Non ad hominem

My you have been prolific on the blog old son!

I don't have the time right now (but will get back to you) to do full justice in responding to all of your points. I did read that article however and the author was poo-poo'ing the use of ad hominem arguments (those arguments that appeal to emotion rather than logic) whilst using them liberally.

I think we have to be careful about such things .. when you say:

"It was then that I sensed that there was another agenda at work -- secular materialism"

Is this sense from your intellect or from your emotional side? (Or were you using The Force again? :-)

Note: We've already concluded that intellect alone will not get one all the way to Jesus Christ. One needs faith, which I would contend is emotionally based (ad hom). So I would say to the author not to be so anti-ad hominem arguments, as they are exactly what are required to be religious.

I did enjoy the article to a degree, but my opinion of the author was dented early on when he wrote:

Darwinism, on the other hand, accepts only the first two causes, because, according to materialist philosophy, intelligence does not exist unless it evolves over time from mindless matter.

You see what he has cleverly done here? He is equating Darwinism to something that he calls "materialist philosophy". I'm not sure that Darwin ever thought that intelligence can only exist unless in evolved from mindless matter. Did he?

Darwin did have a problem, as I believe you and I do, with the Creation account as laid down in Genesis. He goes futher however, in his autobiography Darwin wrote:

"I had gradually come by this time, see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian."

I think this offends Christians so they dismiss what is in effect a very successful theory, the theory of natural selection.

I suspect that these days having a small toe or appendix (or not) is neither here or there in the stakes for breeding. As the Human Race moves forward in time I see a homogeneity of variance starting, a settling down, everyone becoming more similar. Necessity is the mother of invention - and necessity for change is reducing as the livestyle of the planet becomes more comfortable.

It's interesting that the author, and about religious folks in general, are always very happy to refer to the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution, with great joy that these are theories. But if a scientist ever referred to the Theory of An Omnipotent God and Jesus Christ, or Theory of Allah, this would be a great offence. At least scientists admit that they don't know it all.

You wrote:

Why would the state of things prior to the "Big Bang" exist in an apparently steady state and then suddenly change, if not for some outside influence?

Again, this is a dangerous argument for religious people. Discussing the state before the supposed Big Bang. If we do that we should discuss the state before God and what outside influence changed to allow a God. It's like asking "where does the surface of the Earth start?" We may put arbitrary points onto the surface if the Earth (like the poles), but it does not start anywhere.

Likewise God does not start. Likewise the Big Bang did not "start" in the sense that we understand time. Time did not exist before it. If the theory of the Big Bang is correct, and I have seen a whole lot of evidence to support it, then it just was. Talking about temporal events before the start of time is (again) a non-sequitur.

Current song: "Teenage Dirtbag" -- Wheatus