“God Did It” Explains Everything … or Maybe Not

"Creation of Adam" painting raises the question: does God even exist?It’s time once again to check in with apologist Greg Koukl. In a recent podcast (“Is Consciousness an Illusion?“ 12/4/11), he talked about Daniel Dennett’s 2006 book Breaking the Spell.

Let me first seize the opportunity to agree with something. Koukl says, “Reality is the kind of thing … that will injure you if you don’t take it seriously.” It’s good to see us with the same goal of seeing reality clearly.

But we don’t agree on everything. Koukl said:

[Dennett has] made a claim in this book about something that is very, very difficult for a materialist to deal with that makes sense completely within a Christian worldview. (3:05)

The “something” is consciousness. So Koukl says that the scientist has a tough time explaining consciousness, but it’s easy for the Christian.

While it’s true that science has much to discover about consciousness and how it works, I don’t see anything in particular that ought to keep the naturalist up at night. Science has an unanswered question—big deal. Science has lots of unanswered questions. It also has a marvelous track record for answering them.

But what trips me up here is the idea that the Christian worldview adds to the discussion. How does God explain anything?

Let me make clear that I can never prove that God didn’t do something. For example, let’s consider a few claims about God by Pat Robertson. He said that God is “lifting His protection from this nation” to allow terrorist attacks (2001). And that Hurricane Katrina might be God’s doing (2005). And that the people of Haiti made a pact with the devil, in response to which God allowed the earthquake that killed 300,000 (2010). These are assertions without evidence (and, in the case of Haiti in particular, of much contrary evidence), but I can’t prove that “God did it” is false.

The fact is, “God did it” can explain everything. As a result, it explains nothing.

“God did it” is simply a repackaging of “I don’t know.” It tells us nothing new. I’m no smarter after hearing “God did it” than before. It tamps down one set of questions, but others pop up: Who is God and how does he act in the world? Is he one of the thousands of gods that humans have already formed religions around or someone new? Why did God do what he did? What natural laws did God use to do it, and what laws did he suspend? How can we communicate with him?

And think about the size of various claims. The claim “1 + 1 = 2” is not controversial. The claim “I had a sandwich for lunch” is unsurprising, and thorough evidence could be provided to back it up. But the claim “There is a being that created the universe” is without scientific precedent—that is, science knows of no supernatural anything, let alone a being that could create the universe. I can think of no bolder claim than “God did it.” It’s baffling to me how apologists can toss out that immense claim and simply let it hang there, supported by nothing more than wishful thinking and tradition.

“God did it” doesn’t do it. It satisfies only those who want their preconceptions affirmed.

But let me take a step back for a moment. I’m treating this claim with the dignity due those that make testable pronouncements about reality. Perhaps that’s my mistake—if it’s simply a theological claim divorced from reality, fine. In that case, it’s a claim to be taken simply on faith, with no pretense of evidence or verifiability, and I have no use for it.

Let me end with a song, “Tell Me Why” by Pat Benatar*, which nicely makes the “God did it” claim.

Tell me why the stars do shine,
Tell me why the ivy twines,
Tell me what makes skies so blue,
And I’ll tell you why I love you.

(refrain)
Because God made the ivy twine.
Because God made the stars to shine.
Because God made the sky so blue.
Because God made you, that’s why I love you.

This Christian explanation is poetic, but for those of us who prefer to actually understand the world, Isaac Asimov has a new and improved refrain:

Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,
Tropisms make the ivy twine,
Rayleigh scattering make skies so blue,
Testicular hormones are why I love you.

I’ll stick with the discipline with the track record for explaining reality.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

*Lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, EMI Music Publishing.

Related posts:

  • Don’t Move the Goalposts. Apologists often say about the puzzling questions at the limits of science, “If you can’t answer them, we can!” For the old questions (such as “What causes disease?” or “What causes drought?”) this claim is now laughable. Why is Christianity’s claim to answer the new questions any less so?
  • Philosophical Grounding: A Parable. We’re told, “The atheist borrows from the Christian worldview!” But dig into this claim, and you’ll see there’s nothing there.

