Quickly, again Les thank you for actually answering your own questions, but to clarify,
1.  Faith is your choice, not given or taken by God. 
2.  It’s not “what works for me”, it’s the way it is, like it or not.
3.  There are lots of things in this word beyond your understanding, Les.  Doesn’t mean you’re walking around in a daze, just means you’ve accepted the fact that you’re not “all-knowing”.

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Appreciate your comments, though they were really out of context.

Telling me that I’ve answered my own questions is nothing but a dodge. If you don’t have reasonable answers then just say so. No one’s going to hold it against you for admitting as much.

1) Faith is definitely my choice and at one time I chose to have it in abundance. When presented with new material that challenged that faith I spent quite a bit of time praying for guidance and I redoubled my efforts at studying my religion. When further study proved only to deepen my disillusionment and my prayers for guidance went unanswered I was left with another choice: 1) I could decide to ignore the new material that was causing my crisis in faith and hope that I could manage to go back to the happy state of ignorant bliss I had previously held or 2) I could reexamine the basis for my faith and possibly explore new Christian denominations and, if necessary, whole other religions until God managed to somehow signify to me that I was on the right path.

I am incapable of option 1 so I chose option 2 and that started me down the path that eventually led me to the point I am today. I didn’t just wake up one day and decide “To hell with God, I’m going to become an atheist.” The process of moving to a lack of faith took years the greater part of which I still considered myself a believer in God, if not necessarily in Christianity. I learned a lot about a lot of different religions along the way. Faith is my choice and I chose not to hold faith into something blindly without good reason. I did that for years to no good effect.

2) I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. My point was simply that if you’re happy with being a Christian of whichever particular denomination you happen to be then that’s just dandy. More power to you. If that’s “just the way it is”, well, OK, but one would hope you put more thought into it than that.

3) I accepted the fact that I’m not “all-knowing” way back in my youth. Probably more so than you have. I have no problems saying “I have no real clue how the universe started” and I don’t really give a damn about knowing the answer. It is completely beyond my ability to understand how anyone can eagerly watch yet-another-FOX-reality-TV-game-show and yet millions do. In fact, more people vote for who the next American Idol will be than for who the next President will be and that’s something that just boggles my mind.

My lack of understanding of something is not a good reason I should embrace it as anything worthy of my attention and I’ve never claimed to be all-knowing. I know what I know and I have theories for most other things and theres quite a bit of stuff I just don’t bother to worry about.

Thanks again for showing up and tossing out random statements that do nothing to promote your stance. At this rate I could just write a simple Visual-BASIC program to take your place if you feel you have more important things to do.

I understand your contempt for Ken Ham and Kent Hovind�they are pretty radical, but definitely not the only means of my information. I listed them because they are science educators.  They research the information and supply it for those who want the truth or at least have an open mind to accept another possible theory.  Dr. Hovind has his degree in education and that�s all he should be expected to do�educate.  Sooo many people bash his doctorate and university in attempt to discredit everything he says.  The problem with this argument is that he�s not the scientist coming up with his information.  All he does is research scientific information and make it available.  He cites his resources and I�d say does a very good job at teaching.  He was a science teacher for 15 years�and I�d say that�s enough experience to have credibility as an educator�regardless of his doctorate.  He never claims his doctorate to be in science, and he never claims to be the originator of all his information�he makes it clear what his theories are and what the scientific facts are.  I�ve heard your argument against Hovind about a million times�and that�s fine and everything, but he�s not the scientist doing the research to devastate evolution�he�s merely the educator, explaining what professional scientists and true science has taught him.  He does make a few contradictions here and there and I�ve written to tell him about some, but he�s not perfect�he�s not God, and he never claims to be.

As far as his arguments with Ken Ham�who cares?  Ken Ham�s opinions of what arguments are valid and what are not are just his opinions.  It doesn�t hurt to throw out theories or information if it�ll help stimulate the mind and get people to do more research.  Whenever psychologists run correlational studies which show two variables having a high positive correlation�no matter how strong the correlation, they can never conclude causation�all that the correlation can do is suggest that maybe there is a relationship between the variables.  This stimulates the scientific arena to do further research to see if there is indeed a causal relationship between the variables.  So if you didn�t get the point of all that I said there�all I�m basically saying is that Ken Ham disagrees with what Hovind uses as arguments, simply because he thinks that they aren�t as solid as other arguments.  But I say that if Hovind has a little information about something that may stimulate further research�he shouldn�t be persecuted for bringing certain ideas to the surface. 

As a Bible believer�I like to seek out information that supports my beliefs, but I�m not biased to ignore information that challenges my beliefs either.  I like to hear both sides of the story.  I believe that the Bible is infallible, but scientific theories that suggest or even prove otherwise will simply not be able to dilute my faith because of the personal experiences I�ve had with the Lord.  My only reason to study scientific theories and worldly knowledge now is because I don�t think it�s intelligent for Christians to preach to people that they should have blind faith and follow God, without being able to give a reason for their hope other than that they will be rewarded in heaven for it.  Blind faith works for me, but if I am to fulfill what Jesus has commanded me to do, which is go to the ends of the earth, to preach the gospel and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit�I know I better have knowledge of what keeps people in doubt and serving other gods if I�m to make any impact in the lives of God�s lost children.  Jesus said whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.  You believed as a child because you didn�t have the lies of the world to sway your heart.  When you leaned on your own understandings and sought the knowledge of the world to explain your scriptural dilemmas�you were lead astray.  Unless you have that child-like faith�you can�t see the kingdom. 

