articles you might like:

Religion and Science

A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

JKC Wrote:

But without us theistic evolutionists, how would you be able to convince the other side that you can have your cake and eat it too?

I’m not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I’d rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

JKC Wrote:

But without us theistic evolutionists, how would you be able to convince the other side that you can have your cake and eat it too?

I’m not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I’d rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

Greg H Wrote:

Perhaps so, but at least they aren’t trying to masquerade their religious beliefs as science and force the state to teach them to my children.

This was the thin edge of the wedge. It’s the other stuff that worries me. I don’t really care about poor science standards in some hick town in Pennsylvania. I do care whenever religious fundamentalists are trying to turn the country into a theocracy, regardless of their view of evolution/creation.

I’m not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I’d rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

Except that most people classify atheism as a religion, and by attempting to force it onto other people, you become an atheistic fundamentalist.

There’s always going to be someone trying to do something crazy in the name of their beliefs - that’s just how humans behave. One of those incontrovertable facts, like evolution. The question is formulating an efficient and sensible response.

But you see, I do care about the fundies trying to change science standards in some hick town in PA, because that’s exactly where they are most likely to be successful.

And if they succeed there, they create an entire group of fundies that share the same beliefs they do, that then grow up, move away to other areas, and start pushing the same agenda.

In the end, all they really have to do is out-reproduce us. So if we don’t stop them, here and now, we face the much harder task of stopping them later when they make up an even larger percentage of the population.

I agree the evo-ID debate is just the tip of the true iceberg, but if you don’t pay attention to the tip, you find out the real problem is lurking just under the surface.

buddha Wrote:

I’m not trying to convince anyone to have their cake and eat it too. I’d rather convince people to become atheists because that seems to me to be the only sustainable strategy for keeping religious fundamentalists off the Supreme Court. Religion begets religious fundamentalists; no religion, no religious fundamentalists.

AD Wrote:

Except that most people classify atheism as a religion, and by attempting to force it onto other people, you become an atheistic fundamentalist.

Somehow in between the original post and the reply, convince transformed into force. Must be a point mutation.

Comment #77285

Posted by AD on February 3, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

In response to Henry…

I’m incredibly skeptical of anything published on the web regarding physics. It is a field that is, because of the inherent underlying mathematical complexity, much more inaccessible to most people than biology. While sometimes there are laymen sites that offer decent bio info (but most often not), I have very, very, very rarely seen anything phyiscs oriented that was viable.

I suppose my point is that unless the publisher of the site has a PhD in physics and reviews the info, I’d be HIGHLY skeptical of it. It’s easy to make claims and propose models, but that says nothing about correctness.

It’s very easy to find good physics things on the internet. You start with a reputable authority, such as the APS, or Scientific American, or PhysLink, and work outward.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam’s razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam’s razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam’s razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam’s razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be givenfor belief.They say eventhough science shows no teleologybut causality.they have faiththere is teleology.-the Omphalos argument!Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondaryforce, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind.Furthermore, Ocxcam’s razor shows n atural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries,but we can criticize their obtuseness.

I do recognize the words as English, however, the meaning of this word salad, if any, still escapes me. Even after seeing it repeated four times . … …

Rev. Lenny evidently you aren’t too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology.Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.The Omphalos argument says fossils are agod’s hoax.If Miller claims a god has anything to do with the universe , he should demonstratethat, not put forth faith.OTHERwise, he is using Omphalos-events happen sequentially it merely appears, but creative mind deceives us really events happen before their causes! Whether creationist or liberalXian ., THE THEISTS USE omphalos. Wrong -headed as she was about ethics .Ayn Rand was right about theism.Why would agod want worship? Low self- esteem.Read George Smith on Occam’s razor. SeeWeisz’s THE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY ABOUT CAUSALITY. Coyne and Miler obfuscate.Their notion of a god adds nothing to the understanding. Word salad is inthe eye of aneara blind fellow!