45 thoughts on ““God Did It” Explains Everything … or Maybe Not

  1. It’s a pity that Asimov equates love with sex. Even worse when one realises that this was part of a selection of songs for children! Whatever feeling is caused by our testicular hormones, if you’re having for your kids it’s not love!

    Surely this is a perfect example of why materialistic reductionism is absurd.

    • It’s like the question, “Why is the kettle boiling?” One answer goes through the physics to explain it, and the other is a simple, “I wanted to make tea.”

      Depending on the question, explaining the science behind phenomena doesn’t give the best answer, even though that answer may be correct. (And I suspect that Asimov, unconstrained by the rules of poetry, could’ve given a more complete answer.)

      So, no: not absurd.

      • Bod S said: It’s like the question, “Why is the kettle boiling?” One answer goes through the physics to explain it, and the other is a simple, “I wanted to make tea.”

        It’s simply the common human practice of personifying science.

        Being in a kettle on a stove, we can assume there’s an intention behind the boiling water.

        What do we do if the boiling water is from a hot spring? The religious mind sees an intention behind such things as natural hot springs. Should we imagine that the Earth is alive and wants to make tea? Maybe there’s a spirit that lives in the spring that wants to make tea? Or, maybe hot springs were created by the Biblical God to confound humans so they’d sense a higher meaning that would drive them to seek this invisible and immaterial god?

        Surely this is a perfect example of why anthropomorphism is absurd.

      • No, it’s not. My love for my children is not sexual at all. And I am sure that is the case for most of us (ie those of us who shouldn’t be locked up). Asimov’s attribution was not merely simplistic (for poetry’s sake), it was wrong.

        Even if you are referring to a relationship that legitimately includes sex, to say that the relationship is driven entirely (or even primarily) by sexual urges is to grossly mischaracterize many relationships. I understand that such a view is not uncommon in today’s society, but what is being described is so impoverished a relationship, it is in no way worthy of the name ‘love’.

      • My assumption (and Asimov’s apparently) is that “love” here refers to that between two adults.

        If you don’t like “testicular hormones” and won’t give him a break because of the constraints of rhyme and meter, then what explanation do you have for love? Are you simply saying that we need to find the right gland?

      • Bob, I believe that life and love are both more than a case of assembling the right parts.

        It seems that you are the one who thinks it’s a case of finding the right gland. I believe that love involves intention, and therefore the will. If you want to believe that we are just elaborate clockwork machines, then you can make a case for it being physical. But, just like all the other roads away from God, this one too leads to nihilism.

        If you want to believe that life has meaning and choice, there must be more than the physical universe.

      • Karl:

        If you want to believe that we are just elaborate clockwork machines, then you can make a case for it being physical.

        Science has discarded thousands of hypotheses of supernatural cause and verified zero. Why imagine anything different in this situation?

        But, just like all the other roads away from God, this one too leads to nihilism.

        You mean that ultimately there is no meaning? Sure, but who cares? That doesn’t mean that life without God is without boatloads of meaning.

  2. Great points, all having to do with answering tough questions. Atheism has answers that are so much more convincing.
    – Nothing caused everything, including matter (Couldn’t be a cause greater than the matter itself)
    – Random chance accounts for the order we see in the physical universe (Couldn’t be an intelligent cause—nah, that’s just wacky!)
    – Accidental fortuitous mutations result in complex synergies of interconnected systems that, as Paley states, “overwhelm us with the appearance of design.” (Couldn’t be designed with a purpose. Bummer that it looks so convincingly like it was designed.)
    – And on and on.

    Ah, yes. Randomness is such a great answer for everything. I think I will simply chuck Christianity for atheism. It is so much more satisfying. Accidents are so much better at explaining what appears complex. Wonder how many times I’d have to crash my Ford F-150 into a wall to make it into a Ferarri?

    And yet, we have a blogger who can’t even correctly spell the name of the latest target of his criticism. Must be random chance on the keyboard bringing order again.

    • Atheism has answers that are so much more convincing.

      It’s great to hear that you find them satisfying.

      – Nothing caused everything, including matter (Couldn’t be a cause greater than the matter itself)

      This is the consensus view of science? I haven’t heard this. Please point me to this information.

      – Random chance accounts for the order we see in the physical universe

      Who says this? I think natural laws play a large role as well.

      (Couldn’t be an intelligent cause—nah, that’s just wacky!)

      Amen, brother!

      – Accidental fortuitous mutations …

      … and natural selection. Yes, that is indeed how evolution works. Pretty cool, eh?!

      Randomness is such a great answer for everything.

      I’ve not heard it as an answer to much of anything. Combined with other things in nature, however, and the combination does indeed explain quite a lot.

      Wonder how many times I’d have to crash my Ford F-150 into a wall to make it into a Ferarri?

      Is this supposed to be an analogy to something in nature? I’m not seeing it.

      And yet, we have a blogger who can’t even correctly spell the name of the latest target of his criticism.

      Good point. I always reject as false anything that contains a typo. I recommend that course of action here.

    • Rick T wrote: “Ah, yes. Randomness is such a great answer for everything. I think I will simply chuck Christianity for atheism. It is so much more satisfying. Accidents are so much better at explaining what appears complex. Wonder how many times I’d have to crash my Ford F-150 into a wall to make it into a Ferarri?”

      Nice to see that you judge the truth by how it makes you feel Rick.

      Certainly it feels so much better to believe that an all-powerful God made everything perfect, and the only reason we have all the bad things like earthquakes, death, and animals eating each other, is simply because someone took a bite out of an apple… Wow, that really does make much more logical sense, it’s so much easier to understand, and it makes me feel so darned special!

      BTW, I wonder how many times I’d have to pray to get God before He’d make my Ford-150 into a Ferrari?

      • Retro—Way to put words in my mouth. That is called a straw man fallacy—rephrasing my words into an argument of your choosing, then defeating the argument that was never made.

        Did I talk about feeling, or was I talking about what made sense in terms of causation? You can twist words, but the logic remains in all of what I wrote. You can belittle instead of discussing whether causation is a reasonable way to consider the state of reality, or you can do pithy, empty one liners.

        Natural selection can only select if the mutations at the genetic level increase the complexity. Show me how that happens at the chromosome level.

        I stand by the points I made. And please don’t lump me with the name it and claim it branch of aberrant Christianity without evidence I hold those views. Another straw man argument falls flat.

      • Rick:

        Natural selection can only select if the mutations at the genetic level increase the complexity. Show me how that happens at the chromosome level.

        You have base pair A. It is duplicated erroneously and becomes AA. One of the A’s is copied incorrectly and you have AB. So you had A and now you have AB. Voila–more complexity.

        You accept all this, I assume, but wonder how to get increased complexity at a higher level?

        Another straw man argument falls flat.

        Lord be praised.

      • Rick T wrote: Natural selection can only select if the mutations at the genetic level increase the complexity. Show me how that happens at the chromosome level.

        This video is a good place to start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

        It’s an hour long, but it’s much shorter than Ben Stein’s “Expelled!” (I took the time to watch “Expelled!”, and I’m sure you did too.)

        If this video doesn’t answer a specific question you may have, I’ll look around and try to find a more specific video or book.

        You can belittle instead of discussing whether causation is a reasonable way

        Just returning the favor.

      • Retro, Actually applying to another post, but whether a reply tag shows up on a post seems rather random here, anyway …

        Why not be a deist?
        Because I am convinced that Jesus was God in human form and that he died and rose again.

