Indisputably, in the realm of biology, evolution is the “establishment”—and the fact that it isn’t available for target practice ought to make us all suspicious. I object to evolution at a number of levels, and find myself unsure of where to aim first, but this point seems as good a place as any.
In a culture as cynical and doubt-ridden as postmodern America, when a societal mainstay goes unchallenged there must be a catch, a caveat. Caveat being: Evolution is a crutch for far too many worldviews to go down without a fight.
And, understandably, the fight is rigged. The increasing vociferousness of Darwinists these days argue the theory’s untouchable status. If you suggest that evolution might be off the mark, wonder aloud if it’s really science, you’ll be favored with an ugly stare and called religious bigot. This is a fairly convenient arrangement for dyed-in-the-wool evolvers, but ultimately it’s a trick that boomerangs on its owners. People start asking questions.
For example: Where are the knock-out demonstrations of Darwinist supremacy? Shouldn’t they be paraded through the public eye in light of recent challenges from the (bigoted, narrow-minded, moronic) Intelligent Design movement? Where are the big guns?
In reality, the stock responses to I.D. are sneers and caricature. As the late Steven Jay Gould wrote, re: the Kansas Board of Education controversy: "They still call it Kansas, but I don’t think we’re in the real world anymore…Why get excited over this latest episode in the long, sad history of American anti-intellectualism?"
And, as if sensing my need for a current example, the people over at Wickipedia have helpfully provided this entry—a phenomenon at which both sides may laugh over, but hardly for the same reasons. If I were an honest Darwinist, this would make me a little queasy; if I’m arguing from a position of strength, why am I shooting rubber band bullets instead of flexing intellectual muscle?
When juvenile rhetoric passes as “defense” for a “scientific” movement, cultural weather-watchers may wonder if the ship is going down. In reality, the reasons for sinking have been present for awhile...
Biological evolution fails as a science because it relies, ironically, on ex nihilo realities. In the beginning, says the Darwinist, was a morass of unstable chemicals suspended in a volatile soup. But wait!—last time I checked, carbon had no self-generative properties! “Oh, you silly,” says the patient biology teacher, “That problem is explained because we evolutionists posit a Big Bang.”
Ooh. Well, that explains that.
As I write this, I feel slightly embarrassed, as if I’m picking on the fat kid or engaged in voyeurism, looking in on someone’s childhood fantasy.“Mother!” said Tommy, from inside his crayons and construction paper, “Mother, the world began with a Big Bang!” Tommy’s mother smiled, patted him on the head, and returned to her knitting.
A Big Bang. At it’s most rudimentary level, evolution is simple, dogged materialism: Could a god have created the world? No, definitely not. Could a Big Bang have done it? Well, of course. This bias, favoring the seen over the unseen, is inexplicable and laughable, as well as the modern trend. To say it’s “objective” or “scientific” is pure charade.
But evolution has other problems. Foremost on my list is the way we learn of this pristine and mythic reality—via human minds. If evolutionary theory is true, and we’ve gradually gathered ourselves piecemeal from the rubbage heap of cosmic accident and brutal chance, then the human mind is the last place we could hope to learn of it. A patch-made mind is hardly safe in the kitchen, much less for pronouncing life's origins. To assert otherwise is to say, in effect, “Thanks to the efforts of these fools, we have arrived at the foolproof system.”
In other words, the answer impinges upon itself. While depending on the viability of scientific brains, evolution debunks the reliability of the human mind—leaving majority vote as the only truth-arbitrator. Pure democracy, especially among trend-conscious scientists, is a chancy road to reason. In this sense, Darwin was at his most appealing when he was the only Darwinist, and still had the chance of being a mad genius (thus transcending his genus).
But my diatribe goes on. (And note that I have yet to scratch the surface of the argument from Intelligent Design, a system that is sophisticated, cogent—and viciously maligned at every opportunity.)
I’m puzzled by the perplexing lack of sincerity shown by evolutionists everywhere, who evidently don’t consider their discovery suitable for passionate implementation. Consider: A true revolutionary begins by complaining about the fly in his soup, and ends by confronting the world because her people have no soup. But so few Darwinists get past the fly.
They shrug off the chains of damning morality—and then content themselves with snug materialism and occasional consensual sex. Such efforts are half-hearted. Where are the hordes of pragmatic dictators, flaunting our ethics and mores at will? Where are the megalomaniac playboys, assembling harems by brute force and parading them down the city streets? Such efforts in the direction of self-interest, while utterly justifiable, are bafflingly covert when they do occur. Where are the books? The Case for Rape? Pillage for a Better You? And where are the apologists who will champion such behavior, and stir up hedonists and sadists and racists and atheists for the betterment of our race?
Numerous parishioners are evolutionist-revolutionists to the extent that they can live irresponsibly and pursue self-deification. Few, however, make the nihilistic connections screaming to be made.
This is all very perplexing, but ultimately, because the evolutionist’s demands are too modest, we must question their legitimacy. It’s like claiming one holds the Pope for ransom, and then demanding a mere two million for his return. The situation begins to look like a farce, and one suspects that evolution is merely a prop, an expedient apologia for the more self-centered impulses of our race. It’s all too convenient.
To sum up: Evolution is an easy target because of it’s ludicrous backstory, the insincere demands made by its adherents, and its childishly insecure efforts at self-defense (“Intelligent design? Ha! No one believes that.”)
Other comments could be made, say, about the tinkering with timelines that evolutionists have found so addictive. Every few years we learn that the earth is a few thousand millennia older than we previously knew, the idea apparently being that infinite tedium makes infinite complexity more tenable. However, these comments have been in numerous other places, and by numerous other people more qualified scientifically.
I’ll close my harangue with a word on Intelligent Design, which is not inherently Christian, and which is, incidentally, a carefully-developed theory. ID deals with the same ex nihilo dilemma that evolution attempts to blur, but with a notable difference: ID confronts the issue in the open.
::
Resources, widely available, but generally unmentioned:
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution – Michael J. Behe
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis – Michael Denton
Darwin on Trial - Philip E. Johnson
Icons of Evolution: Science of Myth? – Jonathan Wells
The Design Revolution – William A. Dembski
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design – Thomas Woodward
As well, numerous articles are available; try a keyword search for “Intelligent Design” on the ATLA database, or similar engines featuring scholarly journals.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Fun with Evolution
Filed in: Controversy Philosophy Science
Subscribe to:
or 
or
60 comments:
ouch! my brain hurts. i think i got the gist, and agree? i need to read it 3 or 4 more times though. ;)
Sigh.
I probably should have started with a 3-point outline and gone from there.
Greetings, Arie. Nice blog. I enjoyed the ex nihilo argument and found that pretty straightforward. -Cousin Andy
Thanks, Andy. I am consoled. After reading the post again, I still think it's wordy enough to deserve a rewrite.
I need to go back and excavate my thoughts.
i just think you're a brainiac! ...but i love it. i tease you but i love reading your stuff ariel! you are a fabulous writer.
I knew that if I expressed enough remorse, my writing would get some love. ;)
Rather than shred your entire post, which is very much misguided (replace the word "evolution" with "gravity" and it should be clear why your rant is very much off the mark), I will take just one comment:
"Biological evolution fails as a science because it relies, ironically, on ex nihilo realities."
No, it doesn't. You are making a common error among IDers, who as a matter of course confuse abiogenesis with evolution and just as commonly assume that the origin of the universe in some way affects evolution. But read this:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
That was one "Darwinist" who did not exist on "ex nihilo realities".
Phew. I was starting to feel like no one was going to disagree with me, which is a disappointing fate for any argument.
First, thanks dr zen for not "shredding my entire post," which would no doubt have been very embarassing. I appreciate the gracious reprieve.
As near as I can see, you're telling me that evolution should not be confused with spontaneous generation, because God tossed out the raw building blocks of life and then left the earth to gravitate its way to solvency.
Did I get that right?
God breathed some Carbon into the the atmosphere, threw in some enzymes for good measure, and sat back to watch the whole hit-or-miss joyride unfold.
This is either a lame god or a lame theory, and I'm really sweating as I try to decide which.
Ok, I admit it: foisting stop-gap evolution on an all-knowing, all-powerful deity has always made me smile.
Help me dr, the "grandeur" is passing me by.
I shred the whole post at my blog. You might enjoy it, if you can understand it.
I'm telling you that the origins of life have nothing to do with the origins of species. Darwin believed that God created life, not because he wished to explain a gap in his theory, but because that was his sincere belief, borne out by the facts as he was aware of them.
Did God throw some "carbon" (we consist of a lot more than that, you know, which you can tell by observing that you are not a piece of coal) and bits and pieces into a pot and hope for the best? I don't know. What I do know is, if he created you, he did it through the means of evolution. Perhaps you might consider that an all-powerful deity can choose any means it likes to create you (and did not have to do it by evolution, of course), and it's not for you to criticise its choice.
And I feel only sorrow for you that you cannot see the beauty in the idea that a simple beginning worked its way into the wonderful life you see. I'll take my self-serving materialism (and occasional consensual sex), set as it is in a universe that is full of miracles and wonder, and leave you in your small room, the light shut out by a cloth of ignorance, your eyes tight shut, your mind closed to all possibilities that do not end in your dogma.
"I shred the whole post at my blog. You might enjoy it, if you can understand it."
First off, dr, I need to applaud your sense of humor. You're hilarious! Go on, admit it: I'll bet you were perfecting your stand-up routines in graduate school? Ah, the dry irony, delivered, no doubt, with a conspiratorial wink - you're great!
But on to your more serious arguments.
"I'm telling you that the origins of life have nothing to do with the origins of species."
In all fairness, you'll have to admit that this view is marginal at best. But have it your way.
"Did God throw some "carbon"... into a pot and hope for the best? I don't know. What I do know is, if he created you, he did it through the means of evolution."
