Evangelical Atheists Crusade Against “pernicious” Religions

by Logan Gage:

The Examiner, Nov 17, 2006

WASHINGTON – When it comes to science and God, Americans want it all —”MRIs and miracles,” according to this week’s Time magazine. Increasingly, however, evangelicals are standing in the way. But these religionists may not be who you think.

Richard Dawkins, Oxford Darwinist and best-selling author of “The God Delusion,” says you can’t have it all. Religion is pernicious and survives only because it has direct or indirect Darwinian survival value. Faith is largely a side-effect of the trust we learn as youths.

But luckily for us, according to Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, recent author of “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” has long claimed Darwinism to be a “universal acid” which eats through all traditional notions of God and morality. For Dennett, religion survives because our brains evolved, albeit irrationally, to fall in love, which of course has reproductive advantages.

And in a recent Newsweek, atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of “The End of Faith” and most recently “Letter to a Christian Nation,” presents his “Case Against Faith.” And where does he begin? At the beginning, of course, deriding the faithful for suggesting God had something to do with nature.

What is happening? Is it all just election-year hoopla against the religious right? I suggest another explanation. A quiet revolution is underway; and it will not be publicized.

It’s now been more than 80 years since Hubble observed evidence for the Big Bang, challenging the conventional wisdom among scientists that the universe was eternal. As theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking commented, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”

Four decades ago, scientists began to notice the ‘fine-tuning’ of the laws of physics, thus revealing the vast odds against a life-sustaining universe. As just one example, if gravity were one part in 100 billion greater or smaller, life would not be possible. Our universe would have kept expanding without forming galaxies, or matter in our universe would have stuck together without forming stars and planets.

And it’s been 10 years since Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” first awakened a slumbering world to the “irreducible complexity” of many molecular systems, showing that a step-by-step Darwinian process couldn’t have produced them and that, instead, intelligent foresight was necessary.

We are in the midst of not one but two information revolutions. In the last half-century, scientists have recorded reams of genetic information as well as an intricate system for storing, copying, and editing this information, leading Bill Gates to comment that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” The cell is a far cry from what scientists in Darwin’s day thought was something like a simple blob of Jell-O.

Some intellectuals are noticing. Probably the most cited atheist philosopher of the last half-century is Antony Flew. At Oxford, Flew sparred at C.S. Lewis Socratic Club. But in case you missed it, due to the mounting scientific evidence, Flew has become a theist. “I think the argument to intelligent design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it,” Flew said in an interview.

He insists that he doesn’t believe in heaven, hell or the God of the Bible but that he now sees the origin of life as strong evidence for intelligent design, commenting that “the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Books on atheism used to quote Flew abundantly and authoritatively. Not anymore, although Dawkins derisively mentions Flew’s conversion in his old age.

Just as we have confidence that black holes exist, not by direct observation, but because of the movement of bodies around the blackness, so, too, can one be sure an intellectual revolution is underway when we increasingly find books on The New York Times best-seller list by evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins.

These authors are surely responding to something. That something is powerful scientific evidence challenging their worldview. Time got it right: “This debate long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design.”

Logan Paul Gage is a policy analyst with Discovery Institute in Washington. [This article reprinted with permission by author extended to Windowview.org]

For more on science and Intelligent Design go to WindowView!

Share

Alleged “error” in Calculating Probabilities [A Real Problem for Biological Evolution]

Someone just brought to may attention to a web site in which Thomas Schneider criticizes a probability calculation of mine and he also criticizes your website in that you cited my calculation. Of course, Schneider is wrong. Here is what I wrote the person who inquired.

“Thank you for pointing out to me Schneider’s criticism of my work.

“Schneider is mistaken. He evidently did not take the trouble to understand what I was calculating. My calculation is correct. The probability 1/300,000 is the probability that a particular mutation will occur in a population and will survive to take over that population. If that mutation occurred it would have to have had a positive selective value to take over the population. If that occurred, then all members of the new population will have that mutation. Then the probability of another particular adaptive mutation occurring in the new population is again 1/300,000 and is independent of what went before – I have already taken account of the occurrence and take-over of the first mutation.

