Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
Latest Posts

Subscribe to this blog's feed
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, September 06 2009
No Atheists in Birthing Centers

It has often been said that there are no atheists in foxholes.  Having never been in combat, I can't speak to that.  But having just been present for the birth of my first child, I feel quite comfortable saying without equivocation there are no atheists in birthing centers...at least not ones with a lick of sense.

 

To call the birth of a human baby a miracle is the understatement of the millennia.  It is either the height of arrogance or ignorance (perhaps both) to believe that such an event could have ever happened spontaneously and without intentional design.

 

Please understand that I mean no deliberate disrespect to those who have made the decision to live in rebellion to that which is patently obvious.  I truly believe that many professing atheists are some of the most educated people on the planet.  But an old boss I used to work for ingrained a phrase in my head that finds perfect application with these very nonbelievers: "Educated don't mean smart."

 

I remember visiting my Dad on various Air Force bases when I was younger and he was in the active duty.  We would walk around and be amazed at the massive size and incredible intricacies of the jets assembled on the tarmac.  And I remember thinking to myself while I gazed at those technological masterpieces, "I'd love to meet the person who built this thing...they must be the smartest person in the world."

 

Surely I wasn't too far off in that assessment.  The complex systems that are required to all function in just the perfect manner at just the perfect time with just the perfect result could have never been the product of spontaneity or artless chance.  No one - especially the educated - would ever suggest that an F-16 was assembled by mixing up bolts, rods, and metal scraps together in a cement mixer and dumping them out all at once.  No matter whether a person concocted the most elaborate and detailed explanation of how these random processes might have occurred, used the most extensive vocabulary, and bolstered their theory by getting like-minded academics to concur, the proposition would still defy common sense and all rationality.

 

One of the famous atheist minds of our time, Carl Sagan, agreed.  For decades, Sagan was involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project out in the American southwest.  His team of scientists beamed powerful satellite dishes into the sky and listened intently to the furthest reaches of space to see if they could detect any sign of intelligent life.  When Sagan was asked what exactly they were listening for, he responded by stating that if in the noise of space they could find a pattern of any sort, they would conclude life must exist somewhere else in the cosmos.  Why?  Because, Sagan said, a pattern always indicates intelligent design.

 

How then men like Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, and others - truly gifted intellects - can look at the DNA code and maintain their arrogant disbelief is mind boggling.  Further, one must wonder if they have ever set foot in a birthing center.

 

When our little girl was born, I watched her tiny eyes dart back and forth, squinting from the bright lights.  I asked one of the nurses whether she was seeing okay or not.  Instead of a simple yes or no, I got a full explanation of the workings of the inner eye...and I was dumbfounded.  From that first moment her eyes opened, her cornea was taking the widely diverging rays of light and bending them through the pupil.  There, the lens focused light to the back of the eye chamber where the retina layer takes over.  The retina is a membrane containing photoreceptor nerve cells that lines the inside back wall of the eye. It changes the rays into electrical impulses and sends them through the optic nerve to the brain where an image is perceived.

 

Stunned, I asked about the ears...could she recognize my voice?  Even when she was in the womb, sounds from the outside world came in through the outer ear canal which amplified the vibrations and sent them across the eardrum.  The eardrum transmitted these vibrations on to the inner ear through the oval window and into the cochlea.  There the sound waves cause fluid to begin to move, setting tiny hairs into motion which transform the sound vibrations into electrical impulses which travel through the auditory nerve to the brain.  There, somehow - though science still doesn't understand how - the brain translates those sound pulses into recognizable information.

 

After hearing that, Paul's words in Romans took on all new meaning for me as I thought of the intellectual elitists who for the sake of pride deny the existence of our Creator: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."  Anyone who denies the obvious conclusion that comes from such magnificent and unimaginable design, no matter how educated, is a fool.

 

