How Francis Collins came to Christ

I never grow tired of hearing testimonies about how a person came to faith in Christ. Especially, when it’s a scientist with the stature of Dr. Francis Collins. For those of you who have not heard of Francis Collins, he is highly esteemed geneticist and physician. Here are some of his credentials. 

“Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). On August 17, 2009 he was sworn in as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).” (Taken from Human Genome Project website).  As the former director of NHGRI, he was “noted for his discoveries of disease genes.” (Wikipedia).

I have included a video clip here where Collins takes us on his two-year journey from atheism to follower of Christ.  He explains that his upbringing was agnostic (or indifferent) which he switched to atheism in college. This all argues against the notion that people’s belief in God is just culturally driven. Collins conversion represents a significant counter-cultural decision.

Collins talks about being given a book by Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis (“Mere Christianity”). He talks about how this book began to unravel his view of  the incompatibility of reason and faith.

“I had imagined that faith and reason were at opposite poles. And here was this deep intellectual who is convincing me quickly, page by page, that actually, reason and faith go hand in hand. Though faith has the added component of revelation.” (@ 9:50)

As he says, it was only the beginning of a long reluctant journey to faith. His first milestone was that atheism would not be for him.

“I began to realize that the evidence for the existence of God, while not proof, was actually pretty interesting. And it certainly made me realize that atheism would no longer be, for me, an acceptable choice and it was the least rational of the options.” (@10:20)

If you want to hear about the specific pointers that led him to faith, you can start the video here.  These are the headings that Collins calls interesting pointers to God:

Collins makes some fascinating explanations of these points. Well worth watching. But, as he points out, we’ve only gotten as far as “Einstein’s mathematical god.” A deist god but not necessarily a theist God.

He then goes on to make C.S. Lewis’s philosophical moral argument for the meaning of the universe. He also brilliantly covers the usual arguments against this claim. One such claim being evolutionary altruism, to which he responds that it does not explain the most profound examples of intuitive moral law and human nobility in radical self-sacrificing altruism (@19:10).

I would say that one of the most radical demonstrations of self-sacrificial altruism was Christ on the cross. While God was our enemy, He willingly let us brutally kill Him and continue to reject Him. Yet, because of God’s self-giving, other-centered love, He freed us from our bondage and sin (John 3:16-17; Rom.5:10; Col.1:21).

Collins summarizes his description of this reluctant two-year journey to faith with an quote from Immanuel Kant.

“Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within.” (Immanuel Kant)

I couldn’t agree more.

Collins finishes by talking about his exploring all the world religions and explaining why he gave his heart to Christ.  Here’s the video clip.

I love how he presents the evidence and leaves it up to the viewer to decide. Because the bottom line is, no amount of evidence is going to convince you about God if your heart is not open. In that sense, it is a leap of faith. But it is also not an unreasonable leap of faith.

It really comes down to an an issue of the heart.

8 In fact, it says,
“The message is very close at hand;
it is on your lips and in your heart.”
And that message is the very message about faith that we preach: 9 If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved.  (Rom.10:8-10 NLT)

Here’s a full lecture video where Collins starts with his research on the Human Genome Project and how it was indeed compatible with his faith. It’s a fascinating explanation (“The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief“).

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 37 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics, Faith and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to How Francis Collins came to Christ

  1. Arkenaten says:

    It really comes down to an an issue of the heart.

    Exactly. Not evidence. Faith.
    That way you can blithely ignore truth and lie through your teeth to yourself and every one else.
    And of course we all know that practice makes perfect.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Right, like Francis Collins did. Thanks for your non-thoughtful accusation. I would expect no less from you since you’re so practiced at it.

      • Arkenaten says:

        I did not bother with all the videos this time round but if memory serves didn’t Collins ”find the lord” on a camping trip or something after seeing a frozen waterfall?
        His work on the HGP gave a large slic of the Christian world serious pause for thought when it revealed that there was no way that humanity derived from a single breeding pair of humans a la Adam and Eve.
        And when you consider all the other nonsensical and spurious tales one wonders how much people such as Collins has to bend the stories to fit their own fear filled world view.
        Yeah, faith is … Belief in something you know ain’t true, as Mr Clemens so astutely remarked.

        And I note with dismay but not that much surprise you have yet to release my final comment on the previous thread or bothered answering my comment regarding the Christian genocide of the Native Americans.

      • Mel Wild says:

        His camping trip was only the last phase after a two-year investigation. You really need to watch the video.

      • Arkenaten says:

        No thanks. I’ve seen enough videos of converts. They never produce any evidence to back their claims. Ever.
        And still waiting for a response from you about the Christian genocide of the Native Americans.
        If you prefer, simply go back to the previous thread and answer it there?

      • Mel Wild says:

        I didn’t release your last comment because it just a repeat of your belligerent and baseless accusations, after letting several go through. I get tired of hearing your slander. I don’t have to put up with it. If you have a respectful point I will always release it. If you like it, go away.

      • Arkenaten says:

        But it was the truth.
        The history of your religion is awash with blood, much of it the blood of fellow believers, as you slaughtered each other over the millennia. Catholics Protestants. Remember the Cathars?
        It still happens as well
        Consider the DRC and Rwanda.
        tribal yes, but all Christian nevertheless.

  2. tildeb says:

    If one is going to promote scientist Collins as a religious testimonial – as if the two are somehow compatible without being strictly categorized into separate ‘magesteria’ – then surely it’s only fair to include Collins forced removal from his co-created website BioLogos – a web site where it’s purpose was to allow religious scientists a place to show how evolution could be viewed in a way that allowed this established science to be compatible with evangelical Christianity. Alas! What the religious should be made aware of is that Collins – with his much ballyhooed scientific credentials – tried and utterly failed to make evangelical Christianity compatible with evolution. He was drummed out by the site’s funding Board, namely by the demand of the Southern Baptists.

    What bothers me is how blithely religious apologists like to use Collins on the one hand as an example of a religious scientist – thus suggesting science and religion are compatible, nudge nudge, wink wink – yet when Collins’ much ballyhooed science really does comes up against a long held religious belief that has no scientific merit, suddenly the slippery other hand of apologetics makes its appears to remove this part of the Collins example altogether.

    Funny, that.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Collin’s was forced out of Bio logos? Well, there’s something I was unaware of.
      Thanks for that, Tildeb.
      Was there anything formal published/announced on this matter, do you know?

      • Mel Wild says:

        Yes, you didn’t hear about it because it wasn’t true.

      • tildeb says:

        Not directly, no. You are correct, Mel. But Collins’ appointment was the stick he could use to keep those Baptists’ hands off his reputation. Gibberson had no such stick and so he paid the price fully.

      • Mel Wild says:

        If anything, Gibberson felt the heat from Fundamentalist groups because he was teaching at a Christian college (Eastern Nazarene). But I doubt that’s the case since Biologos still does conferences there. I don’t see where Biologos was the problem, if there actually was a problem.

        To say Gibberson paid the price fully at Biologos just doesn’t add up. That’s sounds like pure speculation. And as I have said before, nothing has changed at Biologos in their position since he and Collins left, so they obviously didn’t succumb to any pressure to back down.

      • tildeb says:

        Gosh, it was a while back. Collins left and Karl (Gibberson, I think) tried to keep it going but the ‘advisory’ Board dictated who could be published and what they could say so Karl (he tried to keep some semblance of a scientific patina on the site but, hey, even that was just too incompatible for the ‘compatabilists’) left when religious fundamentalists were editing the scientists/apologists who themselves were trying their level best to cover up the incompatibilities! The site then switched to funding and fronting and giving exposure to the those approved ‘scientists’ who could best promote compatibility with the Baptist evangelical version of Christianity while covering up the incompatibilities between the evangelical wing-nuttery (like a founding couple) and science (like Collin’s project that unequivocally demonstrates this to be an utter fiction)… people like Elaine Eckland doing her ‘research’ into pretending there’s a conspiracy to keep scientists from admitting their deep religiosity (advisers like the head of the Faraday Institute and many other religious organizations getting housed at respectable universities with Templeton $$ while pretending they are doing real science at a respectable University or College). The entire orgnaization is now dedicated to try to keep applying scientific lipstick to this religious pig of incompatibility. Templeton money is deeply involved in all kinds of ways not just with BioLogos but many of associated advisory boards and those religious institutions they represent. Yes, harmony between science and religion continues to be touted as BioLogos’ reason for being but since both founders were fired, the site is an absolute joke but a good reminder of how much money it costs to try to keep science and religion ‘compatible’. Not truth. Not evidence. Money. Specifically, Templeton money.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Tildeb, an interesting revision of history. What rumor mill did you get this from? I would want proof of what you’re saying, of course. Otherwise, we’ll just mark it down as more anti-theist propaganda. Darrel Falk took over as president after Collins was appointed by President Obama to head the National Institute of Health. Gibberson was Executive Vice President. While there was certainly a lot of push-back when they first got going, there is nothing that has changed in Biologos’s position on science and religion since Collins left. If anything, it’s more robust, so your assertion that they had to back off because of financial support is just not true. The truth is, they have not backed away at all from their controversial position with Fundamentalist Christian groups, but they do continue to reach out to them in continued dialogue, as I pointed out in my previous comments.

        Your general description of Biologo’s lack of success is greatly biased and wrong. Again, of course, there’s going to be a lot of push-back from those who take a wooden literal view of the Bible (especially those who follow Ken Ham). But as I pointed out before, according to Max Tegmark, only about 11% of Christians would be considered anti-science. And it’s this group that’s the straw-man you anti-theists like to constantly prop up as representative of all Christians.

    • Mel Wild says:

      “…then surely it’s only fair to include Collins forced removal from his co-created website BioLogos…”

      Where do you get this stuff, Tildeb? The National Enquirer? And you talk about us making stuff up! Collins was appointed by President Obama in 2009 to be the director of the National Institutes of Health (Government position). He had leave his position in Biologos in order to take on the new position. Here’s the official statement from Biologos:

      In August of 2009, Francis Collins was appointed by President Obama to be Director of the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s medical research agency. This incredible opportunity meant that Collins had to step down from his official role at BioLogos. Yet BioLogos continued to rise in national prominence under the co-presidency of Giberson and Falk. (From Biologos website)

      What’s funny about your false accusation is that most of the scientists with Biologos share his beliefs about evolution. So, it would only be fair to have the readers be aware of your extreme bias and complete willingness to spread any rumor that would demean this man because he professes to be a Christian.

      What the religious should be made aware of is that Collins – with his much ballyhooed scientific credentials – tried and utterly failed to make evangelical Christianity compatible with evolution. He was drummed out by the site’s funding Board, namely by the demand of the Southern Baptists.

      What???? Of course, the Southern Baptists would object to his views! But what’s interesting about your accusation is that, in reality, most Christians are either neutral or positive toward scientific advancement and evolution. Max Tegmark, who is not a Christian, said that according to UROP project he conducted, only about 11% of [American] religious people belong to a faith that could be considered anti-science. The most anti-science group was Southern Baptist. Most have either a neutral or positive view of science. Here’s the clip…

      So, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Here’s a statement from Biologos about their interaction with Christian organizations who disagree with their views:

        Since the beginning, BioLogos has been engaged in private conversations with Christian organizations and individuals who are skeptical of evolution. Through these conversations, all parties have gained a better understanding of their differences, grown in humility, and built trust around a shared commitment to the unity of the Church. Some of the conversations are now going public: in 2012, BioLogos engaged in a dialogue with Southern Baptist leaders and began joint speaking events with Reasons to Believe.
        Full article here: http://biologos.org/about-us/our-history/

      • tildeb says:

        There was widespread criticism and an organized effort to stop) appointing Collins because his appointment would give credence to his anti-scientific religious views as somehow compatible with good science (specifically in Collins’ case about altering the scientific understanding of evolution with a kind of deep time potential creationist event contrary and incompatible with unguided and natural mechanisms that is evolution in action). Here we are today with apologists like you, Mel, touting exactly this false compatibility.

        To his credit, Collins kept his religious wingnuttery out of his administration of the genome project. I remember reading very deeply felt arguments by all kinds of members of the AAAS and NAS about why the appointment was such a poor choice and how Collins’ religious agenda could derail it, but this didn’t happen… not because the beliefs were compatible but because Collins’ religious beliefs were kept out of the science altogether under microscopic supervision.

