OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Good News!

Entry 1605, on 2013-12-11 at 22:44:02 (Rating 3, Religion)

Good news! According to the latest 2013 census figures Christians no longer make up a majority of the New Zealand population. Their proportion in the population overall has fallen by 8% since 2006 and the number with no religion has increased by an impressive 26%. About 1.9 million New Zealanders describe themselves as belonging to one of the Christian faiths, compared to 1.6 million with no religion, out of a total population of just over 4 million. To put it in perspective, based on these rates, today atheism (and similar beliefs) gained about 150 new members but Christianity lost 50.

So for the first time since western colonisation began about 200 years ago Christians are less than half of the population and "non-believers" are rapidly closing in on being the biggest group, a trend which is repeated to a greater or lesser extent in most "civilised" western nations.

Of course, as I have suggested in the past, many people who categorise themselves as followers of some sort of religion are doing so more through habit or because it is just the "right thing to do" rather than any real commitment to that particular belief system. But the opposite is rarely the case. People don't tend to say they are non-believers when they actually are truly religious. So I think the stats tend to favour the believers and the true progress of atheism, agnosticism, and other non-belief is even greater than it seems.

But what's actually happening here? According to a University religion expert, people aren't converting from religion to non-religion, but less young people are religious to begin with, presumably because there is a much less indoctrination now than in the past.

This has been a trend here since the 1960s, and has especially affected the country's traditional religions (Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Methodists) although other mainstream religions, such as Catholicism, are decreasingly in absolute numbers less quickly. It wasn't mentioned in the report, but I have heard that the numbers joining the more fundamentalist (AKA crazy) religions are increasing. My theory is that this is an over-reaction to religion in general dying.

Most experts think that the number of non-religious people will probably continue to increase because older people who are generally more religious are being replaced with new generations who have lower levels of belief. Another factor is that the proportion of non-Christian religions (especially Islam and Hinduism) is increasing as more immigrants arrive here because cultural minorities tend to be more religious.

According to another discussion on the subject, worldwide there are probably almost a billion people with no religion and although the birth rate in religious communities is much higher than in non-religious populations the percentage of non-believers is still increasing. Clearly the number of people moving to no religion must be much higher than the number moving the other way.

These trends should have implications for politics. For example, Christian lobby groups can no longer claim to represent the majority. A spokesperson for the Association of Rationalists and Humanists says some laws should be changed, and that religious instruction in schools should stop.

So from a rationalist perspective things are looking positive. It's OK to accept the quaint myths of religion as being a part of our society's history, but to take the primitive philosophy in most religions seriously can never be good in the modern world. The death of religion will be a long, slow process, but at least it is happening.

Comment 1 (3757) by Richard on 2013-12-12 at 16:07:18: (view recent only)

Interesting article. Let's leave out for now the underlying issue of 'truth', i.e. that the truth of any claim (whether it actually matches reality) doesn't change a jot whether 100% of the population have it right or wrong - so this information doesn't help answer the question of the truth of various religious truth claims or not. We all know (via simple logic) is that yes - they could all be wrong, and that they cannot all be right! Other than that, this info tells us nothing about actual religious non-truth, it is purely information about peoples beliefs.

I do completely agree with your assessment that the stats probably favour the 'believers', and for the reasons you gave. It is becoming much more the social norm (acceptable/desirable) to call yourself a non-believer (or anything but a christian actually) and while I totally understand your 'positive' spin on this trend, this is of course exactly what is expected, under the christian world-view, so this comes as no surprise at all to christians.

Similarly, it is a no-brainer that the trend is largely caused by the passing on of the parents world-view (whatever that is) to their children. Your label of 'less indoctrination' is a little amusing, when your consider
it would be just as fair to say that children are now being 'indoctrinated' by their parents athiests beliefs.

And of course, I use the word belief deliberately, as indeed you did in this post when you said '...athiesm (and similar beliefs)...'. The use of 'non-belief' or 'lower levels of belief' labels later in the post, is also amusing. I agreed in an earlier post that Athiesm is not a religion, but it is most certainly not a 'non-belief'. The statement 'There is no God' has exactly the same positive truth claim (belief) status as the statement 'There is a God'. As an aside, how fascinating that there is an 'Association of Rationalists and Humanists', Why is that? Presumably, it's a place where people of similar beliefs can get together and enjoy each others company, encouragement and support. Possibly even work together to convince others of their beliefs. Sounds pretty much like a church...

Your statement about trends re the 4 mainstream Christian denominations, (1 religion - all classically christian) is also no surprise at all. This (in my personal opinion) has alot to do with the general recognition that these denominations are tragically suffering increasingly from what could politely be called an 'internal inconsistency' and/or apathy with respect to classical (biblical) christianity in a number of significant areas. You may prefer to use the term hypocrisy, and to be honest I would be hard pressed to argue with that.

Your next reference to 'more fundamentalist (AKA Crazy)' groups is a little unclear when used in the same paragraph as the 4 christian groups. Do you mean only fundamentalist christian groups, or also other religions? (I am pretty certain you are happy with the claim that they are all crazy)! Either way though, I offer two thoughts.

Firstly, the term 'fundamentalist' has a fairly straight forward definition of 'sticking to the fundamental principles of the world-view' or internal consistency if you will. The term has gained its negative connotation in the field of religion primarily wrt Islam for example, because that adherence has produced profoundly negative and horrendous results. However, the principle of sticking with the fundamentals is of itself a proper thing to do (a desirable trait even with Atheism I'd expect - we can't have self confessed atheists introducing some sort of theistic belief on the side)! So the trend towards 'fundamentalist' (dare I say 'more principled') groups (of any flavour) is also not a surprise at all. Whether the groups beliefs are sound is of course another discussion entirely.

Secondly I do not see any evidence supporting your view that this move is an 'over-reaction to religion dying in general'. What does that even mean? I suspect whatever evidence that might be would also support a view that this is a move from the 'big 4' groups to the latter, due to an already existent belief in theism, and the above desire for 'consistency', and and also a recognition in many of the inability of atheism to provide that same consistency with reality in a number of key areas too.

As for Good News - well of course, that is the real question isn't it. I would suggest there is plenty of historical evidence of the good that religion and the religious have contributed to the world, (that we've debated that before) to suggest not already, and also given the nature of the conclusions that naturally (and logically) come with Atheism, but it will be something that can only be measured for sure after quite some time has passed.

Cheers, Rich.

