Faith in reason?

Is faith in reason still faith?

Letter received

My response

Please, people! The "Our invention" - "His creation" is the most useless bit of pseudo-evidence I've seen in a long time! What you do is the following: you take a human invention, then you take something not invented by mankind that has roughly the same use. Then you work from the assumption that everything that men has not made has been made by god, and use this to try and prove your assumption! All you actually prove is that most human inventions have one or more vague counterparts in nature. This does NOT lead to the logical conclusion that a god must exist. 

You say my conclusions are invalid because I work from an assumption that God exists. You work from an assumption that God does not exist, so can your conclusions be any more valid? You are correct that some examples are better than others, but the point of this page is to get people to think on their own, beyond what they’ve been taught, which is why there is a reader input section. Frankly I’d hardly call the eye a “vague” counterpart to a camera. So where did this incredible technology come from? All it takes is one example, one experience, that you know cannot be explained by what we consider “natural” and you open the door to experiencing God. Closing your mind to that isn’t much different than closing your eyes and saying there is no light. You’ll learn more in life if you have a sense of wonder for where all this knowledge and technology around us came from. I sense that you are highly biased against God, however, so that will be a factor in how you are able to view any of this. 

About your front page: In 1100 we believed, etc.

What you do here is the following: you show a number of examples from the past where people were wrong (please note that none of the examples you've given actually were based on scientific research), and use this to 'prove' that we are probably wrong about something today. Apart from the fact that we've been right just as often, you are using a process best described by 'empiric induction', which is NOT a logically valid tool.

 Greater minds than either of ours have made statements like the following:

One thing I have learned in a long life—that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike. ALBERT EINSTEIN

We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything. THOMAS ALVA EDISON

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. SOLOMON (Proverbs 11:2)

The point here is that we still have so much to learn and could be wrong in some of what we believe. You might not like the logic, but that statement is true, is it not? Do you really think we “know it all.” Do you know it all? Do you suppose that one thousand years from now some of what we believe as scientific fact will be known to have been wrong? I think it is naive and arrogant to assume otherwise. I see new knowledge replacing accepted facts regularly in the news. We learn the most if we are humbled by the realization of how little we really do know. If we become convinced that we know it all, pride takes over and we spend more time defending our own opinions than seeking to learn, whether it be from science, from the experiences of others or from God.

 About SETI and DNA: this is not very valid logic either, is it? SETI is a pretty unscientific search for non-random signals that would have to be interpreted as signals from extra-terrestrial intelligence. We can safely assume that no natural phenomenon would emit radiation in the form of prime-numbers, can't we? You then go on using faulty logic to show that DNA has to be made by intelligence. Faulty? Yes, DNA is not a non-random code. In the case of DNA we can make convincing arguments how this could have come into being by pure chance alone. You must be familiar with the origin of species etc. Ok, now give me 1 rational explanation for finding radiation in the universe in the form of prime-numbers. You probably can't, because it's not there. We can only accept something to come from intelligence if there's no way it could come from a natural source.

You say you can “safely assume that no natural phenomenon would emit radiation in a non-random form” (prime numbers are just one example) but then turn around and assume that a natural phenomenon would create an incredibly complex non-random chemical program (DNA). Why? Where’s the consistency in your logic? Matter is just energy in a different state, so why should you assume that energy creates non-random forms in some cases yet not in others? Is this flawless logic on your part or is it just what you’ve chosen to believe to support your atheistic beliefs? Isn’t it more rational to be consistent and assume that all non-random manifestations occur on their own or , on the other hand, that all non-random manifestations indicate a causal agent? Pick your logic and then stick with it. Don’t bend it to meet the preconceived beliefs you desire to support. That’s the point of this page.

About the 'divine proportion'. You could take the proportion 1:2, and find as many examples in nature as you could find for this one, I'd say. Since none of these proportions are precisely the 'divine proportion', and you've got an incredible amount of things to search for this proportion, you can always find many thing with a given proportion. You neglect the fact that there are MANY MORE things without this proportion! My body is NOT 1.6... times my head etc. etc. etc.

Given this logic, if we do ever receive a non-random signal from space we could just say “but there are SO MANY MORE things with randomness, so this also has no significance.” If you’re so right about this, why did the Egyptians and Greeks base their architecture on this? Why did Leonardo Da Vinci base his art on it? Why did Johannes Kepler say "Geometry has two great treasures: one the Theorem of Pythagoras; the other, the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio. The first we may compare to a measure of gold; the second we may name a precious jewel." Do the Egyptians, Greeks, Da Vinci and Kepler have something to learn from YOU or is there the a possibility that maybe they had insights that you haven’t grasped yet? If you understand its application, your body is indeed based on the golden section.

About natural selection; I study physics and not biology, but even I can see mistsakes you've made.

-Why bisexual reproduction? Even the basest knowledge of evolution theory would have shown you that bisexual reproduction leads to evolutional processes going MUCH faster; therefore bisexual species are quicker to adept to changes in the environment, and they are likelier to survive.

Did you read the top of this page where I say “This isn't to say that the end result isn't beneficial, but what mechanism is at work here?” The question isn’t whether it’s better. Of course it is. The question is HOW did living organisms that reproduce asexually by simple division develop two genders with a highly complicated reproduction process in the first place. Do you have an answer?

-Mutations giving advatages or deformations? Both happen in the theory of evolution, and the latter more often than the former. But individuals with the latter die, and thus most deformations are not preserved. What you're doing here is lying about the theory of evolution, making it say things it doesn't. These are not good tactics.

So can you offer any real living examples of mutations that have added significant new life systems or functions or are you just assuming that this is what must have happened in the past to support your belief system?

-Evolution tells us that species do become extinct, as well as that new species are formed. Also, the killing by humans cannot be taken as an argument against evolution; here intelligence(?) is at work.

Have you observed new species being formed by evolution or are you just assuming that this is what must have happened in the past to support your belief system? Scientists are divided over whether there is enough evidence to support macro-evolution to the degree needed to explain the creation of new orders of living organisms. Even if evolution is proven to have occurred, evolution is a process of adaptation in populations of living organisms. The important question is how did life start from inanimate matter? That’s an entirely different process, so you can’t extrapolate from evolution to spontaneous generation. Even if you rationalize that it’s "natural," you still have to ask why the universe is constructed to make it so “natural.”

- The first non-biological example of an unnatural phenomenon does not make sense to me. Are your refering to the second law of thermodynamics? Please explain.

Same thought, for the most part. (Yes, there are two views on whether we’re in a closed system. It depends on what you consider the “system” to be.)

- "A very unusual timing relationship in which the lunar orbital period of 29.5306 earth rotations, when divided into 1447, a prime number, equals 49, the square of 7, the number of days in a week."

Yes, funny. This is numerology, and does not make sense at all. What's so special about 1447? There are MANY primes, and one of them is bound to give you an almost natural number. Of which you then take the square root (why?), to gain 7. Which is the number of days in a week. No need to say, of course, that the week is a human invention, and could have been 8 or 6 days. In which case you'd probably said that 7 is exactly the number of continents on this earth, or something like that.

Your right in that there’s are many prime numbers besides 1447. There’s a longer explanation of this, however, that ties it into the Bible. See http://www.creation-answers.com/
time1.htm#top included in my links page. I was just giving a short version for those who might find it interesting.

-Pyramids are easy to build. Read some literature on it, please.

Easy? Everything I read says we can’t even figure out how they cut the stones with such precision, let alone put them into place. Pyramids in South America have huge stones that are irregularly shaped like pieces of a puzzle but are cut to within 1/50 of an inch tolerance to fit together. Where does your information come from? See http://www.hunkler.com/
pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.html as just one example of the design involved in pyramids.

- "No matter, everything collapsing into one black hole or expanding forever as energy." And why would one expect this? Have you ever read anything about inflation-theories? Have you any understanding of physics at all?

 If the laws of “nature” for the forces (gravitational, nuclear, electromagnetic) weren’t exactly as they are, if gravity was stronger or weaker for instance, all energy wouldn’t exist as matter. I’m no expert, but I believe that inflation theories are based on those specific forces of nature already being in place. The question here is WHY are they as they are? How does an explosion with the magnitude of the big bang produce order and structure?

A couple of quotes from people who know more about physics than either of us:

STEPHEN HAWKING

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. . . . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

SIR FRED HOYLE, ASTROPHYSICIST

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers (i.e., probabilities) one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

The following were all taken from the reader input section. Did you see that noted on the page? I don’t try to explain them or think they’re all necessarily the best examples. It’s just a place for people to think for themselves and to express ideas. Considering the thoughts of others and thinking for yourself is part of the learning process. Still, instead of criticizing, perhaps you could try a little harder to understand what the other person was trying to communicate or come up with your own examples.

- "Life taking the simplest route for adaptation"

That's a good one too! This is NOT what one would expect if the evolution theory is right! You can claim it is, but that's called lying.

