header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome

 (Read 2457 times)

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2019, 01:52:42 PM »
The Catholics at least change their belief set fairly often over time.  A lot of relatively new things like the Immaculate Conception come into being because a Pope decides it.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2019, 01:54:47 PM »
I can't spend anymore time in this section than I already do.  It's despicable and is one of the dark corners of the internet.  It's as bad as child porn, and I wish it was removed from this site like yesterday.
For me, it affords an insight into how people "think".  It's fairly often I encounter a person in real life and start to think "Hey, you remind me of that one Internet dude."

Before I had any exposure to such talk sites, I had no idea that modern humans still believed the Great Flood was a real event.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2019, 02:13:20 PM »
Richard Dawkins' second chapter is a rambling 43-page rant against theism. Instead of writing a real introduction about "the God hypothesis," Dawkins immediately launches into a long list of the supposed faults of Yahweh, including, "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." And all that is just part of the first sentence! Of course, there are no attempts to substantiate any of the claims by giving examples. In fact, atheists love to point out examples where God judges those who do evil (as if we humans would never stoop so low to do such things by making laws, having police, judges and jails). How dare God judge evil! Dawkins won't tell you that the reason why God told the Israelites to wipe out entire populations was because they were burning their own children as sacrifices.1 Maybe Dawkins would have preferred that we still have those people around so that he could offer his own daughter as a burnt offering.
Let's define God away
Dawkins throws out a statement that he doesn't even attempt to support:
Quote
This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion;
Well, if one assumes that everything is contingent upon the universe, then, of course, God is a delusion. However, by defining God as such, Dawkins doesn't even address the God of Christianity and Judaism, who is clearly stated as having created the entire universe. It is Dawkins who is delusional if he thinks he can define God differently from Christianity and then claim that he has disproved His existence.
Polytheism
Dawkins begins his rant against God's existence by "examining" polytheism. Included is a random quotes from The Catholic Encyclopedia, the now defunct charity laws of England and Scotland that used to discriminate against polytheism, and a The Catholic Encyclopedia quote about the Trinity. Dawkins mocks the concept of the Trinity, basically throwing up his hands, saying it can't be understood. For those who want to know, the Trinity is the doctrine that God is one in essence consisting of three persons. In other words, God is one God who interacts with human beings as three persons (The Father, Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Although logically impossible for three dimensional human beings to exist as three persons, such a feat is logically possible in just one extra dimension (see The Extradimensional Nature of God). Dawkins doesn't even seem to consider the possibility that God is transcendent.
Dawkins then goes on another two page rant against Roman Catholicism, many complaints against which evangelical Christians would agree (e.g., Mary as the Queen of Heaven, praying to saints, etc.). In complaints against Pope John Paul, who attributed his survival of an assassination attempt to intervention by Our Lady of Fatima, saying, 'A maternal hand guided the bullet.' Dawkins muses, "One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether." Dawkins closes his rambling section on polytheism by saying that he included it only "to cover myself against a charge of neglect."
Monotheism
Dawkins begins the main target of his attacks with a quote from Gore Vidal, another expert in theology, who claims that monotheism is the "great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture." Dawkins centers his attack on the three major "Abrahamic" religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He then adds a few choice words to describe God, including "obsessed with sexual restrictions," probably referring to the Bible's overly restrictive commands against adultery, rape, incest, prostitution, bestiality, and sodomy. Apparently, Dawkins thinks God should not be concerned with our sexual perversions. It would be good to know which of these sexual restrictions Dawkins himself has actually participated in!
Paul founded Christianity?
Dawkins claims that "Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus," contrary to the writings of numerous New Testament authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter). Although Paul's Letter to the Romans is radically different from just about any other book of the Bible, the teachings found in the Book of Romans are also found in the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the disciples. So, Paul didn't just make up doctrines to create a new religion. However, he did write the greatest theological treatise of all time in the Book of Romans. Not only are the core doctrines of Christianity found outside Paul's writings, but Paul himself taught many other theological issues that reflect the teachings of Jesus during His years of ministry. So, Paul of Tarsus is not the founder of Christianity (Jesus is), but merely clarified the teachings of the Bible as no other Bible author ever has. For more information, see the page, Did Paul Invent Christianity?
Religion by conquest
Dawkins complains about religions spreading through conquest and cites Christianity's spread by Roman conquest, followed by the Crusaders, conquistadores and other European invaders. What Dawkins doesn't mention is that Christianity originally spread from a small group in Judea to "conquer" the civilized world without firing a shot, hundred of years before Emperor Constantine declared it the official religion of Rome. It is apparent that Dawkins doesn't want to admit that Christianity originally spread by the application of reason and logic. In fact, Christianity spread throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Europe at a time when it was severely persecuted by the Roman Empire, which controlled the entire area.
