1. Should intelligent design (the theory that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process) be classified as science or pseudoscience? Advocates almost always assume that it should be regarded as a legitimate scientific research program while its critics often scoff at the idea of this "stealth creationism" being given serious consideration.
I myself am an interested agnostic on this particular aspect of creation. (While I know the "who" (God) and the "what" (God did it), I am unclear on the "how" (what processes were involved)). I believe the problem for the advocates of ID is that there is currently not enough empirical evidence to fully support their claims. And I also believe that the problem for the critics of ID is that they tend to rule out the possibility based more on prejudice than sound philosophical objections.
While I'm not qualified to determine whether Intelligent Design is an accurate scientific theory, I do think it is at least as philosophically plausible as other approaches (e.g., naturalism). As the atheistic philosopher Daniel Dennett says, "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Because I am interested in ID and evolution, I often note articles and arguments that I find noteworthy. Here are 32 such items which, if we set aside our philosophical baggage, are worth examining.
2. Mike Gene on "Maintaining an Open Mind"
The key question a person should ask him/herself about ID is this – does the result of the investigation have profound metaphysical implications for you? If you are a theist, would the disproving of ID cause you to abandon your faith? If you are an atheist, would the proof of ID mean you now have to deal with the reality of God?
If the answer if yes to these questions, then you will have great difficulty approaching this issue as an investigator, as the investigation carries deep metaphysical risk and significance for you. In other words, you are deeply invested in the answer and this will color your perceptions and thinking. The key to avoid all of this is to rid oneself of the notion that the designer in ID must be God.
3. Sound familiar? From Simon Singh's Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe
The British physicist William Bonner, for example, suggested that the Big Bang theory was part of a conspiracy aimed at shoring up Christianity: 'The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century'
Fred Hoyle was equally scathing when it came to the Big Bang's association with religion, condemning it as a model built on Judeo-Christian foundations. His views were shared by his Steady State collaborator, Thomas Gold. When Gold heard that Pius XII had backed the Big Bang, his response was short and to the point: 'Well, the Pope also endorsed the stationary Earth.' Scientists had been wary of the Vatican'
However, this wariness sometimes bordered on paranoia, as noted by the English Nobel Laureate George Thomson: 'Probably every physicist would believe in a creation if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned.' (pp. 361-62)
(HT: Uncommon Descent)
4. Evolution is deterministic, not random, biologists conclude from multi-species study -- A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. The findings are reported in the the journal Current Biology.
5. From Michael Lynch, a Distinguished Professor of evolutionary biology a Indiana University, in a letter to the journal Nature
Two factors have facilitated the promotion of ID. First, IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of Darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity . . .
6. Philosopher David Stove's So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
7. One species' entire genome discovered inside another's -- Scientists at the University of Rochester and the J. Craig Venter Institute have discovered a copy of the entire genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species. The finding, reported in today's Science, suggests that lateral gene transfer -- the movement of genes between unrelated species -- may happen much more frequently between bacteria and multicellular organisms than scientists previously believed, posing dramatic implications for evolution.
8. Beyond a 'speed limit' on mutations, species risk extinction -- Harvard University scientists have identified a virtual "speed limit" on the rate of molecular evolution in organisms, and the magic number appears to be six mutations per genome per generation -- a level beyond which species run the strong risk of extinction as their genomes lose stability.
9. A scientist unclear on the concept: There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the "intelligent design" crowd. They know how to frame an issue. "The idea that there is 'design' in nature is very appealing," Miller said. "People want to believe that life isn't purposeless and random. That's why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.
"To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of 'design' and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature," he said.
In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.
10. Gene regulation, not just genes, is what sets humans apart -- The striking differences between humans and chimps aren't so much in the genes we have, which are 99 percent the same, but in the way those genes are used, according to new research from a Duke University team.
11. Granville Sewell asks What if we DID find irreducibly complex biological features?
My question is: what if we found another example, even more spectacular, so spectacular that every reasonable person would be forced to admit it could not have evolved through small improvements. Then would you consider the design inference justified? If you say yes, then you are admitting that design is a possible, even if currently unjustified, scientific hypothesis. If you say no, then everyone will finally understand that, as W.E.Loennig has stated, today’s evolutionary theory is completely unfalsifiable.
12. From the conclusion of the paper, The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life
The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. Therefore, under this cosmology, an entity as complex as a coupled translation-replication system should be considered a viable breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution.
(HT: Uncommon Descent)
13. Complexity and the Sea Anemone (Part I) -- Sea Anemone Provides a New View of Animal Evolution
The newly decoded DNA of a few-centimeter-tall sea anemone looks surprisingly similar to our own, a team led by Nicholas Putnam and Daniel Rokhsar from the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, reports on page 86. This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today's most sophisticated multicellular creatures.
The work is truly stunning for its deep evolutionary implications," says Billie Swalla, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle….This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.
14. Complexity and the Sea Anemone (Part II) -- D.A. Cook asks, "Just how the heck is the Darwinian paradigm going to explain this? Advanced genetic programs installed before there was any chance of natural selection acting on them. Yikes! Another finding in the real world not predicted by, or even possible within, the Darwiniam paradigm."
15. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
16. From the New Scientist article, Evolution: hacking back the tree of life
If you want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.
While nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity - humans are indisputably more complicated than amoebas - recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so, then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong," says Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.
The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair. However, the latest evidence suggests that the extent of loss might have been seriously underestimated. Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss - at every level, from genes and types of cells to whole anatomical features and life stages - is the key to understanding evolution and the relatedness of living things. Proponents of this idea argue that classical phylogeny has been built on rotten foundations, and tinkering with it will not put it right. Instead, they say, we need to rethink the process of evolution itself.
It is not hard to see how the mistake might have happened
(HT: Uncommon Descent)
17. WaPo article (June 2007): Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
The first concerted effort to understand all the inner workings of the DNA molecule is overturning a host of long-held assumptions about the nature of genes and their role in human health and evolution, scientists reported yesterday.
The new perspective reveals DNA to be not just a string of biological code but a dauntingly complex operating system that processes many more kinds of information than previously appreciated.
18. EJ Klone on An Atheist in support of ID
In the scientific debate over the origins and patterns of life over the years, it is often claimed that evolution is propped up by atheists, and ID is propped up by theists alone. There are theists in support of evolution, but what about atheists who support ID? I'm one.
19. David Tyler: "Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons
For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This 'fact' of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. "Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same." However, this "given" is about to be discarded.
Apparently, it is now OK to openly acknowledge that those who are involved in this research have never been comfortable that the 1% figure was an accurate summary of the scientific information. But more recent studies have made it impossible to sustain the old orthodoxy. They have raised "the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired." One zoologist is quoted as saying: "Now it's totally clear that it's more a hindrance for understanding than a help."