Okay�now for the scripture you introduced as being unscientific�everyone knows that rabbits chew the cud, snails melt, and snakes eat dirt�duhh! j/k I�ve heard these arguments before, not paying much attention to them, but for you I�ll try my best to shed some light.  As far as rabbits go it seems that they do chew the cud. Now for snails melting�the Psalms are supposed to be poetic, so I wouldn�t take everything literally�words are used as metaphors and expressions that stimulate a different dimension of thought.  If poetry was all literal�it�d just be a story�and less interesting.  There has been some poetry written today that is ridiculously unscientific�but that�s not the author�s intention.  They�re trying to paint a picture lyrically�and maybe that picture worked for them back in the B.C.�s.  And finally we come to the snakes that eat dirt.  God never said that dirt would be the food for the snake�as if it would get all it�s nutrition from dirt.  The meaning behind this scripture is that God cursed the animal that Satan chose to disguise himself as to show that Satan is indeed below all animals and when God said that we are to have dominion over all creation as we were created in God�s image, Satan will always be below us and have to submit to our authority�as long as we are living righteously for God�that�s why God told Satan that he will have to bow down so low and kiss the dirt�because he�s lower than the lowest creature. Thus he�ll always be �eating dirt� being that he�ll never be allowed to have dominion over any creation of God�s and have to be in that submissive state forever.  As you know he was once God�s second in command and had great authority�so this curse upon Satan is quite a devastating blow of perpetual punishment.  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings.  When you start to doubt God�s word by your own understanding without first asking God for clarification�you trust yourself more than God and that�s not very wise�considering He is all knowing.  Don�t expect clarification by your timing either�if it�s important He�ll reveal it to you.  These scriptures are very irrelevant to the main message of the Bible.  Look at the big picture, not the minor details.  Humans don�t know everything�we don�t even know half of everything�and if you allow details like this to jeopardize your faith�you�re not looking at the big picture�you�re focusing on the details that make it impossible to tell what you�re looking at.

I�ll take a look at Gould�s book this summer and see what he has to say about evolution.  Since you gave me a review about the Case for Christ�here�s a review about The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. In the mean time�have you read Darwin�s Black Box?

So you really think that the Big Bang theory isn�t an evolutionary theorist explanation of origins?  I understand that biology instructors will not necessarily give a lecture on the Big Bang�but if they believe in evolution, call me crazy, but I guarantee they�re not going to say God created the heavens and the earth...and I really doubt they would say, �Gee, I never thought about it�let�s go ask a cosmologist�.  C�mon Les�

I had a lot more to say initially when I was in deep contemplation of what to write back in response�but I think that�s good for now.  Finally, I�d just like to remind you that man is definitely fallible, and Socrates, being one of the most brilliant minds in history said that if he knew anything�it was that he knew nothing at all.  As you are so skeptical about the Bible�s truth and the existence of God(actually doesn�t atheism claim, beyond doubt, that there is no God whatsoever�hence making you different from an agnostic?), I sure hope you have the same skepticism towards science�especially that which is only known as a theory.

Thanks for reading Les and God bless.

I understand your contempt for Ken Ham and Kent Hovind�they are pretty radical, but definitely not the only means of my information. I listed them because they are science educators.

Considering some of the statements they have made I disagree with your assessment that they are “science” educators. They are certainly religious educators, but science is not something they promote.

They research the information and supply it for those who want the truth or at least have an open mind to accept another possible theory.

Your statement implies here that these two men are the only ones promoting “the truth.” Again, I would disagree with that statement. Perhaps they are promoting what they “believe” to the truth, but that’s about all the credit I’d be willing to give them.

Dr. Hovind has his degree in education and that�s all he should be expected to do�educate.  Sooo many people bash his doctorate and university in attempt to discredit everything he says.

Let’s set the record straight: Kent Hovind’s PhD, according to the University itself, is in Christian Education, not just Education or even Science Education. The question of his credentials is a valid one if you’re serious about accepting his statements as worthwhile with regard to a scientific proposition.  Hovind doesn’t just try to educate, he attempts to put forth his own theories and he demands they be accepted as being as valid as any evolutionist’s theories.

Patriot is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It: New Opportunities in Adult Education, and How to Avoid Being Ripped off by ‘Christian’ Degree Mills classifies as an “accrediting mill” (Levicoff, Chapter 12). The US Dept of Education does not recognize AAATI as an accrediting agency (US Dept of Education, September 1998, p 28). Hovind�s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards.

Having said that I do agree that not having a valid degree doesn’t mean that someone can’t make a meaningful contribution to a field of study. However “Dr.” Kent Hovind tends to throw his status as a PhD around as though it actually means something and if he insists it does then it makes the question of who granted that PhD and how worthwhile that degree happens to be a very valid one. Especially so if that person is proposing theories radically opposed to what most scientists in that field are currently supporting. This isn’t simply bashing, this is a valid consideration.

The problem with this argument is that he�s not the scientist coming up with his information.  All he does is research scientific information and make it available. He cites his resources and I�d say does a very good job at teaching.

From what I’ve seen his research is somewhat flawed. I don’t dispute that he may be a very good teacher, it’s what he is teaching that I am questioning.

He was a science teacher for 15 years�and I�d say that�s enough experience to have credibility as an educator�regardless of his doctorate.

As an educator? Perhaps, though we don’t know what his record as a science teacher may be without checking with the school(s) he taught at. As a scientist claiming that evolution is completely wrong? Sorry, 15 years as a science teacher doesn’t qualify as a good reason to discredit a whole field of study simply because it conflicts with the Bible.

He never claims his doctorate to be in science, and he never claims to be the originator of all his information�he makes it clear what his theories are and what the scientific facts are.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the “scientific facts” that Dr. Hovind likes to throw around. All of the following are taken from his book Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution.

The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement ... Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. It was the philosophy of evolution that drove them (Hovind, Ch 4).

That’s quite a claim he’s making here. That officials as the Smithsonian engaged in murder to prove Evolution? Better get the police involved.

Five billion people [yes, he says billion] could drown in Loch Ness, and no one would show above the surface. It is a big lake. . . . As of the 1960s, there were over 9,000 sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. Today, there have been over 11,000 such sightings (Hovind, Ch 2).

Evolution isn’t real, but the Loch Ness monster is? And he thinks the lake is big enough to hold 5 billion people without a trace?

The Trail of Tears was where the Cherokee Indians were driven out of the Chattanooga area all the way to Oklahoma. ... Evolution is responsible for what happened to the Indians. How any Indian can believe in evolution just blows my mind. ... [T]he evolution theory is what destroyed them (Hovind, Ch 4).

