The Mark of the Creator

Atheists argue that evolution, and DNA, and the Big Bang, and whatever, are all proofs that God doesn’t exist.  That patterns recur in nature is, for us, the very proof that Nature hints at a Designer, a great Artist who left His unique style on each of His creations.  For atheists, these patterns are somehow proof that the universe is essentially random and uncreated.  Their position makes no logical sense, but they seem insistent that it’s absolute, and we’re the idiots who don’t get it.

Now, I don’t really care what fundamentalists do, but when I go to Catholic blogs, I don’t see lots of discussion of atheists, except in the abstract or except in response to specific people like Dawkins, Hitchens or Myers. 

Go to Myers’ blog, however, and every other post is somehow designed to insult Christians.  Apparently, one of the things the Catholic League pointed out–that his blog, previously hosted by his university–was valid, as his blog is now hosted by something called “science”  Of course, Myers’ blog has nothing to do with science and everything to do with blasting Christians, using profanity, and hosting hundreds of profanity-laden posts by his intellectual readers.  Any time I’ve had the displeasure of browsing it, I’ve seen very few articles actually dealing with science.  Maybe he posts some embedded video or picture her and there, but it’s all about “Christians are stupid.”
Then he points to some example of a person who committed what the Bible clearly condemns as “tempting God” to show how stupid Christians are, in his view.  In one post, he talks about an obese man who never got out of his chair in the hopes that he’d be miraculously cured of obesity (ever hear of the seven deadly sins?); in another, he talks about a woman who never fed her kids because she was waiting for providence to provide food.

Myers makes a whole career out of pointing out stupid people who commit sins in the name of Christianity, and then says that examples of people who’ve done great things because they’re Christian don’t count, because “the real issue is whether you can prove any deity exists.”  Well, if that’s the real issue, why do you take such glee at insulting people?

P.Z. Myers, typical of his ilk, is a very petty, evil man.  While he takes umbrage at Christians’ presumption that atheists are evil, he does everything he can to justify that assumption by showing himself to be nasty and crude. 

As others have suggested, Myers probably has to do his second rate philosophy routine because he isn’t any good at biology.  Otherwise, his “science blog” would actually talk about science.

If this guy were really so confident of science convincing people to be atheists as he claims to be, then why does he need to constantly bash Christians? 

Why not just present the science and let the science speak for itself?


6 responses to “The Mark of the Creator

  1. We have a few college students online from College of Norwich University and we love your blog postings, so well add your rss or news feed for them, Thanks and please post us and leave a comment back and well link to you. Thanks Jen , Blog Manager Saint Michaels College.

  2. I don’t normally try to defend PZ, because I don’t much like his tone, and also, he doesn’t need me to defend him. BUT in this case….

    …You wrote: “Atheists argue that evolution, and DNA, and the Big Bang, and whatever, are all proofs that God doesn’t exist. ”

    No, they don’t. No one argues that these DNA, Big-Bang etc prove non-existence of God. We find that these things contradict CERTAIN accounts of God and CERTAIN origin-explanations (including yours) but no one claims they disprove God altogether.

    Even the Theory of Evolution was never claimed to disprove God, at least, not by anyone who understood it. What it did was show that the diversity of life on Earth could be explained WITHOUT needing to appeal to God. That atheism was POSSIBLE, not that it is RIGHT.

    Once you have shown that things can be explained without appeal to God, then the Principle of Occam’s Razor calls on you to discard the idea of God, but that’s Occam’s Razor, not the Theory of Evolution and not the Big Bang.

    Sheesh. One of the REASONS PZ is so impatient with Christians is that you all imagine you have answers to the scientific positions, but you don’t even UNDERSTAND what the scientific positions ARE! Case in point.

    Did you say PZ “isn’t any good at biology”?? My poor fellow, you cannot get tenure without being good at your field! They don’t tenure you unless they are sure you can (and will) continue to bring grant-money into the university, and you cannot get grants unless your accomplishments show you merit them.

    Well, I invite you to go to pubmed, look up PZ’s scientific papers, and explain to me what’s wrong with them, why they show he’s no good at bio. I will be very interested to see your analysis!