Dawkins doesn't understand the universe
Dawkins then defines the god against which he is arguing:
Quote
"He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded."
The disturbing thing about Dawkins' definition of God is that he doesn't seem to understand the nature of the universe. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that space-time is in a state of continual expansion, and that the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. The cause of this expansion, whether it be natural or supernatural, exists outside the bounds of detectable space-time. So, yes, there is an "outside" the universe. The God of Judaism and Christianity does not just "perhaps" exist outside the universe, but quite explicitly cannot be contained by even the outer reaches of the universe.2
Dawkins doesn't want to be accountable to God
Dawkins goes on to praise the "deist god of Voltaire and Thomas Paine," calling Him "lofty," "grander," and "a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer." The reason for all this praise is because He is "unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions." From these rants, it is apparent that what Dawkins dislikes most about the God of Christianity is His desire for moral accountability from people. Dawkins doesn't want to be morally accountable, and finds a God who demands such accountability to be evil. Dawkins himself is currently in his third marriage, being divorced twice. Like other atheists, he doesn't like the idea of a god being "concerned with what adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms."3
God - the cosmic killjoy?
The idea that God is a cosmic killjoy, intent on denying us pleasure and good things, is not new to humanity. In fact, this ploy is the exact one Satan used on Eve in the garden of Eden to convince her to eat of the forbidden fruit. In his exchange with Eve, Satan indicated that God was a liar and that He just wanted to keep something good (the fruit) from her, saying, "God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."4 Dawkins has bought into Satan's first lie - that God is a cosmic killjoy - even though he does not believe God exists. See Why Wouldn't God Want Adam and Eve to Have Knowledge of Good and Evil? for more information.
Secularism, the Founding Fathers and the religion of America
The section concerned with the founding father and religion of the United States seems out-of-place. However, it is clear that Dawkins is deeply disturbed that "the United States, founded in secularism" is now one of the most religious nations in the world. First he attributes the religiosity to the large number of immigrants who see the "church as a kind of kin-substitute on alien soil." Then he attributes it to American free enterprise, with churches competing in the marketplace. What Dawkins fails to notice is that in a free market buyers cannot only select their goods, but are free to ignore goods that do not suit them. It is the very fact that Americans embrace religious belief in a free market that disturbs Dawkins so much.
Dawkins quoting out-of-context
Dawkins goes on to quote several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, who made statement against the religion of their time. John Adams is quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." However here is the complete quote in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:
Quote
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."5
In quoting John Adams out-of-context, Dawkins has made it seem that Adams said exactly opposite of what he really intended. No wonder he left out the part where Adams said the world would be "hell" "without religion." Adams directly refuted Dawkins' major premise of the book - that religion is the great evil in the world - and affirmed the opposite - that religion keeps the world from becoming completely evil. In fact, John Adams said some things about Christianity that Dawkins probably won't be quoting any time soon such as, "The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart."6
Caught again quoting out-of-context
Dawkins also quotes James Madison out-of-context, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." The quote comes from his dissent of James Madison to a bill introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. Madison's objection was not to Christianity, but to the establishment of state-sponsored "Christianity." This is evident from the first sentence of the quoted section, which Dawkins conveniently leaves out:
Quote
"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity..."7 (entire paragraph in context)
It is clear from the context that Madison objected to the "legal establishment of Christianity" - not to Christianity itself, which he indicates has "efficacy." Dawkins fails to quote some of the other things Madison has to say about religion and Christianity in the same document:
  • "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him"
  • "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"
  • "Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity"8
The really funny thing is that James Madison would have never accepted Richard Dawkins "as a member of Civil Society," since he has not subjected himself to the "Governour of the Universe."
The most bloody religion ever?
A second quote attributed to John Adams says, "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" Of course, Adams (and Richard Dawkins) didn't cite any statistics to backup those claims. In fact, if we look at the actual data, we see that Christianity doesn't even make the top ten for atrocities prior to the 20th century, and is less than 3% of the totals (excluding wars). For the 20th century, "Christian" atrocities don't even make the top 20, whereas atheistic regimes claim three out of the top five spots for mass murder. For more information, see What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion.
Religious people in U.S. Politics - Oh my!
