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.

If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Arthur C. Clarke

One thing I’ve always wondered is why Christians will often argue that mere human wisdom will get us nowhere, that science can’t discover God because he dwells outside the natural realm. Yet these Christians claim to know all sorts of things about God for sure, simply by instinct. How is it that God is natural enough to directly manipulate his followers’ brains into knowing intimate details concerning his methods, goals and wishes, yet he is at the same time completely and utterly undetectable by any kind of human means, even though we should at least be able to measure the changing brain waves of someone being affected by God. It simply makes no sense, unless the point really is to convey the illusion of knowledge about the ultimately unknowable.

For example, Christians like Ray Comfort will argue that complex design is proof that there is an intelligent designer, because they cannot imagine any way for these designs to form naturally. One of Ray’s favorite lines is that atheists believe “nothing created everything” (which, according to him, is “intellectually embarrassing”), and that by taking God out of the equation we’re left dealing with the fact that the chicken spontaneously chose to lay an egg one day, without anyone or anything “designing” that egg in the first place. It is of course the most horrible of straw men, neither atheists nor scientists believe any such thing. However, they will also refuse to take their own logic and reasoning that one small step further. If the argument is that nothing complex could arise without intelligent design, then the intelligent design that creates these complexities will also, in turn, be complex enough to warrant a creator of its own. This leads to an infinite regress, and neither solves any problems nor answers any questions.

In essence, when Ray tells me that I believe “nothing created everything”, he is also telling me that he believes that “nothing created God, which then created everything” whether he likes it or not. Yet pointing this out will render nothing but silence, or a change of subject, as response. He must, for his own faith’s sake, ignore any further reasoning along those very lines, lest he end up realizing that God is impossible.

If you want to watch real intellectual embarrassment in action, look no further than to Ray Comfort, the very master of digging one’s own grave.

I learned something new today. Apparently, because I have a hard time accepting proposition without evidence as truth, I am to be considered “mentally ill”. That’s right, according to user bwinwright on AllVoices.com, all those attention seeking atheists out there are clinically insane, and deliberately trolling and taunting them is, I quote:

[...] like throwing holy water on Satan. It’s fun!

Apparently, this isn’t even really about God per se, but rather the fact that “intelligent direction” is absolutely evident and mandatory at all times, in all cases. The atheists refusal to agree with this is, naturally, enough to declare us “mentally ill”.

Now, admittedly I’m not a psychiatrist, but then again I’m pretty sure bwinwright isn’t one either, so we’re pretty much on equal grounds here. I think he has just as much credential to diagnose anyone as I do, that is none whatsoever. Remembering this, it’s very hard to take him seriously.

Further, according to him, “the one thing I do know is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. It is really nothing more than common sense” (his emphasis). So then I suppose it is totally acceptable to scrap all the scheduled space flights, cancel all the regular flights and put all the boats on dry land. You know, because common sense dictates that only birds can fly, nothing can live in space and heavy boats made out of metal should sink like stones. This is the kind of common sense that he wants us to live by. Unquestioning, wilfully ignorant common sense.

Unlike bwinwright, I like to question things, even that which is considered common sense. If people hadn’t questioned that, we wouldn’t have planes, boats and space rockets today. We would be stuck in our caves or mud huts, amazed at the gathering storm but utterly convinced by common sense that nothing could make fire except lightning striking the earth. In reality, even bwinwright questions a lot of things that are common sense. Just not the one thing that we have tons and tons of evidence against. He’s convinced that this one thing, this intelligent director, simply has to exist no matter what. It won’t matter to him how much evidence we give for purely natural phenomena, it won’t matter how many things we are able to explain in detail. He is utterly attached to, and dependent on, the idea of a “higher power” in the form of a theistic deity that directs and produces everything in existence. Despite all common sense, he believes this being actually exists.

I’m left to wonder which one of us fits the description of “mentally ill” best. Certainly, believing that something exists that you’ve never seen, heard, touched or smelled, that no instrument could ever measure or probe, that no other natural element is ever effected by and that is not even strictly necessary to explain anything anymore could be considered delusional, something which is very much a sign of actual mental illness. But then again, I’m not a psychiatrist, so that diagnosis isn’t mine to make.

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.