A proof against ID and Creationism

I tend to agree with you that this is a problem for some of the arguments the creationists present. However they will probably respond with a hand-wavy philosophical argument that is alleged to prove the existence of a creator. The argument is usually known as the ontological argument for the existence of God (or something similar).

You are right, that variations of your argument are quite common. It's a good argument, but it has been often seen before so might not provoke much discussion.I looked at reviews of the Sam Harris book. Harris is a student of philosophy/neuroscience. Apparently the book is based on his research into the psychology/neurology of religious belief. He has a web site at Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast

Let's suppose that the first life was created by an act of God. In what way would it look different from one of those speculations? Would someone appear in white robes, waving a magic wand -- then a puff of smoke, and poof?

Perhaps I missed your point.If the book really contradicts itself, that's certainly a problem. I admit that my expectations for high school texts are rather low (based on experience). Without actually seeing the book, I cannot be sure whether there is a contradiction.There is a question of how life originated on earth, and we don't have a clear answer to that. A book ought to mention that. I don't see any problem with it mentioning the various speculative hypotheses that have been offered. It ought to be clear that these are speculative.I also don't see a problem in it mentioning Pasteur's experiments. There isn't an obvious contradiction there, unless the wording is poor. The conditions on earth today are very different from what they would have been at a time when there was no biological life, if only because biological systems change the conditions.Pasteur's experiments did not and could not prove that spontaneous generation of life is impossible. They could only demonstrate that it is highly improbable under environmental conditions similar to what we see today..

However, they are not required to attend a state school. They are permitted to attent a religious school. The speculations are often on questions that the students consider of high interest, perhaps questions that have motivated them to study science. You cannot simply ignore these issues. If the teacher does not raise them, the students will.Textbooks and teachers should be honest. Where they are presenting speculation, they ought to be clear that it is speculation.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. It is consistent and honest. I can respect someone with those beliefs.If everyone thought and believed exactly as I do, then this would be a pretty boring world. Cheers for diversity. I'm inclined to think you are jumping to conclusions.My conclusion would be: But it still remains a fact that there are some very decent people who are religious.

I think you would do better to say that it is alogical (outside of logic), instead of illogical (contrary to logic).

Abiogenesis is still an open problem at this time. But that doesn't affect the theory of evolution.

No, they don't.You might look at the work of scientists and believe that it proves the existence of a creator. But others look at the same scientific work and conclude that it disproves the existence of a creator.Proving or disproving a creator is not that simple, and might not even be possible. I suggest you spend some time studying evolution. Read the biology literature. Don't ready the creationist web sites, for they misdescribe evolution.

Is the mass of the universe increasing?If it isn't, then there is no creation from nothing. I used to have such OBEs when I was young. But they were just psychological states. What I could see was what was visible through my physical eyes. No actual mystery here.

I asked about mass, not size.Blow up a balloon. As a thunderstorm approaches, the air pressure drops. As a result, the balloon expands. Perhaps the expansion is too little to notice, but it expands nevertheless. However its mass does not increase. Since the balloon is increasing in volume, does that mean that something is being created from nothing? And who is the creator that made it possible?My answer would be that there is nothing being created.

I wasn't.Instead, I was using it as an example to demonstrate that increase in size does not imply creation. That debunks your argument.

If a clear counter-example confirms your belief, then you must not be expressing your beliefs very well. You are really confused. The atmosphere makes it harder for the balloon to expand. If you removed the atmosphere, it would expand very visibly.You need to rethink your argument, then express it better than you have.

You are telling us that you don't understand big bang cosmology, although that's probably not what you are trying to say. But that's a misunderstanding of the cosmology. You might want to look over some of the threads in Big Bang and Cosmology.

Many scientist look at the wonders of the world, and are filled with awe. Many biologists look at how well evolution works, and are filled with awe. Many see this a reason to believe in a creator.However, awe is not proof. That we are filled with awe many be reason for us to believe there is a creator. But it is not science.The problem with ID, is that it claims to be science. Awe and wonder are not science. You need empirical evidence, you need predictions that are well tested to show that they hold, before you have science.The objection to ID is the claim that it is science, and the attempt to force it into the science class by means of politics. The objection to ID among biologists, is that the ID proponents claim evolution is wrong, while it is the biologists awe at how well evolution works that leads many of them to wonder about whether there is a creator.If the proponents on ID were to write poems and essays about their sense of wonder, then maybe they could have some of those in the literature classes, particularly if the poems and essays were themselves inspiring. It is the false claim that ID is science, and the false objections to evolution, that raise concern among scientists.