Something kind of interesting happened on my way over to Hall Center to listen to the panel discussion. I was leaving Murphy Hall after the Behe lecture, and I was trying to figure out how to get to Hall Center when low and behold Sue Gamble (Kansas Board of Education) and Steve Case (Science Standards Writing Committee) and two others with them walked past me. I figured I’d just follow them over because I knew Sue was going to be on the panel, and obviously she’d be going in the right direction. So, I joined their group, and as we were walking they asked me what I thought of the lecture.
YIKES!
I knew my opinion was not going to popular with them, but I dove in anyway. I told them I thought it was quite good actually, and we proceeded to discuss what science is and isn’t. Case didn’t believe ID was a valid theory because he didn't believe it was testable. The other guy with them thought that the ID community has not been clear enough about where design starts and natural causes end. I told them that if they aren’t comfortable with calling it a “theory”, there is absolutely no doubt that it is a valid scientific inference, and it certainly isn’t religion or philosophy. I can’t imagine philosophers discussing all the scientific issues that Behe touched on today!
The most interesting thing about this debate is how people can hear the exact same information and come away with completely different opinions. Gamble and Case told me emphatically that ID is not science, and of course I completely disagreed. Behe talked “science” the entire lecture. I didn’t hear any religion and very little philosophy.
The panel discussion itself was pretty one sided, though interesting. Behe was not on the panel as was originally indicated by Krishtalka in the email he sent me. Perhaps Behe had to catch an early flight back or something.
The panel discussed how faith and reason can work together. The Methodist Bishop felt that there needs to be more education in the churches stressing the fact that science and faith are not in conflict and that evolution is not a problem for religion. Good luck with that.
Then there was of course the “fringe groups” discussion, and how we need to work to bring a more moderate voice to this debate. They were all in agreement that this “problem” of “fringe groups” with their “tampering, “annoying” and “distracting” trends that take us away from more important issues are not going away any time soon. Personally, I think there are many ID advocates who are moderates, but you wouldn’t convince this panel of that.
The Bishop on the panel stated that for years there was no problem with religion being taught in schools as most people held the same faith beliefs within their communities. But, as our nation has become more and more secular it has become increasingly difficult to find common ground between various religions and their ultimate affect on science education as well. The problem we find ourselves in is that there are so many different faith beliefs or disbeliefs that secularism has become the only option in the schools.
This, in my mind, is part of the problem. We have become so secular that we are almost leading our students into an agnostic society. It appears to me that many people who believe they hold a certain religious belief are actually agnostics themselves. They call themselves Catholics, Methodist, Muslim, or whatever, but they also feel that all religions are similar and you choose what works for you. That seems agnostic to me because you don’t believe in anything with conviction, you merely believe there is an ultimate divine first cause of the universe.
The question was asked as to how we can build bridges between these groups and allow for faith and reason to live together peacefully. Edward Wiley, Professor and Senior Curator in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Sue Gamble felt that part of the answer is to put religion in the schools!!!!! These are the same people who believe that Intelligent Design is religion, and because of that it shouldn’t be in the schools. But, Sue informs us that the difference is that she is condoning “religion(s)”, not “religion”. The two of them felt that if students were more aware of the various religions then they would be more accepting of those beliefs and that might help in further “bridge building”.
At this point, I was about out of my seat.
Here’s what happens when you teach comparative religion in the public school system. First of all, nobody wants bias on a subject like this - so what is the best solution? Well, you teach all religions as being on an equal playing field, and you throw in ancient mythical beliefs as well. You would also want a teacher who is not biased - so what’s the best option? An agnostic teacher leading the discussions. They certainly won’t show bias because they are “agnostic” on the subject of religion. The problem is that agnosticism is a form of faith belief, and atheism is as well.
Do people not realize this?
My other objection is that ID doesn’t say anything about religion - nor does it in any way favor a particular religious belief system. But, if it is religion, as Gamble seems to think, why would it not be included in this agnostic comparable religion environment? Sheesh... what a convoluted mess.
My opinion is that religion should only be taught in history classes when appropriate. Otherwise, we’re shoving our students into the realm of agnosticism, and we’ve seen this to be a fact over the years. More and more students are losing their faith at the universities, and my personal opinion is that it is due to comparative religion, philosophy of religion, and the fact that we teach our kids that they are the product of chance which arose from a murky pond. There is not time in one semester to do anything other than touch on the main beliefs of the faith systems being discussed, and this can lead to a horrendously misleading environment to study a topic as important as religion.
The other solution the panel believed would solve this problem of religion and science continually butting heads, would be further education. I agree, although not in the sense that they are promoting. I feel strongly that the general public has had the wool pulled over their eyes in regard to what the Intelligent Design movement is all about, and the more they are educated about the true nature of ID, the more it will be accepted as a scientific inference that belongs in a science class - not a religion class. I do not believe that the scientific community is doing this purposely, because I think they truly believe what they attest to in regard to ID. But, the problem here is a worldview issue. You can have two people listen to the same information regarding these issues and you will have them walk away with entirely different reactions. It’s the strangest thing I’ve ever seen....truly. It’s not that both sides are lying or deceiving each other, it’s that they truly perceive the issues completely differently and cannot comprehend how the other side cannot understand their position. It’s incredibly interesting to observe and think about.
Case in point.....
After the lecture, I approached Sue again to ask a few more questions. She was talking with another woman, and she brought me into the conversation, so I gladly shared my views as well. Let me say upfront that after talking with Sue personally, I have changed my opinion about her just a bit. She has always appeared to me to be someone who has completely rejected all reasonable, objective discussions on the subject of Intelligent Design, and I still believe that to be true. But, I can tell that she is passionately concerned about Kansas students and wants them to have the highest possible degree of education. I could feel that passion when I spoke with her, and I’m glad I had the chance to meet and talk with her personally.
But, as the three of us were discussing the issues, the other women in the conversation (I’ll call her Ann) was reiterating my same feelings to Sue -- that Behe’s lecture certainly seemed to be a discussion of science - not religion or “creationism”. Sue told “Ann” that ID is creationism, and I told her emphatically that it is NOT creationism. There is no correlation whatsoever except that both creationists and advocates of ID believe there is an ultimate designer of the universe. Sue and I went back and forth about this a bit, and I finally told “Ann” to ask a creationist whether ID is creation. There is not a creationist on earth who would say that ID is creation science. Well, Sue had to agree with that claim. End of story.
"Ann" was quite interested in learning more about ID and told me afterward that it’s very hard to find information about it. She also wondered why everyone keeps saying that ID is religion or “Creationism“. Well, there is only one answer for that -- it’s due to the information being relayed to us by the “scientific community” via Eugenie Scott, et. al.
That is what is going to be the winning point for ID in the end. The public has been fed so much information by the “scientific community” that is just not accurate. When people dive into these issues thoroughly for themselves, they are going realize that there is much more to this topic than the sound bites we are given by the media.
We’re seeing this slowly happening throughout the country and worldwide as well. Sue Gamble mentioned that in 2000, other countries were wondering why the US has this "problem" with ID and evolution, but in 2005 she noticed that this "problem" has spread throughout the world.
People are opening their eyes, and delving into these issues more thoroughly and realizing that ID is a valid scientific inference, and that there are indeed many areas of Darwinian evolution that are highly questionable. The UK is up in arms over this topic right now, and other nations are involved in the debate as well. Of course, it’s spread all over the US, and Kansas is no longer the only state in the hot seat.
Things will slowly change, but education is needed. I asked a gal sitting next to me what she thought about the Behe lecture, and she said that it was obvious that Behe had a wide breadth of knowledge in the various areas of science, but she believed he was probably the exception in the Intelligent Design community. I almost accidentally laughed, but I caught myself before I did something rude like that. This is the problem we are faced with. We are told by the media that anyone who contemplates the arguments for ID is an uneducated hick, and everyone pictures the leaders in the ID movement as a little group of rather anti-intellectual fellows raising a ruckus for their religious beliefs. That opinion will not last much longer, because for those who are literate and have even a small interest in the subject, they can find an overwhelming amount of impressive literature put out by the Discovery Institute fellows along with many other scientists throughout the nation that will answer every question they have about ID, Darwinism, and the rest of the bogus claims being made about the movement.
All in all, it was quite an interesting day. I didn’t get a chance to talk to Behe personally because I was hoping to meet him after the panel discussion. But, unfortunately he wasn’t included. I did meet The Angry Astronomer, but he didn’t look so angry. LOL. I didn’t notice any of the other Kansas bloggers that I’m familiar with, so perhaps they won’t have much to say about the lecture.
Long day - I'm off to bed...
Friday, December 08, 2006
Behe Lecture
Krishtalka, of course, gave Behe a formal introduction, and was sure to reiterate his message from every other lecture in this series - that ID is not science blah, blah, blah....the usual. Nuf said.
On to Behe...
He started out his lecture with a rebuttal to some of the information that was provided from earlier lectures in this series.
He spoke at length about the Dover trial and Judge Jones’ decision that ID is “religion”. He said that the scientific community has put Judge Jones on a pedestal and announced that his judgment is rock solid evidence that ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. Behe stated that he didn’t believe that the credit for this should go to Jones, but to the lead attorney for the plaintiff, Eric Rothchild.
Behe went on to show in detail that Jones’ written 139 page decision was filled with cut and paste sections from Rothchild’s documents. Whenever Jones wrote on an academic issue, he provides a lightly edited “drag and drop” from the trial lawyer’s documents. Behe said that some judges do this to a certain extent, but not on as large a scale as Jones did. This made Behe wonder if Jones even understood all of the academic issues that were being presented to him if he had to copy so much from Rothchild's documents.
Jones did state in his lecture at KU a few months ago that he was presented with a “mind numbingly technical presentation” from the witnesses. If his mind had gone “numb”, do we have reason to believe he actually absorbed all the information presented to him? When he spoke at KU he didn’t touch on any of the issues of the debate, he only spoke of how he was deemed an “activist judge”. Perhaps this is because he wouldn’t have been able to reiterate the science that was presented to him, so he took another route. Personally, I don’t think he took as much heat for being an “activist” as he claims. The dude was featured in Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the year. He was also voted by Wired magazine as one of the “10 sexiest geeks”, and was even asked to speak at graduation commencement speeches. It sounds like his life has been pretty exciting since the Dover trial.
As far as the “stack of books and articles” presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. He said that the “stack of books” we always see in pictures was staged because pictures were not allowed to be taken in the courtroom. So, obviously, this was an antic to try to make Behe look foolish.
Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.
Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, “Those papers were not good enough”. In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don’t address the question as he posed it. They address a different question.
Behe said that he seems to find himself following Ken Miller around correcting these issues that Ken keeps relaying to the public. Apparently, Richard Dawkins uses these same words (“those papers were not good enough”) in his latest book, The God Delusion. So, both Miller and Dawkins are relaying inaccurate information and the scientific community is eating it up and using it against him as well.
Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science.
Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.
Behe made the comment that some of the things that came out of the Dover trial were “surreal distortions”, and he seemed to be frankly shocked at how much information was inaccurately relayed in Jones’ final decision.
He then went on to talk a bit about Dawkin’s lecture. Basically, Dawkins states in his book that “ID is a scientific claim“, and that he also sees design in nature. But, obviously he takes another route with this information. If Dawkins believes that ID is a scientific claim, why did Judge Jones believe it to be a religious argument?
Behe mentioned another atheist by the name of Thomas Nagel who believes that Dawkins attempts at philosophy in his book are particularly weak. You can read Nagel’s article, The Fear of Religion, on line at The New Republic (subscription needed).