Why, you speak as if evolution is FACT, when, as we've all been told, it's merely a theory, the "best explanation we have, given the current set of facts." How did you come by this - for lack of a better word - dogma?
"you might consider that an all-powerful deity can choose any means it likes to create you...and it's not for you to criticise its choice."
I'm sure that as you wrote that, you realized I might take the argument and use it in an identical way on you. Well, voila! I'll consider your rhetoric neutralized and leave it at that.
"And I feel only sorrow for you...I'll leave you in your small room..."
Hah ha! There you go again, being funny. I realize, of course, that you're merely employing some witty self-deprecating humor as you confront my viewpoint with "sneers" and "caricature," the very weapons I mentioned in the above post.
The part you'll have to explain, however, is why a world that wheezed into existence through a series of cosmic accidents is more "full of miracles and wonder" that an earth tailor-made in every detail by a God.
Beyond that, and your somewhat fluid understanding of "dogma," I think I understand you well.
"I'm telling you that the origins of life have nothing to do with the origins of species."
:In all fairness, you'll have to admit that this view is marginal at best. But have it your way.
I won't have to admit any such thing. You are simply wrong. The mechanism of evolution works in precisely the same way regardless how the first lifeforms originated. The view might be "marginal at best" among creationists, Ariel, but it's obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of evolution. Perhaps, next time you are planning an assault on one of the cornerstones of modern science, you could actually find out what the theory actually says?
"Did God throw some "carbon"... into a pot and hope for the best? I don't know. What I do know is, if he created you, he did it through the means of evolution."
:Why, you speak as if evolution is FACT, when, as we've all been told, it's merely a theory, the "best explanation we have, given the current set of facts." How did you come by this - for lack of a better word - dogma?
You are confusing the common usage of the word "theory" for the usage it has in science. A "theory" in science is an explanatory principle (or a complex of them if the theory has broader scope), not a wild guess. Guesses are called "hypotheses" in science (of course, the scientifically literate will complain at this point that most hypotheses involve very little guesswork, but if you were to make a guess that needed testing, you would call it that). Sometimes, they are described as "conjectures". Einstein's "theory" of relativity is not simply a guess about how objects move. It is a means of explaining how they move. You wouldn't dispute that Einstein's theory is a "fact", but as it happens, it is less sound than the theory of evolution.
Evolution explains facts, Ariel. It explains millions upon millions of facts, and having done so, it can predict new facts, which we later observe. The bottom line is that evolution is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. It's as factual as gravity. This is lost on creationists, I know, because they a/ don't understand that a "theory" is not a guess, equivalent to any other wild stab in the dark and b/ they do not actually know what evolution explains or how it explains it or that it is in truth a complex of explanations that convincingly describe what we actually see. It doesn't just say "we descended from monkeys". It describes how we did it, why we did it and how and why any other species would do it in similar circumstances. It does so in part using principles that are demonstrable in a lab, Ariel. No one has yet produced an exception to it.
"you might consider that an all-powerful deity can choose any means it likes to create you...and it's not for you to criticise its choice."
:I'm sure that as you wrote that, you realized I might take the argument and use it in an identical way on you. Well, voila! I'll consider your rhetoric neutralized and leave it at that.
I knew you'd say that, yes. But I knew you'd say it because you wouldn't think about what I said. I don't criticise the deity's choice though. I think evolution was a work of genius, a brilliant solution to the problem of ensuring life would survive what the world threw at it.
:The part you'll have to explain, however, is why a world that wheezed into existence through a series of cosmic accidents is more "full of miracles and wonder" that an earth tailor-made in every detail by a God.
You can't be serious. You think it is less of a wonder that it happened by chance than that some all-powerful dude put it together. The latter is an easy explanation, without any detail. How things actually are is astonishing in its richness.
"Darwin indeed made the comment that if his beliefs on natrual selection, and henceforth the evolution of new species, were correct than there would not be any room for God."
Actually, he did not. Although he was clear enough that God did not interfere, any more than he does in the spinning of planets or the burning of stars.
"Not God started the whole thing and then let it ride"
This is why you think Ariel is "getting somewhere". You simply ignore anything that doesn't fit your view.
This that follows is what Darwin said. Among the more literate, it's quite famous. It is part of the conclusion to "The Origin of Species". He talks about the planet cycling on, because that is also called "evolution". He is making the point that the evolution of life, although as mechanical as the evolution of stars and planets, produces life in all its several powers:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Is that clear enough? God breathed life into a few forms or one and then just let it ride. That's what the man actually said.
"The great issue I see with materialists is there predictable placement of themselves in the middle of the universe, with all things being "created/made/poof!" circling around them."
LOL. Are you taking the piss? Christians believe God created the whole universe for Man. They used to believe that the earth was literally the centre of the universe until Copernicus showed them conclusively that it was not. "Materialists" believe the exact opposite of this. We think we are just assemblages of atoms on a planet circling a sun at the arse-end of nowhere in just another galaxy out of billions. We understand that we are not special, just another ape, albeit one that has learned how to build motor cars. And we learned how because we evolved the ability. Great, hey?
"Evolution, as we classically know it, is dead."
You wish! Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science. You may be a scientist but you can't be doing biology! Of course, our ideas have changed. Darwin had no idea about genes. He had no idea how characteristics were passed on. He tended towards Lamarckianism (go look it up). He was wrong and we know that now.
Do you know what Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium actually is? You just read in some creationist literature that it attacks evolution, didn't you? It doesn't. Gould was a convinced Darwinist -- one of the staunchest. It mortified him that charlatans twisted his work, which far from being a contradiction of evolution reinforces it as the mechanism of speciation. Try reading the science, instead of what the Discovery Institute says about it.
"I dare say, that if one were to study what came about during the Cambrian explosion, one would have seriously consider that there was intelligence in that formation."
Are you willing to have a stab at why? You don't even know the name of the "formation" you're talking about, do you?
I was trying to explain to my son the other day that there are actually people who believe that we "evolved" from other animals.
He couldn't believe it. He thought it was hilarious! To think that people acutally believe that.
He's 7.
It's too bad Blogger doesn't enable discussion threads, because this is getting quite involved. If you're actually trying to follow this conversation, I feel your pain. But here we go, previous remarks introduced in bold.
::
me: "In all fairness, you'll have to admit that this view [theistic evolution] is marginal at best. But have it your way."
zen: "I won't have to admit any such thing."
I'm saying that the vast majority of evolutionists do not believe God played nursemaid, superintending the evolutionary process. If you think that most evolutionists are, in fact, religious, we simply disagree.
::
zen: "Did God throw some 'carbon'... into a pot and hope for the best? I don't know. What I do know is, if he created you, he did it through the means of evolution" (emphasis mine).
me: "Why, you speak as if evolution is FACT, when, as we've all been told, it's merely a theory... How did you come by this - for lack of a better word - dogma?"
zen: "You are confusing the common usage of the word "theory" for the usage it has in science..."
I think you missed my point. I'm aware of the implications of theory in science. I was simply responding to your statement, "what I do know..." Knowing implies certainty. You're telling me that either a) if I was "created," I evolved, or b) I was not created. This is what I'm referring to as your "dogma."
::
zen: "I knew you'd say that, yes. But I knew you'd say it because you wouldn't think about what I said."
The context here was my "presuming" to criticize God's method of creating the world. You said I was doing so by slamming evolution. I said I could make the same accusation. The fact that we're still talking about this is humorous, because to operate on a "non-critical" level we would both have to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how God made the earth - and agree on it.
If you care to know, I did "think about what you said," which is why I said what I said, and why I am saying this. I trust that is perfectly clear (as lucid as your argument at this point).
::
me: "The part you'll have to explain, however, is why a world that wheezed into existence through a series of cosmic accidents is more "full of miracles and wonder" that an earth tailor-made in every detail by a God."
zen: "You can't be serious. You think it is less of a wonder that it happened by chance than that some all-powerful dude put it together."
Ah, but I am serious. This may be one of those unbridgeable gaps in perspective. You think life arising from mindless chaos is beautiful, I think that a divinely-crafted universe tops it by far - and has far more scope for wonder, dignity, joy.
However, I think Darwin may have grasped where I'm coming from:
"Up to the age of 30 or beyond it, poetry of many kinds … gave me great pleasure … formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great, delight. But now for many years I cannot endure a line of poetry … I have also lost any taste for pictures or music … My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive … The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness." - Charles Darwin
::
Peace, out.
James: "The great issue I see with materialists is there predictable placement of themselves in the middle of the universe, with all things being "created/made/poof!" circling around them."
zen: "LOL. Are you taking the piss? Christians believe God created the whole universe for Man..."
I belive James' point was this: people who subscribe to a purely material view of the universe are compelled to submit to no higher authority. Man, as the top animal, is the king of the world. Center of the universe.
In the Christian view, man is inescapably bound to his Maker - and his duties, on this earth "made for man," include caretaking. God is at the center.
I'm surprised you didn't see this yourself, since you believe God initiated the evolutionary process.
Harmless, when I was your son's age, I felt the same. Strangely enough, the incredulity has yet to wear off.
Ariel, you first. My replies in italics:
me: "In all fairness, you'll have to admit that this view [theistic evolution] is marginal at best. But have it your way."
zen: "I won't have to admit any such thing."
I'm saying that the vast majority of evolutionists do not believe God played nursemaid, superintending the evolutionary process. If you think that most evolutionists are, in fact, religious, we simply disagree.
Sorry, I didn't realise that's what you meant. In fact, in the Gallup survey (sorry, mislaid the URL but it's quite easy to find), "theistic evolutionists" outnumber "atheistic evolutionists", it might surprise you to learn. Most people who believe evolution occurs believe that God involves himself in some (unspecified) way. This is, of course, what IDers believe! They think there is evolution, but that the "designer" involves "itself" by creating "kinds" or "designs", which evolution tinkers with. Neither they nor "theistic evolutionists" offer any evidence of what they believe (for instance, contrasting pairs of organisms, one of which God tinkered with, one of which he did not).