That bit still boggles the mind. I have no idea what it is he’s trying to prove with that one. Let alone the fact that The Trail of Tears occurred in America in the 1830s. Darwin�s The Origin of Species was not published in England until 1859. History, obviously, is not what “Dr.” Hovind has his PhD in.

I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it. (Hovind, Ch 6).

No, of course not. The Raelians did. You can ask them yourself.

Adam and Eve probably had hundreds of children. They lived 800 years, and one could have a lot of children in 800 years (Hovind, Ch 6).

And he has the scientific facts to back that statement up too. I suppose this means that incest should be OK, doesn’t it? I mean, who the hell else were they having sex with?

There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominant mother ... research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever (Hovind, Ch 6).

Research directly disputes that fact. Regardless, it’s hardly a condemnation of evolution.

My first question [to God, after Hovind goes to heaven], believe it or not, will be, �Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?� I don�t know why, but that has bothered me for years (Hovind, Ch 6).

It’s good to see he wants to answer the really important questions.

The only book that I have read that really struck home with me giving a possible explanation for UFOs was . . .The Cosmic Conspiracy by Stan Deyo. . . . Deyo, a Christian, is a genius who wrote the book way over my head. . . . He says that Satan has always used that mode of transportation to get around because the devil can only be at one place at one time . . . I do not know if it is true, but it is an interesting theory (Hovind, Ch 6).

But of course, anything not a miracle from God must be the Devil out to fool people. The Raelians are going to be pissed.

I am out of time this morning to take this any further, but I will attempt to pick up from where I’ve left off later.

I have a few moments to squeeze some more comments in so I’ll put them to good use. Let’s see, where were we?

I�ve heard your argument against Hovind about a million times�and that�s fine and everything, but he�s not the scientist doing the research to devastate evolution�he�s merely the educator, explaining what professional scientists and true science has taught him.

Considering that I can’t think of any scientists involved in the study of evolution who have suggested much of anything that “Dr.” Kent Hovind is putting forth as “the truth” I can only ask whom the good “Dr.” is using as his sources. About the only sources he credits on a regular basis are The Bible and other creationists. Show me, for example, a SINGLE geologist who is willing to claim that Loch Ness is big enough to hold 5 billion dead people completely under its surface. That number amounts to the majority of the Earth’s population, by the way. That’s just one glaring example of his tendency to just make shit up to support his argument. I can spew out nonsense theories all day too, but that doesn’t mean they should be taught in public schools or seriously considered by anyone in the field of study as something worth looking into.

He does make a few contradictions here and there and I�ve written to tell him about some, but he�s not perfect�he�s not God, and he never claims to be.

It’s not a question of whether he’s perfect or not and I honestly think that’s the last thing most people consider him to be. If anything I’m suggesting that he’s so flawed in his thinking as to make his theories complete rubbish.

As far as his arguments with Ken Ham�who cares?  Ken Ham�s opinions of what arguments are valid and what are not are just his opinions.

Considering that these two fellows seem to be your primary source of study I’d imagine you would care, but it appears I may be wrong about that.

It doesn�t hurt to throw out theories or information if it�ll help stimulate the mind and get people to do more research.

Ah, this is where we get into defining a “good” theory versus a “bad” theory. The time and resources any particular scientist or group of scientists may have access to is finite. If they waste time pursuing every hypothesis they, or someone else, dreams up they may never get around to pursuing the ones that actually might lead somewhere. Part of the scientific process involves using deduction to try and weed out a bad hypothesis before trying to construct an experiment to test it. Part of that deductive process involves utilizing knowledge of what has come before in that field of study.

In short, simply saying “I have a theory that all humans are the creation of hyper-intelligent 14 dimensional beings that popped into this universe for a party and forgot to clean up afterwards before going back home” is not going to pass much muster as a “good” theory. By the same token simply saying “God did it” isn’t a good theory either.

Whenever psychologists run correlational studies which show two variables having a high positive correlation�no matter how strong the correlation, they can never conclude causation�all that the correlation can do is suggest that maybe there is a relationship between the variables.

Not sure how psychologists got into a debate on creationism/evolution, but OK, fair enough.

This stimulates the scientific arena to do further research to see if there is indeed a causal relationship between the variables.  So if you didn�t get the point of all that I said there�all I�m basically saying is that Ken Ham disagrees with what Hovind uses as arguments, simply because he thinks that they aren�t as solid as other arguments.  But I say that if Hovind has a little information about something that may stimulate further research�he shouldn�t be persecuted for bringing certain ideas to the surface.

Unless those ideas are patently ridiculous in light of what is already known about the field being studied. You act like the ideas Hovind and Ham are proposing are just minor quibbles on a larger theory when in fact they are demanding to have dogma (e.g. God did popped it all into existence by just thinking about it) that has no supporting evidence beyond what’s in the Bible taught as being equal to a theory that has had, literally, decades of research and evidence gathering backing it up. They’d prefer that it replaced the teaching of evolution, honestly, but barring that they demand that it at least be taught in addition to evolution. They’re not trying to spur further research, they’re trying to suppress what’s already been done and replace it with their own personal religious beliefs. When asked to back up their ideas with some form of hard data they resort to spurious arguments and plain old making shit up to try and justify it. Seriously, have you actually read an entire book by Hovind? Some of what he writes makes me wonder how he escaped from the looney bin.

You can dress a pile of shit up in a three piece suit, but it don’t get rid of the stink or make you wanna dance with it.

As a Bible believer�I like to seek out information that supports my beliefs, but I�m not biased to ignore information that challenges my beliefs either.

That’s fine if all you want to do is reinforce your beliefs, but it doesn’t make for good science. Every time a scientist allows his desire for something to be true override his objectivity in performing his experiments you end up with junk science. A scientist attempts to discover the truth, not invent it. A good one modifies his views to fit the facts, not the facts to fit his views. Neither Ken Ham nor Kent Hovind are good scientists or even science educators.

I like to hear both sides of the story.  I believe that the Bible is infallible, but scientific theories that suggest or even prove otherwise will simply not be able to dilute my faith because of the personal experiences I�ve had with the Lord.

