I understand how you feel. However, way I look at it, we are either free, or we aren't. If God is going to program our behavior, how we think, we are not completely free. I'm not saying that Bible is truth or anything like that, but according to the book, every unfortunate events that we experienced are the results of our doing. God created us, but he isn't the one that made us eat the apple(IMO, of course, this is arguable), deal with diseases, murderers, etc.
We kind of do. Just not exactly the same. As you've stated, we are all born with sin that carried over from Adam and Eve, supposedly. Because of this, we are not "perfect" like Jesus, Adam or Eve. My personal belief here is that we are not held to the high standard of Adam, since us, our society, are not perfect like Adam and the Garden of Eden. God expects us to do our best to lead good, clean life, but at the same time, he won't doom us for smaller mistakes we make in our lives.
We kind of do. Just not exactly the same. As you've stated, we are all born with sin that carried over from Adam and Eve, supposedly. Because of this, we are not "perfect" like Jesus, Adam or Eve. My personal belief here is that we are not held to the high standard of Adam, since us, our society, are not perfect like Adam and the Garden of Eden. God expects us to do our best to lead good, clean life, but at the same time, he won't doom us for smaller mistakes we make in our lives.
That's just my take on that.
I have Behe's book, and have read most of it, but quite simply he is wrong. His concept of 'irreducible complexity' and his (in)famous example of bacterial flagellum being 'irreducibly complex' has been thoroughly shot to pieces - not just by his critics, but in a US Federal Court... Behe's assertion was that this organelle is 'irreducibly complex' - that it could not work without all of it's constituent parts all being present, and that those constituent parts don't work without all the other parts. That's simply not true, and even Behe now concedes that he made a collossal mistake by saying that. The fact that the subunits that make up the whole organelle are individually functional in a myriad of other organelles is just the tip of the iceberg. For a proper critique of Behe's work, try reading some of Richard Dawkins' work or Niall Shanks' 'God, The Devil and Darwin'
Atleast Behe has made a genuine attempt, albeit slightly biased by his Creationist leanings, to address some of the problems with evolution theory at the molecular level, but some of his scientific shortcomings (and plain errors) are really shocking. This is why scientists typically do not convey their science through the medium of the popular press - basically because in a book, you can say whatever you like without the all-important process of peer-review. At best, Behe's book should be read with this firmly in mind - at worst, it should probably be best forgotten.I'll leave that one for the experts...
I have Behe's book, and have read most of it, but quite simply he is wrong. His concept of 'irreducible complexity' and his (in)famous example of bacterial flagellum being 'irreducibly complex' has been thoroughly shot to pieces - not just by his critics, but in a US Federal Court... Behe's assertion was that this organelle is 'irreducibly complex' - that it could not work without all of it's constituent parts all being present, and that those constituent parts don't work without all the other parts. That's simply not true, and even Behe now concedes that he made a collossal mistake by saying that. The fact that the subunits that make up the whole organelle are individually functional in a myriad of other organelles is just the tip of the iceberg. For a proper critique of Behe's work, try reading some of Richard Dawkins' work or Niall Shanks' 'God, The Devil and Darwin'
On a more general note, Behe doesn't explain how evolution doesn't hold up. He merely 'explains' that he cannot see how it's possible or how it works. He goes out of his way to show how 'this can't be so' but then offers no better alternative explanation than 'it must have been Intelligently Designed'...
No, it doesn't violate the Third Law of Thermodynamics... there are plenty other examples of 'order arising from disorder' which also do not violate the TLOT - because we're not talking about closed systems. Whenever energy can be put into a system, we have an open system - some everyday examples of order arising from disorder are: Hurricanes - they draw energy from the sea and a 'complex' system is created where one did not previously exist. Amyloid fibril formation in Alzheimer's Disease - random, unstructured sections of soluble protein (peptides) which self-assemble to form highly ordered, insoluble fibres in the brain (the hallmark of Alzheimer's). The formation of a baby from an embryo - again, this wouldn't be 'possible' according to someone who misunderstood the TLOT in the same way as it has been applied to evolution. Crystallisation - crystals form from the self-assembly of molecules, which provide a template for further self-assembly. All these processes require energy input from their environments - in a more abstract way, so does evolution. The contention that 'order cannot arise from disorder because it violates the third law of thermodynamics' is incorrect.
No-one has ever said that hurricane formation is 'impossible' because, clearly, it isn't impossible. It does happen somehow, we just took a while figuring out exactly how it does happen. Similarly, the contention that evolution is impossible is incorrect, especially given that the basis for it's so-called impossibility is completely wrong.
I'll leave that one for the experts...
Anyway I have read some of Richard Dawkins critiques on on creationism. Interesting to say the least. When did Behe admit to making a mistake? Have you read the Case for the Creator by Hank Stroebel(sp?)? It is a good read. Also there is a book I read I think it called God and Science? where the author uses the theory of relativity to prove the world was created in six days and 15 billiion years. It is very interesting book.
No probs - it's ironic, because I actually 'found' Behe's book in my old office (which is now occupied by an evolutionary biologist!), and read it quite some time before I really got into the Intelligent Design debate... Behe was pretty much forced to concede that he had made mistakes in his testimony in the 'Dover' trial - pertinent points here. His only really big mistake was to circumvent and/or ignore the (peer-reviewed) literature. No amount of eloquence or skill (which Behe undoubtedly has in spades) is substitute for the rigour of peer-review.Well thank you for pointing that out for me. I need to do better research
Sounds it, I'll see if I can get my hands on it. From what I've seen in the few books I have read on the subject, I tend to put more stock in books that offer an explanation rather than books that do the opposite, which is to say that there is no explanation and that our true origins will always remain mysterious. There is something deeply unsatisfying about being told that 'we'll never know' or that 'we already know the answer, and that answer is God'... that said, I'd be genuinely interested to read a really well written and well-reasoned book that properly challenges evolution. Funny thing is, however, they are pretty hard to find.
Cool, please do 👍
If the Earth was designed for observation of the cosmos, we wouldn't need the Hubble space telescope, let alone the next several generations that will replace it.
, for sure.