I believe the intent of this reader was to say that if evolution is the only guiding principle we wouldn't expect to see more complexity than was necessary for survival. Why, for instance, did mankind evolve intelligence for sophisticated art, music, dance and other forms of creative expression when these clearly aren't required to sustain the species?

- "Evolving laws of physics "

Huh? Why? This is pure stupidity, or I'm completely missing your reasoning, in which case, please explain.

I believe the intent of this reader was to say that if we see the universe changing its nature on its own by producing organisms of ever increasing complexity that we might expect to see other aspects of the universe, including the "laws" of nature, change their nature as well.

- "One type of life in one environment ", "Human offspring with new and different features", "Total chaos in human thought", "Random sexual activity ", "A link among all of the world's languages ", "An atmosphere that doesn't support life ", "A sun too close or too far to support life" and "All human societies tending to structure in the same way". These things don't make any sense. If you'd care to explain the undoubtedly brilliant reasoning behind them, I might be able to say something useful about it. However, these things are now as reasonable to me as saying that you'd expect elephants to have 128 heads.

"The atheist looks at the evidence and sees a universe too complex to have been created." No. Please visit http://www.PositiveAtheism.org/ to find out what atheists do say. The complexity of the universe has never been mentioned by any atheist as evidence against god. By the way, I've been looking for a definition of complexity for a long time. Can you give it to me?

How in the world can you possibly know what every atheist has ever said? Suppose you had no bias or preconceptions about God and looked at the universe around you with new eyes starting today. What would be your primary reason to conclude whether it was created or not created? You live in a universe of cause and effect, so what is your primary scientific reason for assuming that this effect we call life has no cause?

"There is nothing wrong with holding beliefs that are based on faith rather than complete evidence. This is the nature of all religions."

This is not an argument. This is an axiom I'd like to see proved, because I do not hold it. Belief is per feinition based on faith, but there is something wrong with holding a belief. It's not supported by fact. Therefore you cannot know if it is true. Therefore you cannot accept it as truth. Yet a believer does do just that.

I addressed how much faith you have to hold your beliefs in the opening to this letter. Keep in mind that the beliefs you hold are only rational within your own belief system.

· You believe in things that require monumental odds to have happened on their own rather than even considering the alternate hypothesis that life was created. Is that rational?

· You ignore evidence which contradicts your beliefs but think that you are scientific and rational in your thinking. Is that really rational?

· You believe that that matter created intelligence rather than than Intelligence created matter. Why is the former view any more rational than the latter?

Just because we can rationalize something doesn’t mean it is either fact or truth. You cannot know with certainty that what you believe is true. Neither can I. You believe in no God with as much faith as any believer in God but deceive and elevate yourself by thinking that your belief alone is founded in reason and that opinions in the absence of experience are weightier than beliefs of those who have had an experience that led to their faith in God. That's not reason at work. That's simple pride.

Ok, this letter is long enough. If you can give me a satisfactory answer, I'd be impressed.

I'm always happy to respond to those who write, but in all honesty I have to wonder if your goal here is grow in your understanding of other views or simply to put people down to elevate yourself. Why do you fill your letter with insults and go to great length to criticize small points without ever really taking the time to understand the overall message? I don't know that you'll find any answers to be "satisfactory" if they don't support your views, but in the spirit of communication and understanding, I have provided responses to your questions below.

One thing you should know is that I didn't believe in God until I was almost 40. Like you, I was very antagonistic towards anything religious or spiritual, but then had experiences that brought me to a belief in God. It's a shocking and humbling experience to have, but one that you just can't deny, even as a rationalist. There's really quite of bit of evidence from God, if you're willing to see it, from answered prayers, to medically unexplained miracles, to changed lives to visions and fulfilled prophecies. These are not accepted by science because we cannot control or measure them, but it wasn't long ago that mankind couldn't see or measure infra-red energy, yet our world was filled with it and the effects of it. For all we know, the same could be true of spiritual forms of energy. In my site though I have tried to reach out as best I can to offer reasons to consider God's existence on a purely rational basis. Without a personal experience that you believe to be evidence of God, it is quite natural that you would reject Him. I did too. But there's a problem here. Your rejection, as was mine, is based simply on bias and opinion. True faith in God, however, is based on an experience. Which should have more validity from a rationalist viewpoint - opinion or experience? You, like most non-believers, and as I once did, take so much pride that your beliefs are based on reason and yet never even realize how much your beliefs are based in faith:

• faith that life started on its own against incredible odds when this can never be proven and has never since been observed to happen,
• faith that your very limited life experience and knowledge is all that is required to answer the greatest question mankind has ever considered,
• faith that our 3.5 pound brains and five senses even give us the tools to answer such a question,
• faith that your understandings of God and spirituality are correct even though they are based on opinions and are in contradiction to experiences reported by millions of others,
• faith that reason is the only means by which to acquire knowledge and insight.

In truth, we are all beings of great faith. You base your beliefs on experiences, learned biases, preconceptions and assumptions, just like any other human being. Each of us knows so little in relation to all that can be known and all that has been experienced and learned by billions of other human beings, now and in the past. You don't even know yet what your own life will teach you, so how can you be so sure about things you've yet to experience?

I can't prove God's existence to you or anyone else. That is something that only God can do with each of us as individuals. All I'm trying to do is to relate a message as a former non-believer, using reason as best I can, to challenge people to think a little beyond their own boundaries and preconceptions. Pride is the one thing that will keep you from learning anything from others. It is also the primary thing that keeps us from God.

With respect,

Gary

2nd Letter Received

2nd Response

- I seriously seek truth
- Belief, faith and reason
- Why I do or do not have faith
- The relation between evolution & creation
- Evidence for and against evolution
- Evidence for and against creation
- Miscellaneous answers to your arguments
- A story about earliest life
- Suggestions

Hello,

I seriously seek truth

You wonder whether my goal is to gain understanding of other views or to put people down. The truth is that neither of these is my particular goal. My objective is to find the truth; putting people down to elevate myself is not a means to that end (it could only serve to increase my ego) and I reject it as a valuable pass-time. Now to gain knowledge I could try to figure the answer to everything myself, but I wouldn't come very far that way. What I have to do is understand another view than I myself hold, examine it, and try to see if it is better than the one I hold now. (Better that is, in the sense that it is more truthful) If it is not, or I have questions about it's validity, I should criticise it. The ones who hold that view should then try to convince me of it's truth. I in turn must give them the opportunity to criticise my opinions. This is the only way to true knowledge.

If you make a website on creationism in which you criticise evolution theory, you should be willing to defend your position. Also, it is wrong to assume that those who criticise you do so because they want to 'put people down to elevate' themselves. I accept that that is not the goal you aim at with your website, and I'd like you to accept that that is not my goal either.
You say I fill my letter with insults. Rereading it I can find only one not totally kosher remark, about your knowledge of physics. I will take it back if that makes you happy.
You also ask me why I criticise small points without taking the time to understand the overall message. Apart from the fact that you cannot know if I've taken that time, it is good to criticise small points. For small points are what the overall message is based on, and if the small points are invalid, so is the message. What's more, if one uses very dubious or patently false evidence anywhere, one quite harms one's reputation. I'd have a hard time respecting anything that Mr. Robert T. Lee (from http://www.tencommandments.org) brings forth as evidence; his former actions have shown him to be untrustworthy. It is thus valid to criticise small points for a number of reasons:

- the overall message is based on these small points
- dubious or false small points cast doubt upon your other points
- you might wish to improve those small points
- your site offers small points as such. They are not placed in a greater context, at least not in a very obvious way. (Though I must admit I've not read your entire page yet.)

This being said, I hope you feel that I am a serious person looking for truth, and not someone looking for 'satisfaction'. (And I surely hope you don't think I spend all this time writing this letter just to give myself an ego-boost!) On to belief, faith, & reason.

Belief, faith and reason

You seem to try and indicate that my atheism is based on faith as much as your theism is. It is my wish to disprove this.
First I'd like to define two different things: belief and faith.

I define belief as accepting something as truth without 100% evidence
I define faith as accepting something as truth while there is more evidence against it then for it.

Let us look at the 2 kinds of statements which exist in this world: analytic statements and synthetic statements.

Analytic statements are those which can be said to be true or false by reason alone. For example: "A triangle has four sides", is an analytical statement, and it is false because it is against the definition of a triangle. Also analytic is "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". This is true, but it's a lot harder to prove. However, reason alone can do it.

Synthetic statements are those that are not analytic. Synthetic statements cannot be answered by reason alone. "An apple always falls to the ground" is synthetic; I can try to prove this by empirical evidence, but I can find no mathematical proof of it. It is impossible to prove any synthetic statement with 100% evidence. Therefore, in the case of synthetic statements, we can do two things: believe them, disbelieve them or suspend judgement.
How are we to decide what to do? Well, we look at the evidence for and against the statement. If the evidence for it outweighs that against it we decide to believe it, if the evidence against outweighs that for it we decide to disbelief it, and if these evidences hang in the balance we suspend our judgement. In the latter case we may try to get more evidence so we can make a true decision.