Comment 2 (3758) by OJB on 2013-12-12 at 20:07:20:

I think the degree of support for an idea or theory can be used as one factor in assessing its likely truth, but it certainly isn't a reliable one so, yes, I agree we should leave out that aspect of the shrinking religiosity. I don't think I made any claims of that type anyway.

Yes, it is becoming more acceptable to say you aren't religious but there are still plenty of people who label themselves as belonging to a religion purely by habit. I think we agree on this one too - this is going well so far!

Atheism is more a lack of belief rather than a belief system itself. All the atheists I know lack religious belief simply because there is no good reason to believe rather than some deeply held conviction that believing in a religion is bad.

If atheism was the absolute confidence that there is no god I might believe what you say. But every atheist I know doesn't make that claim. We simply say there is no good evidence there is a god so there is no good reason to be religious. I call that atheism but some might call it agnosticism. It just depends on your definition of the words.

Rationalist organisations don't generally have any fixed beliefs except perhaps that thinking rationally is the best action. If that leads to atheism that is purely a consequence of religious belief being irrational. I don't think there are many aspects of a church there at all.

So these four churches are internally inconsistent and hypocritical, and others aren't? Really? Which one would you suggest is most consistent and honest?

Fundamentalism in many religions has gained some prominence recently. I think this is an over-reaction to the realisation that religion really isn't relevant any more. They try to make it relevant through force. And I agree that in some ways they are more honest because at least they have the courage to admit what they believe, even if it makes no sense!

When a group gets into trouble they often resort to desperate and extreme tactics to try to escape the problem. I am offering this as a personal observation and a suggested explanation only, I have no real evidence it is true.

I'm not sure what these "areas of inconsistency" are in atheism. Atheism is simply this: the interim conclusion that there is no god based on the lack of good objective evidence that one exists. In what way is that inconsistent?

The good news is that Christianity is no longer a majority belief. I'm not saying it has no good points, I have already conceded in the past that it has some. But I think it is good that what is often a backward, ignorant, intolerant, irrational belief system is losing its power.

Comment 3 (3759) by OJB on 2013-12-12 at 20:16:57:

One more point. The claim that the outcome of less religiosity will only be known in the future isn't quite right. An OECD study clearly shows that the countries reporting greatest happiness are also those with the least religiosity. The countries concerned are Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Norway, Denmark, and... New Zealand! I know correlation doesn't prove causation but still interesting, I think!

Comment 4 (3760) by richard on 2013-12-13 at 14:40:41:

All fair enough Owen, i.e. as expected coming from your point of view, and again this is your platform, so good discussion. :-)

You are right it depends on the exact meaning of those words Atheism/Agnosticism etc. I would suggest that for most people, the definition from dictionary.com... "An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings."... is their interpretation also, and why I made the point about it being a positive belief claim. The reasons why they come to that belief is not actually relevant to that specific point.

In anticipation of the negative response to that thought, it should be evident that there are a large number of people that do not find (particular) religious belief 'irrational' (again relying on the strict definition of that word). They do that, because (in their opinion) there are in fact good (rational) reasons to believe. Thus, the atheist has to make a deliberate belief choice to reject those arguments, (unless they are making a statement of belief from ignorance). This makes their decision and claim a positive belief. Obviously the claim that the reasons are sound is itself the age long debate. This is also why the statements you frequently use about there being no good reasons to believe (by themselves) are also purely subjective assertions, and also thus not usually relevant or helpful in making a real claim.

Re Hypocrisy. No group of any kind is without 'hypocrisy' - simply because it contains people. Let's not get distracted. I am simply making the point (that I think most people can see if they think about it fairly), that some christian groups are sadly relinquishing (due to pressure from the acknowledged increasingly atheist society) principles that are clearly part of the classical christian view, and some are not doing that to the same extent, and this internal consistency is being recognised in the stats. Nothing earth shattering there really.

Re Fundamentalism: Again you are imposing a negative connotation to the word, this time equating it to relevance thru force, (which I totally agree btw is a profoundly negative action). This is however the logic error I pointed out before. This is not always the case. Yes - Fundamentalism to Islam happens to demands that, but fundamentalism to Christianity does the opposite (when you are careful to examine the whole biblical mandate fairly). So fundamentalism isn't the bad thing 'of itself' - it's what principles you are fundamentally adhering to that makes the difference. While there may be a few rare examples of such relevance by force perpetuated within modern Christianity, I would challange any suggestion that this is part of the Christian world-view. Thus I am simply challenging an apparent 'guilt by association' wrt the label fundamentalism.

Inconsistency in Atheism: I have often said that I am not trying to use this platform as just a promotion tool for my beliefs - rather I am merely discussing, or even challenging specific 'logic' claims you post, on the understanding that your blog implicitly allows and even encourages such (friendly I hope), discussion. Neither was I out only to manufacture an opportunity to attack atheism in your own blog Owen, because that too easily looks like the same thing, perhaps justifiably. :-)

What I was simply doing, was suggesting wrt to your specific comment about 'over-reaction', that maybe people moved away from the big 4 partly due to the internal inconsistency, but were not ready to move all the way to to atheism for similar reasons of perceived inconsistency within Atheism. What you (or anyone) might make of any argument(s) provided as showing atheisms inconsistency with reality, is (logically speaking) irrelevant to that point, which only requires that they are sufficient motivation for the people involved, to stand ok.

Phew - With that said, and only because you have specifically asked for clarification, here are a few: The temporaral nature of the universe (the cosmological argument), The 'appearance' of design (the teleological argument), The existence of Objective Moral Truth (the Axiological argument), The existence of Absolute laws of Logic (the Transcendant argument), The unique nature of our world and universe (the Anthropic argument).

Cheers, Rich.

Comment 5 (3761) by richard on 2013-12-13 at 14:48:51:

So - if you have read an understood the point made in the penultimate paragraph in my last post, you will understand that there is no point in any further discussion about the merits of those arguments - at least not in this post.

Comment 6 (3762) by OJB on 2013-12-13 at 19:26:29:

OK, So what do you see my "point of view" as, apart from following the facts as presented by science and rationality?

The definition I get for atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (Oxford English Dictionary) which fits with what I say: rational and unbiased examination of the facts reveals insufficient evidence at this time to say that a god exists. That's what I think. Am I an atheist or not? I really don't care what label you use.

