On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

Via Uncommon Descent, I get to a blog called “Darwin’s God: How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters“. Here, Dr. Cornelius Hunter argues that evolutionists live in constant denial about the religious nature of the theory of evolution. “The metaphysics embedded in their thought is exceeded only by their denial of it. It is a truly fascinating mythology” he writes.

Ok, so the fact that Dr. Hunter would make this argument is somewhat spoiled for us right in the very title of the site. It is also not a very new argument, ID/creationism proponents have been claiming this for years. But why do they think so? What is it about evolution that makes it seem like it is religious in nature?

The reason given by evolutionists such as Myers for why their theological proclamations don’t count is that “evolution provides an explanation for” the imperfections.

It’s true, evolution does provide an explanation for the imperfections in nature. Dr. Hunter quotes (his emphasis) PZ Myers as writing

the interesting part about imperfections like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or the spine of bipeds or mammalian testicles isn’t simply that they seem clumsy and broken in a way no sensible god would tolerate, but that evolution provides an explanation for why they are so.

Not only does the theory of evolution predict beforehand what kind of evidence we should expect to find – and do find – but it also fits the evidence we already have found of common descent with modification. However, this isn’t enough for Dr. Hunter, because it doesn’t fit his worldview. They theory of evolution is incorrect not because it isn’t supported by evidence, but because it is incompatible with his pre-existent opinion of what the evidence is supposed to be.

Third, the notion that “evolution provides an explanation” is absurd. That’s like saying bed-time stories provide an explanation.

The only one’s who are religious in their methodology and conclusions are the creationists and the IDists, because they are the only ones to have reached their conclusions before seeing the evidence. This is shown by their continued insistence to try and prove their case to all of science as well as dismissing all the evidence that doesn’t fit their own ideas, while the real scientists study the evidence, form their theories and then spend a lot of their time trying to disprove their own conclusions. This is the base of the peer review system where you submit your theories not so that others can praise you for how right you are, but so that they can tell you precisely why you’re wrong. Naturally, not being interested in being proven wrong, creationists and IDists mostly reject this system, preferring to pat each other’s backs when one of them finds some perceived flaw in some small part of the theory of evolution.

Dr. Hunter’s problem, I believe, is that he himself is probably religious, and he therefor can’t conceive of a person coming to conclusions that aren’t grounded firmly in religious dogma and beliefs. Because he already believes one thing to be true, he must automatically reject everything else, regardless of the evidence in favor of it. The easiest excuse for someone like that is, of course, to deny one’s own problem and instead pin it on the other person. This is why he makes the illogical and unreasonable accusation that we are the one’s who are religious, and that he is one who’s simply following the evidence.

I just wonder how it is that a theory that is completely false and untrue can continue to produce cures for diseases, better crops and live stock and be supported by so many and so large bodies of evidence, while a theory like Intelligent Design, that is so obviously true, can consistently fail to produce anything at all, least of all evidence in favor of itself. No wonder then that they have to resort to vast conspiracy theories to explain away their own failures.

As previously mentioned, I recently received and read Ray Comfort’s book “You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence, But You Can’t make Him Think“. Now, this is not so much an actual book as it is a printed FAQ, separated into loosely assembled chapters. What Comfort does is simply take comments from his blog (called “Atheist Central“) and then attempts to answers these questions or claims made by these (supposed) atheists. Pretty much every single reply ends with Ray asking the atheist to accept Jesus and have faith in God.

The first thing that struck me was the type of comments he had selected for this book. Emotional, angry responses from people who felt personally offended by his message, and repeats of old and worn “God-killer” type arguments. There are currently several people with actual scientific knowledge who regularly comment on all Comfort’s posts, whose questions would be utterly fascinating to hear him answer seriously, but those are not the questions you will see answered here. The point of this book is to evangelize, nothing more and nothing less. For someone who implies in the very title of his book that he provides atheists with “evidence” for God’s existence, this proposed evidence is suspiciously absent throughout every last chapter.

A lot of the time, I found that Comfort didn’t even actually address the question or complaint put forth by the “atheist” at all. He completely ignores it, and goes on ranting about how we already know God exists, which makes it pointless to question his existence. It’s full of creationist arguments along the lines of “since the world is a creation, that necessitates a creator” without ever even touching on the subject of how to determine that the world is a creation to begin with.

Another thing that I noticed is Comfort’s evident obsession with rapists, murderers and the mutilated corpses of little girls. Seriously, it’s quite disturbing to see the “atheist” ask a question about something, and comfort ending his reply by likening the atheist to someone who rapes, murders and mutilates little girls. It’s not just here and there either, I think he does this probably a dozen times. It really makes you wonder what this believer would be doing if he wasn’t constrained by the moral law of his God.