It would be easy to suggest here that you are reality-immune, but that would be an overly broad generalization. There are a number of Christians who accept the theory of evolution as true and just rationalize it away as being the mechanism through which God works, which is not an unreasonable point of view to take. I suspect that most creationists are driven more by a sense of hubris over the idea of “just being another animal” than any real evidence that creationism is true. That is just my personal speculation, however.

My only reason to study scientific theories and worldly knowledge now is because I don�t think it�s intelligent for Christians to preach to people that they should have blind faith and follow God, without being able to give a reason for their hope other than that they will be rewarded in heaven for it.

Some would argue that faith alone should be enough. Faith shouldn’t require proof. Science, however, does.

Blind faith works for me, but if I am to fulfill what Jesus has commanded me to do, which is go to the ends of the earth, to preach the gospel and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit�I know I better have knowledge of what keeps people in doubt and serving other gods if I�m to make any impact in the lives of God�s lost children.

It would help, however, if you had a good counter-argument beyond what you’ve gotten from the likes of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

Jesus said whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.  You believed as a child because you didn�t have the lies of the world to sway your heart.

I believed as a child for the same reasons I believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy: Because I was told to believe in them by people I loved and trusted. The “lies of the world” had nothing to do with it. In the end Santa, the bunny and the fairy had provided more proof of their existence then God ever has and they all turned out to be myths. Believing in fairy tales as a child is fine, but as an adult I’d rather confront an uncomfortable truth than to continue to live a comfortable lie.

When you leaned on your own understandings and sought the knowledge of the world to explain your scriptural dilemmas�you were lead astray.

You obviously aren’t reading what I’ve written. You are once again trying to dictate to me how I handled the situation because you can’t accept the idea that I might have done everything I was taught a good Christian should do in times of doubt and it didn’t work. I leaned on God in the manner I had been instructed when my scriptural dilemmas surfaced and found there was nothing to lean on.

Unless you have that child-like faith�you can�t see the kingdom.

You know what strikes me as funny? The little elf girl in The Santa Clause says almost exactly the same thing to Tim Allen. Problem is, I’m not a child. I’m an adult. I can pretend to have child-like faith, but I’m not capable of it for real because I’m not a child.

Okay�now for the scripture you introduced as being unscientific�everyone knows that rabbits chew the cud, snails melt, and snakes eat dirt�duhh! j/k I�ve heard these arguments before, not paying much attention to them, but for you I�ll try my best to shed some light.  As far as rabbits go it seems that they do chew the cud

Actually, they don’t. They do ingest dung and it is for a similar purpose, but that’s not the same thing. The phrase translated in the KJV of the Bible as ‘chew the cud’ is actually translated as ‘bring up the cud’ according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Rabbits don’t bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. Considering that there is a perfectly acceptable Hebrew word for ‘dung’ (galal or gelel—again from Strong’s) one would think that they would have used it if that’s what they had meant. The truth is that rabbits do appear to chew cud and as such the people who wrote the Bible wrote what they thought was happening.

Assuming they even had knowledge of the fact that rabbits were actually eating their own dung, and again one would wonder why they wouldn’t say as much if they did know instead of likening it to what cows do, the fact that it’s done for a reason similar to why cows chew their cud would probably be lost on them as it’s only though modern knowledge of chemistry that we understand why. Knowledge they are unlikely to have held. At the very least you would think that God would have known one way or the other and dictated a more appropriate wording of the sentence, assuming it is the infallible word of God.

You’d also think the fact that rabbits eat their own shit would be reason enough to declare them as “unclean” without trying to confuse the issue. Been reading Dr. Norman Geisler’s When Critics Ask, eh?

Now for snails melting�the Psalms are supposed to be poetic, so I wouldn�t take everything literally�words are used as metaphors and expressions that stimulate a different dimension of thought. If poetry was all literal�it�d just be a story�and less interesting.  There has been some poetry written today that is ridiculously unscientific...but that�s not the author�s intention.  They�re trying to paint a picture lyrically...and maybe that picture worked for them back in the B.C.�s.

One of your sources, Ken Ham, believes the Bible is literal. Regardless it’s pretty common knowledge that, at the time, most folks believed snails did melt as they moved and they took as evidence for that belief the existence of empty shells.

Some have argued that Psalms was written without the divine inspiration of God, but as homage to him. Fine, but then what is it doing in a book that is supposedly the “word of God” to be used as a guidebook for your life for the next couple of thousand years? That’s like reading a VCR manual and suddenly having it include a haiku for no apparent reason.

And finally we come to the snakes that eat dirt.  God never said that dirt would be the food for the snake�as if it would get all it�s nutrition from dirt.  The meaning behind this scripture is that God cursed the animal that Satan chose to disguise himself as to show that Satan is indeed below all animals and when God said that we are to have dominion over all creation as we were created in God�s image, Satan will always be below us and have to submit to our authority�as long as we are living righteously for God�that�s why God told Satan that he will have to bow down so low and kiss the dirt�because he�s lower than the lowest creature. Thus he�ll always be �eating dirt� being that he�ll never be allowed to have dominion over any creation of God�s and have to be in that submissive state forever.

GEN 3:14; (KJV) And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Dunno, sounds to me like God is saying the serpent will eat dust to me. Perhaps it was just the one snake and he’s dead now anyway. Probably didn’t take long with a diet like that. Incidentally, some of the newer versions of the Bible translate this as “lick the dust”, which at least can be passed off as semi-plausible.

As you know he was once God�s second in command and had great authority�so this curse upon Satan is quite a devastating blow of perpetual punishment.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Satan already damned to Hell? How is the above a more devastating punishment than being damned to Hell?

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings.  When you start to doubt God�s word by your own understanding without first asking God for clarification�you trust yourself more than God and that�s not very wise�considering He is all knowing.

Again you are assuming that I didn’t trust in the Lord with all my heart at one time or that I didn’t ask God for clarification. Ask, hell, I practically begged for it at the height of my confusion.

Don�t expect clarification by your timing either�if it�s important He�ll reveal it to you.

