Evidence for God from Science

This is a funny thing I found recently. It's a "You Might Be a Fundamentalist Atheist if..." list inspired by Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck if..." jokes. It was made by an anonymous reader on JP Holding's site, "Tektoonics." (He makes Christian apologetics vids on YouTube, but illustrates them in cartoon form.) I disagree with what they have to say about evolution, but I still find it odd that atheists who go on and on about "the virtues of questioning things" start freaking out and calling you an idiot because you question an established scientific theory. If people were always like that, then science could never move forward. The full list can be found here:

http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/fundyath.html

Dudeacus97 wrote:...but I still find it odd that atheists who go on and on about "the virtues of questioning things" start freaking out and calling you an idiot because you question an established scientific theory. If people were always like that, then science could never move forward.

From famous scientist Richard Feynman (not Christian very probably):

"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. There are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the man of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant; if we suppress all discussion, all critisism, saying, "This is it, boys, man is saved!" and thus doom man for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

Book marked as an amusing future read.

Though I do slightly wince at Dudeacus97's comment,

"...Start freaking out and..... because you question an established scientific theory."

There is generally a reason that a Theory is called 'established'. Mainly it's because up-till now said Theory has withstood everything that science has thrown at it up till now.

There is a nice quote from Andrew Simoncini,

"Scientists do not coddle ideas."

"They crash test them."

"They run them into brick walls at sixty miles per hour and examine the pieces."

"If the idea is sound, the pieces left will be those of the wall."

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:Book marked as an amusing future read.

Though I do slightly wince at Dudeacus97's comment,

"...Start freaking out and..... because you question an established scientific theory."

There is generally a reason that a Theory is called 'established'. Mainly it's because up-till now said Theory has withstood everything that science has thrown at it up till now.

There is a nice quote from Andrew Simoncini,

"Scientists do not coddle ideas."

"They crash test them."

"They run them into brick walls at sixty miles per hour and examine the pieces."

"If the idea is sound, the pieces left will be those of the wall."

Very much cheers to all.

Why should you wince? Questioning established theories is actually how science works. If there's a flaw in the theory that arrises from new evidence, then depending on how critical the flaw, new hypotheses and experiments can be used to either fix the flaw or replace the theory with a completely new model that better matches the evidence.

Which is essentially one of the points being referenced in this thread.

Though primarily, it highlights a rather amusing list.

It was quite a fun read. :3

I'm afraid we're probably being 'vague' to one another.

It is an amusing read,

Thadeyus wrote:Book marked as an amusing future read.

Though I do slightly wince at Dudeacus97's comment,

"...Start freaking out and..... because you question an established scientific theory."

There is generally a reason that a Theory is called 'established'. Mainly it's because up-till now said Theory has withstood everything that science has thrown at it up till now.

There is a nice quote from Andrew Simoncini,

"Scientists do not coddle ideas."

"They crash test them."

"They run them into brick walls at sixty miles per hour and examine the pieces."

"If the idea is sound, the pieces left will be those of the wall."

Very much cheers to all.

I'm sorry if people misunderstood me. By "established scientific theory", I bet that you could figure out that I was talking about macroevolution, an established scientific theory that is often up to debate in the public sphere and on this forum. I am a Theistic Evolutionist, but what I commonly see on "Darwinist" pages is a sort of dogmatic love or devotion to evolution or Charles Darwin, as if he is some sort of intellectual Juggernaut that led a skeptical revolution against those fundamentalists. (With the exception of Theistic Evolution pages.) As a Theistic Evolutionist, this seems absurd, as if somebody is basing all of their atheism off of the Sun and Earth forming from swirling dust clouds in space, because those were swirling dust clouds, not God! Maybe I can make a satire of the creation-evolution debate, but replace it with the Earth being formed from swirling dust clouds. Swirling dust clouds is just a theory!

