The Truth About Evolution and Religion

I just looked over quickly the paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...df/HJFOA5-000003-000328_1.pdfThe paper says:"Long standing debates about the roll of natural selection in the growth of biological complexity..."It goes on to discuss the problem of explaining complexity from natural selection. At no point does it say Darwinism totally explains the complexity of life. The paper seeks to justify Darwinism.

You don't need any background to understand why God exists, as my video explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQSince we have free will and conscious knowledge, we are unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. Hence, we are finite beings. But a finite being needs a cause. If all beings in the universe needed a cause the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, and infinite being exists. QEDIntelligent design is irrational because it is like saying God caused the Big Bang. The Big Bang could have been caused by an angel. It is not good science or good metaphysics. The Big Bang however is a reason to believe in the Bible because the Bible says God created the world ex nilhilo.

I looked at the lessons on evolution from Berkeley and U. Michigan. The Berkeley lesson clearly states that natural selection produces complexity, but the U. Michigan one does not. The Berekely lesson is not signed. It is not peer reviewed. It may have been written by an anti-religious fanatic trying to show that intelligent design is irrational. ID is irrational, but there are honest ways this can be explained.

What I am saying is that there is no disagreement about evolutionary biology between Kenneth Miller (pro-Darwin) and Michael Behe (anti-Darwin). The way to determine if this is true is by comparing their written statements. I do this in my review of Miller's book, which was published by OrthodoxyToday.org:http://www.dkroemer.com/page4/page4.html

My point is that we don't know what the other factors are. The increase in the complexity of life is a scientific mystery, like the origin of life and the big bang.

How do we know we have free will? People who say we don't live their lives as if they had free will. They fell guilty when they do something wrong, they apologize, and they promise not to do it again.

I'm not saying life is too complex to have evolved. I'm saying life is too complex to have evolved from facilitated variation, natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, etc.
1) The probability of getting a 300-amino-acid protein by random chance is 1 in 20³⁰⁰.
2) This probability is increased by considering natural selection and facilitated variation, but the odds are still very small.
3) The primary structure of a protein does not begin to describe the complexity of life.
4) There is no peer reviewed work or text book that says natural selection explains the complexity of life.

Perhaps you think intelligent design is part of biology? I do not. It is just bad metaphysics. This is where Miller and Behe disagree.

I think you are overstating how much we know. I consider common descent a mystery, like the big bang and the origin of life. I might be overstating it to call it only an explanation for adaptation. Behe doesn't even say that. According to Behe Darwinism is just destructive, as in the production of sickle-cell anemia. Maybe Darwinism explains how fish became reptiles. It is the job of professional biologists to make an attempt at explaining the limitations of Darwinism. (I don't say natural selection to avoid a lecture about evolution and the accusation that I don't understand anything about evolution.)

I'd be grateful if you commented on my remarks about the lessons on evolution given by 1) Berkeley and 2) U. of Michigan. It really states the whole issue we are discussing in a nutshell:
1) Berkely is lying and 2) U. of Michigan is telling the truth.Berkeley states that natural selection explains complexity. I consider it dishonest because I can spell out their motive. They are trying to discredit intelligent design, not for rational reasons, but to promote atheistic humanism.

We can assume that evolution does not violate the second law since the second law is clearer even than the first law of thermodynamics. Saying evolution violates the second law implies that the universe is not intelligible. What scientists are doing is trying to find an explanation of evolution that is consistent with the second law.

As human beings we have a drive to know and understand everything. Some things we don't understand, like the big bang and the origin of life. The big bang is a mystery. Another mystery is this: What is the relationship between ourselves and our bodies? What are mental beings? What is conscious knowledge?

This is the best you found? There is nothing here which says: Natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life from prokaryotes to chimps.

They never say that facilitated variation explains the complexity of life. The quote I gave in my video specifically limits facilitated variation to adaptation. Why do they use the word "adaptation" instead of the word "common descent". Why did they not do the calculation for a sonnet that they did for "to be or not to be"?The reason they don't is that if they did the calculation for a sonnet it would sound like they were claiming they understood common descent.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I call it a scam debate between advocates of ID and Darwinists. The motivation of ID advocates is to promote religion and the motivation of Darwinists is to promote atheistic humanism.When I asked a panel of experts if evolution applied to the soul no one answered. Why? Because they can't deny humans have souls. But they can't admit it either for career reasons.