Are you aware of the intelligent design movement? I think you would find some of your answers there.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of us here are aware of the ID movement (it was actually discussed some about 5 pages back). As indicated above in the wonderful PBS show of the Dover trial, ID is nothing but creationism relabeled and most of it's "supporting arguments" have been discredited by actual scientists.
My question to you is; Have you ever tried to
understand the problems associated with the ID movement?
Also, have you read "Mere Christianity"? I think you would have quite a difficult time proving C.S. Lewis's arguments to be unsound. I look forward to your open minded response. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif
I haven't read the book, but I read a preview via google (so some pages were missing), but the opening chapter seemed to be arguing that 1) Humans have a Moral Law instilled in them from God, and 2) God gives actions the condition of "right" and "wrong" through this Moral Law.
A philosopher many years ago had investigated this issue (can't remember who it was off hand); Are morals right because God commands it, or does god command them because they are right? Either answer here can create a problem for the theist.
Your condescending generalizations aside, I find it ironic that belief in the theory of evolution has become a key component of your world view, yet you consider your position superior to those who put their belief in the "god" theory. Would you care to explain how Evolutionary Theory is superior to the God Theory?
You apparently do not understand what a scientific
theory is. The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, and the "God Theory" are on
anything but equal footing simply because they both have the word "theory" in them.
Scientific theory, in short, is a testable hypothesis that is supported by empirical data, scientific facts and observations. They are constructed to explain the data, are supported by the evidence, and can be used to make future predictions. If a theory does not explain the evidence or data, is not testable, or it's predictions are wrong....then it fails the test and it's discarded. Theories are continually being tested for accuracy.
The "God Theory" has none of the above.
On the contrary, if a religion claims that certain events happened and those events can be established as happening, history can corroborate the claims of such a religion.
Historical events will not necessarily validate the claims of religion. For example, evidence of a man named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago and was crucified at the age of 33 will not validate the claim that he 1) is the son of god, or 2) performed miracles.
Likewise, if a religion claims that the earth was created and there is a level of complexity discovered in the earth by science that leaves no other option besides creation, I believe that science would then corroborate the claims of that religion.
"Level of complexity" is not very compelling evidence (with a statement like that it seems evident you believe in the ID propoganda). There is plenty we know today that our ancestors no doubt could have only thought possible by an intelligent designer....but we know it today to be a matter of, well, matter.
David Hume saw the flaws in the "argument from design" (an
a posteriori argument) some 250 years ago.
Science, by definition, can not appeal to an intelligent agent and the idea of an intelligent designer can not be, by definition, a scientific theory.
