HITCHENS BOOK- Let me do some more on Hitchens [I’ve been critiquing his book- god is not great- he is an atheist]. Okay- read a few more pages and must admit I’ve written notes on the side of the page like ‘this man is an idiot’ of course I would never write that on the blog! Why do I say this? Let me just say Hitchens uses old- disproven arguments- that have been proven false years ago- yet he seems to have not done recent research before he wrote the book. I actually double checked the date the book was written- trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it was written in say the year 1995- then okay- some of the more recent scientific and historical discoveries might have not been available at the time- but the book was written in 2007 [I’m writing this critique in 1-2011] so he simply does not know his subject [trying to disprove the existence of God] well enough to be touted as a brilliant man [which many have said]. Mistakes- he uses the old argument from DNA- called ‘junk dna’ which says we have strings of DNA in us that serve no useful function. DNA is sort of a computer code within us that maps out the basic structures and life functions that we as humans need to exist. Over the years we found DNA that at the time seemed to have no purpose- thus the name ‘junk’. But recent research has shown us that yes- there are functions that this so called junk DNA plays- it’s not junk after all. Yet Hitchens appeals to this silly argument as proof that ‘see- this dna was leftover from evolution’. He also uses another faulty argument form the human tailbone- if you look at the human skeleton- the tailbone seems to look like- well a tail! So people over the years have said this is a vestigial body part [which means it was left over as we evolved- and that’s why it’s there- people have said this about the appendix, the lobe of the ear, and lots of other stuff- today we have found that all of these things that at one time seemed to be ‘leftover’ do indeed have a function]. So Hitchens pulls out the old tail bone rabbit from the hat. The tailbone serves as a balance mechanism for the human to walk upright- it also serves as a primary connecting structure for other parts of the human skeleton- basically we have known for quite some time that the tailbone is not ‘vestigial’- I guess Hitchens just threw out any old arguments he has picked up over the years and figured the reading public would never know- he figured wrong. More? Okay- he contradicts himself page after page. He actually uses one of the proofs against Darwinian evolution- to argue for Darwinian evolution! He is familiar with the ‘Cambrian explosion’ this piece of scientific evidence shows us that some 500 million years ago [the Cambrian era] there was an ‘explosion’ of new body structures that form the basic structures of life- and that these life forms did not evolve over millions of years- they just appeared at once! When science found this out years ago- it thru a monkey wrench into the whole idea of Darwinian evolution- it said things indeed did not evolve slowly over millions of years- but they showed up at once. This kind of scientific truth goes against evolution and actually backs up the biblical claim that things were created at a set period of time- in complete form. So the whole Cambrian explosion thing is evidence against evolution- To Hitchens he just talks about it- acknowledges that the explosion does indeed contradict Darwin’s view [the tree paradigm- that things evolved over time ‘like a tree’ you started with one common base and things all branched out- the Cambrian evidence disproves this theory of Darwin]. And after admitting that all this proof does not back up Darwin- he then says see- ‘this is proof for evolution’. I don’t know if this man is out to lunch or what? And last but not least- he covers the fact that other civilizations have had myths about creation- the flood- and stuff like that. This argument [very old one- refuted years ago] basically says ‘see- because we have found these stories in other cultures- that means the bible stories about creation are fake’ man- I don’t even want to do the whole thing right now- I’ll try and simply paste the stuff I wrote about this at the bottom [or if you go to the blog site you can find all these posts under the evolution section]. Basically this theory has also been refuted- the fact is that if you find other cultures with ‘creation- flood’ stories, this in no way means creation or a flood never happened- to the contrary- this would be proof that it did! Overall he contradicts himself when tying to refute the Christian argument from design [that is we see design in the universe- people- animals- this argument is called Teleology] and Hitchens says ‘look- we see faults in humans, animals, the cosmos’ animals eat one another- humans have bad design with the eye structure [another famous- and also refuted argument about the so called faulty design of the eye] and therefore there must not be a grand designer [God] because look at the flaws in the product. Geez- another stale argument that’s been around for ages. Basically the way we refute this is to say ‘so- if I told you the car in the driveway was designed and made by an intelligent being- Ford- and you show me that the design has flaws- okay, I will have to find a way to explain the flaw’ but then for you to say ‘see, because it has flaws- it CAME FROM NOTHING’! Geez- well yes- I would think you were an idiot! The explanation for the so called flaws [predatory animals- the suns future demise, etc.] is the reality that yes indeed- Christian teaching says God made man and creation sinless, and after the fall of man into rebellion- the earth and all of creation plunged into a state called ‘the curse’ or in Hitchens eyes ‘bad design’. So all in all his arguments are old-outdated and easily refuted. Kinda starting to feel sorry for the man- thought he would have done a better job than this- believe me- if you are an atheist and are looking for arguments against the existence of God- historically others have made a much better case- I still think their arguments are wrong- but they have made a better case- Hitchens is the wrong man for this task.
(1124) Let do some more apologetics [by the way, the word means ‘give a defense’ it does not mean to apologize! It comes from the bible, in Peter it says ‘be ready to give an answer to those who ask for a reason for the hope in you’] One of the other areas of doubt raised by the atheist is the fact that there are various accounts of creation and the ‘flood story’ found in other civilizations. The Babylonians have ‘the epic of Gilgamesh’. This is an account of a worldwide flood. The fact that there are other stories about a major world event, would not in and of itself cast doubt on the event! Where I grew up in New Jersey you would have been able to actually see the world trade center disaster on 9-11. As an Italian, say if I wrote a report of the events for my fellow Italian buddies. Then lets say a thousand years go by and you find out that the Cuban papers also reported it, and the Puerto Ricans, as a matter of fact you might find many cultures that have their own reporting of this event. Would that cast doubt on my report? No, as a matter of fact if no one else had a report, except me, then that would cast doubt! Now, how do we know which report is true? Out of the various other stories about creation and a flood, the one that is the ‘least fantastic’ is the biblical one. The others definitely have a tinge of unreality about them. Some say the earth was flooded, but it rained for 7 days [not long enough to flood the earth!] and the waters receded in one day [cant happen!] the biblical account has both a longer period of rain as well as a longer period of the waters receding. The actual dimensions of Noah’s Ark were huge! The huge boat looked more like a giant rectangular barge, you could fit huge jetliners in the thing! It was three levels high, but not like the silly kids pictures found in fables. That topsy turvy thing with animals peeking off the deck! The actual dimensions could have worked, really! The point is the simple fact of other cultures having their own stories of events like this does not mean the events themselves were fake, to the contrary, if only one culture had these stories, that would cast more doubt on the events themselves.