As I held my little Addison that first night, I couldn't help but think back to walking around those Air Force bases as a child.  And in the stillness of the hospital room, I found myself speaking the same words all over again, "I'd love to meet the one who built this masterpiece."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:14 pm   |  Permalink   |  250 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Great article Peter and congrats! I have to ask why is it that children are no longer seen as a blessing? At one time it was seen as a curse or punishment to be barren. Now we are at a point in this country where being pregnant is seen as the curse. Children are a gift from God and should be seen as such. Let us not forget that God knew us BEFORE we were knitted in our mother's womb.
Posted by Derek Vester on 09/06/2009 22:14:43
Congratulations Peter & Jenny! Addison is already experiencng the meaning of love.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/07/2009 21:22:09
Just wait, Pete. Inside that tiny little person is a mind that is even now starting to formulate systems to further confound her parents. If your mind is boggled already, I can't wait to read the article you'll write when she draws a mural on the living room wall with lipstick. Congrats to you and your wonderful wife. Truly the fun is just beginning. You'll be a great Dad.
Posted by John Branyan on 09/07/2009 22:27:15
I was just reading the president's remarks to school children around the country. This is what he is going to say. "Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer." There seems to be a disconnect between these words and his policies. How can you support abortion and believe these words?
Posted by vcamatt on 09/08/2009 07:49:44
You are so right--they are little miracles. The human body is amazing, but in miniature, it is surely a wonder to behold. And those reflexes! Designed to help these little creatures survive when they cannot ambulate or utilize their hands to feed themselves! Takes your breath away to watch the way they work! Hope Addison and Jenny are doing well. Parenthood is awesome, and an awesome responsibility!
Posted by Michele Baxter on 09/08/2009 10:18:47
Congrats Peter! May God bless you and your wife as you raise this precious gift!
Posted by Jonathon Klepfer on 09/08/2009 12:19:10
"Please understand that I mean no deliberate disrespect to those who have made the decision to live in rebellion to that which is patently obvious." This sentence reveals a lot about you, Pete. You say you mean no disrespect and then, the very next instant, you deliberate commit disrespect. Hypocrisy usually requires two conflicting statements, but you've pulled it off in one! I know you possess the integrity to make a statement and take responsibility for it - I just don't understand why you're not doing it. So I stopped reading there, at the point where you stopped being honest. You're a good guy Pete. Don't let your prejudices corrupt you.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/08/2009 13:48:22
One more thing though: You're holding a very adorable atheist in your arms. ;)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/08/2009 13:52:09
Curiosity got the best of me. I read your article and found 2 fatal flaws: (1) You imply there is either random chance or intelligent design. This is false. Natural selection is neither - it is not intelligent and not random. It is simply the reality that the fittest survive to propagate more of themselves. (2) Patterns are not necessarily indicative of design. Look at a snowflake - it is highly patterned and ordered. Did God make each one? Nope. It simply formed according to the molecular forces and bond angles. I have plenty more examples of spontaneous design if you'd like.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/08/2009 14:26:49
I know a handful of lapsed Christians. Leaving the faith was a very painful experience for them, just like when a kid recognizes Santa isn't real, only much worse because it comes at the cost of both comfort and of community. Many atheists hide their nonbelief from their family and friends. And you say it's about pride? It stuns me to see a Christian behaving as you are, so clueless yet so confident, pretending to read the minds of millions of people, from Carl Sagan to humble little me. Pretending to know why we believe what we do, and you say it's pride. Again, I'm not a Christian, but the Bible says a thing or two about false witness. You might consider reading it.
Posted by Atheist on 09/08/2009 15:22:30
Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. child birth is miracle in the wonder or marvel sense but in the theological sense it is not. sorry, atheist who has witnessed the miracle of birth. hasty generalization peter, try to avoid them. name anything wonderful. anything amazing. anything great and awe inspiring. now show that it _must_ be from god. until you do that last part you have failed to make the argument. all you have done is asserted the claim you where trying to show.
Posted by Arthur Ice on 09/08/2009 15:54:10
I'm an atheist, have been my whole life, and the birth of my children highlighted just how amazing life is. No God, no particular religion, just the amazing and profoundly complex natural world. It doesn't make my kids any less wonderful to me or any less meaningful to know that there is no such thing as a god or gods. I hope someday that those of you who persist in believing in gods and religions will have your eyes and minds opened to the truth that such spiritual beings simply do not exist. Best wishes.
Posted by Jeffrey on 09/08/2009 15:59:29
Congratulations on your healthy baby. You were fortunate enough to have such a healthy baby. However, how would you explain the enormous amount of babies born with congenital defects such as anencephaly, harlequin ichthyosis? Would you consider them miracles as well?
Posted by Saintmuse on 09/08/2009 16:27:45
First off ... congratulations on the new baby. Secondly, I'm an atheist and I was in the birthing room for the near death of both my wife and son, him from drastic meconium aspiration and asphyxiation on the umbilical cord and her from a torn and prolapsed uterus. The litany of birth complications and congenital defects doctors see on a semi-regular basis that the public overlooks when they are describing the wonder of birth is telling. Any reasonably competent engineer could have a field day on the size of the birth canal relative to a child's head, for example. If there is a designer, he's not a very good one.
Posted by Wight on 09/08/2009 16:36:54
Thanks, I have now had my dose of the stupid for the day.
Posted by Josh on 09/08/2009 16:43:20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes ... The statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes," is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, all people will believe in or hope for a higher power. [1] ... what horrors did you witness at the birth of your child?
Posted by empraptor on 09/08/2009 16:43:51
I got only 3 paragraphs into this article before the stupidity contained within began to hurt my head.
Posted by gar thyomsan on 09/08/2009 16:51:28
Yeah, no Atheists in Birthing Centers... except for all of the babies. Oh and take some credit here, Pete, you and your partner were the ones that created that little "miracle" (I would hope, for your child's sake, that god was not involved because we all know how that ended last time). That said, due to your current situation, I'm going to chalk up all the insults you've thrown at atheists throughout your article to some potentially serious sleep deprivation (your airplane argument is about as tired as you are at this point, by-the-way). So, with that, we forgive you man, lots of us have been there (the infant induced sleep deprivation part, not the whole arrogant Christian thing you've got going on above), and Congratulations.
Posted by STreansme on 09/08/2009 16:53:13
Whatever helps you sleep at night! The rest of us maintain that it's okay to *not know* how something works until we have proof beyond "this just makes intuitive sense." Nonbelievers will absolutely worship your magical sky-wizard when you prove he exists in exactly the way it says in your two-thousand year old book written by sheep-herders and cave dwellers many decades after the events in question - until then, keep your opinions but don't legislate on the basis of them. But seriously, if I were to summarize my entire post in one line: Whatever helps you sleep at night (isn't the unknown scary?).
Posted by Stan on 09/08/2009 16:57:37
"There, somehow - though science still doesn't understand how - the brain translates those sound pulses into recognizable information. After hearing that, Paul's words in Romans took on all new meaning for me as I thought of the intellectual elitists who for the sake of pride deny the existence of our Creator: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." You contradict yourself. As you demonstrated above, scientists will readily admit to the things they don't understand. It is the religious who will posit explanations for things they cannot possibly know, and deny the explanations for things which science can logically explain. It is the religious who are Paul's fools.
Posted by Chris on 09/08/2009 17:01:31
tl;dr version beautiful things exist, therefore God did it.
Posted by hurrrrr on 09/08/2009 17:06:11
Wow. I'm not sure there's any single event in the whole universe you could have picked as a more ironic attempt to refute natural selection. You are a sort of thing that makes copies of itself, and that is why things like you exist in the universe.
Posted by Eliezer on 09/08/2009 17:11:44
Congratulations on the birth of your child! And you are fortunate to have a healthy daughter. Tragically, a thousand less fortunate babies are born in the US every year with the birth defect of anencephaly. Each such baby has a lifetime filled with suffering and measured in hours or days. What conclusion should be drawn by the parents of these babies? The long list of disabling and sometimes fatal birth defects proves that an element of randomness governs our development. No intelligent designer would ever create something as bizarre as anencephaly, parasitic twins, or ichthyosis.
Posted by millstone on 09/08/2009 17:12:33
I was an atheist before the birth of my two children, during them, and afterwards. I really don't see the point. Being an atheist is actually being open to the awe and marvels of the world, instead of the artificial dream of a creator.
Posted by wazoox on 09/08/2009 17:12:52
I'm with N. Gavelis on this one Pete. The whole "I mean no disrespect but [disrespectful statement]" approach immediately alienates any reader who doesn't hold your point of view. As for Sagan's ruminations SETI is searching for artificial signals, not complex ones. (see this post for a discussion of SETI and ID http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=453) Congrats on being a new parent! That's a unique joy.
Posted by Riley S on 09/08/2009 17:14:25
You say you can't fathom how intelligent, educated people could possibly deny what seems perfectly clear to you through insight you gain by observing something that you say you don't understand (childbirth and human biology). Perhaps you are the one who should re-evaluate your own conclusions about the supernatural. Perhaps some people deny the existence of gods out of pride, but most I have encountered do so out of evidence and experience.
Posted by Ben C. on 09/08/2009 17:15:17
You are absolutely correct. One cannot look at a newborn baby and deny that they see the might hand of Thor.
Posted by Skyhook on 09/08/2009 17:15:57
So, basically, your argument goes thusly: Beautiful things exist, therefore Christianity is true. Can someone say "non sequitur"?
Posted by Vulcan99 on 09/08/2009 17:16:51
Totally! I once ate a lemon candy and concluded that since it tasted so unbelievably fantastic that it couldn't possibly be of this earth! The package said it was made from Sugar, Corn Syrup, Citric Acid, Natural Lemon Flavor, Artificial Colors (FDC Yellow #5), and Soy Lecithin. This can't be true; they must be made of magic pixie dust. I call conspiracy - everyone is out to quash my belief in the Lemon Candy Fairy by printing ingredients on labels of things that taste really great. Those people must be really stupid.
Posted by Elliot Johnson on 09/08/2009 17:17:22
Richard Dawkins explained pretty much every point you've brought up in this post, back in 1991 at the Royal Institute's Christmas Lectures. They're all available online, here's the URL for part three, which is most relevant to your questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak I'm unsure how the quest for truth, which is what scientists are concerned with, is arrogant and ignorant. On the contrary, spending your whole life without ever wanting to investigate the incredible, awe inspiring world around us, simply because a book tells you God did it, seems far more ignorant and arrogant.
Posted by P. Smithe on 09/08/2009 17:17:27
Every baby is born an atheist because they are born without the belief in a god. Clearly you know nothing about atheism or evolution. You ignorantly and disrespectfully claim that atheists are what they are because they are rebelious. You like many other uneducated and ignorant creationists think "Gee, this is really complex, atheists must think this stuff forms out of nothing. I bet that they never heard this before" Do yourself a favour, ask an atheist what an atheist is and ask an evolutionary scientist what evolution is. Don't make ignorant assumptions and incorrectly judge a book by its cover as you only end up making yourself look like a fool. Educated doesn't mean smart and you clearly aren't educated in this stuff.
Posted by Nathan on 09/08/2009 17:18:31
Your logic is flawed. Human life is too amazing and complicated for you to understand and therefore it must be created by a God? If so, why your particular god? Maybe it was one of the other thousands of gods people believe in. To think it could only be the work of your particular god would be - in your words - "either the height of arrogance or ignorance."
Posted by RealityCheck on 09/08/2009 17:19:02
You do realize your child will not be a religious person until he/she is indoctrinated into whatever interpretation of the Holy book you subscribe to. That there in itself should give pause. If there is a god, and he/she's soo powerful, why do we have to tell others about him/her. Shouldn't his/her power be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to ignore? Take any professional heavyweight boxer. If he were to approach the average adult man in America, he wouldn't have to say very much to convince the man of HIS power. How can your god be less powerful than that?
Posted by K.M. Drake on 09/08/2009 17:22:05
We can know something about the designer of a airplane by looking at the result. Is it a good airplane or a bad airplane? Some airplane designs are clearly much better than others and so it's clear that there are some good designers and some bad designers. Can we say the same about the rest of creation? If ID is true then it also seems clear that there are many designers, some quite clever and some downright stupid. There's certainly no room in ID for the all knowing christian god unless he used a lot of subcontract workers. Perhaps Time Bandits was a documentary after all?
Posted by JohnFrum on 09/08/2009 17:23:54
is a matter of perspective.
Posted by Pride on 09/08/2009 17:24:37
There are loads of atheists in birthing centers ... none of the babies have been indoctrinated into any religion yet.
Posted by Anon on 09/08/2009 17:24:44
I'm an atheist, and a dad who was right there when my baby was born. A new dad is flush with hormones and other chemicals produced by the brain to induce happiness and euphoria, and I've been there so I know what you're feeling. But it doesn't make me want to believe in God. I was a believer at the time of my baby's birth, but I never once thought of her "maker". A new baby is miraculous because it is a product of the laws of nature, not because it's an interruption of the laws of nature. Your DNA combined with your wife's DNA, and then the process of cellular division started, and from there everything proceeded according to chemistry. Where was god's hand required? If anything it's in the miracle of evolution.