Of course many people who believe in a religion think they are rational. But they're wrong. We reject the arguments for god because they are pathetic (yes harsh I know, but they really are). None of them hold up to the slightest critical examination and I think most intelligent people (including you) really understand this even though they deny it.

My reasons for rejecting god are not subjective. The best methodology the human race has for establishing the truth are the methods of science. I know of no science indicating a god exists. Do you?

Every fundamentalist (Islamic, Christian, whatever) claims the extremists aren't following the true beliefs of their religion. But there are no true beliefs. These religions are based on meaningless nonsense which can be twisted any way you like: peaceful or violent. That's the danger of believing in an absurdity.

If you really think people moved away from (say) the Anglican Church because it was inconsistent but found atheism also inconsistent so moved to some nutty fundamentalist belief you really must live in some alternative reality! Do you have any evidence of this?

So you regurgitate the same old nonsense arguments which have been destroyed by philosophers years ago. The only one which makes any sense is the anthropic argument. I do find that one interesting. But none of these prove anything. It's just the same old "god of the gaps" argument. How can any of these puzzling observations about the universe not equally be applied to a god who created it?

I see no relevance in your second last paragraph to the fact that a link between happiness and low religiosity can be made.

Comment 7 (3763) by richard on 2013-12-14 at 12:39:43:

Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point of our discussion on numerous levels, or are unwilling to engage on any level other than the simplest level of religion bashing purely for your amusement, rather than a rational reasoned discussion.

That people disagree on whether it's atheism or religion that is the nonsense, is already self-evident, and not even the point of this post as I understand it. IF religion is nonsense (your point of view), then I am more than happy to agree with you that its decline is good news, because it should be seen as better that we align ourselves with reality. So all discussion on this post could just stop there. I thought it was obvious this was discussion at a deeper level.

You really believe there are no true beliefs? Are you certain that true? Just because there extremist views in any field exist (including science btw), does not mean that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the 'truth' of the matter cannot be determined. All religions have a central set of core beliefs. It is only the fact that these exist that enable one to determine what is 'extremism' in the first place, along with the ability to distinguish between them! So this is clearly nonsense.

Your next paragraph is similarly flawed. One thing is certain by simple logic - ALL members of whatever 'nutty fundamentalist belief' group you refer to ( sadly yet again mis-using the label fundamentalist) must have rejected atheism as inconsistent with reality, or they wouldn't be in the group. Again, reason or justification for that belief isn't the point (at the moment). As for evidence - How many of these folk have you talked to, to determine why they moved from (say) the Anglican church? I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from these people actually, to make that perfectly reasonable and logical claim. After all, as you stated the stats show the big 4 decreasing and other christian churches increasing. There can be only two options - there are people moving from atheism to these churches, or from the big 4. Which do you actually think is more likely?

Actually, it's philosophers that made these arguments you say have been 'destroyed years ago'. But once again this isn't true, other than in your opinion (as always). Philosophers have debated them on both sides for years, and sure some reject them (claiming they have destroyed them), and some don't reject them. yet again, this is simply the ongoing debate as already mentioned - sorry you aren't getting this.

I was not drawing a link between my 2nd last paragraph and your mention of the happiness data at all. I have no issue with that happiness comment btw, because you properly qualified it at the time. The comment was to remind you that the merits or not for the arguments I provided (again only because you pressed for them), were not actually relevant to this posts discussion. Unfortunately, you either didn't grasp that, or did but couldn't resist attacking them anyway.

Cheers, Rich.

Comment 8 (3764) by OJB on 2013-12-14 at 15:56:46:

I have tried to be rational but that often leads to being somewhat harsh to superstition so unfortunately that's just the way it is! :) [see below. I want to "re-boot" this debate]

OK, so some people think religion is true and atheism is nonsense. Let's look at their reasons for doing that and decide how much credibility they have. [again, see below]

I think there are true beliefs but only in the realms of logic and maths (for example, we can prove there are an infinite number of primes). I don't think we can ever be 100% certain about anything in the real world. [yes, see below]

I don't think core religious beliefs, if they exist at all, are well defined. That's why religions splinter into so many sects and that's why people who theoretically believe the same things disagree so much (sometimes to the point of violence).

Yes, the nutters have rejected atheism... they are "nutters", right? I'm guessing you belong to one of the nutty sects (you will never say which one) so your anecdotes are likely to be rather biased!

Many of those arguments have been shown to be faulty, but let's move on to my "re-boot". I think the problem is that we debate several points simultaneously and never get satisfactory answers to one before moving on (maybe I'm guilty of this as much as you). So let me ask you one question here...

What do you think is the best method humans have ever used to discover the truth about the real world (so that is discoveries which can be used to advance technology, medicine, etc). Is it faith, philosophy, science, mythology, fiction,... what?

Comment 9 (3765) by richard on 2013-12-16 at 13:13:25:

OK - As is obvious (I think) from previous posts - I am more than happy to be tolerant with your view of religious belief. We all get it, but it would be helpful if you could accept that simply acknowledging that a real debate exists in the area of religion does nothing to weaken your position regarding it's truth, so there is no need for continual assertions and name calling, (dropping in key words like rational and superstition) especially if your position is a strong as you assert. To quote the old saying 'I think you protest too much'. I do understand though if it makes you feel better. :-)

I will answer your one qn, I agree that it would be easier to stick to one point, and will try to do this. Sorry though, I simply cannot let a few of these last comments go unchallenged though.

The fact that there are a multitude of religious beliefs, (or even how they deal with their differences) tells you nothing about whether any of it (or none of it) is true or not. Time (more info) will tell. This is actually no different to the scientific realm. There is a set of core beliefs which are (now) well accepted (proven to a high degree of certainty, according to scientific method), and others that are still hotly contested. As more information comes to hand, belief passes from the latter camp to the former. All the while, truth (reality) hasn't changed. So I reject this argument for claiming 'no core' belief. Just like science - enough examination (scientific method :) reveals this clearly.

The only reason I never say which particular group (in this blog anyway), is simply to enforce the point that there is absolutely no reason for you to ask, unless you plan to resort to classic genetic fallacy arguments. And sadly, evidence clearly shows this to be the case, because you even suggest in this post that any anecdotal evidence I provide is likely to be biased. Sorry Owen, but can you not see this is completely irrational, given the particular point that was being discussed. That point was specifically and ONLY, 'What reasons did people have for moving from one of the big 4 denominations to what you described as fundamentalist groups'? There are no right or wrong answers to that question wrt 'reality or religion', no reasons for people to be biased in any particular direction? Whatever reasons they give for moving are simply that - their own reasons?! So there is no justification to reject my eye-witness account of their reasons. If they reported differently, I couldn't care less, and would have reported it.

