Improper Use Of Evolution

[bjrn 0]

What irks me about many evolution vs creationism debates is that people on the creationism side somehow see creationism as a valid theory that can be imposed on others. While I don't mind people disagreeing with the theory of evolution if they think that there are major flaws in it, I do not approve of passing off creationism as a scientific theory.The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, it's based on research and most importantly, it's falsifyable; if it's not correct you can disprove it. The belief in creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's based on dogma, and it's not falsifyable; whatever counter-proof you would come up with, a creationist could always twist the belief into something fitting with the facts.

[Milk 0]

What irks me about many evolution vs creationism debates is that people on the creationism side somehow see creationism as a valid theory that can be imposed on others. While I don't mind people disagreeing with the theory of evolution if they think that there are major flaws in it, I do not approve of passing off creationism as a scientific theory.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, it's based on research and most importantly, it's falsifyable; if it's not correct you can disprove it. The belief in creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's based on dogma, and it's not falsifyable; whatever counter-proof you would come up with, a creationist could always twist the belief into something fitting with the facts.

Wow, I totally agree ^^;

[clagnol 0]

Ok smart *bottom*, then if the monkeys changed into humans over time back then, how come the cycle doesn't happen anymore?

129238[/snapback]

This process is cyclical?

 

It doesn't happen anymore?

 

Excuse me, sir... do you know anything about the theory of evolution?

[HoRuS 0]

Hmmm...Personally I refuse to believe we "accidently evolved" from lizards nor monkeys rofl and no I won't believe the story of Adam and Eve as well...Even if we "evolved" from moneys I would rather think it had something to do with genetic manipulation, because we have this extra thing in our DNA wich made us the way we are now and till now no other species have "evolved" such extra DNA provided by Nature itself.Might be weird and I'm sure most people brand me as maniac, but I think we are not what we think we are

[Milk 0]

Hmmm...

Personally I refuse to believe we "accidently evolved" from lizards nor monkeys rofl and no I won't believe the story of Adam and Eve as well...

Even if we "evolved" from moneys I would rather think it had something to do with genetic manipulation, because we have this extra thing in our DNA wich made us the way we are now and till now no other species have "evolved" such extra DNA provided by Nature itself.

Might be weird and I'm sure most people brand me as maniac, but I think we are not what we think we are

144716[/snapback]

Evolution doesn't just happen... In order for evolution to occur, there must be a change. Therefore, you're right. I'm sure that some monkey somewhere had mutated DNA that caused it to look something like our preceding "*person*" ancestors. They probably eventually branched off into having more mutations, eventually leading to us looking like we are...

 

If there's not a change in an individual of a population, nothing will ever happen. If the mutation benefits the creature in some way, that creature will eventually pass on the mutated gene because it allows it to survive better.

[Totalwar 0]

The argument over creation and evolution is over. At least in my mind. My logic for this is very simple. First I disagree with religious organizations that try to argue with the scientific community. The scientific theory of creation, that is to say evolution and to a lesser extent the big bang, works in the realm of science. This is a realm were, it is assumed all things are constant and follow sets of laws or at least probabilities, thank you quantum physics. All things must be observed, isolated, tested, and observed again. If everyone sees the same thing then its ?true? or at least the theory is proven. If another observation is made where the theory proves untrue, then further observations are made to make new theories that will hold true in all observations. Evolution and the big bang could very easily be proven wrong (assuming they are wrong) by simply making an observation in which they, or more likely something that was assumed in earlier tests, proves wrong. For example if a goat in the Kansas gave birth to a human, evolution would clearly be wrong. If the Catholic Church built a telescope and it observed that the universe was, in fact, not expanding but osculating to the tune of Amazing Grace then the big bang would clearly be flawed. None of these observations have been made, instead people argue that because the bible accounts for the events that took place during creation, clearly these other scientific accounts must not be true. This argument is pointless. There is no biblical constant in the realm of science. In the realm of church there may be a biblical constant, but not in the realm of science. Scientists should not become too over zealous either. They seem to think that because they observe things in the present, they can extrapolate what happened in the past. That?s all well and good if there is no all powerful creator however, if there is a God then their arguments no longer hold true, simple logic states this. Consider a realm where there are only two constants, a universe, and an all powerful being. Given these two assumptions it is impossible to make a system based on observation. Any law this system observed could be broken by the all powerful being, who?s existence is already assumed. Anything observed could simply have been set up by the all powerful being. This possibility is obviously not beyond the power of an all powerful being. Thus science can never disprove the possibility of an all powerful being because any observation would be biased by such a beings existence. The events in Genesis, and for that matter the entire bible (any bible), could easily have occurred. Any observations made after Genesis simply suggest that, after Genesis, God set things up that way. Observations that the universe is expanding could very easily be true but, that could just as easily have been set up by God after the events in Genesis. Species may very well mutate. Forces may kill some members of a species, and because of genetic variations, leave other members of that species to breed and pass their genes on. These observations could just as easily have dominated events millions of years ago as they could have been set up by an all powerful being some 3000 years ago. My point is that scientific observation suggests we evolved from apes and were created during the big bang. Don?t debate a scientist about theory unless you have scientific observation with which to make your debate. Other wise you might as well be speaking a different language. Equally, don?t debate someone who believes in an all powerful being, about things that all powerful being couldn?t do. Science is a valid system. It saves lives. Religion is a valid system it also saves lives (and to those that believe, something more important than life.) There are bigger problems in the world than where we all came from!

