Yes, yes, yes! I’ve had a revelation of sorts. It’s based on one core concept: that the progress we’ve made in this world is based almost solely on science. Literally, and I mean that in the literal sense, everything we have and enjoy and cherish is given to us by science. 2/3 of your kids would be dead without science. We wouldn’t have the internet or medicine or mobile phones or DVDs to watch. We wouldn’t live in nice little neighborhoods with unlocked doors. Science has pulled us out of the muck and given us the chance to be civilized and socialized. It’s the most important thing in the world.
Yes, of course, science if flawed. It’s wrong a lot and it’s political and manned by humans so as fallible as all of us are. But it is science itself which finds and fixes the errors and scientists and their students who invent the things that become the life-enriching advances of the future. Science, as Carl Sagan said, is a candle in the dark.
And yet this most proven and successful enterprise in human history, that provides the very foundation of all that we do, giving us literally life itself, is the enemy to some! And to others it is merely just one other view, equal to all other views, including the uninformed ravings of astrologers and clergymen.
Science is under attack by people with an agenda that is mystical in nature. They are religious people, “New Age” people, “woo” medicine peddlers and other op-ed nut cases. They demean science and applaud quackery and they lead us away from the mindset which has given us everything we have.
Atheism is the natural worldview of the scientific mind. Oh, I know, many great scientists were theists. Religion is the last stand of mysticism and superstition in human psychology. But it’s not turtles all the way down, we are not special creatures destined to be cuddled by a friendly superbeing in heavenly comfort and nothing lasts forever, not even the universe. It is incredibly arrogant to think that we alone are eternal and happily reunited with our loved ones forever. It’s nonsense. There is no spoon. It is quite peaceful once you accept it.
Be here now.
lolife 
I’m sure this guy has already been corrected, but just in case.
“If someone were to look at software you’ve developed and say “This is such an elegant, well engineered, and complete solution, it must have come together out of chance and refined itself over a great period of time.â€, that would be ridiculous and disrespectful to the programmer who created it. Likewise, looking at the beautiful and intricate universe we live indicates that this awesome creation must have had a creator.”
False analogy; A has some property X, and thus B must also have property X (i.e. the universe is like a software)
“Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either.”
Cosmological models such as the Big Bang are not perfect but such concepts as primordial nucleosynthesis explain the production of hydrogen, helium, and lithium isotopes (i.e. early elements of the universe). Baryogenesis explain baryon-antibaryon asymmetry and the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today. Cosmic microwave background radiation explain cosmic inflation and inhomogeneities. Quantum fluctuations explain energy and space. Also, you do realize that there is more than one scientific cosmological model for how the universe started (e.g. cyclic cosmology, loop quantum cosmology, brane cosmology) all explained by physics instead of some dusty old mythology book, right?
“Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link†wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.”
Why is it that every creationist has a problem with the principle of speciation in the face of AMPLE evidence?
– Anagenesis and cladogenesis
– Adaptive radiation
– Horizontal gene transfer, genome infusions in endosymbioses, adaptive changes in genome size
– Biodiversity
– Speciation
– Phenotypic plasticity
– Phylogenetic trees
– Transitional fossils
– Living fossils
– Homologous structures and divergent evolution
– Vestigial structures and embryonic development
– Molecular variance
– Universal biochemical organisation
– Gene duplication
– Reassorting of alleles and genetic recombination
– Isotopic evidence from Earth’s crust
“My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.”
You sir are a moron.
LikeLike
Greg,
Let me preface this post with an apology for any offense it may cause. It is not intended.
I think you need to consider the quality of evidence here. There is very good objective, direct, scientific evidence for the theory that the universe had its origins in the big bang. Your “leap of faith” to the belief that God had a hand in creating the universe is entirely based in subjective and circumstantial evidence which has absolutely no scientific basis. The big bang theory is supported by actual, verifiable scientific observation and experimentation. To argue that god must have a hand in the creation of the universe because it is complex is just silly. Direct and objective evidence is simply better evidence than circumstantial and subjective evidence no matter how much you want to cling to the latter. The best you can say is god may have had a hand in creation….but to pretend you know presupposes that you know god exists…which you do not.
By the way, if you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you need to read some of its history. Here’s a shorty—The bible as we know it today is a compilation of roughly 66 books authored by at least 40 people (many anonymous) over a period of 1600 (yes…. one thousand six hundred) years. The new testament was canonized almost four hundred years after the death of Christ and many books were of uncertain authorship and many were left out (see the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Thomas). The decision on what to put in and what to leave out was made largely by the bishop of Lyon (Irenaeus)……not God. The book was translated and transcribed at least 25000 times by different organizations with their own interests, including an incredibly powerful and corrupt holy catholic church which gave us a fine history of holy events such as the inquisition, the crusades, indulgences etc…..