How long should I wait? Will he bother to clarify it before the end of my life? What could be more important than catching a soul on the verge of losing his faith who’s begging for clarification from the God he believes to exist? I have two conclusions to draw from your statements: 1) God doesn’t consider my faith or my soul important or 2) God doesn’t exist in the first place. Either possibility is equally plausible I suppose, but I can’t think of what I might have done to piss God off so I’ll have to assume it’s number 2.

These scriptures are very irrelevant to the main message of the Bible.

Perhaps, but they are very good examples of why the Bible is not a good starting point when proposing scientific theories. This is the point I was making when I quoted those passages.

Look at the big picture, not the minor details.  Humans don�t know everything�we don�t even know half of everything�and if you allow details like this to jeopardize your faith�you�re not looking at the big picture�you�re focusing on the details that make it impossible to tell what you�re looking at.

I have looked at the Bible from a number of viewpoints, including both macro and micro. It was that exploration that led me away. What part of that can’t you understand? Here you are suggesting that I ignore details in favor of the big picture which to me sounds the same as saying “don’t look too closely or you’ll lose your faith.” If the Bible is the infallible word of God then one would think that the more one looks at the details the more one’s faith would be strengthened by the beauty of its infallibility. Careful study shouldn’t destroy the very thing the Bible is purported to build: Faith.

I�ll take a look at Gould�s book this summer and see what he has to say about evolution.  Since you gave me a review about the Case for Christ�here�s a review about The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. In the mean time�have you read Darwin�s Black Box?

I have not read Darwin’s Black Box as of yet. If I get some spare time I may look into it.

So you really think that the Big Bang theory isn�t an evolutionary theorist explanation of origins?

I have yet to hear someone giving a lecture on evolution bother to bring it up and most Universities teach each subject as part of a different course. As far as I am aware they are considered separate and distinct fields of study.

I understand that biology instructors will not necessarily give a lecture on the Big Bang�but if they believe in evolution, call me crazy, but I guarantee they�re not going to say God created the heavens and the earth...and I really doubt they would say, “Gee, I never thought about it�let�s go ask a cosmologist”.  C’mon Les�

Whether or not a biology instructor has an opinion one way or the other on the Big Bang theory doesn’t make said theory an extension of, are a part of, the theory of evolution. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you’d find several biology instructors who do believe God created everything as well as some Cosmologists who don’t buy into the theory of evolution.

After all, didn’t you say that Kent Hovind was a science teacher for 15 years? He obviously doesn’t buy into either theory and yet he managed to hold a job teaching science.

I had a lot more to say initially when I was in deep contemplation of what to write back in response�but I think that�s good for now.  Finally, I�d just like to remind you that man is definitely fallible, and Socrates, being one of the most brilliant minds in history said that if he knew anything�it was that he knew nothing at all.

I would like to remind you that I have not once in this entire discussion implied that I felt man was infallible or that we held all the answers and I’d really appreciate it if you’d stop reminding me of things I am already well aware of and which I have not contested.

The whole friggin’ point of science is the pursuit of understanding the unknown! If we held all the answers there’d be no friggin’ NEED for science. This is another basic concept that some people just don’t seem to understand.

As you are so skeptical about the Bible�s truth and the existence of God(actually doesn�t atheism claim, beyond doubt, that there is no God whatsoever�hence making you different from an agnostic?), I sure hope you have the same skepticism towards science�especially that which is only known as a theory.

Depends on how detailed a definition you want to get into about atheism. Agnosticism is referred to by some as “weak” atheism whereas “atheism” is referred to as “strong atheism.” Some strong atheists do claim there is no doubt that God doesn’t exist, but that point of view in my eyes is about as useful as the person who claims the existence of God is undeniable. Both are laying claim to definitively knowing something that can’t be, by definition, known positively.

Most atheists define atheism as “The absence of belief in a God or Gods.” That’s how I define my stance. I am not arrogant enough to claim I can possibly know for certain one way or the other anymore, but based on the facts I have at hand and my own personal experiences I have no reason beyond wishful thinking to hold a belief in the idea of a God or Gods.

I have the same skepticism towards any idea that lays claim to concepts that are “supernatural” or “paranormal” of which God is only one such idea. I hold psychics under the same glaring scrutiny I hold creationists or the UFO nuts or practitioners of homeopathy or American Idol fans. OK, that last bit isn’t true. I try my best not to think about American Idol fans.

Allow me to address your last sentence: especially that which is only known as a theory. You say this as though the status of being a “theory” somehow diminishes the likelihood of it being true.

A theory, by definition, is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Gravity is “just a theory” and I again welcome anyone who thinks that something being “just a theory” reduces its likelihood of being true to jump off of a building or two until they gain a little enlightenment. Pretty much ALL of science is “just a theory” with some “theories” being more widely accepted than other “theories.” Over the years the number of once highly regarded “theories” that have ended up being completely scrapped when faced with some new “theory” that had completely overwhelming evidence in support of it is innumerable. NO theory or law in science is beyond reconsideration in the light of new knowledge EVER. As an example: While large chunks of Einstein’s special theory of relativity have been repeatedly tested and shown to have good evidence in support of them there are whole OTHER sections that have been all but abandoned because they have not withstood the passage of time and the advancement of knowledge. The passing of his incorrect theories in no way diminishes the impact of his correct theories, but even they can be subject to question if new evidence should give cause to do so.

This is diametrically opposed to how religion deals with new ideas wherein more often than not facts are bent to fit the beliefs of the particular religion and when they can not be bent they are suppressed. Christianity in particular has had to be dragged kicking and screaming through every major advance in scientific understanding in history and the battle over “Intelligent Design” is just one more example of it clinging desperately to dogma past the point of reason. It’s no different than when it was first discovered that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of being the center of the Universe. Back when the Christians first took over Rome one of the first things they did was destroy the aqueducts because they were “heathen” and “pagan” and they set themselves and that empire back almost 500 years bringing back a life of filth and disease that killed them off by the thousands before they realized that bathing just might be a good idea. Of course that’s the kind of thinking you get when you go through life without questioning things.