Again - you may even decide the reasons for their decision are somehow 'biased' and/or nutty and that's up to you, but if so, you still fail to see that even that does not affect the validity of the specific truth claim under discussion at all, so is not even a consideration. I am sorry to say it, but your own tendency towards genetic bias is badly exposed with that comment.

Anyway, to reboot as you suggested, and answer your one question.

Specifically wrt YOUR provided definition of the 'real world' which is restricted to ONLY discoveries that which can be used to advance technology, medicine etc) then I suspect we agree that Science is 100% king, and 'absolutely' (lol) the best 'method' humans have ever used to try to discover the truth in this area.

This has always been my belief. So... what now?

Comment 10 (3766) by OJB on 2013-12-16 at 16:22:17:

First, in regard to the points you made before the "re-boot" question...

Science is based on rationality and religion is based on faith, and it is superstitious. Superstition: "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural". Sounds like religion to me!

Actually I think the "debate" in religion does weaken it's truth. In science different theories are tested and generally a consenus is reached. In religion different ideas arise, but they are never tested and discarded, so the changes just keep accumulating. I think this does discredit the whole concept of religion.

I am trying to establish what you really believe and what the source of your worldview is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask which sect you belong to. Have I ever refused to provide any reasonable information about myself? No, because I am prepared to defend my beliefs. You, on the other had, seem to be afraid to, leading me to think it must be one of the nuttiest out there! :)

My point was that people moving from a "conventional" religion to your "nutty" one are going to be a particular type of person so can't be used as any reasonable indicator of the bigger process. If I went to an atheist meeting (I never do) and asked there I would get a completely different answer.

Comment 11 (3767) by OJB on 2013-12-16 at 17:55:51:

So regarding questions about the real world: you think science answers those questions best, yet you still reject one of science's greatest theories for which there is no genuine dispute, and you do so clearly for religious reasons. Why not let religion rule in it's domain (the spiritual, mythological, fake world, call it whatever) and leave science to answer questions about reality. Sort of like, Stephen Jay Gould's, "non-overlapping magisteria."

Oh, and one other thing. If know you think there is a genuine debate about evolution. There isn't. If you think there is then show me the scientific papers, course outline from a mainstream university, etc, which shows the extent of this debate.

Also, here is the next question: if science answers questions about the real world best and has found no evidence for a god at all (if you think it has found some then please cite the papers), that either means god doesn't exist or he has no effect on the real world. So which is it?

Comment 12 (3768) by richard on 2013-12-16 at 18:26:29:

Sigh. I am sure you wouldn't refuse. However, you haven't ever even needed to refuse any reasonable information about yourself, because I already understand the quite simple principle that 'yourself', is never the topic of debate, (your beliefs are) so I don't feel this mis-guided need to ask anything about 'you'. Do you even understand the genetic fallacy as it relates to argument? You can think what you like. I really don't care what you think of me, and I know this is just baiting.

I only care about the fact that once again you have headed in that direction without any real evidence, in fact on the contrary - deliberately ignoring the many previous discussions we've had that have clearly outlined that I belong to a group that holds to classical biblical christian doctrine, (just like the big 4 all used to actually, before they have dropped some of the 'fundamentals'). Also, I have already said on numerous occasions I was happy to answer ANY specific questions about what I believe on any christian doctrinal topic. So, no I am not afraid, I am simply sticking to that principle. If you want to establish what I really believe, then here's a thought -why not just ask. :)

The funny thing is, I don't actually make any secret of what group I belong to, and I am sure it wouldn't be hard to find out elsewhere on the net. Again, I really don't care. My point just here it - it isn't the point, and it's quite remarkable that you continue to not grasp that concept.

It is recognized (internally within Christianity) that there IS a core set of beliefs that define whether you could justifiably claim 'Christian' status, (and still be consistent with the agreed biblical interpretation of the 'early christian church' - from which the big 4 sprang actually). At the other end of the scale there are lots of minor doctrinal issues (or even just church 'traditions and practices') that are in the category of 'totally non significant wrt to heresy'. Most recognizable christian churches simply differ in these minor things. This is simply diversity, which in all other spheres in life, you are quick to celebrate, as it allows people to enjoy their personal preferences.

My 'group' holds to standard christian values like love, charity, and 'being good Samaritans' (though I am not in the Salvation Army - a group I also respect as in a similar category to ours btw). Our group has people from all walks of life, young and old, from the very poor to professionals of all kinds, including University academics, doctors, dentists, architects, lawyers (oh wait... lol) etc. Our group has received multiple awards from NZ's Governor General, and PM, for our efforts in Chch both pre and post earthquake. In fact only yesterday in our very non nutty church service a video snippet was played of John Key thanking our church for its work supporting troubled youth in Christchurch - he visited to inspect our Youth programme just a few weeks ago. I can claim no real personal credit for this btw, and am not saying this for any other reason, than to just say it doesn't sound completely nutty to me.

Of course you would get a different answer from the atheist group about why they moved from one of the Big 4 Theistic churches to Atheism - that's a no brainer and hardly an argument for assuming bias?

Comment 13 (3769) by OJB on 2013-12-16 at 20:14:25:

As a dedicated skeptic I am very aware of the standard informal fallacies, such as the genetic fallacy. I wasn't trying to reject your argument based purely on the church you belong to, I just thought it was relevant to the discussion since it might explain some of your ideas. However, let's just leave that and move on.

I was just saying that the answer you got from people at your church would not be a good representation of the reasons people move from the big traditional churches. However we should move on regarding that as well.

So let's get back to my one question, one answer thread...

Comment 14 (3770) by OJB on 2013-12-16 at 20:57:16:

Equippers Church? Definitely nutty. But if you do some good work too... well good on you. BTW, I am preparing a blog post on this sort of theme (good things about religion) which I'll post probably tomorrow.

Comment 15 (3771) by OJB on 2013-12-17 at 08:03:22:

Just as a reminder, here is the next question: if science answers questions about the real world best and has found no evidence for a god at all (if you think it has found some then please cite the papers), that either means god doesn't exist or he has no effect on the real world. So which is it?

