Saturday, September 08, 2007

Creationism: Let the evidence fall where it may

Ontario is in a flap over the idea of extending government funding to non-Catholic schools. The concern? Christian schools plan on teaching that the world was created, and not the unexplainable results of random, meaningless processes that came from... where?

Imagine the idea of Christians teaching that the world is created! The uber-Tolerance crowd can't tolerate the idea!

To which I say this:

Christians might agree to not teaching the theory of intelligent design in schools if teachers would stop teaching the non-scientific belief of materialism in science classes.

Materialism posits that the material universe is all that exists. All science is currently built around this non-scientific, unproveable philosophical assumption.

Materialism is a philosophical belief, not science.

Let the evidence point where it may. The evidence of apparent design in the universe, the evidence of an unextinguishable moral stamp on the human heart, and the persistent belief that humans have value, purpose and destiny (as seen in the secular belief in "human rights"), all point to both design and a Creator.

Without a Creator, a belief in human rights is absurd, and the moral stamp within the human heart nothing more than a cruel joke of mindless, uncaring evolution.

3 comments:

RkBall said...

"Without a Creator, a belief in human rights is absurd, and the moral stamp within the human heart nothing more than a cruel joke of mindless, uncaring evolution."

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that non-religious people like to torture small animals and torment peers just for the evilness of it all?
The reason kids are taught to behave nicely and not be belligerent is because to not do so would be anarchy.

It's not really necessary to have religion for teaching this, is it.

If the only reason "you" don't punch people in the face randomly is due to your religion, well, you have a lack of empathy. All children learn empathy but some get it beaten out of them.

Posted by: Paul at September 8, 2007 1:02 PM

RkBall said...

@Paul at September 8, 2007 1:02 PM

"Excuse me? Are you suggesting that non-religious people like to torture small animals and torment peers just for the evilness of it all?"

No. I'm suggesting that good and evil and a moral sense exist whether there is religion or not, and man exercises moral behaviour whether he is religious or not or believes in God or not. And I'm saying that this indwelling moral sense only makes rational sense if we are the products of a divine Creator who has put this moral imprint within us and who Himself possesses moral characteristics.

I'm saying that Christians have a rational explanation for the existence of good and evil and a persisent indwelling moral sense -- atheists have none; yet they accuse Christians of being irrational.

"If the only reason "you" don't punch people in the face randomly is due to your religion, well, you have a lack of empathy."

I never said or suggested that. I said that a moral imprint within the human heart is persistent. You are witnessing to it. I'm saying that Christianity provides a rational explanation for its existence, atheism doesn't, and can't. If there is no God behind the universe, humankind is without intent, design, purpose, value and importance, and, while it might hurt your feelings or offend your sensibilities, if human origins are purely materialistic, as is taught today in science classes across the country, killing a human being is objectively no better or worse than smashing a rock.

Posted by: Richard Ball at September 8, 2007 1:40 PM

Brian in Calgary said...

I'm saying that Christians have a rational explanation for the existence of good and evil and a persisent indwelling moral sense -- atheists have none; yet they accuse Christians of being irrational.

Amen. It's one reason why I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. You know, that should be the name of a book, - hey, wait a minute, it is, written by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek. Fascinating book. Paul, you should read it, if you're interested in having your skepticism challenged.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"