Jewish M.I.T. researcher, Dr Gerald Schroeder illustrates:

Each cell in your body, is selecting right now approximately five hundred thousand amino acids, consisting of some ten million atoms, organizing them into preselected strings, joining them together, checking to be certain each string is folded into specific shapes, and then shipping each protein off to a site, some inside the cell, some outside, sites that somehow have signaled a need for these specific proteins. Every second. Every cell. Your body is a living wonder.

Agnostic biologist Dr Michael Denton agrees: When in the history of science or engineering did such an advanced machine as the cell arise simply by “chance?” The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

NICE TO HAVE SOME EXPERT OPINION talking sense instead of the drivel straw men argumentsthat have frequenting this debate. Now, no doubt, Dawkins and Circles think these men are mad also.

“Science v. Reason in the classroom”

Should natch be “Science v. Unreason in the classroom”

LOL @ self

I thought we might expand this argument at some stage — not the bickering of late but the argument this thread is (or was) all about. Science v. Reason in the classroom.

Thankfully we’re not nearly as far along the ID road as the Americans. I doubt if we ever will be, but you never know. It could happen that someday we’d grow our own version of Billy Sunday (not to be confused with Man Friday, Baron Samedi, Ruby Tuesday or even Sheffield Wednesday), the snake-oil preacher who gave us these deathless words of wisdom when asked what was more important, God or education:

“When the word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell!”

“If I had a million dollars, I’d give all but one to the Church and the rest to education.”

No, I doubt it could happen here. But we, the godfree, must nevertheless be vigilant for our children’s sakes.

Indeed Dawkins. This debate has been remarkably free of that until now. But, since Sam has lost the argument, I guess it was his last resort.
You fought a good fight and totally demolished him.
Regards,
Joe

You have a good name”

I’m glad you like it so much Sam. You might be intewrested to know that my inspiration for it came from reading about the structure of the human mind, the medulla and other lower regions of which correspond directly with the reptilian mind, and are responsible for primal instincts like the imperative to eat, to have sex, and so on. It is the home of the id, and the root of all desires.

The reason this part of the human brain is structurally identical to the reptilian brain is, wait for it, common ancestry.

I also like the Garden of Eden overtones. Tempting Eve with my flickering tongue. Yes Please.

There’s also some ok techno music floating around out there under this moniker, but that’s probably not your scene.

Thought you might appreciate some background as you liked the name so much.

How can you argue with reasoning like this – if a man like Michael Tigges wins one of the highest science honours in the USA of 2006 and is a 6 Day Creationist “Circles” (another good name for his mind) immediately labels him “looney.”

Circles – why do you not just admit that everyone who agrees with you is (in Circles little world) “normal” even if they have a single figure IQ and those who disagree are daft. That is about the height of your arguments and logic.

Snakebrain,

You have a good name – a quick google will come up with the facts about the so-called “Holy Roman Church,”

Jim Gibney, a senior Sinn Féin official, had just been in to see McCreesh. He was in good shape. Gibney was walking down t he corridor when he saw Sands’s door open. His mother, father and sister, Marcella, were alongside the bed. Bobby was wearing a crucifix given to him by Fr Magee on the Pope’s behalf.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/beresford.htm

Thanks for twisting what I said on the Old Testament laws. I don’t have a problem with the justice of any of them – I just don’t see them applying to the Dispensation that I live in as they were for a nation that had covenanted to follow the laws of God as a nation. Clearly the bits in the Bible that are addressed to angels or the devil of the nation of Israel do not apply to me – I would have thought that was so obvious that it would not require explanation save for the most immature of minds.

Secondly, no doubt you are one of the liberal elite that scoff at the Bible laws and support those that give grown men the right to invert nature with each other and rip tiny babies apart by tearing their brains apart in the womb, while subjecting them to the most excruciating pain. So much for civilization!!

AS for Zeus, try reading Greek history and world history and you will discover that montheism predates polytheism by many centuries. A good example is the temple of heaven in Beijing to the Onee God Shang ti – one of the oldest religious sites in the world.

A little knowledge..eh……

On top of that he’s loosing control of his keyboard (“Why don’t me humble and withdraw your silly remarks” – made me smile).

Why don’t me accept that even the gospels are based on myth that pre-dates them Sam (Come on – even Zeus had a penchant or impregnating virgins and setting his sons all over the earth);-)

You’ve already said that you don’t accept that a person should not be stoned to death for not keeping holy the sabbath – so its a plain lie when you claim to base your view on the Bible. You simply pick the bits you like, and you are clearly imaginative enough to even pick the other bits that make less sense, but you’re not gonna buy the whole lot. No plucking out of those offending eye-balls for old Sam Hanna it seems. “God’s word is all well and good, but ahhh,I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere fellas”.

Thanks for the hypocrisy anyway – not that different from the RCC after all then eh?