Therefore, the correct probability of both these mutations occurring and taking over their populations is the product of these two probabilities. And, as I wrote, the probability of 500 of them occurring is the probability 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. My calculation is correct and Schneider is mistaken. He is similarly mistaken about what he wrote about the article in Chance – Probability Alone Should End the Debate, at www.WindowView.org., since that article relied on my calculation.

“I would presume that since Schneider was so careless in his criticism of my calculation, his opinions on the other articles he cites must be similarly suspect.

“Please communicate with him and ask him to correct his website.”

You may want to post this answer, or a paraphrase of it, on your website to answer his criticism.

Dr. Lee Spetner, [Emertus, MIT and Author of “Not by Chance”]

Share

Intelligent Design is Blasphemy?

Intelligent Design is Blasphemy So Says Dr. Francisco Ayala!

On the evening of March 23, Dr. Francisco Ayala, along with his wife (Dr. Hanna Ayala) spoke before an assembly of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS; widely known for its publication of Science magazine). The evening presentation was more an informal event where both Dr.s Ayala spoke of their professional experiences and current activities.

Of note were the comments of Dr. Francisco Ayala with regard to the teaching of evolution in public schools. Dr. Ayala is a well known biologist with academic interests in genetics and evolution. He also proclaims to have a theistic side and some studies in theology. What becomes clear however is a propensity among some scientists to state evolution is a “fact”more than a theory. The rejection of biblical literalism becomes full grounds to say church and state must remain separate and schools must teach evolution. But most are unaware of why the United States originally was founded with the principles of a separation of church and state. This has nothing to do with scientific evidence or misguided assumptions.

Perhaps what we might fear is a scientific literalism that prevents thinking about all the implications of the scientific data. Dr. Ayala also wants us to believe that any discussion of the topic of intelligent design is pure religion. The hot button word of the day always seems to be an emotional rejection of something called creationism. But if he is referring to an old school of thought, then he is likewise putting up a smoke screen to avoid the direction in which discussions on intelligent design lead to.

Find out why Dr. Ayala thinks ID is blasphemy! Listen to and read the text from this event at Ayala Article at Windowview.org

Share

Global Change Like Never Before … Where Will It Lead?

Over ten years ago WindowView posted information in anticipation of global changes. During 2006, we will be updating this web site’s content concerning change. Global changes are now widely recognized in the news. Climate change is getting more attention, but this only the tip of an iceberg.

There is a complex matrix of changes that brings about the visible climate change. Numerous sources of change are interwoven. You can’t say we’ll just fix this or that. Nothing is so simple and we’re backed into a corner! Want an example? Glaciers are gone or going quickly, the North Pole is slated to be – in a few decades, Greenland’s ice and the South Pole are all headed the same direction. Sea levels will change, it’s slow, but happening … now!

READ: Change Matrix

In the final analysis, in that matrix, a lot of this concerns how humans live. Humanity’s material and social lifestyles are a cause. Years ago we might have said cycles in nature are to be expected. But humans have caused the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide level to rise way above any known (geological record) historical level. We are in uncharted waters and still sailing on. Even our Window Area on change includes a warning posted by scientists about all this. (READ historic scientists’ warning). They knew it was coming over a decade ago. Who really listed? Economy and politics sail on.

If you look at the right side of this page, you see a link to our feature area on change. What’s not there yet are descriptions of some really historic events yet to come (like what we’ve said here about glaciers and the polar ice caps but on other different topics).

Major Global Ocean Currents To Stop Moving In Next 10 to 15 Years?

