News-Record.com

The study of evolution has come a long way since Darwin's day. In spite of these silly little attempts by churches to discredit Darwin in the vain hope that by doing so evolution will suffer by association, the amount of evidence and data supporting evolution is staggering. Face reality people, evolution is a fact. Even the Vatican these days recognizes the validity of evolution and admits it openly. Anyone that still clings to the nonsensical notion of creation is a victim of self-imposed ignorance.

Actually, RebelSnake, the Pope may be replacing a Vatican scientist who has outspokenly supported evolution with one with ties to the Discovery Institute (creationist "think"-tank), although I can't remember now where I read that. Probably some blog. ;-)

And I'm sorry, but D. James Kennedy is looneytunes. Nietzsche had a whole lot more to do with Hitler's world view than Darwin did, and Germanic mythology and folklore more even than Nietzsche, but you don't see the Christian right wing attacking them.

Bad enough they're corrupting biology. Now they want to corrupt history, too. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

"Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Oh wow! I love this statement. This sums up a LOT of things that have bothered me for a long time. Many televangelists make an awful lot of hay using propaganda (their own facts, as it were), and it really gets under my skin when I see such crap as this show coming out.

Every now and then, I'll tune in to watch a Kennedy sermon, just for the entertainment value of counting his lies. But it is pretty scary to see his audience, sitting there, listening to his sing-song voice and soaking in every word without any critical thinking. I think it's that, more than anything else, that bothers me about him.

Trying to link Hitler's atrocities to Darwin is ridiculous. Christians themselves found reason to abuse the Jews long before Darwin came along. Plus, Hitler used plenty of Christian and biblical justification for his actions as well. Does that mean Christianity is responsible for the holocaust? Hitler was a madman, and used many methods to try to sell his insanity. That doesn't mean that he was justified in doing so.

Ed Brayton goes into more detail on this here and here.

I object to the headline "What Darwin hath wrought," Nancy, it seems both credulous and tendentious.

Kennedy's work would appear to be a recycling of some of the most familiar and inaccurate science-bashing around.

Also, per your second item in the post, I don't know that "Christians" have caught a second wind so much as "a particular group of Christians who espouse a particular literalist reading of the Bible."

"Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

I heard this a few years ago on Neal Boortz out of Atlanta. Just replace opinion with belief.

I believe the originator of the "not their own facts" line was the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.

You are right Ed re the headline. Didn't quite carry the connotation I wanted it to carry.

Thanks, Nancy -- you do a good job of balancing diverse and heartfelt opinions here, and I should probably remember to note that from time to time, too.

Kennedy also misapplies the philosophical/rhetorical term "begging the question", as so many do.

The upshot oif this, wouldn't you agree, is that specific groups of biblical literalists would prefer not to accept the preponedrance of scientific research showing human similarities and likely shared ancestry with the Great Apes, because by acknowledging we are all at the core animals, though thankfully capable of reason, we need not have recourse to a divine creator (Darwin himself waffled on that point)?

I agree with others who have said Hitler and his ilk will always find some excuse for murdering. Science is neutral, and amoral.
Its uses must be calibrated by those of conscience.

As for the last entry of E.Cone, I do not think there is a good balance of subject entries by the editor, but I addressed that elsewhere.

While adaptation (microevolution) within species is an established axiom of geologic history, macroevolution is more problematic, not only because of the paucity of intermediary forms, but from the reproductive laws of genetics (the inadequacy of mutations, etc) Although countered by some, Behe's irreducible complexity certainly raises prickly questions as to the certainty of trans-speciation. Then there is the very thorny question as to how the first cell could have possibly come into being and been capable of replication without a mature chromosomal system; or where matter and energy originated? ID, in my opinion, offers at least some alternatives, even if neither side can PROVE anything regarding primal origins.

The idea in these blog entries that evolution has ALL the answers, or even answers to SOME questions at all, is both naive and ill-informed. Much good work has certainly been done in both geology and adaptive development, but there are still many issues and dilemmas - more mystery than you can shake a stick at. As an old-earth creationist, I can handle billions of years, but resolutely affirm the Creator’s direct hand in initiating species, including the special creation of man in His image. Note: the opposite of intelligent design is stupid chaos.

