The Origin of Life
God's goodness
From Brian Chadwick (Christian)
BIBLE-BASHING author Richard Dawkins (News, October 11), ought to admit (if there is no such thing as an absolute objective moral standard flowing from Almighty God) that his appeal to some other kind of standard for judging another person's conduct is seriously flawed and basically can be nothing more than his own personal opinion and taste.
Dawkins, and those who broke into a "truly thunderous round of applause", when the God of the Old Testament was blasphemed and described as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction", need to be reminded that the Bible unashamedly calls upon us all to consider carefully: "the goodness and severity of God".
Attacking the God of the Bible based upon our own likes and dislikes of how an omniscient acts does not in any way disprove the Bible or the existence of God.
Evolutionists need to spend more time trying to harmonise their theory with known and tested scientific laws like:
1. The Law of Biogenesis (a scientific law stating that life comes only from pre-existing life and that of its kind; and 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (a scientific law stating that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states.
Remember, the theory of evolution demands the false science of life from non-life and order from disorder. This is the exact opposite of true scientific knowledge and observation.
Queen Edith's Way
Cambridge
(Letter ripped off from here )
From Brian Chadwick (Christian)
BIBLE-BASHING author Richard Dawkins (News, October 11), ought to admit (if there is no such thing as an absolute objective moral standard flowing from Almighty God) that his appeal to some other kind of standard for judging another person's conduct is seriously flawed and basically can be nothing more than his own personal opinion and taste.
Dawkins, and those who broke into a "truly thunderous round of applause", when the God of the Old Testament was blasphemed and described as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction", need to be reminded that the Bible unashamedly calls upon us all to consider carefully: "the goodness and severity of God".
Attacking the God of the Bible based upon our own likes and dislikes of how an omniscient acts does not in any way disprove the Bible or the existence of God.
Evolutionists need to spend more time trying to harmonise their theory with known and tested scientific laws like:
1. The Law of Biogenesis (a scientific law stating that life comes only from pre-existing life and that of its kind; and 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (a scientific law stating that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states.
Remember, the theory of evolution demands the false science of life from non-life and order from disorder. This is the exact opposite of true scientific knowledge and observation.
Queen Edith's Way
Cambridge
(Letter ripped off from here )
posted by Philipa at 10:46 AM
2 Comments:
"arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction"... Last week during church thoughts were rushing through my head, the most notable being that there are actually some fairly easy parallels to draw between God and Hitler... In fact this comparrison I was running through was of the God of the New Testament, in the context of hell, rather than the Old Testament god in the context of a few massacres.
I have been very disappointed by the religious response to Dawkins book. Now that my own crisis of faith (caused by the same book) seems to be more or less over, I've been looking at the religious response to the book. Very few wish to engage Dawkins on his own terms, most resorting to attacking him personally or pointing out his uneven approach, but that also doesn't invalidate it. I haven't yet seen any good arguments against Dawkins' main points.
As for these, Biogenesis and Thermodynamics, they are both easily answered. Thermodynamics does indeed state that matter and energy will tend towards disordered states, but this is not a strict law. Evidence for this exists in the structure of the universe itself, which went from a highly disordered state of essentially being an 'energy-soup', to forming into atoms, then stars, planets, and other astrological bodies. In fact the law says that the entropy of a system will increase, not that everything in the system will gain entropy, or even that everything in the system will not lose entropy. In addition, it applied mostly to macroscopic bodies where the innevitable tiny variations are averaged out. When talking about things on a molecular level this law becomes much trickier. As for Biogenesis, getting life from non-life. Life is actually not any different from non-life in an objective sense. We are still a collection of interacting atoms and molecules. A computer is a good example of a complex non-living thing. While life as we know it requires DNA, and the probabilities of this forming are tiny, that does not mean that it is impossible. The anthropic principle is a perfectly adequate means of explaining life on earth while retaining atheism and reason (though not scientific evidence), which also happens to be the view that Dawkins supports.
There we go, I've answered this man's critique of evolution despite having dropped biology before doing my A-levels! I can only assume that Dawkins would do so even more easily than me.
Dawkins presents a perfectly valid challenge to religion, and our own specific ones individually. We owe it to countless things (God, Dawkins, truth, our traditions, our theologies, etc.) to answer his charges in a rational way, not by assaulting him personally. His arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on his.
"We owe it to countless things (God, Dawkins, truth, our traditions, our theologies, etc.) to answer his charges in a rational way, not by assaulting him personally. His arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on his." Yes Jack, so true and well said. The thing is you're inviting me to state my opinion, like a fisherman does with a morsel on a hook except you are using the one tempting thing i can't ignore - science. But I don't want to feel that anything i say might influence you without knowing the whole opinion. And as you rightly said, that would take coffee.
Just let me say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was an easy objection to overcome as you rightly pointed out. And the computer example was exactly the one I would have chosen. We ARE computers, albeit really complex ones that are still electronically functional but run on biomass rather than the national grid.
Post a Comment
<< Home