George,

<<Similarly, it is legitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe (or that the universe is self-explanatory or what); it is just not legitimate to claim that science can justify, or even verify, the premise your world view is built on.>>

I disagree.

Jumping to the conclusion that a God (or whatever) must have created the universe, and then basing your science on that, is a prime example of what I was talking about before in regards to the 'stunting' effect that religion has on science and our progress in general.

Just because you can't explain where matter came from, it doesn't automatically mean that a God created it. This is the point I was making with my 'sky is not red' analogy before.

It is MORE illegitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe. Because if God exists, he would be an immensely complex being. Evolutionary science is built on the idea that everything starts from a simple entity and then gradually evolves to become a more complex entity.

Therefore, to suggest, or try to explain that relatively simple things - like everything in the universe - started with a more complex entity such as a God, is far more illogical.

When this is pointed out to Theists, their response is even more proof of the stifling of religion on science: “But God is not of the physical world. He cannot be explained”.

Well isn't that just too easy!

All this is doing is making excuses to not look further by declaring that God is, by decree, beyond explanation.

For any logical thinker who searches for answers to the mysteries of the universe, this simply won't do.

The word 'creation science' pulls a lot of frustrated people out of many religious bodies teachings on god of 'just blindly believe what I state about god'...meaning man/women claiming to be certain and without doubt on an issue on god...and here evolutionist whom have no doubt have common ground...

Primarily using religious books, bible/quran/tanach...anything quoted to support the current 'message' must be taken without questioning 'book' or context...this week I heard 'preacher' using verse in romans(bible) to assert 'man must not reason but only use gods reasoning'...I mean with such fear based manipulation leaves little hope for the enforced/willing blind/'grouped for benefit' masses...

As scientific study...further macdougall study of 21 grams weight loss at death(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%29)...and we know 21grams existing as pure energy is a lot ie not part of matter, Hiroshima was some 6grams of neutronium becoming pure energy...was on wiki but seems like its replaced with tnt based...and cant track an article quoting it...

and another with well defined selection of controls and test subjects, blindfolded and if able to detect changes in 'base energy pattern' of test subjects exposed to stimulus provoking like/dislike notwant/want, hate/attached feelings, ie spiritual eye or 'eye of energies' learnt skills...we know it exists like its referred to as womens intuition etc

If above two becoming scientific fact, who knows where science on god could lead to...after all it is a study on energies just like electricity http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/electricity.htm and look around your surroundings to see the benefits...and when more is know this has an connected effect of dispelling doubts/fears/deceit...

Sam

I looked up the reference in Wikipedia on MacDougall. It contains the following:

Although generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit, MacDougall's finding that the human soul weighed 21 grams has become a meme in the public consciousness. It lent itself to the title of the film 21 Grams. In the end, however, his practices were considered fallible due to shaky methods and small sample size. Scientists disregard his research into this field due to allegations of bias (MacDougall was a fanatical Christian). Any reference to MacDougall in philosophical debates regarding the soul (see also Mind-Body Theories) are mostly for novelty or to ridicule his supposed "scientific experiment."

David Fisher

david f...look at little deeper...search for information...judge all sources...even wiki on this section seem like they have a bias against the notion of weight loss at time of death...after all you do want to be sure that what you take to be the truth/fact is actually the truth/fact...like in that earlier hindu web site defined such person as a 'rishi' ie seeker of truth

eg http://www.missionarysjournal.com/archives/have_you_ever_wondered_about_life_after_death.html "At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired …. AND SUDDENLY, AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF DEATH, THE BEAM END DROPPED WITH AN AUDIBLE STROKE, HITTING AGAINST THE LOWER LIMITING BAR, AND REMAINING THERE. THE LOSS WAS ASCERTAINED TO BE THREE-FOURTHS OF AN OUNCE."

And the key point is that in his actual study he concluded that 'the threefourth ounce was not significant'...and people think he didnt realized the amount of energy 3/4ounce/21grams of energy is...einstiens e=mc2 paper came around this time....Im still searching for that link to original study...though on googling I am surprised at amount of written links from closed biased minds disregarding all information that lead to possibility that a soul may exist and departs body after death with a detectable weight loss...and its troubling to see the vast quantities of aggressively driven authors so sure to debunk when real doubt exists to if there actually was decrease in weight and cause...to hence why I suggested a study to further macdougalls...to settle this issue...and serves as a caution to watch out for 'mass-attack' to debunk it without solid basis...

If you do find that original study could you post it...thanks

Sam

Dear Sam Said,

One does not need to go back to the original account of Dr. MacDougall. Scientific findings rest on reproducibility. If Dr. MacDougall's results are valid they can be reproduced by a similar experiment with another dying person following a strict protocol. When the results of an experiment are consistent with the bias of the experimenter the experiment must be tried again.

David Fisher

Sam,

<<...meaning man/women claiming to be certain and without doubt on an issue on god...and here evolutionist whom have no doubt have common ground...>>

No they don't.

For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

Those men/women who are certain, and without a doubt that a God doesn't exist, are certain because of what the evidence suggests, not because a particular doctrine is dictating to them what they should, and should not believe - with the threat of eternal punishment.

They feel free to change their minds at anytime. Therefore you cannot put them in the same category as Creationists.

To give an example of fundamentalism using extremes, how many times have you heard of:

-Evolutionists/Atheists starting wars ‘in the name of’ Atheism?
-Evolutionists/Atheists committing acts of terror ‘in the name of’ Atheism?

Evolutionists/Atheists don’t a have belief-system that would enable them to see the silver-lining of a mushroom cloud over a major city, because it could mean that their Lord is coming.

Evolutionists/Atheists aren’t trashing the environment for shot-term gain, with the certainty that the son of their God would return long before any detrimental damage could be done.

Now sure, not all Creationists/Theists are so extreme. But the portion of Evolutionists, who would be THAT fundamentalist, is infinitely smaller.

So again, my point still stands.

That this very basic fact is so hard for Theists to absorb, just proves more and more what non-believers say about the blindness, and deliberate shutting-out of anything that may contradict their beliefs.

If this is not hard for them to understand, then it suggests another point: That Theists deliberately try to confuse the issue to create an unnecessary and unjustified level of doubt.

<<even wiki on this section seem like they have a bias against the notion of weight loss at time of death>>

Wikipedia is free for all to edit, so if you can find enough references to support otherwise, then go for it.

<<...you do want to be sure that what you take to be the truth/fact is actually the truth/fact...>>

Agreed.

I've told theists that before too.