Resources on Atheism and the Relationship Between Science and Religion

Thanks to Another Slow Newsday for these resources. Please visit their blog

These computer-generated animations are near-precise replications of many actual, microscopic biochemical actions, interactions and reactions as they occur in the human body, depicted as they occur in real time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TZuxuVJA36Q

[Remember, though, that these biochemical machines all evolved entirely by themselves from purely random, unguided processes of genetic mutations.]

Only 15 Percent of Scientists at Major Research Universities See Religion and Science Always in Conflict

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921115923.htm

————–

“Only what can be empirically tested… is true” is not a statement about science but a statement about philosophy of science.

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/05/16/is-science-dependent-on-other-disciplines/

————–

“… unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith… committed materialists have made science into a kind of religion.  They believe that there is no reality but material or physical reality…  These materialist beliefs are often taken for granted by scientists, not because they have thought about them critically, but because they haven’t.  To deviate from them is heresy, and heresy harms careers…  there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity.  Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

————–

The Folly of Scientism

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20121116_TNA37Hughes.pdf

————–

If You Cannot Scientifically Prove Your Belief, Is It Meaningless?

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/201002_122_scientif_prove.cfm

[Austin Hughes, for those who don't know, is an evolutionary biologist.]

————–

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

————–

Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution Is True”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html

and…

From Jerry Coyne, “Evolution-of-the-Gaps” and Other Fallacies

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/from_jerry_coyn_15067091.html

and…

Blink and You’ll Miss It: Jerry Coyne Turns His Attention to the “Engine of Evolution”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/blink_and_youll2067161.html

and…

As Evidence of Darwinian Evolution, Biogeography Falls Well Short of Satisfying

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/as_evidence_of5067151.html

and…

The Persistent Enigma of Sexual Reproduction

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/the_persistent2067171.html

and…

Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/human_origins_a1067181.html

————–

How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

————–

Has Science eliminated God?

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/has-science-eliminated-god.htm

————–

What is the Relation between Science and Religion

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion

————–

Scientific Evidences for the God of the Bible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epDHo0qPdQ8

————–

“… scientists believe [the biblical parting of the Red Sea] may actually have happened…”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313946/Wind-parted-Red-Sea-Biblical-tale-Moses-really-happened.html

————–

If You Cannot Scientifically Prove Your Belief, Is It Meaningless?

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/201002_122_scientif_prove.cfm

————–

“[Many atheist scientists] believe in the existence of many other universes.  But we have no  conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence.    Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, [these atheist scientists] must believe in what [they] cannot prove.   Sound familiar?  Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith.  [Atheistic s]cientists are not.“

http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

Alan Lightman, Ph.D. (Theoretical Physics)

————–

“Socially, when I moved from theism to atheism, and science as a worldview, I guess, to be honest, I just liked the people in science, and the scientists, and their books, and just the lifestyle, and the way of living.  I liked that better than the religious books, the religious people I was hanging out with – just socially.  It felt more comfortable for me.  In reality I think most of us arrive at most of our beliefs for non-rational reasons, and then we justify them with these reasons after the fact.”

Michael Shermer, speaking in ‘Nine Conversations: The Question of God’, PBS documentary

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/nineconv/

————–

“Science describes natural phenomena in terms of laws, but it does not explain where those laws came from…“

http://www.godevidence.com/2012/10/why-trying-to-explain-away-god-with-science-is-an-error/

————–

Does science prove everything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vxJQe_FefxY

and…

12 Things Science Can’t Explain

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/12-things-science-cant-explain/

————–

“It has now been shown that the universe caused itself rather than having been brought into being by something else.”

http://whomadegod.org/2011/08/could-a-universe-create-itself/

————–

Naturalism:

Three ways that the progress of science conflicts with naturalistic speculations

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/three-ways-that-the-progress-of-science-conflicts-with-naturalistic-speculations-2/

and…

An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf

and…

Knowledge and Naturalism

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=64

and…

This Prison of Naturalism

http://www.cltruth.com/blog/2012/this-prison-of-naturalism/

and…

Is Naturalism a Simpler Explanation Than Theism?