      • Karl:

        Retro, Actually applying to another post, but whether a reply tag shows up on a post seems rather random here, anyway …

        Yeah, it’s not always easy to keep track of the responses and to find the proper reply tag.

        Why not be a deist?
        Because I am convinced that Jesus was God in human form and that he died and rose again.

        Are you convinced of this because of evidence, due to personal experience, or is it some combination of the two?

        And from here, we must then ask how much of your personal experience is objective, and how much of it is emotional?

        It’s a common personal experience for a person to be very frightened of something that is not actually that much of a threat to them personally. Things such as: insects, needles, heights, etc. Objectively, all these things do pose a risk, but it can cause varying degrees of emotional response in people. Often, the emotion is much much greater than the risk would justify. A couple of examples might be: someone running into a brick wall to get away from a bee, or someone not getting a vaccination due to a fear of needles.

        And it’s not only the emotion of fear. Personal experiences can also be shaped by what one desires to be true. Someone may decide objectively that their chances of winning a lottery justifies the expense of buying a ticket. The desire to win, however, often causes people to feel their chances are much better than what they really are.

        Objectively, someone will win the lottery. Objectively, that someone could be you if you buy a ticket. Objectively, you can double your chances of winning by buying two tickets instead of just one. Anything more than that is simply unjustified. No matter how lucky one may feel, or not feel, their feelings are not going to change the probabilities of winning.

        From my personal experience, a religious experience can be invoked by any number of things, and I don’t think it is exclusive to religion. Is there anything from your personal experience as a Christian that makes it more objective than the personal experience of someone of a different religion? If not, then I think it would be difficult to justify belief in anything more than simple Deism.

      • Retro:

        Someone may decide objectively that their chances of winning a lottery justifies the expense of buying a ticket.

        I’ve read that the chances of winning a big lottery are less than the chances of dying while on the way to buy a ticket.

    • Bob,
      Who wants meaning? Me, for starters. And probably most people in the world. If our lives are truly ultimately meaningless. If whatever choice we make is all either an illusion or an exercise in futility, then every time we attach meaning to any choice we are deluding ourselves. This runs counter to everything we intuit about ourselves and the world we live in.

      We all live our lives under the assumption that choices matter. Perhaps that is a false assumption, but if so, everything that was precious about life turns out to be merely smoke and mirrors.

      Every philosophy of life must ultimately be grounded either in the supernatural, or be devoid of meaning and purpose. You say that you can create your own meaning. But whatever meaning you create, like castles made of sand, will wash into the sea, eventually.

      • Karl:

        Who wants meaning? Me, for starters.

        And me, as I made plain in my comment.

        If our lives are truly ultimately meaningless. If whatever choice we make is all either an illusion or an exercise in futility, then every time we attach meaning to any choice we are deluding ourselves.

        We’re talking about two different things here: meaning and Ultimate® Meaning. I’m not quite sure what the latter means—that our names will be jotted down in God’s diary rather than not? But let’s first agree that these are two different things.

        Show me the loss of not having Ultimate Meaning. I kinda see the ego boost to imagine that we’re important enough for God to think of us fondly a billion years from now. Is there anything else here?

        This runs counter to everything we intuit about ourselves and the world we live in.

        That there’s ultimate meaning rather than just meaning? I certainly don’t intuit that there must be ultimate meaning, so please elaborate about how we know this.

        We all live our lives under the assumption that choices matter.

        Yes, they matter. Again, let’s not confuse meaning with ultimate meaning.

        Perhaps that is a false assumption, but if so, everything that was precious about life turns out to be merely smoke and mirrors.

        Let’s imagine that you become an atheist. You’ll look back on your previous successes and your family and friends, the good you’ve done in the world, and your hopes and dreams about the future, and you’ll say, “Ahhh! With the clarity of atheism, I now realize that this is all absolutely meaningless. There’s simply no point in getting out of bed in the morning. It’s all ashes. I think I’ll go kill myself now.”