        Yes, the public reason was the appointment, but the writing was on the wall. I’ve read lots of Karl taking on widespread criticism of his and Collins’ suggestions for compatibility and Karl is the one who was caught between a rock – science – and a hard place – his religious overseers, so I know that the public statement made by Collins was simply politics – and his own ambition supported by the Southern Baptists – in action. I also know how frustrated Karl became when his major ally – Collins – abandoned him to the Advisory Board and did not stand up to these religious bullies. He just kept his gob shut and let Karl go down in flames (described by the victors not as the slow motion firing it was but reaching “a better understanding of their differences, grown in humility, and built trust around a shared commitment to the unity of the Church”) while Collins went about promoting his book that morality is proof of God and sticking the success of the Genome Project on to his VC..

  3. Arkenaten says:

    I would still like a response regarding the genocide of Native Americans that was committed by Christians.

    • Mel Wild says:

      If you’re talking about the Arawak tribe being wiped out by the Spanish in 1493, I would say it was unspeakably evil, the very opposite of following Christ. It comes from a fallacious reading of the Bible (Misplaced literalism), which has been used by evil people throughout history. It was “religion” at its worst. I would not consider it authentic Christianity at all. I have spoken against this perversion of Christianity on my blog, like in “God said what?! Part One” and really the whole series.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Every settler that arrived on the North and South American shore was by and large a Christian.
        That was the whole POINT of the the Mayflower was it not?
        To run away from religious persecution.
        The ”injuns” just didn’t realise what sort of shit-storm they would eventually have to face.

        And to a certain extent … you are still doing it.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Thanks for your anti-Christian propaganda, Ark. The truth is, many Christians who came to America worked well with the Native Americans. William Penn and George Fox of the Quakers were great examples. Even deist Washington had respect for them, and they for him. And the French also, as Marquette and Joliet adopted the foreign policy of Ignatius of Loyola (Jesuits), which was to live amongst the Native people and encourage them through relationship to embrace Jesus Christ. The town I live in was settled by the French over 300 years ago (I live were Marquette and Joliet first came to the Mississippi River) and for the first 100 years it was a village of French fur traders and Native Americans living together. We have many families with mixed blood still living here. This area has been an important gathering place for Native American tribes for the last 2,500 years, and their tribes are still permitted to use the ancient burial grounds at a national monument nearby (Effigy Mounds).

        Your view of history, of course, is a straw-man to pit Christianity against Native Americans, which is fallacious. The evil was done by evil human beings, not because of Christian values.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Thanks for your anti-Christian propaganda, Ark. The truth is, many Christians who came to America worked well with the Native Americans

        I never said they didn’t – other than the disgusting practice of trying to ”convert the heathen” of course.

        and their tribes are still permitted to use the ancient burial grounds at a national monument nearby (Effigy Mounds).

        How nice of you …. especially as you stole it in the first place.
        I am not pitting Christian against Native Americans. The truth is documented history do not come whining to me.
        Christians enacted probably the greatest genocide in human history and if you are going to dispute one word of this I can get a Native American whom I read from time to time over to your blog in ten minutes who will educate you.

        Christian values! Don’t make me laugh. I already explained how Christian values hurt people.
        Your comment shows a decided lack of remorse for what your religious followers of old did.
        Amazing how for a supposed religion of peace violence seems to go hand in hand with your faith.

      • Mel Wild says:

        How nice of you …. especially as you stole it in the first place.

        I stole it? Again, you’re only showing your prejudicial ignorance. First, the French never owned it, but lived with the Native Americans in harmony, according to their “Christian values.” And two of the treaties signed here in the early 1800’s were to keep warring tribes from encroaching on each other’s land. The county to the north of me was originally set up as neutral territory to keep the Lakota from the Fox, Sac and Ho-Chunk tribes. Second, the land I live on was purchased by American treaties from these tribes. I’m not claiming they were righteous in all their dealings, by any stretch of the imagination. But the problem was not in the Christian values, but evil people doing bad things, by both European and Native Americans.

        Christian values! Don’t make me laugh. I already explained how Christian values hurt people.

        Ark, again you make fallacious arguments. You erect a straw-man based on the worst violations of Christian values in history so you can say that it’s Christianity that’s the problem. You only reveal your ignorance. True Christian values are Christ values, based in other-centered, self-giving love, as He addressed them with His “Sermon on the Mount” teaching. The failure is not with Christ’s values, but with human failure to actually follow His values.

      • Arkenaten says:

        The Indians of North and South America were ultimately dispossessed of their lands, brutalized and treated worse than any animal.
        Most treaties with the Native Americans were broken at one time or another.

        The problem was not in the Christian values, but evil people doing bad things, by both European and Native Americans.

        You are being disingenuous once again.
        The settlers were by and large all Christian.
        Christians justified Slavery,
        Christians justified Apartheid.
        Christian justified racism and the marginalization of minorities …and STILL DO
        Christians cited Jews as being responsible for the execution of the character Jesus the Nazarene labeling them Christ Killers. (I nearly want to gag at this)

        The Natives Americans suffered the worst genocide in human history and all you do is sit there and try to down play it.
        You thoroughly disgusting hypocrite.

        Ark, again you make fallacious arguments.

        I have not made a single fallacious argument. Not one.
        Your religion is born of violence – a human blood sacrifice and and has continued in similar vein ever since .
        And it is still going on.
        It hurts people and it begins with the abuse of children.

        To deny anything I have said makes you a damn liar.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Again, you propagate fallacious straw-man arguments, Ark. I do know theology and you are absolutely wrong here. These evil acts represent a contradiction to true Christian values as taught by Christ Himself; they are not in any way representative of them. These evil people embraced a religious perversion of Christian values, justified by greedy and violent men. My son is a current PhD student with the University of California. He did his Master’s thesis on slavery in the 19th century South and theology. We’ve had long conversations about this. One thing that is clear from investigating this is that the people who justified these atrocities were perverting the text and making fallacious arguments based on misplaced literalism, twisting them to justify their prejudice. These views were clearly shown to be false doctrines, not legitimate Christian teaching.

        You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You only show that you drank the anti-Christian Kool-Aid propaganda. Your straw man won’t work here. You’re wasting my time.

        I suppose you’re going to tell me Hiter was a Christian next!