The fact that many of the leaders of the United States claim to be Christians who express their religious beliefs in public disturbs Dawkins saying, "...Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams and all their friends. Whether they were atheists, agnostics, deists or Christians, they would have recoiled in horror from the theocrats of early 21st-century Washington." Even though the Constitution established a secular form of government, it does not preclude religious people from participating in it. In fact, religious tests (or tests for lack of religious belief) are specifically prohibited for elected officials. I am sure that Mr. Dawkins would continue to vocally oppose religion if he were elected to a political office. It is unreasonable to expect people of faith (or lack of faith) to stop expressing their opinions just because they are elected officials. At least with a democracy, the people can de-elect leaders who express opinions they find unacceptable.
The poverty of agnosticism
Dawkins begins his discussion of agnosticism by expressing the opinion of his school chapel preacher, calling agnostics "namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters." It is not a quote, so one wonders if Dawkins' real opinion about agnostics falls into that realm. Dawkins defines two types of agnosticism 1), TAP (Temporary Agnosticism in Practice) and PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle). Most questions in science that have not been conclusively answered fall into the TAP category. Dawkins cites only one example of PAP - what colors look like through other people's sensory machinery. He disputes that the existence of God falls under PAP. Dawkins rightly indicates that agnosticism is warranted in TAP when the data is not clear. I agree with his assessment of the question of God's existence, but would probably assign a different probability to the question:
Quote
"...agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability."
Probability and agnosticism
Dawkins quotes from T. H. Huxley, who first coined the term "agnostic." However, he disagrees with Huxley's method of determining if a point is scientifically valid. Whereas Huxley wanted substantial evidence, Dawkins is willing to go with probability. When I suggested that evidence for God's existence be based upon probability a few years ago, I got nothing but complaints from numerous atheists. Maybe now that Dawkins thinks it is a good idea, it will be better received. Dawkins classifies people's beliefs in God into the following categories:
  • Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God
  • Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist.
  • Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
  • Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
  • Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
  • Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
  • Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God.'
Few strong atheists?
Dawkins indicates that there are large numbers of theists in category 1, but virtually no atheists in category 7 (including himself). Dawkins doesn't cite any data supporting his claims. However, since 2003, I have been running an "Atheism Test," which allows me to determine the number of strong atheists who take the test. On average, over 400 atheists take the test each month (total sample size is nearly 40,000). Contrary to Dawkins' claim, the percent who are strong atheists averages 50%, and has never been lower than 30%. These percentages are actually under-estimates of the percentage of strong atheists, since some who visit the test page may never take the test or fail the first question ("Are you an honest atheist?"). It is possible that only strong atheists are attracted to my site, although this seems rather unlikely. It is also possible that half of all atheists are liars. My nine year study indicates that a large percentage of atheists are actually strong atheists.
Burden of proof
Dawkins ends his section on agnosticism discussing the probability of the existence of God and the burden of proof. He uses Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot example, along with the tooth fairy, Mother Goose, Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible unicorn, Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf. While Dawkins admits that God's existence is not disprovable, he claims that His existence is extremely improbable.
NOMA
Non-overlapping magisterial (NOMA) is the idea that science cannot comment in the issue of God's existence. According to Stephen J. Gould, "The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap..." Cosmologist Martin Rees says, "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all." Both Gould and Rees defer such questions to philosophers and theologians. However, Dawkins says "that if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well." In order to complete his insult to theologians, Dawkins says, "I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology... is a subject at all."
Dawkins does say that theological assertions are scientific questions, in theory if not in practice. He also claims that "a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without," although he doesn't speculate what those differences might be. However, we can say that if the universe were an average universe created by chance it would contain only some thermal radiation (i.e., no significant amount of matter).9 So, I agree with Dawkins that a universe created by an intelligent agent looks much different from one that is created by random physical mechanisms. However, I am sure Dawkins wasn't referring to the physical makeup of the universe when he made such a statement.
Dawkins blames the NOMA concept on theologians, although he fails to cite any who actually claim that theology and science do not overlap. Obviously, his only two examples are secular scientists Gould and Rees. Dawkins then goes off on miracles and how the Roman Catholic Church creates new saints. Dawkins seems really perturbed that God might occasionally suspend the laws of physics for His own purposes. Obviously, a god who is powerful enough to create the universe just might have enough power to suspend its rules.
The Great Prayer Experiment
Dawkins next discusses the "great prayer experiment" of 2006. Instead of giving the background as to why the experiment was done, he spent a page in satire. Two previous double-blind studies10, 11 had shown that intercessory prayer had significantly improved the health of patients admitted to coronary units of hospitals. A third study was funded by the Templeton Foundation to confirm or refute the results of the other two studies.