Comment 16 (3773) by richard on 2013-12-17 at 10:40:26:

No, I don't go to Equippers, but I do know some (very nice) people in the Chch group only, hence the FB connections. I agree we can leave that point, but just to offer one last thought, and that is that in christian circles (much like many other groups) it is extremely likely that any particular church that a person might choose go to, has a few 'idea's (or preferences) that you don't fully agree with (or match your own preference). Equippers certainly has this, as does the church I go to (which at the moment is Grace Vineyard - there you go, just to avoid this ongoing guessing nonsense, since I think I have made my genetic point). If you feel compelled you can google them and get their main views, some of which I may not fully agree with - so it doesn't help wrt to 'what I believe'.

The old christian joke goes something like 'If you find the perfect church, don't join it, because you will spoil it', and this humourously reflects the true nature of churches, which being groups of people, will never be perfect - that's another part of the christian world view that completely matches reality.

The point is, that there are a variety of similar churches available to people, all with their own 'flavour' and people are free to choose the one whose flavour currently suits them best, and this may even change at different times in peoples lives. The is a strength, not a weakness.

I still stand by the claim that the core beliefs of these churches are the same wrt to 'christianity'. Clearly, the key ones being (as I am sure you are aware) wrt the person of Jesus Christ, and which of the only three available options for him best fit his stated claims: Madman, Liar, or as He explicitly claimed - God sent to earth. Anyway, as you say, let's leave this line and concentrate on your one question...

Obviously, in order to remain a theist and still be consistent with my absolutely honest belief in the very real value of science, I need to reconcile those two apparently vastly opposing ideas, (as do all thiests).

There are a number of ways this happens. Primarily though, I dispute your assertion that Science has found 'no evidence for God at all'. The majority of those arguments for God I provided earlier have a significant scientific basis, and I personally believe that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence out there. I have previously cited a large list of papers, which you then reject (btw purely using the genetic fallacy, rather than a critical rejection of their actual arguments), and there is also the problem that currently Science by definition, has an underlying philosophy of naturalism, which a-priori denies the possibility of any non material cause. Thus any paper or book even remotely daring to suggest this is usually rejected, as not just bad science but 'non-science'. Having said that, this is slowly changing. Obviously, this is a big part of the ongoing debate. There's plenty of material out there, but it tends to be found in websites that you immediately reject, based purely on source, forgetting the simple principle that the websites with opposing motivation won't publish it. BTW - I fully agree and endorse that Science SHOULD look for natural causes first, rather than a irrational 'god of the gaps' for anything we don't quite understand yet. There is a difference however, when the data actually infers Intelligent agency, rather than natural causes. We should be free to let the evidence speak for itself where ever that leads.

There are a number of other things that need to be said wrt your one question, (to do it justice) but I know we (I) tend to make these posts too long. Cheers, Rich.

Comment 17 (3774) by OJB on 2013-12-17 at 18:06:33:

Grace Vineyard. Seems to be fairly nutty, but I guess if you don't agree with all its beliefs there so no point in going any further. Thanks for finally revealing that. Not really a big deal either way.

The variety of churches is a strength in that it gives variety, but it does weaken the idea of Christian beliefs having any core truth since there is no agreement on anything apart from some banal platitudes such as "we accept Jesus as our saviour". More interesting issues such as was Jesus a god, did he really exist, are the Bible accounts of his life accurate, etc vary greatly from one church to another.

I have challenged you to show me scientific evidence for god. That does not mean in books or on web sites, it means written in credible, peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Books mean very little because anyone can write anything in them without being challenged.

I don't think science has naturalism as a requirement (although some people would disagree). It does have testability as a requirement though. As long as something can be tested it doesn't matter whether it is natural or non-natural (whatever that actually means).

So still waiting for those credible scientific sources showing there is a god...

Comment 18 (3775) by richard on 2013-12-18 at 15:01:32:

LOL - thanks for that kind assessment! I am more than happy to indicate (what is probably somewhat obvious), that the level of my personal disagreement with beliefs as stated on the GV website, would be only in very minor theological or preferential issues, otherwise I would be going somewhere els. This means I must accept your nutty label as charged. I just don't want to give the false impression of being a 'rebel in their camp' simply to avoid your nutty label! :)

Obviously though I have already claimed many times that I think it is entirely defend-able that Christianity has a set of core beliefs, which are a lot more well defined than your vague example. Those 'more interesting' (dare I say fundamental) beliefs may well change from one church to another as you state, but beliefs that fall outside this core set, (termed 'heretical' - to Christianity) would mean that the groups claim to the label 'christian church' would be in dispute. Of course anyone can claim to be called whatever they like. I can claim to be a doctor, but clearly my 'qualifications' do not match a previously agreed set, and thus my claim to that label can be quite straight forwardly contested. In exactly the same way, this is precisely what distinguishes 'christian' groups from others. Clearly The Anglican church cannot legitimately call itself Muslim or vice-versa. This is also what disqualifies churches like the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints) from the Christian label as well, even though they like to suggest otherwise. Of course this has nothing to do with the truth or not of any of these groups, (i.e. they could be right and we could be wrong). Rather it is specifically about their adherence to agreed core 'christian' foundations. So I am obviously not meaning any offence to Mormons at all here, this is after all, precisely in accordance with what their founder believed also.

The primary commonly agreed set of core beliefs wrt Christianity, would be those agreed and documented by the Nicean council around AD325, culminating in the Nicean creed, which provides its declaration of the set of answers to those core questions, and qualify the christian label. No real drama there, at least in terms of the 'core beliefs' claim. You are at liberty to continue to call it all nutty.

I do understand your insistence on peer reviewed scientific references, though I actually disagree with your stand re books and websites, which again borders on the genetic fallacy, making your request a bit of a straw man. Anyone can contribute to the general pool of 'scientific evidence', using any media available to them. You are quite right tho, that what is written must be able to be openly challenged. Then where it actually appears is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific claims being made. Obviously I have no problem with any and all challenges to all claims, just challenges based purely on the 'sources'. I already know your opposing views on this though.