Rev. Lenny evidently you aren’t too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology.Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.The Omphalos argument says fossils are agod’s hoax.If Miller claims a god has anything to do with the universe , he should demonstratethat, not put forth faith.OTHERwise, he is using Omphalos-events happen sequentially it merely appears, but creative mind deceives us really events happen before their causes! Whether creationist or liberalXian ., THE THEISTS USE omphalos. Wrong -headed as she was about ethics .Ayn Rand was right about theism.Why would agod want worship? Low self- esteem.Read George Smith on Occam’s razor. SeeWeisz’s THE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY ABOUT CAUSALITY. Coyne and Miler obfuscate.Their notion of a god adds nothing to the understanding. Word salad is inthe eye of aneara blind fellow!Yes, my typing -arg.

No, the posts are word salad. Impugning others’ intelligence when you write like a third grader on mescaline is pretty rich.

And I think it’s Miller, et al’s very point that belief in God as such doesn’t add to, or subtract from, scientific understanding.

Well, this person has admitted that their typing doesn’t help, but still doesn’t seem to fully realize how running half the words together contributes to the effect, if not the intent, of word salad …

Idon’t know if my last comments caame through. Sufficient to say read Richard Carrier’s book on naturalism, George Smith’s on explanation versus faith, Michael Martin’s on atheism. By saying agod has nothing to do with as an explanation Miller tacitly admits agod is unneeded. B udda and ke talk for me. Yes ,science can’t disprove the tooth fairy. But have faith any way! See Antony Flew on the imaginary gardiner i an anthology. Ask me what Imean.

Idon’t know if my last comments caame through. Sufficient to say read Richard Carrier’s book on naturalism, George Smith’s on explanation versus faith, Michael Martin’s on atheism. By saying agod has nothing to do with as an explanation Miller tacitly admits agod is unneeded. B udda and ke talk for me. Yes ,science can’t disprove the tooth fairy. But have faith any way! See Antony Flew on the imaginary gardiner i an anthology. Ask me what Imean.

MLL SLOW DOWN ! U must be on a 56k connection. Your multiple posts and poor proof reading completely blow your points. I don’t see that beating up those who are on the same side contribute to the debate. I’m sure at least some of them know the limitations of their own arguement.

W ellGod i ssuch as mallm in ded id eaanyw ay tha tit require sa wor dgame asa div ersionfro mthein anity.!!! THE THEISTS D ON”T!! KN OWEVE RYTH ING!!!

MLL –

Coyne and K eith Milller are fideists- they beleve no reason can be given for belief. They say even though science shows no teleology but causality. They have faith there is teleology.-the Omphalos argument! Whether creationists or theistic evolutionists say what is naturalistic is phony, the truth deceives. One says fossils are a god’s hoax; the other natural selection is a secondary force, creative mind , primary when they can’t show a creative mind. Furthermore, Occam’s razor shows natural selection primary, a creative mind goes beyond the evidence. Occam. Yes , we need Coyne and MILLER ON OUR SIDE AGAINST the reactionaries, but we can criticize their obtuseness.

#77921

I would say first of all that their argument in certain ways may superficially resemble the Omphalos argument in that there is nothing, quite literally nothing in the way of empirical evidence which can falsify their position. It is quite literally untestable. However, this is precisely the sort of boundary which Karl Popper erected with the Principle of Falsifiability. According to this principle, empirical science was on one side, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, and religion were on the other. If their view is correct, unlike the Omphalos argument, it does not require one to regard the results of empirical science as false. It leaves empirical science untouched.

Can you criticize them? But of course. Does their approach seem extraneous given the context of empirical science. Sure. Can you criticize them for violating Occam’s razor, and argue that they are not choosing the simplest explanation? This is a little tougher. Do you have a simplest explanation? No doubt you would argue that metaphysical naturalism is simpler. But is metaphysical naturalism a scientific theory? I don’t think so. Do you have a unified, empirical, scientific theory of everything? I really doubt it. Not if you are talking about physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology. Not if you mean something which tells you exactly how you should behave in every context. Metaphysical naturalism is not an empirical scientific theory. It is a philosophic position. So when you criticize Coyne and Miller, you have already stepped outside of science, and are now performing philosophy. I don’t have a problem with that. Philosophy is fine. But philosophy is not empirical science, and it is at best misguided to treat it as such.