As an atheist myself, I like to believe that I am, in fact, quite capable of thinking. I would also welcome the opportunity to be “led to evidence”, if only that was what Comfort was trying to do with his book (Spoiler alert: it’s not). The world as a creation is, for him, all the evidence he needs to prove his creator, although he never even once attempts to prove the creation. Any question of whether God exists or not is answered with the stated claim that he does exist, without ever going into detail on how this can be known. To top it off, evolution is a big conspiracy, there are no transitional fossils and paleontologists and biologists do what they do only to become rich and famous. I wonder if Ray could even mention a single paleontologist by name.

If you’re an atheist, don’t bother reading this book. It’s rubbish. If you’re a Christian, it’s still rubbish. Ray Comfort’s arguments are as intelligent as the ocean is dry and it doesn’t matter who you are, his willful ignorance should be quite evident and obvious to anyone regardless of beliefs.

Wow… I’m not even sure this is spam, it’s just too good. You be the judge:

My  Dear ,
My name is Rev Father Thomas Mohan ;
I am 76 years old now.. I have
been suffering in the sick bed for the past
7 years. Now I believe that my time has come to join my ancestors
in heaven. I got your  email address from the Internet, as the spirit of Almighty God
directed me to contact you for this charity work. I have
$11,000,000.00 deposited in a
safe location, which I want you to claim
on my behalf for an important
charitable project.  Can you honestly do
this for me?
Reply me soonest on my email address = revfrmohan@obfuscated.com
Remain bless in
the Lord.
Rev Fr Thomas Mohan

So, what do you think? Does this nice old reverend really want little atheistic me to handle his 11 million dollars for charity? Maybe he’s realized that i’d actually give that money in his honor because I actually wanted to, and not because I thought it’d please my god?

(Needless to say, this is one post that truly belongs in the “Skepticism” category)

Ray Comfort is at it again. After a short period of trying to act serious and humble, he’s right back to insulting the intellects of atheists everywhere, while still claiming that he has good reason to believe what he believes.

Let’s dissect his statement:

I also love science.

No, he doesn’t. He probably doesn’t even know what the word means.

In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation.

As usual, simply assuming that the world is created is more than enough evidence to prove that it is. Ray Comfort loves science, but doesn’t understand the first thing about it.

Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Ah, here we go with Einstein again. You would think a Christian would show some respect for the dead, but not our dear Ray. Einstein was not a theist, at the very most he was a deist, but even that is up for discussion since he hints at having a definition of a god that isn’t really a god at all. It’s more of a term simply to describe the wonders of the world itself, and not an intelligent force, whether personal or not. I’ve quoted him before, but I’ll do it again:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Back to Ray.

But [atheist scientists] also intellectually disqualify themselves from speaking on behalf of science, because their basic worldview of “nothing created everything” is a scientific impossibility.

He holds on to his most beloved strawman as it he’d die without it. Metaphorically speaking, he probably would. Without his delusion that atheism somehow implies any stance on creation whatsoever, he would wither up and crumble. It’s his only weapon, and all it does is irritate and annoy. Regardless, if he maintains that it’s true that atheists believe “nothing created everything“, then it’s equally true that all Christians firmly believe that “nothing created God“. However, as soon as you mention that, Ray and his followers will start screaming that “God has always existed, he’s outside time” as if that answers all the questions. But, if believing that our universe didn’t have a creator is “intellectually dishonest”, why is it reasonable to believe that God didn’t have a creator as well? I’ve never understood this, nor have I ever gotten an honest answer out of any Christians whom I’ve asked.

Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.

This, of course, right after Ray himself said that the god of Einstein wasn’t the personal, theistic God of Abrahamic religion. Ray doesn’t care if his logic is flawed. In fact, he flaunts his errors in order to troll for more insulted atheists to hang around his honey pot blog.

You love creation. I love the Creator and will escape His terrible swift sword, because I trust in His mercy.

I have no feelings whatsoever towards the creation of the universe. Why would I? It’s an impersonal event billions of years in the past. How do you have feelings towards a giant cosmic expansion-event?

It’s my earnest prayer that you would also trust Jesus for your own eternal salvation today. He doesn’t promise you tomorrow.

He doesn’t promise anything, because he isn’t real.

When Langston was twelve years old, he was saved. His aunt assumed this meant Langston had seen Jesus, but for Langston himself it was a bit different.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The whole essay can be found here, and I recommend it greatly.