David Paszkiewicz's letter in the Observer

[Guest Guest]

Did you ever question why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life? (Clue) There isn't any.

Just because you blind yourself to it doesn't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

[Guest Guest]

What do you think of this saying:

'Science may not have all the answers, but every answer we have, we got from science.'

It means that theology promises everything but delivers nothing, while science makes no promises but delivers great things.

[Guest Siloam]

What do you think of this saying:

'Science may not have all the answers, but every answer we have, we got from science.'

I was blinded by science but a nice man came along and healed me.

[Guest Guest]

It means that theology promises everything but delivers nothing, while science makes no promises but delivers great things.

When science discovers the origin of life, let me know.

[Guest Guest]

When science discovers the origin of life, let me know.

Science has discovered all the physical laws we know about, all the modern medicines we have, all the technology we use, and the list is millions of items long.

When theology discovers anything, let us know.

[Guest Guest]

When science discovers the origin of life, let me know.

Let us know which rock you're sleeping under and we'll wake you up.

[Guest Guest]

Let us know which rock you're sleeping under and we'll wake you up.

Just put it on KOTW, I have my laptop under my rock.

[Guest Guest]

Too bad the response is incoherent and doesn't deal with Paszkiewicz's point that the Government does not give us our rights.

If our rights are God-given, why does God do such a crappy job in preserving them when humans try to take them away? When was the last time God stepped in to prevent humans from taking these so-called "God-given rights" away?

Paskiewicz is living in a dream world, where rights are these untouchable, sacred things that can't be meddled by anyone short of a deity. Give me a break.

[Guest Guest]

Non-believers have no credibility. Anyone that believes we were all hatched in pond scum cannot think clearly.

Anyone who thinks that a human body in which the same tube in the males carries both waste and the fluid used to create new life was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED cannot think clearly. At best, we were designed by the special ed God.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design.

Wrong. Anyone with a decent high school education would laugh at the absurdity of that remark. I guess you didn't get that far, though, huh?

I'll go with I.D.

It is the perfect choice for someone as thick-headed as you, I will say.

[Guest Guest]

When science discovers the origin of life, let me know.

I'd bet my life savings you will pretend it hasn't when we've got it down to one model.

[Guest Paul]

I'd bet my life savings you will pretend it hasn't when we've got it down to one model.

I don't think most zealots mean to be dishonest, but they are often intellectually dishonest without intending to be. They'll make statements challenging proponents of science on proof of something, but when the proof is found it makes no difference to them at all. They'll wiggle, dodge and evade by any means necessary to preserve their belief system, which is why I say that what they really worship is their own belief. The person who has been posting here challenging for proof of the origins of life is a perfect example of this. His/her argument makes no sense at all, and it's transparently just an effort to deflect and defend a pre-determined set of beliefs.

The content of belief isn't all that matters. The method matters too. We can't reliable get to good content without a solid method. Zealots tend not to pay any attention to that, apparently because it does not suit the object of their zealotry.

[Guest Guest]

I'd bet my life savings you will pretend it hasn't when we've got it down to one model.

"we've" got it down? Easy on the Kool-Aid, Bubba.

[Guest Guest]

Anyone who thinks that a human body in which the same tube in the males carries both waste and the fluid used to create new life was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED cannot think clearly. At best, we were designed by the special ed God.

Who turned this nut loose.

[Guest Guest]

Anyone who thinks that a human body in which the same tube in the males carries both waste and the fluid used to create new life was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED cannot think clearly. At best, we were designed by the special ed God.

Seems very efficient to me.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I don't think most zealots mean to be dishonest, but they are often intellectually dishonest without intending to be. They'll make statements challenging proponents of science on proof of something, but when the proof is found it makes no difference to them at all. They'll wiggle, dodge and evade by any means necessary to preserve their belief system, which is why I say that what they really worship is their own belief. The person who has been posting here challenging for proof of the origins of life is a perfect example of this. His/her argument makes no sense at all, and it's transparently just an effort to deflect and defend a pre-determined set of beliefs.

The content of belief isn't all that matters. The method matters too. We can't reliable get to good content without a solid method. Zealots tend not to pay any attention to that, apparently because it does not suit the object of their zealotry.

Notice how Paul changes the fact of there not being a shred of evidence of the origins of life to his diatribe on "zealots". In Paul's radical left mind, anyone who looks at the evidence and sees there is nothing to support the serendipity origins of life, must be a zealot.

