The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh. That's different, most Roman Catholics are Christian in name only.

which makes them no different than you!

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I did not admit nothing of a sort. Michael Behe is a biological scientist.

You did admit it, you just didn't realise you were admitting it because you don't know the difference between science and religion.
Yes, Behe is a biologist. He is also Catholic. Neither is particularly relevant to the question of whether or not ID as propounded by Behe is religion or science. What is relevant is the fact that Behe would not change his views regardless of the evidence, he is as you said "A man that will stick to his guns.". Therefore Behe sees ID as religion, not science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did admit it, you just didn't realise you were admitting it because you don't know the difference between science and religion.
Yes, Behe is a biologist. He is also Catholic. Neither is particularly relevant to the question of whether or not ID as propounded by Behe is religion or science. What is relevant is the fact that Behe would not change his v ...[text shortened]... said "A man that will stick to his guns.". Therefore Behe sees ID as religion, not science.

Behe said he had become an atheist due to his training in biology. But
due to scientific discoveries after he had become a biologist that proved
to him that there had to be a designer of the biological systems, he began
to believe in God. Since he now knows the truth, he no longer can be
pressured into going along with the status quo of his evolutionary
professor, who had provided him with false teachings.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Behe said he had become an atheist due to his training in biology. But
due to scientific discoveries after he had become a biologist that proved
to him that there had to be a designer of the biological systems, he began
to believe in God. Since he now knows the truth, he no longer can be
pressured into going along with the status quo of his evolutionary
professor, who had provided him with false teachings.

And how is that relevant to what you were replying to?

The fact remains that Behe will not change his mind about ID regardless of the evidence, and you agree with me that that is the case. Therefore you agree with me that ID is religion no science, because in religion, you disregard the evidence and go with 'faith' and in science, evidence is supreme.

And, by the way, Behe still accepts evolution as fact, he is not a young earth creationist like you.

Here are a few quotes from Francis Collins' book: The Language of God. Pity I haven't got it electronically, so I'll just have to retype it 🙁

Francis Collin is the head of the Human Genome Project and one of the world's leading scientists. He is also had a journey from atheism to faith and he calls his own view on creation/evoluttion Theistic Evolution, or Biologos.

ID remains a fringe activity with little credibility within the mainstream scientific community.
ID fails in a fundamental way to qualify as a scientific theory. ..... A viable theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification. ID falls profoundly short in this regard...
ID's proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multibiologocal entities is a scientific dead end. p187

ID is a "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a suppositionof the need for supernatural intervention in places that proponents claim science cannot explain.
Various cultures have traditionally tried to ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day had been unable to sort out - whether a solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower. But those theories have a dismal history. Advances in science ultimately fill those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them. Ultimately the "God of the gaps" religion runs a huge risk of simply discrediting faith.... Furthermore, ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life. For a believer who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image. p194

William Dembski, the leading mathematical modeler of the ID movement, writes: "If it could be shown that the biological systems that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated - such as the bacterial flagellum - could have been formed by Darwinian processess (and thus that their specified complexity is an illusion) then ID would be refuted on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor would finish of ID."
A sober evaluation of current scientific infrmation would have to conclude that this outcome is already at hand.
.......
The sincerity of the proponents of ID can hardly be questioned. The warm embrace of ID by believers, is completely understandable, given the way in which Darwin's theory has been portrayed by some outspoken evolyutionists as demanding atheism.

But this ship is not headed to the promised land; it is headed instead to the bottom of the ocean. If beilievers have attached their last vestiges of hope that God could find a place in human existemce through ID theory, and that theory collapses, what then happens to faith? p194

Collins ends his chapter on ID with these words:

So is the search for harmony between science and faith hopeless? Must we accept the Dawkins perspective: "The universe we observe has precisely the proportions we should expect if there, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference?" May it never be so! To the believer and scientist alike, I say there is a clear, compelling, and intellectually satisfying solution to this search for the truth.

His solution is elaborated on www.biologos.org.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And how is that relevant to what you were replying to?

The fact remains that Behe will not change his mind about ID regardless of the evidence, and you agree with me that that is the case. Therefore you agree with me that ID is religion no science, because in religion, you disregard the evidence and go with 'faith' and in science, evidence is supreme. ...[text shortened]... y the way, Behe still accepts evolution as fact, he is not a young earth creationist like you.

You always say that people are agreeing with you when they don't.
If it were true that they agreed with you, then you would have no
reason to debate.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You always say that people are agreeing with you when they don't.
If it were true that they agreed with you, then you would have no
reason to debate.

But you do agree with me. You just don't realise it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you do agree with me. You just don't realise it.

