Posts Tagged ‘Atheist’
At the beginning,defines ian evolution as ‘a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.’ But he tempers evolution viability with questions raised from ‘irreducible complexity’ in the biochemical processes. Assailing unanswered questions arising in evolution theory, contends: “At the tiniest levels of biology — the chemical life of the cell — we have discovered a complex world that radically changes the grounds on which ian debates must be contested.”
admits to Catholic heritage in a biochemistry ambiance; as such, from the very first, he writes with one hand tied behind his back. The biological metaphysician in Behe is the Creationist in critique of ’s . Like all traditional ists, he tempers conservative spirituality with generous helpings of liberal doctrinaire.
Science conceived the idea of cellular existence at about the same time as Darwin’s voyage and evolutionary vision. He could not access Behe’s considerable library on cellular structure, to advanced molecular knowledge, nor even to contemporaneous theoreticians Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann, who concluded: “cells compose the entire bodies of animals and plants, and that in some way the cells are individual units with a life of their own.” Behe described Schleiden and Schwann as biochemists at work in the early to middle 1800s — the time of Darwin’s travels and composing notes to write “The Origin of Species.” In this regard, new discoveries in the field of biology were not available to the intrepid Darwin.
Behe assigns Darwin’s theory to a ‘Black Box’ of unanswered questions. He denigrates Darwin’s broadly based theory and creates a few ‘Black Boxes’ of his own: to wit, the perception of ‘irreducible complexity’ in cellular development, even when such complexity can be further reduced, to the very least atomic particle and to atom affinity toward symbiosis. He posits the last remaining box to be the cell — opened to reveal molecules — the bedrock of nature. But does not the bedrock of nature rest, not in molecules, but in single atoms and these somehow affected by subatomic particles, and other forces yet unclassified or unproven as energy incentives. Basic biochemistry must perceive the assembly of two or more atoms to constitute molecular creation. ‘Hydrogen atoms’ are the most abundant element in the universe, used in production of synthetic ammonia and methanol, in petroleum refining, and in organic materials hydrogenation. Within hydrogen and oxygen qualities rest the propensity to create water; all it takes is two hydrogen and one oxygen atom to create a molecule of water; even so, a catalyst is necessary to instigate precipitation; notwithstanding, all other molecules result from different atom combinations.
Admitted by Behe, Black Boxes sometimes occur within Black Boxes and sometimes the new boxes demand we revise all of our theories. Thus, Darwin cannot be the only theorist creating Black Boxes without qualification or resolution. Behe quotes the Santa Fe Institute’s Stuart Kauffman, who suggested the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true and to account for the molecular structure of life. Of course, Darwin could not explain molecular structure because the knowledge and biochemistry tools available today were not widely available in Darwin’s day!
A fault is found in Behe’s consensus to denigrate ‘natural selection’ as unworthy to account for the ‘irreducible complexity’ common to cellular development. Contrary to Behe’s view, the ‘irreducible complexity’ found in cellular development does not obviate a chance for ‘Natural Selection’ processes. He strains at a gnat and swallows a camel!
Hydrogen and Oxygen have the inherent propensity to produce water — without creature influence. Might we not conclude, the same combining force exists in other atomic essence? Gold ore does not appear as an initial occurrence, but gold atoms have the propensity to assimilate under the right conditions-into grains, nuggets, and threads of metal. The B cell antibody mimics atomic attraction, its ‘Y’ extension from cell body construction, on its split extension, is so configured as to fit the shape of encountered objects (bacteria), and thus bond — which B cell then replicates its antibody properties. And does the human brain not resemble polypeptide evolvement folded into quaternary structure? We find much resemblance in visible assemblies and microbiology. Does not a polypeptide endure the same fold around its backbone as a developing fetus?