20. Casey Luskin on The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism
21. Human Ancestors Walked Upright, Study Claims -- The ancestors of humanity are often depicted as knuckle-draggers, making humans seem unusual in our family tree as "upright apes." Controversial research now suggests the ancestors of humans and the other great apes might have actually walked upright too, making knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas the exceptions and not the rule.
22. From the abstract of Chris Cosans' paper "Was Darwin a Creationist?
Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.
Source: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine - Volume 48, Number 3, Summer 2005, pp. 362-371.
23. From the LiveScience article, "Greatest Mysteries: What Drives Evolution?"
Natural selection is accepted by scientists as the main engine driving the array of organisms and their complex features. But is evolution via natural selection the only explanation for complex organisms?
"I think one of the greatest mysteries in biology at the moment is whether natural selection is the only process capable of generating organismal complexity," said Massimo Pigliucci of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University in New York, "or whether there are other properties of matter that also come into play. I suspect the latter will turn out to be true."
(HT: Telic Thoughts)
24. Comet probes reveal evidence of origin of life, scientists claim -- Recent probes inside comets show it is overwhelmingly likely that life began in space, according to a new paper by Cardiff University scientists. Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and colleagues at the University's Centre for Astrobiology have long argued the case for panspermia - the theory that life began inside comets and then spread to habitable planets across the galaxy. A recent BBC Horizon documentary traced the development of the theory. Now the team claims that findings from space probes sent to investigate passing comets reveal how the first organisms could have formed.
25. DNA Is Blueprint, Contractor And Construction Worker For New Structures
DNA is the blueprint of all life, giving instruction and function to organisms ranging from simple one-celled bacteria to complex human beings. Now Northwestern University researchers report they have used DNA as the blueprint, contractor and construction worker to build a three-dimensional structure out of gold, a lifeless material.
(HT: New Covenant)
26. William Dembski answers the question, "What exactly is the “design” part of “intelligent design”?
27. Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years -- The most startling implication of the find, the scientists agree, is that our human progenitors diverged from today's great apes -- including gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees -- several million years earlier than widely accepted research based on molecular genetics had previously asserted. The trail in the hunt for physical evidence of our human ancestors goes cold some six or seven million years ago.
28. Frontloading (Part I) Uncommon Descent: "It Seems Frontloading is Everywhere"
It seems like every other day there’s an article where scientists are discovering the presence of genes thought to have arisen late in evolution to be already present in ancient forms, so-called “living fossils”. In this case what we see in this particular “living fossil”, the shark, is the presence of genetic activity that is associated with ‘digit formation’ in limbed animals. Previously, scientists thought that there was some late phase additional activity which, we may say, was ‘added onto’ fin development….
As I say, these types of articles seem commonplace, yet NDE keeps on chugging along as if all of this fits in nicely with Darwinism. Just think, ‘limb-like’ genetic activity before ever there was a limb. And, so, would it be rude if we asked our Darwinist brethren: “So how did it evolve when it was present before ever it was needed?”
29. Frontloading (Part II) New genetic data overturn long-held theory of limb development
Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers in the May 24, 2007, issue of Nature.
This finding overturns a long-held, but much-debated, theory that limb acquisition was a novel evolutionary event, requiring the descendents of lobed-fin fish to dramatically alter their genes to adapt their bodies to their new environments of streams and swamps.
30. Frontloading (Part III) -- Conquest of land began in shark genome
The finding shows what was thought to be a relatively recent evolutionary innovation existed eons earlier than previously believed, shedding light on how life on Earth developed and potentially providing insight for scientists seeking ways to cure human birth defects, which affect about 150,000 infants annually in the United States.
"We've uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages," said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D., an associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. "Genetic processes were not simple in early aquatic vertebrates only to become more complex as the animals adapted to terrestrial living. They were complex from the outset. Some major evolutionary innovations, like digits at the end of limbs, may have been achieved by prolonging the activity of a genetic program that existed in a common ancestor of sharks and bony fishes."
31. Low Probability is Only Half of Specified Complexity
32. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design
33. The trailer of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4195
1
Great post Joe, though there is new data on some of your points. In fact there was an article on ScienceDaily that is pertinent to front-loading:
Genome Of Marine Organism Tells Of Humans' Unicellular Ancestors
The choanoflagellate genome, like the genomes of many seemingly simple organisms sequenced in recent years, shows a surprising degree of complexity, King said. Many genes involved in the central nervous system of higher organisms, for example, have been found in simple organisms that lack a centralized nervous system.
Likewise, choanoflagellates have five immunoglobulin domains, though they have no immune system; collagen, integrin and cadherin domains, though they have no skeleton or matrix binding cells together; and proteins called tyrosine kinases that are a key part of signaling between cells, even though Monosiga is not known to communicate, or at least does not form colonies.
Indeed.
posted on 02.20.2008 3:10 AM2
Great post Joe, though there is new data on some of your points. In fact there was an article on ScienceDaily today that is pertinent to front-loading:
Genome Of Marine Organism Tells Of Humans' Unicellular Ancestors
The choanoflagellate genome, like the genomes of many seemingly simple organisms sequenced in recent years, shows a surprising degree of complexity, King said. Many genes involved in the central nervous system of higher organisms, for example, have been found in simple organisms that lack a centralized nervous system.
Likewise, choanoflagellates have five immunoglobulin domains, though they have no immune system; collagen, integrin and cadherin domains, though they have no skeleton or matrix binding cells together; and proteins called tyrosine kinases that are a key part of signaling between cells, even though Monosiga is not known to communicate, or at least does not form colonies.
Indeed.
posted on 02.20.2008 3:10 AM3
I have a number 34 to propose....why is there not such thing as an ID proponent that seems in any interested in establishing a profile of the designer based on its supposed design? Is there any research in ID circles going on that involves the reverse engineering of the "design" in ordr to help identify what the designer might be like? That would actually go a long way towards validating ID as being anything more than stealth creationism.
posted on 02.20.2008 3:24 AM4
Intelligent Design Primer
MP3 Lectures
posted on 02.20.2008 7:40 AM5
Another to add: The *File Drawer* effect
http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/Critical-decisions-in-science-The-Smithsonian-secretary-vs-the-Cambrian-explosion/View/Default.aspx
via
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/02/today-at-design-of-life-blog_19.html
Collin
posted on 02.20.2008 7:47 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
6
“I believe the problem for the advocates of ID is that there is currently not enough empirical evidence to fully support their claims. And I also believe that the problem for the critics of ID is that they tend to rule out the possibility based more on prejudice than sound philosophical objections.”
While it’s true that many ID opponents base their opposition to it on their opposition to Christianity, the situation is egged on by ID proponents who base their support almost exclusively on their Christianity.
The idea that “certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process” is nothing more than an idea if it’s not backed up by some mechanism or effect that science can study. What if an intelligent cause is responsible for some or all features of the universe, but it caused these things through the natural laws we observe? Would there be any scientific conflict with those who don’t believe in an intelligent cause?