Science itself, has no 'personality' of its own - it is merely an agreed framework (or creed ;-) that is predicated on a philosophy of science, and is just something 'done' by like minded people - (just like churches actually). So in that respect, there are no absolutes either. (not referring to truth here, but philosophy of science). There can be complete disagreement in the community about what particular endeavours can claim the label 'scientific' to allow inclusion in your required list. ID being just one obvious example, which you assert is non science so do not allow any ID related papers. I however prefer to remain open minded and place ID in the same category as other forensic sciences (like Archaeology, CSI, and in fact the basic assessments we all make every day) that use already accepted scientific method to attempt to determine the inference of intelligent involvement in artifacts of the distant or near past. Is that straight line of cloud in the sky likely to be caused by the wind, or is an aeroplane a REASONABLE explanation? Are artifacts like Stonehenge or Mount Rushmore, likely to be a freak accident of weather, or is it REASONABLE to assume is the result of agency? What about the Universe, or the first living cell? Same qn applies. There is nothing non-scientific about this endeavour, until you start (illegally) bringing in questions of motivation, which is irrelevant to the qn. I have no doubt that there will be some ID papers that should be challenged and found wanting, but similarly, I find some intriguing, and some quite compelling.

Likewise, the other 'problem' is that 'God' - according to the christian world view of course - is a non-material personality, that has chosen for reasons we don't have any right to know - not to declare himself using giant neon signs in the sky. Of course Christian Theology provides reasons for this too, but admittedly anyone is free to dismiss those as 'rather convenient' as well.

So it is quite simply outside the realm of scientific method to 'see' such obvious signs, making your request a difficult one. Obviously if it was that easy, it would have been done by now. But this does not dismiss the possibility, only makes it a more difficult task to 'prove'. However, many theists acknowledge the presence of 'intelligent signatures' in many natural artifacts, (like every living cell as one example, or the incredibly fine-tuned universe as another, or the presence of other non-material artifacts like objective morality - which I know you don't agree exists, or rationality itself, which is hard to defend under a purely material universe) and would suggest that any of the vast multitude of scientific papers that examine these artifacts, in fact point to an 'inference' of an appropriately powerful intelligence, even while they are not usually published if they choose to conclude the paper with - 'thus God exists'.

Comment 19 (3776) by OJB on 2013-12-18 at 20:00:32:

Yeah, well, I think "nutty" is a relatively kind insult. Sort of like saying your elderly eccentric uncle is a bit odd, you know: not dangerous, just a bit weird! :)

You're saying the core beliefs of Christianity were created by a bureaucratic committee? Really? Wow, I'm so inspired!

You can accuse me of the genetic fallacy all you like - I mean is this the latest defence Christians use when they are backed into a corner or something? Sheesh! It is true though: books mean very little, science is accomplished through peer-reviewed journals. You work at a university. Go and ask some of the researchers.

I agree that science has a set of rules, or beliefs, or procedures. The differences between this and others are important though: first, they make sense (hypothesise, test, report, review, re-test, refine, repeat); second, science gets real results (mainly through technology).

In fact ID papers were published and quickly shown to be false. If any further real research was done on the subject it could be published, but there is nothing there, it's just nonsense, so the ID supporters know there's no point.

The appearance of design in nature is a well known phenomenon, but if you look at the details you will see this apparent design is clearly not the result of intelligence. If new evidence is found against this conclusion it can be published and reviewed by experts. The conspiracy theory that ID is being repressed by science is just an excuse for its lack of credibility.

God might be non-material but if he has any effect on the world at all (answering prayers, guiding evolution, etc) then that can be tested. If he has no effect on the universe at all then he simply doesn't exit. I ask again: so which is is?

Comment 20 (3777) by richard on 2013-12-20 at 22:16:19:

To be precise, I'm not saying the beliefs were 'created' by a committee, they were compiled and documented by committee, to at least avoid some level of confusion. Surely you are not suggesting that 'statements of belief about the real-world' (which is of course what they are by their reckoning) must be declared un-inspiring simply because they were documented by committee. What does that do to all scientific knowledge? Scientists didn't 'create' the beliefs either, they simply documented reality and agreed to it by committee.

It didn't occur to me that I was backed into a corner? But even if this was the case, then I don't see how it is possible to use the genetic fallacy as a defence?! It is a simple description of the practice of avoiding the actual debate in question by instead dis-crediting the source. It is easily (scientifically) testable and detectable and also is easily avoided by instead answering the questions posed in the 'books' and letting people make up their own minds. In the same way then, the practice of using it as a lame defense is also just as easily detectable.

As for the conspiracy theory idea. It's an easy claim to make, except that there are easily documented cases of such repression. e.g. this or this or this.

As said before, why even do this, in a University setting, unless you are scared that the information actually has enough credibility to 'mis-lead' University level students?

Sneaky, inclusion of 'guiding evolution' in there. Of course, I have mentioned before why 'Theistic evolution' is non-sensical, so I wouldn't expect to see any evidence for this. Evolution is 'by definition' a completely physicalistic explanation, requiring no need to include Intelligence at all.

As for the rest - You have simply described the on-going debate that has been going on about all along. Nothing new here.

Comment 21 (3778) by OJB on 2013-12-21 at 09:47:34:

The beliefs were "selected" by various committees. For example, the gospels in the Bible were selected from many possibilities. This changed the "beliefs" significantly. And yes, from a purely emotional perspective (and emotion is what religion is all about) I do find it uninspiring. And science doesn't use a committee structure in any way similar to the case we are describing.

Clearly I don't think I am using the genetic fallacy. I am using the origin of beliefs to help understand why they exist, not making a simple condemnation of them based on who made them. Get over the genetic fallacy thing, would you.

These are cases where someone wants to talk about religion in a science class and is told not to. And please keep away from creationist sites. Can you try to get your news from the mainstream instead. Is your whole world centered on this garbage? Sheesh. No wonder you're so nutty! :)

Not sure what the last 3 paragraphs mean but we are drifting into multiple debate streams again anyway. Can we get back to the original question...

You said science is the best way to study the real world. I asked for citations of the scientific papers showing a god exists. You didn't show me any. I suggested that means either god doesn't exist or he has no influence on the real world. Then you got distracted. So which is it...

Comment 22 (3779) by OJB on 2013-12-21 at 11:34:41:

Sorry to introduce another slight diversion here, but have you ever thought about this: my worldview is supported by mainstream sources, but you have to go to grossly biased religious sources like the Discovery Institute.

For example, I hear items on NZ's national radio broadcaster (Radio NZ National) which support my perspective all the time. The only time I remember hearing a creationist (or ID believer or whatever) he was treated as a bit of a joke (and rightly so).

Either mainstream media are part of some huge conspiracy, or they have all got it horribly wrong (and are incorrectly ignoring creationism), or your worldview is fantasy. I wonder which it is?

