I’ve previously written about Physicist Eric Hedin and the censorship he faced at Ball State University, so this post is a follow-up to the ongoing saga. I admit it’s a little lengthy, but thorough.
Militant atheists came after Hedin and forced the college to shut down his classes because he was accused of teaching religion in the classroom.
Censorship is a serious thing because it only allows for the strongest voice to be heard at the expense of dissenting views. All others must be silenced. In this way the truth can be suppressed in order to preserve a favored viewpoint.
In the case of Hedin, Ball State University approved the course and its description, which was titled, The Boundaries of Science. The university intended to have a course delve into larger, societal issues and implications. Thus Hedin engaged students by asking philosophical questions, such as how human significance fits in relation to natural processes. Students weren’t caught off guard by the content of the course because the course description was quite clear: “In this course, we will examine the nature of the physical and the living world with the goal of increasing our appreciation of the scope, wonder, and complexity of physical reality. We will also investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life.”
So students were free to decide if this was something they were interested in. And despite the larger implications of the course, it was grounded in science. So when Hedin asked, “What is the meaning of our existence?” Or, “Can science explain everything?” Or “Are there limits to what science can explain?” students responded positively and appreciated the opportunity to discuss these questions.
But when atheist Jerry Coyne got hold of the course syllabus, he accused Hedin of teaching religion in the classroom, and with the help of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the media, they effectively pressured the university into canceling the course. Hedin was never given a legitimate opportunity to defend himself. It was a one-sided, unjust and biased attack.
Despite being censored, Hedin eventually received tenure at Ball State and wrote a book about the ordeal. And as a result of the publicity, Hedin was interviewed by The College Fix and made this quote, which has become controversial: “Honestly, as a physicist I would be willing to say the physical reality chance of life originating on its own by natural processes within this universe is zero, not just low.”
Of course this did not sit well with Coyne, who took the interview personally and reacted with indignation, writing a counter response. And when I read his response, I wasn’t shocked by anything he wrote, but was genuinely amused at how wrong he was… about everything. He doesn’t get Hedin or intelligent design. At all. Therefore, I thought a critique of Coyne’s response was in order. But there was so much to criticize. Where to start? How about the title of his letter: Why Evolution is True.
One problem with the title is that Coyne is an atheist, and, according to atheism, no one can be certain of what truth is. Consider, if one believes humans are an unintended accident or byproduct of nature, and our brains are made up of chemical interactions brought about by chance, then who’s to say our concept of reality is accurate, or our brains can ascertain truth? That would be presumptuous. What our brains perceive to be true may not be true at all. Truth, therefore, becomes personal- or relative.
Christians, however, believe God created people in his image, and he created us with a mind capable of perceiving truth and reality. Thus, if something is true, then we can investigate and understand it. If something is true, it’s true independent of whether or not we believe it. Something is either true, or it’s not. Thus, human beings are capable of knowing and perceiving truth.
Therefore, Coyne is being inconsistent to atheism if he thinks his mind can perceive truth. He must actually borrow from a Christian worldview in order to claim that evolution is true. Yet he never does provide a single shred of evidence as to “Why evolution is true”. I, however, would argue that evolution is false, and the evidence bears this out, as I will explain later when I get to the “boundaries of science”.
Coyne summarizes Hedin’s argument as, “there is zero chance that life originated through natural processes, so God must have been responsible.” It’s understandable Coyne would take issue with Hedin’s claim that there’s zero chance life originated on its own by natural processes. Fine. But Coyne wrongly misrepresents Hedin by accusing him of a faulty conclusion he never made. Just because there is zero chance life originated by natural processes doesn’t necessarily mean God was the one who designed life (He did). Someone else could claim the designer was aliens, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But Hedin never made this error. Shame on Coyne.
Coyne goes on to make more false claims and misrepresentations. For instance, he states, “I discovered that Hedin was teaching a general science class to nonmajors that not only promoted intelligent design, but religion itself.” Hedin, however, never mentioned intelligent design in his class, didn’t teach religion, and made it quite clear that he was teaching science and physics. It was the implications of science that gave students a chance to draw their own conclusions, and I think that’s what Coyne didn’t like.
Hedin, for example, asked students if there are limits to natural processes and what nature can do. Surely asking such questions is not the same thing as teaching intelligent design or religion. And if one disagrees, then those atheist professors who openly, blatantly and repetitively attack Christianity would also be in violation. But although students said this happened all the time, none of those professors were censored.
Next Coyne cries, “That was a violation of the Constitution, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation and I informed the school’s President that they were breaking the law.”
What I’m about to write may be controversial to some, but what Coyne said is NOT true. Hedin did NOT violate the Constitution or break any law. He had every right to teach his course as he did. He was not teaching religion… but even if he were, I would argue that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the teaching of religion. What the Constitution does prohibit is congress establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore, if Hedin really was teaching religion, then prohibiting his free exercise was the real violation of the Constitution. Just my humble opinion.
But even if one believes in separation of church and state- as Coyne does, then, once again, there are atheist professors guilty of proselytizing students, and Coyne appears content with that violation of the Constitution, which is inconsistent and hypocritical. All professors should be held to the same standard, including those who try to convince students there is no God.
Triumphantly, Coyne declares, “Hedin’s class was ditched, as it should have been.” No, it shouldn’t have been “ditched”. Students who took the class profited from it and learned more than had they not taken the class, and many of them- including some atheist students- came to Hedin’s defense. It’s truly Coyne’s ignorance that enables him to make such remarks.
Coyne says, “I didn’t want him teaching creationism as science.” More pure ignorance. What Hedin was teaching was not creationism. He was merely pointing out the implications of naturalism. If that is considered “teaching creationism”, then naturalism should not be taught either because it implies there is no God or god(s). Teaching naturalism, thus, constitutes teaching religion, and that would be a violation of the Constitution, according to Coyne’s logic.
One thing Coyne was correct about is his claim that the courts have repeatedly forbidden teaching creationism as science. That is true, but it’s a tragedy and misapplication of the law, not something to rejoice over. If creationism is true, then it should be permitted in the classroom. Period. Any attempt to keep the truth out of the classroom is immoral, especially if that which is false is permitted. Truth should always be open for discussion.
Coyne attempts to defend himself by claiming, “I didn’t try to get the man dumped or permanently demonized, which is what cancellation is about.”
Wow. Coyne thinks that because he never called for Hedin to be fired or not promoted, and didn’t try to permanently demonize him, somehow he’s not guilty? I don’t think so. Hedin didn’t deserve to be demonized by Coyne at all, and the class never should have been cancelled. Coyne wanted the class cancelled, and his heavy-handed tactics and threats assured that end. The university caved.
Then Coyne takes issue with Hedin capitalizing on the incident by publishing the book Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You To See. I think it’s great that Hedin took advantage of Coyne’s attack by bringing attention to it. Currently the book has 4.6 stars out of 5 on Amazon!
Amusingly, Coyne pokes fun of being referred to as a “militant atheist” and posted a cartoon comparing a militant Islamist, militant Christian and a militant atheist, and wouldn’t you know, only the militant atheist wasn’t gunning down people or about to blow them up. The militant atheist was just minding his own business, drinking a beer. Perhaps Coyne forgot about the tragedy at Columbine High School in which 13 people lost their lives and 24 others were injured due to militant atheist students who believed they were more highly evolved than those they targeted.
Coyne complains about a quote from the interview where Hedin was asked, “what is it that atheists don’t want us to see” and took issue with the fact that Hedin was critical of “random” interactions between particles” to explain consciousness, the mind and emotions, but didn’t say anything about natural selection. Well, I can’t answer for Hedin, but natural selection can’t work until life exists, therefore, natural selection can’t explain how the first living organism came to exhibit consciousness and emotions. Natural selection can only select heritable traits from what’s available and pass those on to offspring. If there’s no consciousness to select from, then natural selection can’t impart it to any offspring. So the real question is, why does Coyne keep citing “selection” as an explanation for consciousness, emotions and the like? It’s as if Coyne, an evolutionist, doesn’t understand evolution.
Then, once again, Coyne misrepresents intelligent design. He describes the argument as, “we can’t explain it now, so God must have done it. But is it really God? Yes!
No, no, no! That’s not intelligent design. Intelligent design points to things in this universe that show evidence of design. Certain things really do look like they were designed or finely tuned for our existence… a genuine appearance of design. And when we identify things that look designed, then it’s reasonable to conclude that there was a designer. Intelligent design doesn’t truly identify who the designer is, and that’s one of my criticisms of it, although many ID advocates do believe the designer is God. Why? For one, God identifies himself as the designer in the Bible (In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth- Genesis 1:1). Therefore, since God told us that he’s the designer, and we can see things which have been designed, it’s easy to put two and two together to get four. We don’t believe God is the designer because we can’t explain something about the universe; we already believe God created everything, and if we look for evidence of his design, we find it.
Further, I’d argue it’s irrelevant whether or not naturalism can explain the origin of the universe, life or Mount Rushmore. I could explain how a tornado swept up dust, debris and stone, whipped them around, and produced the images we see on Mount Rushmore, but does my explanation prove that naturalism must have done it? No, of course not! Neither would explaining how random chemicals came together to produce life means it could happen in the real world. If I were to argue that the evolutionary argument is, “We can explain it, so it proves naturalism must have done it!” would Coyne correct me, or would he accept that statement? Well, naturalism can’t account for design, nor explain it, so it’s hard to make the case for naturalism, but atheists are quick to pounce if you identify the designer as God!
Coyne quotes the interviewer’s question about the mathematical enormity of the fine-tuning argument and quibbles over the use of the word “enormity”. Not sure why he felt the need to attack the interviewer. But then he quotes Hedin’s response where he argues that it’s desperation to think both the universe and life came about by chance. Coyne shrugs and pretends it’s no big deal. To him, 13.8 billion years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for billions of proteins and enzymes to fold themselves into the proper shape for life. Then Coyne goes on offense and questions why God took “so long between the stromatolites and the appearance of humans,” as if that’s relevant. I’m not sure how Hedin would respond, but bacteria may have been created by God on Day Three of creation, while man was created on Day Six, which is only a three day difference. So Coyne’s criticism is based on ignorance. Regardless, simply assuming that nature is capable of overcoming the absurd odds required is, as Hedin says, an act of desperation. Coyne has done nothing to show that life could arise by chance, nor has he provided any calculations to demonstrate the possibility, even though he demands it of Hedin. Coyne’s belief that life arose by chance is an act of faith.
But the bigger issue I see with Coyne’s defense is that he doesn’t understand Hedin’s argument at all. Hedin is arguing that there are boundaries to what naturalism can do, but Coyne ignores this fact and acts as if naturalism is capable of anything he wants. There’s a reason why there are only 94 naturally occurring elements, and it has to do with the stability of an atom’s nuclei. It doesn’t matter how many billions of years we allow, nature simply can’t produce an infinite number of elements because there are limits to what nature is capable of. Coyne doesn’t get this.
Hedin openly admits his personal conviction regarding the identity of the designer “is the God of the Bible”, but Coyne had to be critical, as if he couldn’t overlook Hedin for having the audacity to suggest he knows who the designer is. The atheist argues that there are so many gods that it would be arrogant for anyone to identify their own personal god as the designer. I’m sure Coyne would prefer if everyone were to simply admit the identity of the designer could not be determined, then we could all go one with our lives and not worry about any particular God or god(s) or consequences.
Coyne wrongly states that Hedin claims the existence of life “absolutely” proves the existence of God. Hedin never said that. Interestingly, Coyne accurately quoted Hedin’s remarks before misquoting him.
Coyne then takes issue with Hedin for accurately claiming that “Atheism has some similarities to a religion”. The truth is, staunch atheists don’t like being told that atheism is a religion or has any similarities to a religion. Those are fighting words because they want atheism taught in the classroom, and if atheism were identified as a religion, then, in their minds, they would be in violation of the First Amendment, which they only want applied to other religions. Atheists simply don’t want the rules of religion applied to them because that would negate their argument.
Coyne brings up religious scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, both of whom believe in evolution, and takes issue with Hedin for not explaining why these people are firm adherents of evolution. But I’m confused as to why Coyne thinks Hedin is obligated to do so. Personally, I think Miller and Collins have been indoctrinated into secularism and don’t realize the damage they’ve done.
Finally, Coyne is upset that a review of Hedin’s book referred to Coyne’s meddling at Ball State a “pretty despicable power play”. He whines, “All I did (along with the FFRF) was call the University’s attention to a potential legal violation of its academic program.” No Jerry, what you did was bully the University into cancelling a popular science course for you own self-serving agenda. There was no “potential legal violation,” except what was manufactured by those who wish to impose their own secular religion on society, at the expense of truth. Amazingly, at the beginning of his article, Coyne strongly contends that the university was in violation of the Constitution and was breaking the law, but now he concedes that there was only “a potential legal violation of its academic program,” which is pretty much an admission that Hedin did nothing wrong. Yet Coyne is proud that his underhanded tactics worked.
In the end, I find Hedin’s arguments more compelling than Coyne’s. 1: The evidence overwhelmingly indicates there are boundaries to what nature can do. 2: The universe appears to be finely tuned. 3: Life seems to be designed. 4: The universe and life either came about by naturalism or the supernatural. 5: I find the best and most logical explanation for the universe and existence of life to be the God of the Bible.
sixdaysblog 
Reblogged this on clydeherrin.
“The religion of secularism” Exactly! If we could get that idea to be accepted, there might actually be some free exchange and growth instead of cancelation.
Yes, that would be very helpful. I’ve been working hard to get the word out.
So, Hedin ended up at a Christian university and can spout his false claims all he wants. Alas, Hedin tried to teach intelligent design e.g. creationism, and his version of Christianity as the truth at a publicly supported university. He got caught and now he whines.
Alas, for Hedin, there is no evidence for “fine-tuning” nor for his god. I’m always amused with the claims of “fine-tuning” since Christian myth precludes that since there was that darn “fall”. If that happened, then what we see isn’t the supposed “perfection” this god created. If there is no fall, then there is no need for Jesus.
Thanks for your comments. But can you explain exactly what claims Hedin made that were demonstrably false? And did you even read my post?
One of my main points was that Hedin was not teaching ID or creationism. To state otherwise is twisting what he actually did. Do you really think examining the implications of science amounts to teaching religion in the classroom? How so?
Further, do you ever criticize secular and atheist professors for doing far worse, such as proselytizing students to convince them that God does not exist?
Lastly, there’s overwhelming evidence for fine-tuning. Just consider the parameters necessary for gravity. If gravity was tuned lesser or greater, the universe would not exist. Gravity is tuned just right for our existence, and that’s what the fine-tuning argument is all about.
You may believe Christianity is a myth, but I assure you it’s not. But I do agree with you that everything was created perfect prior to the fall, and what we see now isn’t the perfection God originally created. But since the fall was a real event, we do have a need for Jesus.
Yes, dear, I read your post. And Hedin has claimed he was persecuted which is indeed demonstrably false since he chose to try to teach his religion as truth in a state university and intentionally ignoring the law.
You also lie when you try to claim that Hedin wasn’t teaching ID or creationism, when he was and has admitted such. We can see that this was his intent from the reading list for that class at Ball State, which strangely enough doesn’t mention any other religion other than Christianity and its claims of creation, aka “intelligent design”. Here is part of it:
Behe, Michael, “Darwin’s Black Box” (1998).
Brush, Nigel, “The Limitations of Scientific Truth. Why Science Can’t Answer Life’s Ultimate Questions,” (2005).
Collins, Francis, “The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” (2007).
Consolmagno, Guy, “God’s Mechanics,” (2008).
Davies, Paul, “The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?” (2006).
Davies, Paul, “The Mind of God. The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”, 1992.
Davies, Paul, “The 5th Miracle” (1999).
Dembski, William A. “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”
Dubay, Thomas, “The Evidential Power of Beauty. Science and Theology Meet”, 1999.
Flew, Antony, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” (2008).
Gange, Robert “Origins and Destiny” (1985).
Giberson, Karl W. and Collins, Francis S. “The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions,” (2011).
Gingerich, Owen, “God’s Universe” (2006).
Gonzalez, Guillermo “The Privileged Planet” (2004).
Lennox, John, “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” (2007).
Lennox, John, “God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway?” (2011).
Lewis, C. S., “Miracles,” (1947).
Malone, John, “Unsolved Mysteries of Science,” (2001).
Meyer, Stephen C., “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Proc. of the Biological Society of Washington, 117, 213 (2004).
Meyer, Stephen C., “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” (2010)
Penfield, Wilder, “The Mystery of the Mind” (1975).
Penrose, Roger, “The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, (2005).
Polkinghorne, John and Beale, Nicholas, “Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions About God, Science, and Belief,” (2009).
Quastler, Henry “The Emergence of Biological Organization” (1964).
Ross, Hugh “The Creator and the Cosmos” (2001).
Ross, Hugh “Why the Universe is the Way it is” (2008).
Ross and Rana, “Origins of Life” (2004).
Schroeder, Gerald L., “The Hidden Face of God. Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth”, 2001.
Seeds, Michael A., “Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond”, 3rd Ed. (2003).
Spetner, Lee, “Not by Chance” (1996).
Strobel, Lee, “The Case for a Creator. A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God”, 2004.
Von Baeyer, Hans Christian, “Information: The New Language of Science,” (2003).
Gee, not a single science book in the bunch in a science course? Not a single book from a muslim creationist or any other religion’s creation myths? This was presented as a science course. There is nothing from science that support the nonsense in the bible. Now, why did Hedin try to present it as science and not be honest since it is at best a religious or philosophy course? Oh yes, he was just like the failures at Dover, intentionally dishonest. Alas, his bible says not to lie for this god, even if you think it is *for* this god, Romans 3.
ID was invented by Christians to try to hide their intentions in getting their nonsense into public schools, and we know this without a doubt thanks to the creationists who tried to lie to people in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case where the book “Of Pandas and People was demonstrated to be a Christian creationist bit of nonsense. In that book we got to see a failure of a find and replace in the text, where creationism was replaced by ID not quite completely in the term “cdesign propentists”.
There is no “implications of science” here, only the false and conflicting nonsense of Christian creationism.
“Further, do you ever criticize secular and atheist professors for doing far worse, such as proselytizing students to convince them that God does not exist?”
Do show instances of this, dear. And not the fantasies of movies like “God is not dead”. I’ll be happy to wait for you to make good on your claim.
Alas, there is no evidence of “fine-tuning” as theists, especially Christians, claim. We have no idea how far things can vary. As usual desperate creationists misrepresent what has been said. You play pretend that the universe is “perfect” but that doesn’t quite work out when Chritsians also want to claim that there was some “fall” from perfection. If there was perfection before, then there can be no ”fine-tuning” now. Happily, the ridiculous nonsense of Genesis, with two contradictory creation stories, a god that either was too stupid to keep Satan out or intentionally let it in, and this god throwing a tantrum, plus failure two in the magic flood, never happened.
Oh dear, you assure me. And every other theist, including Christians, have assured me that their nonsense is the one true answer too. Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves, so I have no reason to think any of you nitwits have some right answer when you have no evidence for your claims at all. You have such a lack of information, you try to claim anything as evidence for your god, including that since the universe is as it is, therefor goddidit! Such a failure to go from the god of the bible to some vague force.
Yes, Hedin was persecuted, whether you recognize it or not. He wasn’t “teaching” religion, as you claim, and that’s exactly why I wrote this post and why I’m critical of Coyne. I was very careful to explain it in detail. If you’re going to deny this, then be specific. What- exactly- did he teach about his religion that was not related to science? You’ve made a lot of serious accusations and listed a lot of books, but you’ve failed to deliver anything concrete or of substance. Unless you can tell me what religious content he taught in class, you are the one being dishonest.
The list of books you presented is quite extensive, and if you know anything about the writers, that’s a very well-rounded, diverse group. Some are evolutionists, creationists, intelligent design advocates, theologians, believers in aliens, Gnostics, Catholics and atheists. This was probably the first time those students didn’t have naturalism shoved down their throats in a science class.
You also state that none of the books on the reading list mention any other religion other than Christianity, and that is a lie. Maybe you thought I wouldn’t research that claim, but, as it turns out, many of the books DO mention other religions. Antony Flew’s book mentions Islam, Judaism and atheism. The book “Unsolved Mysteries of Science” mentions Hinduism. The Mystery of the Mind mentions Greek gods. The book The Road to Reality mentions Hinduism. Questions of truth mentions Judaism. The book Origins of Life refers to aliens and panspermia, Islam, Muslims and he Qur’an. The Hidden Face of God talks about Islam and Judaism. Will you now admit to being a liar? Some of the authors oppose creationism, ID and Christianity.
You sarcastically claim, “Gee, not a single science book in the bundh in a science course?” You do realize all those books are about science, right? Why don’t you take a look science textbook from 60 years ago and tell me how much wrong today.
However, there was a science textbook used in the class- Essential Science: The Expanding Universe, and it was written by John Gribbon and Mark Garlic, and I don’t believe either are Christian. So once again you’re claims are misleading.
You claim “There is nothing from science that supports the nonsense in the bible”. Well, firstly there’s no nonsense in the Bible. That’s your biased opinion, and the facts don’t support that. On the contrary, there’s overwhelming scientific evidence to support the Bible, and I present it in my blog if you care to check it out.
I think you just don’t like that the implications of science are quite damaging to naturalism, and you’re concerned that some students might reject it. Sad that you’re opposed to having students make up their own minds. The real nonsense students are exposed to is naturalism.
I’m quite familiar with the Dover charade and have written about it. Check it out. You might learn something.
You asked for instances of atheist professors proselytizing students… are you really unaware? This is very common in colleges. I even had a college professor try to convince students that we evolved from Australopithecines, and were not created by God. That’s an atheist religious belief taught in the classroom. The book “Origins of life” talks about ardent evolutionists “who worked hard to combat young-earth creation science” and who “reject supernatural explanations for the world”. There was the famous incident of an Iowa professor who said that any professor should have the right to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates if that professor discovers the student is a creationist, and the student’s department should have the right of ‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees’ if the student becomes a creationist later. Another Iowa professor stated, “As a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. More over if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.” There was also biology professor Michael Dini who refused to write letters of recommendation for his students if they didn’t believe in evolution. None of this is new. Do you support such proselytizing in the name of atheism and evolutionism?
Fine-tuning does exist, and I’ve provided examples, as have thousands of scientists, if you care to do your homework. You say, “We have no idea how far things can vary.” Right, so nature did it!
Your argument that there can be no fine-tuning now if there was perfection before, doesn’t make any sense. If God created the laws of physics and the parameters of the universe to be exactly where he wanted them to be, and his entire creation was perfect, then that’s how it is. You can’t negate reality by proclaiming your faith.
There are not two contradictory creation stories in Genesis. I discuss this on my blog if you want to check it out. It’s one story, with two different perspectives, neither of which are contradictory. Satan serves a purpose, which is why he was there. You sure like to misrepresent God, don’t you?
You say Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves. Well, neither can atheists. You do know that, don’t you? So there’s no reason to think any of you have some right answer when you have no evidence for your claims at all.
Funny how you point fingers at creationists who claim “God did it!” But atheists yell, “naturedidit!!!” and say that’s evidence.
Bottom line, atheists are guilty of everything you’re accusing us of. So much hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, you are lying. Hedin was teaching his religion and we can see that from the required reading.
ID has nothing to do with science. As i showed, it was invented by Christians to sneak
I know all about those authors of their books and it is hilarious that you would try to lie to me and claim they are a “well rounded diverse group”. Every single one of them is a Christian creationist. If you want to counter me, then do so. I love how you want to claim that Flew’s book mentions other religoins but gee, Christians all claim he became one of them. Best get your lies straight, Jon. Same with the other books, funny how they do mention other religions and all conclude that Christianity is the right one.
Alas, not one bit of science shows that naturalism is wrong. But do provide evidence that it does. I’ll be happy to wait.
I know the Dover case quite well, living about 20 miles from Dover. The Christians intentionally lied to get their versoin of creatoinism into a public scohol, and gee, they were caught. Their witnesses, including Behe, were shown to be ignorant frauds, and a conservative judge held them accountable for their lies. I’m always pleased when Christians choose to lie when their god says never to do so, not even if you think you are lying for it, Romans3.
If my argument that if there was perfection, and a “fall”, you can’t see fine tuning is wrong, do explain why. Christians claim that the fall affected everything, so the laws of physics can’t be what was originally intended. And yep, you can’t negate reality by proclaiming hat christianity is true, Jon, since Christians don’t agree about the most basic things in their religion.
There are indeed two contradictory creation stories in genesis. I don’t care how you lie about it, Jon, anyone who reads it can see that they are different with two sets of contradictory events, and humans are made in two different ways. It’s hilariosu that you claim “two different perspectives”, now who has the other perspective, and how does perspective change the order of events, Jon? It’s like claiming that “perspective” can change the order of numbers. Happily, it can’t.
Well, thanks for admitting that christians don’t agree amongst themselves about their supposed “truth”: “You say Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves. Well, neither can atheists.”. And no, atheists don’t disagree on the conclusion that there is no god or gods. We may differ in our particular worldviews, but we don’t disagree on the lack of existence for divine nonsense. So your poor attempt at “whataboutism” fails wonderfully.
Alas, we can show that “naturedidit”, no god needed. And since you admit that Chrisians can’t agree amongst themselves on what their god wants, you all have to show that your particular god exists and no other does.
alas, you also lie about me being a hypocrite. You can’t show any evidence for that lie either.
Sorry, but I caught you lying. Hedin was not teaching religion, and you cannot site a single example. A book list does not constitute teaching religion.
Actually, ID has everything to do with science. It means that we can observe elements of design in nature, just as we can observe elements of design in man-made objects. Or do you suppose it’s unscientific to suggest that a watch was designed by an intelligent being? If you were consistent, then you would have to admit it’s unscientific to suggest a watch requires intelligence. But I’d wager you won’t be consistent, but, instead, will find a way to justify a watch being intelligently designed while denying that the universe and life were designed by an intelligent source. If you were consistent, however, and applied the same standard, then you would have to admit that life and the universe show evidence of being designed by an intelligent source. That’s logic. That’s science. What isn’t science is you trying to justify arbitrary standards based on prejudice.
ID and creation are two very different things. They may share some similarities, but they both also share similarities with evolution, atheism and secularism. ID doesn’t rule out evolution, and is friendly to other gods and billions of years. Francis Collins, for example, is neither a creationist or ID proponent, but is an evolutionist by his own admission. He’s effectively argued against ID.
So tell me, if a college professor were to teach evolution and billions of years, which ID allows for, can we accuse that professor of teaching religion? By your standard, yes. That is religion. We could accuse that professor of teaching ID or atheism, both of which are religions (according to you), so that professor would be guilty of teaching religion (by your standards).
If you know about Flew, then can you provide me evidence that he’s a Christian or a creationist? Please site from his own words and don’t misrepresent him.
Now you moved the goalpost. First you claimed that none of the books you listed “mention any other religion other than Christianity and its claims of creation, aka “intelligent design”. And when I provided examples to refute that, you admit you lied, but claim that all the books conclude that “Christianity is the right” religion. Nonsense! I already looked at these books. That’s a lie. Therefore, I expect you to support your claim by quoting every book on your list where they explicitly make that claim.
You falsely claim that “not one bit of science shows that naturalism is wrong”. Uh, if you know anything about science at all, you would know that’s not true. The law of abiogenesis is perhaps the most well-established law in science and has never been refuted. It states that life arises from life, not nonliving material. Therefore, science does show that naturalism is wrong. According to science, life does not come about by natural processes. If you disagree, then provide evidence, or admit you lied.
I don’t think you know the Dover case as well as you think. Did you take a look at the articles I wrote? The “conservative judge” was ignorant and brainwashed himself. He actually watched the propaganda movie “Inherit the Wind” to prepare himself for the case and was hoping Tom Hanks would play him in a movie. That should have disqualified him from the case, which went beyond the legality of ID being taught in schools. Further, over 90 percent of Judge Jones response was cut-and-pasted from legal documents presented by the ACLU.
I can admit that some Christians did lie, but at least we have a standard in which lying is wrong. There was no need to lie because we could have won the case on merit. I would have simply provided the evidence necessary to show that ID is no more a religion than atheism or evolutionism, and if one is a religion, then so is the other, but if one isn’t, then neither is the other. I would have fought against the double-standard and demanded truth be taught in the classroom. Do you believe it’s wrong to lie? You may be pleased when Christians lie, but I take no pleasure when you (or Christians) lie.
I still don’t get your argument about the fall and fine-tuning. It makes no sense. How does the fall negate fine-tuning? If God created the gravitational constant to be what it is, does the fall alter it in any way? Can you tell me what the gravitational constant was before the fall? I do agree that the fall affected everything, but that doesn’t mean the gravitational constant changed. You’re looking at this from an incorrect perspective. And the lack of unity doesn’t mean that Christianity is wrong any more than you believe a lack of unity means atheism is wrong. If Anything, a lack of unity is a result of the fall. Admitting that Christianity lacks unity doesn’t negate Christianity; it validates it.
Nope, there are no contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Check out the explanation in my blog. One event, two complimentary perspectives. If you disagree, explain what you think is contradictory so I may help you out.
Actually, atheists do disagree on the conclusion that there are no god or gods. I’ve met some, and they don’t make much sense, but they still claim to be atheists, even though that’s not how I describe atheism. Sorry to break it to you, but atheists are a diverse group who don’t all think like you do. And complaining about “whataboutism” doesn’t help your cause.
Your hypocrisy is evident when you point fingers at others, but you yourself are guilty.
again, hedin’s very own required reading list shows that he was teaching christian creationism. As hard as you might try, reality won’t change to accomodate your false claims. You caught nothing at all, Jon.
Intelligent Design, as presented by Hedin, and Christians is the same as creationism. You claim that there must be a designer and must be your god. This is the same lie told in Dover and it was caught.
ID has nothing to do with science. We already know that there is no divine intelligence needed for order in the universe. You try so hard to pretend that the universe is simply a watch, and it is not. We have evidence for a watch being designed and needing to be designed. Poor dears can’t show that the universe needs the same thing, or that it is your particular god. Christians have claimed that the universe needs a “designer” and then needs their god as they’ve defined as the designer. Your baseless presuppositions fail you again.
I do love this “o tell me, if a college professor were to teach evolution and billions of years, which ID allows for, can we accuse that professor of teaching religion? By your standard, yes. That is religion. We could accuse that professor of teaching ID or atheism, both of which are religions (according to you), so that professor would be guilty of teaching religion (by your standards).”
No, ID doesn’t allow for evolution. ID says that there must be a supernatural designer that has established what something is by magic. That is not what evolutionary theory is based on. It is always quite cute that creationists try to pretend they mean anything else, denying their god when convenient. I do seem to hear a cock crowing. It’s hilarious that you claim that creatoinism and ID “share” properties with secularism. You have no idea what secularism is, do you? If ID was friendly to other gods, then why do Christians insist it is only theirs that is the creator? If your claim was true, you would have no problem with other gods being taught in schools, but funny how you can’t even stand other versions of Christianity being taught, much less Islam, Hinduism, etc.
I do love how Christians must claim someone is a Christain and then claim he wasn’t when convenient for their claims. Hmm, you might want to read Flew’s book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” . Here are some reviews by notable Christian creationists:
“A clear, accessible account of the ‘pilgrimage of reason’ which has led Flew to a belief in God.” — John Polkinghorne, author of Belief in God in an Age of Science
“A stellar philosophical mind ponders the latest scientific results. The conclusion: a God stands behind the rationality of nature.” — Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution
“Towering and courageous… Flew’s colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized.” — Francis S. Collins, New York Times bestselling author of The Language of God
and his own quotes
““I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
― Anthony Flew”
““Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.””
““we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.””
““Gerald Schroeder points out that the existence of conditions favorable to life still does not explain how life itself originated. Life was able to survive only because of favorable conditions on our planet. But there is no law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities.””
and no, atheists do not disagree on the conclusion that there are no gods. I love your claim of meeting “some” but you can’t give names or what they said. “They” don’t “make much sense” since you can’t invent what they’ve said without showing your fraud.
That you don’t “get” something doesn’t mean it is wrong. If you wish to claim that we can see that there is fine tuning from current constants, there is a problem since the “fall” would have changed them from the supposed perfection before the fall. Thus what you call fine-tuning now can’t be what this god intended. It isn’t that hard. I’ve had more than one Christain profess ignorance just to ignore how their religion fails.
As for th estories in genesis,, it’s great to see a Christain lie when the two stories are entirely in different orders of creation. Your protestations are as if someone presented “1,2,3,4,5” and then said that “3,5,1,4,2” was the same thing.
You lie again, my dear Christian.
No, once again you’re jumping to conclusions and making incorrect assumptions. The reading list does not constitute teaching “Christian creationism”. If it did, then not even an atheist professor like Coyne could put them on his own reading list in a secular course. Further, you’re not distinguishing between Christianity and atheism being taught in the classroom. I would counter that an atheist professor couldn’t teach about secular origins, otherwise they’re teaching their own form of religion, which you claim is forbidden. Your argument has been thoroughly refuted.
But I do agree that reality won’t change to accommodate your false claims.
Hedin never mentioned ID in his classes, nor did he identify the designer. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to believe in ID or creation. One just has to admit that naturalism isn’t the answer and can’t account for the ultimate questions, such as where we came from and how we got here.
Again, the Dover case was a sham, and I would argue the school had a poor strategy to defend themselves and should have made a countersuit. Did you read my article? I don’t think so.
You can claim all you want that ID has nothing to do with science, but reality is what it is. Your words are empty bluster, and you have exposed yourself as biased and prejudicial by your claims as I expected. I used a watch as a helpful analogy, and most people who apply logic and reason can see that. You admit we have evidence for a watch being designed and see the need for a designer, but when we provide evidence that the universe employs this same logic, you claim there’s no evidence, even though I just provided it (abiogenesis). You’re like an ostrich with its head in the ground.
Actually, ID does allow for evolution. I’ve been following it long enough to know. Michael Behe, Douglas Axe and Gunther Beckley are three examples who come to mind, and I could easily come up with more. You could ask them yourself. Based on your summary of ID, you really don’t know what it is, which is not surprising. Most opponents fail to make an honest, accurate representation.
Funny that you bring up magic. God doesn’t use “magic”. He uses his authority to create, just as a watchmaker does. A watchmaker has authority over all the parts, and can design a watch as he chooses. But unlike the watchmaker, God has authority over everything; therefore, he can call something into existence from nothing and can design the universe and life at his command. No magic.
Naturalism, however, must resort to magic. Consider, can you explain how complex life arose naturally from inanimate matter? No, you can’t… magic! So evolutionary theory is based on magic, like it or not.
Like I said, I take issue with ID for not identifying that God is the designer. But if they did, then those like yourself would go nuts. So they have to find a way to talk about science without talking about religion, and Hedin did that. Sadly, the secular powers that be are able to censor that which they disagree with, while imposing their own religion upon unsuspecting students.
Secularism is a religion. It attempts to teach there are no gods or God. It is a denial and absence of God.
Christians do believe God is the creator. God identifies himself as the creator in the Bible, and his creation is logical based on what we’ve discovered about science. ID isn’t just a theory, but a strategy. It does allow for other religions, even if most are professing Christians. I disagree that another god was the designer, but it’s nice having other religions oppose the secular world. It wouldn’t make sense for a Christian to claim their God is not the creator (as Francis Collins did), does it? You’re right that I wouldn’t want other gods being taught in schools, but I do want the truth taught. Is that okay? If God is truly the designer, would you still be opposed to his design being taught in school? I think it’s truth that you’re really opposed to. I’d be content to not have any religion taught in science class and let the students decide for themselves. What’s wrong with that? Otherwise, it’s fair to teach any religious theory that makes sense of the evidence. However, currently, only a false religion is being taught, and that is unconstitutional and against the law.
I asked you to provide evidence that Flew is a Christian or creationist, and each quote you presented fails to do that. Nothing you posted about Flew demonstrates he became a Christian, believes in the Christian God or a young earth. None of those quotes means he accepted Jesus into his heart as Lord and Savior. I hope he did, just as I hope you do. But even you argue there are other religions and other “versions of Christianity,” so why are you so certain he became a Christian? He sites “classical philosophical arguments” for helping him, but nothing about the Bible.
Nice, you accuse me of being a liar because I didn’t name the atheist I know who disagrees on the conclusion that all atheists believe there are no gods. Well, I’m under no obligation to reveal his identity unless he chooses to do so, so you’re free to speculate. But I will provide a link to the article he posted, which we discussed, and led me to my conclusion. He’s not consistent, but says he doesn’t make any claims about how or why the universe exists, and simply lacks a belief in God. I argued that no such atheist exists, but that’s what he holds to, and he gets mad that I don’t accept it.
I agree that just because I don’t “get” something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But I still don’t get your fine-tuning argument because it’s nonsense. You don’t explain how or why there’s a requirement that the constants before the fall must have changed after the fall. That sounds like an unwarranted, false assumption. Why MUST that be the case? Why COULDN’T the constants remain the same? I’d argue that there’s no requirement for the constants to have changed, especially if you can’t tell me what they were before the fall. Consider this- bears, sharks, cats, bats and dogs all had sharp teeth prior to the fall, but they were vegetarian. After the fall, their diet may have changed so that some of them resorted to carnivory, but their teeth didn’t need to change. Thus there’s no reason to suppose the constants changed. You’re spouting nonsense.
Just because you disagree with my explanation on Genesis 1 & 2 doesn’t make me a liar. You throw that word (liar) around, but I don’t think it means what you think it does. There are two different stories describing the same event, and I think it’s ludicrous to contend otherwise just because you can’t reconcile it in your mind. I think it’s quite obvious that it’s one event. Read my posts.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/religion-no-affiliation-growing/38518349?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&fbclid=IwAR0maWGkBVT7hSjXSWoavz7ruMFlJI1Bp5oltX9-Rk4uabfg_VFq-N0iHu4#
the reading list is nothing but Christian creationism. I think it’s hilarious that you try to lie about something in black and white.
It’s even funnier when you try to claim that no one can use such books or be considered a creationist, which is of course false. As we all know, context is important and Hedin was presenting these as the only answer.
Again, you seem to have no clue what secular means, dear. And do show where “atheism” is being taught in the classroom.
It’s great to see you lie again about Hedin not mentioning ID in his course when the list of books shows otherwise. I am amused that you think that your denial will make reality change.
I love your lies about the Dover case too. I would love to know what the countersuit would have been dear. They didn’t offer one since they had nothing.
ID still has nothing to do with science, and I’m still waiting for you to show that it does. And ID doesn’t allow for evolutionary theory at all, by definition. ID requires an external intellect determining every aspect of a living thing. Evolutionary theory does not. Your lie about Behe saying that ID allows for evolution is quite a hilarious lie since he argues just the opposite, that there is irreducible complexity that his god is responsible for.
When you show your base ignorance about the things you attack, it’s wonderful.
Your god uses magic, aka its power, aka “authority”, and gee, still no evidence that your god merely exists, must less is the creator.
Nope, I can’t yet explain how exactly life came from the inanimate. But nice god of the gaps argument you offer…. yet again.
And poor dear, such the lie that secularism is a “religion”. It is not: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations” – mw. Religion is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious ( relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity) attitudes, beliefs, and practices” – mw
ID isn’t a theory either, it’s a baseless hypothesis, so you fail again, my dear lying Christian. It was invented by Christian creatoinists trying to hide their attempts to get their religion into schools. We haev that admitted in the notorious “wedge document”.
“overning Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.” – Discovery Institute “Wedge Document” 1998 by their group “Center for Renewal of Science and Culture”.
” If God is truly the designer, would you still be opposed to his design being taught in school? ” and no evidence for this whine at all, dear. If this was true, of course I’d have no problem with it. IT would be reality and I do like reality. It isn’t true and thus is just a lie from Christians.
and surprise, you have no evidence for your supposed “atheist”. I have no problem in calling you a liar when you make false claims about supposed “atheists”. and surprise, no link provided by you.
I love this “I asked you to provide evidence that Flew is a Christian or creationist, and each quote you presented fails to do that.”
(oh gee, you used “or”)
and this is one of the quotes you claim this about “““I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
― Anthony Flew””
“ou don’t explain how or why there’s a requirement that the constants before the fall must have changed after the fall.”
hmmm, we have Christians claiming that everything changed after the fall, to explain why animals weren’t still supposedly “all” vegetarians, why the weather wasn’t “perfect”, why the sun causes skin cancer, etc.
“Consider this- bears, sharks, cats, bats and dogs all had sharp teeth prior to the fall, but they were vegetarian. ”
No evidence of this lovely nonsense at all. Wow, such pure stupidity. And teeth shape changes with evolutionary pressures just like beak shape changes.
You are a liar, you try to spread false nonsense for your own benefit. No one cares what you want to pretend liar means. Again, I get to see a Christain trying to change word meanings so they don’t fail.
It is pointles to argue with this lubschadenctreude, if He lived in dyrk ages, he would be a Hell of a inquisitor.
“It is pointles to argue with this lubschadenctreude, if He lived in dyrk ages, he would be a Hell of a inquisitor.”
wel, always fun to see someone who can’t spell, and who forgets that it is christian failures who want to be inquisitors.
Don’t mock someone for not sharing your beliefs, that is if you have any.
I have no problem in mocking liars and people who try to do harm to others.
Someone is harming you? Oh poor schadenfreude, do you even know what schadenfreude means?
Happily, I am not the one being harmed, being white, female and straight. Christians harm those who aren’t.
and yep, I know exactly what schadenfreude means, taking pleasure in someone else’s misfortune. Alas, for Eugen, it doesn’t mean causing harm, and in my case, I take pleasure only when ignorant theists harm themselves by their lies.
A reading list does not constitute teaching creation, and the books are about science. If you think it’s hilarious and want to play games, then start by admitting that teaching a naturalistic origin of the universe and life constitutes teaching religion. I don’t want secular professors shoving atheism down the throats of students in an effort to destroy their faith. If you want black and white, then your side needs to play by the same rules they expect from others. Otherwise you have no credibility.
You’re the one claiming that no one can use such books without being considered a creationist. I reject that claim, and do so with logic, which is why I brought up Coyne. Would he be teaching creation if one of those books was on his reading list? Answer the question and tell the truth.
I gave a valid explanation of secular. Too bad if you don’t like it. Here’s a dictionary definition, which supports my claims: Secular- “Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis”. And that’s exactly what is wrong with how secularists teach science. It only allows for non-religious explanations of the data, even if that’s not true. If Coyne claims that the origin of the universe has no religious or spiritual basis- which he does if he only promotes a naturalistic explanation, then he’s preaching religion, and that should be prohibited based on the secular values you and he espouse.
Funny that you claim that secularism isn’t a religion, but then you provide a definition of secularism and religion, and if we apply those definitions, then, logically, secularism is a religion. As you quoted, secularism is a “rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”. So you admit that the teaching of naturalism in science class is a rejection of ID, creation, and the Genesis creation account. Such a stance is, by definition, religious. Atheist professors are making the religious claim- in a public classroom- that God NOT the explanation of our origins. How can secularism not be religious if it takes a religious stance against other religious beliefs? Secularism is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. You’ve demonstrated those religious attitudes yourself.
And I already showed where “atheism” is being taught in the classroom. Go back and read my comments about the Iowa professors and Michael Dini. Pay attention.
You seem to be confused about the reading list vs. what Hedin actually said in class. Unless you can produce documentation showing that Hedin uttered the words “Intelligent Design” in class, then admit you’re lying. Stop spouting claims you can’t back up except by your own libelous accusations.
The countersuit I would have filed in the Dover case would have been against any school who taught secularism, atheism, naturalism in classrooms. Those are all religions that are being preached in the classroom, which you claim is against the law.
You’re lying when you say ID has nothing to do with science. Check out my article: Part Three: 2022 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. Physicist Brian Miller explains it quite well. The secular world is using ID principles in biology.
You’re ignorant of what ID. Yes, Behe advocates irreducible complexity, but he still accepts evolution. I was very disappointed when I heard him accept evolution. Here’s a Behe quote from Darwin’s Black Box: “Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.”
Now admit that you lied about ID and Behe.
There’s plenty evidence that God exists. You’re simply blind to the evidence due to your prejudice. Check out my articles on Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace, or read the book “More than a Carpenter” by Josh McDowell. They were all atheists who went on crusades to disprove God and Christianity. They failed and ended up becoming Christians because the evidence was overwhelming.
Glad you admit that atheism can’t explain how life came from the inanimate. Thus you must accept magic, or an evolution of the gaps argument. Or you could admit a designer is the most logical explanation, which is the only theory consistent with the scientific law of abiogenesis.
Glad to hear you would support God being taught in school as the designer if it were reality, and I hope you’ll be good to your word as we discover more and more evidence of fine-tuning and complex design in cells and DNA. Secular science is already coming around to a degree.
I love how you resort to personal attacks when you’ve lost an argument. I feel no need to “prove” the existence of my atheist friend. Attack away. But I did provide a link to the article at the end of my last post, so please acknowledge you lied.
Read my comments to your Flew quote again. You’re making an unsubstantiated argument. I refuted it.
Funny. You’re the one failing to provide evidence for your claim that the constants changed after the fall. No evidence for your lovely nonsense at all.
Keep up the personal attacks. It sheds light on your lack of character. I stand by everything I’ve written (although my calling you a liar is meant to expose your double standard and hypocrisy).
and Jon shows he has no idea how reading lists work. sigh.
If I’m the one who has no idea how reading lists work, then why don’t you answer my question.
“A reading list does not constitute teaching creation, and the books are about science.”
the books are about creationism, not science.
“then start by admitting that teaching a naturalistic origin of the universe and life constitutes teaching religion.”
funny how it isn’t a religion at all since by your own admission, naturalism has nothing to do with gods and their magic.
“Would he be teaching creation if one of those books was on his reading list? Answer the question and tell the truth.”
Nope, not if using *one* of those books to teach about creationism, and not teaching creationism from it. Alas, for you, Hedin was teaching creationism from *all* of those books, and funny how *all* of those books were about creationism.
You fail again.
So who gets to define ‘creationism’? You? You don’t even know what creationism is and must keep redefining it to fit your agenda. You can’t even articulate what Hedin taught that constituted teaching creationism in the classroom (what about the book list?!?). You can differentiate between creationism and secularism. The books are about science, whether you like it or not. I don’t consider evolution to be associated with creationism. Do you? But some of the books on that list are- as I pointed out- supportive of evolution. Therefore, according to you, since the books on that list teach creationism, then you must agree that supporting evolution is the same as teaching creationism. And since creationism is ‘against the law’, then teaching evolution is against the law. See the consequences of your logic? You need to think more critically. Your arguments are based on emotion, and that’s pinning you into a corner. Your secular thinking is inconsistent. But if you really believe evolution is scientific, then you’d have to admit those books do teach science, which is something you can’t bring yourself to do because you’re invested in opposing content you disagree with based on prejudice.
Naturalism is a religion precisely because it takes a religious stance by denying other religions. To claim that nature has nothing to do with “gods and their magic” is a religious stance. Nature doesn’t take a stance, but naturalism does. And according to naturalism, the universe came about by chance, not by a God or god(s). It actively denies God’s creation. And according to you, if it makes a religious claim, then it can’t be science… it has to be religion. Just because naturalism has nothing to do with “gods or their magic” doesn’t mean it has no religious implications. It does.
Oh, so it would be okay for Coyne to teach from one of those books, even though you claim the books teach creationism, as long as he doesn’t teach creationism from the books that teach creationism… sounds illogical and self-serving. But you can’t even tell me what Hedin was teaching that constituted creationism. You just point to the book list, implying that it doesn’t matter if he wasn’t teaching creation, he can’t use that book. But Coyne can. Therefore, if Coyne can teach from one of those books without teaching creation, then so can Hedin. And that invalidates your booklist argument.
ROFL. I do love how you fail, Jon. Now you want to claim that somehow I’m misdefining “creationism”.
nice lie there, dear. Creationism is when Christians, and occasionally other theists, make the baseless claim that their god created reality by supernatural means. It can take many forms since theists can’t agree on what they want to make up. Examples of creationism are young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution.
Christians have used the term “intelligent design” to try to get their nonsense into public schools. This was demonstrated in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case in the misprint of “cdesign propentists” in the book “Of Pandas and People”.
Natualism is not a religion as Christianity is defined as a religion. Christians try to claim they are equivalent in their want to “teach the controversy”, aka teach their baseless nonsense that some god exists and is the creator. Jon demonstrates just how ignorant he is since he tries the claim of random chance creating the universe which is not what the Big Bant Theory says.
A religious claim can’t be scientific. It cannot have the scientific method applied to it. And it’s hilarious that you say something as ridculous as “if it makes a religious claim, then it can’t be science… it has to be religion. ” Since yep, a religious claim is made about something, it is about religion.
You again fail with your nonsense trying to make teaching creationism and teaching about creationism being the same. I do love how you lie about what I’ve said. That’s typical for a Christian like you, Jon.
The reading list is entirely about creationism. Hedin taught creationism as fact. You and he demonstrate just how much Christianity depends on willful ignorance and outright lies.
Glad I could amuse you. Yes, you have misdefined creationism. It’s as if you think creationism is whatever you want it to be with special exceptions in place for whomever you choose. To me, that’s utter nonsense. Wouldn’t you agree?
Obviously I don’t agree with your self-serving definition of creationism: “Creationism is when Christians, and occasionally other theists, make the baseless claim that their god created reality by supernatural means”. In fact, I doubt any creationist would, so I was correct when I stated that you don’t know what creationism is and must keep redefining it to fit your agenda. You proved me right, even while resorting to personal attacks. It’s apparent you can’t debate with facts.
And then you misrepresent intelligent design and its intent and show your bias. As you’ve previously stated, if ID and creation are true, then it is science, and you should support truth being taught in the classroom. But you won’t because your goal has nothing to do with truth in the classroom.
I’d suggest atheists only use the word “science” to get their nonsense into public schools by deceiving the public at large. Yes, naturalism is a religion. You must ignore the definition of religion in order to claim that naturalism isn’t a religion. Naturalism requires faith- a key component to any religion. As long as atheist’s claims must be believed by faith, it’s religious in nature.
But you’re correct that Christians want to teach the controversy, and that should be legal in a free society, especially a society founded on faith and Christianity. But I disagree that any of what we want to teach is baseless. That’s your biased opinion. I’d suggest that your beliefs are baseless nonsense (that everything came about naturalistically and without purpose).
Are you denying that the universe came about by random chance? Are you suggesting the Big Bang came about on purpose? If you believe the traditional story of the Big Bang, then random chance is all you’ve got. You must believe it happened without any plan or purpose, and that the fine-tuning is just an illusion, that our universe was inevitable and couldn’t have happened any differently. Tell me, do you believe in multiverses? Supposedly, if there were multiverses, the laws of physics could be very different, but that couldn’t be true if you really believe the universe didn’t come about by random chance. Why did the Big Bang happen at all? And what’s to stop another one from occurring right here, right now? Why couldn’t a singularity happen randomly or nonrandomly?
You say religious claims can’t be scientific. First, that’s a biased claim, and I disagree. Second, it’s demonstrably false. I was simply using your logic against you. The law of abiogenesis is a perfect example. Atheists believe- by faith- that life came from nonlife by naturalistic processes. That’s a religious claim. It cannot have the scientific method applied to it. On the other hand, the scientific method has demonstrated that life only comes from life with no exceptions. And that’s exactly what the Bible says happened in Genesis. God (who is alive) created life to reproduce after its kind. Thus, a religious claim has been substantiated scientifically. So, if you wish to deny the law of abiogenesis, you’re making a religious claim, and by your definition, it’s not scientific. Yet you try to pretend it’s not a religious statement, even though it requires more faith than belief in God.
“Yes, you have misdefined creationism. I”
and yet more fail from Jon. Of course, poor Jon can’t define creationism any differently. He just lies and claims I’m wrong.
Dear, I don’t agree with liars. This is my definition of creationism “Creationism is when Christians, and occasionally other theists, make the baseless claim that their god created reality by supernatural means”” Now, let’s look at how Christian websites define creationism:
“Creationism is the position that God created the universe.” – Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) website
“Young-earth creationists believe that God created the universe, and everything in it, recently because this is what the Word of God clearly teaches.” Answers in Genesis website
“Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by God.” – Conservapedia website
“Scientists and others who study about the creation, in the belief that God did create it supernaturally in six days, and still preserves it, are called creationists. Non-scientists who also believe this are also called creationists.” – Creationmoments website
And this is just a handful of the Christian creationist sites that agree with my definition.
We can also see how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines creationism:
“At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense.”
Jon is shown wrong again.
This is verbatim from a document commonly referred as the “wedge document” written by member of the Discovery Institute, a Christian organization that touts “intelligent design” aka creationism, among other things.
“To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Jon is found to be wrong again. Creationism aka intelligent design aren’t true. I do support teaching the truth and funny creationists have shown that even they don’t agree with teach other on who has the “truth”.
Poor Jon, he tries to lie and claim that science is false, but he uses it every day. What a good hypocrite he is. Alas, naturalism isn’t a religion like Christianity or Islam etc. Jon has nothing more than a broad interpretation of what a “religion” is, and gee, by it, baseball can be considered a religion. Naturalism requires no faith as Christianity, Islam, etc do. Faith
I’d suggest atheists only use the word “science” to get their nonsense into public schools by deceiving the public at large. Yes, naturalism is a religion. You must ignore the definition of religion in order to claim that naturalism isn’t a religion. Naturalism requires faith- a key component to any religion. As long as atheist’s claims must be believed by faith, it’s religious in nature. We can see how Christianity defines faith right here; “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. “ Hebrews 11. Naturalism doesn’t require this at all. Science requires investigation before “conviction”.
I’m glad that Jon does admit that chritsian want to force people to learn their religion, and gee, which version of creationism would be considered the “truth” for “teaching the controversy”. Well, Jon can’t say. Since Jon can’t show any evidence any version of creationism is true, what he wants to teach is indeed baseless. Alas, he can only “suggest” my points are baseless since he has nothing to show they are wrong. Nothing needs his magically derived “purpose”. He only assumes it’s needed.
We don’t know if the universe came about by “random chance”. If the laws of physics are eternal, then it came about because it had to. Poor Jon, so desperate to assume that everything must have a purpose. He, again, can’t show that this is necessary. Jon, as always, shows his ignorance about the basics of the Big Bang Theory, and depends on long superseded claims.
There is no evidence of “fine-tuning” so Jon fails again. There is no evidence for multiverses too. I will not “believe” in them until evidence is found.
We don’t know why the Big Bang happened…*yet*. We don’t know what starts one or prevents one…*yet*. We don’t know what happened to cause the big bang singularity…*yet*. And even if we never figure it out completely, there is still no evidence for poor Jon’s god. Jon presents no more than a god of the gaps argument, which is dependent on humans never doing research again.
Religious claims, aka theist claims, can’t be scientific since they are untestable, and gee, it’s the theiss who claim that no one should test their god. It’s not a biased claim at all, and who cares if a liar disagrees with me.
There is no “law of abiogenesis”; it’s a hypothesis that is currently being worked on. Jon then has to create a strawman, that somehow atheists believe in abiogenesis like Jon believes in his god. There is no evidence for his god, so us humans are doing research to see how life came about. There is no “faith” like Jon has in his god, involved.
The scientific method is “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”. This method is what is being used to determine how life arose, and it is still going on. Poor Jon again has to hope that no more research is ever done so his faith (religion) can exist.
Christians don’t agree on what the story in genesis means, so Jon fails again. There is nothing to show his god exists, much less is alive like humans, cockroaches, and fig trees are alive. He simply lies with this: “And that’s exactly what the Bible says happened in Genesis. God (who is alive) created life to reproduce after its kind. Thus, a religious claim has been substantiated scientifically.”
More personal attacks. You are wrong, and I explained why in very clear, consistent terms. It’s amazing that you quote your own, misdefined definition of creationism, then produce accurate definitions, and then claim that “Christian creationist sites” agree with your definition. Nonsense! I would wager none of them would agree with your definition, particularly the word “baseless”. That’s your personal definition, and no creationist would agree. Otherwise they wouldn’t be creationists. Please, give up these petty games you’re playing. You’re digging yourself into a bigger hole every time you respond.
No, you don’t support teaching truth; you’re quite opposed to it. You’re more concerned about maintaining a secular agenda.
I have to call you a liar for claiming that I claimed “science is false”. I never claimed that. Therefore, you’re a liar.
Naturalism is a religion, and I’ve demonstrated that. All religions don’t have to be alike in order to be a religion. Just because naturalism isn’t like every other religion doesn’t mean it’s not a religion. It just means that it’s a different kind of religion. The key ingredient in any religion is faith, and that makes naturalism a religion. You can deny it all you want, but you can’t hide from it. If you were honest, you’d admit it.
Consider, you quoted Hebrews 11: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” and then you said naturalism doesn’t require this at all. That is a lie. I already challenged you on abiogenesis, and you failed to provide a coherent answer. Although the scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that life only comes from life, you must deny that by faith. By faith you must believe that life arose from non-living chemicals, and there is no evidence for that at all. Your defense is “it’s a hypothesis that is currently being worked on”. That response is an admission that you don’t have an answer, and you can’t hide behind ignorance as a defense. Thus, naturalism requires faith, making it a religion. Be honest and admit it.
Funny, you state, “Science requires investigation before ‘conviction’”. Well, that’s not really a definition of science, and you wouldn’t find any of the founding fathers of science stating that because they all (Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell) maintained a conviction of God, and they were creationists. Admit it, don’t you maintain your conviction regarding abiogenesis even though the investigation is not complete??? It sure sounds like you’ve put your conviction before investigation. Thus, naturalism is a religion.
I never admitted that Christians want to “force” people to learn Christianity. Why do you have to lie? The truth is you want to force people to learn atheism. That’s why you think it should be illegal to present evidence contradicting naturalism. You only want students to learn about naturalistic explanations, even if naturalism can’t explain the origin of life, but creationism can.
The Biblical version of creation is what I believe, and that is truth. If you examine life at the cellular level, you’ll find that the Bible is correct when it states that God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what he has made. Cells are like factories, and they work because complex coded information is being communicated in the DNA. This doesn’t make sense, except from a creationist perspective, as naturalism can’t account for complex information. This just doesn’t occur naturally, and there’s no observable evidence to the contrary. Your only hope is blind faith.
You claim the universe came about because it had to, but you have no observable evidence to back that claim up. Only blind faith.
The earth sure looks like it was created on purpose to support life. Check out my post on Casey Luskin. You claim, without evidence, that there is no evidence of fine-tuning. But I’ve provided plenty of evidence. So please stop lying about there being no evidence for fine-tuning when I’ve provided the evidence.
Funny you claim I’m ignorant about the Big Bang, but you admit you don’t know why the Big Bang happened or what starts one or prevents one, but you have faith that someday secular scientists will figure it out.
You claim, without evidence, that there’s no evidence for God, but I’ve been provided evidence since 2012. If you read my articles, you’d find the evidence you claim doesn’t exist.
I’m glad you admit there’s no evidence for multiverses. There’s also no evidence that life could come from nonliving material. Funny that you won’t believe in multiverses until evidence is found, but you need no evidence for abiogenesis to believe life must have arisen from nonliving material anyway.
Sure, religious claims can be tested, and they have been. Religious claims regarding the age of the earth can be tested. Or do you think it’s impossible to test the age of the earth? Sounds like you lied.
There are many things atheists don’t agree on, including the big bang. So, if atheists aren’t in agreement, is that evidence that it’s wrong? You act as if Christians not agreeing on something disqualifies Christianity, which is ridiculous. Atheists don’t agree on how life began, so, according to your logic, you fail again.
and still more fail from Jon. I love the pleading for me to stop showing you to be a liar. Alas, my defintion of creationism is exactly what creationists say. It’s hilarious to see you deny what is in writing in your desperation.
I also love the appeal to authority with this lovely list “Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell) ”
hmmm, Newton was an antitrinitarian so he doesn’t agree with your Christianity, dear. Kepler and Galileo were abused by Christians. And yep, Christians can be scientists, they aren’t liars like creationists.
“Sure, religious claims can be tested, and they have been. Religious claims regarding the age of the earth can be tested. Or do you think it’s impossible to test the age of the earth? Sounds like you lied.”
ROFL. Oh my. So, dear, do tell me how old the earth is. I know it from science. Creatoinists all make different claims and surprise, you can’t even convince each other. How precious.
“The Biblical version of creation is what I believe, and that is truth.”
every kind of creationist claims that their version is the “biblical versoin” and surprise, you all disagree on what that is. And every theist claims his god is the creator god, and fails to show it, just like you.
“The earth sure looks like it was created on purpose to support life. ”
yep, it might look like it. A puddle would think that a divot in the ground is made for it too. Your personal ignorance and laziness and lies don’t make it so.
You[ve provided no evidence for fine-tuning and I do love your pleading that I cease showing that. You’ve lied like every other creationist.
“There’s also no evidence that life could come from nonliving material.”
no evidence yet. And gee, still no evidence for poor Jon’s god.
Atheists agree on one thing: no god or no gods. So, no dear, that atheists don’t agree on the BBT doesn’t mean that it is wrong. We have evidence for it. Darn, still no evidence that Jon’s god exists.
What asinine conclusions at the end of this blog, and what a great victory for common sense by the reliable FFRF and the unreliable Jerry Coyne.
Creationism belongs in the oblivion hinterlands in blogs like this one, not in the august halls of Ball State academe.
Thanks for visiting. I appreciate your comments and hope you return.
Can you be more specific and explain exactly why the conclusion at the end of the blog is asinine? I thought they were spot on.
How did common sense gain a victory? Common sense tells me that Hedin was perfectly justified in how he conducted the class, and that he was wronged by FFRF, Coyne and the university. Hedin was the only one who demonstrated any class, and he did so in the midst of a supposed defeat because he saw the bigger picture.
I’m glad we both agree Coyne is unreliable. His response was weak and literally made no sense.
And although Hedin was not teaching creation in his classroom, I’d suggest that creationism belongs wherever truth is allowed to exist. Those who accuse Hedin of teaching creationism are participating in misinformation.
No need to insult my blog, especially since you don’t know me personally. Let’s be civil, respectful and decent to one another.
To be be more specific, you do realize that there has been something called an “Enlightenment” based on scientific cosmological findings that has destroyed your Stone age point of view? There is not a single serious piece of evidence or argument to the creationism angle that Hedin was exposed as promulgating, yet you ask for “respect” and “decency”?
Why? Why waste more time on nonsense?
Blogs are made to be insulted, if they are specious, irrational, or made to further ignorance. As for you personally, or me personally, who cares? Stop playing the wounded innocent – it doesn’t work for any antediluvian religious ideologue, ever.
Reblogged this on The Creation Cowboy and commented:
Professional #liar4darwin proselytizer Jerry Coyne made some outrageous (possibly libelous) claims about Eric Hedin. It appears that he is not only opposed to free speech, but freedom of thought as well. Must protect the atheistic narrative, you betcha!
Ah, the Enlightenment. You do realize the founding fathers of science were all creationists who believed in God? Francis Bacon was the one most responsible for the scientific method. Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Joseph Lister and many others were Bible-believing creation scientists. They’re the ones who destroyed the secular stone age point of view. They believed that God created an orderly, rational universe that could be understood. They believed it was possible to gain knowledge about the universe by a systematic method based on observation and experimentation. The major fields of science were founded by Bible-believing Christians. Sadly, many people are ignorant of these facts and fail to give proper credit to creationists.
So it’s your misunderstanding of history and science that compelled you to describe the conclusion as asinine. Now that we’ve resolved that conundrum, I’m still confused as to why you keep accusing Hedin of teaching creationism without evidence. You state he was exposed as promulgating creationism, but provided no evidence. If you’re going to accuse him, then specify what it is he taught that qualifies as teaching creationism as opposed to teaching about the implications of science. For instance, do you think pointing out the narrow parameters of gravity constitute teaching creation? Is it forbidden to talk about the specific values of certain physical constants, which may imply fine-tuning? Is it wrong to infer a supernatural creation as a possibility for the existence of such parameters? Or are professors only allowed to imply naturalism, which denies the existence of God, and is itself is a religious position?
Seriously, would you agree that teaching naturalism- which denies God’s special creation- is considered teaching religion? After all, if pointing to things in the universe that appear to be designed is considered teaching religion, then denying their design must also be a religious implication.
Honestly, I can take the insults, but it tells me more about your lack of character that you would try to justify your need to engage in such behavior based on your biased opinions. Is that how you want others to treat you? Think about it.