Posted by Dale on 09/08/2009 17:32:24
The stupid! It burns!
Posted by Dave on 09/08/2009 17:42:12
You're an idiot. Just do your new born a favour and give her an education
Posted by G. Neials on 09/08/2009 17:44:30
"Anyone who denies the obvious conclusion that comes from such magnificent and unimaginable design, no matter how educated, is a fool." obvious to whom? it seems to me, the fool is the man that looks at the complexities of the universe and, at the limits of their knowledge, use a deity to explain it. scientists use the knowledge they are continually acquiring, and using testable and proven calculations, come up with their theorem. they strive to always try to learn more about how the universe works. i spend much of my time with extraordinarily talented scientist because of my work, and i am continually amazed at the things they come up with. i was never amazed at the priest who used bronze age writings to explain the 21st century to me.
Posted by hidden101 on 09/08/2009 17:44:50
First off, congratulations on your new baby! I remember fondly the days my two children were born... but I certainly didn't attribute it to God! My kids are alive and healthy today because of me, my wife, her OB, the surgeons, the anesthesiologists, and the nurses. However, if it WAS God as you say, then I have to say He didn't do a very good job because my wife wouldn't dilate past 5cm and had to have an emergency C-section! If it wasn't for the doctors either one of them could have died! What kind of designer would allow that?!?!?
Posted by Ian on 09/08/2009 17:46:53
I see the miracle that is life, especially our children, but I see science as giving the best explanations we have as to how it came about. Here's something to ponder: The human eye does have light and color receptors on the retina. But they're pointed backwards, away from the light. What we see is distorted by passing through tissue, blood vessels, etc. It's great that we can see as well as we can, but if I were designing an eye, I'd make the light receptors point toward what they were meant to sense. If I recall correctly, squid eyes have the receptors pointed forward.
Posted by D. Mensch on 09/08/2009 17:47:50
"It is either the height of arrogance or ignorance (perhaps both) to believe that such an event could have ever happened spontaneously and without intentional design." Spontaneously?. If you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, then you have it completely wrong. I suggest you read something besides a 2000 year old book written by sheep herders. Your belief in God limits your understanding of the Universe and of life itself. If you really believe in magic; that nothing came out of this magical being, then I fear for the life of your child. Interestingly enough, the child that you bear in your arms is an Atheist. No concept of God yet, that is until you poison his mind with such belief.
Posted by Adolfo on 09/08/2009 17:49:21
I believe an educated (but not necessarily smart!) person might respond by saying that F-16's do not reproduce over the course of generations via heritable material, as biological organisms do. Obviously complex organic structures do not come about due to blind chance alone, but rather chance events (genetic drift and mutations) governed by an underlying "design" process (natural selection). Like many comparisons that at first seem intuitively valid, arguing that species evolution compares to aeronautical engineering on anything but the most superficial levels is not very convincing.
Posted by John on 09/08/2009 17:50:10
Similarly, although your daughter's eyes appear to be stand-alone products of skilled design, you could easily look to "earlier" versions of the eye in "lower" animals - the human-like eyes of primates all the way down to the light-sensitive spots of euglena - to catch a glimpse of the eye's remarkable evolutionary history. Educated certainly does not mean smart, but remaining willfully ignorant of both proper analogical argument format and simple biology does not make one any smarter.
Posted by John on 09/08/2009 17:50:27
I witnessed the birth of all 3 of my children. I'm an atheist, have always been one, and will always be one. Watching them come out had absolutely no effect on my belief system. Don't see why it should.
Posted by moe on 09/08/2009 17:52:08
"Instead of a simple yes or no, I got a full explanation of the workings of the inner eye..." You do understand that we only know this information about the workings of the eye and ear thanks to the scientific method, right? Observation, hypothesis, experiment, etc. And that this process is no different conceptually than the line of reasoning that leads to the theory of evolution? So why then do you accept science's explanation of the workings of the eye but not its explanation of its origin?
Posted by Whitney on 09/08/2009 17:53:54
"It is either the height of arrogance or ignorance (perhaps both) to believe that such an event could have ever happened spontaneously and without intentional design." The absolute fail contained that one sentence is hysterical. Most definitely the height of arrogance or ignorance (perhaps both) of your post. Get educated and maybe you won't sound like such a Bible thumping idiot.
Posted by Scott on 09/08/2009 17:54:20
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/08/2009 12:48:22 One more thing though: You're holding a very adorable atheist in your arms. ;) And we have a winner!
Posted by Lance Choad on 09/08/2009 17:56:22
i always find it funny when people say thank god for this and that. Like thank god he survived. Actually you should thank the doctors who took the time to learn how to save you people.
Posted by anon on 09/08/2009 17:56:46
The problem with the intelligent design theory is that it's based on faulty logic: 1) I don't understand how something is possible. 2) Therefore nobody understands how something is possible. 3) Therefore God did it! Point 2 is faulty. Point 3 is not necessarily the only possible conclusion.
Posted by Jordan Lund on 09/08/2009 17:58:53
If education doesn't mean smart you must have PhD's out the ying yang. (I mean no deliberate disrespect)
Posted by Jess on 09/08/2009 18:01:18
Ahem. Your intelligent designer missed a coupla things: Women die giving birth, as do babies. In the USA maternal mortality is around 11 per 100,000 live births, though historically it was often much higher. Why? Because our heads are too big for a woman's hips and birth canal. An intelligent designer could have fixed this either by changing the size of a woman's hips and birth canal, or by changing infant development to allow for a smaller head at birth followed by a brain/head growth spurt following the birth.
Posted by Weemaryanne on 09/08/2009 18:01:37
First, congratulations on the birth of your little girl! I sincerely hope she and mother are healthy and doing well. Second, I hope once you sober up from being a first time dad and witnessing the birth of your child you realize that what you just wrote was a complete pile of garbage. Open your eyes, man! I hope you give your daughter the freedom to make a choice. By all means, let her see your faith (read ignorance) but also let her listen to intelligent, rational people who have alternate views on life. Finally, If you want to meet the great creator of that precious little girl, you simply have to embrace your wife and look in the mirror together.
Posted by loadedlen on 09/08/2009 18:08:35
J Klepfer hit the nail on the head. if you do not mean to disrespect someone, don't immediately do it. Having said that, congratulations on your child.
Posted by Tim A on 09/08/2009 18:13:53
"How then men like Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, and others - truly gifted intellects - can look at the DNA code and maintain their arrogant disbelief is mind boggling." A good start to answering this mystery would be to read what they published, particularly before you write a column referencing their work. I can tell you, having read their books, that they discuss their experience in this department extensively. Dawkins actually abridged "On the Origins of Species" a couple years ago, and made a note of including a decent amount of time to Darwin's discussion of the eye. You've had your entire life to read it, and you still decided to write on the eye specifically before (obviously) getting around to it.
Posted by John T on 09/08/2009 18:14:25
Human births are incredibly difficult and have the highest mortality rate (for both the mother and infant) than other mammals. Why? Our hips are much narrower to allow us to walk on two legs instead of four when humans evolved into bipedal creatures. If your God created and designed all life.. he/she must not like humans very much.
Posted by K. G. on 09/08/2009 18:17:14
"Please understand that I mean no deliberate disrespect to those who have made the decision to live in rebellion to that which is patently obvious" Wow, how completely ignorant of you.
Posted by jscho on 09/08/2009 18:22:16
I guess that the less you understand about something, the more miraculous it appears. NG makes a good point. Your child is a metaphorical snowflake, unique and complex, but certainly not designed. You'll realize this the first time she gets a urinary tract infection due to the thoughtless placement of excretory organs, or the first time she chokes due to the obviously unintelligent multipurpose breathing talking and eating hole. Before you label others as fools, you should consider getting to the point where you truly understand the history of the universe and life on earth. You'll appreciate your child much more for who she is, and you might be surprised that you ever thought that magic was the wise man's answer.
Posted by Shirley Lobster on 09/08/2009 18:26:15
Right, stuff that happens thousands of times per day is normally how we define miracles... (also recognize that random chance can't generate complexity alone, but random chance with the elimination of unfit specimens and promotion of fit specimens can, as an introduction to computer genetic algorithms book can show quite easily )
Posted by J on 09/08/2009 18:27:54
This article, while sincerely meant, is actually pretty ignorant; more depressing is how it seems to uphold the virtue of ignorance, measuring truth not by the evaluation of evidence but rather because of that which appears "patently obvious". The reality is that human births are not a "miracle" -- something that is reported to happen in defiance of reasonable explanation. We are one of countless species that do it; there's nothing really unreasonable about it at all.
Posted by Chris Robison on 09/08/2009 18:31:07
Most critically, we don't even do childbirth particularly well. Human birth is actually a bit of a train wreck, an unfortunate result of a directed, non-random, but ultimately uncaring evolutionary process. It's a case where our evolution has advanced in some respects, and caused problems in others. Few creatures in the world have a birthing process as difficult, painful and statistically dangerous to the mother as humans have. Few mammals are born as completely dependent on adult care as human newborns -- forced as they are by the size of their craniums to emerge proportionally earlier in development. To claim this is by design is to admit the unmistakable error (and/or arguably, malice) of the designer.
Posted by Chris Robison on 09/08/2009 18:32:00
Consider if you will the fighter jet you referred to: why was that Orville and Wilbur did not build one of those in the first place instead of the flying kite that they did build? Because immense complexity begins from a simple design and builds upon what works. Prior to being a powered aircraft the Wright design was a glider, based upon a box-kite design. From a simple structure that floated in the wind we derive the modern jet aircraft. Neat how evolution works isn't it?
Posted by Alec on 09/08/2009 18:34:49
Ahh very good Gavelis. Another flaw is that when a child is born it is born with no knowledge or concept of god and will not have one until someone convinces them there is one. They are an atheist until they are converted, if they are converted, and then if they are they will believe that religion no matter what it is until they start being able to rationally question the world around them.
Posted by Jake R. on 09/08/2009 18:36:35
You are all idiots. Have a nice day. Please stop breeding more mouth breathers like yourselves, we have enough already. Thank You.
Posted by AtheistsinBirthingCenter on 09/08/2009 18:37:43
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." How wise do your religious professions make you feel? Jesus didn't want his followers to wear religion on their sleeve. But I guess you don't have to follow all of his teachings to be Christian, just the ones you like, right? Keep up the blog- it shows how pompous you are.
Posted by danstermeister on 09/08/2009 18:38:53
N.Gavelis, I heart U :)
Posted by Miss Mudd on 09/08/2009 18:39:23
Why is God praised for the miracles and not reviled for the disasters — the fact that the birth canal is so narrow and makes birth so difficult for humans, that babies die during birth, that women die during birth, that some babies have congenital birth defects, that labour is so painful and intense; in short, that in evolving such a large brain at such an early age, or way of giving birth is so fraught. If God is involved, then s/he is a sadist. Christians cannot praise God on one hand and then say all the bad stuff is just God moving in mysterious ways...
Posted by Henry Maustrauser on 09/08/2009 18:43:03
Arrogant, ignorant, prideful, rebellious, elitist, foolish, lacking in common sense and rationality, and without "a lick of sense." Any other insults, or can I remind you of Jesus' message of logs and specks? I know and love many theists; you're the majority. We atheists must get along with you no matter how vehemently you despise us. If an atheist had used such words of a theist, she would be called militant. Please remember that there are normal people who happen to be atheists. Don't think those famous intellectuals are the only ones you hit when you open verbal fire. I hope this gentle reminder brings you back to the appropriate level of civil discourse. "Let your conversation be always full of grace." Pax tecum, estranged friend.
Posted by Amber on 09/08/2009 18:43:13
Enjoy your atheists. http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/08/there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes-pat.html http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YGLQQZTHoU0/SRMB1j3CcYI/AAAAAAAAGEQ/yC_E2xuQvQA/s400/atheist_in_foxholes.jpg
Posted by Joseph Peters on 09/08/2009 18:47:33
I'm an atheist, and I have in fact been inside of a birthing center. Several actually, as I have seen sisters and cousins and such come into this world. I love my child. He is the most amazing thing in the world to me. He is more precious to me than even my own life. I stand in awe of the natural processes that brought about my child. There is no reason to suspect a god exists, and that doesn't change when I look at my child. He is a miracle, but he is my miracle. Don't give a non-existent god credit for something *you* did. Take the credit you deserve. (And the responsibility.) Also, you are rephrasing Sagan incorrectly. That seems unfair to me.
Posted by Brad on 09/08/2009 18:54:24
"If one could argue with religious folks, they wouldn't be religious." It is with your closed mind that faith has shut for you that you appear to be on the slippery slop towards hate and intolerance. Proof that there must be no gods are all around you, all you have to do is open your eyes and mind and realize that you don't have all the answers in a book written by mankind approx. 1900 years ago and passed down with bad translations throughout the ages. Do you really trust mankind that much, that you believe a book that old? Do you believe everything else that was believed at that point in time as well? As a proud (and smart!) atheist, I take great offense at your article. You sir, are the one without a "lick of sense".
Posted by Josh Watkins on 09/08/2009 18:54:41