::
zen: "Did God throw some 'carbon'... into a pot and hope for the best? I don't know. What I do know is, if he created you, he did it through the means of evolution" (emphasis mine).
me: "Why, you speak as if evolution is FACT, when, as we've all been told, it's merely a theory... How did you come by this - for lack of a better word - dogma?"
zen: "You are confusing the common usage of the word "theory" for the usage it has in science..."
I think you missed my point. I'm aware of the implications of theory in science. I was simply responding to your statement, "what I do know..." Knowing implies certainty.
For you, maybe it does. For me, as I've been absolutely clear, it does not. Knowledge is contingent, and can change. That's the scientific mindset, Ariel. Try it on for size. It will allow you to put yoself in the shoes of the "other side". You might find you gain a greater understanding of this issue (and others) by allowing yourself to believe that knowledge cannot be certain. I help myself understand your mindset by thinking about the world with the view that knowledge can be certain and that some things may not be, or cannot be, questioned. It's alien to me, but not impossible.
You're telling me that either a) if I was "created," I evolved, or b) I was not created. This is what I'm referring to as your "dogma."
Yes, I am telling you that. It's not a question of dogma. I don't believe it as a creed. I believe it because all the evidence -- and there is a great deal of it -- says you did, and none, not a shred so far, says you did not. Whether you were created is a religious question, with different standards of evidence. But if your religious belief is, for instance, that the substance of a human being is different from the substance of other animals (as some do believe), you are wrong from the point of view of science. (That's no more dogmatic than saying it is wrong that if you throw a coin in the air it will shoot off to heaven. We base that belief on evidence, not on its being part of a creed. As it happens, the coin could shoot off to heaven but that's another story.) We are, after all, discussing science. ID pretends to be science.
::
zen: "I knew you'd say that, yes. But I knew you'd say it because you wouldn't think about what I said."
The context here was my "presuming" to criticize God's method of creating the world. You said I was doing so by slamming evolution. I said I could make the same accusation. The fact that we're still talking about this is humorous, because to operate on a "non-critical" level we would both have to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how God made the earth - and agree on it.
I am saying that if God created you, he did so by means of evolution, and slamming evolution must be slamming God's choice of method because evolution is a fact. God must have constraints in any case. Theologists spent many centuries discussing what they would be. Some are rather obvious, so I'll leave you to think them up. And we need not agree. You are wrong. If you had the belief that God had created China next to France, you would also be wrong in this sense. That's not to say that he could not have done, nor that he could not have done it and moved it so that it looks now as though he did not. That's pretty wild metaphysically though.
If you care to know, I did "think about what you said," which is why I said what I said, and why I am saying this. I trust that is perfectly clear (as lucid as your argument at this point).
Yes, but I think you are not allowing for your possibly being wrong!
::
me: "The part you'll have to explain, however, is why a world that wheezed into existence through a series of cosmic accidents is more "full of miracles and wonder" that an earth tailor-made in every detail by a God."
zen: "You can't be serious. You think it is less of a wonder that it happened by chance than that some all-powerful dude put it together."
Ah, but I am serious. This may be one of those unbridgeable gaps in perspective. You think life arising from mindless chaos is beautiful, I think that a divinely-crafted universe tops it by far - and has far more scope for wonder, dignity, joy.
You're probably just not understanding. I'm saying that you don't allow the wonder of my notion. I do allow that yours is wonderful. The magic of the idea has entranced people for centuries, perhaps even right back to our inventing monotheism. The idea that it was created *just for us* is particularly compelling. But a universe that just is can also be beautiful -- although certainly in a more intellectual way.
However, I think Darwin may have grasped where I'm coming from:
"Up to the age of 30 or beyond it, poetry of many kinds … gave me great pleasure … formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great, delight. But now for many years I cannot endure a line of poetry … I have also lost any taste for pictures or music … My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive … The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness." - Charles Darwin
Well, I think Darwin was rather complaining of the dangers of specialisation. Do you know much of Darwin's biography? If you do, you'll know that he didn't make much of himself earlier in life, and became dedicated to science.
"I belive James' point was this: people who subscribe to a purely material view of the universe are compelled to submit to no higher authority. Man, as the top animal, is the king of the world. Center of the universe."
Indeed not. I fear you fundamentally misunderstand what someone like me actually does believe. I believe there is no higher authority to submit to, so that it is not a matter of arrogance or vanity that compels me not to, but a lack of the authority. I also do not believe man is "top animal". I think we are just another animal. The hierarchical view of God, man, beasts is a product of the Bible. I don't use the Bible as a science text, you won't be surprised to learn. However, I am a humanist, because, after all, I am a human, and not a dog, snake or fly.
James, "the evidence does not bode well for macro evolution"? What evidence? Macroevolution is an established fact. Creationists rely on the long timescales it requires to attack it (ironically, since many of them don't believe the earth has been around long enough for it anyway ;-)). I will happily direct you to the evidence if you're interested, but, in my experience, you guys aren't. You don't like to bother yourselves with the evidence that disproves your beliefs. You must have struggled in genetics class! Perhaps you have had your own road to Damascus. Perhaps you just didn't ever grasp that science *is* materialist (in the sense that you're using the word). It doesn't say that supernatural explanations are impossible; it simply says that they are not part of science. This is largely because they are not useful or fertile, rather than because scientists are atheists, which many, if not most, are not. By the way, you mistook me. I do not believe God made the first lifeforms. I have no opinion on where they came from and I haven't expressed one. I noted only that Darwin believed it, which put the lie to the suggestion that "Darwinists" insist on abiogenesis. If you know biology as you claim, you ought to know that they do not.
Neither did I say anything wrong about Copernicus. I said only that he proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe. I'm well aware of his religious beliefs. I caution you to be sure to read what your correspondent actually writes, rather than what you wish they had or what you assume they must have.
As for the Discovery Institute, I fear they are not working in a good cause, James. You may celebrate that they work for the furtherance of your religion, and that they wish to glorify your god, but they do so through the means of lies and distortions, which, if left unchecked, or, I shudder at the idea, taught to kids as "science", will undo the good things that the Enlightenment brought us in the name of resolving the bad. Perhaps those on my side might feel better about the DI if they simply muttered their nonsense among themselves. But they don't, and that's what we do not like.
Should anyone who is reading this want to learn more about evolution, and in particular, macroevolution, which is the area most under fire from the Behes of this world, I'd like to direct them to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is a brief resume of evidences for macroevolution. For those, like Ariel, who are not clear on what evolution consists of, this means it discusses evidence for common descent (that species evolved from one or a few ancestors), and does not discuss evidence for the micromechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection or genetic drift, which are so well attested that even some creationists have had to agree that they happen (Intelligent Design is all about attacking perceived gaps in evolutionary theory -- it's what we call a "God of the gaps" theory, because it says "you can't explain this, so Goddidit", or when it is slightly more sophisticated, it says "you haven't explained this yet, so Goddidit". Dembski, for instance, makes outrageous, unsubstantiatable claims about information, saying in effect "you can't explain where the information came from, so Goddidit" (the answer to that one, for those who are swayed by the big words in Dembski's quacking, is that there is no problem with information's increasing because the natural world is not a closed system in the same way that a computer program is, and that genes have evolved methods to increase information in exactly the way he says they cannot -- this is the thrust too of Behe's article in Protein Science, the nearest ID has come to getting something through peer review, which has been roundly demolished recently, although Behe was very careful only to make modest claims in his article). He used to attack it by using other, slightly arcane areas of information theory -- the No Free Lunch theorems, for instance -- but he had to back off when the discoverer of those theorems explained that they had a much narrower scope than he pretended; Dembski knows that if the guy who invented the tools says he is digging too big a hole, he has to stop digging before he is a laughing stock.).
Amazing. It's getting to the point where I'll have to quit my day job to keep up with my own blog.
Rather than respond blow by blow to the latest treatises, I'll simply attach a few pertinent thoughts.
Take 1
It makes sense to me that theistic evolutionists outnumber atheistic evolutionists at a popular level. This reflects the way people tend to think about the issue - uncritical acceptance of evolution, merged with an unspecified "openness" to deity. Present me with a poll indicating that a majority of evolutionary scientists are theistic, however, and I'll consider my original point moot.
Re: the uncertainty of "knowing" anything - the issue so easily becomes a confusing semantic mess. I say I "know" my own name. What does this mean? You say you "are telling me" that if I was created, I evolved, and back it up with the statement, "not a shred of evidence has suggested otherwise" - but this in itself is an uncertain statement, according to your parameters. Later you tell me, "You are wrong" - which means, evidently, that you suspect I am wrong, but have no certain grounds for saying so (although you do, in fact, say so).
I realize you're attempting to focus on "evidence." But evidence itself, in your equation, is necessarily a subjective field. In an uncertain universe, there can be no certain evidence, material or no. Complicating this is the reality that "facts" tend toward ambiguity, and must be interpreted...
If we agree on little else, I vote for verbal clarity here; let's reserve the language of certainty ("knowing," "fact") for those statements to which we unreservedly adhere.
On other fronts:
zen: "You might find you gain a greater understanding of this issue (and others) by allowing yourself to believe that knowledge cannot be certain. I help myself understand your mindset by thinking about the world with the view that knowledge can be certain..."
Yes, a sympathetic method. Such an approach would encourage good humor while deterring ad hominem attacks, would it not?
zen: "Whether you were created is a religious question, with different standards of evidence."
Yes and no. I believe science collides with the supernatural at this point, and it's problematic not to acknowledge it. Life origins - via ID or Evolution - is one issue where the "uncertainty of knowledge" is highly applicable. In my original post, I said both approaches hinge on "ex nihilo realities," and I still maintain that.
zen: "I think you are not allowing for your possibly being wrong!"