        To call me a “damn liar” about something you clearly know nothing about is to expose you as a totally prejudicial and ignorant hypocrite who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      • Arkenaten says:

        I did not say there were not perverting the text.
        You do also.
        What of it?
        It is simply called interpretation.
        And it is done all the time. Consider the LGBT debacle.
        Gay marriage, the doctrine of Hell, The past treatment of Jews, Young Earth Creationism and many more.
        Each and every one a matter of interpretation.
        So, yes, I know quite enough to understand how every bit of christian doctrine can be used to serve whoever is wielding the stick at the time…. including you.

        By the way, just out of idle curiosity, is you son a member of your faith?

        And still, you do not have the humility to acknowledge that Christians committed probably the worst human genocide in human history.
        Says rather a lot about you personally, I reckon.

      • Mel Wild says:

        And still, you do not have the humility to acknowledge that Christians committed probably the worst human genocide in human history.
        Says rather a lot about you personally, I reckon.

        You are totally misrepresenting what I’ve said, Ark. I never denied that alleged “Christians” have committed some of the worst human atrocities in history. I’ve written posts on this very thing on my blog and have been very critical of these false views, as I’ve tried to point out to you. My point was that they were projecting their evil nature on to God and were doing these things in total contradiction to Christ’s teachings, not because of them.

      • Arkenaten says:

        They were no more projecting then than you are with your own personal interpretation of god belief.

        And you have STILL not acknowledged that Christians were responsible for probably the worst genocide in human history.
        Would you like to engage with a genuine Native American on this topic?
        I can arrange it. It will be no trouble at all and I feel sure you will receive a proper education on this issue.

        Oh, and they were not ‘alleged Christians”.
        Those that claimed they were Christians were regarded as such, and were , in the main, no different in their basic set of beliefs from those that fought in the Crusades, burned witches, partook of the inquisition, on whichever side they found themselves, or fought wars or conquested far and wide in the name of your god.
        ”For God King / Queen and Country”!

        ”To kill an infidel is nor murder!”

        If we are going to split hairs on what a Christian is, was, and will be then based on the doctrine of the ”Christians” who actually invented your religion you would have been burned at the stake.

        Let me know if you would like to chat with a Native American, all right?

        Oh, and you didn’t say if your son is a member of your faith?

      • Mel Wild says:

        I guess you don’t care to actually acknowledge what I said. I’ve written posts on this, Ark. Again, you purposely misrepresent my views.

        Those that claimed they were Christians were regarded as such, and were , in the main, no different in their basic set of beliefs from those that fought in the Crusades, burned witches, partook of the inquisition, on whichever side they found themselves, or fought wars or conquested far and wide in the name of your god.
        ”For God King / Queen and Country”!
        ”To kill an infidel is nor murder!”

        Exactly. They CLAIMED to be Christians! That means absolutely nothing, even if they were blessed by the Pope. Again, you point to religious people doing evil things in the name of Christ, but not actually following Him. You are not acting like a Christian if you are not following His teachings. This is just you purposely erecting a straw-man from history. You are not arguing against Christianity as in actually following Christ. You are pointing to a religious perversion of Christianity.

        I have a lot of Native American friends, Ark. Spare me your ignorant moralizing.

      • Arkenaten says:

        By your standard you regard yourself as a Christian and are one can presume that you are regarded by others as such.
        But how do I know?
        I only have your claim.
        So were you baptized, did you got to church?
        Well, based on your testimony I am going to say yes, of course you did. And in all likelihood so did every single one of those people that regarded themselves and were regarded as Chriatians.
        Christians, many of whom raped murdered, and utterly slaughtered Native Americans in what is still probably the worst case of genocide in human history. And you do not even have the basic human decency to acknowledge this.
        You are not denying the Native American genocide I hope?

        I am glad you have ”a lot” of Native American friends.
        Have you at least acknowledged to them that Christians wiped out untold millions of their forebears?
        Have you at least offered a simple ”I’m Sorry”.

        You also seem reluctant to mention if your kid is a Christian like you.
        You’re not going to tell me he is an atheist, is he Mel!
        Is he?

      • Mel Wild says:

        So were you baptized, did you got to church?
        Well, based on your testimony I am going to say yes, of course you did. And in all likelihood so did every single one of those people that regarded themselves and were regarded as Chriatians.

        Being baptized and going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, anymore than baptizing a rock makes it a Christian. What makes you a Christian is putting faith in Christ and learning to walk in His life. What makes you ACT like a Christian is following Christ. As Jesus said, we will know by the fruit, not by church affiliation or religious rituals. The stereotypes you point to were acting contrary to Christ’s teachings.

        I am glad you have ”a lot” of Native American friends.
        Have you at least acknowledged to them that Christians wiped out untold millions of their forebears?
        Have you at least offered a simple ”I’m Sorry”.

        Ark, I grew up in a culture with Native Americans. I had classmates who were Native American, and dated a Native American girl in high school. I have family relatives with Native American blood. We have a long history in this area living with Native Americans, both good and bad. As a church, not only have we apologized for the evil that was done to them, we have conducted reconciliatory events over the years with them. The Native American culture is highly honored here. As I mentioned before, their history is 2,200 years older than ours in this area. This was considered a sacred place by several tribes for 2,500 years. There is no excuse for what was done to them by European settlers. But neither I, or anyone I know, did these things. And those who did, did so in direct contradiction to what it means to follow Christ.

      • Mel Wild says:

        You also seem reluctant to mention if your kid is a Christian like you.
        You’re not going to tell me he is an atheist, is he Mel!
        Is he?

        I didn’t notice this comment until now. My son is not an atheist. That would be totally irrational! 🙂 We brought our sons up to think for themselves, while telling them why we believe what we believe. They are all believers in Christ but they don’t believe everything I believe, and they don’t need to either. I’m very proud of their convictions and heart for people. I have learned a lot from them.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Why would it be totally irrational?
        Plenty of kids do not follow in their parents’ footsteps.

        I am glad they do not believe everything you believe.

        We brought our sons up to think for themselves,

        Probably not entirely accurate ….
        Nevertheless … maybe they will take that extra step as they get a bit older?