        No other atheist has ever said that. Maybe you’re misunderstanding something.

      • Karl wrote: Every philosophy of life must ultimately be grounded either in the supernatural, or be devoid of meaning and purpose.

        Which is exactly why you’re a Christian.

        You don’t believe in Jesus and the Bible because of evidence, or because the Gospel message makes any logical sense.

        Why not drop all the special revelation BS and simply be a Deist? That way you can have your supernatural grounding without all the illogical, improbable, and immoral baggage.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

      • Bob,
        You don’t seem to sure of what ultimate meaning is, but you’re sure I’m talking about that instead of simply meaning. Why?

        What I’ talking about is meaning and purpose of life as we go down the track. At the end of the day (or the end of our lives) what do any of the choices we have made count for?

        Without something supernatural (ie above the natural world) there is nothing that can assign meaning that is bigger than ourselves, and so no meaning that can persist beyond our lives.

        I am not saying that all atheists are nihilists. Some haven’t followed the train of thought all the way down there yet. Some have seen where it goes and want to imagine it doesn’t really go there. Some decide to live hedonistically because they figure they may as well at least be happy while they can. And some do kill themselves.

        What I was actually saying though, is that we have a very strong sense that our choices do matter (irrespective of whether we are atheists or not) and that this should be a good hint that any belief system that leads us to nihilism is missing something.

        Happy New Year!

      • Karl:

        You don’t seem to sure of what ultimate meaning is, but you’re sure I’m talking about that instead of simply meaning. Why?

        You made no clear distinction between meaning and ultimate meaning, and I’m trying to bring that distinction to the surface. It seems essential to make sense of what you’re saying. If I’ve misunderstood your points, please clarify.

        What I’ talking about is meaning and purpose of life as we go down the track. At the end of the day (or the end of our lives) what do any of the choices we have made count for?

        Right. You’re talking about ultimate meaning. Got it.

        Nothing wrong with that but (1) I see no evidence that it exists and (2) that doesn’t mean there is no ordinary meaning in our lives.

        Without something supernatural (ie above the natural world) there is nothing that can assign meaning that is bigger than ourselves, and so no meaning that can persist beyond our lives.

        I understand that. What I don’t understand is who would care. I mean, sure, it’d be fun to have the Creator of the Universe jot a note in his indestructible diary about me that would last billions of years, but what is that more than an ego boost?

        Some haven’t followed the train of thought all the way down there yet.

        I certainly understand that some people had terrible lives or have no sense of purpose. The connection with atheism, however, is what I don’t see.

        Again: if we take away ultimate meaning (and I’m not sure we’ve even defined what that is, so perhaps that’s no loss), we still have meaning. Where’s the problem?

        we have a very strong sense that our choices do matter

        Sure. Having a meaningful life isn’t a certainty, of course, but most of us can look at our accomplishments, our family and friends, the pleasures of life, and so on, and find meaning. Our choices do matter. If you’re still trying to point in an ultimate direction, I don’t see that at all; you’ll need to show me that this exists.

        Happy New Year!

        And to you and all my readers! Thanks for your participation!

      • Bob S wrote: I mean, sure, it’d be fun to have the Creator of the Universe jot a note in his indestructible diary about me that would last billions of years, but what is that more than an ego boost?

        I think this is an important distinction that often doesn’t get made.

        What EXACTLY does it mean to say you have meaning that is bigger than yourself, a meaning that can persist beyond your life?

        In order to have this bigger meaning, does it require an afterlife?

      • Retro,
        Hope you find this. This comments section is about as linear as a Fighting Fantasy book, only there are no numbers to help you connect the parts in the right order.

        Because I am convinced that Jesus was God in human form and that he died and rose again.

        Are you convinced of this because of evidence, due to personal experience, or is it some combination of the two?