And if an intelligent cause acted through methods that are different than the laws we observe, what method did it use? How can we detect that method, or where the cause did or didn’t act and when? Not only does ID not provide an answer to those questions, I haven’t seen ID proponents being at all interested in finding those answers. Instead they seem to focus on philosophical debates that are pretty irrelevant to the study of science.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:05 AM7
Re: #1, I don't think ID is science or pseudoscience. I lay out my argument for why ID is a metatheory on my blog.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:17 AM8
Joe, I appreciate your willingness to look at both sides of the ID issue.
I think item #2 is especially relevant. I'd like to turn that around a bit and ask you and other evangelicals if you can maintain an open mind about evolution or if it has metaphysical implications for you. I'm afraid that the vast majority of evangelicals want everyone else to have an open mind about ID, while the truth is that they have a closed mind about evolution because they think (or know?) that accepting evolution means rejecting part or all of their religious belief system. Do you think you could accept evolution without it damaging your faith?
posted on 02.20.2008 9:48 AM9
ex-preacher I'd like to turn that around a bit and ask you and other evangelicals if you can maintain an open mind about evolution or if it has metaphysical implications for you.
Well, I think I already do have an open mind about evolution. But as Michael Behe points out, most people conflate three different concepts when they talk about "evolution": common descent, natural selection, and random mutation.
I don’t think common descent is nearly as well-supported as is often claimed. In fact, I think it has become a crutch that hinders a more robust examination of the evidence and leads to unnecessary confusion (e.g., the 1% difference myth). I also think natural selection is a tautological truth whose usefulness as an explanatory mechanism has been overstated.
The one I have the biggest problem with is random mutation. I think it plays only a minor role in biological change and cannot bear the weight as the primary engine of evolution.
I believe that nonrandom processes, whether frontloaded, guided, or somehow influenced by an intelligence that lies outside the system, have a far greater impact. And I believe that we stymie the acquisition of knowledge by trying to ignore the evidence for design in nature because of a presuppositional commitment to naturalism (whether physical or methodological).
Do you think you could accept evolution without it damaging your faith?
Yes, for two reasons. First, all truth is God's truth and therefore inherently compatible. If evolution is "true" then there will be no final conflict with Christianity. Second, the "truths" of science tend to be tentative and open to falsification. My faith, on the other hand, is based on a more solid foundation.
In a sense, my faith has been empirically tested more than theories of evolution ever could. So in the face of an apparent conflict I'd trust my faith, since I have more evidence for that than I do for any scientific theory.
posted on 02.20.2008 10:23 AM10
I am an evangelical and believe in evolution. There is nothing inherently contradictory in believing the bible and science. As evidenced by how contentious and passionate the name calling and arguing gets on this issue, Christians are really wasting time when they argue against science. My question for my fellow believers is why is the hill you want to die on? Professing a belief in evolution changes not one iota of the gospel, or its impact on ones worldview or lifestyle.
posted on 02.20.2008 10:28 AM11
Joe,
The implications are serious.
If Adam was not real, then Christ's and Paul's statements about Adam are false. And if one resorts to taking them figuratively, the implications on consistent interpretive methodology are equally serious.
There is also a great deal of damage done to any concept of original sin, and that affects the history behind the salvation message.
We can have a young earth that is older than 6,000 years and maintain special creation. If we do not, then we lose history, and thus doctrine and truth, and Christianity would be as invalid as Mormonism.
Collin
posted on 02.20.2008 10:59 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
12
Collin If Adam was not real, then Christ's and Paul's statements about Adam are false.
I agree. I also think that Adam was a real, historical person.
We can have a young earth that is older than 6,000 years and maintain special creation.
Why not an "old" earth?
posted on 02.20.2008 11:14 AM13
The various enunciations of the ID "theory" that I've seen from ID proponents are excessively elaborate, and confusing. The best, most succinct statement of ID "theory" is this one:
I don't understand how phenomenon X can have come into existence by natural means.
Therefore, phenomenon X must have come into existence by magic.
The reason that ID hasn't gained any traction is that the response to the argument above is:
Well, maybe the reason for your lack of understanding is that you're stupid.
Actually, there is a line of analysis that will tell us if something is designed. The thing to look at is not complexity, or "specification" (whatever that is). It is external purpose. Beings do things in order to benefit themselves. A bicycle, for example, was brought into existence to benefit bicyclists. That's why it has a seat. The seat doesn't benefit the bicycle, it benefits a rider. Similarly, a suitcase has a handle, not to benefit itself, but to benefit a traveler.
If you can point to a feature of an organism that doesn't bring any benefit to the organism, but serves some external purpose to which the organism is put, then you've got some evidence of ID. For example, Persian cats have smushed in flat faces, which carries a risk of breathing difficulties. The flat faces don't benefit them, but they help the owners to win ribbons. This fact is evidence that Persian cats are intelligently designed.
If the ID proponents can put forward some evidence along those lines, we may get somewhere, but all I've heard so far has been the chirping of crickets.
posted on 02.20.2008 11:48 AM14
And I also believe that the problem for the critics of ID is that they tend to rule out the possibility based more on prejudice than sound philosophical objections.
I'm not a scientist, but I've been following the political debate (and yes, it's a political debate, not a scientific one) long enough to know that your assertion is just plain wrong. We rule out ID/creationism because it's repeatedly been shown to be nonsense at best, outright bigoted lies at worst. (For starters, there has been absolutely ZERO real scientific work done to support ID or disprove evolution.)
The British physicist William Bonner, for example, suggested that the Big Bang theory was part of a conspiracy aimed at shoring up Christianity...
Then why do so many atheists support it? Because objective evidence supports it, and not the steady-state theory.
(BTW, quoting from Uncommon Descent does nothing to enhance your credibility: that blog is full of lies, bigotry, fake science, and bad math; assertions posted there are regularly debunked on evolutionist sites such as Panda's Thumb; and commenters who dispute the party line are regularly banned.)
I don’t think common descent is nearly as well-supported as is often claimed.
It's pretty well supported right here in your own post: you admitted, to take just one example, that chimps and humans share over 90% of their genetic heritage. What more support for common descent can you ask for?
The one I have the biggest problem with is random mutation. I think it plays only a minor role in biological change and cannot bear the weight as the primary engine of evolution.
Once again, you are misrepresenting modern evolutionary theory in much the same way as all other cdesign proponentsists do -- MET does not depend as much on "random mutation" as you seem to think it does. (And no, that article about lateral gene transfer doesn't challenge evolution -- MET includes lateral gene transfer already.)
And I believe that we stymie the acquisition of knowledge by trying to ignore the evidence for design in nature because of a presuppositional commitment to naturalism (whether physical or methodological).
First, we haven't ignored the evidence; we've considered it carefully, for generaions, and rejected it as nowhere near adequate. (Saying "It looks kinda designed to me, therefore it is designed" is not "evidence.") That's why there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed paper ever published that disproves MET or proves ID; and that's why the Wedge Document speaks only of PR efforts and not actual scientific work.