========================
Behe then goes on to make his argument for Intelligent Design. I will give a quick overview, and when the recording of the lecture is available, I’ll provide a link. He covered so much in a short amount of time, and everyone interested in this topic should listen to the entire lecture.
He broke his argument for design down into five points.
1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from the physical structure of a system.
We detect design when we see a purposeful arrangement of parts. The more parts there are and the more precise the purpose leads to a stronger case for design.
2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear to show design.
Even atheist extraordinaire, Richard Dawkins, mentions time and time again that he sees things in nature that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose. We now know so much more than we did in Darwin’s time, and we have to consider the irreducible complexity of the cell’s macromolecular machines. Recent findings give so much more direct evidence for intelligent design in nature than in the past.
3. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
He went into his famous mouse trap example, and explained that the mouse trap needs all it’s parts to trap a mouse. If one part is missing, it doesn’t function as a mousetrap. The same is true of the bacterial flagellum and other macromolecular machines. If one part is missing, it is no longer functionable. The cell is chalk full of irreducibly complex machines such as this. He showed a few slides on how intricate these systems are and explained that for these machines to stick together and work as a system, they must have a certain shape, specific chemical surfaces, etc., etc.
4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination.
Behe said imagination is a good thing, but you may find that you are imagining things that aren’t actually there. Science is full of “just so” stories that attempt to explain many things in science. Often times these “stories” are relayed as facts. To this date there are no detailed accounts of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.
He said Dawkins and others accuse ID advocates of providing arguments from “personal incredulity” - (I don’t see how that could happen). But, Behe said that many Darwinists argue from “personal credulity” - (I don’t see any problems with that happening - how hard could it be?) They can imagine it - consider that it’s no big deal - and, then they take that as evidence.
But, when you really think about and research the many issues regarding molecular machines, there are a lot of problems to overcome in order for one to believe that Darwinian evolution can explain their appearance in nature.
5. There is strong evidence for Design and little evidence for Darwinism.
Life overwhelmingly impresses us with the appearance of design. He then showed a picture of a duck, and stated that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. He said design is an In-duck-tive argument. (cute humor)
Basically, inductive reasoning is a logical scientific argument, and his conclusion is that ID is rationally justified by scientific data.
===========================
In the Q&A, Behe stated that ID is falsifiable as there are many papers written which try to falsify information in regard to ID arguments. He felt that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable because even though these papers fail to refute ID arguments, (such as trying to explain the evolutionary steps for the flagellum) when they fail, scientists merely say that they still need to do further research and that at some point they will have the answers. This makes Darwinian evolution unfalsifiable.
He also said that a scientific hypothesis does not have to generate new scientific approaches, it merely has to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this. But, even though this is a fact, Behe feels that ID does trigger new research. I believe that is quite apparent, as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims. Harvard University also has a new research project regarding the origin of life due to the push to refute the ID movement.
A few other things mentioned in the Q&A were that:
Evolution does not explain everything, and randomness and contingency in nature usually breaks things down, which can be beneficial in certain things, but breaking a system does not explain how it was made in the first place.
It was also mentioned that ID has no problems with common descent, and it is actually easily compatible with it. He said that many scientists are telling us that evolution is not random, but though natural selection is not random, random mutations are. Random mutations do not build complex structures. This is the argument between Darwinism and ID.
In my personal opinion, I find absolutely no reason why anyone would find ID non-scientific or a religious argument unless they adhere to philosophical naturalism. There was much talk at the panel discussion about the fact that we cannot invoke the supernatural into a science discussion, but this is where I completely lose patience with these “enlightened“, self appointed intellectuals. Clearly, ID, in and of itself, does not invoke discussions about the supernatural or include topics of religious thought. These type of issues only pertain to those who are considering the ~religious implications~ that may arise from the scientific inference of design. In this same manner, Darwinian evolution has ~religious implications~.
What is very interesting is that there are many people who are not philosophical naturalists, yet they disagree with design as well. There is no objective reason for this, and it will always remain a mystery to me how people perceive this movement as merely a “religious argument“.
[Edit made: 12/9 - After checking my notes from the lecture, I found an error in transmission to this post.]
On to Behe...
He started out his lecture with a rebuttal to some of the information that was provided from earlier lectures in this series.
He spoke at length about the Dover trial and Judge Jones’ decision that ID is “religion”. He said that the scientific community has put Judge Jones on a pedestal and announced that his judgment is rock solid evidence that ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. Behe stated that he didn’t believe that the credit for this should go to Jones, but to the lead attorney for the plaintiff, Eric Rothchild.
Behe went on to show in detail that Jones’ written 139 page decision was filled with cut and paste sections from Rothchild’s documents. Whenever Jones wrote on an academic issue, he provides a lightly edited “drag and drop” from the trial lawyer’s documents. Behe said that some judges do this to a certain extent, but not on as large a scale as Jones did. This made Behe wonder if Jones even understood all of the academic issues that were being presented to him if he had to copy so much from Rothchild's documents.
Jones did state in his lecture at KU a few months ago that he was presented with a “mind numbingly technical presentation” from the witnesses. If his mind had gone “numb”, do we have reason to believe he actually absorbed all the information presented to him? When he spoke at KU he didn’t touch on any of the issues of the debate, he only spoke of how he was deemed an “activist judge”. Perhaps this is because he wouldn’t have been able to reiterate the science that was presented to him, so he took another route. Personally, I don’t think he took as much heat for being an “activist” as he claims. The dude was featured in Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the year. He was also voted by Wired magazine as one of the “10 sexiest geeks”, and was even asked to speak at graduation commencement speeches. It sounds like his life has been pretty exciting since the Dover trial.
As far as the “stack of books and articles” presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. He said that the “stack of books” we always see in pictures was staged because pictures were not allowed to be taken in the courtroom. So, obviously, this was an antic to try to make Behe look foolish.
Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.
Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, “Those papers were not good enough”. In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don’t address the question as he posed it. They address a different question.
Behe said that he seems to find himself following Ken Miller around correcting these issues that Ken keeps relaying to the public. Apparently, Richard Dawkins uses these same words (“those papers were not good enough”) in his latest book, The God Delusion. So, both Miller and Dawkins are relaying inaccurate information and the scientific community is eating it up and using it against him as well.
Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science.
Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.
Behe made the comment that some of the things that came out of the Dover trial were “surreal distortions”, and he seemed to be frankly shocked at how much information was inaccurately relayed in Jones’ final decision.
He then went on to talk a bit about Dawkin’s lecture. Basically, Dawkins states in his book that “ID is a scientific claim“, and that he also sees design in nature. But, obviously he takes another route with this information. If Dawkins believes that ID is a scientific claim, why did Judge Jones believe it to be a religious argument?
Behe mentioned another atheist by the name of Thomas Nagel who believes that Dawkins attempts at philosophy in his book are particularly weak. You can read Nagel’s article, The Fear of Religion, on line at The New Republic (subscription needed).
========================
Behe then goes on to make his argument for Intelligent Design. I will give a quick overview, and when the recording of the lecture is available, I’ll provide a link. He covered so much in a short amount of time, and everyone interested in this topic should listen to the entire lecture.
He broke his argument for design down into five points.
1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from the physical structure of a system.
We detect design when we see a purposeful arrangement of parts. The more parts there are and the more precise the purpose leads to a stronger case for design.
2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear to show design.
Even atheist extraordinaire, Richard Dawkins, mentions time and time again that he sees things in nature that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose. We now know so much more than we did in Darwin’s time, and we have to consider the irreducible complexity of the cell’s macromolecular machines. Recent findings give so much more direct evidence for intelligent design in nature than in the past.
3. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
He went into his famous mouse trap example, and explained that the mouse trap needs all it’s parts to trap a mouse. If one part is missing, it doesn’t function as a mousetrap. The same is true of the bacterial flagellum and other macromolecular machines. If one part is missing, it is no longer functionable. The cell is chalk full of irreducibly complex machines such as this. He showed a few slides on how intricate these systems are and explained that for these machines to stick together and work as a system, they must have a certain shape, specific chemical surfaces, etc., etc.
4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination.
Behe said imagination is a good thing, but you may find that you are imagining things that aren’t actually there. Science is full of “just so” stories that attempt to explain many things in science. Often times these “stories” are relayed as facts. To this date there are no detailed accounts of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.
He said Dawkins and others accuse ID advocates of providing arguments from “personal incredulity” - (I don’t see how that could happen). But, Behe said that many Darwinists argue from “personal credulity” - (I don’t see any problems with that happening - how hard could it be?) They can imagine it - consider that it’s no big deal - and, then they take that as evidence.
But, when you really think about and research the many issues regarding molecular machines, there are a lot of problems to overcome in order for one to believe that Darwinian evolution can explain their appearance in nature.
5. There is strong evidence for Design and little evidence for Darwinism.
Life overwhelmingly impresses us with the appearance of design. He then showed a picture of a duck, and stated that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. He said design is an In-duck-tive argument. (cute humor)
Basically, inductive reasoning is a logical scientific argument, and his conclusion is that ID is rationally justified by scientific data.
===========================
In the Q&A, Behe stated that ID is falsifiable as there are many papers written which try to falsify information in regard to ID arguments. He felt that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable because even though these papers fail to refute ID arguments, (such as trying to explain the evolutionary steps for the flagellum) when they fail, scientists merely say that they still need to do further research and that at some point they will have the answers. This makes Darwinian evolution unfalsifiable.
He also said that a scientific hypothesis does not have to generate new scientific approaches, it merely has to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this. But, even though this is a fact, Behe feels that ID does trigger new research. I believe that is quite apparent, as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims. Harvard University also has a new research project regarding the origin of life due to the push to refute the ID movement.
A few other things mentioned in the Q&A were that:
Evolution does not explain everything, and randomness and contingency in nature usually breaks things down, which can be beneficial in certain things, but breaking a system does not explain how it was made in the first place.
It was also mentioned that ID has no problems with common descent, and it is actually easily compatible with it. He said that many scientists are telling us that evolution is not random, but though natural selection is not random, random mutations are. Random mutations do not build complex structures. This is the argument between Darwinism and ID.
In my personal opinion, I find absolutely no reason why anyone would find ID non-scientific or a religious argument unless they adhere to philosophical naturalism. There was much talk at the panel discussion about the fact that we cannot invoke the supernatural into a science discussion, but this is where I completely lose patience with these “enlightened“, self appointed intellectuals. Clearly, ID, in and of itself, does not invoke discussions about the supernatural or include topics of religious thought. These type of issues only pertain to those who are considering the ~religious implications~ that may arise from the scientific inference of design. In this same manner, Darwinian evolution has ~religious implications~.
What is very interesting is that there are many people who are not philosophical naturalists, yet they disagree with design as well. There is no objective reason for this, and it will always remain a mystery to me how people perceive this movement as merely a “religious argument“.
[Edit made: 12/9 - After checking my notes from the lecture, I found an error in transmission to this post.]
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Just got back from the lecture
Okay, I'm back from the Behe lecture. Wow! What an interesting day.
I have a lot to write..... and I'm typing as fast as I can.
Stay tuned.
I have a lot to write..... and I'm typing as fast as I can.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Interesting use of billboards
Apparently, there are some provocative billboards going up in Minneapolis, MN. For more information, link here.
6th Grade Science
Interestingly enough, my two boys are at the perfect age for me to follow whether this ID/evolution debate taking place throughout the nation will have any impact within the science classrooms in the next ten years. A couple weeks ago, my oldest told me that they were discussing the age of the earth and touching on the origin of life. They discussed the “primordial soup” concept.