Now note that reason does not dictate that we disbelief everything that doesn't have 100% proof, for by disbelieving a statement A, you believe the contradictory of A (made by saying: "It is false that A"). A person therefore always believes exactly as many things as he disbelieves! Saying that one does not believe anything is saying that one doubts everything. Which is quite useless.

Now belief is a term which is used in a number of ways, and the second important way in which it is used I have dubbed 'faith'. Now faith is against reason, for accepting a statement on faith is accepting it although there is more evidence against it than for it. Basing ones beliefs on faith will never bring one to truth, for even though the one who has faith may be accidentally right, this does not excuse him from discarding the evidence. As Abraham Lincoln said:
"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

We must therefore in our quest for truth accept belief (my definition of it that is) and reject faith. This brings us to the question whether my outlook is, as you claim, based on faith or, as I claim, on belief.

Why I do or do not have faith

You, like most non-believers, and as I once did, take so much pride that your beliefs are based on reason and yet never even realize how much your beliefs are based in faith:

· faith that life started on its own against incredible odds when this can never be proven and has never since been observed to happen,
· faith that your very limited life experience and knowledge is all that is required to answer the greatest question mankind has ever considered,
· faith that our 3.5 pound brains and five senses even give us the tools to answer such a question,
· faith that your understandings of God and spirituality are correct even though they are based on opinions and are in contradiction to experiences reported by millions of others,
· faith that reason is the only means by which to acquire knowledge and insight.

Of the five points you here, the first will be the main discussion point in my letter; I will save it for later.
The second an the third point are actually the same, so I will treat them as one. You claim that my senses and reasoning abilities are not good enough to answer the question "Does god exist?". I agree with this, but I must also state that no senses or reasoning abilities are in fact good enough to answer this question with complete proof. For an existential claim is by definition synthetic. It is therefore reasonable to use the limited evidence we have, to weigh it and to decide whether we believe "God exists" or whether we believe it's contradictory "God does not exist". Now you must agree with me that an existential claim (… exists) must be disbelieved until good evidence for it is brought forth. I can see apples; therefore I believe apples exist even though I cannot prove it. I can hear Beethoven's music; therefore I believe there once lived a man named Beethoven who composed these famous pieces. I do not believe that the Eastern Bunny exists because no evidence that it does has come to my attention. I do not believe that a god (or the special variety of this concept called 'God') exists, because no theist has ever made a convincing case that a god does exist. (In fact many cannot even give a satisfying definition for 'god'!) Since there is little evidence in favour of the existence of god I remain at the default for an existential claim; that is, I disbelieve it. It is therefore completely reasonable to disbelief the existence of god as long as no evidence is forthcoming. Without evidence, accepting the existence of god is making a decision against huge odds. And thus it is an action of faith. (You will also see that if accepting a statement is a matter of faith, rejecting it can never be a matter of faith too. Only one of the two possibilities can have the majority of the evidence against it.)
In view of your fourth point I'd like to add the following:
- It is not the number of people who hold something as true that is important; it are their arguments. Millions believing the earth is flat are less convincing than one person with evidence that it is not. Or as Magellan stated: "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
- Most people in history thought that a god existed. But most of those thought your god was a false god.
Coming to your fifth and last point. This is a bold statement! Reason is the set of thinking-tools which can be used to get good conclusions from given premises. Among these tools are deduction, induction and entailment. Please note that any tool that leads to valuable and right conclusions from given premises is incorporated in reason. Back to your statement:

You have faith that reason is the only means by which to acquire knowledge and insight.

Since faith is against reason, and 'reason being the only way to get true knowledge and insight' is a fact incorporated in the notion 'reason', you state that: It is against reason to assume that reason is reason.
In saying this you take away the meaning of 'reason' and therefore the meaning of 'against reason' or 'faith'. Thus this statement renders itself meaningless, since if 'against reason' loses it's meaning so does the entire statement. The statement being meaningless, I cannot prove it to be either true or false, and I'll have to go on to the next point.
Which is your statements about the being you call God. Since you have not defined this being, the notion 'God' is cognitively empty. But assuming that you mean an all-powerful, all-knowing being that has created our universe, I must conclude that your statements about him are not provable, and you cannot even show any evidence as to that "God can prove me his existence" or "Pride keeps us from God". Since you claim you cannot prove that God even exists, these statements about him are rendered insubstantial, and I'm forced to ignore them. (And I won't even attack the statement "I cannot prove God", though I hold that it is impossible to know such a thing.)

My conclusion of this part of the discussion: My opinions are based on belief and not on faith. My belief system is based on reason. None of the points you provided proves or makes probable that I do in fact have faith.

I cannot prove that a statement held on faith is wrong, but it is reasonable to disbelieve such statements. You have not made any statement on God that can be used in further argument.

The relation between evolution & creation

Now we go on to evolution and creation. In light of the points I made above, it is reasonable to weigh the arguments for the statement "evolution did take place" and those for it's contradictory "evolution did not take place". If we then find that the former are heavier, we must believe evolution did take place. If we find the latter are heavier, we must believe evolution did not take place. We must however not fall back on faith if we want to uncover the truth!

The first point we must address is the connection between "life was created by a god" and "evolution did not take place". It is evident that evidence for evolution is also evidence against creationism; and that evidence for creationism is also evidence against evolution. But, we must ask ourselves, is it so that every argument against evolution is also evidence for creationism?
And is every argument against creationism an argument for evolution? Is it, in other words, so that "life was created by a god" and "evolution did not take place" are one and the same statement? This is not a trivial question! Might there not be a third (or a fourth, a fifth etc.) alternative?

I can think of some, though they are admittedly quite unlikely. Life on earth may have been created, not by a god, but by other sentient beings (aliens if you want). Life on earth came into existence because there is a law of nature that encourages the development of sentience. Let your imagination run free and you're bound to come up with more alternatives. Therefore, we ought to divide the question into two parts:

- Should we belief or disbelief "evolution did take place"?
- Should we belief or disbelief "life was created by a god"?
Evidence for either of these is also evidence against the other (since they are mutually exclusive), but evidence against one is not necessarily evidence for the other.

I'm now going to evaluate first the evidence for and against the first statement, and then that for and against the second one. I'll incorporate your arguments is this evaluation, instead of quoting them and addressing them one by one. (I always find that quote-wars destroy the structure in a discussion)

Evidence for and against evolution

So, let us look for evidence for and against evolution. First we will look at the evidence for it.

As you are undoubtedly aware it was Darwin who first proposed the theory of evolution. This theory was not in any way based upon knowledge of the inner structure of cells, for he did not have any. Darwin's theory was based upon a number of macroscopic observations. He saw for instance that birds on different islands that were near to each other were very alike… but not completely. A quick look at any book of animals will show you a grand list of species which resemble each other very strongly, yet are subtly different. Most often these species live in separate regions.
Now we can accept two hypotheses: either those species were always different, or these species started out as the same specie, but due to their geographical separation developed differently. Of course at this point we can say very little about the truth of these hypotheses.

We go on to another fact: the species of the world can be divided into categories in which they seem to range from the developed to the undeveloped. For instance mammals range from the mouse to the human, and they all have striking similarities. Reptiles go from the smallest snake to alligators and crocodiles. What's more, mammals and reptiles have a lot in common with each other.
Sometimes we even see species that seem to be somewhere between one group and another, like the platypus, an egg-laying mammal, or the little fish who's name I've forgotten, who has a semi-backbone, putting it between the animals with and those without bones.

This evidence seems to support evolution, since assuming that all species developed from common origins would necessarily put them into related families, not unlike a normal family-tree. Thus we have a fact that can be explained by evolution, and has to be taken as unexplainable in the light of other theories.

Fossils from past aeons show life-forms that are now extinct. This proves that species at least can die. More importantly however, these fossils do not show most of the species that exist today. Taking evolution we see that this can be easily explained by the fact that those species did not yet exist in that aeon. We will not find a cow-fossil in Jura-stone because cows did not yet exist. This is another fact that can be explained by evolution and not by other theories.

Fossils from the earliest days of the earth show far simpler life-forms that those of later days, and those life-forms that walk the earth today. Evolution can explain this too: since species developed from simple to complex, older fossils show simpler organisms than newer ones.

Species can develop. A classic example is that of the little butterfly that lived in England in the time of the industrialisation. 99% of these butterflies was white, and 1% was born black. Since these butterflies rested on birches, the black ones were usually eaten by birds, and the white ones had a better chance of survival. Now because of the smog near industrial areas, the bark of the birches became covered with filth, and the black butterflies were less visible than the white ones. Within a few years, in the areas of heavy smog, the percentage of black butterflies was dramatically raised, to 90+%, while in non-smog areas nothing happened. Thus a species developed from white to black in a number of years. Evolution on a small scale has been proved.