Although Kennedy's thesis may be a little on the sensationalist side, or casuistically myopic, it does raise some historical questions about the legacy of a wholly naturalistic conception of the intrinsic value of human nature. It is hard to ignore the eugenics issue and the idea of the survival of the fittest in the Nazi weltanschauung. I'm sure Kennedy would not deny the other tangential influences on Hitler either. He was simply focusing on a particular causative line that may more merit than some are wont to admit. It is dangerous, I agree, to put all one's eggs in a single basket; but I detect more visceral disdain and prejudice for him as a Christian than SOLID arguments against his thesis.

Darwin surely had no idea of the Pandora's Box he was opening. And he certainly did not have an understanding of biochemical complexity as it impinges on genetic transmission and irreducible complexity. He had brilliant insights for his day, and his contribution to adaptation of species was seminal. But we can’t allow ourselves to become closed-minded, now can we?

"Darwin surely had no idea of the Pandora's Box he was opening."

The man had a very good idea of what the future held for his contributions to science. He lost friends, his wife was certain he was destined for Hell... which many of the Christians of his day cheerfully provided for him the rest of his life.

A fine recompense for doing nothing but being a scientist in the truest sense of the word. In the long run, he got a w orse deal yjan Voltaire, fer cryin' out loud.

Nikos,

There is plenty of evidence both of transitional forms, and for macroevolution.

Behe's Irreducible Complexity has been refuted in many ways - often his example systems are demonstrably *not* irreducibly complex. Computer simulations have also shown that supposedly IC systems can evolve through evolutionary mechanisms. It was even shown during the Kitzmiller trial that one of Behe's experiments that was supposed to support the idea of IC actually was evidence *against* the notion.

Scientists don't claim that evolution has provided every answer, but it definitely does work, or else the theory would have been discarded long ago.

As for Kennedy and the "legacy of a wholly naturalistic conception of the intrinsic value of human nature" - as pointed out in one of my earlier links, you might have a point if there was no genocide before Darwin, but that certainly isn't the case. Even the Old Testament provides an example of God commanding his chosen people to commit genocide themselves. How does that jibe with the intrinsic value of human nature?

Since only sentient life forms can be "stupid", Nikos, you oce again "beg the question" by glibly saying "the opposite of intelligent design is stupid chaos." If natural processes only account for the origins of this universe and eventually life, there's no need to label it "stupid"; it would be, more properly, neutral as to any scale of intelligence. There was no intelligence! As for "design" vs. "chaos"; again, that presupposes our own biases and projections of arangement. Fractal geometry and chaos theory suggest what appears nonlinear and in disarray can be both "random" AND "ordered".

I'm not arguing against evolution, per se, but against the mistaken notion that "it works;" i.e. explains certain key questions as to how a species could “come out of” a drastically different one, whether quickly or over millions of years.

External environmental forces merely cause an organism to adapt, sometimes in a major way, but never beyond the inherent genetic material already available. Eohippus can become the modern horse, or trilobites micro-evolve into horseshoe crabs, etc. – because the genetic material is available. However, a fish cannot become an elephant, although variants within fish and other species were sometimes astounding.

Mutations are almost always negative and counterproductive – and the laws of genetics require that an organism reproduce after its kind. Micro-evolution offers plausible answers as to how organisms survived in this manner, without the problematic species jumps of macro-evolution, impelling some evolutionists to create the “hopeful monster” and punctuated equilibrium.

But macro-evolution offers NO explanation of the biggie: how the first cell became a sustainable LIVING entity and reproduced ITSELF. They’ve gotten as far as how a few amino acids could coalesce into some kind of gunk – maybe – but nothing credible beyond that. Thus, atheistic evolution is a theory rooted in blind faith: that a complex cell could coalesce out of primeval ooze, traverse multitudes of genetic impasses, and eventually morph into homo sapiens.

There can be no viable answer to the primal cell question except that SOME kind of intelligent force or being capable of forming dumb matter into organized living tissue intervened. The only reason that this explanation is excluded as even a POSSIBILITY by naturalistic evolutionists is that it might just mean a Creator exists and the Bible is true.

Autonomous man can brook no rival; he must rule, godlike, over a universe of subhuman cosmic stuff with no explanation of its origin and development beyond what HE deems possible. Too bad he’s just a miniscule ant-like organism, strutting about on a slightly larger speck of dust in a vast ocean of galaxies, with just enough mwntal acuity to think it all just happened by chance – poof! Such presumption is itself beyond belief.

Nikos,

"a fish cannot become an elephant"

Not all at once of course - no one has claimed that. In fact, if it ever did happen all at once, that would knock a big hole in the current theory of evolution. Little, tiny steps, one at a time, for a very long time. Molecular, fossil, and other lines of evidence point to the fact that there is common descent from various lifeforms (such as fish) to vastly different lifeforms (such as elephants). Read the link I posted earlier.

"Mutations are almost always negative and counterproductive"

Not true - most mutations are neutral. The ones that are negative and counterproductive often don't stick around too long in the gene pool. The ones that are beneficial will tend to be passed on and become more common.

"But macro-evolution offers NO explanation of the biggie: how the first cell became a sustainable LIVING entity and reproduced ITSELF."

Evolution deals with what happens once you have that original, self-replicating material, and so is pretty much independent of abiogenesis. For instance, God could have created the first cell, fully formed, *and* the theory of evolution could be 100% true.

Thanks for your reasoned and honest reply. I take it you are not a highly trained scientist; neither am I. It is interesting to explore these ideas and I have read some in the field, but certainly do not claim expertise. Nevertheless, some of the concepts and data are generally accessible to the “layperson” on the larger conceptual level, if not in the minutiae of experimentation and jargonese.

You said that negative mutations don’t stick around long. Why not? The whole idea is that mutations are passed on as the mechanism for gradual change. The claim is that only the tiny number of positive mutations survive because they enhance the survivability of the entity.

Mutation was proposed because of the brickwall evolutionists encountered in genetic reproductive process: that the chromosomal material resolutely reproduces after its kind, maintaining the form and function of the creature; changes only being possible within the genetic range of inherent characteristics (microevolution). But the viability of mutations as a workable explanation of the vast changes needed for macroevolution has been called into question by evolutionists themselves for many years. They mechanism is still accepted and tweaked, but fails to overcome the juggernaut of genetic immutability.

From the web site you noted we read: “In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.” What!!!! “regardless of its origin.” As always, NO ONE knows where matter and energy came from (they just say it always existed – cop out city!) and here we see that the original complex cell MUST have existed (somehow) for any evolution to have occurred. I agree. Divine creation is as good as any here. Even you seem to accept it as a possibility.

Yes, you are correct; if we just ASSUME the original cell, we can go on to evolutionary theory. We who hold to divine mastery over all of live and history, have a perfectly reasonable explanation of, not only the first cell, but of the speciation of all of life and the nature of homo sapiens. We (old earth creationists) accept microevolution and remain open to the evidence for other theories, but because of the overwhelming mystery and inexplicable nature of the universe and the origin of primordial life, we assert the veracity and reasonableness of Scripture. I could just as easily say that no matter how we got here the truths of God’s moral Law and of His design for human life in general remain eminently testable and are requisite for true life and happiness.

Nikos,

"Thanks for your reasoned and honest reply."

Thank you as well - I appreciate your civil tone.

"I take it you are not a highly trained scientist"

No, certainly not - I hope I didn't give the impression that I was claiming to be. I have been interested in this subject for a long time though, and have read arguments from both sides. In fact, I was originally in your position, arguing for Intelligent Design, and against evolution.

"You said that negative mutations don’t stick around long. Why not?"

Because being "negative" they tend to decrease the organisms chances for survival, hence they (generally) won't be passed on as readily.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post a little later when I have more time.

"As always, NO ONE knows where matter and energy came from (they just say it always existed – cop out city!) and here we see that the original complex cell MUST have existed (somehow) for any evolution to have occurred. I agree. Divine creation is as good as any here."

No one knows YET.

Divine creation should be the very last resort in such a discussion. It has long been established that Occam's Razor excludes the answer "God did it" because the existence of God leads to an infinite regress of questions on origin.

"We who hold to divine mastery over all of live and history, have a perfectly reasonable explanation of, not only the first cell, but of the speciation of all of life and the nature of homo sapiens."

It might sound reasonable to you, but it isn't. If you hold as an axiom that everything requires a creator, you have an infinite regress. If you ask to exempt your propsed explanation (God) from your axiom, it is no longer an axiom, and you must explain why the universe should not be exempt as well.

We've been over this many times before. I don't understand why you insist on staying with an intellectually specious idea as "perfectly reasonable."

Why is an infinite, eternal universe so much harder to accept than an ifinite, eternal creator of that same infinite, eternal universe?

" . . . Occam's Razor excludes the answer, 'God did it' because the existence of God leads to an infinite regress of questions on origin."

I believe that infinite regression is ipso facto inescapable, even when one considers a wholly naturalistic explanation. Infinity, as an abstract idea, simply IS; it stands alone, just as God does. However, when dealing with the phenomenal and material realm of matter, energy and physical laws, the question of when and how they came to be has NO answer, yet the mind is impelled to press for an answer anyway, because it is inconceivable to the mind that brute matter and energy, lacking self-aware intelligence and will to act, could have produced itself.

It is here that divine initiative (Prime Mover) steps in as an end to the infinite regression, in that God is by definition, infinite, self-existent, self-aware and all-powerful. He stands outside the material universe and acts freely upon it. By contrast, anything that has basic material form and/or energy (stars, planets, cosmic dust, gravity, quasars, quarks and strings) begs, by definition, the question of origin. Matter and energy are not an intelligent entity, and act only randomly and according to physical laws.

The premise of evolution, in fact, is that we humans are not special and infinitely valuable creations of God, but simply the natural, chance outworking of the brute, impersonal laws of the universe. Kennedy’s argument that evolution caused Hitler may be overblown, but the evolutionary concept of man as just another evolved animal, reduces the value of human beings, resulting in throw away fetuses, Stalinist exterminations and casual collateral damage in war (including terrorism) - among many devaluations.

And so, Rebel, it is much easier, in my opinion, to believe in an infinite Deity than an infinite material universe. I do not believe mater and energy are infinite, because the Scripture teaches that “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth” and He is presented as the only eternal entity - “From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” The origin buck has to stop somewhere, and that is with the Almighty.

This Magnum Mysterium of inconceivable eternality is one aspect of divine worship. The humbled mind bows before the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God of love because its puny intellect is utterly incapable of fathoming the mystery of origins. Nevertheless, God condescends to reveals Himself in the Scriptures, His mighty works and in His Son. With the psalmist, regenerate children of God worship Him “lost in wonder love and praise.” The reason that Divine creation is ruled out by some is because of prejudice, not rational openness.

Occasionally, some creationist Christians try to make out that Hitler believed that men descended from apes.

Hitler, of course, was a creationist, at least as far as human beings were concerned.

Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler also wrote 'Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'

Hitler used creationist arguments that creationists adore.

From 'Mein Kampf' Volume 1 Chapter 11

'The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.'

Danke, Herr Carr, for separating Der Fürher from Darwinists.

I see no reason the as-yet-to-be formulated answer to "Where did the first cell come from?" to be "Chance". This is a weird "universe", and with sufficient eons, all sorts of stuff can happen (and has!).

Not the complex, reproducible cell, Eric. I remember no specifics, but mathematically it is said to be virtually impossible (that is, a willy-nilly coming together of free-floating nucleic acids). Even the most rudimentary cell - as a functioning cell - must have a bare MINIMUM of constituent parts to exist for one millisecond. And then to replicate itself (absolute necessity) we must add chromosomes and DNA with all the mind-boggling chemical transmitters, etc. I guess cells must have just ALWAYS BEEN.

Sehr interresante, Herr Carr. But I think Kennedy's hypothesis that Naziism (epitomized by Hitler himself) reflects a devalued view of humanity (except the meisterracen, of course).He did hint that lower forms could have developed gradually in the quote: "changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals;" although this statement does not prove evolutionary beliefs.

I think Hitler's personal ideas about creation can be separated from the larger dimension of evolutionary thinking and its conscious and unconscious influences. I think it is a bit of stretch to indict Darwin himself for Hitler's atrocities. There were, of course, other mellifluous influences on his deranged mind. But I think evolutionary premise that man is just another evolved animal, big brain, Bach and biotech notwithstanding, was the de facto MO of Nazi actions: eugenics, human experimentation, extermination attempts, ad nauseam.

Hitler was NOT a Christian in any biblical sense, but a working humanist. The Ubermensch (super-MAN) was everything. God was irrelevant, or he would never have tried to eliminate His people: Jews or Christians. It does make a practical difference in terms of medical and social policy if you see man as a holy creation of God, of infinite worth and potential. If he is just an environmental liability and a mere quirk of nature, he is expendable, as per abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, OR “the final solution.”

Hitler did see a human being as a special creation of God, as much as American slave-owners saw human beings as special creations.

What a crock -- I mean, a real failure of critical thinking.

The upshot of this attack on Darwin is "No Darwin, no Hitler" -- as if that speculation is reason alone to discredit the theory of evolution. Yet, it is no more legitimate than saying "no Wright brothers, no 9/11" -- possibly true, but not a reason to discredit the science of aerodynamics.

Just because people may use science for evil purposes doesn't mean that the science itself becomes illegitimate. Thinking so is dumb.

Eric says that Occam's razor has eliminated the option "God did it" because "the existence of God leads to an infinite regress of questions on origins". Not if you understand the distinction between contingent and necessary being. I presume, Eric, you refer to the "if God made everything, then who made God" question, or in more sophisticated form, "if all things must have a cause, then so must God and whatever caused God and on down the line." The answer is that the dilemma is formulated inaccurately. The real axiom in question is "everything that had a beginning has a cause." Since God never had a beginning, there goes Occam's razor blade down the sink along with your infinite regression. The real question is, how can anything arise from absolutely nothing? Since there is something now, there must be an eternal being, since the something that now is must have come into existence at some point. In order to avoid the very infinite regress you say is impossible (and I agree), there must be a being who caused the whole process; otherwise you have an infinite regress of contingent beings, deriving their existence from something else, with no explanation for the whole process. So Occam's razor actually points to a personal Creator, infinite, eternal, and necessarily existent; that is, not dependent for His existence on anything outside Himself.

Getting back to the original question, though, I think it true that Darwinism influenced not only Hitler but the whole Eugenics movement. It's no accident that the word "eugenics" was coined by Darwin's first cousin, Francis Galton, who believed in giving "the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable." Or consider Haeckel, Darwin's greatest defender in Europe, whose faked drawings of embryos still provide part of the supposedly "staggering" evidence for evolution, and are still used in many textbooks today despite the fact that evolutionists know that he deliberately distorted them to make the embryos look more similar than they are. (See Jonathan Wells' "Ten Icons of Evolution"). Haeckel wrote that "hundreds of thousands of incurables -- lunatics, lepers, people with cancer, etc, are kept alive ...without the slightest profit to themselves or the general body" and suggested they should be eliminated by "a dose of some painless and rapid poison." The parallels with the Third Reich are glaring and obvious. It may be true that a mass murderer will use any theory to justify his barbarities, but it is also a historical fact that Hitler found Darwin's theory of the struggle for existence and inevitable elimination of the "not so fit" particularly congenial to his needs. Nor is Darwin without blame for this. In the Descent of Man, he argued that natural selection would replace "the savage races" (and we know what color they were) with "the civilized races of men" (ditto). As Henry Morris pointed out, "Darwin's notion that the various races were at different evolutionary distances from the apes, with Negroes at the bottom and Caucasians at the top...was almost universal among the evolutionary atheists of the nineteenth century.""The Long War Against God" p. 60. Hitler himself echoed Darwin when he wrote, "he who would live must fight, and he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist." In "Evolution and Ethics," Arthur Keith noted that "we see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy." Himmler, head of the Gestapo, wrote that "the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest." Examples could be vastly multiplied. Maybe when I have more time...
Steve

Hi Nikos, sorry for the delay... I'll respond to the rest of your post, and the new ones now:

"They mechanism is still accepted and tweaked, but fails to overcome the juggernaut of genetic immutability."