The design of the latest prayer study12 was somewhat unusual. The researchers used three patient groups. Two groups were advised of the study, but were not told whether they were in the prayer group or placebo group. The third group knew that they were being prayed for. The study was performed at six hospitals. Out of 3295 eligible patients, 1493 (45%) refused to participate, which is very high, although they did not explain the reasons for non-participation. The intercessors were composed of three groups. Two were Roman Catholic and one was a Protestant group (Silent Unity, Lee’s Summit, MO). Unlike in previous studies, the intercessors were not allowed to pray their own prayers. The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to "standardize" the prayers. The discussion section of the paper suggested that at least some of the intercessors were dissatisfied with the canned nature of the prayers. In attempting to standardize prayer, I believe the study introduced a serious flaw, since most intercessors tend to pray as they are led by the Spirit, instead of praying prepared scripts. Jesus told His followers not to pray repetitiously, since God would not hear those kinds of prayers.13
Ultimately, the results showed that groups 1 (prayer) and 2 (no prayer) were identical, whereas group 3 (those who knew they were being prayed for) did worse than the other two groups. The lack of efficacy of intercessory prayer in this study could be due to theological problems associated with the study design.
Dawkins spends a page criticizing the woeful comments of theologian Richard Swinburne. Dawkins is correct in criticizing Swinburne's comments. In fact, they don't represent biblical theological doctrines. However, Dawkins presents them as representing such.
Dawkins fails to cite prayer studies that showed a positive result, instead reporting only on the one that showed a negative result. In fact, a new meta-analysis, which takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer (17 major studies), shows that according to American Psychological Association Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer is classified as an experimental intervention that, overall, shows a small, but significant, positive effect.14
The Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists
Dawkins next goes on a long rant against certain atheists (Michael Ruse, in particular) who propose that theists sympathetic to macroevolutionary theory not be criticized. Of course Richard Dawkins thinks that all theists should be criticized at all times, since to do otherwise would result in becoming like Neville Chamberlain, who ignored the threat of the Germans by ceding over entire countries to them. During this discussion, Dawkins lumps all creationists together. However, in reality, there are creationists who dismiss much of science (mostly young earth creationists) and others who accept virtually all science. In fact, old earth creationists believe that creation theology can be tested against other theological and naturalistic models. Examples can be found in Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man and Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off.
Little green men
Dawkins finishes chapter 2 with a discussion of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. He maintains that we must remain agnostic on this issue, since there are many points of ignorance regarding values that can be assigned to the Drake equation. Although it is true that many of the values cannot be determined with much certainty, the results are coming in - and they don't support Dawkins assertion that the "principle of mediocrity" applies to our solar system/planet. Dawkins briefly mentions the anthropic principle, but dismisses it by saying, "if our solar system really were the only one in the universe, this is precisely where we, as beings who think about such matters, would have to be living." Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that declaring our existence on this planet as the reason why our planet is special is a logical fallacy (converse accident).
Dawkins describes the possible existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life as being "superhuman" as opposed to "supernatural," and speculates that if we detect any other advanced civilization that is must be vastly superior to ours (especially if their telltale signal has been traveling through space for thousands of years (which seems likely at this point, since there are not candidate solar systems close to us). He says that if those beings appeared to us, they would seem to possess magic and would "god-like." Dawkins even accepts the possibility that our existence is just part of a computer simulation and says that "I cannot think how to disprove it." Dawkins ends the chapter saying that all intelligences are the product of a form of Darwinian evolution. This assertion, Dawkins proclaims, means that no gods can precede the evolution of natural life forms. The assertion and responses to it will be covered in chapter 4.
Conclusion Top of page
In chapter 2, Richard Dawkins makes numerous assertions, nearly all of which he fails to support with either logic or data. Examples include the numerous names he gives to God, the claim that Paul founded Christianity, the claim that Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever, the claim that there are few strong atheists, and the claim that the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves because religious people hold political office in the United States - all of which are shown to be false. As in chapter 1, Dawkins is caught quoting out-of-context, when the original intent of the author was exactly opposite of what he reported. I'm not sure how he thought he would get away with this kind of despicable lying. Dawkins' most egregious example of failing to supports his claims is the assertion that intelligences (including God) must be evolved. Dawkins doesn't seem to apply his claim to the universe itself, which displays considerable evidence that it is anything but average. In fact, an average universe would consist solely of thermal energy, and no matter at all. It is clear that Richard Dawkins dislikes the God of Christianity primarily because of His desire for moral accountability from people. Dawkins doesn't want to be morally accountable, and finds a God who demands such accountability to be evil, instead preferring the non-intervening god of deism. I agree with Dawkins that the NOMA concept is wrong - that the question of God's existence can be addressed by the sciences. Obviously, we view the probability of God's existence quite differently.


