Christianity Kritik answers

1.  We should not believe the judgement of Christians; God impeaches liberty and impairs judgement.

Korbes in 92.

Fight The Religious Right, Bob Korbes, PHD Evolutionary Biology, 1992, p.online

     The religious right has declared political war on people who do not embrace the ancient belief in a judgmental  sky-god. It is time for those of us left to avail ourselves with the ultimate defense against liberty damning attacks by these bible thumping zealots. That shield is effected by illustrating the natural, though unusual, conditions that led to the 'fear of God'.

2. All real scientists involved in biochemistry support Darwin and his findings. 

Technopolitics in December of 97. 

Technopolitics, Program No. 739, Airdate: December 19, 1997, The Blackwell Corporation, Jim Glassman, p.online

     Since the time of Darwin, modern science has largely confirmed his theory. In fact, it's difficult to find established experts in biology or chemistry who don't support Darwinism.

3. A majority of the scientific community supports Darwin. 

Technopolitics in November of 97.

Technopolitics, Program No. 734, Airdate: November 15, 1997, The Blackwell Corporation, Jim Glassman, p.online

     This week on Technopolitics: the conversation at Microsoft; how did life begin? When biochemist Michael Behe looks at the architecture of human cells, he sees evidence of an intelligent designer. Most of the scientific community still sees what Charles Darwin saw, a process of natural selection. Exploring the origins of life on a special edition of Technopolitics.

4. A belief in evolution is not in-line with normal Christians and destroys the Religious movement. 

Haught in 95.

Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, MAHWAH AND NEW YORK: PAULIST PRESS, 1995, PP. 47-71.

     For many scientists evolution means that the universe is fundamentally impersonal. In fact, the physicist Steven Weinberg asserts that evolution refutes the idea of an "interested" God much more decisively than physics does. Only a brief look at Darwin's theory will show why it disturbs the traditional religious belief in a loving and powerful God.

5. Darwinism promotes atheism and discourages the belief of an interested God. 

Haught continues in 95.

Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, MAHWAH AND NEW YORK: PAULIST PRESS, 1995, PP. 47-71.

     These three ingredients--randomness, struggle, and blind natural selection--seem to confirm the strong impression of many scientific skeptics today that the universe is impersonal, utterly unrelated to any "interested" God. Darwin himself, reflecting on the "cruelty," randomness, and impersonality in evolution, could never again return to the benign theism of his ancestral Anglicanism. Though he did not casually forsake his religious faith, many of his scientific heirs have been much less hesitant to equate evolution with atheism.

6. Evolution has taken the place of the Divine Designer. 

Haught in 95.

Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, MAHWAH AND NEW YORK: PAULIST PRESS, 1995, PP. 47-71.

     Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between . . . watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in the mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparent purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, and no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

7. Even creationists agree that one cannot believe in evolution and God. 

Haught in 95.

Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, MAHWAH AND NEW YORK: PAULIST PRESS, 1995, PP. 47-71.

     Clearly it is this reading of evolution that leads so many religious opponents of Darwin to adopt the "creationist" position. Creationists agree with skeptics that evolution is incompatible with the idea of a Creator. One version of creationism known as "scientific creationism" or "creation science," rejects evolutionary theory as scientifically unsound, and offers the Bible as an alternative "scientific" theory.

8. Punctuated equilibrium explains all supposed fallacies uncovered by emotional creationists. 

Prothero in 92.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, By Donald R. Prothero, Ph.D. From Skeptic vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47.

     Among more complex organisms, however, the opposite consensus had developed. As paleontologists had known for over a century, most species are stable for millions of years, and change so rapidly that we rarely witness it in the fossil record. Of the hundreds of studies that have been reviewed elsewhere (Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 1986; Gould, 1992), a few stand out (Stanley, 1992). Cheetham (1986) and Stanley and Yang (1987) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, with rare but rapid episodes of speciation. Williamson (1981, 1985) examined the details of evolution of mollusks in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (1987) reviewed a great number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages. He found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation.

Logical arguments (sources)

1. All of our evidence is scientifically backed. 
2. The bible is not fact.
3. The bible and its proponents run on pure emotion defending their religion.
4. Most biologists the real scientists and the policy makers support evolution.
5. There are obvious loopholes in  a theory that says to wait for god to come because he has never come before and most probably will never come. 
6. Not everyone in the world is  Christian or creationist. Muslim countries will revolt at the thought of basing policy on religion.
7. This K violated the separation of church and state.
8. Imagine if we had let this be our guiding policy in the past, we would be in the middle of environmental catastrophe. There would be no tornado warnings, no information or action taken against hurricanes.
9. God has never and will never appear. Faith is not a guiding policy principle. Safety and action our guiding policy principles.
10. If such a policy of doing nothing is enacted there will be war between the evolutionists and the creationists.