Now it's time to look into the cell, and see what we can find there. We find DNA. We find that DNA is a kind of code that carries the information for a being. And this DNA gives us more evidence that evolution is possible:
- DNA is given from parent to child; thus genetic information is preserved
- DNA is not unchangeable; it can mutate in numerous ways. Thus genetic information can be changed at random
Thus we see that random genetic changes can occur, and that these changes will be preserved if their carrier lives to make children. This leads us to accept that evolution is theoretically possible.

The systematic development in organisms is also seen in the development of proteins. Proteins of the cells of higher life-forms are strikingly similar to those of lower life-forms, though they are more developed. We see exactly the things one would expect to see given evolution: proteins that have a specific task in a cell are quite like each other in all life-forms; proteins consist of domains that (and this has been shown experimentally) are encoded by parts of DNA that can be "copied" and "pasted" in mutations; therefore many proteins consist of similar domains, and those domains are genetically alike.

Evolution can also be seen when we look at cell-membranes. This goes too far to tell here, but it is explained in the second paragraph of chapter 12 of "Molecular Biology of the Cell", 3rd edition, Alberts (and others).

The first cells could not have come into existence in an atmosphere of oxygen. Guess what. There was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life supposedly evolved. Proves nothing, but it's suggestive.

And my last point (and know that I'm not an expert, and I'm probably missing lots of them): the working of a cell is very delicate. A mutation that affects this to any large degree is more likely to cause death than anything else. Therefore one might expect that the inner structure of cells develops only very slowly through evolution. And look. A human cell and a cell from a tiny worm or even from a yeast are very much alike!

So, there's tons of evidence for evolution, and we'd better have some good evidence against it, or we have to believe that evolution has taken place. Now I'm going to take your points and propose them as anti-evolution evidence. Then I'm going to react on them.

History shows that we have been wrong very often. There is so much we do not know. How can we say that we know that evolution has taken place when we can be so easily mistaken?

This argument shows that we might be wrong in accepting evolution. However, it shows that we can be wrong in accepting anything at all. It is therefore not a valid argument against evolution, it is an argument against knowledge in general. We consider this argument and must make a choice: either we doubt everything completely and refuse to believe anything, or we admit that we might be wrong and go on using reason to find what we have to believe and what we have to disbelieve. The first possibility is one which I refuse to accept, and with me 99.99% if not 100% of all the people that ever lived, including, I'm sure, you. Doubting everything inevitably leads to solipsism, the belief that one can only be sure of the existence of the self, and it is a philosophical position that I reject; in the case of synthetic statements one must weigh the evidence and decide.
So we agree that we must accept that we can always be wrong, and must go on using reason. In fact, by the very definition of synthetic statements we can never know for sure we are right, and this entire argument is pretty obvious. By discussing evolution and creation we have already decided that we can hope to gain knowledge about thing we can not know for sure.
Moreover this argument decreases the validity of accepting evolution only as much as it decreases the validity of not accepting evolution. It is therefore useless in this discussion.

Though scientists accept that non-random signals from outer space must be made by intelligence, they refuse to accept that the non-random code that is our DNA is an indication that it was made by intelligence. If the first is accepted, the latter should be accepted too.
The point is of course that we can only accept something as a sign of intelligence if we can think of no way in which it could have been created by a non-intelligent system. Even then we have to look upon this evidence with doubt, since our imagination and knowledge may be insufficient to think up a non-intelligent system that can do this.

Therefore the first part of the anti-evidence is doubtful; non-random signals are in no way a proof that intelligence exists. (Apart from this, many scientists look upon SETI with scorn; even if aliens existed why would they send messages to our solar system?) Thus, when we see non-random signals, we must first look if we can think up a way in which they could have been created without intelligence. If we cannot, we can assume that intelligence was at work (unless we later think up a way by which we again can eliminate intelligence).

Therefore the second part is even more dubious, for not only is DNA only partly non-random, also we can think up a process that can create this code without intelligence intervening. This process is called evolution. Thus the only way to use this argument against the evolution theory is first to disprove that very same theory. In which case you don't need it any more. Making it useless in this discussion.

This argument could only be used against SETI is evolution were true, or for SETI if evolution were false. Not the other way around.

It is highly unlikely that evolution would ever produce two genders that need each other in order to procreate.

First we agree that a two-gender system is beneficial; thus if evolution could in any way have produced it, it would be preserved.

Secondly we agree that evolution cannot produce a two-gender system in a few years; one would need a number of significant mutations to produce this.
Where lies the problem? Of course in the fact that halfway through this process we would expect to see 'males' and 'females' that could no longer reproduce themselves, and were not yet sufficiently developed to procreate through sexual intercourse. In order to get around this problem, we ought to prove that species exist which are bisexual. For:

- an individual which through evolution became bisexual could still reproduce itself
- a group of individuals which are bisexual could through evolution become monosexual; for a monosexual individual could have offspring through sexual intercourse with bisexual individuals; thus his/her genes would be preserved
- a group of bisexual or monosexual beings evolves much faster than a group of asexual ones. This explains why, if bisexuals ever came into existence, they would develop relatively easily into monosexual beings. And why non-asexual beings came to dominate the earth.
Rests the task of showing bisexual beings. What about flowers? Most flowers are bisexual, with the stamen and the pistil as female and male organelles respectively. Closer to ourselves there are slugs. Slugs are actually bisexual; they can procreate with others or alone. What's more, the slugs can 'transform' their sexual organs into male or female organs in a short period of time; thus if two slugs meet each other twice, the first time A may become male and B female, and the second time it may be the other way around. And some amphibians can transform into the other sex too, if there are not enough individuals of that other sex (Jurassic Park, anyone?).
Thus, it is not so very unlikely to see two sexes at all. (But again, I'm not an expert. I'll look into it.)

We have never witnessed evolution taking place. If it were possible, we were bound to have seen it by now, right?

This sounds like a powerful argument, but it is in fact one of the weakest. According to scientific understanding life came into existence sometime 3.000.000.000 years ago. We've been looking for evolution for 100 years.
Imagine that the bible was read, very slowly, over a time of 3.000.000.000 years, and you had only heard the last 100 years of it. How much of the bible would you have heard by now? The bible is a very long book, and it says a lot of things, but if you'd only listened to this slow recital for 100 years you would have heard… one seventh of a letter!

The story of evolution is a long story, and in it a lot was said, but we cannot expect to see the story unfold before our eyes in a mere 100 years.

Even if evolution did take place, how could life have formed at the beginning?

An interesting point, and I will address it later in my story about the earliest life. For now consider it as a separate question, so we can first decide whether to believe or not to believe in evolution at all. We can later see if this argument raises difficulties or not. (Or you can read the 'story' now.)

If life can evolve, we would expect the laws of physics to evolve too!
Sorry, I just had to put it here. I know it was submitted by a reader. It lacks even the basest ground in logic. Life and laws of physics are completely unrelated. The fact that all matter in the universe attracts each other by gravitation does not imply that laws of physics attract each other by gravitation. Laws of physics do not struggle for survival. Etc.

Now it's time to review the evidence for and against the statement "evolution did take place". Though we can see that the evidence for it is not 100% conclusive, there are many things that can be explained through evolution and not through other theories that have been proposed. Furthermore, the evidence against evolution is mostly quite dubious or has got nothing to do with evolution at all.

In view of this it seems reasonable to accept "evolution did take place" as true until more evidence against it is found. However, before we do this we should look at one more thing, the evidence for and against "life was created by a god". If this evidence is more convincing we should accept creation instead of evolution. So let's do that.

Evidence for and against creation

The first great difficulty we find that we have to define 'god'. We need a useful definition. For instance the influential protestant theologian Paul Tillich said about God:

"... the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer -- whether negative or affirmative -- implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being."

God is 'being-itself'. Aha. A useless definition, as you will agree with me. For the sake of this argument I propose the following definition:
God is a being that is not restricted by at least some of the laws of nature. This being has the power to create life.

All other aspects of god, omnipotence, omniscience, infinite goodness etc. will only cloud our perception of this being, and belong in another discussion.

Now the best proof for this would of course be the existence of a god. (Well, even this is not actual proof; the fact that god exists does not entail that god created life. But let's leave that for now.) But no-one has ever been able to give me proof or evidence of a god. This in itself casts severe doubt upon the validity of a creation-theory. But let's not be too rash, there might be good evidence that leads us to believe that a god must have made it all. It has to be good though; most situations can be explained by less complicated hypotheses than that a supernatural being exists. And Occam's razor tells us to take the least complicated of two theories, since it is the most probable one.

The technology created by men is very much like the world, supposedly created by god.

I still find this argument extremely puzzling. The underlying idea seems to be that man cannot create anything new; that even the highest intelligence we know cannot create a completely new thing; therefore we need a higher intelligence than ours to create anything at all.
Maybe I've misunderstood the argument, but this is the only way in which it seems to mean anything at all.

Let us think first if the premise that 'men never thinks up something original' is a good one. A problem immediately occurs: what is original? Men have created many things, and many things with almost no connection to nature. Like: music (and no, most music is not like bird-calls at all), televisions, computers, rockets, democracy, religion, morals, good/evil (discard those last three if you think I'm reasoning from the premise that no god exists), laws, racism, data-bases, Monty Python, literature, writing etc. etc. etc. It seems to me that man is a creative genius. So, the premise is vague at best.