At the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 2005, we heard oceanographers describe global change in terms of increased rainfall over the northern Atlantic Ocean. Here is how matrix relations get revealed. More rain brings more fresh water to the surface of a salty ocean. The fresh water is lighter than the salt water below. The lighter water does not push down with the weight of heavier salt water. Without this push, the currents that move northward to the upper Atlantic Ocean, cannot then bear downward to the bottom of the ocean to make the ocean current head back south along the ocean floor. Typically this action moved the global current from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and back again. Yes, right now there is a global current that links all the oceans. Global change, through the increased rainfall in one location, threatens to turn off the global current.

READ:  Global Ocean Currents Cease

So Is This ‘Doom Saying’ Or What?

Frankly, the talk about all this is going to get more intense. Eventually you’ll hear someone say: “What can be done?”  or in light of incredible consequences they may ask “Who will save us?” What will happen to the oceans? Indeed, will the now over-fished and decimated oceanic populations decline to nil? Again, we never stripped the oceans of fish like we see today. The ecology of a well mixed ocean will enter a new phase. We’ve never been here before. What about food supply? And the pressure for answers on all issues will get more intense. From all of our information sources that look to the future, global change is actually helping to accentuate a particular set of human circumstances.

A Window To A Choice, Not A Crisis

No one is going to say the challenges will go away. The effects are yet to be fully realized. But within the window are still other perspectives. If matters look ever darker and slow to realize an improvement, then is all this about a crisis? In fact, our material life is temporal. The window’s horizon looks beyond the current events and beyond what is simply this experience alone. Global change helps to get us thinking. This is something to consider on a personal level. Think about how society and humanity as a whole is responding. Think about how this is a reflection on what is key to understanding the value to our lives. Think. Change. Make a choice!

Director, WindowView.org

Share

The Most Important Question

What is after all the most important question? We want you to really think about which question that is!

You Rubbed the Magic Lamp But You Only Get ONE Wish
Imagine you found a magical lamp. You think that if you rub it a puff of blue-green smoke will pour out and out pops a genie! Well, that might be nice, but when this guy appears, he stares right into your face, says he’s for real, and YOU get one wish. But instead of stuff, you get only something truthful. No money here, just information!

What To Ask For!
The WindowView was developed with the intent of getting people to think. If you look at the world today, what is there out there? Do things look good? What are the prospects for humanity in time future? What’s the big picture?

To be honest, if you look at what the window reveals, in an unbiased and somewhat impartial manner, you might run across the truth! A friend once noted, people don’t want to be confronted by truth! It’s easier to be in denial and do just what we want to do. If we have to face the truth, then we are faced with our mortality and the eventual disposition of this life … and that disposition leaves us dead. In fact, no one gets out of here alive! Have you noticed?

Seek The Truth
Okay, so perhaps the real important question relates to truth. Do you want this lifetime to be an opportunity to get at the truth, or are you going to blow it off?

What if there’s more that is supposed to come later? What if what we do now … has a lot to do with what might happen later? Yeah, lights out at the end, but what if they come back on again by some higher purpose?

What if there is a most important question that leads to the most incredibly important answer? What is the most important question? What is your most important question?

We’ll leave open this posting for comments … at least for a while. We’ll maintain an open door to gather some thoughts. WHAT is the most important question?

Share

Hello!

Welcome to WindowView Press. This is our first post.

In the days ahead we’ll add content here that is relevant to the four main feature areas at WindowView.

In fact, in the months ahead we will be revising the entire web site. The present content will be mainatined. New navigation tools and some format changes will help to make the site more useful.

But there is one additional change yet to come. Behind the scenes … from the very start … has been a purpose and a promise that we’ve never quite been able to illuminate. New light on this web site will distinguish the former presentation from what will be launched mid to late summer 2006.

In short, this web site has been part of an anticipation of what the future will bring. The ongoing discussion on life’s origins, the dramatic global and climatic changes that now grace the news headlines each day, and the conflict in the Middle East are all a part of a bigger picture. And it’s within that picture that we’ve seen a place for a promise. We will focus on the promise in a way that you too will be able to better see why this window is so important!

Share