        Largely due to evidence, initially personal testimony, later backed up by my own study and investigation of the issues. And I must also say that my own study has caused me to refine my stances on some of my initial Christian beliefs. There have been things that I have believed wrongly that I have changed my stance over (eg re evolution). However, the things I mentioned (that Jesus was God in human form and that he died and rose again) I have become more convinced of through everything I have studied.

      • Bob,
        So you made it to the comment reply treasure hunt. Congratulations!

        So what is your stance on evolution? You say you changed it, but I’m not sure what you changed it to.

        I now accept evolution. Or more to the point, I reject Young Earth Creationism, on both scientific and theological grounds.

  3. The ship sinking is just your subjective opinion. That the natural chemical reactions in your physical brain are forcing you to say.

    Amen Rick T!

    • Bob C wrote: That the natural chemical reactions in your physical brain are forcing you to say.

      So your main objection is that without a God, somehow you would only be a mindless robot that’s forced to comply to it’s pre-programmed instructions?

  4. Bob,

    AA mutating to AB doesn’t add complexity. It is just two genes walking along next to each other. The complexity needed is that which produces a new capability not previously present in an organism and which favors survival. No fur becoming fur or scales to skin to fur takes a significant change, far more than AA to AB at some random point on the gene. You know that. This response doesn’t do anything for your case, but is an oversimplification of an enormously complex issue.

    Retro,

    I checked out the video you recommended. Perhaps because it was from over two years ago, several of the topics Dr. Coyne used as evidence have since been refuted. I am not an expert in his field, but if you want to cite specific issues you find particularly convincing, perhaps I could refer you to the other side of those arguments. I didn’t find particularly convincing his characterization of those who disagreed with him as “perverse,” and as “morons” who were not worth wasting his time on.

    As for “Expelled,” I don’t see how Ben Stein’s movie advances any part of this conversation. He simply documented bias in academia. If you want to dispute that topic, it would be a new one. But we can go there if you like.

    As for returning the favor, REALLY?? If that is your interpretation, I apologize. I was trying to respond to your argument, which is a classic example of a straw man fallacy. If you disagree, tell me why your re-characterization of my comments was not one.

    • AA mutating to AB doesn’t add complexity.

      My example was A becoming AB. Of course, by similar thinking, A could’ve become ABDACBBA.

      You asked about changes at the chromosome level. I don’t know much about that, but I’m sure biologists have thought about it. Are you saying that they have no answer to your challenge?

      if you want to cite specific issues you find particularly convincing, perhaps I could refer you to the other side of those arguments.

      This could be a worthwhile project, but that you can point to someone who argues against this or that point doesn’t say much. My question always is: what’s the scientific consensus? If it’s with Coyne, case closed.

      • It wouldn’t be simply AB becoming more complex to your ABDACBBA. It would be more like randomly writing out a new coherent edition of the encyclopedia set none of us have on the shelf any more. So it simply isn’t that simple.

        Asserting consensus (as Retro’s YouTube video Dr. Coyne does) does not mean much when he ignores all of the evidence not in favor of his position. Coyne ignores all of the PhD research on the creationist side, I suspect simply because it disagrees with the evolutionary position. The creationist position, after all, is by his definition, unscientific. This is not scientific consensus. It is unscientific bullying, and it happens all the time. Dawkins is the high priest of the tactic, but Coyne, Gould and others try to keep up.

        Once again, the concept of an intelligent programmer writing code is a better analogy than random chance creating mutations (which confuse or leave out information as we observe all mutations today) and then natural selection waving a magic wand to manufacture new features. Niether the random chance nor the natural selection can do that kind of creative work.

      • So it simply isn’t that simple.

        Agreed. Just random mutation (which, for some reason, many Creationists are fascinated or mesmerized by) doesn’t describe evolution. Natural selection is the other ingredient which turns chaos into something interesting.

        Asserting consensus (as Retro’s YouTube video Dr. Coyne does) does not mean much when he ignores all of the evidence not in favor of his position.

        I haven’t watched the video.