And second, your "presuppositional committment to naturalism" line is rubbish: for one thing, the biologists and geologists who first theorized about evolution and an old Earth, started out as Bible-believers, not as materialist-atheists -- as did all of the scientists who first disputed evolution, then came around to accept it. Evolution was born and flourished in an overwhelmingly Christian society, not an atheist one.
Second, the "truths" of science tend to be tentative and open to falsification. My faith, on the other hand, is based on a more solid foundation.
The only reason your faith is stronger than science in your own mind, is that you understand your own faith better than you understand science. You can shout "tentative" all you want, but your lack of understanding does not make science any less true than it is.
So in the face of an apparent conflict I'd trust my faith, since I have more evidence for that than I do for any scientific theory.
Don't make me laugh. You trust "scientific theory" every time you see a doctor, drive a car, board a plane, use a PC, watch TV, turn on a light, or ask the cops to solve a crime. You're being extremely dishonest and childish when you pretend otherwise. Did any of those useful and necessary innovations come from dogmatic churches?
If Adam was not real, then Christ's and Paul's statements about Adam are false.
Collin's inability to understand the concept of non-literal truth proves that he, and most other creationists, have no real understanding of the truth contained in the Bible (most of which is clearly metaphorical and can be understood on many levels); and are in no position to tell others what we should believe.
We can have a young earth that is older than 6,000 years and maintain special creation. If we do not, then we lose history, and thus doctrine and truth, and Christianity would be as invalid as Mormonism.
No, just YOUR VERSION of Christianity would be invalid. Fortunately, there are plenty of wiser, more enlightened Christians who can keep on dealing with reality after you've run away. oclarki, for example, has shown more wisdom than all of Joe's sophistry by trying to inject some common sense into the debate and steer us all toward more worthwhile subject-matter.
I guess it's time to quote St. Augustine again...
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
– ibid, 2:9
NOTE: this guy wrote all this back in the days when Christians didn't have the power to shout down or forcibly suppress differing opinions and faiths, and therefore HAD to win converts the old-fashioned way -- by making sense. The sooner you guys get shoved back in that position, the better off we'll all be.
posted on 02.20.2008 11:55 AM15
Why not an "old" earth?
Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. ~ Augustine
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine
posted on 02.20.2008 12:02 PM16
What statements did Christ make about Adam? I am not aware of any that definitively point to a historical person. What is it about St. Paul's statements that would be interpreted as false if Adam were an allegorical person?
posted on 02.20.2008 12:17 PM17
As evidenced by how contentious and passionate the name calling and arguing gets on this issue, Christians are really wasting time when they argue against science.
Oclarki, are Christians really arguing against science or are they arguing against the moral implications of a strictly material world? Are there really Christians that are arguing against Boyle's Law or Ampere's Law? Does anybody really say that belief in Faraday's Law is not Biblical? I guess it's possible that there are a few, but I've never really heard of any.
posted on 02.20.2008 12:49 PM18
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray...
Which brings us to the question: What did the writers of the Bible intend? Did they really intend that the Bible be used as a science textbook? Or did they fudge over those technical details because they were more concerned with what they considered the most important subject -- Man's relationship to God?
It seems perfectly obvious to me, that those who argue against reason and objective evidence, just to support a literal interpretation of the Bible, are the ones going astray. (And yes, ucfengr, they ARE arguing against science, and against our use of our own minds to find truth.) Notice how Joe's discourse about evolution offers absolutely no spiritual truth about how we can live better lives or get closer to God? That's what Biblical literalism gets us: useless nonsense that takes us further from reality, not closer to it. That's why so many Christians, all the way back to St. Augustine, reject literalism and are better off for it; and that's why creationism is bad theology as well as bad science.
posted on 02.20.2008 1:03 PM19
RBee,
Augustine rejected literalism, not because it wasn't true, but because he was influenced by Platonists. That's when he forsook millennialism.
Collin
posted on 02.20.2008 1:22 PM20
Augustine rejected literalism, not because it wasn't true, but because he was influenced by Platonists.
And why did Augustine allow himself to be influenced by Platonists? Because he saw that they were right, and getting better results than the Biblical literalists. So yes, he rejected literalism because the Platonists -- and possibly others -- had shown it wasn't true.
posted on 02.20.2008 1:34 PM21
ucfengr,
I won't go sa far as to say that rejecting evolution is the same as rejecting Boyle's law. However, when Christians dismiss the theory of evolution, it makes about as much sense as dismissing atomic thoery. Meaning we know a lot about the structure of atoms and our explanations at this point give us a pretty good idea how atoms work. Yet just because it is impossible for us to measure the location and speed of an electron, doesn't mean that frontier orbital theory is wrong.
posted on 02.20.2008 1:48 PM22
There is almost too much to comment on here.
Ludwig:
With ID proponents still trying to convince people that there's even any design to reverse engineer, that suggestion might just be putting the cart before the horse. (But it's an interesting suggestion nonetheless.)Collin:
That's nonsense. A consistent hermeneutic will interpret the Psalms differently from Isaiah or from Revelation because of the nature of the work. Interpreting Genesis differently than the Gospels is sort of a no-brainer - they're obviously different types of works, with different genres, purposes, etc. On the contrary, I think a rich hermeneutic recognizes that interpretation does not happen in a vacuum and takes a look at new evidence as it presents itself. In other words, a hermeneutic that says, "Oh, that evolution stuff is bad for our typical interpretation, so let's deny it outright," is not one worth having.bevets:
I have no doubt that the human author of Genesis intended to convey the ideas that Barr mentions, just as I have no doubt that the human author of Joshua intended to convey the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. That of course doesn't oblige me to be a geocentrist.[On a side note, Raging Bee: I like the way you're arguing this. It's a pleasant surprise from the position I might have expected you to take.]
posted on 02.20.2008 2:29 PM23
Brother Bevets:
There are people in my immediate family as well as my church who believe, like you, that the earth was created in six 24-hour days. I don't discuss this issue with them, because I would be tempted to say what I'm about to say to you.
In addition, I'm surprised that Joe would even ask the question, "Why not an old earth?"
He knows that there is no logic on earth that will convince people like you that the notion of 24 hour days and the God of the universe is ridiculous. Talking about God working in 24 hour days before he even created the 24 hour day is silly. I don't understand you and what it is that keeps you insisting on the truth of such a ridiculous belief.
You take this literally, but yet throw out the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine are actually the body of Christ. You do, right? (I'm assuming you're Protestant) But Christ specifically says, "This IS my body." Why do you not take that literally?
You young earthers are beyond my understanding. But I still love you as a brother in Christ.
posted on 02.20.2008 2:31 PM24
Which brings us to the question: What did the writers of the Bible intend? Did they really intend that the Bible be used as a science textbook? Or did they fudge over those technical details because they were more concerned with what they considered the most important subject -- Man's relationship to God?