Congrats, honestly, but this reminds me of that scene in "American Beauty" where the camera lingers lovingly over a plastic bag blowing around in the wind. Beauty! Well, yes and no. Talk to me again when you're cleaning odd coloured crap out of your little miracle's pants. Or will your wife shoulder the burden of that as well? You've just had an experience with the wonder of biology. You might want to actually learn about it (like those nurses have) instead of "wondering" at at. Let me tell you, uneducated ain't smart either.
Posted by m on 09/08/2009 18:56:30
N. Gavelis is right. Your child is currently an atheist.
Posted by Spastik on 09/08/2009 19:06:35
Dear Peter, Congratulations on your child. Most of your points about complexity I disagree with. Your most vexing point was your corruption of Carl Sagans words regarding patterns through space. You have purposefully corrupted what the man meant to say! At least represent the man truthfully. Many Christians are fine with evolution. It doesn't have to clash with your faith. Evolution is beautifully elegant and I truly hope you one day come to appreciate it.
Posted by Henry on 09/08/2009 19:08:37
What Christian doesn't seek to know God and to understand his gifts to us? To understand the immensity of God's gift to us requires that we ask, "How hath God wrought Man?" How did he work the miracle of childbirth? How did he make Adam from dust? There are whole shelves of books devoted to revealing His gifts. They don't mention God, but it's trivially obvious how he fits in. Evolution is so simple, so elegant, so deeply and profoundly beautiful that it couldn't not happen. This world is built such that we couldn't not be here. We are inevitable. Adam was created long before he existed. Until you can understand that, your idea of God will be shallow and superficial. Understanding evolution will open your eyes to the Glory of God.
Posted by Adam on 09/08/2009 19:14:57
Your analogy of the F-16 is a little off. You are comparing the theory of evolution to building a F-16. Humans are complex individuals that surely aren't just a bunch of atoms and molecules randomly mixed together and voila a human comes out. Just as an F-16 isn't a bunch of nuts and bolts mixed together. BUT, that isn't exactly how it works. See, us humans are the result of natural selection. What happens is that beneficial traits are carried on and detrimental traits will die off. Therefore, evolution is a progressive procedure that BUILDS OFF previous successes. A human, therefore, is not just the result of random combinations, but rather, a finely sculpted organism from hundreds of millions of years of trial-and-error type evolution.
Posted by Dale Chang on 09/08/2009 19:16:17
Seeing my son born was amazing, but it didn't strike me as designed. If I designed it, I would have just put a big zipper on my wife's stomach and saved her many hours of horrible pain and a giant vacuum bruise on my son's head. If you have a line to this "designer", could you ask her some questions for me? Like, why do I have a gallbladder and appendix? Or why I have to eat, talk and breath through the same hole? Seems like those are terrible design choices, that kill lots and lots of people. Someone should be held accountable!
Posted by Phil Kulak on 09/08/2009 19:16:45
To draw the analogy of building an F-16, it would be more like shaking a big bin of airplane parts. Parts of the airplane will randomly stick to each other. But the parts that don't belong together will be split up by the force of the shaking, while parts that are meant to be together will fit into each other and survive the shaking. The result at the end of hundreds of millions of years will be your plane.
Posted by Dale Chang on 09/08/2009 19:16:56
Congratulations on your birth, and consolations on your supreme stupidity. What a shame you can't appreciate life without seeking guidance from a 'higher authority'. Your arrogance is staggering.
Posted by Foster Foskin on 09/08/2009 19:17:49
F-16s, as Hitchens would point out, don't have useless parts of obsolete older airplanes, as does any living thing. But I have given up arguing with religious people. Where I take issue, though, is your attempt to drag Dr. Sagan down with you. He never said anything so inane as to imply that ANY pattern implies intelligence. Quasars, for example, were initially believed to be intelligent signals, because of their repeating pulse of radio waves. But many things in nature repeat, and quasars turned out to be, if I recall, collapsing stars with incredible rates of spin. I learned this from reading Sagan. I suggest you do the same before you go around quoting him, starting with "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark."
Posted by Dave Brown on 09/08/2009 19:26:17
I'm a Christian, but I have to say that you're entirely wrong. Lots of atheists are great people who care about their families and see children for the wonderful blessings that they are. They just don't understand the miracle the same way you do. You're time would be better spent understanding other people instead of pretending like they don't actually exists.
Posted by marshall on 09/08/2009 19:28:15
As a parent who was present at the birth of my daughter, I agree that childbirth is awe-inspiring, but another "miracle" happens every few seconds. Many of those "miracles" are destined to die within hours or days or weeks from malnutrition, birth defects, infection, abuse, HIV picked up from their mother, or a raft of other causes. Anyone with "a lick of sense" must conclude that there is no loving higher power watching over us.
Posted by skeptic on 09/08/2009 19:49:17
Miracles don't come in iterations of a billion.
Posted by Jim on 09/08/2009 19:54:56
Please don't write about things you have little to no understanding about. This whole article is not only ignorant, but you are completely arrogant in your understanding of beliefs other than your own. Unfortunately you will be raising another child to believe in the ridiculous beliefs you hold so dear.
Posted by James on 09/08/2009 19:59:36
What an incredibly stupid bunch of people you are.
Posted by Jeff on 09/08/2009 20:04:40
After all the billions of years the earth has existed, after all the millions of years life on earth has existed, after all the tens of thousands of years man (or man-like beings, anyway) has existed and warred, progressed, and basically clawed his way to where he is today, that titanic history culminated in the ultimate being, your child, the product of an unimaginable number of chance couplings and accidents... which is truly remarkable! Unfortunately, at nearly the same time, all over the world, the same thing happened again and again and again and... Do you see where I'm going with this?
Posted by durrrrr on 09/08/2009 20:05:59
WHO KNEW PETER HECK HAD SUCH AN ATHEIST FOLLOWING?! WELCOME TO THE SITE, FRIENDS!
Posted by ADMIN on 09/08/2009 20:21:27
shut up.
Posted by Tim on 09/08/2009 20:30:00
"How then men like Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, and others - truly gifted intellects - can look at the DNA code and maintain their arrogant disbelief is mind boggling" How men like you can maintain an arrogant belief in a supernatural entity of any sort in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is mind boggling.
Posted by sakodak on 09/08/2009 20:39:41
You are not too bright. Why don't you learn about evolution and natural selection before you comment on them.
Posted by Atheist on 09/08/2009 20:42:43
I am an atheist who was exactly in your shoes, and I love my daughter (now 1) more than life itself, but I saw no need to bring a deity into a somewhat interesting, but, in my opinion, rather poorly optimized process. One word that epitomizes the poor 'design': episiotomy. Also, many times, it is more convenient to bypass the built-in extraction point and just go through the side...if I were designing birth, I'd have the baby pushed straight out the stomach like a foreign body, and have the skin surface rupture like a popped blister, with new skin already ready underneath it. None of this 'contraction' and 'vaginal tearing' shenanigans.
Posted by Martin on 09/08/2009 21:18:31
Fail on the Carl Sagan. First, professed agnostic. Second, intelligent design does not equal Intelligent Design, as the war of words will have it. Sagan's search was for signals whose order would reveal deliberate transmission by intelligent beings, and not for patterns that would indicate the presence of a Divine Creator. A more direct quote, which actually addresses the matter at hand: The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. I congratulate you on the child, but wish you had kept poorly formed religious opinions out of it.
Posted by TechSlave on 09/08/2009 21:19:16
Atheists comprise a wide variety of worldviews, including some Buddhists, some Quakers and Unitarians, secular humanists, and many others. I gave birth to my first daughter on Friday. It has already been a truly transformative experience. I've wept in awe looking into her face. As a humanist celebrant I officiate baby namings, weddings, and memorial services for atheists in my community because many of us want to commemorate the most important changes in our lives with some kind of ceremony. Atheists are not the cold, calculating people you seem to think we are. I'm sorry you have developed such a narrow view of people that you know little about. Learn more about things before you go to critize based on false stereotypes.
Posted by Humanist Mom on 09/08/2009 21:25:33
If you think that looking at DNA is proof of a designer, you haven't a single clue as to what's in DNA. Our DNA is chock full of copying mistakes (every human is born with about 100 mutations), deactivated instructions for making tails, virus DNA from when our ancient ancestors got infected and more.
Posted by Yet Another Atheist on 09/08/2009 21:35:33
I am really not sure what you have against atheists, but it is impressive that a man can use the birth of his child as a platform to launch an false and nasty attack against a group of people simply for having a different cosmological outlook. I'm sorry that the birth of your daughter didn't fill you with the love and compassion for all humanity that I felt after the birth of my son. The knowledge that all men and women begin life so vulnerable and innocent renewed a deep faith in me, not religious faith, but rather a faith in the potential of humanity. I invite you to share that faith with me and many of the other atheists out here.
Posted by Jerry on 09/08/2009 21:39:05
What a bigoted bunch of crap. You know nothing of atheists.
Posted by HalfMooner on 09/08/2009 21:53:36
What a ridiculous anti atheist rant. I'm sure simple biological functions seem like miracles to the feeble minded!
Posted by Random Joe on 09/08/2009 21:57:54
Stories like these make me so sad. Looks like a new generation of the Heck family is about to be indoctrinated into this death cult of Jesus :(
Posted by atheist swarm on 09/08/2009 22:07:32
Live birth for humans is hands down one of the messiest imperfect things we do. For thousands of years (until the advent of medical *SCIENCE* ) it routinely killed the mother, or the baby, or both. One of these days you Christians are going to look around and realize that all the comforts that allow you to sit around healthy, happy, and wealthy have come from the accumulated hard work, sweat, blood and tears of working human bodies and brains. Your fantasy god hasn't lifted a finger to make us better than animals. We did that, ourselves. Instead of thanking god for your perfect little child being ok, how about you thank your freakin doctor? Or your superlative nutrition?
Posted by Ryan Witherswith on 09/08/2009 22:21:33
I guess I should let my wife know. She is an atheist who was a birthing partner to a stranded teen we took in...twice. Now she is going back to school to study clinical laboratory science. I will kindly let her know she was out of place.
Posted by Joe on 09/08/2009 22:38:06
My sister just had her second baby (it's a girl!!) and she's been a life-long atheist. There's this terrible idea that Christians have that they and they alone are the repository of all virtues - that non-Christians "don't see children as a blessing" for example. If Christians simply left atheists alone, we'd never bother you. It's certainly not our place to tell you our opinions about your beliefs - EXCEPT we are constantly told by Christians that we are immoral, not good citizens, untrustworthy - we're basically ineligible for public office! Just leave us alone and we'll all be fine. Is tolerance too much to ask for?
Posted by Tom Human on 09/08/2009 22:43:40
Think less "Super-Intelligent Designer" and think more MacGyver with a lot of time on his hands. But start from scratch with atoms. And no hands, that would be cheating. Just use time, because all things happen given enough time. And just once, over billions of years, a molecule is just right to recreate itself. Over and over again it does this. Until another alteration allows it to do something more useful. Crystals exist in nature, and you do not invoke god. Water crystals are even more complex, no two ever the same. Again, no god is necessary. You will find what you are looking for. But will you look for what is worth finding?
Posted by BWBeer on 09/08/2009 22:52:55
Aaaauuuuggggghhhhhhh! I'm allergic to stupid! Quick, call an ambulance! MY EYES!!!
Posted by Stonysan on 09/08/2009 23:02:59
The argument in this article is poor at best. Anyone with even a basic understanding of argumentative philosophy knows that you do not argue by attacking your opponent on a personal level. The whole point of arguing is the argument itself. You skipped the first step of the intellectual process: having your own valid argument. You state your own opinion as fact, which is a point off. You also do not provide any real evidence to support your claim; instead you reiterate the same point as fact over and over. That's another point off. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You're arguing for a positive, which means that it is your duty to provide proof of your claim. Static statements do not help the intellectual process along at all.
Posted by Peter Leonard Munn on 09/08/2009 23:08:49
We are all a little more stupid for reading unintelligent dribble like this. Good job sir.
Posted by RJ on 09/08/2009 23:16:12
I recently witnessed the birth of my son. It certainly was an incredible experience. The awe and amazement could certainly be described as spiritual. But that still doesn't mean there's a God. In fact the idea of God didn't even occur to me during the whole experience. It was amazing and wonderful by simple virtue of it being amazing and wonderful. You don't need to add a belief in the supernatural to be amazed at something's natural beauty. There certainly are atheists in birthing centres. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. Regardless of what other speculations people put on birth and life in general, we can all agree on one thing: life is truly wonderful and awe-inspiring. Peace.
Posted by Robert on 09/08/2009 23:21:45
Peter Heck should find a dictionary and look up the word empathy. It's not the same as sympathy or agreement. Empathy is simply the ability and and the willigness to understand another person's perspective, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. Empathy is what allowed whites to admit to the humanity of blacks. Empathy allowed men to acknowledge the humanity of women. Someday, empathy might allow Peter Heck to understand humanity's differing worldviews and the sheer breadth of human opinion and human knowledge. Someday, God willing.
Posted by Michelle, NP on 09/08/2009 23:22:53
Hopefully your child will grow up to be more educated about science that you are.
Posted by Paul on 09/08/2009 23:23:28
Um, I'm an Atheist and I work in a maternity hospital. Probably 30-40% of the staff here are - studying medicine will do that for you. And the rest are a mixed bag of "don't knows" and moderate christians.
Posted by yerma on 09/08/2009 23:33:20
Personally, I'm amazed at the miracle of the parasitic wasp, which lays its eggs in the backs of caterpillars. The larvae grow inside their host, then eat their way out of the still-living creature, which can do nothing to defend itself from the enemy within. Truly, God is great. By the way, Peter, Creationism relies upon causation. There must be a first cause for everything, and there, Creationists stop at a deity. Something must have caused the deity. What? Who created your god?