You keep saying that evolutionary mechanisms can't overcome "genetic immutability", but don't give a reason why. What makes you so sure that a species of land mammal, for instance, could not evolve into a species of sea mammal?

"Yes, you are correct; if we just ASSUME the original cell, we can go on to evolutionary theory."

So you agree then that any difficulties there may be in arriving at the original cell are not actually an argument against evolution?

"The premise of evolution, in fact, is that we humans are not special and infinitely valuable creations of God"

No, this is NOT the premise of evolution. The premise of evolution is that there is a change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. Evolution says nothing one way or the other about the intrinsic value of any organisms. The notion that evolutionary mechanisms are unguided does not preclude that the results of evolution have no value to God. For instance, your parents probably met as a result of chance, therefore, your birth could be seen as "random". Does this mean you have no value to God? Of course not. Similarly, evolution could be unguided, but we could still have value to God.

"It does make a practical difference in terms of medical and social policy if you see man as a holy creation of God, of infinite worth and potential. If he is just an environmental liability and a mere quirk of nature, he is expendable, as per abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, OR “the final solution.”"

As pointed out before, the number of religious wars over the years, including the God-sanctioned genocide depicted in the Bible, argues against this. Mass killings did not suddenly start once The Origin of the Species was published. They had a long history before that.

Steve,

"The real axiom in question is "everything that had a beginning has a cause." Since God never had a beginning, there goes Occam's razor blade down the sink along with your infinite regression."

Not really. I used to think that too, but as a logical argument it doesn't hold water. In your axiom, there are two sets of things: those with a beginning, and those without a beginning. Unless you can name some other items without a beginning, then the members of that set number only one - God. Therefore, "things without a beginning" is just another way of saying "God". So your original axiom is actually just saying: "Everything had a beginning, except God". Not very convincing as a logical argument - it's just begging the question.

Not much time, Potato, but once you eliminate the special creation of man in the image of God Himslef, in accordance with His plan and purpose, you are left with your "random" and chance occurances, which are devoid of any real guidance factors except survival of the fittest, a dog-eat-dog, Hitlerian/Stalinist scenario.

And yes, species can vary widely in their genetic adaptations as long as the genetic material is already available. Land to sea? Iffy. Eohippus to horse; tiger to sabertooth; trilobite to horseshoe crab, yes. Fish to birds, snakes to cats - nope.

The judgments upon the depraved Canaanite cultures of Palestine in the OT were simply a localized judgment connected with the replacement inheritance of the promsed seed - a major promise in God's plan of redemption throught the Scriptures - "the meek (humbly righteous and obedient) will inherit the earth." If God had wanted to eliminate the heathen entirely He could have done so. He didn't. Even Jesus said, "He that believeth not is condemned already;" meaning that all humanity us "already" under the wrath of God because of the universality of sin and rebellion - thus, Chirst's cosmic atonement on the cross: a divine satisfataction for a forensically and practically guilty human race. The wonder is that God still stays His hand of total judgment, not that He executes it at times.

Occam's razor simply asks us to rely on the most concise yet materially provable answer. If the birth of stars (see recent discoveries heralded in as accessible a magazine as Time) can be sufficiently posited without recourse to divine creation, gods are therefore unnecessary to the material explanantions. Hence, Occam's razor slices any god-answer off. Now, if your arguments revolve around the positing of a spiritual existence (souls, sin & redemption, etc.), that's a different kettle of fish and loaves. The question then is, whether human existence and that of all other beings (or possible beings) requires a god. My own contention is for radical contingency a la Rorty.

"The wonder is that God still stays His hand of total judgment, not that He executes it at times."

So, in your opinion (not a surprise, I guess), Nikos, your god really ought to have obliterated all humanity already? Happy, happy, joy, joy. Man, I am glad I don't belong to that particular faith/club. As in "clubbem with the faith".