In his Dec. 7 letter “To the Doubters: Where’s Your Proof?”, Spencer Anderson challenged any atheist to prove wrong his beliefs about god, evolution, and the Book of Mormon.
In a way, he’s right. It’s true we cannot prove that the angel Moroni didn’t give the gold plates to Joseph Smith, nor is it necessary to do so. Proof is not the burden of the doubter. The burden of proof lies with whomever is making an outrageous claim. Likewise, we cannot disprove the Big Bang Theory, the Genesis Theory, the God Hypothesis, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There have been sightings all around the world “proving” His existence, and thousands claim to have been touched by his “noodly appendage”. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Regarding evolution, you might find it interesting to know that well over ninety percent of scientists accept that hypothesis. It’s certainly not a foolish position to take, as Anderson claims. If you look up Project Steve, you’ll see there are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than any list of creationist scientists ever assembled. Over half of the Steve’s are biologists. But a list can’t “prove” anything.
In my opinion, the only ones who need to prove anything are the religious fundamentalists who aim to legislate according to their beliefs, which thus impacts the lives of their unbelieving constituents.
Dave Michaels
Tempe
Dale Whiting posted at 7:40 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
Dave,
I perceive that the thrust of your letter mirrors my own comments on Spencer's letter. I pointed out that evolutionary theory is both taught at and supported by research at BYU.
My interest is heightened by your statement that " the only ones who need to prove anything are the religious fundamentalists who aim to legislate according to their beliefs, which thus impacts the lives of their unbelieving constituents."
I understand that the issue of same sex attraction has been studied at BYU but I have yet to hear of any conclusions drawn. At the same time "religious fundamentalists" have vehimently opposed initiatives to extend equal treatment under the law to Gays and have vehimently supported initiatives to "protect" their concept of marriage.
I find the problem capable of an easy solution. Where traditionally marriage was a religious cerimony, one which became secularized with the need for government to license and register marriages [except for common law marriages], we see the state creeping into religion. Where we believe in separation between church and state, why not have the state license "civil unions" and let those performing the cerimony decide what to call it?
Your thoughts?
Arizona Willie posted at 7:50 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
Dale, where did the tirade(?) about gay stuff come from?
Mr. Michaels letter had nothing to do with gay issues.
Must be your favorite subject,eh?
Guess we know which side of the plate you bat on.
Rich posted at 8:28 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
Prove? Everyone has already proven everything. There is absolutely nothing that isn't so, and be sure and take a monkey to your next family reunion. Darwin was half right, some people are related to apes, and it isn't really hard to tell who they are. Read your golden plates with your morning coffee, and Sunday be sure to eat some flesh and wash it down with a little blood. We need more gay people in our society, they don't procreate, we need more of that.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:08 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
Arizona Willie,
You assert "Guess we know which side of the plate you bat on." and you cannot figure out "where did the tirade(?) about gay stuff come from?"
First and foremost, you know nothing about me, nothing at all. Where I see considerable hypocracy in the Neo-conservative thrust to separate state from church but not church from state, I point out that hypocracy, an issue Dave touched on. And nothing I wrote was anything near a tyrade [A long angry or violent speech, usually sensorious or denunciatory; a diatribe]. Now, why don't you look up the definition of "idiot." That should prove shocking to your ego!
Accuracy posted at 11:36 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
Dave Michaels’ opinion: “In my opinion, the only ones who need to prove anything are the religious fundamentalists who aim to legislate according to their beliefs, which thus impacts the lives of their unbelieving constituents.”
-----------------------------
Does that include Muslims beliefs that legislate by Islamic Sharia law?
There are signs of Sharia law concerns seeping into America's ideals and courts.
Last year in Oklahoma, Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange blocked a voter-approved ban on Sharia law in Oklahoma. Judge Miles-LaGrange ruled that restricting the use of Sharia law was unfair to Muslims. Also this year, Florida Circuit Court Judge Richard Nielsen said he would use Islamic law to decide a case between several men and the mosque where they worked.
As they do in other countries, Muslims promise their legislation will be based on Sharia law, and any laws that contradict Sharia will be nullified.
VofReason posted at 1:16 pm on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
The author falls into the same trap that many do. Scientist belive and teach evolution and I don't think many disagree that life has evolved over time- some land animals evolved from those that once lived in the sea etc etc. However, please point to the scientific proof of how life started to begin with. How did we go from no life to life. It takes a much greater level of faith to believe it was an accident then to believe there was a higher power involved. Have you ever looked at at 2012 BMW automobile and thought, maybe all this just evolved from rocks. A BMW is far less complex then a cell, the smallest unit of life. Consider hat before you toss around Darwin next time. he never could answer it either.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:47 pm on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
VofReason,
Where do we start? Give us a hint! What is your background in the sciences? Biology, biochemistry? We might need to start off in first grade with you, even kindergarten!
It is too late to point you to yesterday's NOVA program "What Darwin Never Knew." It is not scheduled for re-airing in the near future. But look for it down the line. It should go a long way towards answering your questions. It does not address the question of the origins of life. And until life is discovered off this planet, you may never come to accept the hypothesis of how it all started.
Dave Michaels posted at 5:02 pm on Sat, Dec 24, 2011.
Dale & Accuracy,
The types of issues I have in mind include gay rights, women's rights v. fetus' rights, embryonic stem cell research, teaching evolution in schools, liquor stores being closed on Sunday, etc. More extreme examples surely include Sharia Law, polygamy, slavery, and sensorship.
There may be good reasons, for example, to ban liquor sales one day each week, say Sunday. One reason may be that banning alcohol for one day reduces crime in a community. This must be weighed against a person's right to drink whenever he pleases, and voted on accordingly. One religious text may declare a day of sobriety is mandatory. Another may claim that a person must ceremoniously drink wine every day. Yet another may state that no man shall intoxicate himself for any reason. If these texts make those claims for a scientific, moral or logical reason, then it's a fair claim. But if they simply say their book is the true, perfect word of God and cite that as their reason, they then need to prove that their book is the infallible teaching of an infinitely wise and powerful being. Needless to say, no proof and very little evidence has been brought forth of the divinity of the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
All decisions should be based on science, facts, logic, and moral opinion. None should ever be based on religious fundamentalism.
Dave Michaels posted at 5:34 pm on Sat, Dec 24, 2011.
VofReason:
a) I never mentioned Darwin.
b) You seem to agree that we have evolved. Your only issue seems to be that noone has "proven" how life began. This is certainly true, although scientists have been working on it for years. The fact is, we don't yet know how organic reproduction originated. We don't know the series of chemical reactions that had to happen to form a substance able to replicate itself. This is because we have been unable to reproduce the series of events in a labaratory. There have been cases of organic matter being created from inorganic matter, but I don't believe self-replication has ever been recreated. There are theories, but none proven.
That said, the evidence for evolution by natural selection is incredibly overwhelming. The fossil record, genealogy, lab experiments, as well as common sense all unanimously indicate that every single organism on Earth was born from parent(s) very similar to the offspring.
Consider this: If God created Adam in his image on the 6th day, then at some point Adam was merely a figment of God's imagination. At some later point, Adam was a man. He had blood vessels, a brain and spinal cord, liver and kidney cells, etc. Somewhere along the way atoms of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen and lesser amounts of other elements came together to form Adam. Imagine someone attempting to reproduce THAT chemistry in a lab!
Even more difficult, describe the chemical makeup of God himself? Is he carbon based? Is he pure energy of some form yet undiscovered? Where is he? Is he located in this universe? If he is everywhere at once, exactly what happens when God "thinks"? Does he have neurons? Does he have memory cells? Is he brainless and bodyless?
Obviously those are all untested scientific questions. The absurdity of one day discovering these answers demonstrates the obsurdity of the idea itself.[wink]
bobunf posted at 8:47 pm on Sat, Dec 24, 2011.
It is absurd for anyone to say they "believe" in evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a very useful, robust and viable explanation of many biological processes. If it's not "true," it's such a useful mnemonic that it will not be abandoned by biologists until something better comes along.
This explanation changes all the time, sometimes in very major ways as when a detailed understanding of heredity emerged a century after Darwin died.
As Deng Xiaoping put it, “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice.” The Theory of Evolution catches mice very well.
At our current level of ignorance no one has any idea how life started. But do you not feel uncomfortable confining the operation of God only to those continuously narrowing set of things of which humans are ignorant? For religion to be meaningful, I think it has to transcend that idea. God does exist only in the cracks.
I don't think scientists use the word "proof" very much. Science is much more tentative - we only understand most things through a glass darkly. I also don't think religion is a matter of proof.
Nobody is going to "prove" anything about these big ideas. But the American idea is that we all get along in spite of different understandings of the world.
bobunf posted at 8:56 pm on Sat, Dec 24, 2011.
Accuracy's concern about Sharia law in America is silly and smacks of delusion. There are about 1.3 million adults who identify themselves as Muslims, and about 173.4 million Christians in the United States. Outvoted 133 to 1, I don't think Sharia law will get very far.
I don't know the details of the Oklahoma case, but it sounds like the Judge wisely put a stop to a piece of silly bigotry. The Florida case sounds like a matter of contract law, most of which we've inherited from the English Common Law.
bobunf posted at 9:51 pm on Sat, Dec 24, 2011.
It should have been "God does NOT exist only in the cracks" in the post two above.
Dave Michaels posted at 8:01 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Thanks for the support bobunf and Dale