My point was not to create an irrefutable argument. I don't think we're party to absolute certainty re: a "scientific" mechanism for the life's origins (see above). As I hazard my educated guesses, I allow that I could be wrong. I trust you do the same.
zen: "But a universe that just is can also be beautiful -- although certainly in a more intellectual way."
I'm still missing why order out of chaos is more beautiful that reasoned order - intellectually or otherwise. An earth that is wonderful in a "more intellectual" way would necessarily be lovely in the other spheres.
Attempting explanations for earth's paradoxical beauty, however, is a task I find fascinating.
Take 2
me: "People who subscribe to a purely material view of the universe are compelled to submit to no higher authority..."
zen: "Indeed not... I believe there is no higher authority to submit to..."
Whether you're "top animal" or "animal currently on top," there's a concise philosophical label that sums up the shared outcome:
Same diff.
Take 3: The before-I-rush-to-class take
zen: "Intelligent Design is all about attacking perceived gaps in evolutionary theory -- it's what we call a "God of the gaps" theory..."
Strange, I was under the impression that gaps in scientific data necessitated new theories.
What we see in actuality is evolutionists expressing wounded indignation; they assume that, given enough time, all the pieces will appear to complete the evolutionary puzzle.
Is this science?
Take 4
I know, I know, the "Take" thing is getting old; I think so too. But this is what happens when you write in brief intervals between class, work, sleep, etc.
zen: "The magic of [creation] has entranced people for centuries, perhaps even right back to our inventing monotheism. The idea that it was created *just for us* is particularly compelling."
I have to take issue with your statement here on two counts.
1) Christianity stands squarely in the arena of historicity for one reason: Christ. The obvious way to debunk Christian monotheism is to "disprove" him. His life, not the human imagination, is the crux.
2) Central to Christian belief is the statement that the world was created for the glory of God - and we with it. To speak as if the planet was intended as a colossal pleasure resort "just for us" misses the mark. God had more than a garden in mind.
Ariel,
I liked your last take. The foundation of Christianity is Jesus. The reason I believe there is an alternative to evolution is because of the reality of His death and resurrection.
Anyway, thanks for taking time to continue this conversation, I have found it very interesting.
~ Paul
Take 1
1. Okay, I'll try to be very brief. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm gives a very readable summary of the Gallup poll. You'll see that, among scientists, evolution without God wins only 55-40. Not a "vast majority". This poll was only taken of Americans though. Elsewhere the figures would be very different. Creationism is much more marginal in Europe and even more entrenched in Muslim nations.
I can't discuss your comments on "knowing" because, I'm afraid, they are hopelessly muddled. You are seeking to reserve "know" to the meaning of "believe" but knowledge is a different concept from belief, especially in this context. I prefer to reserve "knowledge", in a scientific context, for *grounded* belief. Yes, I believe we evolved, but I have grounds to do so. Your grounds for not believing it are no more, no less than that it contradicts a tenet of your religion. And, because I am talking from the standpoint of science and not religion, I cannot "unreservedly adhere" to anything! As I said, more than once, knowledge is entirely contingent in science. There is no dogma. I couldn't possibly agree to allow "knowledge" to be defined as "dogma", which is the thrust of your argument here.
2. Yes, it's more sympathetic to put yourself in the other man's shoes, but nothing would defer me from ad hominem attacks if I feel they have value in entertaining me and anyone else who reads them. That's the way I play.
3. I am not sure what an "ex nihilo reality" is but I do not believe science and religion "collide" in discussing abiogenesis, any more than they necessarily do in any other sphere. We will probably never be able to say with any certainty how life arose. The constraints on how it could have arose might become clearer, just as they are on the origins of the universe itself.
4. I haven't seen any sign that you accept that you might be wrong. For me, it is fundamental to the scientific method, which I accept as the proven best route to examining questions about the natural world. However, it's worth understanding that even though "rightness" is relative rather than absolute, it is still possible to be entirely wrong. Lamarck was wrong. His hypothesis has been thoroughly falsified. Young earth creationists are wrong. Their hypothesis is unsupportable by the evidence.
5. The question of the earth's beauty is simply a matter of what moves you. In your case, you find it wonderful that a god made it for you. In mine, I find it wonderful that the bumpings of particles made it a place of beauty rather than an ugly mess. Both of our views are of course rather anthropocentric, but after all, we're talking about its beauty to us.
Take 2
You've simply misunderstood. I don't think there is a hierarchy to be "top" of. Evolution does not work upwards, but rather outwards. The notion that we "dominate" the world only takes one point of view, which largely centres on our ability to pose a menace to the rest of nature.
A million years from today, we will likely be gone. We won't most likely have "progressed" into a new "top animal".
In any case, the world seems to be best suited to bacteria, which have been around for most of its history, thrive in all sorts of environments (including in and on our waste) and by any count (numbers, biomass, whatever) truly dominate our world. Intelligence is rather overrated when you realise that when we are long gone like nearly all species of life before us, bacteria will continue to thrive, some in much the same form they have always had.
Take 3
No, gaps in theories do not need theories solely to explain them. The whole point of a good theory is that it not only explains what we have observed, but it shows promise of explaining new observations too. The "gaps" in question here exist because work has not been done on them. The natural world is nearly infinite but scientists are very much finite. In any case, God of the gaps theories do not try to explain the gaps but merely to fill them. Here's the difference: Newton's theory of mechanics was very sound but there were some observations it could not explain. Einstein's theory explained what Newton's theory explained PLUS the observations Newton's could not. Evolution is very sound but there are some facts it has not yet explained (partly because their explanation lies in the past and is not easily uncovered by experiment). ID claims that God explains those facts. One major difference is that Einstein explained how, but ID does not. Einstein provided a whole new framework. ID simply claims ownership of unexplained facts. And as those facts are plausibly explained in the evolutionary framework, it retreats from them. Newton's theory *was not able* to explain some observations, and would never be able to. Evolution just *hasn't yet*. I hope the difference is sufficiently clear.
Take 3b
And is it science to suggest you don't have all the answers yet? YES! That's exactly what science is. Certainty that you have all the answers is the province of religion.
Take 4
Yes, the take thing is a bit old, but it does allow splitting up a long response, which is good.
The question whether humans invented monotheism or it exists because there is a single god is not one we can expect to agree on. Interestingly, the importance of Jesus does not wholly rest on the answer to that question. For an "outsider" like me, Jesus's message still has resonance and meaning, even with the stuff about being the route to God stripped away. Naturally, our emphasis in considering his message is different, because the stuff I would strip away is most important for you.
Disproving Jesus's life is not actually important. It's odd that you say so, although yes, I suppose there's a bit of an industry involved in trying to do just that. But his having existed as a person is not a proof of his having existed as a god, and his not having existed would not likely make much difference. Mormons are very little affected by the enormous amount of ahistorical fabrication in their scripture. The symbols are much more affecting than that. Besides, there's no way to reliably "disprove" anyone's historicity. Even if we found an old document saying "I made it all up, signed Matthew", it would be heavily disputed. Realistically, if you're not a believer, it's interesting to look at where the elements of the Jesus story were imported from (the sacrifice for fertility that's seen in the Baldur and Osiris myths, the notions of a trinity that are very common in the East, the dualism of Zoroastrianism etc) but you adhere to a "truth" that lies in the symbols rather than the substance.
I think I'd like to know, Paul, whether you would revise your beliefs if we were to turn up demonstrably old documents that showed some of the Jesus story to be wrong. What if we turned up a written confession from one of the apostles that he helped move the body to support a story of bodily resurrection? Would you say, Well, the disproof of the story of Jesus's resurrection is enough for me to abandon Christianity? I'm doubtful.
I think you need to revisit your theology, Ariel. God allowed us dominion over the earth. Certainly, it is his intention that we glorify him, but that doesn't actually contradict his allowing us the earth as a playground. I'm not aware of anything in Genesis that suggests he didn't aim for us to have the earth as a pleasure resort. Quite the opposite. He even let us name the animals. Besides, it remains a school of thought that the universe and everything in it was created *so that* we could exist in it *so that* we could love and glorify God, although perhaps Christians have moved away from that notion -- very much a central notion of Christianity in the Middle Ages -- since Copernicus showed we were not centrally placed and Darwin showed we were not all that special.
Take A: old business
As usual, zen's thoughts present a large number of points begging to be made. I'll make as many of them as I can before I need to go put some study time in.
zen: "I do not believe God made the first lifeforms. I have no opinion on where they came from and I haven't expressed one. I noted only that Darwin believed it..."
Ah, zen reveals that he's been holding out on us. Well, now's the time to wear your heart on your sleeve, dr. Claiming the right to remain silent here seems remarkably similar to talking through your hat.
As well, perhaps it's time to throw open the curtains and reveal your shining credentials, as james was kind enough to do.
zen: "[ID] says 'you can't explain this, so Goddidit', or when it is slightly more sophisticated, it says 'you haven't explained this yet, so Goddidit'."
Goddidit. The phrase has an inane ring to it, a fact which I'm sure you appreciate. Perhaps what you don't appreciate is that the complaint applies equally to your position(s), whatever they may actually be. Darwin, and all theistic evolutionists, fall into the "Goddidit" category. Materialists are not exempt either - BigBangdidit, matterdidit, gravitydidit, - your choice.
The point in positing a God behind life origins is hardly the knee-jerk reaction you suggest, but a response to...(drumroll)...Gaps In The Data - which exert pressure no one can really ignore.
However, I can see your "Goddidit" label as a useful corrective to "matterdidit" scientists who are equally faith-driven, but too myopic and self-involved to realize it.
Matterdidit is more culturally acceptable than Goddidit, but to act as if it's more objective is a case of special pleading - critiquing the opposing viewpoint while exempting yourself.
zen: "Well, I think Darwin was rather complaining of the dangers of specialisation."