'Science Textbook' is a common complaint. The presumed implication: God should have written Genesis in 21st century mathematical language. This assumes that if God had written a 'science textbook', humans would be able to recognize and comprehend it. We do not have specific details, but we do have 6 consecutive 24 hour days. To deny this is to open pandora's hermeneutical box.
You take this literally, but yet throw out the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine are actually the body of Christ. You do, right? (I'm assuming you're Protestant) But Christ specifically says, "This IS my body." Why do you not take that literally?
Everyone assumes that YECs demand 'literal'. We do not. We seek original intent. Did Jesus intend his audience to understand 'bread = physical body' or 'bread symbolizes the body of Christ'
posted on 02.20.2008 4:01 PM25
Christian Cynic: thanks for the compliment -- but (no offense intended here), why would it surprise you that I would reject simpleminded BS and dishonest sophistry?
posted on 02.20.2008 4:04 PM26
I haven't read too many commenters on this thread who could pass point #2. Oclarki, that Raging Bee likes your viewe of Christianity should be enough to make you reconsider your postition.
posted on 02.20.2008 4:07 PM27
Mike O,
Don't worry, he has assured me in many other comment threads how abhorrent he finds my Christianity. When one's belief in Christ makes Ludwig, Raging Bee, Robert Duquette or Mike Toreno apoplectic its a sure sign one's doctrine is sound!
posted on 02.20.2008 4:16 PM28
We do not have specific details, but we do have 6 consecutive 24 hour days. To deny this is to open pandora's hermeneutical box.
Really? There are plenty of Christians who have absolutely no problem with discarding a literal interpretation of some part of the Bible when it leads to a clearly absurd conclusion. Their faith is strong, they have a lot of spiritual insight to offer the rest of us, and some of them work their asses off and make huge sacrifices to help the less fortunate according to their idea of what their God wants them to do. If you can't make the same stretch without your worldview falling apart, maybe you should give it up and start learning from your betters. Or get professional help.
Everyone assumes that YECs demand 'literal'. We do not. We seek original intent.
And the original intent of those who wrote the Bible, was to teach people about the subject they considered most important in all the Universe: Man's relationship to God, and what God wanted humans to do. Given that this is, indeed, the primary subject of the Bible, and the reason so many people find it a useful book, it is safe to conclude that the authors did NOT intend for us to use narrow, literalistic interpretations of obscure passages to draw conclusions about subjects the authors considered peripheral and/or unimportant, such as how old the Earth really is or how, exactly, God chose to create humans. So if you YECs are seeking original intent, you're not even in sight of the ballpark anymore.
Also, we do not "assume" the YECs "demand 'literal;'" we observe them explicitly demanding it, basing their entire worldview on their (selectively) literalistic interpretations of this or that part of the Bible, and insisting that EVERYTHING that appears to contradict their literalistic interpretation is, ipso facto, wrong and must be discarded without further inquiry.
posted on 02.20.2008 5:01 PM29
Start at the beginning: What is your atomic age? 13,7 billion years? or less? When all the elements of the earth came into being and then evolved to elemental life? The Intelligent Designer of all nature started with a entire universe of irreplaceable atoms and you and I are a part -rising from dust and returning to a dust, Man is the animal, the reincarnating soul joined for spiritual development opportunities, The brain is the animal, the mind is the soul.
posted on 02.20.2008 5:13 PM30
Touché, RB. My apologies for the somewhat backhanded nature of the (otherwise sincere) compliment.
bevets, since you didn't respond to me before (and given the logical implication of your last comment), I take it that you're a professing geocentrist? After all, both Joshua and Isaiah give evidence that (when taken at face value) witnesses to the sun revolving around the earth. (I'm sure, of course, that the geocentrists who wrote the Bible didn't actually intend to imply the truth of the cosmological system they adhered to.)
posted on 02.20.2008 5:29 PM31
bevets, since you didn't respond to me before (and given the logical implication of your last comment), I take it that you're a professing geocentrist? After all, both Joshua and Isaiah give evidence that (when taken at face value) witnesses to the sun revolving around the earth. (I'm sure, of course, that the geocentrists who wrote the Bible didn't actually intend to imply the truth of the cosmological system they adhered to.)
Please alert NASA that the sun does NOT set
posted on 02.20.2008 5:48 PM32
Christian Cynic: I'm not at all offended by your obviously sincere compliment; no apology is necessary. I was just puzzled as to how my arguments surprized you.
posted on 02.20.2008 5:48 PM33
I won't go sa far as to say that rejecting evolution is the same as rejecting Boyle's law.
But that really doesn't answer my question, olarki. When most Christians argue against evolution aren't they really arguing against the philosophy of a purely material world and its implications for morals and morality?
posted on 02.20.2008 6:14 PM34
And the original intent of those who wrote the Bible, was to teach people about the subject they considered most important in all the Universe: Man's relationship to God, and what God wanted humans to do. Given that this is, indeed, the primary subject of the Bible, and the reason so many people find it a useful book, it is safe to conclude that the authors did NOT intend for us to use narrow, literalistic interpretations of obscure passages to draw conclusions about subjects the authors considered peripheral and/or unimportant, such as how old the Earth really is or how, exactly, God chose to create humans. So if you YECs are seeking original intent, you're not even in sight of the ballpark anymore.
Who are you and what have you done with the real Raging Bee?
posted on 02.20.2008 6:17 PM35
Joe, in response #9, you state, "My faith, on the other hand, is based on a more solid foundation." What is this 'more solid foundation' you are referring to? In a way, aren't you saying that you have faith in your faith, which is a circular argument?
Also, you state in #9, "In a sense, my faith has been empirically tested more than theories of evolution ever could. So in the face of an apparent conflict I'd trust my faith, since I have more evidence for that than I do for any scientific theory." What are these empirical tests that you refer to? And what is your basis for stating that you have more evidence for your faith than any scientific theory? I would love to be privy to this evidence. It seems that you've already made up your mind, that in the event of a conflict between your faith and ANY scientific theory, you've already decided you will always choose your faith.
posted on 02.20.2008 6:24 PM36
If you say no, then everyone will finally understand that, as W.E.Loennig has stated, today’s evolutionary theory is completely unfalsifiable.
This simply doesn't follow. If you were to find Neanderthal remains that dated to the cretaceous period, evolution would be completely falsified, with no need to appeal to "irreducible complexity."
posted on 02.20.2008 6:30 PM37
bevets
Everyone assumes that YECs demand 'literal'. We do not. We seek original intent. Did Jesus intend his audience to understand 'bread = physical body' or 'bread symbolizes the body of Christ'
Somehow, I knew it was hopeless to discuss this with you. You are a puzzle and a wonderment.