I was impressed that his teacher at least offered an introduction to the discussion. She basically told them that they may be provided information by their parents that will conflict with some of the topics they learn regarding evolution, but she will be teaching them the theories that coincide with the scientific consensus. She told them they can decide for themselves what they agree with when they are older and have studied the issues more carefully. ~Fair enough~
I’m not of the belief that parents should go running to the teachers and handing them all kinds of books refuting evolution. The teachers have already been freaked out by the media that parents may raise a ruckus about evolution, and there is no sense in causing a scene. Most teachers are doing the best they can with the issues, IMO. But, I did send my son's teacher a quick e-mail telling her that I’m an ID advocate, and that if she is interested in knowing more, I’d be happy to share some information with her. I also gave her my blog address so she could stay updated on current events surrounding this debate. She sent me a nice reply...end of story.
So, since the kids are discussing the concept of the “primordial soup”, I thought I’d offer a couple links to consider:
Here’s a great on-line site and, here is an article titled Darwin’s warm pond theory tested.
Basically, the "primordial soup" concept is nothing but pure speculation, and has all but been completely rejected by "scientific consensus".
I guess someone forgot to tell the grade school teachers...
Religion by Any Other Name
A friend emailed me this interesting article by Regis Nicoll:
"Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome--and even comforting--than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know."-- Carolyn Porco, astronomer
A crusading troika
After four centuries of growing tension, the battle lines between secularism and religion have sharpened, owing in large measure to the efforts of Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Determined to reduce religion to the ash heap of Dark Age superstition, the crusading troika delivered four flaming arrows this year.
In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett sets out to defang religion with statements like this: "Everything we value--from sugar and sex and money to music and love and religion--we value for reasons. Lying behind, and distinct from, our reasons are evolutionary reasons, free-floating rationales that have been endorsed by natural selection."
By presenting religion as an outcome of evolutionary development, rather than as a framework about ultimate reality, Dennett hopes to "break the spell" of our religious enchantment. Come to think of it--since Dennett's own beliefs about religion are, likewise, the products of evolution, maybe he'll disabuse us of those as well--but I wouldn't count on it.
In October, Sam Harris' book, Letter to a Christian Nation, became a New York Times best seller. Harris who, after 9/11authored The End of Faith--a jeremiad against religion--discussed his latest work in an NPR interview, insisting that religion was irrational and dangerous, and that faith had no place in a country founded on Reason. (The last time this writer checked, the founding document of our country mentioned something about rights that are endowed by a Creator).
Early this year Richard Dawkins produced The Root of All Evil--a film that places all the world's horrors squarely on the doorsteps of the church, synagogue and temple. Presumably, Mr. Dawkins skipped class the week they covered the social consequences of Stalin, Mussolini, Khrushchev, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot--all anti-religious regimes, by the way.
Most recently, Dawkins issued a clarion call to arms with his book, The God Delusion. Convinced that there are far more atheists out there than meets the eye, Dawkins aims to embolden the silent throng with nothing less than atheist pride: "You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled...Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."
Independence? Sure. Healthy? Only if you consider the greater incidence of suicide among atheists as healthy. But perhaps Dawkins' most quixotic hope is that "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Now that's what I call evangelistic zeal.
Another approach
Clearly Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins are unsettled that three centuries of Enlightenment have failed to rout religion from the cultural landscape. As well they know, today, two hundred years after the goddess of Reason was enthroned in Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral, there are over 5.5 billion religious adherents in a world whose populace is less than 3% atheist.
While the three firebrands of militant humanism are trying to convert the masses through a take-no-prisoners stratagem, others are suggesting an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach--well, sort of.
Research scientist and astronomer Carolyn Porco recommends that instead of denying humankind's yearning for transcendence, science should capitalize on it. Acknowledging that religion fulfills an essential human need--otherwise, it wouldn't have passed through the evolutionary sieve--Porco suggests that it is a need that can be satisfied in scientific inquiry.
Scientific discovery engenders awe and wonder by exposing us to the grandeur of the universe. Plumbing the hidden mysteries of nature, we gain a sense of meaning and immortality as we become aware of our part in a greater whole. This, says Porco, is "greatest story ever told"--a story that needs its own "church."
The church that Dr. Porco has is mind is a "Church of Latter Day Scientists" replete with ceremonies, communal worship, rituals (including baptism!), missionaries, apostles, and even its own sacred sites: research labs, particle accelerators, and observatories. There would be worship centers (museums, planetaria and lecture halls). It would use the media to spread the "word"-- extolling the genius of Darwin and showcasing the elegance of evolution.
What would a church service look like? Dr. Porco gushes, "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way...can't you just hear the hymns sung to the antiquity of the universe, its abiding laws, and the heaven above that 'we' will all one day inhabit, together, commingled, spread out like a nebula against a diamond sky?... 'Hallelujah!', they will sing. 'May the force be with you!'"
Imagine, indeed--the Mendelssohn masterpiece replaced by the Obi-wan slogan? 'Hallelujah' is not the reaction that struck me.
Although the anti-religiensa are sure to dismiss her ideas as transmogrification, Carolyn Porco unwittingly reveals a deep truth about their secular and materialistic ideology--it is, at its core, religious.
Common themes
As previously chronicled in these pages, in my long-running debate with a UK philosopher, I argued that his atheistic beliefs were just as religious as my Christian ones. Although my arguments focused on the faith necessary to buoy the materialistic foundation of his secular humanism, I could have pointed to the religious themes in common with the biblical narrative.
Inspired by the goddess of Reason, modern humanists crafted their own narrative, beginning with a Creation account called, "Cosmogenesis." It goes something like this: In the distant past, a seed of quantum dimensions materialized and, then, exploded out of the pre-cosmic void. After a few quick phase transitions, and billions of years of nucleosynthesis and stellar genesis, a "just-right" planet formed containing a pre-biotic swill with all the ingredients necessary for life. In time, chemical evolution led to single-celled organisms which, after millions of years of natural selection, complexified and diversified into everything from the simple bacterium to the human mind.
After countless centuries of human and cultural progress, the sacking of Rome heralded the Fall of man. The disintegration of Greco-Roman civilization led to a black-out of literature, education, and scientific achievement leaving the Church as the sole centralized institution. Driven by its imperialistic vision, the Magisterium held the masses captive in the darkness of superstition and religious doctrine.
It would take over a thousand years for man to experience Redemption. In quick succession, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton announced their breathtaking discoveries about the universe--each, a flame that Descartes, Hume and Kant fanned with their philosophies of rationalism, skepticism and empiricism. And as the Light spread by the invention of Gutenberg, the Way to Reason and Freedom was illumined.
In the "now", there is hope in a coming Eschaton, when man's perfection, and that of the social order, will be realized through our unswerving commitment to Reason and the unfettered exercise of science. The unlimited potential of human ingenuity, once liberated from the morality of revealed religion, will free man from evolutionary object, to evolutionary master.
Through the wonders of genetic engineering, cloning, nanotechnology and cybernetics, we will advance from homo sapiens to techno sapiens, overcoming the plagues of birth defects, disease and even mortality. With the power of our collective minds, and our perfected bodies, we will put an end to poverty, ignorance, and war.
Essentials and trappings
Although Rationalism reigns supreme in the above narrative, it is hoisted on a pedestal of numerous Articles of Faith--things like materialism, cosmic inflation, macro-evolution, common descent, emergence, self-organization, unlimited progress, and reason as the sole source of knowledge--things that enjoy not one scintilla of empirical evidence, are non-falsifiable but essential, lest the "house of cards" collapses.
Then there are the religious trappings. In common with all religions, humanism has its patron saints: Voltaire, Charles Darwin, and Carl Sagan; its revered text: The Origin of Species; its creed: The Humanist Manifesto; its martyrs: Galileo and Daniel Dennett (!) who fancies himself as such because, as he puts it, he "risks getting poked in the nose or worse" for voicing his beliefs; its holy day: Darwin Day in celebration of evolution and its founder; and its evangelists: Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris who have all become quite the media darlings as of late. And, I almost forgot--its religious symbol: the Darwin fish plaque, available in assorted styles and colors.
Lastly, there are ceremonies. As advertised on the Humanist Society webpage, "In communities all over, individuals certified to our unique ministry stand ready to provide ceremonial observances of the significant occasions of life." (Emphasis added.) Among the ceremonies provided are: weddings, same-sex commitments, memorials, and "baby welcoming."
So, if you're surprised to learn that the American Humanist Association is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization exempt from federal taxes--you shouldn't be. Religion by any other name...
As it was from the beginning
In the 19th century, Lord John Morley of England mused, "The next great task of Science is the building of a new religion." Inspired by Morley's vision, Sir Julian Huxley later remarked, "I was fired by sharing his conviction that science would of necessity play an essential part in framing any religion of the future worthy of name." Huxley would emerge as a leading figure of humanism calling it, "a religion without revelation."
So Messrs. Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett--which spell, delusion or religion should we dispense with? All, or all but yours?
For Further Reading:
The God Delusion preface, Richard Dawkins
The Greatest Story Ever Told, Carolyn Porco, The Edge
Atheists Agonistes, Richard Shweder, New York Times
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion,
George Johnson, New York Times
Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt,
American Journal of Psychiatry
The Humanist Society webpage
American Humanist Association webpage
Regis Nicoll is a Centurion of Prison Fellowship Ministries Wilberforce Forum. In addition to writing Thinking Christianly, Regis is a columnist for BreakPoint and Crosswalk, and a contributor to Prison Fellowship's worldview blog, The Point.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Brownback for President?
Per the Topeka Capital Journal, it seems Brownback is testing the waters to see if the nation would support him in a run for President.
He’d get my vote, but I can tell you right now that the liberals would raise bloody hell before they’d let Brownback step into the oval office. I mean, the guy actually prays, and he admits it in public! [please note sarcasm]
Brownback is quoted:
I recently realized that Brownback lives less than a mile away from me. I noticed him walking down the same route that I take.
My husband’s cousin went to Boy’s State with Brownback way back when, and told my husband years ago that the man would make an outstanding President some day, and advised him to vote for Brownback whenever the chance arises. BTW, the cousin in question is not a “fundie” as he never even attends church. But, he did recognize great leadership skills when he saw them.
But, just like the media destroyed the credibility of the Kansas Board of Ed. members this past year, they would annihilate Brownback. Sad, but true.
I think he should go for it anyway...
How about Brownback vs. Clinton in ‘08?? LOL
Holy cow, the media would have a field day with those two!!!
He’d get my vote, but I can tell you right now that the liberals would raise bloody hell before they’d let Brownback step into the oval office. I mean, the guy actually prays, and he admits it in public! [please note sarcasm]
Brownback is quoted:
"There is a real need in our country to rebuild the family and renew our culture," Brownback said. "There is a need for genuine conservatism and real compassion in the national discussion."Liberals will freak over that quote, but the words that stand out for me are “genuine” and “real compassion”. Brownback has always appeared to be a genuine person who cares deeply about the success of American families.
I recently realized that Brownback lives less than a mile away from me. I noticed him walking down the same route that I take.
My husband’s cousin went to Boy’s State with Brownback way back when, and told my husband years ago that the man would make an outstanding President some day, and advised him to vote for Brownback whenever the chance arises. BTW, the cousin in question is not a “fundie” as he never even attends church. But, he did recognize great leadership skills when he saw them.
But, just like the media destroyed the credibility of the Kansas Board of Ed. members this past year, they would annihilate Brownback. Sad, but true.
I think he should go for it anyway...
How about Brownback vs. Clinton in ‘08?? LOL
Holy cow, the media would have a field day with those two!!!