Comment 23 (3780) by richard on 2013-12-21 at 20:09:51:

Come on - you are talking nonsense now. Give me a break. All I did is provide a reasoned response to a particular statement you made that 'ID being repressed by science was merely a conspiracy theory', and I showed you some straight forward articles that happened to provide clear examples of exactly that. Do you seriously dispute those particular facts as presented?

You strangely seem incapable of grasping the concept that lots of people (completely dishonestly BTW) label ID as 'creationism' and/or religion, soley in order that it can be disallowed in a 'science' class, whereas the truth is that ID of itself, is purely an exercise in 'intelligence detection' using the same scientific method that is used in all sorts of other scientific areas (as above) and so it cannot be 'blamed' if there are any downstream philosophical implications. ID proponents are very clear in their literature that such implications (or motivations) are not at all in scope of the ID process itself, so it is simply intellectual dishonesty to disregard that.

Please tell me what is 'religious' about suggesting there is evidence to infer that something is designed, rather than a product of natural causes? That is ALL that ID does, and nothing more. There is no difference in principle to showing how the same evidence used to examine the specified complexity that occurs in a jet trail in the sky, (or in all our blog posts), and infers they are the product of design (which is clearly scientific fact), than discussing how similar evidence also applies to DNA in the same way. Nothing 'religious' about that at all. ID does nothing to consider any resulting religious implications.

Have you ever thought about this: Of course it is no surprise that it would be religiously motivated groups that would recognise those implications, and thus be the only groups prepared to support and promote ID, as opposed to atheist groups who clearly wouldn't do that. Or also that once the truth of the evidence is understood by people, that in many cases those implications actually cause those people to become religious. What a shocker, but hardly the fault of the ID itself.

Furthermore, even if SOME people like yourself refuse to accept all this, even THAT does nothing to change the fact that it is STILL an opposing view to the standard models being discussed in these tertiary level classes, and so there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving students the right to hear about it, ( and of course dismiss it, as you should expect students at a tertiary level to do). This is called Academic Freedom, and the fact that groups are prepared to deny that freedom, begs the question as to why they are so scared to do so, when they are so confident of their own position on the issue.

As for the original question - I have already stated I don't accept your limited options regarding scientific papers as stated, (and gave a number of reasons why). For example, you can take your pick of ANY mainstream article that talks about how their observations have the 'appearance of design'. I accept you disagree with all that. I think that's why we are done on this one.

Comment 24 (3781) by OJB on 2013-12-22 at 10:20:39:

Talking nonsense? A group wanted to introduce a course based on a religious belief which used a text book which has been completely discredited. Another group objected and the course was stopped. If the report is true and unbiased (highly unlikely on a site dedicated to creationism) then the tactics were questionable but nothing more.

ID is creationism and religious. From Wikipedia: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism presented by its proponents..." (there are three references. Have a look). It isn't science and it is you who has has been deceived by deeply dishonest groups like the DI.

The idea that there might be a design element in nature is fine, but that's not what ID is and that's not what the DI does. They are cheats and liars who use what superficially looks like a reasonable argument to push their sick religious beliefs.

Science is prepared to investigate intelligence and did when the original ID papers by Dembski were submitted. They were discredited and now religious groups have taken over the concept purely to push their own ideology. That's why it is rejected by practically every scientific group in the world.

It is not an opposing view, it is a religion, and has no place in science. If there was any science indicating design in nature then it would be discussed, but there isn't.

So you originally said science supports god yet you have zero evidence supporting this apart from a few books written by creationists. I think your credibility is about the same as ID's: zero.

Comment 25 (3782) by OJB on 2013-12-22 at 11:17:46:

I think I see the problem here. You need to state what would need to happen to convince you that ID wasn't a real scientific theory.

I can tell you what I would need to convince me that it is: a significant (yes, vague I know) number of papers, which haven't been discredited, supporting it published in respected journals.

Now, your turn: what would convince you that it's not science? My guess is nothing. I have already shown you that it is rejected by almost every scientific body, that the papers that were published have been refuted, and that even it's Wikipedia entry says it's creationism. What more can you ask for? Nothing, I suspect, because you are blinded by your religious ideology.

Comment 26 (3784) by richard on 2013-12-22 at 21:10:46:

Thanks for the second comment Owen, which was much more reasoned than the first, which was precisely as expected (coming from a site dedicated to atheism). wink.

I am confused though - What sick religious beliefs do they (DI) push, other than an inference of design, using what you have just suggested looks at least superficially like a reasonable argument? I don't see anything, but a determined opposition to materialism, but that of course IS the scientific hypothesis on the table, so that cannot be called dishonest?

Interestingly, I can also see now a possible distinction in definitions here too, that might be significant? Remembering here that I am honestly trying to keep any religious implications out of this particular thread (other than noting they might exist on occasion), and stick to looking at the ID/Science qn itself here. And I wish to answer your question as honestly as I can - having no motivation at all to make stuff up.

I totally understand and accept that there is plenty of opposition to the particular conclusions that ID arrives at, but I would suggest this does not justify a 'non science' label. There are scientific debates happening all the time, where there are two opposing opinions at odds on some issue, but that a debate occurs does not make one view or the other 'non-science'. One view will of course turn out to be matching reality, and one will not, but that IS science in action.

So are you actually asking, what would it take me to believe it is not SCIENCE, or what would it take me to believe it's not TRUE? Those are actually two different questions. In my defence of ID as science, I wasn't arguing (at that point) for its truth.

So - My honest answer is I believe I would find it much harder to be convinced it is not science, than I would to be convinced it isn't true. This is because I honestly struggle to see why it is not science (as in 'a scientific endeavour') as described previously (like other endeavours of design detection). This has nothing to do with whether it 'gets the answer right' or not). To convince me otherwise, I would need to see a reasoned and detailed explanation of the lack of scientific method used by ID proponents to gather the data, access the data and draw its conclusions. To date, I haven't seen that AT ALL from the opposition - all I have ever seen, is only determined attempts to dismiss it as science BECAUSE of its radical conclusions. I am happy for you to provide examples from peer reviewed journals only of course that show otherwise.

As for the second qn (of what would it take me to convince me it isn't true), I have stated before, that I do not think I am 'blinded by religious ideology', having no reason to deny what I see as the best explanation of reality. If I saw that the same way you did, then I believe I'd have no trouble at all rejecting my ideology. But of course, you have already denied my ability to reason like that as a possibility. I can only repeat it, in the hope that you allow for some benefit for at very least my 'delusion' of non-bias (LOL).

