Products of Creation Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And that neither actually knows the fundamentals of their own arguments.

Can you quickly elaborate ? :3

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yeah I was kinda disappointed that it started to sound like the usual anti-evolution tract at the end. Still, I found it amusing. =j

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Not really.

Fits in the thread ~

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Of course geopolitical situations are going to influence the growth and development of religions, but the opposite statement is true as well. There is no truth to find in between, sincere conversions are as numerous as political ones. Religion is a factor of coherency, and has been used as such since the dawn of times.

Now, as to say the fact the ones that spread by far the most are all monotheistic and advocate a personal spiritual development is purely the coincidence of geopolitics seems like quite a statement.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Thats the way I read it.

Basically, if I had a really good pitch, I could say "Give me $500 and you go to heaven when you die" and I'll be just as legit as his current bullshit theological idealism.

That's what the corrupted popes tried 500 years ago, and it created protestantism.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

It only seems like quite a statement until you realize that all of the major monotheistic religions are just variations on a theme. Judaism was built on to form Christianity, which was built on to form Islam. All three of these religions believe basically the same thing about God, they just argue about who wrote it all down best.

In any case, Hinduism is probably the best possible argument for religion as a geopolitical characteristic. I'm not sure there's any other way to look at it.

It's late ... It indeed didn't translate in what I wrote but I was actually including sets of Asian religions in my line of thought (Buddhism, Taoism ...). The advocate a personal spiritual development is what matters in that argument, whom core problematic is to know if wealth creates those religions or if it's the other way around.

I don't know much about Hinduism, honestly. =/

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I would argue that by and large, Christianity and Islam don't realistically advocate personal spiritual development. I do not dispute that it is possible to achieve personal spiritual development through those religions, but I think it's a tad idealistic to think that is the actual goal of either of these greater religious organizations.

That's such a complex question. If we talk about dogmas, which Christianity ? Which Islam ? At what point in time ? In which context ? =/

Western Christianity alone can be so different whether you look at it at a certain point in time or another. I personally think the purpose and true spirit of the western Christian church was lost some time around 1200 when the society it had been designed for evolved to something else.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

If the Old Testament is not true, then Christianity loses all validity. You'll have to try better than that.

Jesus' sayings very clearly invalidate numerous things from the Old Testament, though. There again, it's more complex than that in both ways.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?