Posted by JennyD on 09/08/2009 23:46:34
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved. If you truly are moderating comments, I applaud you for posting so many critical of your worldview. Keep in mind that many of us are afraid to tell others of our atheism, because people like you continue to spread a single view that all atheist are an immoral, illerate, and vengeful group of people out to destroy all the good that is in the world.
Posted by Atheist are Everywhere on 09/08/2009 23:53:00
My wife is due in a few days with our second baby. It's a miracle all right. A miracle of biology. Moreover, it's amazing that we have an understanding of biology, and how far we've come from attributing anything that confuses us to ghosts and spirits. Oh - and as an atheist, I can assure you that I love my children and family as much as you love yours.
Posted by Peter on 09/09/2009 00:06:05
I am Atheist and I find your post objectionable. For one you misunderstood Carl Sagan. Some patterns are found in nature and Sagan was aware of this. The "Wow!" signal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal) was such an example of this. One that Sagan was alive to hear about.
Posted by Gary Haran on 09/09/2009 00:13:33
Secondly your idea about how evolution works shows your ignorance on the matter. We didn't evolve by mere chance. There was nothing spontaneous about our arrival on this earth. Our DNA is the mechanism by which our traits can carry on into the next generations. We mix and match our DNA and our kids get the mix of our traits. Along the way some mutations can occur that confer either an advantage or a disadvantage. Whoever can procreate the most has more chances of having their traits survive through time. I suggest you actually read The Selfish Gene with half the open mind you have when reading Bible verses. What you would learn might trouble you but that's only because so much of your beliefs rest on ignorance of facts.
Posted by Gary Haran on 09/09/2009 00:14:05
Good article Pete. And congratulations on the birth of your child! Just make sure you ignore these jerks who try to come and here and ruin it for everyone. Don't stop doing what you're doing! God bless you!
Posted by Tom Estes on 09/09/2009 00:23:45
I'd love to meet the one who built the one that built your masterpiece
Posted by Steve on 09/09/2009 00:31:14
And actually, Sagan was looking for patterns that would NOT show up in nature - like a series of prime numbers - not DNA sequences, which are a garbled mess of millions of years of mutations.
Posted by Henry on 09/09/2009 00:41:16
I saw my daughter being born 33 years ago, and it is still the most remarkable experience of my life. It did not occur to me then, and does not now, that it had anything to do with gods, spirits, angels, or other creatures of your imagination.
Posted by ROY on 09/09/2009 01:43:12
I have a new saying for you, Peter: Uneducated does not mean smart. Just because you know nothing about atheists, and nothing about evolution, and nothing about the amazing, wonderful, awe-inspiring processes of NATURE that created us, doesn't mean that everything you think about these topics is correct. Did that make sense to you? Not sure if I can penetrate your intellect, but anyway, congratulations on your fantastic new adventure of fatherhood!
Posted by Mark on 09/09/2009 01:51:55
We have several hundred Gods here over in India and most religions are completely contradictory to each other and of course have nothing in common with Christianity. Apart from an atheist perspective it boggles me completely how Christians continue to arrogantly believe in their god as the only way.
Posted by Rohit on 09/09/2009 02:01:10
Firstly, congrats on the new baby. I wish you and yours health and happiness. Now to the point: as a 2 time Iraq campaign veteran and father of 3, I can attest that there are atheists in foxholes and birthing centers. Lots of us. Please try to learn more about the world and your neighbors before generalizing and demonizing.
Posted by Jason on 09/09/2009 02:32:07
You are quite obviously ignorant, unintelligent, malevolent or all of the above.
Posted by Scott on 09/09/2009 02:42:16
My baby was born without a whiff of any invisible skydaddies helping her along, and luckily, to atheistic parents.
Posted by Jan on 09/09/2009 03:24:32
ok, no comments on your position on evolution, atheism, etc, you simply seem not to understand them. but let`s talk about aviation and mixing up a truckload of bolts, metal, cables and getting an F-16 by chance. take a look at the history of aviation. you probably don`t know anything about this either, so i`ll sum it up in a few sentences: basic kites in ancient china, hot air balloons (man`s first flight), the first flyable gliders (lillienthal and others), Whitehead`s flight before the Wright Bros, their historic flight, early powered aircraft of World War 1 (made out of wood and linen), (part 2 follows due to the 750 characters restriction)
Posted by andi on 09/09/2009 03:50:02
(part 2): the first metal airplanes(30s),jet engine development(late 30s),computerized flight controls (late 60s),modern aviation designs(f117, B2,F22) i see evolution from kites trough selection. useful features and inventions were kept & perfected, flawed features were discarded. each new design was based on the last one, trying to improve it and incorporate new technologies and inventions. the men that built the F16 could build the F16 because of thousands of others before them that invented, tested and perfected flying machines step by step. you can see a pattern of evolution in EVERY field: cars have evolved, so have phones,computers, architecture, mathematics, music,languages. everything evolves,even life.
Posted by andi on 09/09/2009 03:54:45
Peter, If you can't tell the difference between an F-15 and a biological organism, then call those who do fools with a random quote from Romans, methinks you're projecting your shortcomings in the worst possible way. A priest never told me he doesn't know something. By contrast, I can't even count how many times a scientist told me that he or she didn't know and there was a lot of work left to do before my questions could be answered with any sort of certainty. Priests and people like you are the ones professing wisdom you don't have and fall neatly into Paul's circular statement.
Posted by Greg F. on 09/09/2009 05:18:50
Intentional design? If it was intentional and "perfect", then we wouldn't need surgeries and theatres to assist mothers. If it was a real miracle, one is six women wouldn't die when giving birth unassisted. The truth is that birth is a struggle, like the struggle every creature in the animal kingdom goes through to be born: humans aren't unique in this aspect. Atheists are equally amazed as you are, they just keep their amazement to that of the universe without trying to credit some invisible, ethereal external force with the credit. Give thanks to the mother who pushed the baby out. Give thanks to the baby who strived for their first breath. Why do people feel the need to give faith to some quiet helping hand?
Posted by David on 09/09/2009 05:19:34
My daughter was born 2 days ago. I was in the birthing centre with my wife and shared the whole process with her. I, and my wife, are both atheists. You use all kinds of rhetorical to assert your position, but you don't seem to understand that your assertions of your beliefs don't make them true. You clearly don't understand atheism and you clearly don't understand complex systems and their evolvability. As a researcher in this field, I can only say that your beliefs are based entirely on misunderstanding and ignorance.
Posted by Craig on 09/09/2009 06:08:32
If the wonderfulness of the baby proves an even more wonderful god created it, then the god's creator must be even more wonderful. But this contradicts the christian bible, which says there is only one 'god'. Therefore either your claim or christianity is false. Maybe you should try a polytheistic religion like hinduism, or some form of paganism? Or you could accept the rational doubts you most likely keep suppressing, and accept the logical explanation that there is no evidence for any gods, but humans evolved from simple replicating molecules through a series of incremental changes under natural selection.
Posted by Andrew on 09/09/2009 06:16:54
Congratulations on your child! And let me proceed by asking you the one question that will prove you're a believer or not: Q: If your God asked you to kill your newborn child (like how He asked Abraham to kill Isaac) would you do it? No? Congratulations, you're an atheist. Thank God that there is still reasonable doubt in your mind to not give in to voiced in your head. Yes? Congratulations, you're an atheist. No father would want to kill his child, therefore you simply don't believe your God will ever speak to you, so saying "yes" is an easy answer that would also prove your faith to the readers here. Alternatively, you said "yes" and really mean it. In that case, I hope God never asks you that small favor.
Posted by MH on 09/09/2009 07:05:10
Wow, this is great. Now that all you atheists have had your say. When are you going to explain just how this thing known as life actually came about? (Not to mention where matter came from in the first place.) How did nonliving matter develop a DNA replicating process to reproduce? (Oh, I forgot. It happened by chance over trillions of years; soon to be quadrillions.) How do you account for the large numbers of microbiologists and physists jumping the Darwinian bandwagon? (I suppose they need to get an education as well.) It's a shame your feelings got hurt so bad with this article. (sarcasm)
Posted by vcamatt on 09/09/2009 07:38:07
I coudlnt agree with you more, child birth is so obviously a designed function of the human existence. Any fool could see that it must have been designed because nothing ever goes wrong during child birth. The child just pops out without any problems. Theres no need for medical intervention, im sure your child was born without any right. Be sure to stay away from those pesky antibiotics vaccinations our immune systems were designed by a perfect being and thus there is obviously no need for them either.
Posted by shurdo0 on 09/09/2009 07:38:19
Christianity: the only religion where forced impregnation (rape) of someone's wife is worshiped as a divine act, then the child of that rape is brutally executed as an adult as part of God's wonderful plan for delivering us from the sin He placed on us because some mythical ancestor of ours wanted to eat an apple. Hallelujah!
Posted by Todd on 09/09/2009 07:41:13
I experienced the same euphoric feeling at the birth of my child, but the different is that I understand that it is induced by hormones. It evolved because parents who had no such feeling would not have the same instinct to care and protect that child, and hence their children did not survive and thrive as well and didn't pass on their genes as often. That mechanism is patently obvious to anyone who can do math. Congratulations on your new child. But using it as a means to attack atheists is an insult to the event. How arrogant of you to claim your opinion of "patently obvious" overrule objective evidence. If that's the measure you use, it is patently obvious that you are a deluded, irrational, and unethical person merely by your actions.
Posted by DL on 09/09/2009 08:23:04
Congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Too bad she has such a blinkered imbecile for a father! We can only hope that she has the temerity and good luck to one day break through the cloak of ignorance and desperation you will no doubt smother her with and embrace actual reality. Hopefully she will one day be able to truly open those eyes you marvel at and see you for what you are. A hapless idiot.
Posted by Joe Bloe on 09/09/2009 08:36:58
it's easy to be confident about your beliefs if you never consider other points of view.
Posted by mike on 09/09/2009 08:41:29
HAhaha....look at all these posts. Nobody likes you....ahahah.
Posted by ahhhyousuck on 09/09/2009 09:10:18
"Our DNA is chock full of copying mistakes... virus DNA from when our ancient ancestors got infected and more." Lol, my computer has a virus. Why would some one design a computer to be able to get a virus? I guess since my computer isn't perfect it wasn't created by an intelligent designer. Oh and babies are not atheists. In saying that you are saying that they have the held belief that there is no God. Babies are not far enough in development to have a belief, to understand, or to be convicted one way or another. Great article Pete
Posted by Caleb on 09/09/2009 09:28:40
I'm not sure if the author is filled more with bigotry or arrogance. It's hard to be sure.
Posted by AreYouKiddingMe on 09/09/2009 10:13:21
Congratulations on the birth of your first child. I hope that you find as much reward in parenting as I have. For most of us, I believe being a parent is the most important thing that we do in our lives. One thing that I do not believe is in gods, spirits, ghosts, angels, devils, goblins, et cetera. I can understand that someone who has these beliefs might feel them more intensely at a time of overwhelming emotion, like the birth of a child. What I don't understand is why you feel it necessary to belittle or attack those who don't share your superstitions. I hope that as you grow into parenthood, and you discover that your child is an independent being with her own mind, that you do not subjugate her to such prejudices and bigotries.
Posted by David in Minnesota on 09/09/2009 10:42:55
Why is it that the people who claim evolution isn't true don't even have a basic understanding of it?
Posted by Robert T. on 09/09/2009 11:58:36
I have a question for the non-believing crowd out there. How did matter come to be? I am not trying to insult anyone. I believe that God exist outside time, and that He, in fact created time. I know you will say, where is the proof? I have faith. Not blind faith. My faith is based on the fact that the principles of thermodynamics seem to point to something before matter. I believe that is God. I think it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe that something came from nothing as it seems to me you believe. Or do you disagree with the laws of thermodynamics?
Posted by Derek Vester on 09/09/2009 12:05:08
I've always been amazed to see full grown adults succumb to the power of the cuteness of babies. They become babbling idiots in front of the child, making funny noises and saying amazingly stupid things in order to get a reaction. Apparently this phenomena is not limited to verbal output, but extends to writing as well.
Posted by LeapingToPoorConclusions on 09/09/2009 12:27:58
Wow... how ridiculous. I'm an atheist and I can wholly disagree and say there are indeed atheists in birthing centers.. being critical thinkers means thinking critically not only about mythology (christian and otherwise) but thinking critically about everything including the health and well being of our children. There are also a few members of our atheist group who have indeed been in foxholes. There are atheists everywhere.
Posted by Heather on 09/09/2009 12:28:29
My wife and I are both atheists and we have 2 lovely children. When they're old enough to make decisions on their own they can decide whether or not they want subscribe to a religion. I find it kind of ironic that you would call people's disbelief 'arrogant' since you have the same kind of attitude towards their beliefs. You brought up the eye in your post, saying it's so amazingly complex that only a Ghost in the sky could have thought it up. If God made them, he did a pretty bad job. Close to half of all humans on earth will need corrective lenses at some point in their lives.....why didn't God just make eyes without defects?
Posted by teeps on 09/09/2009 12:40:53
It's a shame your feelings got hurt so bad with this article. (sarcasm) Posted by vcamatt on 09/09/2009 06:38:07 ---- Spoken like a true Christian, vcamatt. (also sarcasm) Seriously though, you guys should be acting more like Jesus and less like Jerry Falwell or Kent Hovind. Meaning, you should work on your compassion and your acceptance. All I see is ill-will and disdain from both you and Pete. WWJD.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/09/2009 12:48:06