Anyone who looks at the vast complexities of the human cell, the genetic code, DNA and believes that mere serendipity and happenstance cannot possibly explain away life on earth, is simply "defending a pre-determined set of beliefs".

Of course, Paul will never for a moment consider he may be a victim of a "pre-determined set of beliefs", believing all life evolved from a chance coming together of chemicals and acids and he in fact may be the zealot.

[Guest Paul]

Notice how Paul changes the fact of there not being a shred of evidence of the origins of life to his diatribe on "zealots". In Paul's radical left mind, anyone who looks at the evidence and sees there is nothing to support the serendipity origins of life, must be a zealot.

Anyone who looks at the vast complexities of the human cell, the genetic code, DNA and believes that mere serendipity and happenstance cannot possibly explain away life on earth, is simply "defending a pre-determined set of beliefs".

Of course, Paul will never for a moment consider he may be a victim of a "pre-determined set of beliefs", believing all life evolved from a chance coming together of chemicals and acids and he in fact may be the zealot.

1. You're wrong. Though the present theories are not yet proved conclusively, they are supported by abundant evidence, the body of which is growing all the time. That's the important point, as I'll address more fully below: science is advancing in this area. This was posted here previously. Scientists are uncovering more about cells, amino acids, proteins, the genetic code and all the building blocks of life every year, in fact every day. My daughter Katie is doing new research on cells as a junior in college. She is one of thousands, and as more and more data are published, the picture is becoming clearer and clearer. This is no different from the resistance to evolution, which is now an established fact as well as a theory.

2. There is no comparison in theology. You don't understand, it's about the method, not just the final conclusion. Science advances. Theology does not. That is the record of all history. Science has a proven method. Theology does not. In subject after subject after subject, science has upset the comforting, or not so comforting, stories of theology. I can't prove whether there is a god or not, but I can prove that the stories about gods have been made up by humans for thousands of years. As centuries pass, some of the old stories fade away, and yet people like you refuse to see the pattern, the inexorable march in one direction: toward science and away from ancient stories told by primitive men who did not understand. You're making a fundamentally wrong assumption: the natural state of affairs is not for humans to know all things; instead, it is our task to discover more about nature. Science does that. Theology does not.

And you have it exactly backward. Those of us who understand the scientific method would change our minds without hesitation if there was evidence calling for such a change, but in the absence of any evidence leading toward a theory of a "designer," as opposed to a mere wish, there is no basis for taking that possibility seriously. You are the one who refuses to consider the evidence and the patterns; therefore, you are the zealot.

As for what "anyone" thinks, the scientific community all over the world is nearly unanimous in disagreeing with you. They have the expertise and the knowledge and the objectivity. You have none of these.

And of course, this won't change your mind one bit, which only proves the point.

[Guest 2smart4u]

1. You're wrong. Though the present theories are not yet proved conclusively, they are supported by abundant evidence, the body of which is growing all the time. That's the important point, as I'll address more fully below: science is advancing in this area. This was posted here previously. Scientists are uncovering more about cells, amino acids, proteins, the genetic code and all the building blocks of life every year, in fact every day. My daughter Katie is doing new research on cells as a junior in college. She is one of thousands, and as more and more data are published, the picture is becoming clearer and clearer. This is no different from the resistance to evolution, which is now an established fact as well as a theory.

2. There is no comparison in theology. You don't understand, it's about the method, not just the final conclusion. Science advances. Theology does not. That is the record of all history. Science has a proven method. Theology does not. In subject after subject after subject, science has upset the comforting, or not so comforting, stories of theology. I can't prove whether there is a god or not, but I can prove that the stories about gods have been made up by humans for thousands of years. As centuries pass, some of the old stories fade away, and yet people like you refuse to see the pattern, the inexorable march in one direction: toward science and away from ancient stories told by primitive men who did not understand. You're making a fundamentally wrong assumption: the natural state of affairs is not for humans to know all things; instead, it is our task to discover more about nature. Science does that. Theology does not.

And you have it exactly backward. Those of us who understand the scientific method would change our minds without hesitation if there was evidence calling for such a change, but in the absence of any evidence leading toward a theory of a "designer," as opposed to a mere wish, there is no basis for taking that possibility seriously. You are the one who refuses to consider the evidence and the patterns; therefore, you are the zealot.

As for what "anyone" thinks, the scientific community all over the world is nearly unanimous in disagreeing with you. They have the expertise and the knowledge and the objectivity. You have none of these.