        Oh, are you interested in talking to a fellow Christian who is convinced there is a Hell where all non believers are going to spend eternity being tortured by Satan?
        I told him I converse .. ( I know, ha ha, right?) with a Pastor in the US who’s clued up on the truth of this disgusting doctrine.
        Don’t panic …. I didn’t say we were friends or anything like that, so you do not have worry about saying anything nice about me. The gods forbid, eh?
        He also seems utterly convinced that Jesus the Nazarene taught this as well!
        I mentioned you might be willing to set him straight as he thinks I am lying and have been deceived by the devil.
        Yeah …. there are still plenty of these type of Christian about.
        Well, how about it?
        Want to tell him the truth of where this vile doctrine came from?
        I can introduce you.
        I would be fascinated to see you set him straight as he obviously won’t take the word of an atheist.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Probably not entirely accurate ….
        Nevertheless … maybe they will take that extra step as they get a bit older?

        What…take that extra step toward irrationality? No, they’re too smart for that. 🙂

        Oh, are you interested in talking to a fellow Christian who is convinced there is a Hell where all non believers are going to spend eternity being tortured by Satan?

        I talk to fellow Christians all the time about various view. And Jesus did teach on hell. It’s a matter of interpretation about what exactly hell is. And I’m not sure where any Christian would get the idea that Satan would be torturing them, but whatever. I’m willing to talk to anyone. But I really don’t care about arguing over doctrinal differences.

      • Arkenaten says:

        What…take that extra step toward irrationality? No, they’re too smart for that. 🙂

        Phew …. so thay won’t become Catholkic or Jehovah’s Witlesses. Well, that will be a relief for you I’m sure?
        And let’s hope they stay away from them snake-handling speaking in tongues verbal diarrhea Pentecostals, too …. ye haw.

        I suspect he is YEC.
        Enjoy yourself and have a laugh!

        https://victorscornerdotorg.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/16-things-every-atheist-should-know/

      • Mel Wild says:

        Haha…no, he will never believe that he’s a meaningless bag of chemicals destined to become worm food.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Worm food is excellent compost, and far from meaningless.
        However, my ashes will also add to the soil in their own way when I kick the bucket.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Good for you. I plan on being good fertilizer and much more. 🙂

      • Arkenaten says:

        Really? And what do you imagine the ”much more” will be exactly?

      • Mel Wild says:

        This life is just an introduction to the real life ahead. And with my future bodily resurrection, I will be given a new body that will never wear out and I will life forever in perfect love, relationship, beauty, harmony, no pain, no sorrow, no wars… And that’s just a beginning!

        But to put all my hope in 70-80 years of this life only is pretty sad by comparison.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Ah .. Yes. The delusional aspect of your faith.

        Actually what’s sad, and I mean really sad is that you undermine the value of the 70 – 80 years of this life.
        That you teach this vile, distorted and totally false concept to kids is simply horrendous.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Ark, this is nonsense. What’s horrendous is teaching kids the hopeless delusion that their life has no real meaning outside of going through the motions for the 70-80 years of their existence. Then nothing beyond that. That’s downright depressing!

      • Arkenaten says:

        Because their lives have tremendous meaning and they must be encouraged to value and treasure every second.
        To teach anything else is the product of a sick, delusional mind and should be regarded as child abuse.

      • Mel Wild says:

        I agree. That’s why I teach children about the infinite value they have to God and their life is much bigger than the sum of their years.

      • Arkenaten says:

        This, of course is nothing but child abuse and lying.
        You won’t ever see it in this light, (until you deconvert and have a massive guilt complex -ask any christian deconvert) but this is what it is.
        Before long you will be teaching them they are sinners and have to worship a human sacrifice.
        Oh, you won’t use these exact words but when they see the crucifiction depicted in, church and ask, you will tell them he died for their sins. And as they grow older, having already been indoctrinated , it will eventually be believed without question.
        Just sick.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Ark, this is just not true. Becoming a Christian totally freed me from guilt. Bad religious versions of Christianity are what make people feel guilty.

        And your indoctrination argument is baloney. All children are indoctrinated at some level by their parents and teachers. Its the only way you learn about something until you can think for yourself. You keep pointing to your straw-man with these scary Christians terrorizing their children which is just not the normal way kids are brought up at all.

        And you keep talking about human sacrifice like that’s a sound Christian doctrine. That is NOT what I taught my kids! Pagans believed in human sacrifice, not God. That is not the gospel.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Ark, this is just not true. Becoming a Christian totally freed me from guilt.

        Really? Then before I respond to the rest of your comment please explain in detail exactly what it was you were feeling so guilty about that becoming a Christian totally freed you from.

      • Mel Wild says:

        The guilt you were referring to, religious guilt. It’s thinking I had to perform in order to make God love me instead of believing that He already loves me. It’s believing that He was no longer counting my sins against me 2,000 years ago (2 Cor.5:19), so my life should be God-conscious, not sin-conscious. So, now I’m free to be loved and to love, which is the fruit of a relationship with God without guilt.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And this is the whole debate, not just one side…

      • Arkenaten says:

        I have watched the entire debate some time ago, and have come back to it in several occasions, primarily to learn.
        It is probably the best take down of Craig on camera.
        Carroll is patient, thorough and addresses every comment and point Craig makes.
        Furthermore, every single point that Craig raises Carroll refutes.
        Every. Single.One.
        And he demonstrates exactly why Craig is wrong, even though Craig tries his best to undermine Carroll’s arguments.

        Carroll is the perfect foil for Craig, and kudos to the man for not being afraid to take one of the best (and worst) Christian apologists on the market.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Of course, that’s your unbiased opinion. Although, I will say I have more respect for Carrol than Carrier.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Well, even you would expect someone like Carroll to beat the pants off Craig when it comes to cosmology and it certainly sounded as there was nowhere for Craig to hide.
        However, as you probably feel there were numerous areas that Craig triumphed I would be very interested in the points/areas of the debate you felt Craig was right.
        Again, I have watched it all but if there is a point you wish to make please write the time Craig speaks in your reply

      • Mel Wild says:

        I am not a cosmologist so I’m as biased and unqualified as you are. If Carrol’s argument makes you feel better, so be it. I’m working on other things so I don’t have time to analyze the arguments. And, again, it would just be my opinion against yours.

      • Arkenaten says:

        And, again, it would just be my opinion against yours.

