tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post7776609930946131806..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: Hugh Hewitt's FaithBurt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-25901517686278008542009-12-12T05:12:04.946-08:002009-12-12T05:12:04.946-08:00TL, for an atheist you articulate the Christian fa...TL, for an atheist you articulate the Christian faith as well as any Christian I know. In fact, better than most. Thanks for being fair in your assessment of the interview and in the discussion.EnnisPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962612717129581443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-2183759157287831212009-10-27T18:43:57.420-07:002009-10-27T18:43:57.420-07:00I was pleased you responded to my post BUT when yo...I was pleased you responded to my post BUT when you said "DNA is hardly a 'simple' molecule…”, I am not sure you responded to what I wrote which was not that 'DNA was simple', BUT that THE MOLECULE that assembled it was. The real marvel is that DNA is composed by "idiot/ brainless" assembler molecules. Hence I said : "We are the product of the assembler molecules that made us (thru our DNA) what we are ". How can it be that brainless machines / assembler molecules stitched together, with no apparent aid, our DNA. Do re-read will you please. I have seen several nice Harvard videos that illustrate the process. Nice discussion.alwanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583534725341200564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-72678618630239170512009-10-27T14:07:12.695-07:002009-10-27T14:07:12.695-07:00DNA is hardly a 'simple' molecule but I re...DNA is hardly a 'simple' molecule but I readily agree that the process is quite amazing and replicating it is currently beyond the reach of science and technology. It will not always be this way, however. As for where DNA came from, I suggest that you <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823" rel="nofollow">start your research here</a>.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-64744340178335329542009-10-25T21:02:56.218-07:002009-10-25T21:02:56.218-07:00Miracles and evolution, think programming:
Don'...Miracles and evolution, think programming:<br />Don't you find it pretty amazing that a simple obtuse molecule can with the aid of even simpler 'helper' molecules (which bring in components for the next part of the chain) manufacture the complete DNA of a human being and get it right. Are we to believe it ?? Where does THAT kind of intelligence come from ?<br />Not from any kind of school for GIFTED molecules. How many PHD's can sit down with a science toy / DNA tinker toy and with out a chart build any thing approximating functioning human DNA, never mind the real thing!<br />Perhaps it's mans definition of God that is small, the universe SHOUTS the existence of God. Perhaps modern man is no more adept at reading ’portent/ meaning’ of bones then a witch doctor. We are the product of the assembler molecules that made us what we are , how can we ascribe such Genius to mere chance ? Teleology is partisan almost by definition , determining who is right and why is wearisome. Of the whys I do not know but I believe as David that “ only a fool says in his heart there is no god”.alwanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583534725341200564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-21548616327463108932009-10-22T20:12:38.557-07:002009-10-22T20:12:38.557-07:00"Perhaps", "may", "it may..."Perhaps", "may", "it may be true"... <br />"This could be a reasonable scientific explanation for the emergence of religion, faith, and the concept of God." <br />I appreciate the humility with which these conjectures are offered. Such humility is appropriate for any "scientific explanation" of religion or anything else for that matter. The nature of science demands such humility.Roberto Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001687796231578134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-52554614135147341092009-10-22T20:00:27.464-07:002009-10-22T20:00:27.464-07:00Perhaps religion is a manifestation of social evol...Perhaps religion is a manifestation of social evolution. It may exist, both broadly and persistently, because it "works" within a social system much the same way that bicameral vision and opposable thumbs work in terms of physical evolution. That is to say that those physical traits are advantageous to survival and continuation of the species, and therefore it may be true that adherence to religious beliefs is similarly advantageous to a society. This could be a reasonable scientific explanation for the emergence of religion, faith, and the concept of God.