Sam

Intelligent reasoned analysis there, backed by facts and sources to the hilt. I don’t know how I’m going to find a crack in that argument.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

I have already shown that true Biblical Christianity does not inhibit science so stop repeating this silly canard. Why don’t me humble and withdraw your silly remarks. You may like Turgon’s style as you can classify him in your mind to a nice but essentially looney guy because he falls into your trap of accepting the dichotomy between reason and faith.

Stem Cell is for another topic – but as I am a Christian I will base my view on the Bible in this area like I do on polygamy, sodomy rather than what I “feel” at that moment in time like you.

Comrade Stalin

I slate the RCC for superstition as they mix up paganism, Gnosticsm and Greek philosophy to Biblical truth and snergised a new religion. They then use “tradition” which is none other than the quirks of very fallible and debauched popes to extract money out of the gullible to purchase and venerate bones, saints and idols like the pagans. We see this in N.Ireland where they can say the condemn murder yet give Bobby Sands a golden crucifix, condemn divorce yet give anyone named “Kennedy” amn anulment for a substantial donation!

This is different from my beliefs as I base my whole life on a higher system of revelation alone that is outside of myself ie The BIBLE. You clearly, base yours on your personal reason alone – not a very trustwhile source I suggest.

When you stoop to personal insults, we part company in the discussion. I rather hope Turgon remains on board. His debating style has a worthy place on Slugger O’Toole.

But before I stop debating with you, Sam, this: stem-cell research is currently being retarded by the religious. This is the latest example in a long line of religious interference. It has to stop.

Sam,

I would like to explore this specific comment further. Can you explain to us what “superstition” means ? Can you explain how your own beliefs are free from superstition ?

You seem to havea bee in your bonnet about this as if you have stumbled on some magic vote winner. Of course, I accept my belief in the Bible is a pre-suppositional truth and therefore can be falsified. But, of course, I have tested it and proven it to be true to my mind.

Sam, we’ve been through this before, and the last time we had this discussion it was pretty clear that you had no idea what you were talking about and resorted entirely to quoting stuff off creationist websites.

Let’s look at your perspective. How many different religions did you study and practice before settling on your present one ?

By the way, doesn’t some part of the Bible warn about the danger of putting God to the test ?

Dawkins,

That is a typical straw man argument from a rather immature mind who has just taken first year philosophy. False religion ie Roman Catholicism with its superstition, maryiolatry, lucky bones and beads held Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries but Biblical Protestantism from the Reformation gave us the Middle Classes and the Scientific Revolution. Hence the fact that huge numbers of the greatest scientists who ever lived were literal 6 Day Creationists eg. William Thomson Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler etc. I have already provided a link to a 6 Day Creationist Scientist of today who is accepted as an expert in his field at NASA,

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4712

With that list alone, you would have thought that someone like yourself would have engaged brain (assuming you have one) before making such a fatuous remark. What “academic” qualifications has “Dawkins” to mock such an acclaimed group?

Turgon,

You are entitled to your view but I believe the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation and I must defend that. Evangelism should never be an overriding concept over standing for the truth eg read Jude where contending for the faith comes first before the evangelism at the end of the chapter.

Comment, exactement?

Respect! You’re a shining example of how a discussion like this ought to be conducted.

Although a godfree chap, I’ve no difficulty with peeps believing in a 6-day creation or in fact something called Intelligent Design. Variety is still the spice of life in my book.

But for me the trouble starts when attempts are made to place ID on a par with evolutionary theory and to present it as a science. Worse still, is when it’s brought out of the RE class, its proper place, and introduced into the science class.

Religion has an unfortunate history of retarding the progress of science. I’m just afraid if we allow this new wave of pseudoscience to prevail we could retard it even more.

Intelligent design seems to me to pose many questions and makes many valid criticisms of evolutionary theory. It does not, however, in my view postulate much of an alternative other than to say that an Intelligent Designer was involved. As such it is difficult to present as a theory any more than six day creationism is a theory. Both of these theories are beliefs (and none the worse for that in my view). You are no doubt about to say that evolution is also a belief and again I have no complaint about that.

The crux of my complaint (complaint is too strong a term) is what are we as evangelical Christians trying to achieve by discussing Intelligent Design and attacking evolution. I would submit that belief in a six day creationism is not a prerequisite of personal salvation nor a pretty conservative evangelical faith. Indeed to say such a thing is the case would be to give us some “work” to do in our own salvation which would to me (and I am sure you) be heresy.

It is our job as Christians to present the gospel and make it as winsome as possible and put as few stumbling blocks as possible before anyone coming to faith.

In the current climate in which we live here many may regard us as mad to believe in creationism and doubt evolution. I am not saying we should lie about our beliefs but I worry that making a huge issue of it puts people off the rest of our message, the vitally important bit namely the need of personal salvation.

This is my concern, I express it no more strongly than that about aggressively opposing evolution.