The context was a quotation from Darwin (above...far above) which detailed his loss of happiness in the later years of his life. Beauty was no longer a source of joy.
If Darwin is, in fact, warning us about specialization, what a coincidence that specializing in Darwinism (the wonderful science) caused this lack of wonder. According to zen, Darwin should have been the most happy, wonder-filled man alive.
At any rate, if specialization in general is the pitfall, we're all doomed.
Take B: some newer stuff
zen: "because I am talking from the standpoint of science and not religion, I cannot 'unreservedly adhere' to anything!"
Well, ok. I have the feeling we're talking in circles here, but I'll try to remember that whatever you say is hypothetical...including those moments of passion when a "You are wrong" slips out. I don't think we've really settled this matter, though.
zen: "nothing would defer me from ad hominem attacks if I feel they have value in entertaining me..."
I think we're all very surprised to hear this.
zen: "I am not sure what an "ex nihilo reality" is but I do not believe science and religion "collide" in discussing abiogenesis."
Clearly, you would have benefited from a more liberal education. Ex nihilo - from the Latin, "out of nothing." But, oh, wait a sec...you didn't really want me to explain it, did you? You're saying that you want me to use your word... dr, I'm hurt.
You don't think unseen realities have any relevance to matter arising out of nothing? Matterdidit, eh? We'll have to agree to disagree.
zen: "I haven't seen any sign that you accept that you might be wrong."
A little earlier I modestly admitted that I didn't know with certainity how life began. So there's my disclaimer. I'm uncertain. I have that tattoo...
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression from you, dr, that you view all of life through the "scientific" lens - which is to say, you're not really sure about anything. Good and evil, questions of ethics, the nutritional value of vegetables as opposed to leafmold - it's all a relatively fluid "scientific" system of hypotheses, trial and error, and general theories that will probably need to be adjusted.
If this is your standard of measure, I readily admit that I'm on a different wavelength. From my perspective, not everything is certain, but some things are. My weekday living, involving people I must love or hate, decisions that are right or wrong, does not lay at the mercy of "science."
zen: "Evolution is very sound but there are some facts it has not yet explained... ID claims that God explains those facts. One major difference is that Einstein explained how, but ID does not."
I found myself agreeing with some of your thoughts here (zen Take 3), which brush at one of my central contentions: By limiting itself to what can be replicated and "explained," science suffers from a degree of self-inflicted blindness. ID examines the evidence, and postulates from its complexity; the strand of reason extends beyond the laboratory and into the "unexplainable." Evolutionists, staunchly committed to "matter," revile the theory at first sight. We won't be doing clinical tests on God anytime soon, but if he is there, science is foolish if it fails to allow for (not "explain") his activities.
Take 3
zen: "For an "outsider" like me, Jesus's message still has resonance and meaning, even with the stuff about being the route to God stripped away."
This is because you're not very familiar with the message. As Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:19), "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."
I explore this fact briefly in another post
Jesus' life, a historically verifiable phenomenon, creates a sharp trilemma for anyone who approaches him at a less-than-superficial level.
The popular trend of admiring Christ for his sensitivity and good thoughts is like admiring a jet airliner for its "shiny-ness."
zen: "his having existed as a person is not a proof of his having existed as a god, and his not having existed would not likely make much difference."
A working knowledge of Christ's teachings upends the first half of your statement (see above); if he was not a god, the alternatives are horrifying and inevitable. The second half of your statement strains the limits of my credulity. Secular historians everywhere have attested to the vast, resonating effect of Christ's (physical) life.
zen: "Mormons are very little affected by the enormous amount of ahistorical fabrication in their scripture."
This must be true, to an extent, and it marks a massive watershed between Christianity and other religions. Those who claim to follow Jesus base their lives on a historical fact that precedes a supernatural reality. Mormons (and others) must learn to live with a biting dichotomy between reality and faith.
zen: "Besides, there's no way to reliably "disprove" anyone's historicity."
Actually, it would be quite easy. As you point out, the historical basis for Mormonism is already discredited. To disprove Christianity, a simple resurrection exposé would do. This point is embedded squarely in New Testament writings.
zen: "you adhere to a "truth" that lies in the symbols rather than the substance."
Precisely not. See above.
zen: "I think you need to revisit your theology, Ariel."
Ah, but we agree. I revisit my theology every day; I engage with it on an ongoing basis. How else would "theology" and life intersect?
When it comes to the Bible, though, I am thinking that you need to "visit" your theology for the first time.
Roy, the first thing that needs to be said is this: Congrats for reading all the above comments and attempting to string them together. Having written a lot of them myself, I'm not sure anything will induce me to read them all again...
About your points. I'm partially with you. I don't see ID as advancing the church's agenda; I see it as an entity at play in the arena of science, not spirituality. True, there are spiritual implications - i.e. the kind of God we have - but I don't see ID (or evolution) as central to Christian faith.
However, and this is where we may part ways, I think we are free to critique evolution for its philosophical and scientific quirks. This is what I'm doing, with an emphasis on the philosophical side. I believe evolution is a faulty explanation of life's origins.
Don't apologize for your comment, though, which was neither shallow nor unimaginative.
I have nothing to add, just thought it was an interesting thing. I noted in my (new) blog that the comments totalled about 12,000 words. If you all could agree on anything, you could easily collaborate on a book! ha ha.
Well Roy, I read your comments with the care I reserve only for genius aliens. For the most part, I think we agree.
You said: "Neither you nor I have any idea what the mechanism might have been, either with or without God's will driving it, and we are both left with a simple belief."
I say something similar when I state that both ID and evolution rest on "ex nihilo" realities - matter, and then life, appearing out of nothing. Is matter supreme, or is God? What will be the object of our faith? I sketch this out a little more fully here.
Then you asked: "do you agree that you cannot argue this point beyond that initial starting place?"
We differ here, I think. While we can't analyze the mechanism of life's origins, we can make inferences that imply the nature of that mechanism. I believe ID is valid science in this regard. Evolution is operating on the same grounds by positing a big bang or equally opaque explanations for how life got underway.
To sum up, I see both routes - ID or E - pointing back to a beginning that is scientifically inscrutable. At least in this life.
lazlo: "the comments totalled about 12,000 words. If you all could agree on anything, you could easily collaborate on a book! ha ha."
It would have to be point-counterpoint format, but I had the same thought.
Roy, I appreciate your good humor in discussing this stuff. I have just a few additional comments.
roy: "However, even if I were to agree that God was first, it still does not follow, necessarily, that evolution is not the mechanism by which species change over time on our planet."
I'll go with that. If one agreed that God was first, however, embracing evolution would certainly have implications for the kind of God there is.
roy: "I don't think any theory of evolution addresses the beginning of matter, mostly because it does not really need to."
I don't think evolution can address the beginning of matter. But here's the problem: If one believes that "in the beginning was material," then evolution is compelled to try and explain its origins.
::
About the question of Jesus - "liar, lunatic, or God?" - James is referring to an argument that is hard to escape. If you're at all interested in Christ, you'll find it fascinating. Rather than sketch it out here, I'll link to a post where I discussed it earlier: The Christ Trap. The original argument was made by C.S. Lewis. It still works.
"Are those my only choices? :)"
This is the very question.
Take James:
Do you "believe" murder, rape, assault and crimes of that sort are "wrong"?
Yes, I do.
If so, where do you "believe" you got that moral standing?
I am a product of my upbringing. I don't think the notions of rightness or wrongness are inherent though. I think I am acculturated to believe that these things are wrong. Not every human has agreed.
You wonder how we can have been endowed with a moral sense unless someone with authority imposed it? I think it's too involved a question to get into here but at base, you have to look at the benefits of morality for animals that live in a community. Morals are simply rules at base. Simply asking yourself whether the game is better played with or without them should be illuminating.
Do you believe that the mind (conscious) is a result of our highly "evolved" grey matter rather than being a distinct aspect of human existence?
I believe the mind is an illusion created by the complex interactions of our neurons. I believe thoughts are nothing more than the echoes of stones' falling in a well. I don't suppose that's the answer you were looking for, but it boils down to saying that I don't see the mind as a separate thing from the body, but a product of it.
Curious to know your thoughts.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (Solomon, Proverbs: 14:12).
Well, he would say that! Yes, your god is your *hope* of life, but hopes are not real, any more than minds. I find the lack of hope distressing, but not sufficient to make a believer of me.
Now, Ariel. Take A
1. I don't know where life originated from. If I were forced at gunpoint, I'd plump for the RNA world hypothesis, which is plausible. (I don't have any credentials, I'm afraid. My doctorate is purely virtual.) What I should say is that I don't feel that I have to have an opinion on everything! I simply don't know where life came from and I'm not convinced by any of the explanations just yet. I'm strongly sceptical, so I don't tend to accept strong positions on scientific questions unless I feel strongly that something is *definitely wrong*. I accept consensus scientific viewpoints as working beliefs, if you like, but that doesn't mean I'd go to the mat for them. I find alternative theories interesting. I'm actually fascinated by creationist geology and the like, although I have to confess to enjoying the disproofs more than the fantasies of the young earthers.
On questions of religion, I don't take a strong view either. Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. I find yours entirely implausible but I don't think your having one is a detriment to me and I don't feel any urge to "prove" that he doesn't exist. (Which would be a fool's errand if I turn out to be wrong, hey?) I don't believe the mythical elements of the Jesus story but I find the teachings inspiring. I feel that the Taoist worldview is a lot closer to the truth though -- it has interesting confirmation from science. But you won't see me in a Taoist temple either.