Behe Lecture
Don’t forget that the Michael Behe lecture has been rescheduled for this Thursday, 11/7. He will also be included in the panel discussion listed below:
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons - Upcoming Events:
Thu., Dec. 7, 2006, 1:00-2:30 p.m.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Michael Behe
“The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology”
Crafton-Preyer Theatre, Murphy Hall
Thu., Dec. 7, 2006, 3:30-5:00 p.m.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Panel Discussion on Knowledge: Faith & Reason
Sue Gamble, Bishop Scott Jones, Richard Lariviere, Derek Schmidt, & Edward O. Wiley
Hall Center Conference Hall
Monday, December 04, 2006
The present is the key to the past???
Check out what William Dembski posted at Uncommon Descent:
Written by G. K. Chesterton, published in 1920...
Written by G. K. Chesterton, published in 1920...
. . . The Darwinians have this mark of fighters for a lost cause, that they are perpetually appealing to sentiment and to authority. Put your bat or your rhinoceros simply and innocently as a child might put them, before the Darwinian, and he will answer by an appeal to authority. He will probably answer with the names of various German professors; he will not answer with any ordinary English words, explaining the point at issue. God condescended to argue with Job, but the last Darwinian will not condescend to argue with you. He will inform you of your ignorance; he will not enlighten your ignorance.Source
And I will add this point of merely personal experience of humanity: when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it. When they have no explanation to offer, they give short dignified replies, disdainful of the ignorance of the multitude.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
A wonderful dinner awaits
My husband and two sons have a great love for hunting fowl. They’ve spent every weekend since opening season out shooting birds. The first few weeks it was too warm to entice the birds in, but the last few weekends have been pretty exciting for them.
Yesterday, they came sashaying in with 5 very large Greater Canadian Geese. Stretched out they were about as long as my boys. They threw those suckers up on my kitchen counter and I just about died. Yuck.
I played along and told them what outstanding gunmen they are, but I was privately wondering how on earth they can shoot something so beautiful! These same three men stand in awe every time a formation of geese fly over our house or land on our pond. Yet, they seem to have no problem shooting the poor things.
But, there is an upside to their brutal killing of those beautiful birds. At the moment they are making me an outstanding dinner of smoked geese. They’ve been working all afternoon putting together an array of various side dishes to accompany their yummy geese. My husband is an excellent cook, which is a good thing because I’m not terribly talented in that department. My two boys seem to enjoy cooking as well. My youngest son made me an awesome egg omelet this morning. I haven’t had to cook a thing all day!
I’m very content letting them spoil me, but my concern at the moment is what my kitchen looks like. I’d imagine it resembles what Hiroshima looked like after it was nuked.
I’m staying far away and hoping that I don’t get stuck with clean up...
Friday, December 01, 2006
Podcast interview with Thomas Woodward
I’ve referenced in several posts now a book I am currently reading titled, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design.
The Discovery Institute‘s Evolution News and Views blog provides an article about the book, and apparently the latest DI podcast features Casey Luskin interviewing the author of the book, Dr. Thomas Woodward.
Cool!
Here is the link for the podcast.
The Discovery Institute‘s Evolution News and Views blog provides an article about the book, and apparently the latest DI podcast features Casey Luskin interviewing the author of the book, Dr. Thomas Woodward.
Cool!
Here is the link for the podcast.
One last conversation with Seldom
You quote me and then comment:
Hmmm...well, obviously there will never be any data that will convince you to reconsider your position on this subject, but perhaps there are readers who are still open minded about this topic. So, I’ll provide some links for them to consider.
Regardless of what you may think, religion is not what brought me into this debate. About 5 years ago, someone showed me a film on flood geology, and I found it extremely interesting. I dug around for more information and it led to years of research on the topic of creation and evolution. At about the same time that I viewed that film, I decided to take an extremely in-depth course on the Biblical narrative that lasted for about two years. I’d had doubts about various aspects of the Christian faith and I’d taken college biology courses and a comparative religion course that threw more doubt into the mix. So, after I had my two boys, I decided I’d better look at this subject from an adult perspective for their sake more than anything else. That also led me to research other religious beliefs as well. Anyway, It’s been a fascinating journey, and my faith in God has grown immensely.
Though creation scientists can support their theories with scientific evidence, obviously the issues surrounding this debate have religious ~implications~. Any time science starts contemplating the origins of life, it will cross lines with theology. But, one can study the scientific evidence for and against the various theories without resorting to religious arguments. Of course, when considering creationist arguments, a worldwide flood is mentioned and many refuse to even examine the evidence for the event due to the mention of a worldwide flood from the book of Genesis. But, history provides supporting evidence for flood geology as well. There are many ancient flood legends that coorespond to the Genesis account.
While I do find many of the Institute for Creation Research articles and arguments against Darwinian evolution interesting, I find that the organization is at times too dogmatic for my taste and their atheist bashing seems to me to be counter productive. I mean, let’s be realistic....there will always be atheists, and there will always be theists. There is no point whatsoever in angering each other with verbal slurs.
This is where I differ from the Dawkins/Harris mentality as well. They believe that there is no need to show respect for those who hold “unrealistic religious beliefs”. Personally, I don’t believe it is ever appropriate to show disrespect for others. There are ways to speak to people respectfully and at the same time relay a very strong message in regard to your opinions on a variety of topics. I believe that if one has to resort to belittling others, then the message they are trying to relay is apparently too weak to stand on it’s own.
As far as creation science in concerned, the most compelling evidence I’ve read would be from Walt Brown, a Ph.D. from M.I.T.. The seventh edition of his book, “In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” can be found at this link. The entire book is on-line for those who do not want to purchase it, though there is so much information packed into this book that you should consider owning a copy. His hydroplate theory is extremely interesting and the eighth edition of his book will feature a theory about the grand canyon that certainly makes more sense than any theories I’ve read to date. Seldom, I doubt you’ll take the time to read his material thoroughly because I’ve yet to meet an atheist who has (and I’ve asked quite a few to consider it). But, for those readers who are interested, if you run across something that you disagree with in regard to Brown’s theory, call him. I’ve called and questioned him several times. He’s very interesting to talk to, and he has no interest in bashing atheists or getting into theological arguments. He’s all about the science.
Just like the theory of evolution, creation scientists have been updating their theories as well. There are so many things that evolutionists have had to revise due to new findings. The same thing applies to creationists, so to wave them off by saying that their theories have been “thoroughly refuted” is simply ridiculous.
You wrote:
You quote me and then comment:
You quote me and then comment:
You quote me, and then comment:
You quote me and then commented:
I certainly wouldn’t keep my kids out of science class merely because there may be some information that may not be completely accurate. In the same manner, I wouldn’t keep them from learning about religion either.
You quote me and then comment:
The problem in our churches today is that we are still teaching our children ~what~ to believe, but not ~why~ they should believe it. People are so interested in materialism these days. We want more, more, more of everything. Our kids spend their lives running from one activity to the next and parents are working around the clock to make ends meet. We’ve left our Bibles on the bookshelves to collect dust, and most people know next to nothing about what is in the book. That fact has opened the door to severe skepticism in regard to Biblical truth. We need to be studying our Bible, learning about what it contains and WHY we should believe it. Churches who teach their parishioners apologetic arguments for their faith are growing, and that is a good thing, IMO.
You wrote:
I’ve found that most atheists who I’ve had internet conversations with are quite close minded about giving consideration to reading anything I‘ve suggested. Their journey for truth has ended up in the science classroom, and they are absolutely certain there is no God, and see no need to search any further. I’m on a constant journey, and I can’t remember turning someone down when they suggest something else to consider or read. In fact, I’m done reading the book, “Letter to a Christian Nation”, that you suggested. Not surprisingly, I’ve heard every argument before. But, he makes a few good points, primarily in his claim that many “Christians” have little knowledge as to what is in the book that they base their faith upon.
But, Harris only quoted the Bible 11 times and made reference to 14 additional passages. I mean, let’s be real... there are appoximately 31,000 verses in the Bible, and his 25 total references relay nothing of significance to the reader other than pointing to a few passages pulled out of the overall context of the biblical narrative that seem to further his agenda. No doubt, there will be a book refuting Harris’s assumptions about religion in the near future.
You wrote:
“Now, just relax for a moment because I know this will throw you for a loop, but yes, I favor a young earth for many reasons. Surprisingly, scientific data - not religion is what brought me to consider young earth arguments."LOL... spoken like a true Darwin supporter! When I mention to philosophical naturalists that I find young earth arguments compelling, I always wait to see if the response will be any different from the last response I was given. It NEVER is. Actually it’s spoken almost verbatim each time.
Oh boy. I know you may actually believe what you wrote about believing in a young earth based on scientific evidence, but you really should not expect anyone else to believe it. There is NO scientific evidence for a young earth. None. It does not exist. I know you probably read some interesting stuff, probably involving moon dust or helium concentrations, but it is all worthless. There is not a single one of those ideas that has not been thoroughly refuted. You cannot say you believe in a young earth and then expect me or anyone else to believe it is for any reason other than your prior religious world view, even if you have some scientific sounding creationist rationalization to back you up.
Hmmm...well, obviously there will never be any data that will convince you to reconsider your position on this subject, but perhaps there are readers who are still open minded about this topic. So, I’ll provide some links for them to consider.
Regardless of what you may think, religion is not what brought me into this debate. About 5 years ago, someone showed me a film on flood geology, and I found it extremely interesting. I dug around for more information and it led to years of research on the topic of creation and evolution. At about the same time that I viewed that film, I decided to take an extremely in-depth course on the Biblical narrative that lasted for about two years. I’d had doubts about various aspects of the Christian faith and I’d taken college biology courses and a comparative religion course that threw more doubt into the mix. So, after I had my two boys, I decided I’d better look at this subject from an adult perspective for their sake more than anything else. That also led me to research other religious beliefs as well. Anyway, It’s been a fascinating journey, and my faith in God has grown immensely.
Though creation scientists can support their theories with scientific evidence, obviously the issues surrounding this debate have religious ~implications~. Any time science starts contemplating the origins of life, it will cross lines with theology. But, one can study the scientific evidence for and against the various theories without resorting to religious arguments. Of course, when considering creationist arguments, a worldwide flood is mentioned and many refuse to even examine the evidence for the event due to the mention of a worldwide flood from the book of Genesis. But, history provides supporting evidence for flood geology as well. There are many ancient flood legends that coorespond to the Genesis account.
While I do find many of the Institute for Creation Research articles and arguments against Darwinian evolution interesting, I find that the organization is at times too dogmatic for my taste and their atheist bashing seems to me to be counter productive. I mean, let’s be realistic....there will always be atheists, and there will always be theists. There is no point whatsoever in angering each other with verbal slurs.
This is where I differ from the Dawkins/Harris mentality as well. They believe that there is no need to show respect for those who hold “unrealistic religious beliefs”. Personally, I don’t believe it is ever appropriate to show disrespect for others. There are ways to speak to people respectfully and at the same time relay a very strong message in regard to your opinions on a variety of topics. I believe that if one has to resort to belittling others, then the message they are trying to relay is apparently too weak to stand on it’s own.
As far as creation science in concerned, the most compelling evidence I’ve read would be from Walt Brown, a Ph.D. from M.I.T.. The seventh edition of his book, “In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” can be found at this link. The entire book is on-line for those who do not want to purchase it, though there is so much information packed into this book that you should consider owning a copy. His hydroplate theory is extremely interesting and the eighth edition of his book will feature a theory about the grand canyon that certainly makes more sense than any theories I’ve read to date. Seldom, I doubt you’ll take the time to read his material thoroughly because I’ve yet to meet an atheist who has (and I’ve asked quite a few to consider it). But, for those readers who are interested, if you run across something that you disagree with in regard to Brown’s theory, call him. I’ve called and questioned him several times. He’s very interesting to talk to, and he has no interest in bashing atheists or getting into theological arguments. He’s all about the science.
Just like the theory of evolution, creation scientists have been updating their theories as well. There are so many things that evolutionists have had to revise due to new findings. The same thing applies to creationists, so to wave them off by saying that their theories have been “thoroughly refuted” is simply ridiculous.
You wrote:
You then provided text from "Darwin Strikes Back". I do understand that this is what ID folks think. I have read Dembski and do understand their 'theory', I just think they are completely wrong. The text you provided says:Again, a standard Darwinist response. Readers should consider reading several of the books written by ID supporters. I’m about half way through “Darwin Strikes Back”, and it has been very informative. The book refutes Seldom’s claims quite nicely, and if your philosophical worldview does not interfere with your science, you’ll be able to appreciate the improbabilities that life arose by mere chance. Another book that articulates the genius, power, sophistication, and artistry found in the cosmos would be the book “More Than Meets the Eye", by Richard Swenson, M.D.
"Also, the more we learn about the threadlike DNA molecule, which in human cells has 20,000 genes-- digital files embedded on the cell’s DNA hard drive--the more we realize that this DNA information is structurally identical to the ordinary coded information in human communication (books, digitized DVDs) and artifacts."
This is standard ID practice--find something complex in nature, then claim that it is just like some man made object, then say therefore it must have been designed. Here is one of the problems: ID folks search out a specific feature that they think was designed. They don't say everything was, they admit most things in nature are of natural occurance. Meaning, that we have found natural explanations for them. They find the one thing we haven't found the natural explanation for yet, analagize it with some human creation, then claim design. This is the very definition of the God of the Gaps, only in technichal language. It is also negative, not positive, evidence. Many things "look" designed but are clearly of natural occurance. Therefore, just because something looks designed does not mean it was. So how do you tell one from the other? That is the important question. ID says, well if the evolution guys can't find an answer right now, then we win. That isn't how science works and it isn't evidence for design. It is a momentary lack of knowledge.
You quote me and then comment:
"We also find bloggers such as Larry Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, making the statement that we should just “flunk” students who support Intelligent Design, or never let them be admitted to the university in the first place. Some of the more dogmatic scientists don’t hide the fact that they will reject tenure to those who support ID as well."Oh good grief. Denying tenure to those who support ID is absolutely obnoxious. This is only suggested by authoritarian dogmatic scientists who want to keep science in the hands of philosophical naturalists. You cannot possibly believe that those who support ID don’t understand evolution! Of course they do, and that is why they question the theory.
You shouldn't not admit student who believe in ID or flunk them because they believe in ID, but if they want to pass a science class they should have to understand evolution. As far as denying tenure--absolutely. Do our med schools tenure profs who don't believe in Germ Theory? Do physics departments tenure profs who don't accept Gravity? Of course not. And there is no difference here as long as we are talking about a science position. Philosophy fine.
You quote me and then comment:
"Do you see how silly it is to refer to a camp of 100 kids and assume that Christians indoctrinate their children to become Christian reconstructionists in this same manner? These “Christian reconstructionists” are a fringe group, yet some people like to throw all Christians into this category."It’s interesting that you state that these “fundamentalists” were the ones who got Bush elected. Let’s see....I voted for Bush, I am a Christian, I support ID. Am I a “fundamentalist”? I’ve been called an “authoritarian fundamentalist” in an on-line forum, yet I do not want evolution taken out of the schools, nor do I want creationist theories taught in the public schools because people mistakenly view them as primarily religious arguments. I thoroughly disagree, but asking for them to be considered will cause endless problems. I do support ID because it is so obviously a valid scientific inference that to ignore it is simply wrong on many levels.
But we weren't talking about "all Christians", I was replying to your "where do these fundamentalist I keep being told about live" comment. I don't think this is most Christians, but I do believe that the evangelical, fundamentalists types who were credited with getting Bush elected are only a slightly toned down version of the Jesus camp folks.
You quote me, and then comment:
"From the link: Dutch will allow paedophile groupWhy is it a “sick and inappropriate comparison“? Who’s to say that pedophilia or bestiality is “sick or inappropriate”. I mean, 50 years ago, if someone suggested that homosexuals would be marrying one another just as heterosexual couples, a majority of the population would have held that suggestion to be terribly “inappropriate” as well. Perhaps 50 years from now, we’ll consider bestiality or pedophilia semi-appropriate behavior. I mean, what’s to stop it? You’re not hurting anyone else by having sex with animals. And, there are many people out there who have a thing for young children. We hear about internet stings taking place all the time to stop this type of behavior. But, what’s wrong with it? Sure, there are some studies that show that children may suffer emotional problems later in life from these encounters. But, there are also studies that show that children of homosexuals suffer emotional problems later in life as well. Many people don’t think that those studies are accurate, so perhaps the pedophile thing isn’t all that bad either. Perhaps those results are just due to social stigma, right? If we have no real basis for moral decisions, society can eventually allow for this type of behavior to become the norm. GETTING MY POINT YET?
....How far will society be willing to go?"
Well they are a political party, so society would go so far as to allow them to speak. That doesn't mean their agenda is going anywhere. Why is it that you read an article about pedophiles and bestiality and immediately jump to gay people. Seems like a rather sick and inappropriate comparison to me.
You quote me and then commented:
"By the time their parents might consider them to be old enough to “make a rational decision”, their kids may not even care to put forth the effort into researching various religious beliefs because they’ve learned from their parents that it doesn’t really matter anyway ("my parents don’t believe that stuff, why should I waste my time thinking about it"?)."Believing in God does not “require” indoctrination at a young age. But, just like we teach our children math, science, reading, social studies, etc. at a young age, there is no reason why we wouldn’t start religious studies at the same time. It is certainly obvious ~to most people~ that there is a greater cause that created the cosmos, and it makes no sense not to search for those answers just as we do everything else in life.
If any idea requires indoctrination at a young age in order to be believed, it is simply not worthy of being believed. End of story, no exceptions. Now if humans are inherently religious as was asserted earlier, surely once they are old enough to comprehend these issues, they will have that inner desire to learn more. I have no intention of teaching my kids that there is no god--because I don't "know" that to be true (I just don't think there is evidence for a god). I will teach them rational thought. If rational thought is a barrier to being religious, so be it, however I have been assured that it is not.
I certainly wouldn’t keep my kids out of science class merely because there may be some information that may not be completely accurate. In the same manner, I wouldn’t keep them from learning about religion either.
Sigh....yes, I’m familiar with Pasqual’s wager, but I don’t give two hoots about some “wager”. I’m talking about my children and giving them every possible opportunity in life. I want them to think -- about everything, and reason their way through those questions logically. My oldest has asked me some outstanding questions in regard to religion and the logic of religious arguments. We often look at the questions from both a theist and atheist angle. What atheists refuse to acknowledge is that for ~every~ argument they put forth, there is a Christian apologist armed with a logical answer from the word of God.
"I often wonder if atheists even consider this...what if they are wrong? What if there is a Creator of the cosmos?"
This is Pasqual's wager which is a weak argument which I would expect you to be familiar with.
You quote me and then comment:
"What if that Creator really does want a relationship with us? Is that something you would deny your child simply because you believe you have reason to reject the idea?"Funny perhaps, but I wouldn‘t say your experience is the norm. You are an exception as the odds are still against the outcome that people will reject God altogether.
This is an interesting question. How do you think it is that I was raised by Christians, went to church, went to Sunday school, went to confirmation classes, etc. to learn about this loving god who wants a relationship with me and ended up with no relationship? Funny how that works. I was certainly not a close minded atheist back in those days.
The problem in our churches today is that we are still teaching our children ~what~ to believe, but not ~why~ they should believe it. People are so interested in materialism these days. We want more, more, more of everything. Our kids spend their lives running from one activity to the next and parents are working around the clock to make ends meet. We’ve left our Bibles on the bookshelves to collect dust, and most people know next to nothing about what is in the book. That fact has opened the door to severe skepticism in regard to Biblical truth. We need to be studying our Bible, learning about what it contains and WHY we should believe it. Churches who teach their parishioners apologetic arguments for their faith are growing, and that is a good thing, IMO.
You wrote:
Second, back to Pasqual, how sure are you that you are not sending your children to hell for eternity because you are of the wrong religion? Have you read the Quoran? Have you considered converting to Judaism? Interesting how all these religions teach that they are the one true religion and everyone else is going to hell, yet Christians seem to always 'know' that their's is the right one. Good pick I guess. Lucky for you you weren't born in the Middle East.Actually, I’ve done quite a bit of research in regard to other religious beliefs and the evidence that is available for the validity of those beliefs. I have a Quran sitting about 3 yards away from my computer at home that I can reference whenever I need it. I haven’t read the entire book, but I’ve certainly dived into it on more than one occasion. I’ve read the entire book of Mormon. I’ve read tons of on-line articles and information about various religious beliefs as well. At one time I was very curious as to what evidence each religion can provide for their beliefs. So, yes, I believe I have given considerable consideration to whether I am on the right track.
I’ve found that most atheists who I’ve had internet conversations with are quite close minded about giving consideration to reading anything I‘ve suggested. Their journey for truth has ended up in the science classroom, and they are absolutely certain there is no God, and see no need to search any further. I’m on a constant journey, and I can’t remember turning someone down when they suggest something else to consider or read. In fact, I’m done reading the book, “Letter to a Christian Nation”, that you suggested. Not surprisingly, I’ve heard every argument before. But, he makes a few good points, primarily in his claim that many “Christians” have little knowledge as to what is in the book that they base their faith upon.
But, Harris only quoted the Bible 11 times and made reference to 14 additional passages. I mean, let’s be real... there are appoximately 31,000 verses in the Bible, and his 25 total references relay nothing of significance to the reader other than pointing to a few passages pulled out of the overall context of the biblical narrative that seem to further his agenda. No doubt, there will be a book refuting Harris’s assumptions about religion in the near future.
You wrote:
have an extremely busy 2-3 weeks coming up. I will try to pop in to read any replies you might have, but I doubt I will provide any lengthy comments. Unless you say something really silly;) Happy Holidays.Thanks. Seldom, I want to reiterate again how much I’ve enjoyed discussing these issues with you. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, or perhaps I should just say “Happy Holidays“. Nah, Christmas just seems more appropriate. Have a great one!!
OUTSTANDING NEWS!!
Okay... our emails must have made some impact. I just received this email from Leonard Krishtalka:
The views on Intelligent Design were certainly not "vastly different". The only speaker who would have supported ID was Guinness, and his lecture didn't pertain to ID.
And, though these lectures were supposedly set up to dialogue about "faith and reason", the resounding message was an attempt to refute the Intelligent Design movement.
Added in edit:
Just received another email:
Dear SirI had to giggle at this comment:
Thank you for your message. The Behe lecture is being rescheduled, details of which will be announced early next week.
The Difficult Dialogue series has presented a healthy spectrum of views concerning faith, reason and their roles in discovering knowledge. Dr. Behe’s views are part of that spectrum, as are the vastly different views presented by Dr. Miller, Dr. Scott, Dr. Dawkins, Judge Jones and Dr. Guinness. We hope you enjoy the series.
LK
VB
L. Krishtalka
Director, Biodiversity Institute
Professor, Dept. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
University of Kansas
Dyche Hall, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd
Lawrence, KS 66045-7561
phone: 785-864-4540
fax: 785-864-5335
krishtalka@ku.edu
Dr. Behe’s views are part of that spectrum, as are the vastly different views presented by Dr. Miller, Dr. Scott, Dr. Dawkins, Judge Jones and Dr. Guinness.I think the content of my email may have prompted that response.
The views on Intelligent Design were certainly not "vastly different". The only speaker who would have supported ID was Guinness, and his lecture didn't pertain to ID.
And, though these lectures were supposedly set up to dialogue about "faith and reason", the resounding message was an attempt to refute the Intelligent Design movement.
Added in edit:
Just received another email:
I have just been informed that the Michael Behe lecture is being rescheduled. It will be December 7 at 1:00 pm at the Crafton-Pryer Theatre (Murphy Hall). He will also be involved with a panel discussion here at the Hall Center at 3:30 that afternoon.Ugh... 1:00 pm - in the middle of the work day. But, the good news is that he will be involved in the panel discussion as well. I'll have to take the afternoon off work for this one.
UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!
I emailed KU to see when the Behe lecture would be rescheduled. Here is their response:
Why should this surprise me? This type of action is par for the course in this debate.
Okay, people, start sending emails to KU and request that the Behe lecture be rescheduled.
At present the Behe lecture will not be rescheduled. If plans change it will be advertised.Can you believe it? After sitting through four anti-ID activists lecture against the Intelligent Design movement, KU has cancelled the only speaker who can thoroughly rebut their claims.
Thank you,
Betty Vincent
Administrative Associate
Hall Center for the Humanities
University of Kansas
900 Sunnyside Ave
Lawrence, KS 66045-7622
785/864-4798
Why should this surprise me? This type of action is par for the course in this debate.
Okay, people, start sending emails to KU and request that the Behe lecture be rescheduled.
Email: hallcenter@ku.edu
Victor Bailey, Director
Email: vbailey@ku.edu
Jasonne Grabher O'Brien, Associate Director
Email: jgobrien@ku.edu
Thursday, November 30, 2006
I could just cry
Behe's lecture at KU has been cancelled due to weather. I was just sitting here trying to figure out a way to convince my husband that the weather isn't really that bad, but decided to check in with KU first. They've already cancelled it.
sigh...
They better reschedule that sucker, or I'll be seriously ticked off. But, I'd bet that there are plenty of people who would like to get Behe's lecture cancelled permanently.
Stay tuned...
sigh...
They better reschedule that sucker, or I'll be seriously ticked off. But, I'd bet that there are plenty of people who would like to get Behe's lecture cancelled permanently.
Stay tuned...
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
I'm starting to have a panic attack
Man, it is sleeting like crazy in Topeka right now! What if this doesn't let up before tomorrow night? What if I miss the Behe lecture??? My husband has already told me I'm insane to consider driving to Lawrence tomorrow.
CRAP!!! I'll freak if I miss his lecture and have to hear about it from all the anti-ID bloggers...
Hmmm...let's see... snow tires, chains, drive behind a sand truck....
I WILL MAKE IT THERE SOMEHOW!
CRAP!!! I'll freak if I miss his lecture and have to hear about it from all the anti-ID bloggers...
Hmmm...let's see... snow tires, chains, drive behind a sand truck....
I WILL MAKE IT THERE SOMEHOW!
Interesting conversations at the Salk Institute
Now you can listen to the Salk Institute conference for yourself. I mentioned this shindig in an earlier post.
It appears that these philosophical naturalists are planning to put their evangelizing skills to work.
Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to read about this conference because my computer has been on the blink and I’m having trouble viewing this link.
I’m gonna ask Santa for a new laptop!!
It appears that these philosophical naturalists are planning to put their evangelizing skills to work.
Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to read about this conference because my computer has been on the blink and I’m having trouble viewing this link.
I’m gonna ask Santa for a new laptop!!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Don’t miss this one!
Finally! We get to hear from someone who can give us a different perspective on the Intelligent Design movement. So far the “Difficult Dialogues at the Commons” lectures have been presented by anti-ID activists. This Thursday, Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box will be up to bat.
Should be very interesting...
Thurs., Nov. 30, 2006, 7:30-9:00 p.m.I’m kinda curious to hear how Leonard Krishtalka will introduce Behe. He’s certainly kept it no secret as to his adoration for Richard Dawkins and his philosophical view of the world.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Michael Behe
“The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology”
Kansas Union Ballroom
Should be very interesting...
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Further dialogue with Seldom
This post is lengthy, but I sometimes enjoy carrying on dialogue with those who take the time to comment. Seldom and I have been discussing a variety of issues and I’m going to bring this conversation to the top again.
Seldom wrote:
As far as religious beliefs are concerned, I’ve never found it written anywhere in scripture that in order to be a Christian you must believe in a young earth. The age of the earth is irrelevant to salvation, IMHO. I know many Christians who support an old earth as well as arguments for common descent. I used to believe that the scientific data favored an old earth and never gave it a second thought. But, over the last 5 years, after considering things I’ve read in the fields of philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology and theology along with scientific arguments for and against an old earth, my feelings on the topic changed.
So back to your statement above...yes, I’m quite aware that “Christianity” wasn’t the “first religion”. But, as far as historical support for a variety of religious beliefs, we have to consider that the earliest evidence we have of the written word is only approx. 6,000 years old. Consequently, the bible documents historical information from approx. 6,000 years ago. It stands to reason that, ~if~ the earth is young, then the first human inhabitants may have known more about the true creator of the cosmos than we give them credit for. That doesn’t mean that after a time, the truth didn’t became muddled along the way. Many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written by an Israelite about 1500 B.C.. Even at that time in history, Job was looking forward to a redeemer. It could be that other nations branched off and held some of the same truths but added their own window dressing. Who knows......right?
You quoted me and then commented:
You quoted me and then commented:
Evolutionists reject the idea that the microevolutionary changes that we witness in nature cannot carry over into macroevolutionary changes of vital organs or other highly complex body parts from one species to the next. We can consider your examples from your earlier post as well--“There is excellent fossil evidence of proto-feathers and nature today is full of organisms with eyes running the entire gammit from blind to eyes better then our own.” True, but that does not provide empirical evidence that the heart and eyes of those organisms all evolved from a common ancestor. That is an ~interpretation of the data~. Perhaps you are right, but then again the creationist’s interpretation may be the correct one.
Here’s the deal though. It’s not that I “fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works”, but that I do understand it, and from the empirical data that is available, I have to admit that I do not believe there is enough evidence to support the theory at the macro level.
But, the theory of Intelligent Design is entirely different from creationist theories. I’m going to offer a couple paragraphs defining Intelligent Design from Thomas Woodward’s new book, Darwin Strikes Back, because although I know you are familiar with the theory, many are still quite confused as to what exactly the theory is about.
It is no secret that the grand majority of scientists are philosophical naturalists. It is also no secret the "scientific community" is working overtime at keeping out what they deem as “pseudo-science”. It’s not because they are trying to push their atheism on the world (although there are a few who are), but that they truly believe that Darwinian evolution is factual beyond all doubt. It’s the interpretation of the data that they were born into, and their philosophical worldview holds it as truth for them.
Even if a scientist did have the magic theory that disproved evolution without a doubt, he’d still never receive his “Nobel prize, cash, or fame” because his theory would never make it through peer review -- UNLESS, it is a theory that does not even remotely correspond with any type of religious ideal. Because if it does, Eugenie and the NCSE along with a big ‘ol group of other naturalists are going to come in screeching and hollering with everything they’ve got.
Remember the Sternberg affair...?
From Darwin Strikes Back
You wrote:
As far as similarities between species is concerned, obviously an Intelligent Designer would not need to redesign every living organism in order to reassure us that we are not all related to a common descendant. Most designers we witness in our world don’t reinvent the wheel for every product they design. Automobile designers use the same parts for most cars and tweak them for different purposes, yet they are all designed for the same driving environment. The same thing applies to all living creatures. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.
Duane Gish once wrote:
You quoted me and then commented:
You quoted me and then commented:
BTW,“Jesus Camp” was shut down, thank goodness.
That example would be like me making the bizarre statement that the mother of these twin girls is indoctrinating her children to hate anyone who is not white because Hitler had a thing for the theory of evolution and wanted to keep the bloodlines pure. Therefore, I believe that there are many Darwinists who indoctrinate their children this way as well.
Do you see how silly it is to refer to a camp of 100 kids and assume that Christians indoctrinate their children to become Christian reconstructionists in this same manner? These “Christian reconstructionists” are a fringe group, yet some people like to throw all Christians into this category.
Let me tell you how I approach the issue of evolution with my children. My kids are being taught evolutionist theories in school, and we discuss intelligent design and creationist theories at home when we have the time. They go to public school, and both of my kids LOVE science. They are well aware of the controversy between evolution and intelligent design. They are taught that there are different interpretations of the evidence, and that the tools of science are continually lending to further knowledge about our universe. That is why we should never become dogmatic in the way we view those interpretations.
I want them to consider ALL the empirical evidence with an open mind. I tell them to learn absolutely ~everything~ they can possibly learn about the theory of evolution because ~if~ the theory is lacking, then they need to understand it well to discern where it is lacking. The same thing applies to the theory of intelligent design.
If, in the future, they decide that the theory of evolution is the more accurate interpretation, so be it. At least I know that I laid ALL the information on the table and didn’t keep anything from them. I believe they should look at all of life in this manner, that would include their religious beliefs as well.
One more quick thing about “the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage” you mentioned again. We’ve talked about this quite a bit in recent dialogue, but you may want to also consider this link I ran across the other day.
From the link:
You wrote:
But, if a person is an atheist, I can’t imagine they would send their children to church -- I mean, what church would they send them to? So, their children start out with a disadvantage as far as learning what other children are learning in regard to religious beliefs. By the time their parents might consider them to be old enough to “make a rational decision”, their kids may not even care to put forth the effort into researching various religious beliefs because they’ve learned from their parents that it doesn’t really matter anyway ("my parents don’t believe that stuff, why should I waste my time thinking about it"?).
So, if there is religious truth out there somewhere, they may never consider the possibility because their parents were non-believers. That type of indoctrination is no different that the indoctrination that Dawkins claims I am doing to my children by sending them to a Christian church.
I often wonder if atheists even consider this...what if they are wrong? What if there is a Creator of the cosmos? What if that Creator really does want a relationship with us? Is that something you would deny your child simply because you believe you have reason to reject the idea?
I’ve given my children the chance to learn about the Christian faith, and we often talk about other faith beliefs as well. If they choose to believe that there is no God, at least I have provided them with the opportunity of a religious education in the same way that I send them to school at an early age to learn about mathematics, science, reading, etc., etc.
Okay, I’m done for today. Thanks again for the respectful dialogue, and I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving holiday.
Seldom wrote:
But Christianity wasn't remotely the near the first religion and neither was Judaism! There were tons of religions with creation stories and Gods before Judiasm and Christianity came along. So those religions were wrong, then Judaism magically appears and gets it right, then religions that followed strayed away? I don't see how your comment makes sense unless you are a hardcore young earth creationist who is completely oblivious to thousands of years of human history.Gosh, here I go opening up a whole can of worms. Now, just relax for a moment because I know this will throw you for a loop, but yes, I favor a young earth for many reasons. Surprisingly, scientific data - not religion is what brought me to consider young earth arguments.
As far as religious beliefs are concerned, I’ve never found it written anywhere in scripture that in order to be a Christian you must believe in a young earth. The age of the earth is irrelevant to salvation, IMHO. I know many Christians who support an old earth as well as arguments for common descent. I used to believe that the scientific data favored an old earth and never gave it a second thought. But, over the last 5 years, after considering things I’ve read in the fields of philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology and theology along with scientific arguments for and against an old earth, my feelings on the topic changed.
So back to your statement above...yes, I’m quite aware that “Christianity” wasn’t the “first religion”. But, as far as historical support for a variety of religious beliefs, we have to consider that the earliest evidence we have of the written word is only approx. 6,000 years old. Consequently, the bible documents historical information from approx. 6,000 years ago. It stands to reason that, ~if~ the earth is young, then the first human inhabitants may have known more about the true creator of the cosmos than we give them credit for. That doesn’t mean that after a time, the truth didn’t became muddled along the way. Many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written by an Israelite about 1500 B.C.. Even at that time in history, Job was looking forward to a redeemer. It could be that other nations branched off and held some of the same truths but added their own window dressing. Who knows......right?
You quoted me and then commented:
"Dude, the scientific community does “recognize the term” of macroevolution because they refer to it all the time."Interesting, because just a couple days ago, I was reading an article in Science magazine titled, Rapid Temporal Reversal in Predator-Driven Natural Selection, Science vol 314, 17 Nov. 2006. The following sentence was included in the last paragraph of the article:
OK, they recognize it in the sense that the "opposition" uses it, and they understand what they mean by it, and they may use it in explaining why they don't agree with its usage, so yes they recognize it in to the extent that they are aware that the word exists. But they certainly don't consider it a valid or meaningful distinction.
Evolutionary biology is by its nature an historical science, but the combination of microevolutionary experimentation and macroevolutionary historical analysis can provide a rich understanding about the genesis of biological diversity.Seems pretty clear cut to me...I don’t have an on-line subscription to Science so the link only offers the abstract, but you may have or you can check it out in hard copy if you like.
You quoted me and then commented:
"For example, all species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design."Yes, terminology is a problem in this debate. Let’s see... in creationist talk, I’d state the we do not have empirical evidence that supports the notion that primitive hearts eventually evolved into more advanced hearts as the evolutionary tree of life expanded. These vital organs are so intricate in design that intermediates wouldn't live through the process. Now, an evolutionists will say, “but look, we have various creatures with hearts that are unlike the human heart and this tells us that those more primitive forms of the heart are what led to the development of the human heart“. It's interesting speculation, but we do not have empirical evidence to support that this is what actually happened.
Your terminology confuses me. To say a species appears fully formed makes no sense. There is no predetermined end product that a species is on its way to becoming. There is no such thing as a species being "partially developed". HOW do they show design? What specifically is the telltale sign of design? This is where ID has problems. For this to be meaningful there has to be some way to know this. It "looks" designed is not good enough!
Evolutionists reject the idea that the microevolutionary changes that we witness in nature cannot carry over into macroevolutionary changes of vital organs or other highly complex body parts from one species to the next. We can consider your examples from your earlier post as well--“There is excellent fossil evidence of proto-feathers and nature today is full of organisms with eyes running the entire gammit from blind to eyes better then our own.” True, but that does not provide empirical evidence that the heart and eyes of those organisms all evolved from a common ancestor. That is an ~interpretation of the data~. Perhaps you are right, but then again the creationist’s interpretation may be the correct one.
Here’s the deal though. It’s not that I “fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works”, but that I do understand it, and from the empirical data that is available, I have to admit that I do not believe there is enough evidence to support the theory at the macro level.
But, the theory of Intelligent Design is entirely different from creationist theories. I’m going to offer a couple paragraphs defining Intelligent Design from Thomas Woodward’s new book, Darwin Strikes Back, because although I know you are familiar with the theory, many are still quite confused as to what exactly the theory is about.
Scientific tests now show a shockingly severe limitation on the ability of random mutation to evolve new functional genes. Also, the more we learn about the threadlike DNA molecule, which in human cells has 20,000 genes--digital files embedded on the cell’s DNA hard drive--the more we realize that this DNA information is structurally identical to the ordinary coded information in human communication (books, digitized DVDs) and artifacts. To pin down what kind of cause “wrote the DNA file,” we are able to apply a powerful reasoning approach that scientists now use called “inference to the best explanation.” Since DNA (with RNA and proteins) have a mathematical structure called “specified complexity” (even one gene displays an astoundingly low probability, while its letter are highly specified), that enables us to ask a key question. In the real world, the world of scientific testing and experience, do we ever observe natural processes producing this kind of complexity? In fact, we have never recorded an instance where nature crafted this kind of complexity. Yet, in the cause-effect structure seen in our world today, intelligent causes easily produce this kind of specified complexity. So the inference to design for DNA is based on our experience of the observed structures of the real world, not an imagined one.You wrote:
One finds equally compelling evidence for design in the bacterial flagellum, whose rotary motor drives certain bacteria through liquid like a submarine with an outboard motor. The flagellum, as biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich have shown, has a machinelike irreducible complexity, which is an empirical marker of design because it rules out step-by-step evolution through selection. Take one part away from the flagellum, and its rotary system won’t work. Darwinian accounts of the evolution of the flagellum are (at best) sketchy “Just So Stories.” Its forty parts, all of them precisely shaped proteins, are prima facie evidence of a intelligence behind life, and the flagellum is just the tip of the iceberg. The cell is chock full of such complex, multipart systems that continue to defy a step-by-step Darwinian explanation.
But to say it is clearly ridiculous is to say that 99.9% of experts in biology look at the same evidence as you and come to the wrong conclusion. Or that for the 100+ years, science has been intentionally perpetrating a fraud on the world. Every scientist knows that their is a Nobel prize, piles of cash, and fame that will outlive them, if they could disprove evolution and put forward a better theory. There is no giant atheist conspiracy at work. The problem is that every line of evidence points to the same conclusion: evolution is the correct explanation for the biodiversity of the Earth.First of all, I do not in any way, shape of form believe that there is a “giant atheist conspiracy at work”. I do believe that a person’s philosophical beliefs can get in the way of their science, just as you believe a person‘s religious beliefs can get in the way of their science.
It is no secret that the grand majority of scientists are philosophical naturalists. It is also no secret the "scientific community" is working overtime at keeping out what they deem as “pseudo-science”. It’s not because they are trying to push their atheism on the world (although there are a few who are), but that they truly believe that Darwinian evolution is factual beyond all doubt. It’s the interpretation of the data that they were born into, and their philosophical worldview holds it as truth for them.
Even if a scientist did have the magic theory that disproved evolution without a doubt, he’d still never receive his “Nobel prize, cash, or fame” because his theory would never make it through peer review -- UNLESS, it is a theory that does not even remotely correspond with any type of religious ideal. Because if it does, Eugenie and the NCSE along with a big ‘ol group of other naturalists are going to come in screeching and hollering with everything they’ve got.
Remember the Sternberg affair...?
From Darwin Strikes Back
On November 10, 2006, National Public Radio’s Barbara Hagerty covered on All Things Considered the lingering brouhaha over Richard Sternberg, the editor of “an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate.” She pointed out that “he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design,” and then fleshed out the motives and misery of Sternberg:We also find bloggers such as Larry Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, making the statement that we should just “flunk” students who support Intelligent Design, or never let them be admitted to the university in the first place. Some of the more dogmatic scientists don’t hide the fact that they will reject tenure to those who support ID as well.
“Why publish it?” Sternberg say, “Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That’s what I thought, and I was dead wrong.”
At first he heard rumblings of discontent but thought it would blow over. Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says - and an independent report backs him up - that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer-reviewed. It was.
Eventually, Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal employees from reprisals. The office launched an investigation. Ultimately, it could not take action because Stenberg is not an employee of the Smithsonian. But Sternberg says before closing the case, the special counsel, James McVay, called him with an update. “As he related to me, ‘The Smithsonian Institutions’ reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined.’”
McVay declined an interview. But in a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education...and outlined “a strategy to have you investigated and discredited.” Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. He has two Ph.D.s in biology -- from Binghamton University and Florida International University. In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination.
After repeated calls and emails to the Smithsonian, a spokesman told NPR, “We have no public comment, and we won’t have one in the future.”
You wrote:
You guys had your big opportunity to prove evolution false when genetics technologies became available. If whale DNA had turned out to be closer to shark DNA than to human DNA, or if bird DNA was more similar to bat DNA than to reptile DNA, evolution would have crumbled to the ground. But the genetic evidence supports common ancestry and evolutionary relationships. This is simply the most power evidence possible and I don't know how you refute it.Right, I’ve heard these arguments before, and I just don’t believe that they are as strong as you suggest. There is so much more to consider in this regard. For example DNA reproduction and repair is very difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective.
As far as similarities between species is concerned, obviously an Intelligent Designer would not need to redesign every living organism in order to reassure us that we are not all related to a common descendant. Most designers we witness in our world don’t reinvent the wheel for every product they design. Automobile designers use the same parts for most cars and tweak them for different purposes, yet they are all designed for the same driving environment. The same thing applies to all living creatures. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.
Duane Gish once wrote:
Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function. (Gish, 277.)Makes sense to me.
You quoted me and then commented:
"Huh? Darwinists do claim that evolution can account for the entire universe. Darwinists claim that evolution does not explain the ~first cause~, but once the big bang (or whatever) initially occurred, evolutionary mechanisms took root and structured the entire universe."This is probably a matter of semantics. Granted, evolution in the sense of Darwin’s theory is different than the evolution of the cosmos, but the “scientific community” refers to the evolution of the universe all the time. It falls unders the umbrella of the evolutionary paradigm.
I'm sorry but you could not be more wrong! This isn't a matter of opinion like so many of our other points of disagreement. You are completely misstating what evolutionary theory says. Please point me to any "Darwinist" who says anything remotely like this.
You quoted me and then commented:
"Where do these type of “fundamentalists” live? I am constantly warned by on-line atheists about these “Christian reconstructionists“, and I’m told that Christians are looking to take over government and re-establish Old Testament law."Good grief... Jesus Camp? Are you serious? A gal puts together a Jesus Camp, for what? 100 kids this summer? That’s the kind of stuff you think Christians are indoctrinating their children with? Did your parents indoctrinate you in a similar fashion?
Been to see Jesus Camp yet? And by the way, Christians don't need to "take over" the government, they've had it for the last 6 years. Remember the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? Remember the Dover school district trying to bring religion back into public school science classes. (regardless of whether ID guys like Dembski or Behe have religious motives, the ONLY reason that school board was pushing it was religious).
BTW,“Jesus Camp” was shut down, thank goodness.
That example would be like me making the bizarre statement that the mother of these twin girls is indoctrinating her children to hate anyone who is not white because Hitler had a thing for the theory of evolution and wanted to keep the bloodlines pure. Therefore, I believe that there are many Darwinists who indoctrinate their children this way as well.
Do you see how silly it is to refer to a camp of 100 kids and assume that Christians indoctrinate their children to become Christian reconstructionists in this same manner? These “Christian reconstructionists” are a fringe group, yet some people like to throw all Christians into this category.
Let me tell you how I approach the issue of evolution with my children. My kids are being taught evolutionist theories in school, and we discuss intelligent design and creationist theories at home when we have the time. They go to public school, and both of my kids LOVE science. They are well aware of the controversy between evolution and intelligent design. They are taught that there are different interpretations of the evidence, and that the tools of science are continually lending to further knowledge about our universe. That is why we should never become dogmatic in the way we view those interpretations.
I want them to consider ALL the empirical evidence with an open mind. I tell them to learn absolutely ~everything~ they can possibly learn about the theory of evolution because ~if~ the theory is lacking, then they need to understand it well to discern where it is lacking. The same thing applies to the theory of intelligent design.