On a more positive note, it's great to see that most atheists here have maintained more civil, rational discourse than most Christians on that site. Yes, there are the occasional "you suck" comments (this is the internet), but these are dwarfed by the countless heartfelt and knowledgeable posts by nonbelievers. There's a lot here that Christians could learn from, including Pete, whose every argument has been rebutted tenfold. If intellectual honesty is a Christian priority, then I sincerely hope the Christians here bother to read and consider the information and experiences that the atheists here have shared.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/09/2009 13:00:14
vcamatt: those questions you ask, we do not have an answer to. We have THEORIES, but they are just that, theories. We do not have proof of how the first life form came about. The difference is that we readily admit when we don't know. For you, since you don't know how the first life form came onto this earth, you conclude that some higher form of power must have "put" it there. Do you see how human nature would tend to answer these seemingly unanswerable questions the easiest way possible: to say a god did it, it was god's intention? Are you no better than the Native Americans who did not understand where rain came from, so they prayed to their rain gods?
Posted by Dale Chang on 09/09/2009 13:16:43
Caleb, I think you're misunderstanding the word "atheist" here: "Oh and babies are not atheists. In saying that you are saying that they have the held belief that there is no God. Babies are not far enough in development to have a belief, to understand, or to be convicted one way or another." "Atheist" means exactly what the morphemes indicate. "A" = without, lack of; "theo" = god(s). You're looking at it as though atheists religiously "believe" there is no god. We aren't "convicted" to nonbelief. Instead, we simply lack beliefs in deities. You're describing a "gnostic" atheist, and I've never even met an atheist who holds that stance. Babies are atheists because they are, as of yet, without god(s).
Posted by Amber on 09/09/2009 13:16:56
Congratulations on your new child! I am sure you will be a loving and understanding father, Peter. Please just try to extend this love and understanding to your fellow humans rather than just the people who agree with your faith-based views. Trust me, learning and loving are INFINITELY more rewarding and redeeming than self-righteous diatribes. Get off the soap box, open your heart, and open your mind. You have the potential - use it! :D
Posted by Ex-Baptist on 09/09/2009 13:32:20
It's amazing how Christians have to water down miracles from how they are portrayed in their Scriptures. Not once in any beloved Scripture is a birth viewed as a miracle (except in the case if the woman is believed to be barren - was your wife barren, Peter?) But since you can't point to any Red Seas parting or fish and loaves multiplying Christians are reduced to pointing out the ordinary (though perhaps emotionally extraordinary) as a miracle. Is evolution a miracle too? Or maggots devouring a dead cow? For all that is quite extraordinary too. For a counter opinion, There are no theists in hospital waiting rooms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwcsiexx0h4 regards, Jeffrey
Posted by Jeffrey on 09/09/2009 13:49:13
NGAVELIS...KEEP IN MIND, ONLY APPROVED COMMENTS APPEAR. THERE HAVE BEEN A GREAT NUMBER DELETED DUE TO OFFENSIVE, OUTRAGEOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE, AND VULGAR REFERENCES TO PETER'S WIFE, AND HIS NEWBORN CHILD. THEY DO NOT REFLECT NEARLY AS KINDLY ON THE "CIVIL, RATIONAL DISCOURSE" YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE ATHEISTS ARE DEMONSTRATING HERE. BEAR THAT IN MIND BEFORE YOU JUMP TO HASTY GENERALIZATIONS.
Posted by ADMIN on 09/09/2009 14:06:42
Thank goodness you're writing columns and not doing something important, like research. It might disrupt your carefully-spun theory that there is no explanation besides "God". Hopefully you don't hammer into your baby's brain all the lore that was hammered into your own.
Posted by Ted on 09/09/2009 14:08:04
Hi admin. It's unfortunate if some people mirrored or exceeded Pete's hostility, but really this should come as no surprise. Pete deliberately insulted millions people with the hateful headline and the prejudiced assumptions that followed. I'm not excusing vulgarity, but there simply wouldn't be any if Pete hadn't cast the first stone. As for hasty generalizations, that's why so many atheists are here: to debunk them. Hopefully Pete focuses on the countless rebuttals to his arguments rather than the unfortunate but predictable insults that he incurred.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/09/2009 14:48:36
"THEY DO NOT REFLECT NEARLY AS KINDLY ON THE "CIVIL, RATIONAL DISCOURSE" YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE ATHEISTS ARE DEMONSTRATING HERE." Hey again Admin. You seem to be implying that NO civil or rational posts have been made here by atheists. Don't you think that's a hasty if not dishonest generalization on your part? I see that TWENTY ATHEISTS have been kind enough to congratulate Pete on his new child in spite of what Pete just said about them. I understand you have a lot on your plate right now, but if you only focus on the negative things, the whole world becomes an ugly place. Peace. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/09/2009 15:40:24
Having been present for the birth of my two children the main thing I came away with from the first was thinking "Conceived in sin and born in iniquity" No, no, no. I cannot fathom how anyone can look at an amazing, precious, innocent, baby and accept the doctrine of original sin.
Posted by Derek on 09/09/2009 15:41:31
Dale Chang, Thank you for your response. I agree with you that I don't know "how" God did it. I admit that I am taking it on faith. Do you understand that you have the same faith? Whereas I have faith in a Higher Power that transcends time and matter, you have faith that there is no such thing. However, it is the same faith! N.Gav, Are you suggesting that Jesus never used sarcasm? He most certainly did! I feel bad for you since you are offended by truth (compassion). I accept truth, and reject foolishness.
Posted by vcamatt on 09/09/2009 16:34:38
Your metaphor of the F-16s is fallacious. I assume that you are using it to try and persuade people that macro evolution does not occur. However your metaphor deals more with abiogenesis vs. evolution. You have every right to your opinion, but please do not confuse the two. (If you knew this, then I apologize.) I personally do not think that it is within the realm of human understanding to determine whether of not God or Gods exist. I personally have seen no convincing evidence either way. But I would be more impressed by a God who had created a universe with the complex system of evolution and natural selection that led to human life, rather than one who simply created man from clay.
Posted by Math1729 on 09/09/2009 18:08:31
Derek, You seem to discount one critical Biblical doctrine: grace. Perhaps the reason you don't understand original sin is because you are neglecting God's grace. Thank God for both!
Posted by vcamatt on 09/09/2009 18:58:00
I've never had so many people who claim I am irrelevant be so interested in my work before. It's a delight. Truly. I would be tempted to conclude that my column got posted on some major atheist blog site, but I think I prefer the thought that I wield so much influence that this many atheists follow my work intently. Anyway, it would be an epic undertaking to attempt to respond to everything that has been said here. Indeed there are so many red herrings floating around I could start my own fish farm. But I'll confine it to a few minor points and then be on to other responsibilities, though I truly do appreciate you all taking the time to stop by...do come again.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:21:47
First, I never said that atheists couldn't love their families as much as I do. Those knee-jerk reactions are just utter nonsense, and indicative of the very lack of intellectual curiosity I was referencing in my original column.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:22:19
Second, I particularly enjoyed the attempted debunking of a Designer by the notion that perfection does not exist in this fallen world. As much as I have been admonished to try to understand the atheist mind before commenting on their beliefs, I feel it necessary to admonish those making this false conclusion to try to understand basic Christian thought before thinking you've got something on us there.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:22:47
Third, to those who posit that life is somehow less miraculous when it is born with defects, infection, disease, or disability...shame on you. It is that very conclusion that frightens me most about the atheist mind. You assume that my child was born with no health problems, yet you don't know that. The reality is that the intrinsic worth of humanity is what makes that birth miraculous...true whether the birth canal is small or not. Good grief.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:23:27
Fourth, on one hand we have the "Peter, you can't compare the design of human life to an inanimate F-16" argument. Then we have the, "Peter, compare the design of human life to an inanimate snowflake" argument. Make up your mind folks. Which way are we going to go with this one? Actually it doesn't matter. Those who argue the former ignore the generalization I was making that design is indicative of intelligence. That latter ignores the designed processes which bring about the intricacies of the snowflake. Either way, it's a fail.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:24:05
Fifth, if any of you honestly wants to pretend that there isn't a great deal of pride associated with the notion that we can conclude there is no God...if you can honestly pretend that there isn't a desire to reject a Deity because of the accountability implications associated with it, I would merely ask you to look back over the preceding comments for proof. Concluding, as so many have, that the Designer's handiwork is not good enough or impressive enough is the height of pride. Mere mortal creations declaring the work of their Creator unimpressive.if that isn't pride...
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:24:47
And finally, I truly am sorry if I offended the sensitivities of anyone by declaring that ignoring patently obvious design is foolish. It is odd to me that a group that enjoys mocking the notion of "sky daddies" and "divine tyrants" would be so sensitive to someone else calling their own positions foolish. I would have expected a little bit tougher skin, and more confidence in their own positions. I wouldn't have thought my stinging indictment would have been so hurtful. That certainly wasn't my intent.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 19:26:18
Very funny, atheists. I bet you all think you're so smart with your worldly science, and refusing to accept real truth. Well the truth is, and there is empirical evidence to back this up, that the world and everything in it was created by the Hebrew sky-god, who made David circumcise 200 Philistines.
Posted by Scrapes on 09/09/2009 19:37:32
Case in point. Thanks, Scrapes.
Posted by peterheck on 09/09/2009 20:19:18
andi, It seems to me that you are arguing for design. For those of you that are so upset with Pete's accusation of foolishness, I wonder what you base your indignation on. If there is no God, how do you judge what is right and wrong. (Oh, I forgot that I am not supposed to be sarcastic.)
Posted by vcamatt on 09/09/2009 20:22:17
Anyone who thinks humans were 'designed' intelligently ought to look at where our brains are located. What kind of idiot would put such an important organ in a place where it could be so easily lopped off?
Posted by Peter Leonard Munn on 09/09/2009 20:35:34
But aren't you the one, Pete, who believes your baby is already stained by sin? Shame on you for believing that, if indeed you do believe in original sin. It's scary that Christians can claim to be so pro-life when they have such negative views about life from the get-go. I hope you don't guilt-trip your child about crimes he never committed. That's psychological child abuse, but some might call it piety.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 09:50:24
Also, it's difficult to tell when you are being sarcastic and when you are being sincere. I'm not a Christian, but your many backhanded comments don't seem to edify the religion that you represent. I know a few ex-Christians who left the church when they realized their peers and even their pastors could not answer legitimate criticism of Christian doctrine, but instead reacted with hostility and contempt. It's hard to tell whether you are trying to actually converse with atheists or simply antagonize them, Pete, but it's pretty obvious which path Jesus would take. Christianity is still about Jesus, isn't it?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 10:18:49
What did I ever say that suggested to you that I believed in original sin? I don't recall ever having a discussion in that regard with you so I'm curious as to how you would come to such a conclusion.
Posted by peterheck on 09/10/2009 11:50:15
Because you are a Christian, and the Bible says so.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 11:56:08
You are much more sensitive than I originally thought, NGav. I have always engaged in discussion with you about your legitimate criticism of Christian doctrine. But I get it. You are attempting to silence any stinging criticism or harsh critiques of your flawed worldview by making me feel "un-Christian." To do that you appeal to the authority of Christian ethics that you think are bogus anyway! Pretty sweet methodology! I also would implore you to read the Gospels before you conclude WWJD. If you are under the impression that Jesus did not deal directly, vocally, and harshly with false teaching (such as the kind atheists represent), you are greatly mistaken.
Posted by peterheck on 09/10/2009 11:57:46
I think you think you are a lot more versed in Christianity and Christian doctrine than what you really are, NGav. You fall into the category of those I was referring to earlier: you criticize my mischaracterizations of atheists, but you are guilty of the same with Christians.
Posted by peterheck on 09/10/2009 11:59:12
Do you believe in original sin or not?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 12:43:23
You're absolutely right, Pete, I don't fully understand Christian doctrine - after all, Christian doctrine differs amongst and even within the countless sects. But notice I don't go about publishing shrill diatribes about the inner thoughts and motivations of Christians everywhere. This is what you do about atheists, though. Take a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 12:52:23
All Christians are not the same, so it should occur to you that all atheists are not the same, nor are their motivations. Your choice of pride as a motivation is particularly odd. Did you even stop to think of how many atheists are ashamed of their nonbelief, to the point that they hide if from everyone they know? There are even pastors and priests who are closet atheists! How can you write that off as pride? It's like saying straight people turn gay out of pride. Can you clarify this for us?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 13:12:06
I don't think you've defend the flaws in your article. Firstly, your child is an atheist by definition, so your headline goes out the window. At the core of your article is an your article is an argument from incredulity (i.e., "I don't see how this could happen so god must have done it.") Then comes another leap when you assume it was the Christian god who did it. You also misrepresent Carl Sagan who did not say what you claim, as well as natural selection, which is not a random process. These are all blatant logical or informational fallacies. Despite the meticulous debunking of these and other parts of your article, you act unfazed. Since honesty IS a Christian priority, can you admit when you are wrong?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/10/2009 16:12:09
Absolutely. And if I was, I would. ;-)