[Joshua 0]

With the Big Bang it at its core believes everything came from nothing. Dirt poofed out of nowhere and some whirled around this piece and others around this piece and became worlds and moons and some water got involved somehow and *poof!* Here we are Through observation the Law of Biogenesis is accepted which states that all life must come from other life, which obviously contradicts the Big Bang Theory. As for Genesis, it clearly uses a solar day as its unit of time at the least after the fourth day. This means in the next 72 hours not only were all plants and animals made but man as well. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.There is macroevolution and microevolution, macro the belief that everything came from nothing, or interspecies evolution, and microevolution, meaning evolution within a species or species adaptation, which is proveable. Macro however has never been proven and is admittedly unproveable, and even illogical according to the Law of Biogenesis.In Genesis 30 some cattle become slightly different cattle, and looking in Genesis you will see God commands the animals to bring forth "after their own kind."Many people shocked at how so many animals could fit on the ark don't realize that not only were young animals probably brought on, but that if this was near the beginning of time animals wouldn't have changed to so many types as we think of them. Microevolution would mean there was one original cat species from which jaguars, lions, etc... come from, one original dog species from which coyotes, wolves, etc... come from, etc... Just as people who spend too much time in a desert climate get dark skin as a race or who spend too much time in a tundra climate get a pale complexion and squinted eyes to adjust for the glare off the snow, so the animals would adapt with minor changes as with the finches Darwin observed. Darwin hoped that transitional forms would become more apparent but after 200 years now they are still lacking. We should see cat-dogs, bird-fish, mammal-reptiles, etc... all over the place if evolution holds true, but we do not. All the dating methods once presented as fact have been disproven including potassium-argon dating, carbon dating, and most recently carbon 14 dating. Last I heard they were saying Dendrochronology or tree ring dating was the new flawless method of dating things. Just look at all the supposed missing links that have been frauds or mysteriously disappeared, or else have larger cranial cavities suggesting intelligence even greater then ours (perhaps why we use only 10% of our brains now, mankind isn't getting smarter, living shorter as we do then in Biblical times perhaps our brains never get the chance to develop as they did for those who lived hundreds of years). There are flood legends from here to China and some of the ancient Biblical cities have been excavated like Ninevah, which scholars firmly refused to believe could be as great a city as the Bible made it out to be for being so ancient... until they excavated it. Luke's attention to detail has helped archaeologists find whole cities, just read "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell where one instance is quoted of this happening. And the Bible does not claim simply to be just a bunch of stories as the Catholics would like to believe, it claims to be devoid of the fallacies brought by men and the very Word of God, divinely inspired, divinely constructed, and divinely preserved. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

[clagnol 0]

I replied to your invocation of biogenesis in the "Is there a god?" post [to which I don't feel like finding the link]. I'll leave you the Wikipedia link.

The other things you mention aren't really compelling evidence to me. You throw around a lot heresay and half-truths. The dating methods you mention have not been discredited. That's a joke creationists tell eachother on fundamentalist Christian discussion boards. Give me some references to credible scientific work, and I'll consider this idea.

You're also flat-out wrong about microevolution. Microevolution does not account for one species becoming another. We demarcate microevolution as occuring at or below the level of species. The difference between a housecat and a jaguar constitutes many macroevolutionary changes. Likewise, Darwin's finches were different species. You might be able to argue that a Jack Rusell Terrier microevolved from another terrier, but I'm not sure if the domestication influence rules that argument out.

As to your arguments about Darwin's personal beliefs, they are irrelevent and sound apocryphal to me. But let me point out the flaws in that argument, anyways. Regarding cat-dogs: cats and dogs aren't often subject to evolution, as both species are domesticated animals. Humans control the reproduction of these animals, thus largely removing "survival of the fittest" from their lives. Furthermore, species do not blend together to create viable offspring. As I recall, ligers and tigons are impotent/frigid. The best-case result of cat-dog coitus would be mutual satisfaction. But I'll assume, for this discussion's sake, that you don't believe all evolution to result in animal mixtures.