… evidently you aren’t too bright! Caausality contradicts teleology. Causality is sequential , teleology say the effect comes before the cause.

#77954, 77980

I assume you are talking about final causation. So for example, when you write a sentence, we are not simply “supposed” to interpret this as the result of so many electrical signals in your brain, but instead, that you strung characters, then words, then sentences with a certain goal in mind: that of communicating what you meant to say. Communicating that meaning was the purpose of your actions, and it is at least at one level a fairly significant explanation as to why I see one set of characters than another. I realize that you strung those characters with a goal in mind: communication. And this goal as the object of your action preceded the action itself, the action which is the efficient cause of its realization. Is this what you are talking about? Or did I entirely misconstrue what you had to say? Or did you in fact intend to communicate at all? Should I simply interpret the characters as the product of efficient causation – as if there were no goal to their existence?

Gee, I do hope I’m not being too obtuse here. Then again, I think if I were to entirely jettison final causation I would become incredibly obtuse. Don’t you think?

Anyway, sure, George Smith has a book. “Atheism: The Case Against God.” Interesting book. Interesting arguments. Philosophy, not science. Same with Flew and Carrier (well, sort of). It isn’t empirical science. What they are doing is philosophy.

Yes, my typing -arg.

Is there something preventing you from proofreading your admittedly bad typing before hitting the “post” button?

Timothy Chase Wrote:

blah blah blah…

Are you still trolling here? Well then, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

But is metaphysical naturalism a scientific theory?

You bet. The Theory of Naturalism is at least as testable as the Theory of Evolution. A refutation of evolution would send my Bayesian confidence in naturalism crashing toward zero. Sure, it still could’ve been aliens, but with the Fermi paradox (“Where are they?”) I don’t rate this possibility highly. Besides, a stronger argument is possible in principle that not only did evolution not happen on earth, but it could not happen anywhere. I would consider that an absolute refutation of naturalism. Naturalism can also be tested in many other ways.

You may challenge the priority I give to the scientific method. Is the scientific method itself testable by the scientific method? No, because the scientific method is used to test ontic propositions, but the scientific method itself it not an ontic proposition; it is a method. I use the method because it is reliable. This claim itself is an ontic proposition that can be tested and could have been refuted. But considering the remarkable success of modern science I have no reason at all to doubt that the scientific method is reliable. The claims made for the scientific method can be tested using the scientific method. Thus giving the scientific method priority is not self-refuting.

Perhaps other methods are also self-consistent and give reliable results concerning ontic propositions. Prophecy, biblical interpretation, divine inspiration and astrology have all failed. Competing religions and denominations assert contradictory ontic propositions with no way to know who’s right and who’s wrong.

Usually the bold claims made by religious folk turn out to be semantically vacuous. I remember reading the old testament. It goes like this: Israel lost a battle because somebody sinned; Israel won a battle because the incumbent king was righteous even though somebody sinned; Israel lost a battle because a previous king was wicked even though the incumbent king was righteous; Israel won a battle because god remembered his covenant even though a previous king was wicked; Israel lost a battle because somebody sinned even though god remembered his covenant. Any ad hoc “explanation” will do for the glory of the lord!

Faith healing is the same. Any excuse for why it didn’t work will do. I say faith healing is bunkum nonsense, but it seems you’d rather say it’s really more like poetry.

So, Intelligent Design belittles God? How? I think that if someone would just look around them, they would see that there is no way that this planet, even this universe can be the result of nothing. It is impossible to have everything come from nothing. All of your “wisdom” and “intelligence” just came from some random goo, or bang. Wow. I think some people need to get over their hate of God and their obsession of themself and face the facts straight. Evolution is a religion, there is nothing unbiased about it. All I ever see is a bunch of people blatantly opposed to God.

I live at 77466 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on January 31, 2006 1:46 AM.

Luskin still doesn’t get it was the previous entry in this blog.

ID floats a lead-lined trial balloon is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter