<"Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28). We now realize that the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998).">

Let me approach this from another angle. As a Christian I must of course refuse to believe that the physical universe somehow created itself, and that life arose spontaneously from non-life. Does that bar me from studying any aspect of nature and seeking to understand it? Or must I first sign on to "life from non-life" before I can discover or understand anything?

For example, I don't believe that Ambulocetus "evolved into whales." In addition to being against my religious beliefs, I find the Darwinian argument totally unconvincing. But would that mean I can't dig up and publish a description of an Ambulocetus skeleton?

Do I know why Ambulocetus is found only in Tertiary rocks? No. Can I explain why this animal doesn't exist now? Can't do that, either. So my mind remains open on the subject, and I keep studying. At no point do I give in to Neal DeGrasse Tyson's diktat that "the science is settled, debate is over, and anyone who doesn't toe the Darwinist line (except for a credentialed mathematician, physicist, botanist, or any other kind of real scientist: we just don't talk about that) is a primitive idiot and should just shut up."

Moving on to your example: Yes, I would agree that "Bob" is a bigot (and probably works for a Canadian "human rights" commission). But it is possible that Bob might be just plain misinformed. He might have gone to public school. Maybe I could even convince Bob that he's wrong; and he might change his mind.

I suggest that many scientists are either just plain wrong, or else have let the wrong people speak for them. (The latter seems increasingly probable.)

I used to believe in Evolution. Why? Because that was what I received. No one ever questioned it. Once the questions started coming, I couldn't hang on to Darwinism.

I'm sure someone will demand of me, "Then why do you believe in Christianity? Isn't it because that's what you received? Won't you lose your faith, once the questions start?"

I appreciate your honesty in prefixing your views by saying "As a Christian ..." and in stating that your views are influenced by faith. I have no problem with you taking such a position (even though I may disagree with parts of it).

As I've stated many times, may main point here is that the battle between Christians and Science, in which Christians accuse the majority of scientists of being dishonest, is wrong. It is a false accusation -- something that Christians, above all, should be very reluctant to do. This battle has done great harm to the reputation of Christianity throughout history and up to this day.

My "Bob" example was to point out this fallacy: Person A assumes he "knows" what Person B's motives are, and that those motives are evil. Person A then attacks Person B based on those assumed evil motives -- even though Person B denies that those are his motives. This is basically a variant of the "Straw Man Fallacy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_...).

I was hoping to use the "Bob" illustration to make Christians aware that they often are like "Bob" with respect to scientists.

We can suppose (as you suggest) that Bob is just misinformed. But if you try to convince him that he is wrong about your motives, and he *still* insists he knows your motives better than you, then he is just being arrogant. Unfortunately, Christians are often arrogant in likewise manner to scientists.

BTW, there will of course be a few scientist who have their own bias against religion, and they will, in the name of science, make statements that assert their personal conclusions. Frankly, I think this reflects badly on science. Don't mistake their conclusions for the conclusions of science itself. The realm of science itself (natural understanding) does not intersect with the realm of religion (divine understanding).

I will try to answer your questions:

<As a Christian I must of course refuse to believe that the physical universe somehow created itself, and that life arose spontaneously from non-life.>

Fine. But, as a Christian, do you need to accuse others of dishonesty if they disagree with you? Or can you be open to the idea that an *honest* person might have a different view, which would be perfectly viable if one didn't assume your Christian view?

For example, a scientist (who doesn't assume the Christian view), might ask: "Why must we assume the universe was 'created' anyway? Why can't it be eternal?" Do such questions imply dishonesty?

<Does that bar me from studying any aspect of nature and seeking to understand it? Or must I first sign on to "life from non-life" before I can discover or understand anything?>

Not at all. But if you are a scientist, then you are *by profession* searching for a natural explanation for life. This search presupposes that a natural explanation exists.

A scientist might give this answer to you:

"Life from nonlife does seem incredible, and yet because we know that there is life today, and because we believe there once was a time when there was no life on earth, that *somehow* life did come from nonlife. As scientists, it's our job to try to find a natural explanation for this. It's a daunting task, but science has had remarkable success is the past with daunting tasks. Does it bother you that we try?"

As a what I would still describe as Christian I am momentarily questioning several cornerstones that constituted a large portion of the foundation *for* my faith, and likely *of* my faith. Semantics, but very important to make a distinction (there's faith, and "faith" - but the english language doesn't allow immediate transparant distinction), between the gut feeling that runs deeper than anything else, and the irrepressible urge to search even deeper and allow those "foundations" to get severely shaken and bruised... I can only come out stronger, possibly not wiser in the short term.

Your point about honesty.

I have problems with your A vs Bee-ish ;) way of positioning one against the other, and run the risk of generalizing. That's why I appreciate the way in which you keep asking for your partner in conversation's personal opinion. I can assure you I personally didn't recognize myself in the positioning.

We can not look however into eachother's souls (eye-contact is one important source of information that eludes us on message boards like this), though we can identify a fraud when it pokes one in the eye, and then we apply our set of values and norms; what is acceptible and what is not. Make sure to not navigate blindly on media accounts and triple verify everything, minimum.

Personally I feel that among Christians there is more ignorance and dyshonesty than I dare to believe, but in no way could I perform an educated specific guess about the percentages and numbers.

What I do know is that scientists from every - and I mean every - background are no more inclined to dyshonesty than any other person from any other profession or walk of life. Integrity is a rare and independent quality that needs to be trained, honed and developed every day of our lives. If you are a scientist it can blossom or become corrupted in/to equally surprising ways/extents.

<I have problems with your A vs Bee-ish ;) >

I agree, and I pointed out myself at one point that it isn't that simple. And yet, in a debate of this nature, there is a balance between being getting your point across (which requires simplicity) and being perfectly precise (which calls for verboseness).

I thought that for the sake of the point I was trying to make, the A vs. B sufficed. :-)

<Personally I feel that among Christians there is more ignorance and dyshonesty than I dare to believe>

Again, I tend to agree. I find that Christians sometimes have the attitude that "I'm on God's side, so I can't be wrong". That attitude discourages learning, and produces a sort of pridefulness or overconfidence.

<Daunting challenge indeed. But dammit precisely the one worth living for.>

And he has made the world firm,
not to be moved.
Your throne stands firm from of old;
from everlasting you are, O LORD.

Your decrees are worthy of trust indeed:
holiness befits your house,
O LORD, for length of days.
The Lord is king; he is robed in majesty.

But remember that "God complexes" appear mostly in medicine, miracle doctors, and scientists, revealers of miracles... ;)

<<I have problems with your A vs Bee-ish ;) >

I might just barely have the audacity. ;-)

Alleluia.
Glorify the LORD with me,
let us together extol his name.
I sought the LORD, and he answered me
and delivered me from all my fears.
<The Lord hears the cry of the poor.

<YouRang: BTW, there will of course be a few scientist who have their own bias against religion, and they will, in the name of science, make statements that assert their personal conclusions.>

You give up too easily. :-)

I thought the context made the distinction clear, but since you think there is an inconsistency on my part, I will clarify. But I wonder if you will really make a sincere effort to see my point of view?

~~~~

The <few scientists> is a reference to a small minority of who make it a point to hit the media with claims like "Science has proved that there is no god" (or other such claims of absolute certainty).

These claims actually reflect the personal religious (typically atheist) views of the scientist, not the views of science. In this sense, they are dishonest.

FOR COMPARISON: These scientists are as biased as the "creation scientists" who claim that science supports miraculous explanations, and that these miraculous explanations happen to be just like the ones recorded in their favored holy book, according to their interpretation.

~~~~

The <most scientists> refers to the vast majority who devote their time to understanding nature. And even though they represent a wide variety of religions (including atheists and Christians), they all understand that their views about God shouldn't place boundaries on their scientific work, and that their scientific work doesn't prove anything about God.

FOR COMPARISON: These scientists are as unbiased as the Christian who believes the Bible, and has reason to see it as truth from a divine perspective, subject to the limitations of fallible human interpretation. This Christian accepts that science is looking for truth from a different, strictly natural perspective, and is thus no threat to Christianity.

If at some point in time, science reaches a view that differs from this Christian's interpretation of the Bible, this Christian has a choice:

(1) Allow that his/her interpretation may be wrong (as has happened in the past, e.g. geocentrism). This might even give insight to an interpretation richer than the the original. Another possibility to consider is that the Bible is not inerrant.

(2) Allow that scientists haven't seen the whole picture yet, and appreciate that their task is very difficult. Scientists can make mistakes -- after all, they are only human too. No reason to assume dishonesty is behind it.

The angel of the LORD encamps
around those who fear him, and delivers them.
Taste and see how good the LORD is;
blessed the man who takes refuge in him.
<The Lord hears the cry of the poor.

I don't get what you mean by that.

<<operative: There are no contradictions in the Bible. It all depends on your perspective>

No it doesn't. There are many clear unambiguous contradictions. John says the last supper was not a passover feast, the other gospels say quite explicitly that it was. There are no two ways about it.>

Now, it does bother me if some of my tax money goes to the Nat'l Academy of Sciences and the president of that body contemptuously trashes my religious beliefs.

But if someone wants to presuppose that life originated spontaneously from non-life, and then try to understand the history of life on earth according to that paradigm... it only bothers me to the extent that I believe his presupposition to be totally in error, which makes it unlikely that he will ever arrive at the truth of anything he studies. Which, of course, is exactly what he would say about me.

But that doesn't make him wicked or dishonest--just wrong.

Furthermore, I have no idea how to convince him that he's wrong. I used to hold those beliefs, and I don't anymore. Losing them was a very, very gradual process. It wasn't like somebody slapped a Bible down in front of me and said, "Read this! In a day or two, you'll be a Christian." I always envy people who have experiences like that.

No--all I can do is to proceed slowly and patiently, and be as gentle with people as I can: because I'm not a great theologian or a great evangelist, and I don't have the answers at my fingertips. I doubt very much that anything I could say would ever make the least impression on someone like Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher. But even St. Paul couldn't convert everybody. St. Matthew records that when the resurrected Christ ascended to heaven, "some doubted."

You didn't quite give the scientist a yes/no answer, but at least your answer wasn't: "Yes, it bothers me because you and anyone else who says they want to explore how life might emerge from nonlife is a liar."

In fact, you agree seem to agree that if a scientist engages in such study, that doesn't in itself imply that he/she has evil or dishonest intent. Hopefully, you would also agree that it doesn't imply that they are stupid.

Now, you have your reasons (religious, intuition, whatever) for believing that the scientist will fail. You even believe that there is an underlying evil related to science (I assume because it is strictly natural, or the fact that some people use it in their reasoning to reject Christianity). And yet, I gather that you respect the fact that those reasons need not place boundaries on what the *scientist* is willing to consider.

If this is an accurate statement of your view, then I ask you to go no further. My point is that there is then no basis for accusing the scientist of dishonesty (or stupidity).

BTW, as I mentioned above, it is true that some people use science as a reason to reject Christianity. I would make the following points about that:

1. You still have to respect that it's their decision to make.

2. Creation scientists types often imply that the credibility of the Bible is dependent on the their interpretation of Genesis. In other words, they are saying "Either accept our view of Genesis, or reject the Bible". Given this choice, a lot of honest people who refuse to buy into the "conspiracy of evil scientists" idea, will turn away.

<But if someone wants to presuppose that life originated spontaneously from non-life, ... >

I don't think that scientists would describe his presupposition to include the word "spontaneously". It is too suggestive, as if one day a living cell came forth from a pile of chemicals and a lightning bolt. ;-)

In fact, at this level (and again, without religious input) scientists don't have a firm definition of exactly what constitutes "life". We all seem to know of things that are definitely alive and of things that are definitely not alive, but what exactly is the boundary between these two definite states? How could the transition between these states take place, and how long would it take? (Again, I know you think such questions are moot, but the scientist needs to take them seriously.)

<Now, it does bother me if some of my tax money goes to the Nat'l Academy of Sciences and the president of that body contemptuously trashes my religious beliefs. >

Well, that's another matter. Without a doubt, your tax money goes to all sorts of things you dislike. Mine likewise. Perhaps you can find some gratification in knowing the the president of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences pays taxes that support things that he dislikes. :-\

<No--all I can do is to proceed slowly and patiently, and be as gentle with people as I can: because I'm not a great theologian or a great evangelist, and I don't have the answers at my fingertips.>

And evidently, it is similar to the old TV show in that critics are trying to figure out why it's so popular. Without bias, I would suggest that the butler did it. ;-)

(Although having Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwirth in it can't hurt.)