Another mistruth you wrote was that evolution is unproveable. Supposing we last that long, I'm sure we'll have ample evidence in a few thousand years. Even if your savior comes to take away all the fundies, we'll still have our atheist scientists hard at work.

Let me point one more thing you got wrong: you made a sweeping and incorrect generalization about Catholics. A lot of Fundamentalists like to impugn the Catholics for their lax interpretations of the Bible or impiety. But what you probably didn't know is that there are many Catholics out there more zealous than yourself. Biblical literalism, salvation through guilt, asceticism, the whole shebang. I'm sure some of them think Fundamentalists [the bill of which you certainly seem to fit] do not take the Bible seriously enough.

As you are so keen on quoting the Bible, I will share with you my favorite verse in closing: Ezekial 23:20.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[Joshua 0]

I replied to your invocation of biogenesis in the "Is there a god?" post [to which I don't feel like finding the link]. I'll leave you the Wikipedia link.

 

The other things you mention aren't really compelling evidence to me. You throw around a lot heresay and half-truths. The dating methods you mention have not been discredited. That's a joke creationists tell eachother on fundamentalist Christian discussion boards. Give me some references to credible scientific work, and I'll consider this idea.

 

You're also flat-out wrong about microevolution. Microevolution does not account for one species becoming another. We demarcate microevolution as occuring at or below the level of species. The difference between a housecat and a jaguar constitutes many macroevolutionary changes. Likewise, Darwin's finches were different species. You might be able to argue that a Jack Rusell Terrier microevolved from another terrier, but I'm not sure if the domestication influence rules that argument out.

 

As to your arguments about Darwin's personal beliefs, they are irrelevent and sound apocryphal to me. But let me point out the flaws in that argument, anyways. Regarding cat-dogs: cats and dogs aren't often subject to evolution, as both species are domesticated animals. Humans control the reproduction of these animals, thus largely removing "survival of the fittest" from their lives. Furthermore, species do not blend together to create viable offspring. As I recall, ligers and tigons are impotent/frigid. The best-case result of cat-dog coitus would be mutual satisfaction. But I'll assume, for this discussion's sake, that you don't believe all evolution to result in animal mixtures.

Another mistruth you wrote was that evolution is unproveable. Supposing we last that long, I'm sure we'll have ample evidence in a few thousand years. Even if your savior comes to take away all the fundies, we'll still have our atheist scientists hard at work. 

 

Let me point one more thing you got wrong: you made a sweeping and incorrect generalization about Catholics. A lot of Fundamentalists like to impugn the Catholics for their lax interpretations of the Bible or impiety. But what you probably didn't know is that there are many Catholics out there more zealous than yourself. Biblical literalism, salvation through guilt, asceticism, the whole shebang. I'm sure some of them think Fundamentalists [the bill of which you certainly seem to fit] do not take the Bible seriously enough.

 

As you are so keen on quoting the Bible, I will share with you my favorite verse in closing: Ezekial 23:20.

159316[/snapback]

I've spent a lot of time discussing the carbon 14 dating methods in the past and have seen them dropped as evidence, carbon dating and potassium argon dating are so far gone now you could call them dinosaurs.

 

As for Christ's coming, that will also mean the end of this world and universe as we know it and the bringing in of a new one, so...

 

As for salvation, it's through faith in Christ, not guilt, not sure what you're thinking of there...

 

And the KJV reads thus, not sure what version you're using but usually there's at least some similarity in the translations... Not here however. What version IS that?

 

Ezekiel 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

[clagnol 0]

I've spent a lot of time discussing the carbon 14 dating methods in the past and have seen them dropped as evidence, carbon dating and potassium argon dating are so far gone now you could call them dinosaurs.

 

Still no references, jzye.

 

As for Christ's coming, that will also mean the end of this world and universe as we know it and the bringing in of a new one, so...

 

There's some contention on this point among believers, so don't take it for granted.

 

And the KJV reads thus, not sure what version you're using but usually there's at least some similarity in the translations...  Not here however.  What version IS that?

159331[/snapback]

I generally use the New International Version, which, when I was a Fundamentalist, was considered the most accurate English interpretation among my peers.

 

King James' translators were a might touchy around verses relating to genitals.

 

I was just throwing out my own favorite verse; let's not make this evolution thread about the Bible.

[Joshua 0]

Still no references, jzye.

There's some contention on this point among believers, so don't take it for granted.