Second premise: 'intelligence is needed to create'. This seems to be untrue too: even vacuum can create particles and anti-particles. Nature can create by water, wind and time alone the most beautiful rock formations. The sun can create light.
So we've got two premises which are as solid a foundation as a block of already melting ice. And then we claim that thus we need infinite intelligence to create anything. Hmm. This does not even follow from the premises. Exit argument.

The 'divine proportion' is seen in nature and in art so much that it is an indication of a plan behind it all.
First we shall establish that the 'divine proportion' is a mathematical proportion known by the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans; the fact that they used it in their buildings tells us something about their architectural aesthetics, not something about any plan god might have with their buildings. (Good to note for a Christian: none of these peoples believed in Jehovah and the divine proportion is strikingly absent from the basic plan for a Christian Church.)

The we must look upon the occurrence of this proportion in nature. You site gives an extensive list of places in the human body where this proportion occurs. However, it can be expected that a proportion like this is found very often. A proportion of 1:6 will not be found very often since it asks for such a great difference in scale. But 1:1.6… is another case. The human body contains a lot of proportions, and, given an acceptable error allowed in the proportion, we are bound to come up with lots of cases wherein this proportion is witnessed.
As last point, this is only very circumstantial evidence for god. Maybe, even if it were something special, which I doubt, it could more easily explained by something else?
But let's file this as a tiny argument for a creator.

The moon/earth-cycle is another part of evidence for a great plan of the creator.

I've tried to read the site you know. But I couldn't find out what exactly the guy was trying to show. Somehow he adopted 7 as an important number, than he made a great table of sevens added and multiplied by and with each other in an arbitrarily way and lo!, something resembling order comes out of it!
One wonders why the creator did not just make sure that the moon revolves around the earth in 10 days or something beautiful like that. Instead of thinking up an order that must be interpreted by a system of calculations so complex that it can be used to prove anything at all. I find it particularly unconvincing. And it is in no way scientific evidence.

If our laws of physics were even a little different, we would not be able to exist.

And the fact that it is so unlikely that we exist, and the fact that we exist imply that the universe has been created so that we could exist.
Let me invoke the 'weak anthropocentric principle here: The fact that we exist to ask this question shows that we have been lucky enough to be in a universe in which we can exist.

If we had not existed we could not have asked this question; the fact that we can ask this question is in itself enough to establish that we must be in a universe where we can exist.

Imagine a great barrel filled with balls; most are blue, and a few are green. When the universe comes into existence, a ball is taken at random. If it is blue, it will be a universe without creatures; if it is green there will be intelligence.

Now imagine that many balls are taken: in all the blue universes there are no creatures, but in the green universes there are creatures and they wonder "If it so improbable that we can exist, how can we have come into existence by chance?" We know this argument is stupid: the chance was small but not zero, and all the creatures who can wonder had by definition the luck to be born in one of those few green universes.
Now we are creatures in a green universe; we cannot know if more universes have come into existence, and whether they are blue or green; but surely the existence or non-existence of other universes cannot influence ours? We wonder; thus we can be 100% sure to be in a green universe. How could we be amazed at seeing that we are in a green universe?

Ok, let's look back. There doesn't seem to be any solid argument for creationism. I think we are forced to disbelief the statement "God created life" until and unless further evidence is brought forth.

So it's reasonable to believe that "evolution did take place", and it's unreasonable to believe that "God created life". Until and unless further evidence shows otherwise.

Miscellaneous answers to your arguments:

Now I'll quote some of your statements and address them directly.

Why do you fill your letter with insults?

I think your accusations against me are far nearer to insults than anything I've written. But let it be forgiven and forgotten.

Your rejection, as was mine, is based simply on bias and opinion. True faith in God, however, is based on an experience. Which should have more validity from a rationalist viewpoint - opinion or experience?

My rejection of god is based simply on the lack of evidence for a god. True faith (whatever that may be) is, as far as I can see, based on dogmatic thinking, indoctrination, fear, hope and finally 'mystic' experiences that somehow never seem to reach me nor people I know, experiences that somehow lead different people to believe in different gods, experiences that are subjective, unscientific and doubtful. Which should have more validity from a rationalists viewpoint?
(Good to note that the philosopher commonly know as rationalists, among them Descartes, rejected all experiences. To them pure reason was the only way to get knowledge; they attempted in vain to solve synthetic statements with pure reason… so your question is wrong anyway.)

I sense that you are highly biased against God, however, so that will be a factor in how you are able to view any of this.

Biased against God? I'm not biased against something I do not think exists. That is a logical impossibility.

Do you really think we "know it all." Do you know it all?

I have not said this. I have not implies this. I'd say "no" to both questions immediately. Please do not use the 'straw man' rhetoric on me. Attack me on what I do say.

Where does your information come from?

'Pyramid' by David Macaulay, first edition from 1975. I've got no idea if this book is still in print.
Furthermore, we can see a clear 'evolution' of pyramids, the older ones being far smaller and less complicated than the younger ones. This indicates a learning process.
What do you want to prove with it anyway? That aliens have constructed pyramids for the Egyptians? That god has created pyramids for the Inca's?

"The atheist looks at the evidence and sees a universe too complex to have been created." No. Please visit http://www.PositiveAtheism.org/ to find out what atheists do say. The complexity of the universe has never been mentioned by any atheist as evidence against god.

How in the world can you possibly know what every atheist has ever said?

I cannot imagine any atheist ever saying this. But here's the deal: it's on your site, so please give me an example of an atheist who has said this. If you cannot do that, please allow me to call it a lie, and in that case please remove it from your site.
I ask you to remove it from your site anyway, since 'the atheist' implies that every atheist, or at least most atheists, think this. That is not true, and it may lead your visitors to wrong conclusions about atheism. And as G. H. Smith said: "Atheism is probably the least popular -- and least understood -- philosophical position in America today." It will not do to lessen even that tiny understanding.

You live in a universe of cause and effect,
Hume and Kant disagree with you, I'm afraid. J

Keep in mind that the beliefs you hold are only rational within your own belief system.

Beliefs can hardly be rational within one belief-system and irrational within another, can they. (I say hardly, since for moral beliefs this assumption is not true.)

You ignore evidence which contradicts your beliefs but think that you are scientific and rational in your thinking.

That's a very bad thing to say about anybody. Please tell me what evidence I'm ignoring. I'd be happy to stop ignoring it.

If you can give me a satisfactory answer, I'd be impressed.
It wasn't entirely satisfactory, but I'm impressed anyway. Your letter was better than I had anticipated.

A story about earliest life

I'd like to demystify life. The common opinion seems to be that it's something very special. The 'spark of life' surely could not come from nothing, even if evolution had made sure that the first living being developed into all the sorts we know today!

Nothing could be less true. (Ok, some things could be less true. I admit it.) Imagine the prebiotic conditions of the earth: water, no oxygen, lightning, volcanic eruptions, no ozone-layer and thus a chemically active atmosphere.

Laboratory experiments have proved that under those circumstances organic materials are made. Among these amino acids and all the things needed to make nucleotides. Ok.
Now, imagine a strand of RNA being formed from these nucleotides; it had millions of years, no problem. Now comes the good thing:

- polynucleotides are capable of directing their own synthesis
- some RNA molecules can catalyse biochemical reactions

Thus, you can imagine self-replicating RNA-molecules can't you? Swimming in the primordial waters, linking nucleotides to complement their own, thus creating new RNA. Using the products available in the environment, the nucleotides, to 'procreate'. You can imagine it?

You've just imagined life.
Amazingly primitive, but it's life nonetheless. Nothing special about it, just selfreplicating entities. And truly life.

(A far longer explanation can be found in the first chapter of "Molecular Biology of the Cell", 3rd edition, Alberts (and others).)

Suggestions

Now it may seem unwise to do suggestion to a webmaster about his website, but I'm going to do it anyway. You've got the knowledge to make a very good-looking website; you might want to use this knowledge to make a more substantial web-site.

All I'm trying to do is to relate a message as a former non-believer, using reason as best I can, to challenge people to think a little beyond their own boundaries and preconceptions.

If your objective truly is to make people think beyond what they've learned, you may not have thought about the fact that you're site is just telling lots of people exactly what they've learned: that god created the earth.

If you're serious about the search for truth, I'd recommend you to incorporate into your site both the theories of creationism and those of evolution. By showing only one side of the picture you d not make people think: you either make them go away (if they're evolutionists) or you just strengthen their conviction (if they're creationists). Only by giving both arguments for and against evolution can you get people to think. Only that way can you even hope to be objective.

One last suggestion: read the following material (I'm indebted to some of it in writing this letter):

- An Atheist's Values, Robinson. Especially the parts about reason and religion.
- Atheism: the case against god, Smith. Especially the parts about the definition of atheism, and the definition of god.
- Molecular Biology of the Cell, Alberts and others. Especially the parts about evolution.