And of course, this won't change your mind one bit, which only proves the point.

No, actually you're wrong. Certainly science is making advances all the time, no disagreement here. However, as an example, scientists are discovering the human cell is far more complex than had been previously thought, leading some scientists to openly question the natural selection theory.

The situation here is similiar to that of the NY Slimes, only report the news that fits your ideology. The scientific community is largely atheist and if you're a Christian, you better keep it to yourself if you want to keep your job. As more and more discoveries are made concerning cell structure, DNA chains, genetics, etc., more and more scientists are begining to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.

Many scientist won't voice these questions because it's contrary to the established ideology and it may lable them as zealots and cost them their jobs. You, of course will deny all this and I'll bet your daughter shares your atheist ideology and will be a perfect fit doing this kind of research. College research labs love to have young atheists working under them (eliminates so many questions).

You're so typical of the loony left; anyone who disagrees with you is a zealot, only the loonys "know" the truth and Christians are living in the dark ages. So, as I've said before, when science discovers the origins of live, let me know.

[Guest Paul]

No, actually you're wrong. Certainly science is making advances all the time, no disagreement here. However, as an example, scientists are discovering the human cell is far more complex than had been previously thought, leading some scientists to openly question the natural selection theory.

The situation here is similiar to that of the NY Slimes, only report the news that fits your ideology. The scientific community is largely atheist and if you're a Christian, you better keep it to yourself if you want to keep your job. As more and more discoveries are made concerning cell structure, DNA chains, genetics, etc., more and more scientists are begining to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.

Many scientist won't voice these questions because it's contrary to the established ideology and it may lable them as zealots and cost them their jobs. You, of course will deny all this and I'll bet your daughter shares your atheist ideology and will be a perfect fit doing this kind of research. College research labs love to have young atheists working under them (eliminates so many questions).

You're so typical of the loony left; anyone who disagrees with you is a zealot, only the loonys "know" the truth and Christians are living in the dark ages. So, as I've said before, when science discovers the origins of live, let me know.

But you do disagree with scientific advancement, you just don't have the sense of proportion or orientation to realize what you're rejecting. I told you, look at the trends. Science is advancing, theology is not. I told you, that's the central point, and it's undeniably true, but you completely ignore it; and of course you do, because look at the two questions it brings up:

1. Can we (science or religion) reliably answer ultimate questions? The answer is no.

2. Which field of endeavor shows promise? The answer is science.

You refuse to consider those questions, apparently because the obvious answers are not what you want to hear, so you label those who don't agree with you; and even though we are relying on evidence while you're not, you insist we are the ideologues and the zealots. You can't evaluate the conflict sensibly because you're making false assumptions and you're not asking the critical questions. In fact, you refuse even to acknowledge that they were posed. Having ignored the evidence and most of the important questions, you've made up your mind. You said it, you believe it, end of story - and for you, it is the end of the story.

You're writing the same blather we hear from people with an ideological axe to grind against science (theistic zealots) year after year, decade after decade and century after century. Every scientific advance that threatens your belief system is always being called into question, according to you - only that's not what's happening among scientists. You say that a growing number of scientists are "beginning to question," a statement that only proves again that you have no idea what science is or scientists do. Scientists always question, it's the very essence of their work. But that doesn't mean that these advances are falling into disfavor. They are not. On the contrary, scientists are continuing to work on these issues and they are making rapid and demonstrable progress. A few ideologues like Behe keep making the same claims but the trend among the scientific community is growing acceptance of and growing confidence in scientific progress, in this case regarding the discoveries that are being made about how the first cell may have formed. You admit it in your third paragraph, but instead of accepting the fact that this is what scientists see and therefore it is what they believe, you write it off as fear and political pressure. You're making contradictory arguments, completely oblivious to the fact that you're doing it because the only thing that seems to matter to you is a sense of having defended yourself. Meanwhile, you don't have anything in your corner except a guess - but that doesn't matter, because that's what you believe so it's not be questioned.

And of course, you throw around words like "atheist" as though they have anything to do with the merits of science. Maybe there is no god. There's nothing radical about that idea; most people believe it, they're just not as open about their doubts as some of us are. I don't know why you think it's so important to pretend we know the answer to that question, especially when it's obvious that we don't. And if you want to examine the connection between fear and belief honestly, you will be well advised to turn your attention to religious belief systems in our culture.