2. No, Goddidit does not equally apply to my viewpoint. You just don't get the point here, which is that scientists seek explanations and Goddidit seeks to end the search for them. Goddidit says "don't bother looking for answers, the answer is God did it". Saying the universe started in a Big Bang is not the end of our search, it's the beginning. How did it do it? Why? What other ways could it have happened? What evidence shows that it happened that way and what supports other explanations? We accept that our explanations are approximations. Wittgenstein actually cautioned against thinking them real in terms that I think you might appreciate: he said we should not forget that science is a mesh that we hold up to the world to view it with. It is not the world itself, just the mesh, which might become finer and finer but will never be the thing itself.
3. Yes, I know that God is posited to fill "gaps in the data". That's precisely what we accuse you creationists of! You have a "god of the gaps". You say "you can't explain this, so there must be a god". We say "we can't explain this, so we have to look further into it". We try to make the mesh finer. You try to fill the holes so that the world is obscured rather than illuminated. Your jibe about "matterdidit" is simply misguided. Science does not pretend to be anything but materialist, and consequently it does not pretend to be the beginning and end of all answers. You need to remind yourself of that, because you are working under the illusion that science seeks to exclude metaphysics, but it does not.
4. I think you're simply being a bit childish and silly about the Darwin quote. Darwin is cautioning the reader against forgetting their sense of wonder. You might, rather than feel that is a triumph for the anti-intellectualism you espouse, see that as a mark of his broader humanity, which you can salute. And Darwin found his theory a thing of great beauty, as any number of other quotes would show you, had you read his work more broadly.
Take B
1. Science allows you to be wrong, Ariel, but does not allow me to be right (except in those matters that are conventional and observational -- for instance, if you react carbon and oxygen, you get carbon dioxide: it is correct to call it carbon dioxide because it is a convention that that is what we call that product, and you can observe the product for yourself, the point being that replicability is correctness in science).
2. Ariel, you have to learn not to indulge in undue condescension. I daresay my Latin is better than yours, just as my English is. I'm perfectly aware what "ex nihilo" means. I simply don't understand what you are trying to say by "ex nihilo realities".
"You don't think unseen realities have any relevance to matter arising out of nothing? Matterdidit, eh? We'll have to agree to disagree." You are welcome in science to explain things with an "unseen reality". The Higgs boson would fit the bill nicely. It explains mass, without which there would be nothing to discuss. But science is about explaining *how*. How does the Higgs boson create mass? It's explicable. And the hypothesised particle has properties that we can explore, given the right experiment. What experiment will reveal the properties of your "unseen reality", Ariel? Remember what I said, in science, replicability is correctness, as much as anything else.
3. No, I do not view everything through a "scientific" lens as such, but yes, I refuse to adopt the cloak of certainty. It's not always comfortable to approach life without it and I understand the attraction, but temperamentally it's not me. That doesn't mean I do not have principles, but I accept that they are things that *seem right to me* rather than things that *are absolutely right*. I understand that you don't maintain that distinction.
4. Yes, ID seeks explanations outside science. That's why we oppose its being taught in science classes! It has nothing to do with reason though.
The point is, Ariel, that evolution explains material phenomena! Even if God created the world and everything in it six thousand years ago, what he created is still a material place. Science does not begin to discuss any other dimension you feel the world has.
And you're doing science a disservice. It will allow for God's activities if God provides the evidence that he is active! If the world can be explained without him, then by Occam's Razor, it will be. If it can't, it won't. That doesn't mean that scientists must say he doesn't exist, only that they must say he is not needed to explain the world.
The French mathematician, Laplace, presented Napoleon with one of his works. Napoleon read it and summoned Laplace. "Sir," he said, "I find no mention of God in your work." Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
Take 3 (or C I suppose it should be)
1. I am far more familiar with the message than you suppose but even so, it's perfectly reasonable to be impressed by the teachings in some areas and not in others. Only those who believe that creeds are to be swallowed whole are unable to appreciate the value in their parts. This thinking leads to the intolerance that religions tend to have for one another.
Yes, I understand that the resurrection of the dead -- as exemplified by Jesus -- is central to your belief. But it is not all of the story for the onlooker! I should note also that the logic is not impeccable. If Jesus was risen, you will also have eternal life, Jesus says so? That's not quite undefeatable, is it? If I can jump seven and a half metres, you can jump seven and a half metres, I say so. If I can speak French, you can speak French, I say so.
Your "logic" about his message is also misguided. It doesn't allow for his being reported and not being the author of his own words, for one, and it doesn't allow for the fact that a man can be honest and misguided both. Muhammad was an honest man -- renownedly so -- does that mean his whole message must be accepted? Many Muslims use precisely your logic as a proof of Islam. And I expect that if Paul used your argument, some bright spark in the forum would have pointed out to him, just as I do to you, that even the most honest of eyewitnesses does not see the whole picture.
2. Jesus's life is not "historically verifiable" in any but the loosest sense. Although I suppose you could argue that proving that he did not exist would disprove your religion, the converse is not true. Proving that there was a Jesus proves only that there was a Jesus. The proof of his being the son of God will presumably come with our expiry.
I have an excellent knowledge of Jesus's teachings. I don't know why you assume I do not. I don't have to believe it's true to know it.
You would not apply your "logic" to Islam! Muhammad certainly existed. He is undeniably historical, his existence far more readily substantiable than that of Jesus. Does it follow from that that his claims are true? No, of course not! And you absolutely would not accept that it does.
You do not base your faith on a "historical fact". That's bullshit. You base it on the story. The "historical fact" is very thin. My point was that Mormons equally base their faith on their story, albeit theirs is a great deal easier to prove baseless (not that there aren't several elements of the New Testament that are readily disprovable -- it was written some time after the purported events and, as you doubtless know, some things in it certainly didn't happen, while others are badly out of sequence or do not jibe with what little we know from other sources.
3. You are quite simply wrong about disproving Jesus's historicity. It would require a written confession from the gospelist that he made it up! Even then, you'd likely dismiss it as a forgery. You'd claim he just didn't impinge on historical records.
4. I quite often have cause to revisit the Bible. I'm rarely surprised because I do not generally err in my understanding of it. I can't quote it or anything, but I'm not missing the point. I know that it is an item of your faith that Jesus literally was crucified and raised from the dead. I am *contending* that your faith lies more deeply in the symbols than the substance, not saying that you hold that.
Here, precisely, is the substance of where you have strayed from reason on the question of the origins of life.
“While we can't analyze the mechanism of life's origins”
This is precisely what we can do, and do do. What we cannot do is know it. (We being scientists in this case. You of course do believe you know it: Goddidit.) You cannot analyse it, because it is forbidden to you. But we can and do. We weigh alternatives. We look at those alternatives’ consequences. We can look to see whether the right consequences exist. We say “if life arose in this way, it will have these and these features”. If it does not, our hypothesis is disproved. We can narrow the field in this way. We might, or might not, come up with an explanation that considers a very large range of consequences and correctly predicts them. It will be strongly challenged and if it survives those challenges, it will be the explanation we adopt. As a contingent truth, not as the truth.
“we can make inferences that imply the nature of that mechanism.”
That part of the sentence doesn’t really make sense except in the most obvious way that it is precisely the nature of the mechanism that we infer from the observations we make of life. We can tell what kind of mechanism it must have been because of what it has produced. However, this only means that any mechanism must explain the consequences; not that the consequences must be used to explain the mechanism. The latter is what ID does. It says “things look like they were designed, so they must be designed”. Yes, but the sun looks like it was put a certain distance from the earth so that it would provide energy for life without burning it up, doesn’t it? So was it put there?
“I believe ID is valid science in this regard.”
In what regard? ID denies that the mechanism of life's origin is analysable. It says it is an unanswerable question. It removes the origin of life from science's domain. If it provided a mechanism for designing life, an explanation of Howgoddidit, then it might have a claim to be science. But it doesn't. It refuses to do so. It refuses to make any predictions about the world.
Religion explains what is by looking at what is and working backwards. There's a world, and so it needs explaining. Well, someone created it. Science explains what is by making a guess and then looking at what is. It works forwards. Working backwards allows you never to be contradicted by the facts, because you need not account for new facts. Working forwards means your balls are always on the line.
“Evolution is operating on the same grounds by positing a big bang or equally opaque explanations for how life got underway.”
You just aren’t listening, Ariel. Evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang or how life got underway. It’s entirely independent of both. You are using “evolution” to mean “science”. Science's explanation for how life arose is only opaque to you because you are ignorant of it. It would be as transparent as how gravity works if you knew more about it. (It would help if the question were more settled, but it isn't at this point. And I realise that you probably don't know how gravity works either! But you don't doubt that it does.) Science posits a Big Bang because it explains the facts, what you can observe for yourself (just as you can feel gravity for yourself). *Any* explanation must explain those facts. Your God, if he created the universe, must have done so in a manner that left the background radiation. He cannot have not done so because the radiation is there to be seen!
James said:
"The heart of the matter, past the he said she said. One thing is certain, we don't have empirical data to support origins."
Well, of course we do. We have what we see! We might argue over the interpretation of it, but it's not that we do not have any data.
"Rather, we have, as I believe God planned, a decision to make about where we will put ourselves in this life. It truly does get down to that because all of our choices, our beliefs, yes, science, rest on what we make of ourselves! Truly, that is a gift.
Hebrews 11:1--Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Yes, indeed. You'll never make an adherent out of a sceptic.
"That is the gift we have. But, in reading it, I dare say a scientist who holds fast to the theory of evolution probably sings that mantra as well, perhaps not in the same use of words."
No, he absolutely does not. You are mistaken in your belief that scientists "hope" evolution is true. They couldn't care less. Nothing is at stake in it for our side.
Science is certain of *nothing* that it can't see, certain of nothing but what is not where the latter is proven by what can't be seen!
"But, science does a lot of hoping, and it rests a lot on things they have never seen!"
It *includes* things that are not seen, explicitly so. But its process is to try to see them. I gave the example of the Higgs boson. Particle physicists have posited it. They "believe" it exists. But rather than rest anything on that belief, they have spent billions of dollars investigating it.
