Tuesday, December 14, 2010

God's Quality Control 3.6

Here I continue my review of the discussion guide published by the Prestonwood Christian Academy as a companion to the Hitchens-Dembski debate on November 18, 2010. The honorary author of this section of the guide will be Dana Epperson, Prestonwood's Assistant Head of School and Academics. If you are inclined to complain to Ms Epperson about anything, please complain on behalf of all those kids who are being deliberately misled for the sake of filling Ms Epperson's pockets.
  • p. 11 "In the past we’ve referred to the beginning of the universe as the Big Bang and it was used as evidence that the Universe exploded and the result was time and space and all that is living in it." My sixth-grade English teacher would be rolling over in her grave if I'd killed her like the voices told me to. But never mind the amateurish run-on and focus on the content. "Big Bang" is the name of a theory that attempts to explain the unfolding of the universe. This theory is not used as evidence of anything, especially not as evidence that the universe exploded. A gigantic body of facts, on the other hand, certainly is used as evidence that supports the Big Bang theory.
  • p.11 "Today we are beginning to question if the concept of a beginning really supports the idea of a creative God." Umm, "we"? Superstitionists might be leaning in that direction, but certainly no asuperstitionist is.
  • p.11 "With time and chance on the side of the Universe, anything is possible." This is the same as the tornado argument. No one is claiming that humans popped into existence ex nihilo; we are the result of evolution.  No one is claiming that the first living cell popped into existence ex nihilo; it also was the result of evolution. No one is even claiming that the universe popped into existence ex nihilo; no one with any sense is making any claims about how the universe came to be. Certainly there is some speculation, but no one is making any claims. If you care about the truth, read about it, and make sure you read books written by honest people who have studied and understand the relevant issues, not by charlatans and ignoramuses.
  • p.12 Ms Epperson quotes Francis Schaeffer, who seems to have read a bible different from the one on my bookshelf. He says that Yahweh "is a reasonable God." By whose measure? By its own measure, perhaps, but most evil people don't think of themselves as evil. Why should we allow Yahweh to declare itself good just because it says so? Why shouldn't we hold it to a reasonable standard?
  • p.12 "What do we see when we examine the universe or our earth or even our own bodies – do we see randomness or order?" We do see quite a bit of order in the universe. Funny thing is, that is a clear indication that it was not done by Yahweh, because Yahweh is extremely random. It can't make up its mind about anything. It tells you to go out and kill a bunch of people, then tells you it's a sin to kill. It tells you that divorce is ok, but then its son comes and tells you it's a sin. Why would you think that order in the universe implies the existence of this psycho?
  • p.12 '“If Darwin’s theory of Evolution was correct, cats would be able to operate a can-opener by now.” Funny, yes; but also profound.' It's funny only if you think that it's funny when people are willfully ignorant or irredeemably stupid. It's profound only in the sense that it shows just how deluded are most of the people who object to truth. So C.S. Lewis is responsible for this drivel? What were his qualifications to pontificate on the subject? How much did he read the scientific literature? Did he ever propose this little aphorism to a qualified evolutionary biologist in order to get feedback? Let C.S. Lewis write about talking lions and leave science to the scientists.
  • p.12 "Where is the evidence for the theory of evolution"? Are you serious? Have you not visited a museum or a library in your entire life? The evidence that supports evolutionary theory is all over the place: in our DNA, in the fossil record, in atavisms, in vestigial organs, in bad design.
  • p.12 '[W]here...is the “missing link” from the past'? How many times do we have to hear this question? Ms Epperson, do you even know what your question means? What do you mean by "missing link"? What makes you think that the "missing link," whatever it means, is something we should be able to find? Do you even know what we've found?
  • p.12 "Where is the evolution beyond what we’ve seen in the present?" Students and truth-seekers, again, don't let these people trick you like this. Go to a museum. Look at the facts. Ignore the opinions. Ignore claims by people who don't know anything about the subject. Find the truth.
  • p.12 "[I]f evolution is true, we have no need for God." Agreed, but if the fact of evolution were not true, why then would we have need for your bloodthirsty Casper in the sky?
  • p.12 Speaking of us sinners, Ms Epperson says, "It’s not that the scientific evidence is overwhelming, but the implications on their lifestyle and decisions sure would be catastrophic." There it is again. We reject your goatherd because we just want to go on sinning. I'm pulling my hair out.
That's 3.6. Thanks for watching.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment