For example…?
First of all I would differentiate between being religious and being convinced that an intelligent agent is the most likely explanation for origins; the two are actually very different propositions.
As to the contradiction you allege, I don’t see one. I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I can repeat what I have read of their thought processes. Some observe the complexity of life, and the fine tuning in the universe, and decide that the likelihood of that complexity deriving from an oblivion in the time available is simply beyond mathematical probability. Others consider the development of a moral code such as we have as being unlikely in a purely naturalistic universe. There are a number of others, of course.
I’d like to see the math on that one.
A good place to start is John Lennox.
Well, I’m in the UK and the self-proclaimed creationists here that I’ve encountered have been just as nutty as the US ones. The nice old lady (why are they always nice old ladies?) who came to my door to tell me that evolution was wrong because a Volkswagon couldn’t spontaneously become a BMW (her example, not mine) fled in panic when I pointed out that evolution is a slow process that happens over a large number of generations and required organisms that reproduce. She later returned to stick a leaflet through my door but never came back to discuss it.
Admittedly there’s a self-selection process here; often the only time you become aware that someone is a creationist is when they launch into an ill-informed anti-evolution screed. Obviously those who accept evolution would not be as visible as such.
That said, the math is pretty much on the side of evolutionary/cosmological theory (since you’re combining the two) as well, so unless you’re of the “God wound up the universe and let it go” bent there remains no reason to assume divine tinkering in the development of either the universe or life on Earth.
Because Creationism masquerades as science to make it sound legitimate to the ignorant. Creationists want to spread their ideas, but since it’s just religion wearing a cheap suit they need to disguise it better so as to convince others that it’s not really religion. Since they don’t bother with all that research and publishing stuff that actual science concerns itself with, they need to shoehorn themselves in by subverting school science programs and changing textbooks and other underhanded crap.
Define ‘supernatural’. The problem with this statement is that the instant something interacts with ‘the natural world’, it becomes a part of it, and enters the domain of science. If something doesn’t interact with the natural world in any way, how do you even know it exists?
Well, maybe not ‘many’. Maybe some. Well, a few anyway.
There are more scientists who support evolution named Steve then there are scientists who deny evolution.
There is some excellent material on the web about Lee Spetner’s work, including exchanges with protagonists.
No I’m a theist, not a deist. I disagree with you on what the maths points to, and I would also point out that any naturalistic postulations about the origin of the universe have no more (and possibly less) going for them than the God hypothesis.
These decisions are made in ignorance. If each of them is examined objectively after thorough research these become non-issues. Complexity can be easily explained by evolutionary theory. The fine-tuning argument is nonsense, proposed by puddles who marvel at the hole in the ground made in their exact shape just for them. Moral code is explainable by sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.
It’s not like there’s no information out there, but if you’re not looking for anything past your own opinion then these are the kind of decisions that get made.
You would be wrong. The god hypothesis has nothing going for it, and more than one definition of the word ‘god’ is self-contradictory. Whereas the naturalistic explanation is at least one step less complex than invoking a god, and doesn’t involve anything we have no evidence for.
No-A good place to start would be you telling us what they observe in nature that leads them to believe in Creationism, where they didn’t believe in it before. If you want to throw in a link to what John Lennox has to say on this particular subject, that would also be nice.
- Your first assertion seems to imply that nothing exists outside of the natural universe. Can you support that contention in any way?
- Here’s a few more…List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia
- You don;t have to deny evolution to support the hypothesis that an intelligent agent created the universe.
Since you seem to know about it already, how about a link to the math involved?
I’m sorry but I have no idea who you are to determine that some of the leading scientists on the planet are ignorant. But I’m happy to engage with you on the moral code. Explain in a purely naturalistic universe why the murder of an innocent child is morally wrong.
Since we have no evidence otherwise, it is the default position. It isn’t up to us to disprove the supernatural world-it’s up to you to provide evidence that it exists.
Don’t have to. First, show us that there is anything beyond the natural universe to consider as an alternative. We can’t talk about which is better before you even bring your evidence to the table.
Lee Spetner’s work is summarised in the book ‘Not by Chance’, but it won’t take much effort to google his work and the various critique’s.
Isn’t that what we are engaging in? If there is an objective moral code that naturalism cannot explain, then that suggests something outside of a purely naturalistic universe. Now answer the challenge.
And the reason that you, the person that originally brought it up, can’t do so is…? Sorry, bucky-you make the claim, you provide the cite.
It was your assertion. It is up to you to support it.