I'm not here to disprove God's existence, as that is pretty much impossible, but these claims to evidence are demostrably false and misleading. God's existence isn't provable, some religious people say that this is the point. Further, this advertisement posits the existence of the Christian God specifically, but I'll deal with its egocentrism later in this post. I think for clarity's sake it would be best to address the claims in the order they were presented:
More...
1. "The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."
The Earth... The author suggests that the earth's size and distance from the sun are "perfect" for humans, because it keeps the planet at a livable temperature and holds a thin atmosphere of gaseous Nitrogen and Oxygen. This begs the question: "Why did this same God make the fossil record appear as though life was responsible for creating these livable conditions?" The fossil record suggests that most of our atmosphere's gaseous Oxygen and Nitrogen are byproducts of the metabolism of primeval bacteria, algae, and fungae, and further suggests that life adapted to these conditions and not the other way around. The author also suggests that without the moon the oceans would "stagnate," which simply isn't true; ocean currents might be different without lunar tides, but they wouldn't go away.
Water... The author has transposed cause and effect again; she notes some of the remarkable properties of water which allowed life to develop, as though water was made to suit life. Even in the bible God makes the waters first, before he even gets to people. The author also notes that
"Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people"This begs the question though, why make 97% of the water marine? Why, if land life is so special, not make more land and more fresh water. Why make the seas saline at all? It seems rather inconvenient if we're supposed to have dominion over the whole earth.
The human brain... The author points out that the human brain is extremely complex, and that "[t]he brain functions differently than other organs. There is an inteligence to it..." Why, in all its complexity, does our nervous system have all of these apparently vestigeal bits? Why are there so many substances capable of immitating neurochemicals and impairing or altering the brain's function? Why would we hallucinate? And while it is complex, the author points out a great deal of information that the brain receives it ignores; why were we not designed with a prefrontal cortex capable of cognizing more information per second?
The eye... Which "can distinguish between seven million colors" and processes millions of messages per second. The eye certainly handles a lot of information, most of which the brain ignores, which begs the question: why doesn't the eye only perceive relevant stimuli? As for the millions of colors; colors are not categories which exist objectively in the world, they are constructions of the human mind; the eye can dectect very subtle differences in light wavelength, but this seven million number is meaningless. The author goes on to suggest that evolution cannot fully explain the "initial source" of the eye or brain, or the start of life from nonliving matter. Assuming that the assertion about evolution "not fully explaining" is true, suggesting that there is not an adequate explanation does not mean God is the explanation, it merely means that there is not currently an adequate explantion. However, evolutionary biology can model very well how the eye might have originated as a simple light detecting cell or cluster of cells like the maggot's eye, which they use to avoid light by bobbing back and forth. For a video of a rather handsome young Richard Dawkins illustrating such a model click here.
2. "The universe had a start - what caused it?" The author points out that science has yet to answer this question and then quotes several scientists out of context about how powerful the big bang was, and how we cannot fully know its cause. The problem with her suggestion is two fold: 1. If there is no explanation for the cause of the universe coming into being, it does not mean that God is the only explanation, or even that God is a good or probable explanation. 2. If God did create the universe from nothing, what caused God to come into being. While the cause of the universe is unknowable, and conluding that it must be due to God without providing an explanation for God's own existence is patently ridiculous.
3. "The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?" The author points out that the same natural laws apply everywhere, and quotes Richard Feynman "The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." Bringing up Richard Feynman (by quoting him out of context) undercuts the author's assertion fundamentally, because Feynman is talking here about the fundamental strangeness of quantum electrodynamics; there aren't definite particles in specific places, and the forces that apply on the scale that we're used to, cannot be easily reconciled with the strong and weak forces. Why aren't the uniform laws of nature on the quantum scale, the same on the macroscopic scale?
4. "The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior." The author simplistically explains that DNA is a "programming code" for the cell that are "chemicals that instruct" the cell, dictating its behavior. "Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it." First of all, DNA codes for protein. Period. Protein synthesis is pretty well understood, and while it does dictate much about the cell's behavior, the programming language analogy is erroneous, because DNA is does not code for behaviors, but rather, components. Secondly, if this precise code so clearly points to an intentional constructor, like God, why would DNA have so many blunders like genetic disease, transcription errors, mutations, and DNA for unexpressed proteins? Finally, even if natural, biological causes were inadequate when "programmed information" is involved, that does not mean there aren't any sufficient natural, biological explanations that have yet to be proposed, and it is utterly absurd to conclude that because one does not understand any natural, biological explanations for natural, biological phenomena that the only alternative is a supernatural explanation.