I generally use the New International Version, which, when I was a Fundamentalist, was considered the most accurate English interpretation among my peers.

 

King James' translators were a might touchy around verses relating to genitals.

 

I was just throwing out my own favorite verse; let's not make this evolution thread about the Bible.

159487[/snapback]

How's this?

 

from: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

 

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which Âscience apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.

 

Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaursÂlevels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. IsnÂt it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earthÂs history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?

Contention about a new Heavens and a new earth? This is the first time I've heard about it... Seems like it is crystal clear to me... The Bible has been speaking about it for thousands and thousands of years now. Believers doesn't necessarily mean those born again however who have found eternal life, as it says in James 2:19-20, you can believe in one God as do the devils, and it is not enough, without works (and works can never justify) that faith is dead.

 

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

 

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

As for what this thread is about, I simply like to present what the Bible says on all things, I see no reason to apply a different standard to evolution. I'm not trying to change the subject here from evolution but rather enlarge on the subject about evolution by showing forth what the Bible does have to say about evolution (which I believe I already did earlier).

[clagnol 0]

How's this?

 

from:  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Three words for your link: creation science evangelism. I have a hard enough time trusting people with radical claims when they don't openly espouse a political, cultural, and religious agenda.

 

Contention about a new Heavens and a new earth?  This is the first time I've heard about it...  Seems like it is crystal clear to me...

161459[/snapback]

Jehovah's Witnesses found something in the Bible to support their claim that they will inherit the Earth, and the unbelievers will perish. Every Christian sect has a slightly different outlook, often contradictory, and they all have support from the Bible. Obviously, you can't all be right.

[Joshua 0]

Three words for your link: creation science evangelism. I have a hard enough time trusting people with radical claims when they don't openly espouse a political, cultural, and religious agenda.

Jehovah's Witnesses found something in the Bible to support their claim that they will inherit the Earth, and the unbelievers will perish. Every Christian sect has a slightly different outlook, often contradictory, and they all have support from the Bible. Obviously, you can't all be right.

162599[/snapback]

And I have a hard time trusting anything by people who use faith to believe what they believe (evolution *cough*) while not admitting that it does in point of fact involve faith. That doesn't mean I instantly refuse to listen to anything they say and just insult them and what they say without giving them a chance to be heard.

 

You can find just about anything you want from any major work of literature if you take it out of context. You can throw bits and pieces of sentences together and make it look like it supports your views. That doesn't mean it does. *shrugs*

[clagnol 0]

And I have a hard time trusting anything by people who use faith to believe what they believe (evolution *cough*) while not admitting that it does in point of fact involve faith.

 

My regard for evolution is not dogmatic; if something solid comes along which contradicts my current schema, I adapt and absorb. This is different from your "faith" which is neither grounded in science nor allows for any competing worldviews.

 

That doesn't mean I instantly refuse to listen to anything they say and just insult them and what they say without giving them a chance to be heard.

Yeah, you do; just in a more passive-aggressive way.

 

You can find just about anything you want from any major work of literature if you take it out of context.  You can throw bits and pieces of sentences together and make it look like it supports your views.  That doesn't mean it does.  *shrugs*

172924[/snapback]

EXACTLY. I'm glad you're seeing things my way.

[Joshua 0]

My regard for evolution is not dogmatic; if something solid comes along which contradicts my current schema, I adapt and absorb. This is different from your "faith" which is neither grounded in science nor allows for any competing worldviews.

Yeah, you do; just in a more passive-aggressive way.

EXACTLY. I'm glad you're seeing things my way.

172953[/snapback]

And yet you refuse to look into anything simply because it's related to Christianity, correct? It's like my refusing to look at anything giving evidence for evolution because evolutionists are making the argument. That's EXACTLY what you are doing here. It's hard to "adapt and absorb" if you refuse to listen.

 

I believe my faith completely and utterly grounded in logic, Acts 17:11 makes it quite clear that the Bible calls noble those who genuinely question what it says, so long as they do so with an open mind and an earnesty to find truth rather then to be just proven right.

 

 

Ravi Zecharias says in Jesus Among Other Gods on pages 49-50:

 

  If isolated instances demand that we not risk our lives on the preposterous claims of some self-styled demagogue, how much more important it is that we not risk the very destiny of humanity on someone who insists that He is the only true answer to life's purpose and destiny-unless that claim can be thoroughly tested and justified.  Interestingly enough, to those like Bertrand Russell who contend that there is a paucity of evidence, the Bible makes a staggering counterpoint.  The Scriptures categorically state that the problem is not the absence of evidence; it is, rather, the suppression of it.  The message of Jesus Christ shifts the charge of insufficience from the volume of evidence to the intent of one's will.