        Agreed.
        However, the debate is about cosmology and Craig is NOT a cosmologist but an evangelical fundamentalist Christian, and also a philosopher of religion.
        So he is somewhat hamstrung before he even rolls up his sleeves.
        Carroll’s opening statement …. after his rather clever joke about the roof falling on his head, about not winning a debate but presenting evidence pertaining to naturalism and theism is right on the money.

        Your opinion is going to be clouded by your presupposition about Yahweh, which is augmented by your added belief in the character Jesus the Nazarene and thus will be heavily slanted towards Craig.
        Even though Carroll metaphorically takes Craig to the cleaners., largely because he doesn’t actually understand the argument very well, you will still tend to side with Craig as he is a Christian.

        I prefer to listen and simply follow the evidence, which always comes down on the side of Carroll.
        For Craig, you – and every Christian, of course, it will all boil down to faith, especially as you believe this ”creator” is Jesus the Nazarene., a truly baffling point
        which Craig (and every other Christian) has never been able to demonstrate or even argue how he arrives at belief.
        One reason such an outlandish assertion is rejected by the two other Abrahamic religions.

      • Mel Wild says:

        I prefer to listen and simply follow the evidence, which always comes down on the side of Carroll.

        Haha…that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You are sadly deluded if you actually believe your own propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth, Ark. That is one thing I have found to be certain about you.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Oh, well, feel free to pick any aspect of your faith and present whatever evidence you have for it.
        50 bucks says you have nothing at all.

  4. Well said,Mel.

    There’s a quote from Einstein I like that kind of fits in here, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

    As good as dead, with his eyes closed. Many scientists often arrive at this same conclusion,much of science really being about observation. It is only within modern culture and atheism that we have built this false narrative that tries to suggest faith and reason are in opposition to one another.

    • Mel Wild says:

      That’s true, IB. What’s interesting is that the problem is not with most Christians, or even most non-Christians. It’s the extreme Fundamentalists on BOTH sides, as Max Tegmark’s findings show. The extreme end of both the atheists and theists. Most of the combative and intolerant anti-theists commenting here are just the opposite end of the Westboro Baptist types. Both are obnoxious and belligerent, not at all helpful in useful conversation.

    • To your comment, Mel, “…intolerant anti-theists commenting here are just the opposite end of the Westboro Baptist types. Both are obnoxious and belligerent, not at all helpful in useful conversation,” I would like to ask a question concerning, “Not helpful in a useful conversation…”

      My question is this – and please believe me that I am not being judgmental but asking out of curiosity – Why have you taken a turn from your old posts to devote so much time to entertaining Ark and his few followers? Again, I’m just being curious.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Thanks for your curiosity, Patrick. It’s a fair question. First, I’m not really writing these for Ark’s (or other atheist commenter’s) benefit. He and the few others are just the most vocal here. I’m writing them for several reasons, but the intended audience are those whose hearts are open but have doubts about God or they’ve been bullied by some of these combative anti-theists. I never cared much about apologetics until God reminded of this passage recently:

        4 We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. 5 We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God…. (2 Cor.10:4-5 NLT, emphasis added)

        The last part, “that keeps people from knowing God” is what really hit me. This is currently a big battleground in our culture, especially with young people. And I can’t just sit back and let people get sucked into this false worldview. I personally have no doubts about my relationship with God and it only grows stronger as I know Him more, but it can’t just be about me and what I like. And if you know me, you know that I will fight against anything that distorts the unfathomable love, beauty, glory, and goodness of God, whether it be bad theology or anti-theism. I have been pretty hard on some popular doctrines in Western Christianity in this regard in the past because that’s not at all what our heavenly Father is like. It’s not how Jesus “explained Him to us” (John 1:18). He’s not a monster or Child abuser or an angry pagan deity that needs to be appeased. Many of the atheist accusations are justified in this area, not because of God or the Bible, but because of bad theology.

        This is one area where young people are being “reasoned” away from belief in God under the guise of science and facts. But, in my view, there’s nothing more irrational than atheism, so I will expose it for what it is. On the other hand, as I mentioned, I also believe that some of our doctrines put up unnecessary barriers for people to know Christ. Being anti-science would be one major area. I’ve seen this in my own experience talking to many young people who are non-believers (not necessarily atheists).

        And, with posts like these, I also want to show that there are brilliant Christians in the areas of science and philosophy that are making headway in the field dominated by deists, agnostics, and atheists for the last 150 years. People like Francis Collins and Ard Louis are having these “helpful conversations” in the top universities in the world. Things are looking up in the academic world! I’m also a bit of a science geek so what they have to say is fascinating to me. 🙂

        I want to hopefully show that our faith is not blind but a plausible answer to the existential questions that all human beings ask. While, ultimately, it’s an act of faith to believe in God, it’s also an act of faith to believe there is no God. Science cannot answer this question, although scientistic (as opposed to scientific) people think it can. Their “faith” is in that science will make religion obsolete. But I believe that if someone with an open heart considers the existence of God behind it all, they will find the loving Father I found and, therefore, find the ultimate meaning to their life. I hope this all makes sense. I will also continue to write about what I’ve written about in the past, too. 🙂

      • Nan says:

        Hi Mel,

        I thought I had checked “follow” sometime back, but apparently not because I haven’t been getting any notifications. Most of what I know has been happening on your blog has been through others. Yesterday I made a concerted effort to “follow” you so today I received an email related to your recent comment … and it prompted a couple of responses:

        1) there’s nothing more irrational than atheism — This is inaccurate. The meaning of “irrational” is “Not consistent with or using reason”. This is exactly what atheists use to justify their position related to religion … REASON.

        2) it’s also an act of faith to believe there is no God — This POV has been discussed ad nauseam between Christians and Atheists with the latter denying there is any “faith” involved in their perspective. I think the problem here is the way it’s worded. “Act of faith” has a very definite religious sound to it … and I think this is what rankles atheists and is the reason they strongly deny there is any “faith” involved. For them, to deny the existence of a god (any god) is a belief/opinion/philosophy based on (again) REASON.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Hi Nan. Of course, we will have different POVs and I can respect that. Let me explain why I said this.

        1) there’s nothing more irrational than atheism — This is inaccurate. The meaning of “irrational” is “Not consistent with or using reason”. This is exactly what atheists use to justify their position related to religion … REASON.