5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. The author suggests that atheists are interested in refuting religion, because God is present in their thoughts. She posits further that God created us with the intention of having us know him. I am interested in refuting religious claims, because the onus of proof for any claim lies on the one positing the claim, and religious ideas dominate every major institution in society, with no evidence to speak of. I am bombarded constantly with theist propaganda, and every media representation of Atheists paints us a amoral, bitter curmudgeons. On that note, if God created us with the intention of having us knowing him, why require this irrational faith business; why not simply make himself known to everyone by manifesting conclusively in everyone's lives (booming voices from the sky, burning bushes, impregnating virgins, dictating stone tablets and the like). Why does God appear to Christians as Jesus or YHWH, but to Hindus as Shiva or Krishna? Why didn't Jesus, when resurected, just go tell everyone his good news, and why, if he controls everything, did he prevent testimonies of his acts from being written until at least 30 years after his death. It seems to me, that if God wanted to be known, he sort of confused things a bit.
6. "Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us." What? Why are their contradictions between the gospels? What the hell is with this God, but the son of God thing, and how the hell could something so essential to God's nature only be described in the vaguest terms? If it is a revelation from God, why wasn't it written sooner, and what makes the testaments of the bible more legitimate than their contemporary gospels. Really, most other religious texts are equally aged and ambiguous, but the claim to the uniqueness of the bible in clarity, or specificity is plainly a contrivance.
3. "The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?" The author points out that the same natural laws apply everywhere, and quotes Richard Feynman "The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." Bringing up Richard Feynman (by quoting him out of context) undercuts the author's assertion fundamentally, because Feynman is talking here about the fundamental strangeness of quantum electrodynamics; there aren't definite particles in specific places, and the forces that apply on the scale that we're used to, cannot be easily reconciled with the strong and weak forces. Why aren't the uniform laws of nature on the quantum scale, the same on the macroscopic scale?
4. "The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior." The author simplistically explains that DNA is a "programming code" for the cell that are "chemicals that instruct" the cell, dictating its behavior. "Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it." First of all, DNA codes for protein. Period. Protein synthesis is pretty well understood, and while it does dictate much about the cell's behavior, the programming language analogy is erroneous, because DNA is does not code for behaviors, but rather, components. Secondly, if this precise code so clearly points to an intentional constructor, like God, why would DNA have so many blunders like genetic disease, transcription errors, mutations, and DNA for unexpressed proteins? Finally, even if natural, biological causes were inadequate when "programmed information" is involved, that does not mean there aren't any sufficient natural, biological explanations that have yet to be proposed, and it is utterly absurd to conclude that because one does not understand any natural, biological explanations for natural, biological phenomena that the only alternative is a supernatural explanation.
5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. The author suggests that atheists are interested in refuting religion, because God is present in their thoughts. She posits further that God created us with the intention of having us know him. I am interested in refuting religious claims, because the onus of proof for any claim lies on the one positing the claim, and religious ideas dominate every major institution in society, with no evidence to speak of. I am bombarded constantly with theist propaganda, and every media representation of Atheists paints us a amoral, bitter curmudgeons. On that note, if God created us with the intention of having us knowing him, why require this irrational faith business; why not simply make himself known to everyone by manifesting conclusively in everyone's lives (booming voices from the sky, burning bushes, impregnating virgins, dictating stone tablets and the like). Why does God appear to Christians as Jesus or YHWH, but to Hindus as Shiva or Krishna? Why didn't Jesus, when resurected, just go tell everyone his good news, and why, if he controls everything, did he prevent testimonies of his acts from being written until at least 30 years after his death. It seems to me, that if God wanted to be known, he sort of confused things a bit.
6. "Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us." What? Why are their contradictions between the gospels? What the hell is with this God, but the son of God thing, and how the hell could something so essential to God's nature only be described in the vaguest terms? If it is a revelation from God, why wasn't it written sooner, and what makes the testaments of the bible more legitimate than their contemporary gospels. Really, most other religious texts are equally aged and ambiguous, but the claim to the uniqueness of the bible in clarity, or specificity is plainly a contrivance.
No comments:
Post a Comment