References Top of page
  • "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)
  • Behold, heaven and the highest heavens cannot contain Thee... (1 Kings 8:27)
     The Almighty is beyond our reach. (Job 37:23)
  • "So many gods have passed into oblivion, and yet the sky-god of Abraham demands fresh sacrifices... as to concern himself with what consenting adults do for pleasure in the privacy of their bedrooms." (Day 1 Sam Harris: Why Are Atheists So Angry?, jewcy.com)
  • Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:1-5)
  • Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817.
  • Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp, December 27, 1816.
  • Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
  • James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
  • Cosmologist L. Dyson indicates, "The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe..." See Extreme Fine Tuning - Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant for more information.
  • Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829. [online paper]
  • Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278. [PDF version]
  • Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.
  • "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. (Matthew 6:7)
  • Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion2.html
Last Modified July 8, 2009



President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2019, 04:16:53 PM »
The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this argument the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." Dawkins asserts that the "The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist." However, as we shall see, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins, of course, believes that evolution (biological or cosmological) can explain all of nature, and presents arguments to support his views in this chapter.
The Ultimate Boeing 747
The Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. However, Dawkins turns the argument around, and concludes that any designer must be even more improbable:
Quote
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
Dawkins does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few sentences he actually devotes to the argument:
  • Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
  • Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself
  • Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself
Argument #2:
  • Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
  • Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
  • Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist
Although Dawkins does not believe that premise #1 is true, he accepts it as such, supposedly being a premise that all theists would accept as true. However, theists make no such claim that all possible entities require design. Specifically, we can't know for sure if God shows evidence of design, since He is not even a physical entity (God is a spirit1). The proof that the first premise is false can be shown by using it against Dawkins' own preferred universe designer - the multiverse. Here is Dawkins' argument turned against itself:
  • Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
  • Premise #2. The universe shows evidence of design in itself
  • Conclusion #1. Hence the universe requires a designer (a multiverse) superior to itself
Argument #2:
  • Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
  • Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
  • Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no universes can exist
Obviously, the universe does exist, so there must be something wrong with Dawkins' argument! Dawkins argument falls flat because premise #1 is false. Entities can be either contingent or necessary. The Creator (or creator) of the universe is a necessary entity and is not contingent upon anything nor requires a designer. This must be true or no universe would exist at all. So, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins' failure to distinguish between necessary and contingent entities also assumes that cause and effect operates upon all entities. However, the evidence indicates that time itself began at the beginning of the Big Bang.2 Without the existence of time, cause and effect do not operate. So, whatever or Whoever created the universe lies outside of time and space and has "always" existed. What was Dawkins thinking? (or was he?)
Natural selection as a consciousness-raiser
To be continued...
 