Cell complexity isn't a mystery or a new discovery. We know cells are complex, but we also know far more about them than we did a decade ago, or any substantial length of time you can name. People like you keep saying the same things over and over, apparently hoping they'll turn out to be true some day, but they're just not.

To be fair, I don't think Christians are living in the dark ages. A substantial percentage of American scientists are Christians, including Kenneth Miller, who assisted Matthew in his work at Kearny High. However, you are living in the dark ages and apparently you like it there because you refuse to address any of the important points.

Funny thing is, you can actually write a complete sentence when you want to - assuming that the same person is always posting under that unregistered name - so you're obviously not stupid. But that makes your rock-hard rigidity all the more tragic. What I don't see from you is any evidence of an open mind or any willingness to take responsibility for your side of the argument - as if there were two legitimate sides to it. If you were the only one saying these ridiculous things, I wouldn't care so much, but a large fraction of our people are scientifically illiterate, a reality fueled by theistic zealotry.

We can no longer afford the disdain for and misunderstanding of science reflecting in your writing. The world has grown too complex and science has become too important to our way of life. You think you can have it both ways, but you can't.

[Guest Guest]

No, actually you're wrong. Certainly science is making advances all the time, no disagreement here. However, as an example, scientists are discovering the human cell is far more complex than had been previously thought, leading some scientists to openly question the natural selection theory.

The situation here is similiar to that of the NY Slimes, only report the news that fits your ideology. The scientific community is largely atheist and if you're a Christian, you better keep it to yourself if you want to keep your job. As more and more discoveries are made concerning cell structure, DNA chains, genetics, etc., more and more scientists are begining to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.

Many scientist won't voice these questions because it's contrary to the established ideology and it may lable them as zealots and cost them their jobs. You, of course will deny all this and I'll bet your daughter shares your atheist ideology and will be a perfect fit doing this kind of research. College research labs love to have young atheists working under them (eliminates so many questions).

You're so typical of the loony left; anyone who disagrees with you is a zealot, only the loonys "know" the truth and Christians are living in the dark ages. So, as I've said before, when science discovers the origins of live, let me know.

This isn't about your religious beliefs. Scientists are doing this work because knowledge about the building blocks of life is what makes modern medicine possible. We never know what will produce the next great advance, such as a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's disease. If scientists discover how to produce a cell, that will be of great importance. We don't know that they will ever discover it, but they might and they are getting closer and closer. Whether their theories are right or wrong, they encourage research and that leads to more information we can use. This is how most discoveries in science came about. They took time.

There was a time when every great discovery could have been treated with ridicule, but I hate to think what this world would look like if everyone had your attitude.

[Guest Keith]

No, actually you're wrong. Certainly science is making advances all the time, no disagreement here. However, as an example, scientists are discovering the human cell is far more complex than had been previously thought, leading some scientists to openly question the natural selection theory.

The situation here is similiar to that of the NY Slimes, only report the news that fits your ideology. The scientific community is largely atheist and if you're a Christian, you better keep it to yourself if you want to keep your job. As more and more discoveries are made concerning cell structure, DNA chains, genetics, etc., more and more scientists are begining to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.

Many scientist won't voice these questions because it's contrary to the established ideology and it may lable them as zealots and cost them their jobs. You, of course will deny all this and I'll bet your daughter shares your atheist ideology and will be a perfect fit doing this kind of research. College research labs love to have young atheists working under them (eliminates so many questions).

You're so typical of the loony left; anyone who disagrees with you is a zealot, only the loonys "know" the truth and Christians are living in the dark ages. So, as I've said before, when science discovers the origins of live, let me know.

..and you'll be sure to let us know when someone can provide even shred of proof from anything in the bible, won't you?

[Guest 2smart4u]

But you do disagree with scientific advancement, you just don't have the sense of proportion or orientation to realize what you're rejecting. I told you, look at the trends. Science is advancing, theology is not. I told you, that's the central point, and it's undeniably true, but you completely ignore it; and of course you do, because look at the two questions it brings up:

1. Can we (science or religion) reliably answer ultimate questions? The answer is no.

2. Which field of endeavor shows promise? The answer is science.

You refuse to consider those questions, apparently because the obvious answers are not what you want to hear, so you label those who don't agree with you; and even though we are relying on evidence while you're not, you insist we are the ideologues and the zealots. You can't evaluate the conflict sensibly because you're making false assumptions and you're not asking the critical questions. In fact, you refuse even to acknowledge that they were posed. Having ignored the evidence and most of the important questions, you've made up your mind. You said it, you believe it, end of story - and for you, it is the end of the story.