Only in your imagination, just like evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds

RJH, any comments on my posting from Francis Collins?

It took a long time to type out - and still some spelling mistakes slipped in, in spite of my checking! 🙁

However, do you think he is correct, or also deluded or deceitful and/or lying??

You have to take a position either way, unfortunately....

Originally posted by CalJust
RJH, any comments on my posting from Francis Collins?

It took a long time to type out - and still some spelling mistakes slipped in, in spite of my checking! 🙁

However, do you think he is correct, or also deluded or deceitful and/or lying??

You have to take a position either way, unfortunately....

Francis Collins is sincere in his beliefs, however he has not overcome the
deceit that he has experience through his teachings from evolutionary
professors as much as Michael Behe has.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Francis Collins is sincere in his beliefs, however he has not overcome the
deceit that he has experience through his teachings from evolutionary
professors as much as Michael Behe has.

I am extremely disappointed - I expected more from you!

The only argument that you have is identical with that of Dasa - everything that you don't accept, is lies and deceipt.

Shame on you!

😠

Francis Collins is a highly respected scientist, recently (i.e. in his adult life) turned to God and seeking answers for our existence. If there was any deceit noticeable in his field of expertise, he would pounce on it with a vengeance!

Unless he is a total dope. Is this what you are saying?

In case you haven't taken the trouble to read the whole quote, here is the gist of it:

1 ID is very attractive to Christians because of the vehement attack of atheists (like Dawkins) claiming that evolution proves there is no god.

2 However, the primary pillar of ID is crumbling, because recent research (i.e. actual, peer-reviewed, hard data coming out of the national and international labs) is showing that the "irreduceable complexity" of, for example, the bacteria flagellum, has been shown to have originally had another purpose, that of defence. (read the whole exciting story in his book!)

3 ID is heading for a dead end, because firstly it can never be tested, and secondly, it's field of "unexplainables" is shrinking fast, until there is nothing left. Where, then, will be the faith of those that have pinned it on ID?

The good news is that it is not hopeless, there IS an answer, which nicely balances BOTH science and faith. He describes it as Biologos.

Consider this: I am sure that you must be very familiar with the well-known proposition proving that Christ is the Son of God:

It is said that there are only three alternatives:
1 Either He was unknowingly deluded (which other evidence tends to contradict), or
2 He was a charlatan, maliciously deceiving people. (other evidence also refutes that)
3 Finally, he is what he says, and should be taken seriously.

Now, I want to apply those same criteria to Collins. What do you say he is:

1 An inept researcher, deluded by false propositions that anybody going to originsingenesis.com could refute?
2 A malicious cheater and lier, himself actively trying to delude others?
3 OR, a competent and respected scientist whose views should be taken seriously?


From your previous post it seems to me that you believe #1 to be correct.

Is this a reasonable assumption? Can you confirm it?

Would you then perhaps care to explain why you think he was chosen for his post?

(Oh, I forgot, everybody there are deluded and deceitful liars!)

:'(

Originally posted by CalJust
Consider this: I am sure that you must be very familiar with the well-known proposition proving that Christ is the Son of God:

It is said that there are only three alternatives:
1 Either He was unknowingly deluded (which other evidence tends to contradict), or
2 He was a charlatan, maliciously deceiving people. (other evidence also refutes that)
3 Finally, he is what he says, and should be taken seriously.

I hope you don't think that is a serious proof, as it would be dismembered in seconds on this forum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I hope you don't think that is a serious proof, as it would be dismembered in seconds on this forum.

I have seen it discussed before.

The reasonings of the "opposition" at that time was pretty convoluted, and included stuff like challenging the translations and the actual words of the original writings etc etc,

I really don't feel strongly about defending it right now, because that would seriously detract from the present discussion of evolution and ID that is going on in this thread.

The three options as applying to Collins are real, however. Or do you disagree here too?

Originally posted by CalJust
The three options as applying to Collins are real, however. Or do you disagree here too?

I do disagree. You take extreme positions and assume no in-between.
What if he is a normal human being who is fairly competent in his work, should be taken seriously, but not necessarily believed on every point and who suffers from delusions, and is not always completely honest?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do disagree. You take extreme positions and assume no in-between.
What if he is a normal human being who is fairly competent in his work, should be taken seriously, but not necessarily believed on every point and who suffers from delusions, and is not always completely honest?

You are correct that any person, however clever, need not be trustworthy on all points.

However, if somebody is a world recognised authority in a particular field, say nuclear physics, then it is highly unlikely that in THAT FIELD he suffers from delusions and is not completely honest.

Such a person as you describe would never hold any position of authority - they would be de-masked sooner rather than later!