Posted by peterheck on 09/10/2009 21:19:55
For the second time, patiently: Do you believe your child was born with original sin?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 09:39:34
I'll take your concessions as a tacit, then, since you haven't openly taken responsibility for any of the number of errors and falsehoods in your article. Don't let pride get in the way of integrity, Pete.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 10:15:14
Obviously, part of Christian doctrine, NGav, is recognizing the depraved state of humanity given the fall of man. That is FAR different than your description of it which was: "guilt-trip[ing] your child about crimes he never committed." Why, that's about as bad a mischaracterization of a Chrsitian understanding of original sin as you accuse me of making with natural selection, Carl Sagan, and evolution. But that couldn't be...
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 10:30:13
Frankly, you can take what I've said however you want (you've demonstrated a remarkable willingness to do that regularly). But I have not taken responsibility for errors or falsehoods in my article because to this point, you haven't demonstrated any. You've demonstrated your disagreement with my assessment, but you haven't shown errors or falsehoods. For instance, the "your baby is an atheist because you've haven't brainwashed her yet" claptrap:
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 10:35:39
Christians understand the reality that God has written upon the heart of all men from birth His moral law and a proof of His authority. Therefore, in actuality, you once were gifted with an understanding of the Creator. Still are. You have merely chosen to reject that understanding and truth for whatever reason: pride or otherwise. Therefore, since my child has not yet grown rebellious to those truths as you have and rejected the truth of God for a lie, your conclusion is absurd.
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 10:38:41
You asked me to clarify why I use the term pride as a reason behind rejecting the authority and existence of the Creator. But in order to do that, I need to know if that is how you define atheism so we don't talk in circles. Is atheism, 'rejecting the authority and existence of the Creator?' If you can answer that, I will answer your question.
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 10:42:09
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. Atheism is not necessarily a "rejection" of theism, just the lack of theism. This definition is clear and simple and makes no assumptions. Your definition of atheism makes an EXTRAORDINARY assumption. You assume we are all born with an understanding of a god, YOUR god. Problem: a newborn doesn't even understand colors and shapes as they pertain to physical objects, so them understanding your particular deity is a tough sell. Where is your evidence that babies are born knowing God? If you can't even support your definition of atheist, there is no way you can build arguments upon it.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 11:08:32
About original sin: Many Christians do believe babies are stained by it, and they must be baptised to be cleansed. I'm glad you have a less cynical view. However, you can't compare "original" sin to natural selection because natural selection has a *strict scientific definition.* You fudged that definition when you claimed it's a random process, which it's not. That's what I love about science: we have to stick to rigid, universal rules. Theologians have much more freedom to make things up, as evidenced the difference between your conception of original sin and the conceptions by other Christian sects.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 11:15:25
Your child is an atheist because she lacks a belief in God. Children are not born religious, so there are ONLY atheists in birthing centers if not adults aren't in the room. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 11:21:07
"An atheist is one who doesn't believe in gods." Okie-dokie. That's why I call that pride. Surely, as a man of science, you are well aware of how little we know about the mysteries of the universe. I would think it a leap (and would suspect you would agree) to suggest that we mere mortals know a fraction of 1% about the mysteries of the cosmos. So for an atheist to decide that in the 99.9999999999% of information about the universe he/she doesn't understand there could be no god is incredibly haughty and proud. No?
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 12:21:44
Which brings me to you. I throw you a bone in the fact that (if I remember correctly) in previous conversations you acknowledged that there could be a god. That means a better definition of what you are is an agnostic or skeptic. An atheist would be incredibly proud.
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 12:23:14
The existence of Natural Law is a strong proof of a Deity. That is the law "written upon all men's hearts." That's going to take us down another path though, so I would suggest for now we stay on point.
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 12:26:06
Please re-read the definition. Atheism is not the belief there is no god, it's THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD. There is a critical difference. If a person pretended to know there was no god, that implies they have exhaustive knowledge of the universe, and that would be haughty indeed. But that's not the position of this atheists nor most atheists. We live as though there is no god because we've seen no compelling evidence for a god, and definitely not for your god with his tellingly human-like attributes.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 12:56:22
How is the existence of natural law strong proof of a deity? If you believe your god can JUST EXIST for reason, why can't natural law JUST EXIST for no reason? Hopefully you see how that shoots you in the foot.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 12:59:38
But since you don't want to go down that road, at least keep to the original path. I ask again: What evidence do you have that babies are born with an understanding of YOUR God (as opposed to all the others, or none at all)? That is an extraordinary assertion that requires evidence. You've provided zero.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 13:04:04
One point of agreement is that your definition of an atheist, i.e., someone who claims to know 100% that gods don't exist, would be wrong. They might be proud but they would definitely be stupid. However, you'll be hard-pressed to find people who meet this definition. Again, most nonbelievers simply don't believe; they don't claim to have exhaustive knowledge of the universe. However, there are some people who believe your god in particular cannot exist as described because of his conflicting attributes. For instance, a loving god does not commit genocide and eternal torture. We've discussed this before and I'd be willing to revisit it, but I'd like to discuss first things first, if you don't mind.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 13:40:25
"Tellingly human-like attributes" is an interesting phrase. Might it not be that we humans carry the image of God? You've seen no compelling evidence for God because you've assigned all of the evidence to random chance OR natural selection. Now, I guess I need to know how you can conclude that a baby who doesn't even understand what belief or unbelief is can have made the conscious choice not to believe, thus being an atheist. THAT is an extraordinary conclusion that requires evidence. You've provided zero. (And no, I don't see how that shot me in the foot).
Posted by peterheck on 09/11/2009 15:03:24
My position is that babies are born without religious beliefs. Your position is that babies are born with an understanding of a god, in particular, the Christian god. Is my summation correct? If it is, let's move forward. I will justify my position, and you will justify yours. And because we can't agree on the meaning of the word atheist, we will have to drop it or use something else, unless you want to debate semantics and go nowhere. Are you ready to move forward? What evidence do you have that babies are born with an understanding of the god Jehovah?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 15:40:36
Since you missed the point about natural law, I'll rephrase it in question form for you: If you believe a god exists ex nihilo, then why can't natural law exist ex nihilo?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 15:48:13
This is another aside, so feel free to address it after you've supported your initial argument. It's strange you see atheism as a conscious choice rather than a default intellectual position (in the same way non-boogeymanism is a default position). In my eyes, things either make sense or they don't. If they make sense, I believe them; otherwise I don't. "Choice" doesn't really enter the equation, at least not consciously. Throughout my childhood I *tried* to believe in Christianity, but you can't really force a belief. The more I learned about the Bible the harder it was to believe it. Do you choose to believe things, Pete? Or are you like me, meaning you believe what seems believable?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/11/2009 16:48:15
Amber, Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. This is a common understanding of the word athiest. Babies have none of these positions and it is inflammatory, and most importantly, false to label his child in that way.
Posted by Caleb on 09/11/2009 23:20:47
"I have not taken responsibility for errors or falsehoods in my article because to this point, you haven't demonstrated any." Well Peter, your heading stating that there are no atheists in birthing centers is undeniably false. Not because babies are atheists but because self-avowed atheists have babies everyday and still choose not to believe. Not that it is important or something to get worked up about, but that heading is untrue.
Posted by Caleb on 09/12/2009 00:09:27
Okay, I've got to be blatantly honest here: this is about the stupidest conversation I've ever had on this site. Seriously. I could make the observation that there are two options - either belief in a random start to the universe or belief in an intelligent design. Then I could conclude that my baby does not believe in a random start to the universe so therefore must believe in intelligent design, would that make it true? Obviously not. Why? Because my baby is not yet old enough to make those conscious decisions about belief or unbelief regarding intellectual positions and philosophies.
Posted by peterheck on 09/12/2009 11:18:50
Same principle with this absurd argument we're having now. You can't conclude that since my baby is not yet old enough to make a decision about belief in a Creator God that she is therefore making a conscious decision about NOT believing in a Creator God. It is a false choice. Atheism is not a "default" position...it is a conscious choice to reject the existence of a god or gods. Unless you wish to argue that my baby is capable of making those conscious choices, your argument falls flat.
Posted by peterheck on 09/12/2009 11:20:08
Now, I do think I need to clarify something that perhaps I didn't say correctly or perhaps you made an improper inference, NGav. I believe that all men carry with them the "signature" of God on their hearts. You are very correct, however, in your statement that it is a conscious choice that a person will make (based on the evidence for or against certain belief systems - including the belief system of atheism) as to who they assign that "signature" to. The evidence compels me to assign it to the God of the Bible. You see the evidence compelling you to assign it to natural selection and other processes.
Posted by peterheck on 09/12/2009 11:23:50
My baby has not yet made the conscious decision - so whereas yes, I believe that she has the signature of God upon her heart, no she has not yet made the conscious choice to assign it to the one living and true God. That certainly doesn't make her an atheist though.
Posted by peterheck on 09/12/2009 11:24:10
Caleb, keep in mind that in the first paragraph of my column I clarify that there may be atheists in birthing centers...they just lack a lick of sense given the evidence there. So I actually rephrase the title and further clarify it in the piece. And yes, I will stand by the assertion that a person who denies the intelligent design of the human body as one who lacks a lick of common sense.
Posted by peterheck on 09/12/2009 11:25:52
Pete, please read my posts more carefully, seeing as you've agreed with something I never actually said. I explicitly said belief/nonbelief is NOT a choice. I automatically believe what appears probable and likely, whether or I like it or not. My belief is not guided by personal preference; it's guided by the evidence available to me. If you believe whatever you choose to believe, that's wishful and irrational thinking, although some might call it Faith.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/12/2009 12:02:42
Example: The idea of death depresses me sometimes - I'd like to think there is some kind of afterlife. But until there is scientific evidence that our mind can outlive our brain, I cannot believe in afterlives. So what do you think Pete? Should I just suspend all evidence and believe in whatever I want to? Would you do that?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/12/2009 12:10:11
What's this "signature" Pete? Can you define it in any clear, unambiguous terms? Evidence-based discussions are better than moralistic browbeatings in my opinion, so I'd like to lay out a foundation for the former. You define your position and its terms, and I define mine, and then we go from there. Your remarks that this whole conservation is "absurd" is a little discouraging, especially since you've left so many questions hanging. To me, this discussion seems pretty important, if not as a path to agreement, at least as a path to understanding. The real question is: are we honest and adult enough to define and defend our positions? The ball's in your court.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/12/2009 12:18:56
Wow, this has got to be one of the most circular arguments I have ever seen. I commend you Peter for your patience. What I think the non-believers on this website do not get is that we(being the crazy God believing loons) are not the only one's with faith here. You have faith as well. Faith in a start to the universe that science has not proven. The Big Bang goes against the Law of Conservation of Matter and The Law of the Conservation of Energy. Yet it is still the most plausible theory? Is that not faith? You believe in an Evolutionary theory that defies the Law of biogenesis. Is that not faith.
Posted by Derek Vester on 09/12/2009 13:02:11
Derek, you forgot that (1) Abiogensis is a hypothesis, not a law or theory. (2) Evolutionary theory is not "defiant" of, or even necessary dependent upon, on abiogenesis. Hypothetically, a god could have created the first cell of life of Earth, and over the billions of years ensuing, evolution could take things from there. (3) Working knowledge and justified belief are not the same as religious faith, which requires no concrete evidence at all. (4) Physicists currently understand the Big Bang to be the beginning of *our* universe, probably as a result of the collision of two other universes. (6) Science doesn't claim to explain everying, but how does "God did it" explain *anything*? (7) Where did god come from?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/13/2009 08:25:07
I am speaking of the Law of biogenesis, which states that life only comes from exisiting life. I must have had a horrible chemistry teacher. Your second point seems to point to "a god". Are we agreeing there is a God? I believe that God exist outside of time. I believe He created time. My "proof" of this is that something does not come from nothing and when I see a creation, I believe there is a creator. You will say that is not proof, but I say that is as much proof as you have for the origins of the universe. Again, we both have faith.
Posted by Derek Vester on 09/14/2009 09:43:25