I first must say that you have a very good mind and show a high degree of intelligence and analytical skills in your writing. You communicate with a depth and maturity that surpasses what I suspect most your age are capable of or even interested in. I thought you made a number of very good points in your analysis and will look for ways to make my site more accurate based on them. In particular, I'll look to reword the statement about complexity, even though that expressed my own views about complexity in the universe before and after believing in God.

There's still one fundamental difficulty I have with your analysis. You develop your logic and conclusions with great insight and skill, yet I find that you so easily believe the things that you desire to be true and so easily and passionately reject the things you desire to be false. That's an incredibly human trait, whatever our beliefs, yet it doesn't always lead us to the truth. It certainly doesn't lead us to an understanding of both sides of the issue. Here are some examples of what I mean:

In your "story about earliest life" you say "imagine the prebiotic conditions of the earth: water, no oxygen, lightning, volcanic eruptions, no ozone-layer and thus a chemically active atmosphere." There's no proof and not even consensus among scientists that these conditions ever existed. NASA's conclusions drawn about life on Mars assumed that its atmosphere hadn't changed in 3.6 billion years. (See http://evolutionoftruth.com/
evo/evomars.htm ) Just in the past twenty years, the supposed origin of life has changed from primordial soup to undersea thermal vents to the having been seeded by comets. Your mind is sharp enough that you could tear a huge logical hole in the scenario you use as your basis of belief, but you chose to believe it anyway.

Regarding, RNA, you go on to say "It had millions of years, no problem." You go to such lengths to provide very thorough logical arguments against the things you do not wish to believe, but then when it comes to perhaps the single most critical question about life's origins needed to support your belief - the source of DNA and the cell, inanimate matter becoming alive - you just glide right by without even asking a question. Having millions of years doesn't necessarily produce an outcome. (Did you see http://evolutionoftruth.com/
evo/evosand.htm ?) Here's your same basic statements with a few simple substitutions:

"Among boulders of granite are all the things needed to make a pyramid. Ok. Now, imagine a pyramid being formed from these boulders; it had millions of years, no problem."

"Among a deck of cards are all the things needed to make a card house. Ok. Now, imagine a card house being formed from these cards; it had millions of years, no problem."

No problem? Pyramids and card houses are child's play compared to RNA from amino acids. (Did you see http://evolutionoftruth.com/
evo/evogene.htm ?) If you tossed a deck of cards in the air trillions of times would you expect that it would even once form a card house? We're all entitled to believe whatever we choose to believe, but to me millions or even billions of years provides no logical basis at all to assume that anything you wish to happen will indeed happen. As you noted, Occam's razor tells us to take the least complicated of two theories, since it is the most probable one. If I found a house of cards, I would assume that it had been assembled by someone with purpose and intelligence. Because I'm willing to believe in God, I now assume the same thing when I encounter the sophisticated code in DNA, for the theories involved in getting it to have formed on its own are quite complicated and require very different conditions and outcomes from what we observe today.

I'm surprised that the next example got by you because it is more obvious yet. You referenced the "classic example" of evolution demonstrated in the peppered moth. Before industrialization we had black and white moths. After industrialization we had the same, genetically identical, black and white moths, just in different proportions. So where is the evolution? Nothing at all changed in their DNA, yet you, and many before you I might add, were quite willing to accept this as evidence of evolution. Is this because it really is evidence of evolution or is it because you have a need to believe that evidence for evolution exists and thus are willing to accept such things without applying any of the superb critical thinking that you apply so handily to the beliefs you wish to reject? For the record, I'm not saying that there is no evidence at all to suggest evolution. Perhaps God used it as a process of creation, as I say on my home page and allude to at http://evolutionoftruth.com/
evo/evorealx.htm . My point, however, is that we tend to take what evidence we have and readily fill in the gaps as needed, without evidence or reason, to get to the conclusion we wish to support.

You tell me that water "creates" beautiful formations, yet if I told you that water created the carvings of the four U.S. presidents on the face of Mt. Rushmore you would probably call me a fool or a liar. There is a difference, is there not, in "created" things, a difference that is quite obvious to any being capable of distinguishing between things that exhibit randomness in form, even if "beautiful," and those things that exhibit order, symmetry and design that goes beyond the fundamental characteristics of the element of which it is composed. And while you wouldn't believe that natural causes would create faces in stone, you easily believe that natural causes created them in living flesh.

You say there is no evidence of God and that you are "seriously seeking the truth." In my first letter to you I told you that I had "experiences that brought me to a belief in God" that I just couldn't deny, even as a rationalist. If you were openly seeking understanding, I would have thought you might have inquired in more depth to learn about the type of experience that would change a cynical agnostic with no meaningful religious upbringing to faith in God. That would be evidence, right? For all you know, I might have been mysteriously cured of a terminal disease in response to prayer. I might have seen a vision of an angel who gave me a message about my life. There are many accounts of such things, reported by credible people. What changed me isn't as important as the fact that rather than inquire into this when you had the chance, you instead wrote pages of brilliant logical analysis to tell me that there was no evidence and no logical reason to conclude that God exists or had anything to do with the origin of life. Is it truly that there is no evidence or is it simply that you do not wish to accept any evidence for God but at the same time readily accept even weak evidence for life originating without God?

Your ability to use logic to support your beliefs is absolutely superb and you make many good points that I can't counter with the same depth of logistical tools. Still, as one whose underlying belief system has been changed from non-belief in God to belief in God, I believe I'm stating the truth when I say that you haven't applied your intellectual and logical talents equally to both sides of this issue and that, quite simply, is the reason why the answer you've arrived at favors one side over the other. You know much more about the formal application of logic than do I, but isn't one of the best tests to try to prove both sides of a theorem? I have little doubt that if you put your mind to the task that you could develop an incredibly convincing case for why God must exist and be the source of life and creation. Perhaps you could try this and see if the answer to this question is most dependent on logic itself or your desired outcome in applying logic.

There's probably not a lot to be gained in creating another twenty pages of text on differing beliefs, so my real message here is simply this: I was much like you in my teens. I was smarter than most my peers and loved science and knowledge for its own sake. I went through all the same rationalizations as to why I didn't need to believe in God and why He didn't exist. Like you, I had no interest in the Bible or anything spiritual, although frankly I knew little about it. I was repulsed by anything religious or spiritual. Years later, however, life taught me that I was missing something in my understanding of life, and that understanding involves realizing that there is a higher wisdom, a higher standard for life and a higher Intelligence than man's. I've since received more than enough evidence of God's presence in my own life and have seen God's touch in other lives as well. The changes in my life that have been gained through these experiences, realizations and understandings have been some of the most meaningful parts of my life and I wish there had been someone in my life when I was your age who could have helped me to see beyond my limited scope of understanding and experience. You need to come to these realizations on your own, and while it's quite natural to grow in one's independence and maturity through rejecting one's parents and even one's God, life has a way of changing one's understandings and views in time.

You won't gain complete understanding unless you seek on both sides of the issue. Relying on reason alone to support your beliefs is something like staying in the warm, blinding light of a desert, dismissing other's accounts of oceans and artic tundras beyond your horizons. If I experienced snow falling in the artic, there would be no way for me to share that with you in the desert. All I could bring back is water. You could say that's no evidence of the falling snow I described to you and you would be right, but that doesn't mean my experience of falling snow wasn't real. The same applies to spirituality. You have to go there for yourself to experience, understand and believe. You've undoubted studied many books on logic and atheism. Try reading the Gospels. Even if you don't sense God in the words, you will get an incredible insight into human nature from Jesus, whose life and thoughts changed the course of human history. How many others can you name whose impact was as influential? Try reading Mere Christianity, a book written by an atheist Oxford professor who set out to debunk Christianity and become one of the greatest Christian writers of the last century. Above all, try praying to God to make Himself known to you. Until you do such things with the heart of a true seeker, you will never really know what turns people to faith and how it changes the character and purpose of their lives. And while you reject faith as belief without evidence, you'll find that the God revealed in the Bible holds faith as one of the highest of characteristics in man. Many, if not most, of mankind's greatest accomplishments were founded in faith as much as reason for faith is what allows us to reach beyond what we know by evidence and reason to be possible. Faith is what allows us to come to love God by our own choice, and love without choice it isn't true love. Approach God in faith and you may find that He will give you all the evidence you need to believe He is there for you. Perhaps you might find my other site at "Snapshots of God" to offer a more personal, yet rationalist, view of the Bible and God. Perhaps you will find it just to be more to disagree with.

I wish you the best in life and in your pursuit of knowledge and truth. I realize that you probably won't easily accept some of what I have written, but please feel free to write again if I can be of help in any way.

Best regards,

Gary

3rd Letter Received

3rd Response

Since I only have net-access at my University, and not at home where I write these letters (carrying them between computers on a floppy-disk), I cannot easily read and have not (yet) read everything on your site. I did however take a look at the pages you linked below. Please note that I won't be able to quote anything from the web.

The first thing I must say is that I am rather disappointed by your answer in that it is mainly an attack on some of my points and does not give good arguments for creation or against evolution that could enter the scales of reason so the balance could shift to creation. I'd like you to give me some clear reasons for creation which I have not yet listed (or maybe I misinterpreted those and you can rehabilitate them) in your next reply.

That being said I'll now respond to your letter. I fear it's going to be long again…

I first must say that you have a very good mind and show a high degree of intelligence and analytical skills in your writing. You communicate with a depth and maturity that surpasses what I suspect most your age are capable of or even interested in.

Well, thank you. Of course when writing one can always take a far longer time about saying something than when talking. This makes written discussion generally deeper than spoken ones. On a forum I frequent I've found that many posts are really deplorable. This may seem like a cheap remark, but when discussing theism the ones who write the best posts almost all turned out to be atheists… I'm not sure there is a link between reasoning capacities and religion, but I found that no theist on this forum could even tell me what he or she meant by 'God', yet all somehow did believe in this entity they could not define, and none saw that this is logically absurd! It would be a good experience to discuss God with someone like you who is obviously quite intelligent and who actually writes coherently.

There's still one fundamental difficulty I have with your analysis. You develop your logic and conclusions with great insight and skill, yet I find that you so easily believe the things that you desire to be true and so easily and passionately reject the things you desire to be false.

If I found that to be so, I'd have to make some changes in what I do or do not believe. First, let me look at what might make me accept one statement more readily than another. Ultimately this should only be dependent on the reasoning and evidence behind a statement, but you must agree with me it is impossible to look at every fact that comes your way like this. Authority is important too. If the 'Handbook of Chemistry and Physics' told me a constant a has a value x I'd more readily accept it then when you had told it to me, and I'd more readily accept that then when my 6 year old niece had told it to me.
It is impossible for me to personally check every experiment ever done by scientists which lead to a certain conclusion. I'll have to trust that other scientists double-checked those experiments, that these scientists were people who loved truth better than lies and that they were capable. I have to trust to it that the methods of science would reveal past errors, as so many errors have been revealed before.
On the other hand I cannot ever accept a statement as 'ultimately' true because 'science says it is so'. I cannot accept anything as a fundamental truth for any reason; new evidence may always change the conclusions one came to.
I will try to give you my reasons for believing or disbelieving certain statements as they occur.

In your "story about earliest life" you say "imagine the prebiotic conditions of the earth: water, no oxygen, lightning, volcanic eruptions, no ozone-layer and thus a chemically active atmosphere." There's no proof and not even consensus among scientists that these conditions ever existed. NASA's conclusions drawn about life on Mars assumed that its atmosphere hadn't changed in 3.6 billion years. (See http://evolutionoftruth.com/
evo/evomars.htm ) Just in the past twenty years, the supposed origin of life has changed from primordial soup to undersea thermal vents to the having been seeded by comets. Your mind is sharp enough that you could tear a huge logical hole in the scenario you use as your basis of belief, but you chose to believe it anyway.

First it seems bad tactics to me to use a past error of NASA's against anything. I'm no expert on it, but it seems extremely doubtful to me that that pathetic 'fossil' was once a bacteria; this does not however change one iota about the validity of the theory of evolution, it merely does not prove that life ever existed on Mars, a statement I've never made.

I did not know that there was a real dispute among scientists about the prebiotical conditions I've listed (maybe you can give me some URL's on this by respectable scientists / scientific organisations?), which is the reason I did not incorporate it in my analysis. The information I used was the book 'Molecular Biology of the Cell', third edition, 1994. Let me quote page 4:

The conditions that existed on the earth in its first billion years are still a matter of dispute. Was the surface initially molten? Did the atmosphere contain ammonia, or methane? Everyone seems to agree, however, that the earth was a violent place with volcanic eruptions, lightning, and torrential rains. There was little if any free oxygen and no layer of ozone to absorb the ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The radiation, by it's photochemical action, may have helped to keep the atmosphere rich in reactive molecules and far from chemical equilibrium.
Simple organic molecules (that is, molecules containing carbon) are likely to have been produced under such conditions. …

This does not lead one to believe that the specific conditions I listed are a matter of dispute. I'd like you to supply evidence they are.

Here's your same basic statements with a few simple substitutions:

"Among boulders of granite are all the things needed to make a pyramid. Ok. Now, imagine a pyramid being formed from these boulders; it had millions of years, no problem."

"Among a deck of cards are all the things needed to make a card house. Ok. Now, imagine a card house being formed from these cards; it had millions of years, no problem."

I'm sorry if I've overestimated your knowledge of chemistry. The argument you use here fails miserably, because of the nature of the things we're talking about. For a rock to become square-shaped and to somehow fall 'up' is against the second law of thermodynamics, and will thus happen only against near-infinite odds.

Cards do not naturally arrange themselves into card-houses: card-houses are extremely unstable: whenever the beginning of one would form (supposing the cards can in some way move) it would collapse immediately. Never would a deck of cards form into the very unnatural state of a card-house.

But the binding of two nucleotides can happen quite easily if there's a certain concentration of them in the water. The particles move rapidly and will collide and bind. (This is the most basic chemical process) What's more, nucleotide-bindings are stable. I don't know how stable, but a certain equilibrium between bound and unbound nucleotides will always form. The great difference between nucleotides on the one hand and rocks and cards on the other is:

- nucleotides can easily move to the desired positions
- the desired bindings are stable
If strands of nucleotides (in other words RNA) would not form when nature dictates that they should, there would be a very spooky force at work indeed! The millions of years, therefore, are not needed to create RNA, that's not a problem, the millions of years are needed for chance to create the particular strands of RNA that can catalyse their own duplication!

After industrialisation we had the same, genetically identical, black and white moths, just in different proportions. So where is the evolution? Nothing at all changed in their DNA, yet you, and many before you I might add, were quite willing to accept this as evidence of evolution.

Uh, look. It's an example of a species undergoing a change in it's genetic material due to some outside influence. If industrialisation had gone on we would now have a species consisting only of black moths, evolved from the original white population through the random mutations that sometimes led to black moths. So first we've got white moths (with sometimes a black because of a mutation) and now we've got black moths (with sometimes a white because of a mutation). You might feel that there's no evolution since the black genes have always been present, but remember that these blacks were mutations that quickly died, whereas after the 'evolution' the whites were the mutations that quickly died. The basic genetic material has changed from black to white.

Is this because it really is evidence of evolution or is it because you have a need to believe that evidence for evolution exists and thus are willing to accept such things without applying any of the superb critical thinking that you apply so handily to the beliefs you wish to reject?

Why would I 'need' to believe in evolution? It's not really a temptation is it? Believing in god and creation probably leads to more good feelings; it gives one the answer to the fundamental question 'What is our purpose?' Seems more tempting to me than evolution. But I refuse to believe against evidence. As Robinson said in his 'An Atheist's Values'

Cheerfulness is part of courage, and courage is an essential part of the right attitude. Let us not tell ourselves a comforting tale of a father in heaven because we are afraid to be alone, but bravely and cheerfully face whatever appears to be the truth.

Also of course if that 'comforting father in heaven' appears to be the truth.

For the record, I'm not saying that there is no evidence at all to suggest evolution

Good. That makes talking easier.

You tell me that water "creates" beautiful formations, yet if I told you that water created the carvings of the four U.S. presidents on the face of Mt. Rushmore you would probably call me a fool or a liar. There is a difference, is there not, in "created" things, a difference that is quite obvious to any being capable of distinguishing between things that exhibit randomness in form, even if "beautiful," and those things that exhibit order, symmetry and design that goes beyond the fundamental characteristics of the element of which it is composed. And while you wouldn't believe that natural causes would create faces in stone, you easily believe that natural causes created them in living flesh.

Thank you for saying this. Thinking about it brought me a beautiful insight. What's the difference between a semi-random-made rock-formation and the faces of presidents? Why can one be created by water and must the other be created by intelligence? What makes us say that something must be made by intelligence? Well, as I said in my last letter, we must of course credit intelligence if non-intelligence could never create it. But water could create a face as easily as a random shape if it just fell right. What makes us say the face is made by intelligence?

It is a recreation, a likeness, of something which at one time existed in nature.

Intelligence can recreate things in order to remember or admire it. Creation by intelligence has a purpose. Creation by non-intelligence never has a purpose.

And we at once see the purpose in making statues of presidents, commemoration, and from that we induce that intelligence must have been at work! That's a useful observation.

It still remains your task to prove to me that life has a purpose. Only then is it reasonable to assume that there is a Creator.

You say there is no evidence of God and that you are "seriously seeking the truth." In my first letter to you I told you that I had "experiences that brought me to a belief in God" that I just couldn't deny, even as a rationalist. If you were openly seeking understanding, I would have thought you might have inquired in more depth to learn about the type of experience that would change a cynical agnostic with no meaningful religious upbringing to faith in God. That would be evidence, right? […] What changed me isn't as important as the fact that rather than inquire into this when you had the chance, you instead wrote pages of brilliant logical analysis to tell me that there was no evidence and no logical reason to conclude that God exists or had anything to do with the origin of life. Is it truly that there is no evidence or is it simply that you do not wish to accept any evidence for God but at the same time readily accept even weak evidence for life originating without God?