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201201/201201_108_Naturalism.cfm?vm=r&s=1

————–

“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God.  Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.“

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/natalie-wolchover-will-science-one-day-rule-out-the-possibility-of-atheism/

————–

The Science and Religion Debate – an Introduction

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%201%20Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

————–

Has Science killed God?

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%209%20McGrath_EN.pdf

————–

Models for Relating Science and Religion

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%203%20Alexander_EN.pdf

————–

The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%204%20Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

————–

Is the Universe Designed?

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%2010%20Holder_EN.pdf

————–

The Return of the God Hypothesis

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

————–

Does Science Need Religion?

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%202%20Trigg_EN.pdf

————–

“In 2004, longtime British atheist philosopher Antony Flew publicly announced that he now believed in God!  I could hardly believe it.  Professor Flew had been an atheist for the greater part of his life and, until 2004, his entire academic career.  As the ‘author of over thirty professional philosophical works,’ he ‘helped set the agenda for atheism for half a century.’  But then, in 2004, at the age of eighty-one, he changed his mind!“

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223595/k.8182/There_is_a_God.htm

————–

“Let’s take a look at the atheist’s faith-based explanations of the origin of life.“

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/could-life-have-emerged-spontaneously-on-the-early-earth/

————–

“The stronger their religious zeal the fewer errors they made.“

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm

————–

“… the conflict here is not between faith and science; it is between the competing faiths of theism and materialism, neither of which can claim to be proved by science.  Modern physics has accelerated smack into the limits of the scientific method.  It raises questions it cannot answer but that human beings cannot avoid — matters of meaning and purpose.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-search-for-the-god-particle-goes-beyond-mere-physics/2011/12/15/gIQAyIEzwO_print.html

————–

College Graduates Less Likely To Abandon Religion, Research Shows

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2007/06/sociology06.html

————–

“Calvinists notice embedded visual patterns quicker than their atheist compatriots.“

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16046-religion-alters-visual-perception.html

————–

Stephen Hawking:

Hawking on God and Creation

http://commonsenseatheism.com/uploads/Craig%20-%20%27What%20Place,%20Then,%20for%20a%20Creator%20%27%20Hawking%20on%20God%20and%20Creation.pdf

and…

Scientists respond to Stephen Hawking

http://www.iscast.org/response_to_hawking

and…

Fatal flaws in Stephen Hawking’s atheism

http://whomadegod.org/2010/09/fatal-flaws-in-stephen-hawking%E2%80%99s-atheism/

and…

“Could nature be the originator of the laws of nature?  Only if its existence and its character (its nature) were self-caused in the same sense God is conceived to be.  Otherwise, nature would be dependent on some laws to explain the existence of laws, which is hopelessly circular.  So then is nature really self-caused?  I can’t think of anyone who has proposed a good model for it being that way.  Hawking and Mlodinow certainly failed.“

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2011/05/did-god-create-the-laws-of-physics-secular-news-daily/

and…

Stephen Hawking Says God Did Not Create the Universe: What Do You Think?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/stephen-hawking-says-god-did-not-create-the-universe-what-do-you-think

————–

The Big Bang:

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

and…

“… the laws of physics are incapable of accounting for existence.  Laws don’t do that kind of work.“

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/06/is-there-an-explanation-for-existence.html

and…

Reflections on “Uncaused Beginnings”

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/reflections-on-uncaused-beginnings

and…

“Physicist and cosmologist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin refutes some scientific models… that supposedly argue for a universe without a beginning.  He then offers his own explanation (via the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem) why the universe did have a beginning.“

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

and…

God and the Big Bang

How the universe began — the moment of creation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBulsNbaYgo&feature=player_embedded

&

What is the evidence for a moment of creation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPO5Wsa6pFk&feature=relmfu

&

The relationship between science and faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEFizpPP3R8&feature=relmfu

&

Unsolved mysteries about the Big Bang — Dark Energy fine tuned for life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUl__nvt1X4&feature=relmfu

&

Scientists who are Christian believers talk about God and the Big Bang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_912294&feature=iv&src_vid=MUl__nvt1X4&v=n8DACu4MmjE

&

More about the contributors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_805807&feature=iv&src_vid=n8DACu4MmjE&v=Q0LzyDIWyDI

————–

Nothingness (before the Big Bang):

“… as much as Hawking is a genius for the ages, he seems to have missed two crucial points.  One of them is ‘nothing.’  He never says quite what he means by ‘nothing,’ except that from it, the universe had the capacity to create itself.  Now, this is not ‘nothing.’  It is perhaps neither matter nor energy, but it is at least potentiality of some sort; and potentiality is not nothing.  What it might be is something that philosophers and scientists might debate for ages to come, but it strains reasoning to suppose that in the end they would agree, ‘well, okay, then this universe-creating potentiality turns out to be quite absolutely nothing after all.’  No, whatever it is, it is something. So in saying that nothingness can create something, he jumps a step.  Where did the kind of ‘nothing’ he has in mind, the kind that has this vast potentiality in it, come from?“

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2010/09/the-grand-design/

and…

“‘Nothing‘ is unstable…  In fact… ‘nothing‘ is almost everything… [and] there are three different kinds of ‘nothing‘.“

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/415707/june-21-2012/lawrence-krauss?xrs=share_fb

[Really?  ' Nothing ' is  almost   everything ?   ASND wonders if Krauss' 'nothing' might someday be explained more realistically by the extra dimensions posited by  String   Theory .]

    Speaking of Lawrence Krauss…

“Restricting `somethings’ to, say, time, space, and particles, one might say that the complete quantum state has both `nothing’ and `something,’ but even with this restricted sense of `something,’ it is rather a strained interpretation to say that the `something’ part arose out of the `nothing’ part; both simply exist within the total reality.  In any case, the laws of physics (both the dynamical laws and the quantum state) are here being implicitly assumed to exist, and it certainly seems unfair to dismiss them as `nothing’…  To me as a fellow [quantum physicist], it appears Krauss has instead swung far wide of the goal, striking only the air with his philosophical speculations that do not address the truly deep questions of existence.“

Don N. Page, Professor of (theoretical gravitational) Physics

http://www.amazon.com/review/R20NRSZ698T31J

and…

Lawrence Krauss debates “A Universe From Nothing” with an astrophysicist

http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/fec5de22-bec9-4a92-b9f9-6179236d05d4.mp3

and…

“Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all.  And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable…  But that’s just not right.  Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff.  The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields!  The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t.  And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves.  And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.“

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

David Albert, Professor of philosophy, Columbia University, author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience.

and…

“… the universe comes out of a nothingness which is everything.“

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/higgs-boson-god-particle-religion-science_n_1672741.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Deepak Chopra, Hindu philosopher

[Cool, huh?  Just like Lawrance Krauss -- and  Steven Hawking -- have been telling us, "everything" actually is -- or at least used to be -- "nothing."]

and…

“I don’t want to be judged by god; that’s the bottom line.”

http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/antitheism-and-krauss-wager.html

Lawrence Krauss, during a recent radio/podcast program in the U.K.

[ “Want,”  Dr. Krauss?  What part of empirical science – which you elsewhere claim (over and over again, including right here on this Web page) is your only "bottom line" for not believing in a Creator – is “want”?]

and…

Debate:

William Lane Craig debates Lawrence Krauss: Does God Exist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eNjmN9Xtmg&feature=player_embedded

&

Debate Transcripts:

William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss

Is There Evidence For God?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university

and…

Unbelievable?

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101

See (actually, listen to) “A Universe From Nothing?”

and…

A Universe From Someone: Against Lawrence M. Krauss’

A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss.htm

and…

The Pseudo-Science of Atheists (something from ‘nothing‘)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va2ugtaEe7g

and…

Not Understanding Nothing

A review of ‘A Universe from Nothing’

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing

and…

“[Lawrence Krauss] is right to a certain extent — science depends on nature generally behaving itself.  But he is wrong to think [science] is incompatible with Christianity.  [Science] is, in fact, essential to the Christian faith, for several reasons.“

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/Clips/God-and-Science-Do-Mix.pdf

and…

“If the universe, as Krauss alleges, is ultimately the product of a purposeless quantum burp, then so are we and so are our minds.  Thus Krauss, in a delightful irony, gives us good reason to doubt the reliability of our human cognitive faculties and, consequently, to doubt the validity of any concepts, beliefs or arguments that they produce…“

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

and…

A Universe From Someone: Against Lawrence M. Krauss’ A Universe From Nothing

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss.htm

————–

“The large size of the universe is often said [by atheists] to be an argument against the existence of… God…“

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/universe_too_large.html

————–

Cosmological Arguments for God:

“Most people who comment on the cosmological argument demonstrably do not know what they are talking about.”

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

and…

The Cosmological Argument: A Defense

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf

————–

Particle Physics:

“… the Higgs boson has nothing more to do with God than any other particle in His creation.“

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=7966

and…

“The particle that gives mass to some matter, leaving other matter without mass, has nothing at all to tell us why there is matter or why the universe came into being.  And yet as you peruse the internet for comment on the CERN discovery, you find rhetorical gems like ‘On the 4th of July, 2012 God became totally unnecessary,’ and even the wild claim that the existence of this particle disproves the scientific maxim ex nihilo nhilo fit – from nothing, nothing comes!“

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/has-the-god-particle-made-god-redundant/

————–

Anthropic Principle:

13 incredibly lucky Earth facts

http://www.livescience.com/21546-earth-facts.html

[Once again, however, ASND must ask, "What, pray tell, is " luck " ?]

[ASND also wonders why LiveScience.com only included 13 " lucky " anthropic facts about Earth when we know of well over THIRTY TIMESthat many incredibly " lucky " antrthopic facts about our fair planet -- and that doesn't include the well over a hundred incredibly " lucky " anthropic facts about the universe as a whole.]

[ASND also wonders why LiveScience.com didn't bother to include any of the calculatedprobabilities against such incredibly " lucky " circumstances in that report.]

Readers interested in a short collection of additional resources discussing this incrediblelucky ” topic, each citing the requisite peer-reviewed research, are invited to peruse the following:

    Articles:

Location, Location, Location! Research Reveals Fine-Tuning of the Solar System’s Position

http://www.reasons.org/articles/location-location-location-research-reveals-fine-tuning-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-position

and…

The Remarkable Design of the Solar System’s Turbulent Youth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-remarkable-design-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-turbulent-youth-part-2

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-remarkable-design-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-turbulent-youth-part-3

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-remarkable-design-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-turbulent-youth-part-4

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-remarkable-design-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-turbulent-youth-part-5

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-remarkable-design-of-the-solar-system%E2%80%99s-turbulent-youth-part-6

and…

Simulations Confirm Fine-Tuning of Earth Impactor Event

http://www.reasons.org/articles/simulations-confirm-fine-tuning-of-earth-impactor-event

and…

Rare Solar System, Rare Sun

http://www.reasons.org/articles/rare-solar-system-rare-sun

and…

Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe

and…

Probability For Life On Earth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth-apr-2004

and…

When Did Life First Appear on Earth?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/when-did-life-first-appear-on-earth

and…

The Myth of Abiogenesis

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evolution-as-mythology-part-3-of-5-the-myth-of-abiogenesis

and…

Earth’s Cycles Favor Life

http://www.reasons.org/articles/earth%E2%80%99s-cycles-favor-life

and…

Fine-Tuning Allows Essential Plate Tectonics to Take Off

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-allows-essential-plate-tectonics-to-take-off

and…

Oxygen Rises Just Before Life Arrives

http://www.reasons.org/articles/oxygen-rises-just-before-life-arrives

and…

Explanation for Origin-of-Life’s Molecular Handedness is Insoluble

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explanation-for-origin-of-lifes-molecular-handedness-is-insoluble

and…

Biology Textbooks Get It Wrong on Life’s Origin

http://www.reasons.org/articles/biology-textbooks-get-it-wrong-on-lifes-origin

and…

One More Crack in the Mirror: Misplaced Hope in the Latest Model for the Origin of Life

http://www.reasons.org/articles/one-more-crack-in-the-mirror-misplaced-hope-in-the-latest-model-for-the-origin-of-life

and…

Origin of Life (a short catalog of other resources)

http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/originoflife

Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity

and…

http://www.reasons.org/articles/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity

    Podcasts:

Is Life Rare Despite Early Emergence On Earth?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/is-life-rare-despite-early-emergence-on-earth

and…

Earth’s Early Life Reveals Complexity

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/earth%E2%80%99s-early-life-reveals-complexity

and…

Scientists: Earth Barely Supports Life

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/scientists-earth-barely-supports-life

———————

Mind or Matter?:

Nothing but a pack of neurons?

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%2016%20Judge_EN.pdf

and…

“When neuroscience and Darwinism trespass into the humanities, they become… neuromania’ and ‘Darwinitis’ – unhealthy, mad and malign.“

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/aug/07/aping-mankind-raymond-tallis-review

and…

Is Religious Belief Just a Brain Function?

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201204/201204_110_religious_belief_brain_function.cfm

and…

“Brain scan images… are not pictures of our brains in action, and so they are positively not images of our minds at work.“

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/12/07/166733094/brain-scans-dont-catch-the-brain-in-action

———————

Has Science Refuted Religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulykALV2FQ8

———————

Multiverse:

“… if any level of the multiverse actually exists then it is harmonious with theism.“

http://sententias.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/EPS-Paper-God-and-the-Multiverse-PDF.pdf

and…

Do Infinite Universes Explain the Fine-Tuning?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/do-infinite-universes-explain-the-fine-tuning

———————

Information in DNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IPNQUQImBU&feature=youtu.be

———————

Richard Dawkins:

Science or naturalism?  The contradictions of Richard Dawkins

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

and…

Dawkins’s Best Argument

The Case against God in The God Delusion

http://www.ouruf.org/d/grad/10.1%20ganssle%20-%20Dawkins%20Best%20Argument.pdf

and…

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.

A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ Book The Greatest Show on Earth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-part-1

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-part-2

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-part-3

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-part-4

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-1-28-10

&

http://www.reasons.org/articles/welcome-back-my-friends-to-the-show-that-never-ends-2-11-10

and…

“If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing.  Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing.  But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.  The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less.  The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.”

http://tinyurl.com/935h59l

Richard Dawkins, 1976

“I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that’s awkward for Darwinism.  Quite the contrary it’s exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find usefulness in the living world… Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein, and now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something.“

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/in_debate_brita_1064521.htm

Richard Dawkins, 2012

and…

“… what here Dawkins calls a ‘remarkable fact’, turns out only three years later to be known (such that even he agrees, as the above link shows) to be totally false.  It’s not even close; it’s as large an error as one could make in a propositional statement.  Not only that, but, this totally false statement is in an area of Dawkins’ speciality.“

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-remarkable-fact/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+uncommondescent/JCWn+%28Uncommon+Descent%29

and…

Atheists Say Richard Dawkins is an Embarrassment and Troublesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQ69VVR4gc

and…

God particle scientist [Peter Higgs] hits out at [Richard Dawkins]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/god-particle-scientist-hits-out-at-atheist-professor.19771329?religionnewsblog.com

———————

“PZ Myers is probably best known for his popular blog, Pharyngula, which bears the tag line, “Evolution, Development, and Random Biological Ejaculations from a Godless Liberal“.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/colliding_with_the_pharyngula_047281.html

———————

NCSE’s Eugenie Scott Reassures Scotland: There’s No Scientific Controversy on Evolution or Climate Change

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ncses_eugenie_scott_reassures051171.html

———————

Sam Harris:

Review(s) of Sam Harris’ Free Will

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

&

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/blue_pill_or_re_1066231.html

&

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/bluff_and_brava066241.html

———————

Intelligent Design:

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical.  The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a ‘lucky chance.’  If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.  No, I did not hear a Voice.  It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion…  the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source.  The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.“

http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Antony Flew, Ph.D. (Philosophy), 1923 – 2010, the 20th century’s “most famous atheist.“

and…

“… the[re is an] increasing number of atheists and agnostics who are coming out and critiquing Darwinism and/or supporting ID.“

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-these-atheists-and-agnostics-really-covert-creationists/

[That article quotes Thomas Nagel, Ph.D. (Philosophy), from his new book, Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.  Nagel has admitted several things which his fellow atheists have not, including the following in his previous book, The Last Word.   "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."]

and…

“Nagel is an atheist who… finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the ‘iconoclasts’ of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy.“

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html

———————

Science, Doubt, and Miracles

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201204/201204_122_science_doubt_miracles.cfm

———————

Why do some claim that science cannot test the supernatural (and rule it out a priori) but also claim that science has disproved the supernatural?

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/06/24/can-science-test-for-the-supernatural/

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