Unnatural Facts

[Gman]

The 'belief" that natural facts can explain everything in our known world is just what it is... A belief. If one says that science can "only" be explained in the natural world only, then you are giving your authority to science only in the natural world (or observable world(s)). Plain and simple.

This is from an earlier post..

But can the natural world be explained and understood only in natural terms? If so, then we must have some indication that it is possible. As an example if one was to look at the brain, how would one conclude that there was consciousness? If you looked at a chemical process in the brain could you find what someone said that day or a book that they might have read? It doesn't mean that we don't know anything about it but if you are locked into the natural explanations as the only body of knowledge and the correspondence to it as the only reality, then you are making yourself your own reality...

And what about abiogenesis? Is it natural or unnatural evidence? John Horgan, senior writer for Scientific American, has called the origin of life "the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology." The National Academy of Sciences puts the problem in an interesting way:

“The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed.” Science and Creationism : A view from the National Academy of sciences, 2nd ed., 1999.

According to evolutionist Dr. Paul Davies, “The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science. Nobody knows how a mixture of non-living chemicals can transform itself into a living cell. Because they have almost nothing to go on, scientists differ sharply on how likely such a genesis event might be. Some think it happened only once in the universe - and we are the result. Others believe there is a deep principle built into the laws of nature that prompts life to form readily wherever there are Earth-like conditions.”

Statements like these still stand today.. In other words, it is fair to say that we do not know how life originated. Oh of course the belief is that "some day" perhaps we will have an answer for these things, but again this is simply conjecture. This is philosophy using some material objects but it is not "truly" empirical science.. What about the problems of abiogenesis or finding the origins of consciousness? If we could be truthful with ourselves I think a lot of these evolution/creation debates would fly away. But in hindsight, I don't really think they will.. Why? Because man is ultimately a philosophical creature.. He/she will always project their philosophical beliefs into anything.. Whether it is their religion OR science...

Science is not in the business of ultimate explanations. That's not what it does.. It works on specific things, it advances theories, but it never makes a claim about everything. But people will always make the claims. It's in our makeup..

[Gman]

To GOD be the glory...

[DannyM]

Great points Gman... Isn't it ironic that while we for the most part rely on empirical observation with one of the five senses (smell, taste, touch, hearing & sight), we somehow know that we exist apart from these five senses?

The Naturalist will say that the universe did not have a cause but appeared out of nowhere. But when the Christian invokes God, the atheist replies, "Well, what created God?" But hang on a minute... Why can't God appear out of nowhere?

Or what about the Naturalist who says that because science doesn't understand everything this does not mean God is somehow "proved" by the current gaps in our knowledge... ? What if we were to switch this... What if we were to say that because religion doesn't understand everything this does not mean atheism is somehow "proved" by the current gaps in our knowledge... ?

Ah so many questions ...

[jlay]

Others believe there is a deep principle built into the laws of nature that prompts life to form readily wherever there are Earth-like conditions.”

Davies might as well have espoused creationism. "built into?" Seriously. How can something be built without a builder?
And they mock ID.

[Gman]

Others believe there is a deep principle built into the laws of nature that prompts life to form readily wherever there are Earth-like conditions.”

Davies might as well have espoused creationism. "built into?" Seriously. How can something be built without a builder?
And they mock ID.

It's magical.. They say that ID requires miracles and yet their beliefs require miracles as well or endless probabilities..

Also if we are just the product of mindless impersonal forces or chance, then we can say that about anything that has evolved via chance. Our morality or love. It doesn't really exist.. It's just all evolved chemical processes. It's not personal, nothing more, nothing less.. There is nothing really sacred about it.. It's just all materialism..

[DannyM]

I thought this was good. In his What's so great about Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza tells the story of Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective Ministries in Oregon, who

"often presents his congregation with two creation stories and asks whether it matters which one is true. In the secular account, he describes thus:"

“You are the descendent of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere."

D'Souza: The Christian view, by contrast, he describes like this:

“You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image, with capacities to think feel and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God."

D'Souza takes it further and asks for an evolutionary account for atheism:

“Now imagine two groups of people — let's call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe — who subscribe to these two world views. Which one of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they are here at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all.

“Should evolutionists like Gould, Hitchens, Darwkins, Dennet and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are flourishing? Throughout the world, religious groups attract astounding numbers of followers and religious people are showing their confidence in their way of life and in the future by having more children.

“The important point is not just that atheism is unable to compete with religion in attracting followers, but also that the lifestyle of practical atheism seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves. The consequence, so predictable that one might almost call it a “law” is that the religious population is growing fast, while the secular number is shrinking.

“Not only is religion thriving, but it is thriving because it helps people to adapt and survive in the world. It is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing that nature would select a group of people who see no higher purpose to life or the universe. Here is where the biological expertise of Darwkins, Dennet and Wilson could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.”

I liked this.
-
-

[Author Anita Meyer]

Hello Danny, you might be interested in this:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthp ... nation.pdf

The natural world supplies plenty of evidence (Intelligent Design) that is linked to G-d.

I like to call it Divine Design!

[Kristoffer]

There are ideas, towards the How of the question. But the answer is not so clear just yet. However just because we do not know How that doesn't mean we can Say "god did it, BY MAGIC!" sure god could of done it, but he would do it how we observe it to of been done and not try to deceive our senses.

Human beings are far from a "perfect" design, but if instead you score the Development of a Human being, then it does wonderfully. Human beings are Wonderfully developed animals just like most modern animals. I would like to say EvolutioN! I can not say it enough, and because scientists do not know a few specifics, like how life actually began. It doesn't destroy the actual evidence for evolution (it is pretty strong!) Evolution is NOT disprovable, it just hasn't been so far. If a scientist finds a way to disprove it they would be famous and rich, and what scientist especially extreme materialistic one wouldn't want that? (obviously life is simulated and we can prove it by...YEP! we are in computer! )