What I commonly see among groups of "evolutionists" (especially popular fronts, such as forums or facebook groups) is simply mocking creationists/ID people. (I don't think they have a word for themselves yet, so I'm just going to refer to supporters of Intelligent Design as "ID people.") I don't see a lot of attempted refutation, and the biology sources on Talk Origins led me to abandon their pseudoscience and accept Theistic Evolution. If people are coming over with questions, then scientists should be working to answer them. Isn't the point of science to answer questions?

I guess I should have said that people like Dawkins should be congratulating people for doubting macroevolution (like how they congratulate people for doubting other things), then answering their questions rather than making fun of them for asking or suppressing them. But I don't know if I should be saying this because I don't react well to people denying the fine tuning of the universe or the Big Bang because it conflicts with their atheism. (I remember watching Christopher Hitchens in a debate with William Lane Craig outright deny the fine-tuning of the universe. Then again, Hitchens has no scientific credentials, and I'm not sure if he has any in any field to begin.)

Something else I find puzzling about many atheist groups is that they will often be hailing the glory of being skeptical and questioning everything. However, they will start to get dogmatic and insulting if you question things such as atheism, scientism, materialism, alien life, or whatever beliefs that they hang onto. I guess it's good to question everything... except atheism.

I am NOT saying that we should go and suppress skepticism and doubt or anything like that. The Bible says to "Test everything. hold on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Skepticism is good: it allows us to question faulty belief systems and further scientific advancement that gives us more technology and medicine. It is a wonderful tool that God has given us. Unfortunately, like a lot of God's gifts, atheists have turned it into a rallying point for propaganda to support their bizarre false dichotomies.

(I'm not sure how one could get this conclusion from my post, but I know that there are some crazies out there who would think I'm saying that, like someone on Facebook who accused me of defending Geocentricism by pointing out historical inaccuracies regarding Galileo's trial.)

What I commonly see among groups of "evolutionists" (especially popular fronts, such as forums or facebook groups) is simply mocking creationists/ID people. (I don't think they have a word for themselves yet, so I'm just going to refer to supporters of Intelligent Design as "ID people.") I don't see a lot of attempted refutation, and the biology sources on Talk Origins led me to abandon their pseudoscience and accept Theistic Evolution. If people are coming over with questions, then scientists should be working to answer them. Isn't the point of science to answer questions?

Well...I'm not sure what an 'evolutionist' is...other than your average, normal academic. Pretty sure the average, blue collar worker cares more about being a 'Fooot-ball-ist' than anything else.

With the whole mocking thing? Yeah...I can kind of understand that. Since pretty much the only 'ID-ers' I've seen also think reality is only 6K years or so old. You start bolting one to the other too much and...well..distinctions probably fade out.

Something else I find puzzling about many atheist groups is that they will often be hailing the glory of being skeptical and questioning everything. However, they will start to get dogmatic and insulting if you question things such as atheism, scientism, materialism, alien life, or whatever beliefs that they hang onto. I guess it's good to question everything... except atheism.

I believe there's a difference between People 'Common' (As in 'Blue collar worker) coming and asking questions and people 'Scholastic' (As in having B.C.S and P.H.D's) asking questions.

If I, with admittedly 0 knowledge really of the finer points of car mechanics ask my local repair shop fellow a question. They invariably 'tone down' their explanation of what's wrong with my car (No comment on how said talking affects the dollar signs though. )

Now...if another mechanic comes and talks to said mechanic, thence their 'level' of conversation is going to be on a different 'level'. So..when Mr Behe makes his academic claims...other academics respond in/at the same level. If 'common' folk find such discourse disconcerting...well...I've heard mechanics disagreeing with one another far more colourfully.

Note: Just a question...what is 'scientism'? Also...why should 'Alien life' be seen as a 'belief'? I'm not sure I gronk the way you're using the language.

It is a wonderful tool that God has given us. Unfortunately, like a lot of God's gifts, atheists have turned it into a rallying point for propaganda to support their bizarre false dichotomies.