I would also like to point out that you’ve been hyping the creationism viewpoints of Ken Ham and “Dr.” Kent Hovind as being valid theories despite the rather dismissive attitude you appear to have towards things that are “just theories.” Isn’t that a little self-defeating?

Hey Les…

I haven’t had a chance to read all of your responses, but from what I’ve read it appears that all I can do at the level I’m at is pray for you. I know that you can reach the same truth I’m at if you do further research(being skeptical of all “realities")...but I doubt I can offer you any more help without having to spend time in more research myself. We can can go on forever claiming our realities are truth...your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth...and even though I know that my faith is more than just blind faith(as yours is as well)...you follow your faith(science) just as passionately as I follow mine(Christ), if not more than I do...so our conversation seems like it’s going to be a full time job, and I really don’t have any more time right now. 

Maybe after I graduate here in a few weeks...I’ll come back and see how you’re doing(not to say that you need me or anything)...but as much as I’d love for you to be able to go beyond the wisdom of man and put faith, as an adult, in the Lord and experience what I’ve experienced...there’s only so much I can do, the rest is up to the Lord and your heart. 

From your comments though...it is very obvious that you didn’t pay attention when you read the Bible...any of the 4 times, so you might try reading it again because you are way off on a few areas(Satan is not confined to hell yet, for one example where you’re off)...and I’ve only heard a very few areas from your standpoint and interpretation of the Bible. 

God bless you Les...I’ll continue to pray for you, and I only hope that God will give you the same opportunity he gave my uncle to have someone pray for him as an intercessor just before he had to meet the Lord.

Take care and feel free to email me if you ever do encounter the Lord or have any questions that you think I might be able to find out for you.  I’ve only been dedicated to the Lord less than a year and He’s already done amazing things in my life...but, I’m sorry that my purpose has not enlightened you and I’m sorry if I have taken up much of your time. I appreciate what you have taught me about Atheists and I can say I definitely learned a lot from our interaction.  I learned that you’re all lost and haven’t got a clue...only kidding.  Hope to hear from you in the future.

Hey Les,
I am an idiot who has been brainwashed.I believe in fairy tails meant to scare me into being a good little boy, do what I’m told without question and give my money and control of my mind to some child molester! I have also been instructed to try to convert people like you, who think for themselves. If I don’t convert people, the church will make me feel guilty for allowing them to burn in a pretend hell! Of course we are not going to mention, the more idiots in the pew, the more money on the plate! Don’t you know that the bible is the true word of God! But you can’t take certain parts literaly!
Eric..Justin do you see how you sound?
I shutter to think about Ghandi and other non- christian wonderful, holy people burning in some inferno somewhere!

Hello Les. I’ve been a Christian for about 13 years now. I stumbled upon your website while looking at other websites concerning ideas against Kent Hovind. Anyway, I don’t know if this is the only way you keep in contact with Justin, but I would like to know about your loss in faith as well? If Justin doesnt show up any time soon, I’ll be more than glad to take his place. With that said, I’d like to know some personal info just to get myself acquainted with you if that’s ok? For instance, what do you do, do you have a family, etc? Hopefully, Lord willing, He’ll use me to return you to Christ with a more fulfilling and loving relationship with Him. If not me, then the next Christian. Take care and God Bless Les. P.S. I’ll be praying for you. : )

Chimps share 99.4% of our DNA. That is NINTY NINE POINT FOUR! That leaves a whopping .6% chance that we are not related. Call Maury, Jerry, Rikki and Jenny I think we have DNA proof who the great great grandma & grandpa are!!!!!

OK, apart from your disbelief in God and perhaps even intelligent design, please give me your ten best evidences for macro evolution. 

Thank You,

Bill Gibbons

I know that this is no doubt directed toward Les, but trying to give you 10 iron clad examples of evolution in action (with the exception of behavioral evolution) would be futile. However it would be no more futile than me asking you to provide 10 irrefutable miraculous events. The problem most people seem to have is with agreeing to disagree, I can not PROVE evolution to you any more than you can PROVE that god exists to me. Maybe if the people of this world could just agree to leave each other to their own beliefs and stop trying to force everyone else to convert to something they do not believe in we could all start focusing on more important things. This whole “my religion can beat up your science” or “ my god is bigger than your god” is pointless.

Your question seems simple enough on the surface, but the proper answer to it is quite complex. Instead of offering up overly-simple explanations that wouldn’t do this topic justice I’ll just point you to a site that has a full list of 29 evidences in support of macro evolution. The site details predictions about macro evolution that can be made and offers up verification for those predictions as well as any possible falsifications or criticisms.

Assuming, of course, that you really want to know. Fair Warning: It’s a good read, but it can get a little thick in it’s usage of terminology.

Thank you for your prompt response. I will study the link that you have provided and reply in due course.  I am puzzled by one comment you have made, however. You state that you cannot “prove” the case for macro evolution (any more than I can “prove” that God exists), yet so many claim with confidence that the case for macro evolution is scientific fact.

We shall see.

Bill Gibbons

Eric said he couldn’t prove Macro evolution. Considering he’s not an evolutionary biologist either then that shouldn’t be too surprising. Still, that doesn’t mean that good evidence in support of it doesn’t exist.

And technically speaking I said I could not prove it to you.

Quite simply, there is no REAL proof of Evolution.  It is all theory and beliefs. In other words, faith.  Likewise, there is no REAL proof of Creation for those that refuse to believe the bible. So, creation is also based on faith.
So to you evolution believers, don’t tell us that creation is not true when you can’t PROVE your case. Evolution is all supposition, assumptions, and trying to connect the dots with out proof of how the dots are connected. DNA and chromosones do not support the THEORY of evolution.
And think about this. Why didn’t the human race even consider evolution as a possibility until Darwin was published? Because evolution is not true and the fools of the earth chose to believe an ordinary man named Darwin rather than the Word of God. 

By the way, to you evolution believers, did you ever stop to think that if Adam came out of the ground, you could say that he “evolved” out of dirt and became man.  You can call that evolution if you want but I call it creation.

One final thought. For those of you that use profanity and vulgar language in your writing, it only shows that you are an ignorant person with a limited vocabulary and lact the ability to communicate rationally and intelligently.