Behe demonstrates the cell to be a molecular machine and describes molecular steps in the production of AMP, a mononucleotide found in cells. First, a composite molecule begins the building processes with assembly of carbon, oxygen, and phosphorus, as the host molecule. Thus we begin an incredibly complex system of atom substrates addition and subsequent discard of no longer needed atom components. Evolvement, from one stage to another, motivates attraction of yet other atom composites; with each additional composite inhering the ability to reject unneeded atoms and thus prepare for the next fusion. A dozen sequenced diagrams illustrate Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity.’ Whoa! Irreducible? Is AMP not the product of evolution?
Contrary to Behe bias, AMP production, similar to other molecular designs, cannot be separated from Darwin’s larger scale hypotheses; for, molecule development also derives from nonliving matter and is subsequently developed entirely by natural means!
Creationism appeals to majority intellect; and often,paints its own evil contrast to Creation purity. But such represents a mere placation of metaphysical convictions and thus a relish enjoyed by majority consensus. After all, Michael J. Behe was a Catholic first, a Biologist second, and an Apologist third. It makes little sense for Behe to bash Darwin’s evolution theory, in light of his own AMP molecular development living side-by-side with Darwin’s evolutionary processes.
In the interest of science, Behe devised understandable biochemistry processes involving ‘irreducible complexity,’ and contributing much to reader enlightenment. We recommend this book as a means for modest intellects to understand how living creatures derive from quantum incentives., or Intelligent Design, then, remains unresolved and left to individual determination. Yet, research is available questioning the distinction between ‘irreducible complexity’ and evolution. Intelligence, as in AMP segments, must seek its own destiny.
Ira M. Freeman assists understanding (at the least, stirs curiosity) about the intelligence created in a single molecule and explains the atoms’ propensity to selectively join or bond into mutually beneficial substrates. The author relates a most fundamental attempt to explain the Atom and its particles to those who might know least about the very start of life and recognizable phenomena. For those desiring an easy introduction into the substance and workability of atoms and about the intelligence created in a single molecule, this is the book for the curious, for both young and old, and for those with abiding interest in physics or metaphysics. Without the atom, evencould not exist.
As we stretch hypothesis, so might atom intelligence stretch imagination to its utmost; in the grasp of speculation, we consider the possibility of intelligence for anything having predilection to improvement acting upon this compulsion, the elements can manifest change by either attraction, decision, or benefit intent. To gather some perception of size and substance in the free-wheeling, single atom, Freeman suggests, “… it would take about 3 million billion carbon atoms to create the period ink at this sentence end (when printed) – and this entire molecule complement, regardless its perceived state, is never still – continuously moved – never at rest – average speed about 1700 feet per second. A molecule in the air bumps into other molecules about five billion times a second.”
In a chemical and biological review of matter, Freeman explains howcreate energy and energy causes element atoms to behave in different ways. About 100 elements, give or take a few, have been discovered; importantly, each element is composed of its own peculiar atom construction, with specific proton, neutron, and electron components – plus even more elusive to define components. Regardless atom appearance, albeit in water, trees, humans, or copper wire, the atom comprises mostly space. Its nucleus constitutes only about 1/10000th total atom volume. Swinging around the atom’s outer circumference (energy shell [sic]) are electron orbitals (a quantum concept encompassing the potential track whole around each atom. We might also consider: an electron, speeding around the Hydrogen single proton core, weighs only 1/1836th as much as the core it orbits.
Freeman, rather simply, explains the appearance of perceivable atom masses. In our world, element atoms comprise all forms of solids, liquids, and gas (Iron becomes gas at 10000°). Mixtures of elements (matter) are called compounds. And, compound mixtures create energy! Light furnishes energy. Energy changes matter!creates energy! E = mc2 proves in experiment and the following statement, in essence: the relativity theory adds something new; wherewith, matter can be changed into energy, and energy into matter. , by changing orbitals, directly or indirectly create every conceivable convenience, tool, or device from the quantum within and outside its proton or proton-neutron nuclei’s induced energy shell [sic].