See...again I'm not understanding your meanings.....or just a tad thick on philosophy....but what are the dichotomies of atheism? (No offense if you feel a new thread should be crated or if you know of neat threads already exploring said topic here about. )

Very much cheers to all.

*P.S. Since it is a cold winter at the moment, I do apologize for any meaning or spelling mistakes. The medicinal use of Rum in the combating of said weather is quite therapeutic.

Thadeyus wrote:

Something else I find puzzling about many atheist groups is that they will often be hailing the glory of being skeptical and questioning everything. However, they will start to get dogmatic and insulting if you question things such as atheism, scientism, materialism, alien life, or whatever beliefs that they hang onto. I guess it's good to question everything... except atheism.

I believe there's a difference between People 'Common' (As in 'Blue collar worker) coming and asking questions and people 'Scholastic' (As in having B.C.S and P.H.D's) asking questions.

Well, title does not mean you are some god or what. Besides, there are many bright people who did not have opportunity to get to university from whatever reasons, like financial, etc. Also, there are PhDs who, in my opinion, are, well, how to say it cause I do not want to say crazy.

AND, there are many phds, profs, etc. who question atheism and are in my opinion very bright and clever.

1over137 wrote:Well, title does not mean you are some god or what

Sorry...not sure where this response came from in relation to what I've written? I think perhaps the meanings and intents are not coming through in my words as I see this as a reply. Sorry about being muzzied.

1over137 wrote:Besides, there are many bright people who did not have opportunity to get to university from whatever reasons, like financial, etc.

Indeed....However, if one is not shown/taught/experienced concepts and ideas then one doesn't have the....'frame work' to think about things.

Myself have only really just begun to read various philosophy things/ideas. Many of which I'd have never contemplated with out such prompting.

1over137 wrote:Also, there are PhD's who, in my opinion, are, well, how to say it cause I do not want to say crazy.

Um....yes..and across the average bell-curve of populations in general the same can be said. I've known folks from brilliant/distracted to crazy distracted and some of the permutations in between. Your point isn't too meaningful.

1over137 wrote:AND, there are many PhD's, profs, etc. who question atheism and are in my opinion very bright and clever.

? Indeed....I'm not surprised at all about this. I know some wonderful people in the same camp/boat/group. Again, I believe I'm missing the point of your point.

Perhaps we should drift into a different thread as we expand upon our 'Tet-a-tete'?

Very much cheers to all.

Sorry, Thadeuys. I should have read previous posts more carefully.

I will get back to you later as I wish to adress some other things.

Cheers.

Thadeyus,

Dudeacus mentioned ahteists are insulting and mocking. You wrote an example on car mechanics.
Well, I do not think that specialists should converse in an insulting way. Why should they?

Also I agree that atheists insult and mock. I see it in my surrounding. Instead of looking more into what they encounter they tend to mock. I myself, when I was atheist, did not look into things more properly and instead held some belief about them. Yes, it was belief. Atheists have beliefs.

1over137 wrote:Dudeacus mentioned atheists are insulting and mocking. You wrote an example on car mechanics.

My use of the car-mechanics was to further the example of how there are different uses of the language. That there is/are 'Technical' levels and then there are 'Common' levels of word/language use.

1over137 wrote:Well, I do not think that specialists should converse in an insulting way. Why should they?

Ah...as for how people use their language? That's an interesting question to most.

1over137 wrote:Also I agree that atheists insult and mock. I see it in my surrounding.

I hope they calm down and best wishes with your forbearance.

1over137 wrote:Instead of looking more into what they encounter they tend to mock. I myself, when I was atheist, did not look into things more properly and instead held some belief about them.

*Shrug* Not much one can say to/with regards to your comment/observation here.

1over137 wrote:Yes, it was belief. Atheists have beliefs.

Indeed...using the word in that manner, within that sentence, Atheists do have beliefs.