Hmmm. This should be interesting.

Quite simply, there is no REAL proof of Evolution.

There isn’t? So you’re claiming that the thousands of different scientific papers regarding this subject that have been published since the theory was first developed aren’t real? That the growing body of supporting evidence said papers present isn’t real either? Have you actually studied the subject of evolution much at all or are you just making claims based on what you wish to be true?

It is all theory and beliefs. In other words, faith.

An incorrect statement. First off, theories and beliefs are not the same thing. A proper theory is developed using the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

A properly constructed theory doesn’t require faith. Proper theories allow one to make predictions and the results of those predictions either support or undermine the theory in question. Faith is what you need when you have no evidence to support your belief.

In other words, a proper theory is more than just saying: “I have a theory that cotton candy is actually flavored webbing from giant inter-stellar spiders.” You might believe that to be true, but that doesn’t make it a theory and no amount of faith will change that.

Likewise, there is no REAL proof of Creation for those that refuse to believe the bible. So, creation is also based on faith.

I know some creationists who would argue with you about whether there’s any real proof outside of the Bible about whether creationism is true. But I will concede your point here and agree with you that there is no real proof outside of Biblical accounts that creationism is true.

So to you evolution believers, don’t tell us that creation is not true when you can’t PROVE your case.

Bad argument. Proving evolution isn’t necessary in order to debunk creationism. Even if it turns out that evolution is a false theory that wouldn’t lend any support to the idea of creationism being valid.

As it stands today biologists commonly regard biological evolution to be a fact. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence and the processes involved have been demonstrated at length providing so much support as to put it in the same category as gravity.

Gravity is also a fact which you can easily demonstrate to yourself by jumping out the nearest window. However, scientists don’t exactly understand how gravity works and as such there is a Theory of Gravity or, more specifically, a theory about the mechanics of gravity. This is a trait that evolution also shares. Commonly regarded as fact, biologists still readily admit they don’t have a full understanding of how it works and thus there is still a theory of evolution that attempts to deal with the specific mechanics.

Evolution as both a fact and a theory has led to the creation of whole new fields of science that would not have been possible otherwise.

Evolution is all supposition, assumptions, and trying to connect the dots with out proof of how the dots are connected.

Again an incorrect statement. Supposition and assumptions are certainly part of the early stages of establishing a hypothesis, but in order to become a true theory the hypothesis must be borne out with evidence in support of it. If evolution were only supposition and assumptions then it wouldn’t be considered a theory at all.

It is clear you don’t have a solid understanding of what constitutes a theory or what the scientific method is. Perhaps you should consider a little time studying up.

DNA and chromosones do not support the THEORY of evolution.

Sure they do. If evolution isn’t real then one would expect that the DNA and genes of different species would be radically different from each other in a multitude of ways. However if life evolved over time building up a gradual change from one organism to the next then one would expect that you’d be able to find evidence of that progression within the DNA and genes of two different organisms. There is a lot of evidence in support of that progression just as the theory of evolution would predict.

What basis are you using for the claim that DNA and genes don’t support the theory of evolution?

And think about this. Why didn’t the human race even consider evolution as a possibility until Darwin was published? Because evolution is not true and the fools of the earth chose to believe an ordinary man named Darwin rather than the Word of God.

What an idiotic argument. Next you’ll tell me that Atomic Theory isn’t real because the Bible doesn’t say anything about it and mankind didn’t think about it until Isaac Newton brought it up for the first time in 1704. Seeing as you seem to be clueless about history I’ll mention the fact that Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.

Using your logic I suppose that means that gravity didn’t exist prior to Newton’s theory he first proposed in 1687 because “the human race didn’t even consider gravity a possibility until Newton was published,” right? Don’t be such a moron.

By the way, to you evolution believers, did you ever stop to think that if Adam came out of the ground, you could say that he “evolved” out of dirt and became man.  You can call that evolution if you want but I call it creation.

No, you can’t say he “evolved out of dirt” as dirt is not a living organism that can evolve. Again, a rather idiotic argument which reveals your ignorance of the subject.

One final thought. For those of you that use profanity and vulgar language in your writing, it only shows that you are an ignorant person with a limited vocabulary and lact the ability to communicate rationally and intelligently.

Eh, fuck you. You manage to demonstrate a complete inability to communicate rationally and intelligently despite your lack of profanity in your writing. So what’s your excuse for being so ignorant about the topics you’re trying to debate?

Oh, you’re a “Pastor.” Sorry, I’ll try to speak slower and use smaller words in the future.

Les,

I caught your lively debate with Justin. 

You wrote: “It was a point I�ve had people make to me many times before. �God exists because we exist.� The implication being that all things must have a creator therefor there must be a God. Of course believers rarely seem to take that argument to the next logical step which would be: If all things must have a creator, then who created God? And who created God�s God? Theists often want to claim that no one created God because God has always existed. Of course that destroys the logic behind their assertion that �all things have a creator.� Logically, if God doesn�t need a creator then perhaps the universe or mankind didn�t need one either. The point remains that our existence isn�t a reasonable proof of anything other than we exist. And there�s some philosophers I know who�d even debate that point with you as well.”

The law of causality states that all effects have a cause (all creations have a creator), but it does not state that all causes must have a cause.  It is logical to claim that a creation must have a creator.  It is ILLOGICAL to claim that a creator must have a creator.  However, I would like for you to show me an effect that does not have a cause.  Please don’t get out of this by using Hume’s theory.  Even Sagan stated we would be in big trouble if Hume was correct, which he wasn’t.

This statement surely doesn’t stick “logically, if God doesn�t need a creator then perhaps the universe or mankind didn�t need one either.” A logical argument states that an infinite, everlasting being (God) does not require a cause.  Why is that not logical in your eyes?  Are you arguing that man has no beginning or end?  Are you arguing that the universe has no beginning or end?  Mr. Logic, you’re funny.