If the Higgs doesn't turn up in LHC, it will be binned. It will go into the bin with the humours of the body, the aether and the indivisible atom.
"To the question of Jesus: we have seen God and He told us how to live and what to be! As CS LEwis so aptly put, one must decide whether this Jesus is a liar, a lunatic or he is who he says he is!! What saith you (plural!)?"
An honest man can be misguided. A belief can be false and yet sincerely held.
Ariel saith unto Roy:
"roy: "However, even if I were to agree that God was first, it still does not follow, necessarily, that evolution is not the mechanism by which species change over time on our planet."
I'll go with that. If one agreed that God was first, however, embracing evolution would certainly have implications for the kind of God there is."
Yes, as I said, your god used evolution as his method of creating diversity. There's no suggestion though that he *had to* do that.
"roy: "I don't think any theory of evolution addresses the beginning of matter, mostly because it does not really need to."
I don't think evolution can address the beginning of matter. But here's the problem: If one believes that "in the beginning was material," then evolution is compelled to try and explain its origins."
It's clear that you are using "evolution" to mean "science". Indeed, science does try to explain the origins of matter. It's not easy! The answer brings into question the very concept of an "origin". Thinking around what happened in the Planck time is extremely difficult. What does it mean to say that time becomes indeterminate? Simplifying a great deal, it's rather like saying time is not finite but bounded in the past. That's a difficult concept.
Personally, I quite like a block universe. Perhaps your God created all of time and space together and it only seems to progress because of how we process perceptions and states. This is perfectly possible in science, although obviously counterintuitive and arcane. It wouldn't affect the rightness or wrongness of evolution.
Actually, I've given myself an interesting thought. I wonder what discussion there has been of whether the block universe (google it, there's mention of Augustine for you on the wikipedia page) must be created. It seems to me that it would have to be created.
I like the block universe because it properly describes time as a dimension and helps make sense of Einstein's theory. Time is a severe problem in physics. It seems so, well, obvious to us, and yet our conception of it is wrong, as Einstein showed.
And imagine the glory of a god who created *everything* in one go. Not a clockwork universe that he wound up and set loose but a universe in which he fashioned every moment, every part. *That* is a god I could have a regard for.
A few thoughts, more brief than I'd like:
On a general level, I found more to agree with in your latest barrage, zen. More thoughtful, less cantankerous.
::
zen: "You just don't get the point here, which is that scientists seek explanations and Goddidit seeks to end the search for them."
Methodological naturalism makes science myopic, not visionary. Saying "in the beginning, Matter" is no more conclusive regarding a mechanism for life than saying "in the beginning, God." The scientists currently developing ID theory would be amused to learn that they have, in fact, "stopped searching."
zen: "Ariel, you have to learn not to indulge in undue condescension. I daresay my Latin is better than yours, just as my English is."
I know this isn't exactly central to the debate, but I think it's only fitting that we all stop here and savor the irony of this statement.
zen: "you're doing science a disservice. It will allow for God's activities if God provides the evidence that he is active!"
This is the rationale behind ID.
zen: "If Jesus was risen, you will also have eternal life, Jesus says so? That's not quite undefeatable, is it?"
No, it's not. I made no attempt to causally "prove" the sum total of Christian belief - nor do I want to. My contention, and Lewis' trilemma, have to do specifically with the reliability of Christ's claims to be God.
zen: "Your 'logic' about his message is also misguided. It doesn't allow for his being reported and not being the author of his own words..."
The gospel accounts are verifiable by the same types of "document evidence" one applies to other historical writings. But more pertinent, Christ's claims of deity, the point in question, are widely documented by extra-biblical sources.
zen: "[your argument] doesn't allow for the fact that a man can be honest and misguided both."
My argument allows for precisely this. If a man is honest but misguided, we call him deluded. If he is likeable but fanciful, we call him neurotic. If he seems helpful, but claims to be God, we call him insane. No one is really interested in a mad savior. The options re: Christ remain a limiting three.
zen: "You do not base your faith on a "historical fact". That's bullshit. You base it on the story."
Wrong. I refer you back to the Bible which you know so well. Each of the gospels are formulated as historical accounts. This is especially clear in the first several verses of Luke.
zen: "As you doubtless know, some things in [the Bible] it certainly didn't happen..."
I disagree. Read in context, with due regard to genre, the biblical accounts are accurate.
zen: "I do not generally err in my understanding of [the Bible]..."
The Bible says that without the help of the Holy Spirit, it's not possible for you to understand it fully. James' advice on this topic is good.
me: "While we can't analyze the mechanism of life's origins..."
zen: "This is precisely what we can do, and do do. What we cannot do is know it...You cannot analyse it, because it is forbidden to you. But we can and do."
Subseqently, you say this: "Evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang or how life got underway," so I fail to see your point. A "mechanism" for emergence of life from non-life remains hidden (whether from "science" or "evolution") and likely will. Later, you admit as much ("It's not easy!").
As to this "forbidden" stuff, I'm not sure what you're talking about. You're reading a negativity into my approach to science that's not present.
zen: "Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. I find yours entirely implausible..." -
zen: "imagine the glory of a god who created *everything* in one go."
Is it inconceivable that these two gods are one and the same?
James, I appreciate your clarifying take on "hope." I concur.
James said:
"Ariel said:The gospel accounts are verifiable by the same types of "document evidence" one applies to other historical writings. But more pertinent, Christ's claims of deity, the point in question, are widely documented by extra-biblical sources
Good point, and to drive it home, there is more manuscript data and evidence for the New Testament than there is for most of the classics, for example Plato and Socrates and Homer"
*kof* Sorry no. There is no manuscript for Socrates because he left no writing at all. We know of him from his contemporaries. Plato is very widely attested, much more so than Jesus, not least because he was part of a tradition that left a great deal of writing. The same cannot be said for Roman Judea.
Homer is not the figurehead of a major religion, and most scholars accept that he may not even have existed.
You are not in any case comparing apples with apples. It's of no account to the existence of the Iliad whether Homer actually existed (because the Iliad does definitely exist), just as it would be of no account to the existence of the Qur'an whether Muhammad actually existed.
"yet everyone looks at these manuscripts as well supported and "verified" by experts."
They clearly exist! They were cited by others in their day and have been known to exist ever since. The things in them may or may not have existed. We are not discussing the existence of the Bible, which we know to be fairly ancient -- the NT is at least 2nd century, maybe earlier -- but of the characters in it. So one should correctly compare Jesus with Paris, not with Homer.
"It is the very nature of the NT (Jesus Christ) that some "experts" choose to debunk the writings"
Which are clearly contradictory in parts, ahistorical in others.
"the historicity of Jesus ( read Josephus"
Yes, I have.
"and many of the first century writers"
Who? Dio Cassius? Tacitus? Who are these many?
"all who declare the life of this Jesus who died on the cross, and rose)"
No, they don't. Not surprisingly, given that they were in the case of Josephus, Jewish, and in the cases of the others, Roman pagans. They do not support the Bible's story at all. Josephus does not support the Bible's history, but it reflects his, albeit through a glass darkly.
"the incredible work of the apostles and disciples (all of the apostles sans John died a martyr)."
Most of the disciples are no more verifiable as real historical characters than Jesus was!
"Jesus is historical, his ministry is well documented and his effect on Judea, Smaria and the near East is well established."
The effect of the movement in his name is well established. You are not taking any care to distinguish the two. But the movement doesn't prove the man.
"As Ariel said, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that gives us insight into the wisdom of the Word."
Yes, how convenient that is.
I'm not attempting to argue that the manuscript evidence for the Bible places its authenticity beyond question. The book makes a case for Christ's deity, not his presidency or his epic travels, so I think it's reasonable to want a lot of evidence. But the "historical" case is intended to carry one only so far.
I'd summarize the dilemma this way:
1) The Bible's internal coherence and external corraborating sources place it clearly in the historical realm. Christ entered history. The evidence is convincing.
2) There is not enough evidence to intellectually "prove" the deity of Christ beyond the shadow of a doubt (and the Bible does not attempt to do so).
Conclusion: The Bible's case for Christ's deity is convincing, but inconclusive. God didn't want us to come to Christ merely because the data required it.
::
me: "without the help of the Holy Spirit, it's not possible for you to understand [the Bible] fully."
zen: "Yes, how convenient that is."
Yes, God is so unreasonable in this regard! How dare he set these kinds of conditions? However, I think the teachings of Christ are of limited value to someone who is not really attempting to embody them. I'm not sure what "more" you could hope to learn without taking a decisive step toward belief.
"I'm not attempting to argue that the manuscript evidence for the Bible places its authenticity beyond question."
Aren't you? You certainly sound like you are.
"The book makes a case for Christ's deity, not his presidency or his epic travels, so I think it's reasonable to want a lot of evidence."
I wouldn't insist on evidence that is internal. I'd be far more impressed by external evidence, none of which exists bar the testimony of the convinced.
What do I mean by external evidence? Perhaps if Josephus had personally seen Jesus walk on water?
Even so, you'd need a great deal of it. Witnesses are often confused, often misguided.
"But the "historical" case is intended to carry one only so far."
Yes, quite. Precisely the point I'm making, actually. The case is symbolically compelling, rather than compelling in logic or in historical terms. The history is, as we've discussed, rather weak.
"I'd summarize the dilemma this way:
1) The Bible's internal coherence and external corraborating sources place it clearly in the historical realm."
I'm afraid not. I demonstrated that the internal coherence lacks, which it very much does. One looks askance at a work of history that has events that we know from other sources happened many years apart happening at the same time. Even more so, one questions assertions that are against traditions that are elsewhere well established.
And there are no "external corroborating sources" for the events of the Bible as such. Josephus does not give the Bible story. Jewish sources, which do mention Jesus, tell a very different story. Are you aware of them? They're very interesting.