Well, thank you. I refrain from asking you about your personal experience for a number of very good reasons, and what I get is a tirade that I'm not willing to listen to a story you don't tell me! You dare say to me that I should accept as evidence a story that you consciously withheld from me? The fact that you did not tell your story in the first place led me to believe that you didn't want to tell me, that it was something very personal. Why, if this story is so important, did you mention it in you letter, yet did not tell it? What would lead you to think that I could infer from this that you really wanted to tell it but needed encouragement by me? Do I have to tell you what to tell me? Who is at fault, the one who does not ask you to tell a story he doesn't know anything about, or the one who mentions the story, knows it is important, yet does not tell it? I respect your privacy and in return I get insults! Cool!

Your ability to use logic to support your beliefs is absolutely superb and you make many good points that I can't counter with the same depth of logistical tools.

Then counter it with evidence for creation and evidence against evolution! Logic is only a tool to shape the substance called evidence.

I have little doubt that if you put your mind to the task that you could develop an incredibly convincing case for why God must exist and be the source of life and creation. Perhaps you could try this and see if the answer to this question is most dependent on logic itself or your desired outcome in applying logic.

As I said above, my logic can be very good, but if I don't have evidence I can't use it. Tell me what evidence for God there is, and I will use it! I am completely at a loss as to how I could try and prove God. Many before me have tried and failed. Some thought they succeeded, like Descartes, but in reality they failed. Why has no one ever proved god? Is it because none of them could use logic? I don't think so. But, as I said before, give me evidence and I'll use my logic skills.
I have little doubt that if I put my mind to the task to prove that the Eastern Bunny existed, I would fail miserably…

I went through all the same rationalisations as to why I didn't need to believe in God and why He didn't exist.

I fail to see how you can know this. But the basic fact is that it not a matter of 'needing to believe in God', it's a simple matter of existence of non-existence. Need does not come into it.

Years later, however, life taught me that I was missing something in my understanding of life, and that understanding involves realizing that there is a higher wisdom, a higher standard for life and a higher Intelligence than man's. I've since received more than enough evidence of God's presence in my own life and have seen God's touch in other lives as well.

Let me ask it: please, can you give this evidence to me? And can you tell me how one can come to realise that 'there is a higher wisdom'?

You need to come to these realizations on your own, and while it's quite natural to grow in one's independence and maturity through rejecting one's parents and even one's God, life has a way of changing one's understandings and views in time.

I most certainly hope my views will be changed with time, otherwise I'll never come nearer to truth. But I'd like to emphasise that I am not rejecting my parents or my God: my parents are atheists and I have no God. I don't really like the way you seem to imply that my philosophy is merely an adolescent fancy created to stress my independence. I don't think it is.

You won't gain complete understanding unless you seek on both sides of the issue. Relying on reason alone to support your beliefs is something like staying in the warm, blinding light of a desert, dismissing other's accounts of oceans and artic tundras beyond your horizons.

Cryptic. What's the reliable alternative to reason? Reason is, you know, 'thinking well'. What other ways are there to gain understanding? Please tell me where the oceans are, that I can ride the winds and sail to new shores!

Try reading the Gospels. Even if you don't sense God in the words, you will get an incredible insight into human nature from Jesus, whose life and thoughts changed the course of human history. How many others can you name whose impact was as influential?

I must admit I've not read the entire gospels, but I've made a number of observations. I'm not one to say that a certain statement is bad / evil / unworthy / etc. because it was made by Jesus. I think that the Bible character called Jesus advocated some pretty good morals; on the other hand, I also think that he advocated some pretty bad morals. He was of course a child of his time, and one can hardly expect Jesus to have the moral insight of our time. Something like Matthew 5: 38-47 was probably a rather new statement in the Jewish culture (though not very new in the world philosophy). On the other hand the barbarity of the Old Testament still shines through in verses like Matthew 5: 27-30. I personally think that this single instance alone would be enough to invalidate the teachings of Jesus as a 'perfect' moral law.

And regard Matthew 6, 1-4. Giving alms because it is good to give alms seems not to be enough reason for Jesus; nay, one gives alms to be recompensed in Heaven. That's not morality, and he who give alms for his personal gain is not a 'good' person. What is the difference between those who fast or give alms to gain respect on earth and those who fast or give alms to gain respect in Heaven? Both fast for gain, not because they think it is good!
Also note the very significant verses Matthew 5: 17-20. Jesus advocates the laws of the Old Testament and says they can never be changed… and you must agree with me that enforcing those laws in our society would be a moral disaster.
I agree with you that Jesus changed the course of history, but please notice that someone like Socrates had thoughts at least as great as Jesus; that the philosophy of altruism is practised in many primitive tribes and that

Man arose to high moral vision two thousand years before the Hebrew nation was born.

James Henry Breasted, The Dawn of Conscience

I'll read the gospels, but do not expect me to see these (often contradictory) accounts of the life of Jesus as 'divine revelations'. I'm going to quote some Thomas Paine now, who was not an atheist but a deist.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication -- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

[…]

Revelation is a communication of something which the person to whom that thing is revealed did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.
Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth, of which man himself is the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal parts of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God.

[…]

If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the word of God; and therefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.
The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of wilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else.

[…]

The four books already mentioned, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are altogether anecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place. They tell what Jesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said to him; and in several instances they relate the same event differently. Revelation is necessarily out of the question with respect to those books; not only because of the disagreement of the writers, but because revelation cannot be applied to the relating of facts by the person who saw them done, nor to the relating or recording of any discourse or conversation by those who heard it. The book called the Acts of the Apostles (an anonymous work) belongs also to the anecdotal part.

All the other parts of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas called the Revelations, are a collection of letters under the name of epistles; and the forgery of letters has been such a common practice in the world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are genuine or forged. One thing, however, is much less equivocal, which is, that out of the matters contained in those books, together with the assistance of some old stories, the Church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and revenue, in pretended imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Mr. Paine further states that the true word of God is the world, 'his Creation', which should raise your esteem of him. Also note that it does not lower my esteem of him: 200 years or more ago, it would have been rather rash not to believe in a Creation. Only the theories of evolution and 'big bang' have enabled us to see that a creation is not necessary. The increase of knowledge has changed our beliefs.

And while you reject faith as belief without evidence, you'll find that the God revealed in the Bible holds faith as one of the highest of characteristics in man.

I know that. And that alone seems to be a very strong case against this bible deity. What god would need something as pitiful as faith? Faith can lead everywhere! To Yahweh, to Christ, to Brahma, to Allah, to Shiva, to Buddha, to atheism, to Quetzalcoatl. If faith can lead to many different conclusions, what is it's value? What makes the faith of a Christian better than the faith of a Hindu, the faith of a pagan, the faith of a fundamentalist atheist (alas, those exist indeed)?

Many, if not most, of mankind's greatest accomplishments were founded in faith as much as reason for faith is what allows us to reach beyond what we know by evidence and reason to be possible.

Allow me to ask you to make your case. Name a few inventions and tell me what faith had got to do with it.

Faith is what allows us to come to love God by our own choice, and love without choice it isn't true love.

I don't need faith to love other people. Why would I need faith to love a god? More importantly, if what you say is true, then why doesn't your god give me a choice to love him or not? If I don't love your God he'll punish me for it throughout eternity! You call that a choice? You call that god an object of love?

Approach God in faith and you may find that He will give you all the evidence you need to believe He is there for you.

I've asked God to prove himself to me… it's so easy, a token here or a sign there. But he didn't do it… Why not? Do I have to believe in him before he will give me reasons to believe in him? That seems pretty strange.

The fact that you repeatedly mention the Bible leads me to believe that you are a Christian. This brings me to the question: what do you actually think about this 'Creation' of yours? Do you believe the exact Genesis account, with God creating all in 7 days? What do you actually believe?

Have you ever realised how easy it is to put creationism and evolution together, at least from a deistic, and probably also from a Christian, perspective? To quote Darwin (an agnostic):

A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws."

Charles Robert Darwin, Origin of Species p. 422

I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower from, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance.

Charles Robert Darwin, Descent of Man p. 613

Is it not possible, if you feel that God exists, that God created the universe by making the Big Bang and that God created mankind through evolution? You should be aware of the fact that theism and evolution do not necessarily exclude each other.

Ok, I hope to hear from you again.

I want to thank you for your patience and understanding in our correspondence. I suppose we've stepped on each other's emotional and rational toes more than we each might ever realize, so I do appreciate your continued calmness in a very challenging discussion. I hope you appreciate that anything I've said that may have offended was just done in trying to make a point or expressing a sincere view and was never done with a malice of intent. You show a maturity that is entirely lacking in many others who address this topic and I truly appreciate that.

Best regards,

Gary