If, in the future, they decide that the theory of evolution is the more accurate interpretation, so be it. At least I know that I laid ALL the information on the table and didn’t keep anything from them. I believe they should look at all of life in this manner, that would include their religious beliefs as well.
One more quick thing about “the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage” you mentioned again. We’ve talked about this quite a bit in recent dialogue, but you may want to also consider this link I ran across the other day.
From the link:
Dutch will allow paedophile groupHow far will society be willing to go?
A Dutch court has turned down a request to ban a political party with a paedophile agenda.
Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD) had the same right to exist as any other political party.
The PNVD was formed by three paedophiles in May, prompting outrage in Dutch society. It seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography and sex with animals. "Freedom of expression...including the freedom to set up a political party can be seen as the basis for a democratic society," Judge Hofhuis said in the ruling, according to the Associated Press news agency.
You wrote:
This might surprise you, but I have no problem with my kids being catholic, protestent, whatever. I just insist that they come to that decision through some informed process. Which means no indoctrination when they are too young to make rational decisions. For numerous examples, go see Jesus Camp.I agree that the type of “Jesus Camp” indoctrination you are referring to is WRONG.
But, if a person is an atheist, I can’t imagine they would send their children to church -- I mean, what church would they send them to? So, their children start out with a disadvantage as far as learning what other children are learning in regard to religious beliefs. By the time their parents might consider them to be old enough to “make a rational decision”, their kids may not even care to put forth the effort into researching various religious beliefs because they’ve learned from their parents that it doesn’t really matter anyway ("my parents don’t believe that stuff, why should I waste my time thinking about it"?).
So, if there is religious truth out there somewhere, they may never consider the possibility because their parents were non-believers. That type of indoctrination is no different that the indoctrination that Dawkins claims I am doing to my children by sending them to a Christian church.
I often wonder if atheists even consider this...what if they are wrong? What if there is a Creator of the cosmos? What if that Creator really does want a relationship with us? Is that something you would deny your child simply because you believe you have reason to reject the idea?
I’ve given my children the chance to learn about the Christian faith, and we often talk about other faith beliefs as well. If they choose to believe that there is no God, at least I have provided them with the opportunity of a religious education in the same way that I send them to school at an early age to learn about mathematics, science, reading, etc., etc.
Okay, I’m done for today. Thanks again for the respectful dialogue, and I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving holiday.
Arguing amongst themselves
There have been some very interesting conversations going on in blogosphere lately. It seems that lines are being draw among the atheist/agnostic supporters of Darwinian evolution.
On the one side, we have the die hard atheists who feel that it’s not just science that needs to be grasped away from the clutches of the “Christians”, “fundamentalists”, and “ID supporters”. They feel that the world needs a wake up call in order for us all to realize how foolish our “supernatural” beliefs really are. Supporters of this line of action include: Richard Dawkins, biologist and author, Sam Harris, doctoral student in neuroscience and author, PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, and Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
On the other end, we have bloggers who agree with the aforementioned gentlemen on all matters of science and most of their beliefs about religion. But, they feel that the better approach in this debate is not to lean so hard on people of various religious beliefs because there are many theistic evolutionists who believe in a god while at the same time supporting Darwinian evolution. They don’t want to lose those supporters by being too hard on their faith beliefs. Those who hold this line of thought include: Ed Brayton, a freelance writer and businessman, Pat Hayes blogger of Red State Rabble, and Joshua Rosenau, biology graduate student at the University of Kansas.
So, what to make of all this??? Well, it appears that they are all trying to find the best route in which to keep science free from anything they believe is being thrust upon them by “authoritarian fundamentalists” (ie, anyone who supports Intelligent Design). Yet, they don’t want to alienate those who may support various religious beliefs which do not interfere with the philosophical views held by atheists and agnostics. In other words, any of the theistic evolutionists who reject Intelligent Design or any other theory that questions Darwinian evolution.
Though, they all agree that it is fine to go after supporters of Intelligent Design by any means necessary. I’ve been told that I am a “religious authoritarian” because I support Intelligent Design and find Creationist theories quite compelling as well. That makes me the enemy, and I’ve also been told that Christians like myself are out to push my religious beliefs into the science classroom. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but that’s the subject for another post.
It is quite interesting that they call us “authoritarians”, because I’ve never heard supporters of ID say that they want to eliminate evolution from being taught in the schools. We would merely like the students to have the opportunity to critically analyze the various aspects of Darwinian evolution, and give consideration to the theory of Intelligent Design.
The way I see it, these gentlemen who are fighting amongst themselves are the true “authoritarians” because they refuse to allow their theory to be questioned. On the other hand, supporters of ID are more than happy to let the ToE be taught in it’s full glory. It seems to me that if the ToE is such a solid theory, we wouldn’t see such a huge uproar from the “scientific community”. They seem so defensive, while the ID guys seem quite happy to put their theory alongside the ToE. Actually, ID is not a threat to evolution, it's only a threat to those who hold the philosophical belief that the universe is the product of mere chance.
Hmmm.. makes you wonder who is more confident about their science.
Here’s the conversation that takes the cake....
PZ Myers hops over to Kansas Citizens for Science to have a little conversation with Liz Craig and Jack Krebs, avid supporters of Darwin as well.
Check out how PZ describes Christians who take God's word seriously:
Here is where he really blasts us...
At least he’s honest. I’ve seen some of the other supporters of Darwinian evolution say some pretty inflammatory things about people who hold various religious beliefs as well. But, lately they’ve been toning down because they don’t want to appear as bigoted as PZ does.
It doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with him. In fact, I know that many of them do. But, they know that type of attitude won’t help in their agenda to keep their theory from being questioned.
If you keep reading through the KCFS conversation, you’ll see that Jack Krebs is hoping to further “educate“ the poor idiots who have no understanding of how science works. See, they believe that you are merely "ignorant" about science if you question common descent or consider arguments for Intelligent Design:
Otherwise, you are deemed a “goddamned, ignorant freak” according to PZ Myers supporters.
And now a word for the “Reasonable Kansans” out there. Listen intently to what the Kansas Citizens for Science group has to say about science. Believe me, Jack Krebs is much more reasonable than PZ Myers. But, be sure to also consider all the evidence against their arguments as well. There are many excellent books covering all the issues of this debate from the point of view of credentialed scientists who very much oppose the views of the above mentioned individuals. I’ll put together a long list of excellent books in the near future.
On the one side, we have the die hard atheists who feel that it’s not just science that needs to be grasped away from the clutches of the “Christians”, “fundamentalists”, and “ID supporters”. They feel that the world needs a wake up call in order for us all to realize how foolish our “supernatural” beliefs really are. Supporters of this line of action include: Richard Dawkins, biologist and author, Sam Harris, doctoral student in neuroscience and author, PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, and Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
On the other end, we have bloggers who agree with the aforementioned gentlemen on all matters of science and most of their beliefs about religion. But, they feel that the better approach in this debate is not to lean so hard on people of various religious beliefs because there are many theistic evolutionists who believe in a god while at the same time supporting Darwinian evolution. They don’t want to lose those supporters by being too hard on their faith beliefs. Those who hold this line of thought include: Ed Brayton, a freelance writer and businessman, Pat Hayes blogger of Red State Rabble, and Joshua Rosenau, biology graduate student at the University of Kansas.
So, what to make of all this??? Well, it appears that they are all trying to find the best route in which to keep science free from anything they believe is being thrust upon them by “authoritarian fundamentalists” (ie, anyone who supports Intelligent Design). Yet, they don’t want to alienate those who may support various religious beliefs which do not interfere with the philosophical views held by atheists and agnostics. In other words, any of the theistic evolutionists who reject Intelligent Design or any other theory that questions Darwinian evolution.
Though, they all agree that it is fine to go after supporters of Intelligent Design by any means necessary. I’ve been told that I am a “religious authoritarian” because I support Intelligent Design and find Creationist theories quite compelling as well. That makes me the enemy, and I’ve also been told that Christians like myself are out to push my religious beliefs into the science classroom. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but that’s the subject for another post.
It is quite interesting that they call us “authoritarians”, because I’ve never heard supporters of ID say that they want to eliminate evolution from being taught in the schools. We would merely like the students to have the opportunity to critically analyze the various aspects of Darwinian evolution, and give consideration to the theory of Intelligent Design.
The way I see it, these gentlemen who are fighting amongst themselves are the true “authoritarians” because they refuse to allow their theory to be questioned. On the other hand, supporters of ID are more than happy to let the ToE be taught in it’s full glory. It seems to me that if the ToE is such a solid theory, we wouldn’t see such a huge uproar from the “scientific community”. They seem so defensive, while the ID guys seem quite happy to put their theory alongside the ToE. Actually, ID is not a threat to evolution, it's only a threat to those who hold the philosophical belief that the universe is the product of mere chance.
Hmmm.. makes you wonder who is more confident about their science.
Here’s the conversation that takes the cake....
PZ Myers hops over to Kansas Citizens for Science to have a little conversation with Liz Craig and Jack Krebs, avid supporters of Darwin as well.
Check out how PZ describes Christians who take God's word seriously:
The atheist influence in this part of the country has been negligible: our region's problems must be laid entirely at the door of our good fellow Christian citizens, no others. Those problems are entirely the result of a smug, insular, nastily inbred Christian monoculture, one that never questions the Book of Genesis, never confronts different ideas, never thinks.LOL... now don’t be too offended by PZ’s nastiness. He hates anything that remotely resembles religious thought.
Here is where he really blasts us...
But you do need some small minority [meaning himself and his atheist "team"] who are willing to stand up to those fundamentalist freaks and tell them without hesitation that they are goddamned idiots. You need someone to tell them to be ashamed of their ignorance. You need someone to tell them they're wrong without following it up with a friendly pat on the head and a reassurance that you still love and respect them merely because they share some superstitions with you.Good grief, PZ, why don’t you really let us know what you think of us?? Isn’t it interesting that a guy whose philosophical beliefs are held by a relatively small minority of people is telling all of us what “idiots” ~we~ are?
At least he’s honest. I’ve seen some of the other supporters of Darwinian evolution say some pretty inflammatory things about people who hold various religious beliefs as well. But, lately they’ve been toning down because they don’t want to appear as bigoted as PZ does.
It doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with him. In fact, I know that many of them do. But, they know that type of attitude won’t help in their agenda to keep their theory from being questioned.
If you keep reading through the KCFS conversation, you’ll see that Jack Krebs is hoping to further “educate“ the poor idiots who have no understanding of how science works. See, they believe that you are merely "ignorant" about science if you question common descent or consider arguments for Intelligent Design:
Now that we have a couple of years where the standards aren't our main concern, we plan to work on informing and educated the public about issues in a way that might make the creationists have less appeal at the polls.Now, bear in mind that “creationist” means anyone who considers the theory of Intelligent Design. As long as a religious person keeps their beliefs to themselves and never considers arguments that support the improbability that the complexity of the universe evolved by any means other than natural causes, then they are free to be part of the “team“.
Otherwise, you are deemed a “goddamned, ignorant freak” according to PZ Myers supporters.
And now a word for the “Reasonable Kansans” out there. Listen intently to what the Kansas Citizens for Science group has to say about science. Believe me, Jack Krebs is much more reasonable than PZ Myers. But, be sure to also consider all the evidence against their arguments as well. There are many excellent books covering all the issues of this debate from the point of view of credentialed scientists who very much oppose the views of the above mentioned individuals. I’ll put together a long list of excellent books in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)