  Was Jesus implying that belief is nothing more then a blind commitment of the will?  I think not.  But He did say, in effect, that if you test his claims by the same measure that you legitimately substantiate other facts, you will find Him and His teaching thoroughly trustworthy.  The evidence is already there.  The denial of Christ has less to do with facts and more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude. After years of wrestling with such issues in academia, I have seen this proven time and again. 

  Notice, for example, the words of Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at New York University.  This is how he explains his deep-seated antipathy toward religion:

 

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions.... in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence.  Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstitition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods.  I am talking about something much deeper-namely the fear of religion itself.... I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.1

  That is unabashed, committed unbelief.  "I don't want there to be a God."  While Bertrand Russell's skepticism may be represented as the honest search of reason, we had better be sure that it is not actually the wanton unbelief of Thomas Nagel that lurks beneath that intellectual quest.  That kind of skepticism is the distortion of reason, masquerading as candor.  To such a disposition, nothing would serve as sufficient evidence.  We will find that as we study this theme of reason and faith and the place of the sign, God has much more to say about it then we realize.

-On page 58:

 

  First, let us clearly understand what faith is not before establishing what it is.  The faith that the Bible speaks of is not antithetical to reason.  It is not just a will to believe, everything to the contrary notwithstanding.  It is not a predisposition to force every peice of information to fit into the mold of one's desires.  Faith in the biblical sense is substantive, based on the knowledge that the One in whom that faith is placed has proven that He is worthy of that trust.  In its essence, faith is a confidence in the person of Jesus Christ and in His power, so that even when His power does not serve my end, my confidence in Him remains because of who He is.  Faith for the Christian is the response of trust based on who Jesus Christ claimed to be, and it results in a life that brings both mind and heart in a commitment of love to Him.  Is this an irrational or unreasonable response based on all that Christ demonstrated Himself to be?

 

 

Concerning what doesn't allow for competing worldviews, here's some more from that book:

 

-page ix of the introduction:

 

  I must say one other thing.  I have covered thousands of miles during this writing, not only for the book, but also through invitations to speak in various parts of the world.  I have walked through temples, mosques, and other religious sites.  I have spoken to students at universities in which the predominant religion is not Christian.  In the course of this, I have met some very find and gracious people.  By nature, I am a people person.  I enjoy conversations, especially around a meal with newfound friends.  One such person was the romm attendant at a hotel where I was staying.  He is a Muslim man.  Every day when he came in to make up my room, he would also make me a cup of tea, and we would talk.  On his off day, he took me sightseeing in his city, and we visited many places of worship.  I will never forget him.  I wish more people showed the kindness he did and the courtesies he always offered.

  And that is the point I wish to make.  We can be world-views apart without anger and offense.  What I believe, I believe very seriously.  And it is because of this that I write the book.  By equal measure, anything to the contrary, I must question.

  My earnest prayer is that when you read this, you will make your judgement of the Christian message based on truth, not the mood of our times.  Moods change.  Truth does not.

-pages 6-7:

 

  You hear it a thousand times and more growing up in the East-"We all come through different routes and end up in the same place."  But I say to you, God is not a place or an experience or a feeling.  Pluralistic cultures are beguiled by the cosmetically courteous idea that sincerity or privilege of birth is all that counts and that truth is subject to the beholder.  In no other discipline of life can one be so naive as to claim inherited belief or insistent belief as the sole determiner of truth.  Why, then, do we make the catastrophic error of thinking that all religions are right and that it does not matter whether the claims they make are objectively true? 

  All religions are not the same.  All religions do not point to God.  All religions do not say that all religions are the same.  At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose. 

  Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.

  But the concept of "many ways" was absorbed subliminally in my life as a youngster.  I was conditioned into that way of thinking before I found out its smuggled prejudices.  It took years to find out that the cry for openness is never what it purports to be.  What the person means by saying, "You must be open to everything" is really, "You must be open to everything that I am open to, and anything I disagree with, you must disagree with too." 

 

 

 

 

 

You had your questions, now for mine

 

Can you answer the questions these scientists could not?

 

-page 64:

 

  I asked them a couple of questions.  "If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began [which one can fairly well grant, at least to this point in science's thinking], may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?  Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.   I pursued, "But isn't it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?"   "That is correct," was the answer.   "Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either."     There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch.  But I had yet another question.   I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God.  Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy.    "Now," I hadded, "When quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life.  Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?"   Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, "We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't."   There is the truth in cold, hard terms.  The person who demands a sign and at the same time has already determined that anything that cannot be explained scientifically is meaningless is not merely stacking the deck; he is losing at his own game.