All I can say is…. If you believe the bible is the divine infallible word of god knowing its history ……I have a fucking bridge to sell you. The bible is no basis for reaching any scientific conclusion.
LikeLike
Science doesn’t exist without man. Do we say that man created science? or Man discovered science?
I would guess we are in the process of discovering science, we gain insights and intelligence all the time.
and as always
If,
God is Love
and
Love is Blind
and
Ray Charles is/was Blind
therefore
Ray Charles is God
LikeLike
That’s, cool, Greg. No offense intended or taken. I do hope my last parting thought was thought provoking — in a religious person’s view, scientists are studying god’s creation. As such science could never oppose god. Evolution is just another of god’s awesome creations.
LikeLike
I am no more convinced of your arguments than you are of mine. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
LikeLike
jachin, you are right, of course. I was trying to say that science in practice is flawed. Science as a process is not flawed.
Aeryck, great fucking point, dude!
LikeLike
Greg, the “flaws” in evolution are poorly understood by creationists such that they can’t be trusted on the subject due to their predisposition towards a conclusion they’ve reached for non-scientific reasons. The anthropomorphic arguments are also silly. If something did happen it can happen. We understand the Big Bang quite well, certainly better than creationists understand god. There is no equality between the two “theories”. One is rigorous science and one is subjective mythology.
If you wish to believe in god and want to explain creation via that belief, more power to you. But it is complete and utter folly to try to equate it with actual scientific theories. We can explain the universe from nanoseconds after the Big Bang through to today without the need for a deity of any kind. In fact, conceptually, deities have slowed down our progress in understanding the universe. We have yet to find a “theory” involving a deity that wasn’t wrong. Science, on the other hand, converges on the truth, more each day.
The most I hope from theists is an acknowledgment that, if there is a god, he was smart enough to create a universe we can understand through science.
LikeLike
“Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link†wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.”
Fortunately, modern biology and the theory of evolution has progressed beyond paleontology and discovery of fossils. Today with advances in molecular biology, we able to study the development of a variety of different species and, whether it is a starfish, fruit fly, zebrafish, frog, mouse, human etc., there is a common genetic toolbox that is responsible for the development of the organism. Changes to the genes and/or changes in the regulation of the expression of genes combined with natural selection over millions of years remains the best scientific explanation for the “endless forms most beautiful” we see in world today. Darwin’s theory of evolution has not only survived 150 years of scientific testing, it is the basis for modern human biology and medicine. No designer or faith required:)
LikeLike
I don’t think “science” is “flawed”. It might appear that way if you think of it as some sort of ultimate arbitrator of all truth, but it’s only science.
LikeLike
Thanks for the open discussion.
The origin of the creator is indeed something I cannot explain scientifically. Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either. I hope we can both agree that either scenario involves a leap of faith.
In your blog you stated that “science has pulled us out of the muck and given us a chance to be civilized and socializedâ€. I’ll assume for now that you were referring to Darwin’s theory of evolution. That theory requires us to believe that there was muck to begin with.
So, where did the muck come from? What about the rest of the intricacies of the universe? Does Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory answer it satisfactorily? That would also have us believe that everything came from nothing and lucky for us, the universe fell into balance and on at least one planet there was muck around that was capable of evolving into what we are today.
Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link†wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.
Sagan’s conclusion as you put it “universes are easier to explain than gods†is actually a red herring. Scientifically speaking neither are easier to explain than the other.
My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.
LikeLike
Welcome Greg!
That is a very common argument and it is deeply, deeply flawed. Looking at an all-powerful being capable of creating universes indicates that this awesome being must have had a creator.
Right?
You are comfortable claiming god has no creator but you are uncomfortable with the notion that the universe has no creator?
It’s gotta end somewhere. You choose a vague and superstitious notion called “god” for reasons logic can’t explain. Atheists, as Carl Sagan said, skip a step and reach a more simple conclusion — universes are easier to explain than gods.
LikeLike
If someone were to look at software you’ve developed and say “This is such an elegant, well engineered, and complete solution, it must have come together out of chance and refined itself over a great period of time.â€, that would be ridiculous and disrespectful to the programmer who created it. Likewise, looking at the beautiful and intricate universe we live indicates that this awesome creation must have had a creator.
Science (without presuppositions) declares the glory of God.
LikeLike
or maybe you reverse it…God is Science?
LikeLike
is not
LikeLike