(Is this where I throw in the much worn quip of "I believe I'll have another beer"...? )

Very much cheers to all

Well...I'm not sure what an 'evolutionist' is...other than your average, normal academic. Pretty sure the average, blue collar worker cares more about being a 'Fooot-ball-ist' than anything else.

The term "evolutionist" refers to someone who believes in macroevolution. It only really comes up when there's a Creation vs. Evolution debate going on. Some people, such as Hugh Ross, use the term "evolutionist" to refer to someone who holds that biology and the history of the Earth can be attributed to natural causes alone, so this is where the distinction "Theistic Evolutionist" comes up. Sort of like how I only become an "old-earther" if an Old Earth vs. Young Earth debate comes up.

With the whole mocking thing? Yeah...I can kind of understand that. Since pretty much the only 'ID-ers' I've seen also think reality is only 6K years or so old. You start bolting one to the other too much and...well..distinctions probably fade out.

I understand why people mock, but I still think it's a very dishonest, sophomoric, ineffective, immature, and illogical way to approach things. If an argument is based on it, it becomes the logical fallacy Argument at Ridiculum, or Appeal to Ridicule. I can understand, however, people making this like this for the purposes of humor, but JP Holding has lots of other articles on his website. (Also, this list was not made by JP Holding, but by a fan.)

As for the distinction between Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, I remember this from Hugh Ross's book, More than a Theory:

This reaction toward ID proponents may seem harsh, but it makes sense. Scientists tend to associate ID with young-earth creationism. They note that significant financial backing for the IDM's scholars and spokespersons comes from young-earth creationists, who also buy the majority of ID materials. evolutionary science researchers are suspicious of the IDM's reluctance to offend young-earth creationists or to debate unscientific or antiscientific beliefs.

If you see a lot of spelling/grammatical errors there, it is probably because I typed this up with the book right in front of me without looking at the screen much.

I believe there's a difference between People 'Common' (As in 'Blue collar worker) coming and asking questions and people 'Scholastic' (As in having B.C.S and P.H.D's) asking questions.

If I, with admittedly 0 knowledge really of the finer points of car mechanics ask my local repair shop fellow a question. They invariably 'tone down' their explanation of what's wrong with my car (No comment on how said talking affects the dollar signs though. )

Now...if another mechanic comes and talks to said mechanic, thence their 'level' of conversation is going to be on a different 'level'. So..when Mr Behe makes his academic claims...other academics respond in/at the same level. If 'common' folk find such discourse disconcerting...well...I've heard mechanics disagreeing with one another far more colourfully.

I see the point, but most of the mocking I see is common folk vs. common folk, but I shouldn't expect people with no training in logic and argumentation to be able to recognize logical fallacies and such.

Note: Just a question...what is 'scientism'? Also...why should 'Alien life' be seen as a 'belief'? I'm not sure I gronk the way you're using the language.

Scientism, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is:

an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Another definition I often see is the "belief that the only things that exist are things that can be verified by the scientific method." This belief is self-defeating, since the claim that the only things that exist are things that can be verified by the Scientific Method cannot by verified by the Scientific Method.

I see alien life as a belief because it simply has no evidence to back it up. If you ask a pro-alien (is that the word they use?) person, they say that they believe that alien life exists, often on very flimsy logic. I'm not sure what your position on ETI is, but that is an issue for another thread.

Also, what does "gronk" mean? It's not in the dictionary.

See...again I'm not understanding your meanings.....or just a tad thick on philosophy....but what are the dichotomies of atheism? (No offense if you feel a new thread should be crated or if you know of neat threads already exploring said topic here about.

This is an issue that should be discussed on another thread. There are some in the "Questioning Non-Belief" forum area. There are only 3 discussions and I forgot their names so you should be able to find it.

Thank you for responding. I hope we were able to clean up some confusion among us. Also, can we get back to the topic on hand any time soon?