Thanks,
Saxe

The law of causality states that all effects have a cause (all creations have a creator), but it does not state that all causes must have a cause. It is logical to claim that a creation must have a creator. It is ILLOGICAL to claim that a creator must have a creator. However, I would like for you to show me an effect that does not have a cause. Please don�t get out of this by using Hume�s theory. Even Sagan stated we would be in big trouble if Hume was correct, which he wasn�t.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that the universe is a purposeful creation of some other thing. There is nothing about the universe that would imply this is so. It’s entirely possible the whole thing is the result of a random event with no discernable purpose behind it.

I’ve never argued that an effect could exist without a cause, though I have read some philophers who seem to think it’s a possibility. I’ve never cared much for Hume’s theory as once you reduce your philosophy down to something as simple as the idea that the only thing you can know for certain is the existence of your own mind you make arguing anything completely impractical and pointless.

This statement surely doesn�t stick �logically, if God doesn�t need a creator then perhaps the universe or mankind didn�t need one either.� A logical argument states that an infinite, everlasting being (God) does not require a cause. Why is that not logical in your eyes? Are you arguing that man has no beginning or end? Are you arguing that the universe has no beginning or end?

Of course it sticks. God, if such a being does exist, could just as easily be the effect of yet another cause. Being an unverifiable claim in the first place one could probably come up with all manner of definitions for what God is and whether or not he is finite and I’m willing to bet it’s not hard to find several people in any given room who would debate the details about what constitutes God.

As for man, he is finite in existence as a self-aware entity, but one could argue that the energy that went into creating the matter that makes up man is infinite in it’s existence. There are also various theories about the nature of the universe that would seem to elminate the idea that it had a beginning. Stephen Hawkings covers a couple of different ideas in his book A Brief History of Time. The point remains, however, that if Einstein’s E=mc^2 holds true then every bit of matter that exists is just energy in a different form that has always existed because it cannot be destroyed, but can change form. If that energy can not be destroyed then it is infinite and everlasting and therefor does not need a cause or creater to explain it, much as your God does not.

Mr. Logic, you�re funny.

I’m glad you find me amusing. I try to keep things on the lighter side by tossing a little humor into my postings.

Les,

Thanks for your response.  When you stated “It�s entirely possible the whole thing is the result of a random event with no discernable purpose behind it.” Are you saying that it is possible that we are here because of chance?

Thanks,
Saxe

I can’t remember where I read this but there is a statement that goes, “The leading cause of atheism in the world today is Christians.” Sad but partially right. The Christian responses I’ve read here--though I believe they are sincere in their witness--are so haphazard in their rhetoric and argument that they only serve to fan the flames of the agnosticism herein.

(By the way, you all realize that the argument for atheism falls in on itself because none of you can have so complete knowledge of the universe that you may declare that nowhere in the universe there is no God? Of course you all knew that, but you make an emotional choice to deny God anyway!)

If you atheists really want to reinforce your arguments you need to spend time reading and listening to well thought out and well constructed arguments from top notch Christian apologists like Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig or Peter Kreeft. If you can turn your attentions from your straw men to these men, maybe you’ll learn something.

Wow, that took me 3 days off and on to read through!! I’m going to try to make this short and to the point. I wanted to let all of the people against Dr. Kent Hovind know that one of his main objectives is to get evolution out of the public schools. It seems like that was never brought up. All he really wants is for the people to recognize that evolution has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and that it should not be taught to the children like it has. I think they should be taught all of the “theories” and let them come to their own conclusions.
Anyhoo, i suppose that’s all i have thanks!!
Kristin

Kristin - Trust me, the fact that “Dr.” Kent Hovind wants to remove the teaching of evolution from the schools is the main reason why I have a problem with him.

The problem with your claim that “evolution has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt” is the simple fact that NOTHING in science has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Determining what is accepted as a “fact” in science is based entirely on the amount of evidence that supports that fact as being true and there is a helluva lot of evidence that supports the concept of evolution as being a fact. Science always keeps open the possibility that new evidence will invalidate previous conclusions about any particular topic and evolution is not immune from that process, but then neither is any other scientific theory or concept.

The point still remains that evolution, as a process, has enough evidence behind it to accept as a fact. At the same time we still don’t have a complete understanding of how it works and thus we also have a “theory” of Evolution. This is no different from gravity which we also accept as fact based on the evidence at hand, but which we don’t completely understand how it works so there is also a “theory” of gravity. Yet I don’t hear anyone calling for that theory to be removed from schools because it hasn’t been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. If we’re going to apply the standard that anything taught in science class must be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt then there will be NOTHING TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS.

I think they should be taught all of the “theories” and let them come to their own conclusions.

Two problems with this: First, the only competing theory is Creationism (sometimes called Intelligent Design) and there is no evidence to support that theory at all beyond stories from a 2000 year old religious text. It’s not even a proper theory because real theories allow you to make predictions about the phenomena being explained in the theory. What predictions can you make from the theory of Creationism?

Secondly, the point of science class is to teach kids science. Not to toss a bunch of info at them and say “You decide which is right because we haven’t a friggin’ clue!” We don’t teach English by telling kids two different and conflicting ways to form a proper English sentence and then leave it to them to decide which is the “right” way to do it, why should science class be handled in such a ridiculous manner?

Whole new fields of science have been created from the knowledge that has come from the discovery of evolution. Name me ONE new field of science based on the “theory” of Creationism? Hell, for that matter name just ONE SINGLE WAY that Creationism has contributed to any other field of science? All Creationism does is allow Christians to feel like their Bible is inerrant. It doesn’t provide anything in the way of useful information or understanding of how things work and doesn’t contribute to any other field of science at all. As such it has no business being taught in a science class alongside other, legitimate, scientific theories.

it appears that if evolution is real then you have evolved into big idiot dont you have anything better to do you geek God is real whether you believe it or not so move on to some other idiotic cause

After such an intellectually stimulating argument as that put forth by James here how could I possibly not believe in God? I mean the intensity of his insight is just overwhelming! His witty quip at my expense was just so eye opening! His grasp of sentence structure and logic is just astounding! Surely he is an intellect on a scale exceeding Einstein’s massive brain power. How can I ever hope to respond to his simple yet boundless challenge?

:finger: