Palin: Heritage and Science Challenged

Ann and Boris,
I can understand in a sense what Boris is saying in the fact, that as a child I also would question, believing that if there was really a God of the Universe, then there must be more to HIM than what I am witnessing. I remember also thinking as a young teenager..."God, if there is really a you, then I would like to know YOU for who YOU really are..." Like I said before... there is NO ARGUMENT against an EXPERIENCE. Things then become... "I know, that I know, that I know..."
Boris, Your mother must have prayed for you alot.... though you may think it was in vain. Did she ever change her views? Just asking...
Ann, I love your heart and spirit. There is those out there that would love to hear what you have to say.
I don't know when or if I will be back on this site... but it has been interesting visiting here.

Ann,
You said: So how do you explain to anyone who hasn't experienced it, that there's Christianity and then, there's CHRISTIANITY? One is the man-made, organized religion and one is the personal, life-changing, spiritual connection with GOD.

Boris says: There is no such thing as a loner Christian in the Bible. So you’re not a follower of Jesus unless you fellowship in a church with other believers. According to the Bible, Christians are supposed to be part of a community of Christians and especially a church. By definition that is a religion. Religion has such a bad reputation Christians these days try to claim they aren’t really religious. You're embarrassed by your religion and all the crazies in it, but won't admit it.

You said: I understand, Boris, that you have an intellectual knowledge of what the Bible says. Have you EVER been open to finding out what truths lie beyond your current intellectual knowledge? If so, accept the challenge posted earlier.

Boris says: Your version of truth and mine are radically different.

You said: Those who criticize the Intelligent Design Model (ID) for our existence often argue that ID is not science simply because its proponents may have religious beliefs/affiliations. This kind of attack is hypocritical and illogical.

1.ID is a scientific-based argument, not a faith-based one. ID has scientific merit because it uses well accepted scientific methods to detect the kinds of complexity in nature which comes from intelligence and not chance.

Boris says: Science isn’t done with preconceived notions such that things are designed nor do scientists look for evidence to prove a certain point. That is pseudo-science – the nonsense that dupes badly misinformed people.

You said: If it were (as some claim) only a recitation of religious teachings, then it wouldn't stand up to anything scientific...yet in reality - it does.

Boris says: ID is not a scientific theory for four reasons. First, ID's advocates do not set aside explanations that are beyond human reason, as the nature of science requires. Scientists refrain from considering God's actions in their work. Instead they use observation, experimentation, prevailing scientific theory, mathematics, logical arguments, strict empirical standards, heuristics, and healthy skepticism to produce knowledge. Scientific theories are therefore explanations about aspects of nature without reference to God. This means they are natural, and we call this context methodological naturalism.
Second, ID's advocates spend their time, resources, and energy criticizing and distorting the character of evolution in particular and science in general. One example is their claim that science practiced as methodological naturalism is atheistic. The methodological naturalism of scientific work and knowledge does not mean that scientific work and knowledge are atheistic
Third a useful scientific theory will be modified or replaced only when a new theory is proposed and documented through scientific work to explain and predict as much or more. Until this happens, ID has no place in school science.
Fourth, the motivation, strategy, and behavior of ID advocates are not scientific. This point can be clarified with a metaphor. Standing in line is perhaps a universal experience. Meal lines, grocery cashier lines, driver's license lines, and auto license plates lines are all too familiar experiences that sometimes test our patience. What do folks who are waiting in line think when someone cuts in line? Their thoughts are probably neither positive nor charitable. ID doctrine and its advocates are attempt ting to cut in line. Biological evolution stood in line for over 140 years to become the single accepted a scientific theory for explaining the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms. Standing in line means that evolution has been thoroughly and repeatedly examined through accepted scientific work, which shows that evolution explains the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms very well, but not completely. standing in line also means that scientists use evolution to make an extensive variety of accurate predictions. Such work has provided humans with antibiotics, vaccines, and better foods. ID advocates have not generated acceptable scientific work, nor have they set forth accurate predictions based on their work; their theoretical proposal is to an audience of citizens, not to the scientific community. A central strategy of ID advocates appeal to the public is to charge that scientists are unfair, biased, close-minded, and protective of a bankrupt theory. The scientific community has responded, and continues to respond, by pointing out that the advocates of ID doctrine are attempting to cut in line by not conducting and reporting acceptable scientific work.