How wonderful to simplify life itself! Without directing our propensity to evolve, we might still be chipping flint tools and arrowheads, striking sparks in the processes but never realizing the great potential in particles flying from abraded rocks; for these are energy particles-which might just as easily have fueled a human cell. An unwritten law governs atom combination into compounds, evolved to substrates, into advanced substrates, into super-substrates, on and on, and finally into ADP and ATP workhorses in cellular construction and maintenance. But this is advanced and not a part of Freeman’s simplistic presentation. We include cellular propensity merely to illustrate the atom’s importance to human welfare and development. Computer programs and memory, too, are only atom particles potential awaiting instigation. Absolutely amazing!
In Freeman’s simplistic account, he remarks how Man first learned to use fire, make tools, instill metaphysics, utilize the power of steam, and later electricity. Today he stands at the door of a new age – the Age of. The things to come we can only imagine.
In addition to this brief study on physics, you are invited to further study, into more physics, and into metaphysics, another fascinating study and as full of surprises as the physics world. Discover why ‘Ten Ages’ are the least understood but the most important contribution to Bible eschatology.and metaphysics are related, inasmuch as both investigate our relation to invisible worlds.
In a recent Newsweek (4-9-07), avowed atheist and best-selling author Sam Harris squares off with Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA and author of the world-wide best-seller The Purpose-Driven Life, in a piece titled “Religion: IsReal?”
I found it to be interesting reading, as far as it went, but wholly missing a crucial point. While I share Harris’s certainty that there is no “Biblical,” I do not share his conclusion that there is no God whatsoever. I believe that God/Goddess is itself, and that this Conscious Awareness permeates the entire universe and beyond with non-dual, unconditional love. The most spectacular, unending gift of this Awareness is life itself. To me, this core belief is what Spirituality is all about.
Harris and Warren argue from an either/or perspective; “Either a Christian God exists, or “he” does not.” My passionate rejoinder is that God is not so small, and certainly cannot be contained or understood in such an anthropocentric story.
Warren goes on to talk about the evidence of God in the “tens of thousands of times” he has personally witnessed miracles. He mentions a specific time when his prayer was answered, and another instance when it was not. Personally, I see miracles every day, so I’m cool with the concept. However, I think Warren is using the first of the two meanings of “miracle”, the gist of which is, “An extraordinary occurrence that surpasses all human powers and is ascribed to God.” I prefer the second meaning, “A superb or surprising example of something; wonder; marvel.”
Using the second definition of miracle, I see life itself as a surpassing wonder. When I am present and paying attention, I feel God’s unconditional love with every breath I take, every note of music, every ray of sunshine, and every hug I give or get. Miracles are everywhere, if we have eyes to see, hearts to feel and the presence to be grateful for each moment of life.
To continue this discussion between Harris and Warren, the question arose, “Why would God give a little girl cancer, or if she had it why would earnest prayer not take it away?” The answer, something to the effect that God works in mysterious ways, seems utterly specious to me. Here’s how I unpack this whole notion of how an infinitely loving God could “allow” bad things to happen to anyone.
Life is the ultimate gift of God’s unceasing, infinite, unconditional love. Life has limits. We have bodies that are born, grow, decay and die. One could make a case that God condemned us all to death by giving us life in the first place. Some of us wind up sticking around longer than others. Making that God’s fault or responsibility is like making winter the fault of summer. To claim that there is something unfair about a life “cut short” is to miss the miracle of every breath, every smile, every tender gaze that was available while alive. Life is not “fair,” it just is. We can see life as a miracle or a tragedy, and we will find abundant evidence for either position depending on our perspective.
Of course, losing a child under any circumstances is heart-breaking. It’s just that losing a little girl to cancer is no more sad than losing a child to malaria, starvation, war or an accident. When people we love leave the world, our feelings of grief and sadness can, if we let them, turn us into constricted, shut-down shadows of who we really are. The very same losses can break our hearts open, allowing us to experience the miracle of life from an infinitely more precious, tender and vulnerable place.