How did they get all those amoebas and parameciums to march up the steps of the ark, two by two?
posted on 02.20.2008 7:17 PM38
"(BTW, quoting from Uncommon Descent does nothing to enhance your credibility: that blog is full of lies, bigotry, fake science, and bad math; assertions posted there are regularly debunked on evolutionist sites such as Panda's Thumb; and commenters who dispute the party line are regularly banned.)"
Sure that statement couldn't be inverted?
(BTW, quoting from Panda's Thumb does nothing to enhance your credibility: that blog is full of lies, bigotry, fake science, and bad math; assertions posted there are regularly debunked on IDT sites such as Uncommon Descent; and commenters who dispute the party line are regularly banned.)
posted on 02.20.2008 7:47 PM39
"That's why there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed paper ever published that disproves MET or proves ID."
Even Philip Kitcher, in his recent book on Living with Darwin, rejects the sociological criterion of peer reviewed journalism as a valid scientific criterion. But you're too busy regurgitating the talking points spoon-fed to you by Panda's Thumb to even keep up with what you own side is saying.
"And second, your 'presuppositional commitment to naturalism' line is rubbish: for one thing, the biologists and geologists who first theorized about evolution and an old Earth, started out as Bible-believers, not as materialist-atheists -- as did all of the scientists who first disputed evolution, then came around to accept it. Evolution was born and flourished in an overwhelmingly Christian society, not an atheist one."
Well, Joe can speak for himself, but you only have to google "methodological naturalism" to see that the modern scientific establishment does, indeed, have a presuppositional commitment to naturalism. And that's to say nothing of Dawkins, Lewontin, &c.
"Don't make me laugh. You trust 'scientific theory' every time you see a doctor, drive a car, board a plane, use a PC, watch TV, turn on a light, or ask the cops to solve a crime. You're being extremely dishonest and childish when you pretend otherwise. Did any of those useful and necessary innovations come from dogmatic churches?"
And you're being extremely childish and naive in your philosophy of science. Try boning up on the varieties of scientific antirealism the next time before you affect such a haughty, know-it-all tone.
"Collin's inability to understand the concept of non-literal truth proves that he, and most other creationists, have no real understanding of the truth contained in the Bible (most of which is clearly metaphorical and can be understood on many levels); and are in no position to tell others what we should believe."
And is that how we should interpret your statement about seeing a doctor, driving a boarding a plane, &c. Non-literal truth?
posted on 02.20.2008 8:05 PM40
I have always heard that even a broken clock could also be right twice a day.
posted on 02.20.2008 8:21 PM41
bevets:
I'm fairly certain they're aware of that, thanks. Nice try at a red herring. (Or perhaps a rather obfuscatory way of answering my question, whichever you think most charitable.)RB, my apology was primarily an acknowledgment of the prejudicial nature of the comment (I presumed given your stated positions on other issues that you wouldn't have a position on an issue like this that I would consider to be so reasonable). Then again, it doesn't seem to be a phenomenon limited just to myself, judging from ucfengr and smmtheory's statement.
posted on 02.20.2008 8:39 PM42
Sure that statement couldn't be inverted?
Yes, I'm quite sure, at least because Panda's Thumb does not ban commenters who disagree with evolution, even when they're obviously deranged and/or bigoted. Sorry, Mr. hays, but that oversight alone flushes your credibility down the toilet.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:20 PM43
"But that really doesn't answer my question, olarki. When most Christians argue against evolution aren't they really arguing against the philosophy of a purely material world and its implications for morals and morality?"
Well if so, then they should specify this and not try to equate the philosophy with the science. Christianity does stand against a philosophy of materialism, but the truth or falsehood of the science of evolution has no bearing on the philosophy of materialism.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:28 PM44
Darrell: I agree. The best arguments against pholosophical materialism have come from people who are smart enough not to confuse science with philosophy. The Catholic Church, for one, has thought this matter out far better than the creationists, and accept honest science while sticking to basic and sensible principles in regard to material values. And so have most of the atheists. For my own part, I have always been able to keep my eyes on a moral code without playing fast and loose with the science.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:48 PM45
Try boning up on the varieties of scientific antirealism...
Please elaborate.
posted on 02.20.2008 9:51 PM46
Hi Joe,
Some great stuff in there thanks. Where abouts did the Daniel Dennet quote come from?
Cheers
posted on 02.20.2008 10:31 PMAG
47
Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995) p.21
posted on 02.21.2008 2:54 AM48
Well if so, then they should specify this and not try to equate the philosophy with the science.
Probably, but I don't think either side does a very good job of separating the two. If you look at the two sides of the debate, on the religious side, you have a bunch of philosophers trying to argue science, and on the anti-religious side, you have a bunch of scientists trying to argue philosophy; with neither side doing a very good job of it. I realize this is a fairly simplistic view of the conflict, but I think it is representative.
posted on 02.21.2008 8:30 AM49
"Probably, but I don't think either side does a very good job of separating the two. If you look at the two sides of the debate, on the religious side, you have a bunch of philosophers trying to argue science, and on the anti-religious side, you have a bunch of scientists trying to argue philosophy; with neither side doing a very good job of it. I realize this is a fairly simplistic view of the conflict, but I think it is representative."
I agree, that’s what seems to make up a lot of the debate. And I find it enormously frustrating when either side does that.
I’m a Christian. I’m opposed to the philosophy of materialism. I’m also a very interested layman on science topics. I love learning what all has been discovered about how the world works, and that includes the science of evolution. I’ll agree with my fellow Christians when they argue against materialism, but when they then say that those arguments therefore disprove the science behind evolution, I’d say they’ve jumped the gun. If they want to argue science, they need to do so with scientific evidence, not philosophical arguments which are suited for a philosophical debate.
And it applies on both sides. When Dawkins, or others, lays out the evidence for evolution and then tacks on a “this disproves God” conclusion, he’s also moving outside the field of science.
Science carries a special kind of authority because if one person makes a claim, someone else can check the data and verify or disprove their claim. I suspect a lot of people wish their philosophical arguments could have that kind of objectivity, and so are eager to claim the support of science in their debates. But science only maintains its objectivity if it sticks to the verifiable evidence.
posted on 02.21.2008 8:56 AM50
Raging Bee writes:
“That blog is full of lies, bigotry, fake science, and bad math; assertions posted there are regularly debunked on evolutionist sites such as Panda's Thumb.”
“That's why there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed paper ever published that disproves MET or proves ID.”
Is Panda’s Thumb peer reviewed?
“It's pretty well supported right here in your own post: you admitted, to take just one example, that chimps and humans share over 90% of their genetic heritage. What more support for common descent can you ask for?”
Maybe because, in their new book on The Design of Life, Dembski and Wells already address that argument.
“Have no real understanding of the truth contained in the Bible (most of which is clearly metaphorical and can be understood on many levels).”
Exactly how much of the Bible is metaphorical in your opinion? Is the Exodus metaphorical? What about the Incarnation or Resurrection?