Irreducible complexity
 
 
The worship of gaps
 
 
The anthropic principle: planetary version
 
 
The anthropic principle: cosmological version
 
 
An interlude at Cambridge
 
 
Conclusion Top of page
Richard Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is shown to be formally fallacious, since premise #1 (every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself) is shown to be false. Applying Dawkins' own argument to his favorite universe designer (the multiverse) would show that no universe exists, if the argument were valid. Obviously, we have observational evidence that contradicts this hypothesis.



References Top of page


President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2019, 06:49:14 PM »
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design is the new book by Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute. The book's title is taken from Charles' Darwin's concern that his theory could not explain the lack of potential ancestors of animals appearing prior to what has been called the Cambrian explosion. During this brief period of time (~10 million years), numerous phyla (the highest classification scheme below "kingdom") of complex animals with novel body plans suddenly appeared from nowhere. Although additional classes of animals appeared subsequent to the Cambrian explosion, all animal phyla (both extant and extinct) originated at that time. So, is the Cambrian explosion still a problem for neo-Darwinian evolution?
Cambrian conundrum
Charles Darwin and most scientists who believe in the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution expect that the fossil record should show gradual evolutionary diversity at the species and genus level followed by the evolution of new biological families, orders, classes, and then phyla. However, the Cambrian explosion turns that idea on its head, with a rapid evolution of phyla followed by diversification of new orders, family, and species. In other words, the big leaps in organism design came before speciation, which is completely contrary to what gradualism would predict.
Attempts to discredit the Cambrian fossils
Several different attempts were made by evolutionists to discredit the problem posed by Cambrian explosion fossils. Even early on, Darwinists attempted to classify radically different animals into existing phyla in an attempt to minimize the obvious the diversity of the fossil evidence. Later efforts hypothesized that pre-Cambrian fossils just hadn't been found yet or that the soft-bodied ancestors of the Cambrian fauna just hadn't fossilized. All these attempts to minimize explosive nature of the Cambrian fossil evidence were shown to be false, since exquisitely-preserved soft-bodied animals, including sponge embryos showing cell nuclei, were shown to be preserved in Cambrian sedimentary rock.
Still other Darwinists have cited the appearance of fossils in the Ediacaran period, immediately prior to the Cambrian. These fossils represent a radical leap from previous life on earth, which was purely single-celled organisms. However, the phyla represented could account for, at most, only four of the twenty phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. In addition, these organisms lack the innovative designs of the Cambrian, such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords.
Molecular Clock
Based upon the concept of a molecular clock in the genetic sequences of key genes of Cambrian ancestors, scientists have attempted to calculate the time at which these hypothetical ancestors must have evolved. Since the fossil record failed to demonstrate these pre-Cambrian ancestors, scientists had hoped to raise doubt on the brevity of the Cambrian explosion. Calculations based upon a molecular clock showed that these hypothetical ancestors must have arisen a billion or more years ago (half a billion before the Cambrian explosion). However, there isn't even a hint of multicellularity that far back, even though we can find fossil evidence of single-celled organisms as far back as 3.5 billion years ago. Molecular clocks based upon different proteins in different studies produce divergence dates that vary by more than 1 billion years. Hence, the accuracy of such studies must be questioned.
New Genes
Darwin's Doubt contains a number of chapters dedicated to the question of how new information and new genes can arise, which might explain the mechanism behind the Cambrian explosion. The problem is not as simple as it might seem at first, since not only were new body plans developed, but dozens of new kinds of organs, tissues and cell types for all those body plans. Such massive innovations require the addition of thousands of new genes that are perfectly integrated with each other in order to produce an organism that functions. The Darwinian explanations for the origin of genetic information would be hard-pressed to explain how all those new designs appeared. Although the chapters in "How to build an animal" tend to be thorough, I would have preferred to see a better rebuttal to the primary Darwinian mechanism cited for the appearance of new genes—exon shuffling.
Embryology
Scientists have learned a lot by studying fruit flies. The use of mutation-causing chemicals during development have demonstrated what genes are important during the development of fruit fly larva. However, virtually all the mutations that affect embryogenesis produce fruit flies that are either non-viable or severely compromised. Better adapted fruit flies are never produced. So, there is a question as to how mutation can ever select a better adapted individual. Since macroevolution is dependent upon mutations that change the body plans of species, mutations that do so must impact development early in the process. However, these kinds of mutations are almost always deleterious.
Neo-Darwinism alternatives
Meyers goes on to examine alternative theories to neo-Darwinism, such as developmental gene regulatory networks, self organization, large-scale mutations, evo-devo models, mutations of cis-regulatory regions or homeobox genes, neutral or non-adaptive evolution and epigenetic inheritance. Darwin's Doubt ends with chapters on evidence for intelligent design, how science operates, and why it matters.
Conclusions Top of page
Darwin's Doubt is a really good, comprehensive examination of the Cambrian explosion and its implication regarding the neo-Darwinian model of evolution. As in Meyer's Signature in the Cell, the book is heavily referenced for those who want to explore topics more thoroughly. Darwin's Doubt tends to be somewhat more technically challenging, but not beyond the ability of the average science enthusiast to understand. One of the strengths of the book is that it thoroughly covers the numerous naturalistic models that attempt to explain the origin of new biological information. It has been a great help to me in helping to elucidate the numerous naturalistic models proposed to explain the diversity of life and the fossil record.
http://godandscience.org/evolution/darwins_doubt.html

Last Modified July 26, 2013

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3032
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2019, 07:56:26 AM »
I can't spend anymore time in this section than I already do.  It's despicable and is one of the dark corners of the internet.  It's as bad as child porn, and I wish it was removed from this site like yesterday.
Then don’t bother bringing your sorry ass to this site if it’s so despicable. I’m sure there are many progressive loon sites that are more preferable for your taste.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2019, 08:10:08 AM »
The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist.

Nevermind that there is no evidence that any gods, much less the Christian god, exists.

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.  All we have is our requirement for evidence and, when it comes to god, Christians' requirement for evidence is nothing.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2019, 09:06:12 AM »
I see some Christians who explain that their Faith works for them, it provides guidance and substance and a basis for how they live.  It is Faith after all, not something reached by clear evidence.  I think that's a good reason to be a Christian (or Hindu, or whatever), e.g., that it works for you personally.

If it doesn't work for others, fine.  I try and heed a lot of what Jesus had to say in his life, it's not easy of course, but I think He had a lot of things right.


P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2019, 09:46:17 AM »
I see some Christians who explain that their Faith works for them, it provides guidance and substance and a basis for how they live.  It is Faith after all, not something reached by clear evidence.  I think that's a good reason to be a Christian (or Hindu, or whatever), e.g., that it works for you personally.