We, all of us, are God-in-form. Every single moment of our lives we have choices to make. We can choose to see ourselves as victims of a capricious, unknowable, judgemental and vengeful god, or literally as God experiencing the fleeting yet miraculous gifts of life. I choose to hold every breath as an act of worship, every hug as holy, every kind and generous word as sacred. In the end, it all comes down to a simple yet profound choice; love, or fear?
(Mark 10:6) “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
This week, one of the hot news stories out of the United Kingdom was about’ statement that he was an . the author, lecturer and hero of those who think God is a silly concept sat in a moderated discussion (some say a debate) with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. If you remember, was the clergyman who presided at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.
In the aftermath of this “debate” the media fixated on whetherreally is the “World’s Most Famous .” During this televised event, Dawkins classified himself as an “ ” rather than an “atheist.” But just to make sure everyone understood his position, he mentioned that he was almost certain God does not exist.
Does it really matter whether Dawkins is anor an atheist? Although the media thinks this is big news, they completely overlooked the one item that should have been newsworthy for the Christian audience. According to the article in The Telegraph, the Archbishop “said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless ‘in the image of God.’ ” This stems from the other statements in which the Archbishop denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. If you read the sentence carefully, he really believes we ascended in an evolutionary process. In other words, we evolved into the image of God. Unfortunately, once you throw out the literalness of the Genesis account, you also have to throw out the words of Jesus Christ.
In a 2006 interview, we find Dr. Williams believesis a “category mistake” and should not be taught. In Mark 10:6, Jesus makes a profound statement proving He believes in the literal creation account found in Genesis. In fact, if you combine this with the other places where Jesus references Genesis you discover that He did not believe the Biblical account was an allegory at all, unlike the current Archbishop of Canterbury. There are many today who are ” ists.” But it is an impossible position to maintain while believing in the teachings of Jesus. If we allow for Jesus to make a “category mistake” here, where else does He teach in error? If Jesus made any errors in His viewpoint of the Scriptures, not only does it call into question all of His teachings, it also makes Him less than God. He becomes just another rabbi with some radical opinions. It is extremely important that Jesus believed and taught in a literal creation account from Genesis.
It doesn’t really matter whether Richard Dawkins is an agnostic or atheist. At the end of the day, it all ends up in the same place: unbelief. But we do need to recognize and distinguish ourselves from churchmen who cloak themselves in the logic of scientific theory. The media had no problem with the Archbishop because it really wasn’t news that he held this position on creation. But those who want Christianity represented to the world and believe in a literal Biblical interpretation better take heed who is taking their side in the public arena. And we all better beware whether the pulpit is filled with someone who believes the teachings of Jesus.
Many folks have chosen a different sort of life style, one without, even living a life with a statement or personal mission statement that there is no god. Still, atheism is very misunderstood and it is rather difficult to define as it means different things to different folks. Many religious folks see it as a devil type worship, however atheists do not believe in a devil or a god.
Then another word is often confused with atheism, and that is agnosticism. Have you ever wondered exactly what atheism is? If you are a religious person, then it makes sense to understand what it is and what it isn’t so that you do not inadvertently look foolish to label someone evil, who simply does not believe in a god and has no faith in such.
If this interests you, then let me recommend a very good non-judgmental book to you. The name of the book is:
“What is Atheism? A Short Introduction” by Douglas E. Kruger; Prometheus Books Publishing Company Incorporated. Amherst, NY. 1998. ISBN: 1-57392-214-5.
One of the best parts of this book is chapter two, which answers the question of moral foundation namely; “How can atheists have morals?” If you have ever wondered this question, the answer is here. Chapter Three answers the question; “How cans Have Purpose to Their Lives?” This is an excellent point and you’d be very wise to know the answer.
There are sections on the bible,of a god or gods, and some of the age old philosophical questions on the subject. The final question might be very interesting to some and bothersome to those of faith, but if your convicts are strong enough you can read that too; “What’s Wrong with Believing on Faith?” Well, I wish you all the best in your hunt for knowledge and hope this book brings meaning and understanding to your life.