“No, just YOUR VERSION of Christianity would be invalid. Fortunately, there are plenty of wiser, more enlightened Christians who can keep on dealing with reality after you've run away. oclarki, for example, has shown more wisdom than all of Joe's sophistry by trying to inject some common sense into the debate and steer us all toward more worthwhile subject-matter.”
“Really? There are plenty of Christians who have absolutely no problem with discarding a literal interpretation of some part of the Bible when it leads to a clearly absurd conclusion…If you can't make the same stretch without your worldview falling apart, maybe you should give it up and start learning from your betters. Or get professional help…it is safe to conclude that the authors did NOT intend for us to use narrow, literalistic interpretations of obscure passages to draw conclusions about subjects the authors considered peripheral and/or unimportant, such as how old the Earth really is or how, exactly, God chose to create humans. So if you YECs are seeking original intent, you're not even in sight of the ballpark anymore.”
“If people mention it at all, they mention it as if it made Ussher into a crank, in the modern vulgar expression a crackpot, and as if Ussher in doing this was doing something peculiar or exceptional, something quite extraordinary which only a totally misguided person would undertake. If people so think, it only shows how little they appreciate the older religious and humanistic culture, and indeed, as I shall show, the older scientific culture, and how far removed the modern world is from that culture. For Ussher was in no way exceptional in believing that he knew the year in which the world was created: such knowledge was entirely normal in his time and for a considerable period after him. Ussher was only one in a long series of scholars who concerned themselves with biblical chronology, and many of them were very great scholars, indeed they included some of the greatest minds of all time. This may sound like an exaggeration, but it is not so: let me give you three names: Martin Luther, a religious genius of enormous importance; Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), by far the greatest classical scholar of his time and among the greatest there has ever been; and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), certainly the dominant scientific genius over a long period of the world’s history. None of these men had the slightest doubt that the date of creation was knowable and was known. It was there in the Bible for anyone to read. Everyone knew this. That understanding of the universe, based upon biblical figures coupled with certain other data, was nothing unusual, but was part of the traditional culture inherited over two thousand years and more. The world was created by God, quite suddenly and completely, in a span of seven days as narrated in Genesis, and all this was by our standards of today not so very long ago.”
“As somebody told me after a lecture, all the history of the Bible is true, but chronology is a different matter. The Bible reader is not bound to accept the chronology. But this means that God gave us in writing a quite misleading and erroneous chronology. Well, people may say, that doesn’t matter, for chronology is not important for religion. But this is exactly the ‘liberal’ attitude to historical narratives: it does not matter for religion whether they are historically true or not. Unfortunately, the Old Testament makes it clear that, for it, chronology was important for religion, and the chronology was there very precisely because chronology did matter for religion and indeed was a way of
communicating something that was essential for the faith of the Hebrews in biblical times; and all this is lost sight of as soon as we treat the chronology as marginal or unimportant, or else in the ‘conservative’ manner distort it by squeezing into it long cosmological periods that it knew nothing of.”
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/chronology_barr.pdf
posted on 02.21.2008 9:36 AM51
But this means that God gave us in writing a quite misleading and erroneous chronology. Well, people may say, that doesn’t matter, for chronology is not important for religion. But this is exactly the ‘liberal’ attitude to historical narratives: it does not matter for religion whether they are historically true or not.
And the "liberal" attitude is clearly correct here, even after you've labelled it "liberal." The Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus, the reality and significance of the Ressurrection, and the ability of each individual to commune directly with God -- the validity and relevance of ALL of these things remains solid, independent of the chronology, or any errors one might find in the history.
The Bible itself states that salvation and enlightenment are gained by repentance and acceptance of Christ in one's heart, NOT by believing -- or even reading -- all of the Old Testament.
As a Tom Robbins character once said, "The words of Jesus Christ are excellent words to live by, even if all the accompanying folklore is a pack of lies."
posted on 02.21.2008 12:33 PM52
But this means that God gave us in writing a quite misleading and erroneous chronology.
Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible cut corners with those details because their God was pushing them to stay focused on the central topic, which, as I've said before, has nothing to do with Hebrew history or chronology.
Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible made mistakes with the history because those particular bits weren't as divinely inspired as, say, the Ten Commandments.
Or maybe the details got fudged because the authors were aiming for gripping drama, punch-to-the-gut storytelling, or easily-understood metaphors, rather than straight recitation of a huge mass of facts.
posted on 02.21.2008 12:40 PM53
Another thing to consider, is that God let all those errors about the chronology, and the age and shape of the Earth, stand, because he knew in advance -- being God and all -- that his creatures would, sooner or later, figure all that stuff out for ourselves anyway.
posted on 02.21.2008 12:45 PM54
Raging Bee,
This is disturbing because I'm in agreement with you again. I'm doing a study of Acts right now, and whenever the gospel is preached to the gentiles, the emphasis is on Christ bringing justification between God and man through the forgiveness of sins. To an audience of gentiles who had no knowledge of the Old Testament the early apostles would have been wasting their time trying to prove the Genesis story. Even when preaching to the jews, the emphasis was always on Moses, the Law and Christ fulfilling the prophecies in the old testament.
This is not to ague against studying Genesis. we must recognize the whole of the bible is God revealing his plan to reconcile sinful man to Himself through the life death and resurrection of His son. Each of the 66 books in the bible advance that story in a different way.
posted on 02.21.2008 12:47 PM55
oclarki: another good point. Most Christians tend to believe that ALL people, regardless of their previous experience or education, can and should seek communion with God through Jesus. That includes people who never got time to read the OT, or never learned to read at all, or who come from completely different religious backgrounds, or got bad information about Christianity, or who, for whatever reason, got turned off by what they read in the OT. (Let's face it -- there's a LOT of just plain insane and indefensible stuff in there, and a lot of stuff that just doesn't apply to the present circumstances of most individuals.) If belief in all the chronology and begats and history and creation-stories is required for salvation, than a HUGE chunk of Humanity have no chance of ever getting to Heaven. That's not something a just God would do.
Besides, aren't Christians supposed to worship a God, not a book?
posted on 02.21.2008 1:11 PM56
Raging Bee writes:
"got turned off by what they read in the OT. (Let's face it -- there's a LOT of just plain insane and indefensible stuff in there."
You agree with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the OT; I, for my part, agree with Jesus and the Apostles on the OT. I prefer the company I keep to the company you keep.
posted on 02.21.2008 2:18 PM57
Raging Bee writes:
"Yes, I'm quite sure, at least because Panda's Thumb does not ban commenters who disagree with evolution, even when they're obviously deranged and/or bigoted. Sorry, Mr. hays, but that oversight alone flushes your credibility down the toilet."
Sure about that?
"It is quite obvious why I was banned from Panda's Thumb, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and Austringer (Wesley Elsberry's blog) -- the Darwinists there don't want me raining on their parades."