If it doesn't work for others, fine.  I try and heed a lot of what Jesus had to say in his life, it's not easy of course, but I think He had a lot of things right.
(Paraphrasing a story I heard)

Let's say you run into an old friend and he looks radiantly happy.  You ask what's going on in his life and he tells you everything changed for him the day he realized he was destined to marry Angelina Jolie.  You would probably ask yourself "why does he believe this?  Angelina Jolie is famous, beautiful, married to Brad Pitt and they have like 20 kids together."  Your friend, sensing your skepticism, says "You don't understand.  This belief gives my life meaning.  I now know my purpose in life - it's to be Angelin's husband."  Continuing on he says "This belief makes me a better person.  I'm now much nicer to children." (knowing that he'll have to raise Angelina's 20 kids once Brad leaves).  He says "You can believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't want to live in a universe where I wasn't Angelina's husband".

You would probably believe that your friend has lost his mind and is possibly dangerous, yet this is what is passed off as wisdom in Christianity.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2019, 09:52:14 AM »
I don't think that is an apt analogy at all.  If a person tries to live his life based on what Jesus is recorded to have said, it could well give them meaning and purpose and all that, even if they are not Christian.  

A belief one is married to some star does not offer any basis for substance in life, no direction, no council on making decisions.

My approach might be considered Jeffersonian in nature.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2019, 10:13:21 AM »
I don't think that is an apt analogy at all.  If a person tries to live his life based on what Jesus is recorded to have said, it could well give them meaning and purpose and all that, even if they are not Christian. 

Only if you believe that Jesus was anything but a man on earth.  There's no evidence to support that, yet people believe it and use it as motivation.

A belief one is married to some star does not offer any basis for substance in life, no direction, no council on making decisions.

Not that they ARE married... a belief that they are destined to be married.  A person, as it proven in the billions, can believe whatever they want.

My approach might be considered Jeffersonian in nature.




Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2019, 10:21:08 AM »
Christianity CAN provide a person with purpose and guidance.

A belief in being married to someone cannot.

I think a lot of folks would be Christian even if somehow it could be proven to be a false belief because they adhere to the core philosophy of it.

They prefer it to being somehow without any rudder in life.  If all a person does is go to church and tithe and lives a Christian life as they are able, it's not a bad thing in my view.  I suspect quite a few folks go to church either of habit, or for the kids, or because it provides social connections.

I'm thinking of Obama here, and my parents, who never went to church again once we were out of the house.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #40 on: July 19, 2019, 10:33:41 AM »
Christianity CAN provide a person with purpose and guidance.

A belief in being married to someone cannot.

I think a lot of folks would be Christian even if somehow it could be proven to be a false belief because they adhere to the core philosophy of it.

They prefer it to being somehow without any rudder in life.  If all a person does is go to church and tithe and lives a Christian life as they are able, it's not a bad thing in my view.  I suspect quite a few folks go to church either of habit, or for the kids, or because it provides social connections.

I'm thinking of Obama here, and my parents, who never went to church again once we were out of the house.

Christianity CAN provide a person with purpose and guidance.  A belief in being married to someone cannot. - a belief that you are destined to be married to someone can provide purpose.  A person, if their mind so chooses, can find purpose in most anything... real or not.  For some people, government chemtrails are their purpose.

I think a lot of folks would be Christian even if somehow it could be proven to be a false belief because they adhere to the core philosophy of it.
Like i said above, people can find purpose in anything, real or not.  A guy can find purpose in the belief that he's destined to marry angelina jolie.

They prefer it to being somehow without any rudder in life.  If all a person does is go to church and tithe and lives a Christian life as they are able, it's not a bad thing in my view.  I suspect quite a few folks go to church either of habit, or for the kids, or because it provides social connections.

sure.... but going to church, tithing and living will clearly has no correlation to whether or not God exists and there is no evidence that God exists. Faith just means that something is believed with insufficient evidence.