You said: If it were just a religious teaching, then what about cases such as this: Antony Flew was an atheist who stated in 2004 that he was now convinced that "the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Boris says: Anthony Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist. Who cares what he thinks about biological evolution?

You said: They'd believe that it would fall apart as soon as it was looked at. The only logical reason for them being against doing this is that lurking somewhere deep within them is the certainty that when they're scientifically compared (side by side), intelligent people will see & believe the truths of ID - scientifically proven.

Boris says: None of the claims of intelligent design proponents, especially the work of its primary “theorists,” biochemist Michael Behe and theologian William Dembski, have stood up under scientific scrutiny. Not only have their arguments been shown to be flawed, but also in several instances the factual claims on which they rest have been proven false. None of their work has been published in respected scientific journals.

You said: Even Darwin died not believing that his "Theory" was real truth.

Boris says: The truth is that scientists have already proven his theory as being wrong. They did this by giving each "step" of man a DNA test. Does this mean that Charles Darwin is now a laughing stock? By all means no. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin bringing up this theory, we may never have thought about this option. Charles Darwin came up with a good foundation on which to build a new branch of science.

One thing that makes me think that these "creation scientists" have never even studied Darwin's theories is the fact that on the very first couple of pages, in the introduction, of Origin of Species Charles Darwin says the following quotes.

"My work now (1859) is nearly finished, but it will take me many years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract."
As we know an Abstract is not much more than an outline, or introduction. To take this book as fact is in great error, for it's not completed work.

"This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt some errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting good authorities alone."
In other words, this book isn't complete, the theory hasn't been fully researched, and there is a great deal more work left. Not to mention there may be false leads that have yet to be weeded out. In other words... not even Darwin himself was confident of his works on evolution.

Not only did Darwin think he was right, but neither did scientists, they furthered his studies and continued to do so with the help of technology, until they disproved it. So never was there a time that a true scientist said "Darwin's theory of evolution is right, without a doubt." So if a creation scientist tells you this, you know that they are lying to you.

You said: In fact, the vast majority of early scientists were Christians who scientifically proved many things that we now know are fact. They were proven right...not because their work had been inspired by religious beliefs, but because the scientifically researched evidence supported those facts. And so today, the science of intelligent design cannot be ignored simply because of any religious beliefs of those who work in this field of science.

Boris says: There is a big difference between Christian like Galileo or Newton and literal Bible believers. Fundamentalist Christians fail to point out that every scientific discovery ever made ever since there was a Bible has been denied and fought against by literal Bible believers even the ones made by other Christians.

“In the discussion of natural problems we ought not to begin with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.” – Galileo Galilei.
There isn’t a fundamentalist Bible believing born-again Christian who would agree with Galileo even today, now is there?

You said: 3. Any person can choose to agree or not agree with the conclusions scientifically drawn by the ID model. What you can't logically or realistically do is claim that ID is nothing more than religious ideas.

Boris says: Sure. Then why are ALL the ID writers evangelical Christians? Why is that all these people can do is present arguments? Science isn’t done with arguments but with experiments and demonstrations. ID hoaxers can’t do any of these can they?

You said: Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Boris says: The error of this argument is that, once again using backward logic, ID cites an example of modern life – the result of four billion years of cellular evolution – the asks how such a complicated structure could randomly pop into existence. Needless to say, such complexity couldn’t randomly pop into existence, and no origin-of-life researcher ever made such an outlandish proposal. ID arguments appealing to the DNA sequence are empty straw men. The first cells had no DNA. They reproduced their simple forms merely by division – by falling apart.

Now answer this question: When has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of religious claims?