        We don’t know if his assertion of consensus is correct, but if it is, that settles it for me. Are you saying that the biology community at large are unaware of the challenges made by Creationists?

        Coyne ignores all of the PhD research on the creationist side, I suspect simply because it disagrees with the evolutionary position.

        By “PhD research,” are you referring to only PhDs in biology? Since we’re talking about Biology, they’re the only ones that I care about. Jonathan Wells and (to a limited extent) Michael Behe are the only ones I’ve heard of in this category.

        The creationist position, after all, is by his definition, unscientific. This is not scientific consensus.

        Is it the scientific consensus that the Creationist position is unscientific? That’s the relevant question, right?

        It is unscientific bullying, and it happens all the time.

        If by “bullying,” you mean the hardball game that science is, I’m all for it. That keeps the quality of science high. Its track record is pretty phenomenal, and we both want to keep Science honest. But if you mean that there’s a different and more stringent set of rules imposed only on Creationists, that’s a different story, and for that I’d like to see the argument.

        Niether the random chance nor the natural selection can do that kind of creative work.

        Is this the scientific consensus? When it is, I’ll embrace it. Until then, I discard it.

    • Rick T wrote: As for returning the favor, REALLY?? If that is your interpretation, I apologize.

      All I did was simply reverse what you had written. If you were somehow offended by what I wrote, then maybe I should also be offended by what you wrote. As long as you can take what you dish out, I’m fine with with pithy comments.

      Rick T wrote: As for “Expelled,” I don’t see how Ben Stein’s movie advances any part of this conversation.

      My point was that I often watch videos that support the opposing viewpoint, and I hope that you’re open to doing the same.

      Rick T wrote: I checked out the video you recommended. Perhaps because it was from over two years ago, several of the topics Dr. Coyne used as evidence have since been refuted. I am not an expert in his field, but if you want to cite specific issues you find particularly convincing, perhaps I could refer you to the other side of those arguments. I didn’t find particularly convincing his characterization of those who disagreed with him as “perverse,” and as “morons” who were not worth wasting his time on.

      What exactly has been refuted? Who exactly is refuting it? What research has been done in the last two years that overturns the previous research?

      Let me ask you this: What would you say about someone who believes the Earth is flat? What about a person who still believes in the Geocentric model? You don’t need to be an atheist to accept the evidence for evolution, but it seems you must be a Creationist in order to deny the evidence.

      Should public school science classes teach the controversy when it comes to the Flat-Earth and Geocentric theories? Why or why not?

      No fur becoming fur or scales to skin to fur takes a significant change, …

      And what does the theory of evolution say about this? The theory of evolution explains this IS a significant change that requires a significant number of changes, over a significant number of generations.

      Do you believe in the worldwide Noahic Flood that occured several thousand years ago? Do you realize the changes needed for the small number of animals preserved on the ark to diversify into the large number of animals that we see today would require a much, much, much greater rate of change than what the theory of evolution requires?

  5. Bob said:

    ” Is this the scientific consensus? When it is, I’ll embrace it. Until then, I discard it.”

    This is all Bob ever says. Whatever the scientific consensus is I will embrace it. Well folks that is a “Faith” commitment. Hmmm? Sounds religious?

    • This is all Bob ever says.

      True, I’m a bit of a broken record here. But then again, this is exactly what you say as well. In chemistry, anyway. And materials science. And quantum physics. And astronomy. And any discipline of science that doesn’t step on your religious toes. You realize that science isn’t perfect but that it does a pretty remarkable job in telling us about reality.

      Well folks that is a “Faith” commitment. Hmmm? Sounds religious?

      Not really. I’d call it a “Trust” commitment. I accept things because of evidence and (here’s the important bit!) I will reject those things with sufficient contrary evidence. That’s not faith.

      • Bob C: Whatever the scientific consensus is I will embrace it. Well folks that is a “Faith” commitment. Hmmm? Sounds religious?