I'm thinking of Obama here, and my parents, who never went to church again once we were out of the house.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2019, 01:58:41 PM »
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is not what I had original thought it would be. The title suggested that it was a book about the evidence for intelligent design through the molecular machines found in the cell. Since I had read Fuz Rana's excellent book The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry, I figured I didn't need another book on cell design. However, Signature in the Cell is really about the origin of life and how all the current data points to a non-naturalistic origin of life. In the book, author Stephen Meyer takes us through the history of origin of life research, beginning with the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s.
History of origin of life research
Meyer begins with the history of the discovery of DNA's structure by Watson and Crick (among others). The story is a fascinating description of how the two young researchers determined DNA's structure mostly through using clues derived from the research of others. Watson and Crick thought "outside the box" to solve the puzzle that opened up the secrets of how living organisms operate. Much of the initial chapters of the book describe Meyer's own personal discovery of why intelligent design provides a better explanation of life's beginnings than any naturalistic model. Meyer originally earned degrees in physics and geology and began working for an oil company in Texas looking for oil deposits. Meyer's interest in DNA and design led him to apply for a scholarship and enrolled to study the history and philosophy of science at the University of Cambridge. After completing his Ph.D., Meyers became involved in the intelligent design movement, producing numerous papers and books.
Information theory
Much of the emphasis of Signature in the Cell is on information theory. We all know that DNA contains the information necessary to build and run living organisms. During the development of computing systems, mathematician, Claude Shannon developed "The Mathematical Theory of Communications." Information theory relates the probability of a specific sequence of information in a sequence of bits. Depending upon length, any random sequence of information has a certain probability based upon its length. However, this random "Shannon information" is not the basis of the claim that DNA has been designed by an intelligent being. In order to provide evidence for intelligent design, the information must be both improbable and specified. One of the best examples of specified information comes from the search for a hypothetical first RNA replicator. In order to find just one partial replicator, scientists had to go through a list of 1015 different RNA molecules. The fact that RNA replicator sequences are rare, coupled with specificity requirement makes the appearance of the first replicator extremely unlikely.
Explanatory power
The basis of the intelligent design claim is that it provides more explanatory power than competing theories about the origin of information and the origin of life. Although origin of life researchers had attempted to explain the appearance of the first replicator through some kind of law of physics or chemistry, it became apparent as more research was done that no such law existed. Therefore, all origin of life theories must rely upon chance as the designer of the information required to form the first organism. With limited time and the limited size of the universe, the laws of physics do not provide a reasonable explanation as to how the required information arose through random process. In contrast, intelligent beings are capable of and have the motivation to produce information-rich designs. So, the intelligent design theory provides superior explanatory power regarding how the first living organism arose.
Origin of life theories
Meyers gives an excellent review of the numerous naturalistic origin of life theories that have been proposed over the years and why those theories have failed (nearly all have been rejected by contemporary origin of life researchers. Today, there are two main origin of life theories—both of which have serious theoretical and practical deficits. Metabolism-first theories suffer from the requirement to produce numerous energy-harvesting enzymes within some kind of membrane barrier in the absence of any specific way to replicate such a system. Meyers shows that the probability of getting just one such enzyme is impossible, given the age and size of the universe. The most "promising" origin of life theory is the RNA World. However, as mentioned previously, attempts to find even a partial RNA replicator have proven extremely difficult, even with intelligent beings designing such replicators. The main problem with the replicator hypothesis is that not just one sequence needs to form by chance, but that sequence and its exact complementary strand. Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel calculated that in order to get just one 50-mer replicator would require an RNA library of 1048 molecules—which exceeds the mass of the earth! Even more concerning is that the minimum replicator size found to-date is 189-mer, which is much less likely to be produced compared to a 50-mer. Even the 189-mer replicator can only replicate 10% of its sequence under ideal conditions. Obviously, for any replicator to work, it must be capable of replicating 100% of its sequence. Although really informative, this section of the book is necessarily somewhat technical, so a non-scientist will find the material challenging. As a scientist, I found the information really helpful.
Is ID science?
Meyers spends the final few chapters on the question of whether intelligent design qualifies as science. Much of the discussion centers around definitions of science among the different scientific disciplines and how those definitions apply to intelligent design theory. Meyers shows that not all disciplines of science fit neatly in the standard definitions of what science is. In other words, things such as testability and falsifiability are difficult to apply to historical sciences, such as evolution. Likewise, these characteristics are generally not applicable to intelligent design. To a certain degree, I tend to agree with scientists who complain that intelligent design is difficult to test or falsify. Likewise, intelligent design cannot produce a model, because it has no basis on which one can be created. In contrast, something like biblical creationism, which is based upon statements from the Bible, can produce a model that can be tested by future scientific discoveries.
Conclusions Top of page
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is a really good examination of the issues surrounding origin of life research and how intelligent design theory can contribute to the discussion. The book is relatively long at 624 pages, but about 30% of that is devoted to notes and appendices. I particularly like that the book is well-referenced and will be looking into many of the issues more thoroughly when I get a chance. Most of the book is quite readable, even for somebody without an extensive science background. In addition, there are a fair number of philosophical arguments that are cited, which would be more appealing to general, non-science audiences. In my opinion, origin of life research provides probably the best evidence for intelligent design theory and Meyers does a really good job explaining it. So, I highly recommend Signature in the Cell if that is where your interests lie.


http://godandscience.org/evolution/signature_in_the_cell.html

Last Modified June 27, 2013
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

 

Associate Links/Search