You're writing the same blather we hear from people with an ideological axe to grind against science (theistic zealots) year after year, decade after decade and century after century. Every scientific advance that threatens your belief system is always being called into question, according to you - only that's not what's happening among scientists. You say that a growing number of scientists are "beginning to question," a statement that only proves again that you have no idea what science is or scientists do. Scientists always question, it's the very essence of their work. But that doesn't mean that these advances are falling into disfavor. They are not. On the contrary, scientists are continuing to work on these issues and they are making rapid and demonstrable progress. A few ideologues like Behe keep making the same claims but the trend among the scientific community is growing acceptance of and growing confidence in scientific progress, in this case regarding the discoveries that are being made about how the first cell may have formed. You admit it in your third paragraph, but instead of accepting the fact that this is what scientists see and therefore it is what they believe, you write it off as fear and political pressure. You're making contradictory arguments, completely oblivious to the fact that you're doing it because the only thing that seems to matter to you is a sense of having defended yourself. Meanwhile, you don't have anything in your corner except a guess - but that doesn't matter, because that's what you believe so it's not be questioned.

And of course, you throw around words like "atheist" as though they have anything to do with the merits of science. Maybe there is no god. There's nothing radical about that idea; most people believe it, they're just not as open about their doubts as some of us are. I don't know why you think it's so important to pretend we know the answer to that question, especially when it's obvious that we don't. And if you want to examine the connection between fear and belief honestly, you will be well advised to turn your attention to religious belief systems in our culture.

Cell complexity isn't a mystery or a new discovery. We know cells are complex, but we also know far more about them than we did a decade ago, or any substantial length of time you can name. People like you keep saying the same things over and over, apparently hoping they'll turn out to be true some day, but they're just not.

To be fair, I don't think Christians are living in the dark ages. A substantial percentage of American scientists are Christians, including Kenneth Miller, who assisted Matthew in his work at Kearny High. However, you are living in the dark ages and apparently you like it there because you refuse to address any of the important points.

Funny thing is, you can actually write a complete sentence when you want to - assuming that the same person is always posting under that unregistered name - so you're obviously not stupid. But that makes your rock-hard rigidity all the more tragic. What I don't see from you is any evidence of an open mind or any willingness to take responsibility for your side of the argument - as if there were two legitimate sides to it. If you were the only one saying these ridiculous things, I wouldn't care so much, but a large fraction of our people are scientifically illiterate, a reality fueled by theistic zealotry.

We can no longer afford the disdain for and misunderstanding of science reflecting in your writing. The world has grown too complex and science has become too important to our way of life. You think you can have it both ways, but you can't.

"Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ??? That's a bogus statement and you know it.

[Guest Keith]

"Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ??? That's a bogus statement and you know it.

Just how, specifically is theology advancing? Saddles on dinosaurs?

[Guest Guest]

"Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ??? That's a bogus statement and you know it.

I'm surprised at Paul making an obviously dumb remark like that. "Science" can refer to the study of a million different subjects, while Theology (God specifically) is an absolute, nothing else to be discovered. It's akin to saying, science is advancing, Mt. Everest is not.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Atheists have nothing but that all encompassing word, evolution.

[Guest Paul]

"Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ??? That's a bogus statement and you know it.

Let's test your claim. In my lifetime:

1. People in countries like the USA live more than a decade longer because of advances in medical science.

2. Computers have been invented that allow us to have this discussion.

3. We put men on the moon. We have so many satellites orbiting Earth that two of them collided recently.

4. Automobiles have become safer and we can make them more fuel efficient if we so choose.

5. We have mapped the human genome.

6. We have audio technologies that are light years ahead of the previous technologies.

7. We can transplant human organs.

8. Military weaponry is so sophisticated that our troops barely have to get their hands dirty to defeat an enemy army in a traditional war.

9. Satellites and cables allow us to see sporting events from all over the world, beautiful and detailed images from under the sea, far out in space or at the magnification level of a powerful microscope - all in rich detail and vivid color on our television sets at home.

10. We can travel faster than ever before, jetting around the world in less time than it took men to travel 100 miles in the 19th century - that's a little before my lifetime, but the point is the same.

11. We can cure a multitude of diseases that were untreatable in the 1950s.

That's just for starters.

Your turn. Tell us how theology has advanced.