Christopher Hitchens—blind to salamander reality (evolutionists "desperate")

CreationOnTheWeb ^ | July 28, 2008 | Jonathan Safarti

[GodGunsGuts]

Feedback archive → Feedback 2008

Christopher Hitchens—blind to salamander reality

A well-known atheist’s ‘eureka moment’ shows the desperation of evolutionists

In a recent article in the leftist online magazine Slate, prominent atheistic journalist Christopher Hitchens (b. 1949) thinks he has found the knock-down argument against creationists and intelligent design supporters. Fellow misotheist Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) and another anti-theist Sir David Attenborough (b. 1926) agree. Not surprisingly, there have been questions to us about this, so Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds. As will be seen, their whole argument displays ‘breathtaking inanity’ and ignorance of what creationists really teach, and desperation if this is one of their best proofs of evolution...

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

What part of the word Bible don’t you understand?

You do realize you are brainwashed. The Hindu account is true.

[GodGunsGuts]

See my last comment. Moreover, I think they should teach rival theories within evolution, rival theories within ID, and rival theories within the creationist camp.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, so you’re not anti-evolution.

So what proof do we have for creationism? Why should creationism be taught in a science classroom? I can see it in a theological or philosophical class, but why science?

[GodGunsGuts]

==You do realize you are brainwashed. The Hindu account is true.

That’s fine. Why don’t you subject the historical claims of the Hindu creation account to the scientific method and see what shakes out.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Aren't you familiar with the name of Issac Newton? For starters..... And where does he refer to religion in his scientific work? He doesn't.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That’s fine. Why don’t you subject the historical claims of the Hindu creation account to the scientific method and see what shakes out.

You should take a read of the Hindu creation story and marvel at the parallels with the Biblical story.

In fact, I'd say it would fit as well as the Biblical story. Both start with a void with water from which the Creator starts. Then there is the creation of the heavens and earth, then plants, then animals.

[GodGunsGuts]

That's way too big of a discussion for this thread. Suffice it to say, there are plenty of organizations from all sides of the debate that would assist in creating said curriculum. Although, I suspect the evos would have to be dragged into said curricular debate kicking and scratching.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No, I think it’s entirely relevant. I mean, if there is a force that created everything, where did that force come from? If it’s an intelligent Creator, then what is it?

That seems, to me, to be central to the whole concept of ID. If you eliminate questions about the nature of the Creator, you eliminate the entire basis OF the ID approach.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Western science grew out of theology--yes, theology. Europe's great universities were founded in medieval times by religious groups. It is the so-called “scholastic movement” that eventually developed into science.

I guess the ancient Greeks don't fit in to your Creationist world view. Actually, bored monks turned to science to stimulate their brains for a short time in the Medieval era. They were a minority of people from all over the world who made scientific inquires. Why even those heathen Chinese made strides in science.

[GodGunsGuts]

Time to go to bed. It was nice talking with you.

All the best—GGG

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Hmmm...Einstien, by no means a believer in organized religion, came to the conclusion that the Universe is the handiwork of a divine intelligence:

“Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”

Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers,

New York, NY, USA, pp. 36-39, 1954.

Sounds kind of like an ID scientist, no?

No. He's not creationist. And he did not come to a conclusion. He is offering an opinion. He is comparing his assertion to a religious feeling, not an argument that where a conclusion is inferred from the premises. All he is doing is saying the Universe operates by certain rules which we don't fully understand. He does not like the uncertainty of Quantum mechanics. He is showing humility that we don't fully understand the Universe. This is different than Creationists (and ID'ers, one and the same) who proudly claim Creation is the only truth.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

The only people insulting Christianity are the hardcore evos.

Do you ever see stories in the news about Muslims murdering, raping, and kidnapping Christians?

[Salamander]

The “salamanders of the earth” don’t believe in Christopher Hitchens.

[The name “Christopher” means “Christ bearer”....how that must annoy him, no end]

[huldah1776]

I recently took a bio 101 class, and, of course, before I did, I read a little about the scientific arguments against the theory of evolution. For me, logically, for any trait to be passed on, the mutation must be in the DNA of the already formed egg or sperm (not mentioned in my reading of arguments against). What influence would environment have on what is already there? Why would a genetically mutated stub, mutate into a leg, and what are the CHANCES that would mutate usefully? Evolution is a good fairytale. I do agree a little with Darwin’s theory that a family of bright goldfish living in a particular pond will probably get the most golden fish eaten first, but will all the golden genes disappear? Maybe. If the theory of evolution were true, the universe would be trillions and trillions of years old, not billions, and the chance of simultaneous mutation (where are present proofs of constructive mutation and not destructive?) is less than me winning the powerball with my chosen numbers at the same time as my co-workers using quick pick. The numbers just aren’t there.

[Amelia]

Sort of reminds me of the people several hundred years ago who said it was impossible to think that the earth revolves around the sun, because that contradicts Holy Scripture.

At some point, evolution and religion will also reconcile.

[Antoninus]

I believe that the ToE is the best notion of how life came to be at present. That said, it in no way precludes my belief in God, nor my Faith in Christ, nor my trust in the divinely inspired nature of Sacred Scripture.

Whenever there is a perceived conflict between empircal science and revealed Truth, the conflict exists only in our limited human capacity to comprehend. The bickering is only good in that it helps us move forward with this comprehension. Demonizing and censoring one side or the other is stupid and wrong, however.

One day, it will all be clear.

[Antoninus]

And many of our modern theocrats want to take us back to those bad old days.

Those who run our academic institutions today are just as censorial as the "theocrats" of the Middle Ages. The bad old days are here again in the post-Christian world--it's just the politico-scientific elite who are running things now. And in the end, they will be a lot less forgiving than the "theocrats" of the Middle Ages were.

[metmom]

The current version of ID is pure religion, cooked up after the Edwards decision of the US Supreme Court in an effort to sneak religion back into the schools.

Seems to me that the schools were doing much better when religion was in them.

[metmom]

And many of our modern theocrats want to take us back to those bad old days.

Sources?

Could you provide statements to back that up, that modern theocrats would like to live at the standard of living experienced in the *bad old days*?

[metmom]

For example, Stark writes:

“The so-called Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century has been misinterpreted by those wishing to assert an inherent conflict between religion and science. Some wonderful things were achieved in this era, but they were not produced by an eruption of secular thinking. Rather, these achievements were the culmination of many centuries of systematic progress by medieval Scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the University.”

IIRC, it was Newton who came to the conclusion that the universe was orderly and could be examined and analyzed because God is a orderly, rational God and created an orderly and rational universe. (In summary).