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/unnoticed-victory-in-dover-case-id_26.html
"You ought to ask him sometime why they banned him from Panda's Thumb...He's been asked several times by others and never answered honestly (good thing some people archived the post that got him banned)."
http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/06/culture-wars-take-two.html
"It is a blatant lie to say that few have been banned from Panda's Thumb as well. I would love to see the whole list of which I am a member. Maybe Wes would be willing to present it but I doubt it."
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000602-p-6.html
So do these counterexamples flush your credibility down the WC?
posted on 02.21.2008 2:30 PM58
steve: Those who were banned from Panda's Thumb, were banned, not because of their opinions, but because of extreme immaturity in their behavior (including, in some cases, grade-school-level potty humor and profanity), bigoted name-calling, repeated posting of already-debunked falsehoods, and, in the case of Larry Fafarman, repeated sock-puppetry and outright mental illness -- he was known to post under the names of other respondents, and even his own brother, who had to show up, explain Larry's mental condition, and apologize for his embarrassing performance. Furthermore, and most relevant here, those who were banned, were banned after being allowed to post with impunity for several months (or in Larry's case, at least a year). Indeed, one Young-Earth creationist, Mark Hausam, was explicitly invited to contribute in a post that was created just to handle his assertions -- and that thread went up to 1000 posts!
UD, on the other hand, has banned respondents the minute they question the creationist party line, however sane and civil their tone may have been.
Comparing UD to Panda's Thumb is simply dishonest. Their policies toward dissenting views are not at all similar, and if you were observing both with any honesty (I've been reading PT since 2004), you would know it.
posted on 02.21.2008 4:28 PM59
Raging Bee is right. I was banned for gently pointing out that a "Darwinist" website that was being made fun of was actually a creationist parody of so-called Darwinists.
They are extremely insecure at UD. They can't stand being shown to be in error.
posted on 02.21.2008 5:08 PM60
"You agree with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the OT; I, for my part, agree with Jesus and the Apostles on the OT. I prefer the company I keep to the company you keep."
What an unusual way of looking at it! When I form an opinion, I am less concerned with who shares my opinion than I am with its validity. If Hitler said the earth was spherical, I would be "keeping company" with this awful man because the evidence leads me to share his opinion.
Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they are far more easily vetted than Jesus and the Apostles. I would have to know much, much more about these men for their opinions to oversway my own.
posted on 02.21.2008 5:23 PM61
Raging Bee writes:
“Yes, I'm quite sure, at least because Panda's Thumb does not ban commenters who disagree with evolution, even when they're obviously deranged and/or bigoted. Sorry, Mr. hays, but that oversight alone flushes your credibility down the toilet.”
“Who were banned from Panda's Thumb, were banned, not because of their opinions, but because of extreme immaturity in their behavior (including, in some cases, grade-school-level potty humor and profanity), bigoted name-calling, repeated posting of already-debunked falsehoods, and, in the case of Larry Fafarman, repeated sock-puppetry and outright mental illness -- he was known to post under the names of other respondents, and even his own brother, who had to show up, explain Larry's mental condition, and apologize for his embarrassing performance.”
You originally denied that anyone was banned at Panda’s Thumb for “bigotry” or “obvious derangement.”
You now admit that commenters were banned who, according to you, were guilty of “bigoted name-calling,” and “outright mental illness.”
Nice job of point-blank contradicting yourself. Speaking of which:
“(BTW, quoting from Uncommon Descent does nothing to enhance your credibility: that blog is full of lies, bigotry, fake science, and bad math; assertions posted there are regularly debunked on evolutionist sites such as Panda's Thumb; and commenters who dispute the party line are regularly banned.)”
“Comparing UD to Panda's Thumb is simply dishonest.”
So you now admit that you were simply dishonest to compare UD to Panda’s Thumb. Remember, you initiated the comparison, not me.
posted on 02.21.2008 6:50 PM62
Here's a useful simplification that I've found to be often true: There are a number of Christians who would like to discount ideas simply because the implications make matters more complicated. Won't affirm a six-day creation? You're raising the question of why Genesis was written in the language of days and nights. Affirm evolution? You're raising the question of whether or not Adam was a real person and if original sin is really a tenable doctrine in light of it. (I could continue at length.) But that isn't a good reason for me to stop asking questions; in fact, it makes me more eager to find ways of reconciling these problems with the evidence I find from other things. To me, this is an approach that many people implicitly take with other things, the paradigm case being geocentrist overtones (and other cosmological errors) in Scripture. If this is acceptable for some issues, then why must some insist that the approach is simply not to be considered for others such as evolution? It makes no sense to me, although it does often show how such individuals are not all that concerned about being open-minded.
posted on 02.21.2008 8:33 PM63
hays: I made a mistake due to hastily-chosen words; then I went back and corrected my mistake; now I'm admitting I made a mistake. That's a lot more honesty than I've seen from creationists; and a lot more honesty than you've brought to this debate. You're in no position to call anyone dishonest.
(What I should have said initially, is that PT has never banned a creationist respondent immediately, but has always given him/her plenty of time to express him/herself and prove him/herself either immature, bigoted, deranged, or just plain babyish, before banning him/her. My bad -- but I now stand by this rewording of my position, with no further apologies.)
Remember, you initiated the comparison, not me.
Actually, you were the one who tried to imply that PT's and UD's banning policies were similar.
posted on 02.21.2008 11:12 PM64
In point 5. we get the classical quote mine, i. e., not only taking a quote completely out of its context, but also leaving out decisive parts of the sentence that reveal the original meaning but are not convenient for the person who wants to use the quote. The original quote runs as follows:
"However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity . . . But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren't so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously 'intelligent'
innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces. "
http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/05/michael-lynch-chimes-in.html
So the explanation is random genetic drift and mutation! How inconvenient for a proponent of ID. But no problem, just omit it from the quote, most readers will be too lazy to check.
I have checked most of the other points in Carter's article but they all more or less fall into the same category of deception.
posted on 02.25.2008 10:07 AM65
11 is quite an interesting point:
What if we DID [sic] find irreducible complex biological features?
Well, this would surely blow the theory of evolution by random mutations and natural selection out of the water! It is the very strength of ANY scientific theory (and sets it aside from non-scientific or even un-scientific theories such as ID) that hundreds, even thousands of hypothetic facts can be thought of, which, were they to become reality,
would refute the corresponding theory.
Every new find in the field of biology holds the potential to disprove the theory of evolution, but the very fact that since the wide public acceptance of evolution more than a hundred years ago, NO such finds have been unearthed, makes it extremely likely that the theory of evolution points in
the right direction.
On the other hand, no matter what you find, ID will always be unfalsifiable, because "the Designer did it" can just explain everything and thus explains nothing. The only problem with Carter's article is that he is too ignorant
posted on 02.25.2008 12:29 PMto know and that is exactly the reason why he and many others fall for the unscientific fallacy of ID.