  3. Hey. People argue, for example, that C. S. Lewis’s writings on religion should give him status as a second-rate scholar in the field of literature. Myers hardly teaches at a top-tier university. It only takes a couple papers to get tenure. “By not any good,” I mean from an “outstanding scholar” perspective. If the dude had something unique to say about biology itself, he would be saying that instead of dedicating all this time and energy to atheism.

    I’ve never understood why Occam’s Razor is such a big deal to people. It’s a very arbitrary principle. After all, ID proponents say the exact same thing: that atheists’ proposition is absurd and that, when you look at the complexity of nature, the idea that it is random is a much crazier explanation than that it was designed by an Intelligence, so Occam’s Razor, in their view, would side with God.

    Occam’s Razor works for some things, but for higher level concepts, it basically boils down to whatever the particular observer *thinks* is the more reasonable explanation.

    For example, Padre Pio’s Stigmata: medically documented and filmed on camera. Any honest observer who’s studied the research admits they were not hoaxes, but the best explanation I’ve heard from “skeptics” is that they were psychosomatic. What is the more “reasonable” explanation of ssuch a phenomenon?

    What about the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe? Read the scientific data on those and tell me what Occam’s Razor would decide.

    Secondly, you criticize “my” view of creation, and you don’t even know what mine is.

    “We find that these things contradict CERTAIN accounts of God and CERTAIN origin-explanations (including yours) but no one claims they disprove God altogether. ”
    Can you explain how they contradict mine?

    First, the theorist who first speculated the Big Bang was a Catholic–and he was trying to find a way to refute Aristotle’s view that the cosmos was eternal. Prior to the “Big Bang,” that was one of the #1 things argued by scientific atheists.

    The Bible says, “Let there be light,” which seems to me to be a metaphor for the “big bang.”
    God creates the animals in a sequence. The sequence is really very similar to evolution.

    The thing that annoys me about atheists and fundamentalists alike is that neither have the mental capacity to distinguish between the metaphorical aspects of Genesis (which even the ancients took to be metaphorical) and the essential truths.

    It really doesn’t matter to me whether God directly created our first parents out of clay or out of some primitive primate.

    Even in the late 80s, they were saying that DNA evidence pointed to all humans descending from the same female.

    As long as you admit that, somewhere, there were “first parents,” I don’t care.

    Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed. We know that’s not true; we’ve known that’s not true for a long time, probably when Jesus Himself was alive. We also know it’s a metaphor, directed at the people of His time.

    Every “celebrity atheist” says that he stopped believing in God the moment he discovered evolution, so I can hardly see how you deny they think evolution disproves God.

    The problem is that atheists have already limited God to an explanation of the universe, rather than the reverse.

    Called your bluff. Not that I can vet the content of his articles, but a simple comparison: ten articles came up next to his name, most of them 20 years old or older. *That’s* my point as far as challenging his scholarship: not whether he’s produced some scholarshsip of mild scientific merit on obscure topics, but whether he’s actively contributing to scholarship of some significance.

    You don’t understand. I understand what the *scientific* positions are. Your “case in point” has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with philosophy–that’s *my* point. Occam’s Razor is not a scientific principle; it’s a philosophical principle.

    What irritates is “scientific” atheists who think treat science like it’s philosophy. I understand genetics better than a lot of MDs (I know, because I talk to a lot of MDs about genetics). But there is no “position” inherent in genetics itself. You are confusing knowledge of a scientific truth with a philosophical “position.”

  4. GG: That’s very nice reply, very nuanced. I only wish you had been equally nuanced and careful when you wrote the initial post, in particular when you wrote: “Atheists argue that evolution, and DNA, and the Big Bang, and whatever, are all proofs that God doesn’t exist.”

    Off-topic: If I were you I would rethink the title: “Hide me in your wounds”. It sounds too much like something the Marquis de Sade would have written! You know, he was into creating, and enjoying, NEW orifices in his victims.

  5. Please allow me to congratulate you on allowing dissenting opinions like those from “Operation Counterstrike” to remain, and even replying to them. Regardless of their merit (in this case, some good points were made), from a broader standpoint it’s refreshing to see a blog that isn’t simply an “echo chamber” for like-minded thoughts only.

  6. Thanks, Kirth, ironically I ultimately had to ban “Operation Counterstrike” for making too many offensive, juvenile comments. But I always welcome discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s