        My point is that neither science nor anything I’ve heard from atheists answers the existential questions satisfactorily. Science cannot answer them and it seems that atheists just dismiss them or never take their position to its ultimate conclusion. So it’s irrational (to me) to say that something came from absolutely nothing, or that there has always been something. This is one of the reasons Francis Collins could no longer be an atheist (before eventually becoming a Christian). And there are many reasoned inferences we can make for an intelligent agency behind the universe, or even the evolutionary process. So, while being a deist or agnostic would be a rational position for someone to take in my view, to say there is no God (or designer) is not rational. To me, it’s a circular naturalistic worldview that forbids accepting anything beyond the scope of natural science. We would never objectively make those same kinds of conclusions in other areas of study. We might hypothesize but we wouldn’t say it’s not possible. And while we theists do believe in God by faith, it’s not unreasonable to do so. I have tried to show that with the various posts. Of course, this is my worldview.

        2) it’s also an act of faith to believe there is no God — This POV has been discussed ad nauseam between Christians and Atheists with the latter denying there is any “faith” involved in their perspective. I think the problem here is the way it’s worded.

        I agree with you on the wording issue. When I say “faith,” I’m not using it the same way as normally thought of as religious faith. Faith simply means to trust in something you cannot prove. For instance, we cannot prove or disprove a “God” (or agency), so either believing in God or not believing in God is an act of faith. It’s a choice we make without being able to prove it with scientific evidence. But I would argue that there are a lot of things in life we have to take by faith, so it’s not unique or irrational to have faith. On the other hand, some will argue that “scientism” is a form of nontheistic religion because of its basic belief system and that it’s actually a philosophical worldview. I talked about that in another post.

        Let me say, too, that I hope to have more helpful dialogue about this in the future without it being so combative and disrespectful. That’s why I always appreciate how you respond with your comments. 🙂

        [NOTE: Sorry for the duplicated comments. My computer locked up when I send the first, so I replied a second time and deleted the first.]

      • Nan says:

        [nothing] … I’ve heard from atheists answers the existential questions satisfactorily.
        And herein lies the crux of the disagreements … substitute the word “athiests” with “Christians.” 🙂

        Re: the “something from nothing” perspective … if one believes God created all, then the “rational” response would be who created God? But of course, then it all becomes a circular argument.

        I do try to be “respectful” when commenting as I feel there are ways to get one’s point across without being combative. Thanks for noticing. 😀

      • Mel Wild says:

        Re: the “something from nothing” perspective … if one believes God created all, then the “rational” response would be who created God? But of course, then it all becomes a circular argument.

        Actually, the theistic view is not circular because a “God,” by definition, would be uncreated, non-contingent, and outside of the creative process. As the person at InspiringPhilosophy says, this is actually atheist’s worst argument (that many atheists also agree is not a good argument). Here’s a short clip explaining why this is so.

      • Nan says:

        Quite frankly, I’d never heard this perspective before: … because a “God,” by definition, would be uncreated, non-contingent, and outside of the creative process. I guess I would have to ask by whose definition?

        Further, I think this contradicts the “cause and effect” environment that is part of human existence. It would seem to me that to agree with the position you present, one must “put aside” what we have come to experience and accept since the day we were born. But perhaps that’s the whole idea?

      • Mel Wild says:

        Quite frankly, I’d never heard this perspective before: … because a “God,” by definition, would be uncreated, non-contingent, and outside of the creative process. I guess I would have to ask by whose definition?

        Not sure what you mean by not having heard this before, Nan. If “God” is the creator but He himself is created, not outside of the natural process, or if He’s contingent on anything outside of Himself, He would not be what Christians mean by “God.” The Bible defines God as self-existent (Greek: egō eimi)

        Further, I think this contradicts the “cause and effect” environment that is part of human existence.

        The video already answered this, but we would say, of course, it contradicts human experience. But that only means that God is not limited to human experience. And it would be reasonable to assume that the designer would exist outside of his design. Hume made the same argument against miracles, but it’s circular because it appeals to natural law to deny something that would exist outside of natural law. This argument doesn’t deny the existence of God or even really address it. It only proves that God is not a human or a “natural” being. And that is not the argument theists are making.

        It would seem to me that to agree with the position you present, one must “put aside” what we have come to experience and accept since the day we were born. But perhaps that’s the whole idea?

        It only means putting aside the idea that the natural order of things is all there is, which humans have been doing since the beginning of time. Again, it is a faith position, but I will continue to argue that if one says there is no God it’s a faith position. The only things that can be proven without faith are contained within natural world. But, again, we can intuit that the natural world came from something outside of itself the same way we would assume a car came into being from something outside of itself. That’s very simplistic but the point is valid.

      • Nan says:

        Hmmmm. It sure seems to take a lot of words to back up what you believe. Seems to me that’s what happens when someone tries to explain something they believe is “supernatural.”

        Anyway, I leave you to your explanation and “faith” for now … but I’ll probably pop in now and again on future posts to challenge your perspectives. 🙂

      • Mel Wild says:

        It seems pretty simple to me, but fair enough. You’re always welcome to pop in. 😊

    • By the way…I really enjoyed the video.

    • That works for me. Again, I was curious. As you have probably noticed, my focus tends to be more on getting the Church to quit acting like the world.

  5. Very lovely video and testimony by Francis Collins.

    Faith in God, in Jesus Christ is strongly backed by monumental evidence that cut across daily personal experiences with ourselves, with nature, as well as seemingly more intangible thoughts or experiences.

    Francis Collins is a highly respected scientist. I was taught about his work at the Human Genome Project while studying Microbiology at the University. We never got to learn about the background beliefs of the scientists. On my own however, I sought to find out more and Francis is just one of those scientists who see the Light.

    May he grow in Grace and devotion to the Truth.

    Lovely one Mel.

  6. tildeb says:

    “My point is that neither science nor anything I’ve heard from atheists answers the existential questions satisfactorily. Science cannot answer them…” And neither can religion. You keep skipping this fact. Yet, for some reason, you think “I don’t know” is not just unsatisfactory but substituting a Just So story is therefore the only rational thing to do. That’s irrational.

    “It’s irrational (to me) to say that something came from absolutely nothing, or that there has always been something.” This is apologetics imposed on what others presumably say. But under the umbrella of “I don’t know” these kinds of claims are simply presented as potential hypotheses, neither of which is any better informed than your Just So stories. Yet I have never, in my life, encountered either a scientist or anyone you would classify as a faith-praying member of the religion of ‘scientism’ stating these as if true. Lawrence Krauss even went so far as to write an entire book on the subject of just how much stuff there is and what forces are active in this theistic assertion they call ‘nothing’. But you can saying this and asserting it without ever addressing the fact that no one says it.

    “And there are many inferences we can make for an intelligent agency behind the universe, even the evolutionary process.” No there aren’t. You say it as if true, but cannot demonstrate any. Sure, you’ve done posts on them, but every point you raise has been legitimately studied and found to be without any inference validity. You just keep asserting what you want and then dismiss inconvenient facts.

    It’s not a “wording problem” when an apologist intentionally misuses a term and tries to pretend the words ‘faith-based belief’ and ‘evidence-adduced belief’ create equivalent conclusions worthy of equivalent confidence and trust so that you can then pretend you have arrived at a reasonable conclusion that “either believing in God or not believing in God is an act of faith.” That’s not a problem of terminology; that’s a problem of honesty and integrity. It is so grossly misleading yet used over and over again, that this is evidence that such apologists are in fact far more ‘militant’ in pushing this falsehood than any atheist who stands firmly against such intentional deception and linguistic abuse. The simple experiment is to see if this apologetic recycled argument holds up: do apologists themselves really have faith that Tepeyollotl doesn’t exist? I suspect almost none have ever even heard (heard, heard) of this god yet not once have I ever encountered the argument from an apologist that they themselves have the same faith they hold for their religious beliefs that it doesn’t exist (exist, exist) even when there is evidence all around them that it does (does, does). No apologist has ever made such a choice (choice, choice) but of course non believers in their god must have chosen NOT to believe because that’s handy to argue for an irrational starting position! Handy, yes. But simply not true.

    Yes, we can have different opinions about the existence of any God or gods. But what none of should be able to do without criticism is misrepresent, distort, deceive, and lie. What requires ever more harsh responses is to point out the problem is not the criticism because it’s supposedly biased. The problem remains with apologists who try to shape a Just So story built on misrepresentation, distortion, deceit, and lies story to be a different kind of knowledge based on inferred reasons when it is the exact opposite.

    • Mel Wild says:

      But under the umbrella of “I don’t know” these kinds of claims are simply presented as potential hypotheses, neither of which is any better informed than your Just So stories.

      First of all, Tildeb, I’ve been expressing my position (as you are expressing yours). I’m not saying I’m proving the existence of God. And, yes, you can say, “I don’t know.” But then you’re forfeiting your right to say we are wrong. To say we are wrong, you must have a counter-claim that has better explanatory scope, otherwise all you can truthfully say is that God is a possibility but you don’t know (agnosticism). But that is NOT what you’re doing. You are being ANTI-theist and combative about it, and doing it in a very condescending way.

      Yes, we can have different opinions about the existence of any God or gods. But what none of should be able to do without criticism is misrepresent, distort, deceive, and lie.

      Honest criticism, yes. But to just dismiss me as a deceptive liar…is a lie. I have never intentionally tried to deceive or lie about anything. I may not nuance your position properly, and probably have some misunderstandings about it so I may distort your position at times, but to accuse me of lying not only shuts down any meaningful discussion, it totally misrepresents my intent. You and Ark and JohnZ never ask me for clarification first, or simply correct my representation of your view so I understand you better, you accuse me of being deceptive or lying. And rather than respectfully agreeing to disagree (which Nan does do gracefully), you belittle and mock. That is neither professional nor does it deserve respect.

      • tildeb says:

        “To say we are wrong, you must have a counter-claim that has better explanatory scope…”
        Oh, that’s too funny, Mel. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term ‘hypocrisy’. Glad to see you hold all these creationists who deny evolution to the same standard! Oh, wait…

        I say your causal claims are wrong because they are, because they have two things against them; the first is that possess no knowledge to support their descriptive power and, secondly, that it directly conflicts with claims that do and can be demonstrated to align. This is a fatal combination in the sense that the one-two punch makes your model as the least likely one and, therefore, deserving of the lowest possible confidence based on these facts.

        Do we see this? NO. In fact, we see the opposite. You inflate your model to equivalency without cause or justification. And you keep there artificially inflated simply by wishing it were so.

        Your explanatory model of POOF!ism is possible, however, and so I don’t say you’re absolutely wrong, but I can and do make fun of this magical thinking because it’s not informed by anything other than faith of the religious kind. So right there I remain true to the point at hand by claiming I do not BELIEVE in your god. You have crossed the boundary for your own apologetic convenience between knowledge (gnosticism) and faith in some god (theism) in order to try to falsely paint atheists as refuting a knowledge-based approach. You have conflated the two issues –
        knowledge and faith – to misrepresent those who do not BELIEVE your claims about god to come armed as if with a similar a priori ideology, which they then apply to science. This is uttre crap.

        But again, it shows just how willing you are to use misrepresentation consistently and reliably to try to favour your apologetics.

        But I will and do say you are wrong to claim your BELIEF to be inferred from reality (because it isn’t), wrong to pretend it has any KNOWLEDGE merit (it doesn’t), and are therefore wrong to try to discredit an explanatory model that contains no magical intervention yet produces ever increasing knowledge, knowledge that is then directly used to produce applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time reliably and consistently (it does). You are wrong to try to treat the two models as equivalent (they’re not), claiming as you do that this informed knowledge-filled scientific model is really just another kind of equivalent faith-based alternate religion (that’s a lie).

        If you were to hold the allotment of your trust and confidence of explanations to the same standard that are ‘better’ in explanatory scope, then you have to demonstrate how claiming Godidit produces more of everything the evolutionary model ALREADY produces. But you don’t do that, Mel, because that’s not the apologist’s job, to seek out what is true and knowable. Your job is to sell this idea that your explanatory model of cause (a magical agency) and effect (creation) by the mechanism of POOF!ism (Godidit) is somehow more reasonable even though it utterly fails to explain reality at every turn because it has zero evidence from reality to support it.

      • Mel Wild says:

        This is a fatal combination in the sense that the one-two punch makes your model as the least likely one and, therefore, deserving of the lowest possible confidence based on these facts.

        Wait a minute, what model? You are trying to say you have no position (“I don’t know”). But if you have a model that’s better you must defend your claim.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s