To date, I just haven't seen information from your side of the debate, that convinces me that you have a slam dunk in your favour wrt to the ID question. There is absolutely NO evidence to date (unless you can point me to some legitimate peer reviewed research), that provides examples of true specified complexity, that does NOT have a design origin. I don't know what could be more conclusive!

Remembering that this is just one of the many areas of scientific debate, around atheism vs theism, where both world views have a responsibility to satisfactorily answer ALL these areas in full. Of course they are all complex, so all have varying degrees of 'uncertainty' in them, and they have bit's that still could do with 'better answers' (on both sides). But when you take ALL these into consideration, (to quote the old saying) 'I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist'. If you must label that as 'religious ideology' then do it if it makes you feel better. I claim that this is no less a conclusion from reason, that would be applied to any of the individual questions, like ID.

Comment 27 (3787) by OJB on 2013-12-22 at 22:01:39:

OK, you have told me science is the best way to establish objective truth about the real world but science disproves your beliefs. You think the DI practices science where I have shown you in multiple ways that it doesn't. You have failed to back up your claim that science supports god. You have no credibility. Please stop making claims you cannot support with facts. You live in a religious fantasy world where absurd ideas somehow make sense. Good luck with that...

Comment 28 (3788) by OJB on 2013-12-22 at 22:06:46:

And here's another point (I hope that by using different approaches one might get through to you). If the DI is an unbiased, scientific, non-religious organisation, please tell me how many atheists work there. Then compare that with the number of Christians who work in science.

Comment 29 (3789) by OJB on 2013-12-22 at 22:08:59:

And please explain the list of scientific organisations which reject ID here.

Comment 30 (3794) by richard on 2013-12-23 at 10:38:59:

Did you even read my post? It's hardly worth commenting, if you are simply going to continue to ignore what is supposed to be a reasonable discussion Owen. Clearly, we are right back where we started. There are lots of people that do not think science disproves these beliefs at all, this is just assertion on your part. I have described how to approach thousands of existing papers with a more open mind. By all means you are welcome to disagree, but that disagreement is not proving your point at all.

Sorry, but I don't see anywhere where you showed me in multiple ways that DI does not practice science?! I don't see where you showed me even one way! You showed me people merely asserting that claim because they don't like its conclusions. BTW - Do I really need to point out the distinction within the multiple streams that exist in the DI, (some which are more religiously oriented) and the 'Science and Culture' stream, which concentrates purely on areas of Science, with which it has its particular opinion. Again - no surprises there. I don't have any particular interest in their other streams, and no one else is obligated to either, in order to freely access their Science related stuff. This is all very clearly explained in the FAQ for the CSC Stream here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

Comment 28? The FAQ above does point out that some members of the DI are agnostic, but come on - use some common sense - Why would many atheists want to work for an organisation that promotes an idea that has implications against their world view. That qn is completely pointless and just plain bad logic. You may as well ask how many vegans work in a freezing works. I already asked you to show me exactly where they promote religion in their articles that are dedicated to ID - you haven't.

Comment 29? Again happy to explain, but what's the point - you clearly are not going to accept anything I offer. I encourage all readers with a fair mind to closely assess the specific claims made against ID by those organisations against the CSC FAQ, with specific attention to the section entitled: Qns about Science Education Policy.

I think the key point is that most of these organisations statements are opposed to the teaching of ID 'as fact' in science classes, in opposition to the current paradigm (evolution). I have no problem at all with that objection either, and neither does the DI, as stated unambiguously in the above mentioned section. It merely suggests (quote): "Although Discovery Institute does NOT advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in a pedagogically appropriate manner." (emphasis added)

Secondly, this list (mostly, but not always) concentrates on the 2nd qn (whether it's true) by claiming the 'overwhelming consensus regarding evo, rather than whether it is Science. I note that some do also make that claim however.

On that note, I find many of the statements made by those organisations quite remarkably lacking in scientific judgement. For example the AGU states: "Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory"

Why is this INFERRENCE untestable, at least with some degree?! If that is the criteria, then the AGU also must dismiss all other historical sciences such as Archaeology, which seems quite happy with its available tests to infer now non detectable designers, on far less complex historical artifacts. That ID proposes to provide such tests is the whole point of the debate, so merely a-priori claiming untestable is both circular, and damaging to many other areas of science, is is just pain wrong.

Others make the ridiculous (actually outrageous) claim that the mere suggestion of design is a 'science stopper'! Man that in itself is just bad science as this is demonstrably false. Most of the greatest advances in modern science where contributed by scientists who were Ok with a design inference behind their observations, in fact it was what prompted their scientific investigations. This is also plain nonsense.

So yes - I say we should by all means look closely at this list, and examine it's statements and claims carefully, with appropriate academic rigour, and compare it to the CSC FAQ and make up your own mind. To quote you - good luck with that...

And with that, I'll leave you to have the last word on this thread - It clearly isn't going anywhere further.

Comment 31 (3795) by OJB on 2013-12-23 at 11:15:09:

I think you're bluffing because when I ask for these papers you can't provide any. So I will ask again, can you provide a paper which hasn't been discredited and is published in a reputable journal which gives scientific evidence for thinking there is a god.

DI is the Discovery Institue right? The organisation described as being creationist in Wikipedia? Does that sound like science to you? Also, where are their published papers? Again, I think you're bluffing.

Why would ID have implications for an atheist's world view? The intelligence does not need to be a god, does it? Or maybe it does... especially if ID is a religion and not science!

So you brush off the criticism those respected organisations have and believe the FAQ of a creationist organisation instead. Sorry but you are obviously determined to be ignorant. I will also leave others to evaluate how unbiased you are on this topic.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with a scientific discussion of design. It would involve showing how design can seem to exist when natural processes are acting on the organism. And that happens. What people do object to is the propaganda the DI and others want to use instead, such as their misleading so-called textbooks.

Actually I think I partly agree with your criticism of the AGU statement. But I think what they were trying to say is that there is no objective way to say when something is too complex. The ID crowd have already tried that trick with the bacterial flagellum and the eye and have been shown wrong in both cases.

You're right: this is going nowhere. Anyone who believes the propaganda on a creationist site and ignores the commentary of the world's major scientific organisations clearly actually wants to be ignorant. I see this all the time with believers. They have their own little world with its own web sites and other propaganda sources isolated form reality. Unfortunate, really.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.