        What’s the religious consensus about this? Oh, yeah, there isn’t one.

        I think this has even been demonstrated here on this blog, the only thing religious people ever really seem to agree on is that atheists are wrong.

        Bob S: You realize that science isn’t perfect but that it does a pretty remarkable job in telling us about reality.

        Science has a pesky way of always proving itself to be correct by actually working whether you believe in it or not. This is the whole point behind things like double-blind experiments.

  6. Not really. I’d call it a “Trust” commitment. I accept things because of evidence and (here’s the important bit!) I will reject those things with sufficient contrary evidence. That’s not faith.

    No, Science is you god, so your faith in science, is faith.

    • No, Science is you god, so your faith in science, is faith.

      OK, you can’t just say, “Nuh-uh!!” and think that that advances the argument. If you disagree with my point, that’s fine, but I’d like to see an argument.

      Let me go back to my point. My position is based on evidence. And here is the important thing: my position will change based on evidence. There’s not a tenet within science that I won’t turn my back on … with evidence.

      How about you? Is this how you feel toward Christianity? If not, then I think we need different words to describe why we accept our relative worldviews. I propose “faith” and “trust.”

  7. The name of this article is God did it. And that is true. God predestines all things that come to pass for His own glory and his own good pleasure. And the atheist can do nothing about it, but shake his fist at God.

    DEUTERONOMY 32:39 – “See now that I, I AM HE, And there is no god besides Me; IT IS I WHO PUT TO DEATH AND GIVE LIFE. I have WOUNDED, and it is I who HEAL; And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.”
    PSALMS 33:10 – “The LORD NULLIFIES the counsel of the nations; HE FRUSTRATES the plans of the peoples.”

    PSALMS 115:3 – “But our God is in the heavens: HE DOES WHATEVER HE PLEASES.”

    WHATSOEVER THE LORD PLEASED, THAT HE DOES in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas, and in all deep places.

    “EPHESIANS 1:11 – “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINED according to THE PURPOSES OF GOD who works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of HIS WILL”

    • And the atheist can do nothing about it, but shake his fist at God.

      But you know that no atheist would shake his fist at God just like he wouldn’t shake his fist at Poseidon.

      And why do you think I would be interested in quotes from a book that I consider to be simply the work of a tribe of people from long ago and far away?

  8. Bob said:

    ” But you know that no atheist would shake his fist at God just like he wouldn’t shake his fist at Poseidon.”

    Know I do not agree with that. Romans (1) says you do know this God and you reject Him in unrighteousness.. I don’t see a website you created denying the existence of Poseidon. You are shaking your fist at the Christian God .. Which is the only God. And His laws are written on your heart. That is why you hate Him and are shaking your fist at him.

    Bob said:

    “…..And why do you think I would be interested in quotes from a book that I consider to be simply the work of a tribe of people from long ago and far away?”

    I don’t think you would be interested in quotes from the Bible.. And you are unable to understand them anyway.. But when God’s word is preached , written, or read. God gets the glory. And when you read them and continue to harden your heart. You become more responsible and more without an excuse. And you make judgment harder on yourself. Because you have been given so much light. And reject it in unrighteousness.

    • Bob C:

      I don’t see a website you created denying the existence of Poseidon.

      Let’s see how well you’ve been paying attention. Why don’t I have a website denying Poseidon?

      That is why you hate Him and are shaking your fist at him.

      Wrong again. I hate Yahweh as much as I do Quetzalcoatl or Shiva.

      And when you read them and continue to harden your heart. You become more responsible and more without an excuse.

      Excellent! Give me the rope to hang myself, eh? Very cunning! And it’s gonna be so sweet when you’re in heaven and I’m in hell, and you can look over the ramparts in heaven and see the writhing bodies down below in hell 24×7. Maybe you can wave at me and toss out a snarky comment. Who’s gonna be sorry then?! Not you!!

      Wow–that will be a hoot! I see why love is so strongly associated with God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>