Hi Derek, I'm a bio guy so I know what abiogenesis is. There isn't sufficient evidence for any particular abiogenesis hypothesis to be considered a theory or a law. I don't believe in a god, but many evolutionists do, and some reconcile the two by saying god planted life on Earth and knew exactly how evolution would unfold according to natural law. Your "proof" is a little shaky because it uses loaded terms, i.e., creation. Look at a snowflake - it could easily be mistaken for an artistic masterpiece, a "creation", but it is the result of natural and unthinking forces. And since I don't pretend to know where this universe came from, I don't have faith. I don't pretend to know; I just await further data.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/14/2009 15:12:31
Based on his intelligence and power, wouldn't your god be considered a creation, thereby requiring a creator himself? Maybe you can answer the question that Peter hasn't: Why does the universe need a creator if you believe God does not?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/14/2009 15:27:10
First, let me say this is the most productive disagreement I have ever had on-line. Thank you for being pleasant about this N. Gavelis. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis This website agrees with what I am saying about the Law of biogenesis. It sounds like you are a bit more of an agnostic, would that be a fair assessment?
Posted by Derek Vester on 09/15/2009 10:41:10
Unless one feels the same mind-boggling, breath-taking sensations at the birth of kittens, the cracking of the eggs of snakes, and when the parasitic wasp's larvae chew their way out of the live caterpillar that incubated them, you can't really say that a birth is a miracle and could only have occurred via some magic-man in the sky. It would seem that this breath-taking moment only occurs at human births. But... it's a fact of nature that every critter gives birth in some manner. Oh, and you really should fact check. Misquoting someone is the fastest way to lose respect!
Posted by Anonymous on 09/15/2009 18:14:49
Hi Derek, it's refreshing to have a civil disagreement - those definitely seem rare on the internet. I'd call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods, but I think even if they existed, there is no definitive way they could be proved. This video might be of interest to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=youtube_gdata
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 08:36:06
I see your point, Anonymous, but I don't think Pete was trying to win the respect of atheists. This appears to be a hit job designed so that evangelical Christians can feel superior to those nuts who don't believe the sky god Jehovah created the universe is 6 days out of nothing, and humans from dust, and women from a rib. ...Crazy atheists, in obvious denial of so many evidence-based, science-backed religious facts!
Posted by Rational Christian on 09/16/2009 12:02:14
Of course, even if a God didn't exist, there is no definitive way that could be proven...
Posted by peterheck on 09/16/2009 13:17:54
This is true, Pete. It's true for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. On a universal scale, we can't disprove the existence of anything at all, unless it's a self-contradicting impossibility like a square circle, a benevolent mass-murder, or an omniscient, omnipotent, and good entity that gives rise to a flawed creation.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 14:50:15
In the realm of Christian theology, I have been largely resistant to the doctrine of supralapsarianism (ie, a doctrine of absolute predestination in which God has pre-ordained everything that can & will happen, including those who are saved into righeousness and those who are not). I tend to fall into the doctrine of free-will camp, which is heresy to some.
Posted by Charles Layne on 09/17/2009 12:54:32
That being said, I frequently find myself wondering more and more as God and His instructions are disobeyed and mocked to such extreme extents whether I am mistaken. Perhaps such zealous (and evangelistic) disobedience can only be ascribed to those whose hearts and minds have been closed to holiness and righteousness by the Deity Himself.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 12:59:15
Yes, yes, yes... I, too, look to evidence & truth & fact to inform my conclusions and beliefs. Contemplating the origin of the universe and life (human and otherwise) is mind-boggling. Whereas we can debate God & no God, no one has provided the definitive proof of this origin. What was the first matter? Inorganic or organic? If inorganic, how did it become organic? Once organic, how did it become a rational, thinking creature with the capacity for building upon the past and planning for the future (as oppsed to mere instinct)?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 13:51:20
Yes, there is much to be said about folks who ascribe our origins and hard-to-explain events to a "deity" or "divine being" or "intelligent source." There is much to be said about someone like me who believes that something created something out of nothing. At the same time, what can be said of those who believe that nothing created something out of nothing?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 13:54:18
I'm curious about something from an evolutionist's perspective. I'm not interested in your particular fantasies concerning the origin of the universe, life, or species because... you don't know. No matter what you come up with, there is always the question, "Where did that originate?" So it's really futile to engage in an exercise of infinite regression.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:08:11
Here is my interest... Is evolution strictly a function of biological changes within and between species? Or, since a species has evolved with the capability for rational thought and the ability to act on such thought, does evolution/natural selection also include this specie's ability to hypothsize, test, and act on such hypotheses to determine the [presumably] best course of action for natural selection to proceed?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:14:08
I've gotten quite a kick from the position taken by those who have decided that, in their judgment, there is so much wrong with the creation that it logically follows that there is no creator. Since this presumes that they know so much more than the creator, it should not come as any big surprise that Peter refers to "pride" in his article. Anyway, this line of thought is ludicrous.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:19:52
Let's take the evolutionist's worldview on this. There is no creation by deity, intelligent design, et al. There is only natural selection. We are where we are through the billions of years of survival through natural selection. The sum of changes experienced by the species over this time represent improvements that has led to survival and, apparently, even beyond. Each species is at its current best point. Incremental changes will continue to occur in response to survivability, but such changes are so small at any given time (hence, the need for billions of years to have passed to get where we are) that, for all practical purposes, we are where we are because there is nothing better.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:48:12
However, as attested by quite a few posting here, this best is not good enough. If we were the designers, so some posts read, things would be better. So here we are; natural selection has brought us to the point where the survivability of the species is as great as it can be. Therefore, all of these so-called failures and imperfections must actually be necessary for our survivability as a species. If they weren't, then we would have evolved differently. If we could have survived better with our brains in a different location, for instance, then our brains would have evolved in a different location, would they not?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:50:25
However, since it is the observation of some that our brains are in a stupid location; viz a viz, our heads, then can I not make the same application of logic that natural selection does not exist? Apparently, if natural selection really existed, then our brains and our reproductive systems, and all the other foibles detailed in prior posts would never have evolved in the "stupid" manner they did.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:51:26
Whether one considers human life a product of creation of natural selection, the plain truth & observable fact is that we are what we are. To attempt to create some kind of logical conclusion about either creation or evolution based upon our assumptions that "I could do better if I were in charge" is absolutely laughable & ludicrous. But you already knew that because you have evolved beyond such silliness.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 18:52:08
Well, Peter, I have suggestions for the alterations to your article: Ho hum. Another conglomeration of protoplasm dumped into the world. How boring; nothing to see here, folks, so just move on. Well, looking it over, I guess it's another reasonable exhibit of natural selection, so no need to toss it into the dumpster... yet. Never know; things can always change. Don't want it messing up the chances of species survival, you know. Oh well, guess I'll feed it, burp it, and change its diapers. Sigh. One would think that if natural selection really existed, it would have resulted in a perpetuation of the species without all this hassle. Oh well, at least puppies are cute.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 19:01:01
I'm sorry, but your argument appears invalid, Mr. Peter Heck. By no means does 'complexity' conclude "Creation", in the religious sense which you pose. What evidence do you possess, which you failed to represent in your article, leads to the conclusion that a form of metaphysical intelligence exists (As if this "Intelligence" had consciousness which was measurable in our human contexts.)? I believe that you lack any type of evidence because, as human beings have lived upon this planet Earth, there has been no evidence of a supernatural consciousness of any kind. It is not blatantly obvious and is certainly not of any concern of ours whether it exists or not. Knowing that a supernatural Consciousness exists will not solve any issue.
Posted by Daniel-Noah on 09/20/2009 19:08:52
The "no evidence" belief posted by Daniel-Noah above works only when one ignores and/or denies the centuries of evidence that continues to exist.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:22:52
Does subjective experience count as evidence in your book, Chuck? What evidence are you talking about exactly?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 10:58:26
One post asked this: "Based on his intelligence and power, wouldn't your god be considered a creation, thereby requiring a creator himself? Maybe you can answer the question that Peter hasn't: Why does the universe need a creator if you believe God does not?" Very fair question, indicating one of the precepts that all (I think) are operating with: the Law of Causality. Science is a search for causes. That search is our recognition that everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:35:52
The question asked about the origin of God (or a god) indicates how seriously we take the Law of Causality. However, a contention that God needs a cause is a misapplication of the Law of Causality. It does not say that EVERYTHING needs a cause. It states that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be; He is unmade. He has no beginning, so He does not need a cause.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:39:43
Foul! Foul! That is the cry I expect to hear. Once again, fair enough. After all, this may be a most ludicrous claim. Perhaps one of the many atheists represented here is thinking, "If you can have an eternal God, then I can have an eternal universe! If the universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause." I quite agree; if the universe is eternal (meaning no beginning), then it does not need a cause. In fact, by definition then, it has no cause.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:42:53
Is this what science is teaching? That the universe is eternal? Is that what has been expressed in all these prior posts? Indeed, there is only one of two possibilities at play, is there not? Either the universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. After all, the universe (ie, us and everything else) undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed. Two choices, right? The universe, or something that caused the universe.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:46:19
For those who have written that there is no god, intelligent being, et al, then are you declaring that the universe is eternal and without beginning? Is that what your scientific evidence is telling you?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:50:52
ADMIN, I have participated in boards without moderators where the evolution-creation topic has been raised (which appears virtually unavoidable on even the most innocuous message boards and blogs over time). The courtesy of civil debate goes away very quickly. I am not going to pretend that everyone holding a creationist position always avoids being impolite, but the vulgarity and bulk of ridicule comes from the non-theistic side of the debate. Thanks for holding participants to standards of decency! Quite a challenge, it appears, on this topic.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 11:56:17
"What evidence are you talking about exactly?" Well, I can begin numerous places, but let me first ask outright: Is Jesus (known as the Christ in the New Testament) a historical figure or merely an invention of a few writers of letters and articles that circulated in earlier centuries?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:33:19
When PH changes the old phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" to "birthing centers" it certainly isn't literally true. There are certainly atheists. But the reality of the statement is that everyone in combat faces the reality of their own mortality and the afterlife. Likewise, everyone in birthing centers has to face the amazing intricacy of life and bio-genesis. You can't face birth and not question how things began. In watching a new person entering into this world you can still maintain that the universe and all life is one big cosmic game of trial and error. I personally don't have that much faith. There are still atheists in foxholes and in birthing centers, but the question of life and death faces both.
Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 13:21:24
I am amazed at the number of educational institutions that were founded by men and women with a strong Christian faith which now lack any type of Christian apologetics in their curriculum. Some of these institutions even carry a Christian connotation in their name, or the name of a well-known Christian, yet fail to provide an opportunity for students to gain exposure to the legitimate world of evidence of the Christian faith. What an academic failure, as well as outright hypocrisy.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 07:13:16
Congrats and thanks for the invite, Peter. Being a combat veteran, and atheist, I am one of the many foxhole atheists. As far as you witnessing your baby, remember that the default position for not having knowledge remains "we don't know" not "god did it", no matter how magnificent the inner workings of the eyes and ears are. You assert your claim to be true while it is based on presumption, not evidence.
Posted by Rodney Chlebek on 10/18/2009 11:36:53
Perhaps there is evidence, and you refuse to believe it. (You do recognize that the phrase "no atheousts in foxholes" did not originate with Peter?) So, a question an atheist must answer is the nature of the universe. Is the universe in and of itself eternal? In other words, is the universe without origin?
Posted by chuckschants on 10/20/2009 14:38:36
Oh my. That's supposed to be "no atheists in foxholes." I certainly fumbled the keys with that one.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 20:49:16

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here