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621133960646283334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-3114355554132297472009-10-22T16:49:01.207-07:002009-10-22T16:49:01.207-07:00The reason I call the transformation of water into...The reason I call the transformation of water into wine a minor miracle is because relative to all the other supernatural events in the Bible, turning water into wine is very, very minor. The reasons you adduced for the Gospel writers' inclusion of it and other miracles in their accounts are partially correct (that is beside my point). However, since you brought it up, the evidence for Jesus being God from miracles attributed to him is distinct from the claim that Jesus is God. The former is secondary while the latter is primary. <br />I do believe Dawkins is sufficiently informed and knowledgeable on what relative place various things occupy in the Christian system of belief that his questioning of this particular miracle came off as subterfuge.Roberto Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001687796231578134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-1374861675170224112009-10-22T16:10:30.032-07:002009-10-22T16:10:30.032-07:00Roberto, I don't know how you can call turning...Roberto, I don't know how you can call turning water into wine a "minor miracle." I agree that this story doesn't significantly impact the <i>moral</i> message Jesus preached. But the authors of the Gospels thought the event was important enough to include it in their writings. Why? Moreover, Hewitt, a thoughtful Christian and an experienced forensic, unhesitatingly endorsed and defended the water-to-wine story. Why? Because the story <i>is</i> significant to the Christian faith.<br /> <br />The water-to-wine story (like the fishes-and-loaves story, the faith healing stories, the walking-on-water story, and so on) is offered as evidence that Jesus was not merely a rabbi who got a raw deal from the Romans, but instead that Jesus was <i>actually God</i>. The laws of physics and reality didn't apply to him; he could do things that only God could do. That means that a) we should worship Jesus as God, and b) Jesus' message is a <i>direct</i> communication from God to man. Seems to me that those propositions <i>are</i> cornerstones in the Christian belief system. That's why the miracle stories are in the Gospels, and that's why when they are criticized by skeptics, Christians defend the miracle stories.<br /><br />Now, as a physical proposition, turning water into wine <i>is</i> kind of a big deal. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen. Wine consists (mostly) of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. So to turn water into wine, you need to somehow get a lot of carbon into the system, and then artfully arrange the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms into a fairly precise blend of water, sugar, ethyl alcohol, and tannins. As a matter of physics, this is impossible because you can't make carbon out of hydrogen short of a compound fusion reaction, the likes of which would have been like dropping an H-bomb on Nazareth. And the story doesn't go that Jesus "added grape juice to the water and got wine," the story goes that he <i>transformed</i> water into wine. If true, this would have been a significant deviation from the laws of physics. And as an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.<br /> <br />And I disagree with your assignment of blame for Dawkins not "simply answer[ing] the questions about his new book". That's what Dawkins was doing for the first three segments of the interview -- when Hewitt was asking questions about the book. But Hewitt <i>changed the subject</i> from evidence for evolution in Dawkins' new book to atheism-versus-theism (Dawkins' previous book) in the fourth and fifth segments of the interview. The interview<b>ee</b> reacts to the subject raised by the interview<b>er</b>.<br /><br />I don't think either man came off 100% perfect, but I do think it was an extremely interesting, smart, and worthwhile exchange.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-41938719000385651572009-10-22T12:59:47.525-07:002009-10-22T12:59:47.525-07:00I am a Christian (of the calvinist variety) and I ...I am a Christian (of the calvinist variety) and I heard Hugh's interview in its entirety. I found it extremely telling that Dr. Dawkins attempt to draw attention to Hugh's belief in a minor miracle in order to ridicule it. After all, Dawkins knows very well that Jesus' turning water into wine does not occupy the place of a cornerstone in the Christian belief system. He knows very well that where Christian faith and Science intersect are the big issues: creation ex nihilo, cosmology, physics, the fine tuning of the universe as a brute fact versus purposeful, the beginning of life on earth, evolution braodly defined, chance versus guided descent of life, etc. His attempt at ridicule only served to distract from the difficulties of defending both his overarching philosophy of science and the particular details of his book Hugh was questioning him about at that portion of the interview. <br /> <br />Now, I'm not saying that Dawkins' position is absolutely untenable. He is an eminent biologist and a gifted writer. However, for some odd reason he chose to try to turn the table on Hugh in order to ridicule him(and by extention, all Christians' belief in miracles) when he could have simply answered the questions about his new book. <br /> <br />Unlike Dawkins' disingenuous dismay at Hugh's faith in miracles, I was not dismayed at his supreme confidence in science. I have come to realize that all people will place their supreme confidence in something for whatever they consider the issue that matters most. Dawkins' supreme confidence in science, his faith, will one day either be confirmed or disconfirmed. Just like mine.Roberto Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001687796231578134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-82639486195952549402009-10-22T12:56:19.572-07:002009-10-22T12:56:19.572-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberto Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001687796231578134noreply@blogger.com