The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Rekeisha]

Okay, I'm going to leave most of the theological points to Redbeard, since he seems to handle them at least as well as I could, and likely better. However, I watched that debate video you posted with the douchebag from the Creation Institute, and I think it's clear that you have misunderstood what Dr. Meyer is claiming (or hoping you miss that he's not claiming).

Dr. Meyer is one of the worst cases of someone who deliberately went and got degrees (incidentally, his PhD is in the "history of science", not in science) for the purpose of giving the appearance of credibility to the Creationist case, as proposed in the infamous Wedge Document, to which we have linked you, many many times. They are deliberately trying to misrepresent their credentials in order to give the appearance of a controversy, into which gap they can insert their pre-existing ideas about God, in the public eye, because they see science as anti-God. Why you refuse to understand what the Wedge Document represents, I cannot grasp. But it amounts to this: he has been very selective in what parts of science he accepts and which he rejects via his pre-existing filter. For instance, he talks a great deal about how DNA must change too many base pairs in order to produce the novel proteins he says are necessary for the changes to occur, but ignores completely our discoveries in the past 20 years about regulatory gene sequences that radically alter body-forms (called Gene Regulatory Networks), or that the changes observed in the "Cambrian Explosion" were well within the expected rates of evolutionary change after statistical analysis. If you want to see a good analysis of why Meyer clearly doesn't understand some of these major elements of how science determines the things it determines, read this article at the science blog, The Panda's Thumb.

You really should read the New Yorker article posted about Meyer's book, which shows where he deliberately ignores science and promotes pseudoscience to make his case. If you continue to quote Meyer in an attempt to support your position, you're simply showing anyone who actually knows science that you are unaware of the advances science has made in the 150+ years since Darwin wrote down his doubts about the Cambrian Explosion (upon which Meyer primarily focuses).

Of course, you're not GOING to read any of the harsh criticisms of your champion, because you prefer what he's telling you over harsh truths. That's what the Discovery/Creation Institute are counting on, the way charlatans and other charismatic "flim-flam" artists always have.

I took a look at your artical and I will admit that the panda's thumb article was confusing since I don't have a Bachelors or a PHD in any kind of science. Yet, the New Yorker article and some other articles helped me to understand some of what he was talking about. What I found from looking around is that what we have is data about the cambrian period. Before there were not so many animals and then there were a lot in the cambrian period. It would seem that scientist have done some inferring with chemistry and have used computers to play out the scenario which they have drawn conclusions from. I haven't looked into that so I don't know what criterion they are using. Those who believe in a creator have filled in the gaps with science as well but they believe that it points to a creator. So my conclusion is we have data about the cambrian period, and this data has been interpreted in different ways. This got me asking some more questions which lead me to seek some popular scientific views on our "origins". 

So where did life come from? I read that we could have all come from a comet, panspermia, bringing with it proteins that were needed to create life.  This plus many other theories, and found what they are saying is we are star stuff, and some therefore conclude we are not created beings rather things grown up out of happy happenstance.  So I concluded, if that is the case doing right or wrong really doesn't matter, as whatever happens... happens. Or as I would say "so what". So what to slavery, so what to religion etc. As in the great words of King Solomon “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”(ecc 1:1) Now if there is a God then things are made for a reason and therefore they have a purpose and meaning.  Giving men the reference point to understand morality and life and making sense of all the "gray areas".  

I want to thank you for taking the time to watch the debate, and for your insights into the credentials of Dr. Meyer; though I would think that holding a Masters and Ph.D in the History and Philosophy of Science would give someone a good perspective as to how science got where it is now, and where it may be heading too. Also he was a former geophysicist and college professor and holds a B.S in Physics/Earth Science. 

We all have filters the question is are we willing to put them to the test? Can these filters we use give us clarity or do they blind us?

Here is the Discovery Institute's response to the Wedge Document.