To my mind, none of this goes to show anything in particular. Jesus may or may not have existed. He may or may not be a conflation of several different people. He may or may not have done what is reported in the Bible. Short of a time machine, I don't think any of it is particularly likely to be proved or disproved, but I don't think it's of much importance to the story or the religion that centres round it. The "truth" of the Jesus story lies elsewhere.
"Christ entered history. The evidence is convincing."
Well, certainly it's convinced you.
Did a person called Jesus exist in Palestine around AD 1-30? Maybe. The evidence is rather thin and mostly consists of the New Testament, most of which has absolutely no corroboration from external sources, and could easily have been entirely fabricated.
Did a person called Jesus do all the things he is supposed to in the New Testament? Of course I believe not. But as I said, short of a confession from St Paul that he made it all up, I don't see how it could be settled.
Did all the events of the New Testament happen as it reports? Definitely not. If you believe the NT to be literally true, you are entirely mistaken. Either that, or every other piece of evidence about those times is.
"2) There is not enough evidence to intellectually "prove" the deity of Christ beyond the shadow of a doubt (and the Bible does not attempt to do so)."
No, of course not. Your religion requires faith. I think that was its cleverest invention. It neatly explains the lack of evidence by suggesting that it is *supposed to* lack evidence. Other religions collapsed because lack of evidence led people to believe that their gods simply did not exist. Hard to believe in a sun god when it's cloudy for a month.
"Conclusion: The Bible's case for Christ's deity is convincing, but inconclusive. God didn't want us to come to Christ merely because the data required it."
Yes, indeed.
"me: "without the help of the Holy Spirit, it's not possible for you to understand [the Bible] fully."
zen: "Yes, how convenient that is."
Yes, God is so unreasonable in this regard! How dare he set these kinds of conditions?"
It goes without saying that I believe the Bible to have been the invention of men and consequently it is they who have taken advantage of the convenience of that view.
"However, I think the teachings of Christ are of limited value to someone who is not really attempting to embody them. I'm not sure what "more" you could hope to learn without taking a decisive step toward belief."
Surely one can attempt to embody the teachings in some areas without swallowing the whole story?
After all, I can believe that the Buddha was right that attachment is the cause of suffering (and I do believe that) without believing that he was right about reincarnation (which I'm much more sceptical about).
me: "I'm not attempting to argue that the manuscript evidence for the Bible places its authenticity beyond question."
zen: "Aren't you? You certainly sound like you are."
I know this debate has been messy, but this looks like an impasse. Apparently you know what I think better than I do. I'm afraid to speculate at what might come next. Coercive telepathy? Mindreading? Or perhaps just prescriptivism.
zen: "The history is, as we've discussed, rather weak... I demonstrated that the internal coherence lacks, which it very much does... there are no 'external corroborating sources' for the events of the Bible as such... If you believe the NT to be literally true, you are entirely mistaken."
Apparently I had stepped outside for a coffee break when all the demonstration and proving was going on.
The evidence to support my prior 1)-2) summary of Christ's historicity is widely available and not difficult to find. I maintain my statements.
However, I don't feel compelled to sketch out my argument further because I don't have the impression you're really interested.
In the event that I'm wrong, feel free to let me know. Carrying on this discussion merely for its polemical zing has lost its initial novelty.
James said:
"zen: I see, so you just pick and choose the things you like about a religion/philosophy."
You make that sound like a bad thing! I'm not keen on the alternative of accepting whole and without examination someone else's idea of a good idea.
"You have what I like to call the "Burger King" mentality: Have it your way! Classic relativism, hoping in a hodgepodge of different things because you can "see" or "feel" and they seem right to you. This is the very cause of decay in order and morals in a society because everyone subscribes to what ever they want."
I do not agree. The cause of decay in "order" and "morals" in a society is an overstimulated sense of nostalgia. Such things never existed! When was society ever particularly moral?
"I do not think the animal world would be very "fit" if it operated on this level."
I can scarcely believe you have the background in science that you claim if you do not know that animals do whatever it takes to survive. A dog has a sense of "order" because it has evolved to fit into a hierarchy, not because it considers it proper.
"But, humans have a free will (or do you believe that since if we are merely products of the evolutionary process we really don't have any free will, but are merely programmed to be a certain way, all coded in our genetic make up)."
There are several levels on which to answer that question. First, I do not believe we have free will because the universe is deterministic and "will" is quite illusory. Second, I believe that we have the illusion of it. Third, I believe it is shaped by our acculturation to be framed within certain bounds and arguably this leads us to not be free even in that illusory sense.
"And I have to ask: With hurricane Katrina still fresh in our minds, do you "believe" that the storm was a mechanism used to "select" only the fittest who could flee the storm and leave back those who would not contribute favorably to a fitter human gene pool?"
Let me answer that in two ways. First, by explaining that being "fit" in an evolutionary sense means no more, no less than being equipped to survive. Second, by explaining that nature "selects" the fittest only in the sense that some are fit to it and some aren't. It doesn't use "mechanisms". It is purely undirected.
And it is important to understand that catastrophes swallow up the fit and the unfit, in this sense, without regard to either. Even the best adapted dinosaur died at the KT interval. Evolution is a mechanism to fit organisms to the future, not a failsafe against natural events.
Furthermore, I believe it is offensive and ugly to describe Katrina as anything more than a hurricane. It is not a visitation of God's anger, nor nature's message to us. Whether it is a decent thing to use the suffering of the people of the Gulf Coast to try to score points is something I'll leave to your conscience, James.
Well, zen...
The volume of stereotypical sneers in your last comment was too high. I don't care to dialogue in that mode, for the reasons already stated. You are, of course, welcome to form to your own conclusions as to the real reason I'm walking away from this debate.
Additional comments in a similar tone will also be deleted. If you want to re-open the topic, you'll need to adopt a more congenial demeanor. My rules.
I would be interested in re-opening this topic. I accept the rules of "How We Fight here."
But I would rather not have to write posts that are buried under 40 or so pages of previous comments. Logistically, can you think of an alternatives?
Hey Jeffrey, thanks for the note. I've thought about writing a new post re: Evolution. If you're interested in conversing, that's one more reason for me to get it done.
I’m not sure if you meant for a “Re: Evolution” post to be in response to me, but it any case laying my cards on the table would be worthwhile.
We don’t exactly know each other, but we at least know of each other (outside of your blog). I’m Jeffrey Amos and several of your younger siblings are acquaintances of mine and friends of my siblings. I’m an evangelical Christian, a theistic evolutionist, and a former creationist. I believe everything the Bible says about itself, including most notably that the Gospels present themselves as honest testimonies, and the Bible claims to have been inspired by God.
While you’re probably busier than me, I’m busier than Dr. Zen appears to have been. As far as pace, I’m unlikely to make more than one comment a day.
On to the debate…
I’ll start by stating the obvious: Whatever the real reason that you reject evolution, it doesn’t appear in this post. You have not argued that the Bible teaches six-day creation (or old-earth creation, or ID) and you have not argued that evolution is inconsistent with the nature of God. I’m quite willing to discuss either eventually, but I’ll follow suit for the moment.
As far as scientific evidence goes, I’ve got a really hard time believing that the real reason you don’t accept evolution is due to alleged evidence that over 99% of scientists reject.
You asked: “Where are the knock-out demonstrations of Darwinist supremacy?”
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that what follows is the strongest positive evidence for evolution that I have ever heard.
The evidence comes from a comparison of the genome of apes and humans. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while people have 23. If evolution is true, that means at some point two ape chromosomes were joined. Comparing the two species, twenty-two pairs match up, and one of the remaining ape chromosomes matches with the first part of people's second chromosomes, while the other ape chromosome matches up with the remaining part of people's second chromosome.
If the special creation of man is true, then people's second chromosome was created in an instant and "just happens" to look like the ape's chromosomes. (Which, by itself, is reasonable. The chromosomes do the same sorts of things.) If evolution is true, then at some point the two were joined end to end. Either theory is plausible so far.
What specific predictions can be made with each theory? ID makes no predictions about this, as usual. Evolution predicts that if two chromosomes were joined end the end, at the point of fusion, we should find a telomere – a repetitive DNA sequence that is normally only at the beginning and end of a chromosome. In the last decade, the Human Genome Project has unlocked the entire human genome, and not only found the misplaced telomere in the middle of the correct human chromosome, but it is also on the point which divides the human chromosome into the corresponding ape chromosomes.
In science, the truth of a claim is tested based on its ability to make true predictions.
No one could ever disprove the claim that God just created man that way, with the knowledge that He had created man to look like he had evolved. But I have a theological problem with that. I do not believe in a deceptive God.
This is my non-technical synopsis. If you want to read a more technical version, visit http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html (click the link Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry.)
If you would rather hear it in lecture form, watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg. This is a video of Theistic Evolutionist Ken Miller giving a lecture on ID and how it was dismantled in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover. The entire video is great, and this particular argument from genetics is from 35:09 to 39:32.
>In reality, the stock responses to I.D. are sneers and caricature.
The same could be said of creationists/ID. (Have you ever listened to Kent Hovind?) It depends on where you look. My favorite sites on the topic are www.talkorigins.com and www.answersincreation.org. They almost always focus on the issues without resorting to mockery.
>In the beginning, says the Darwinist, was a morass of unstable chemicals suspended in a volatile soup.
You seem to be confusing the Big Bang with abiogenesis.
>Could a god have created the world? No, definitely not. Could a Big Bang have done it? Well, of course.
I believe in the Big Bang. God spoke and Bang! The Big Bang happened.
>If evolutionary theory is true, and we’ve gradually gathered ourselves piecemeal from the rubbage heap of cosmic accident and brutal chance, then the human mind is the last place we could hope to learn of it.
I first heard this argument presented by C. S. Lewis at http://www.ldolphin.org/cslevol.html, except that he was a theistic evolutionist.
>I’m puzzled by the perplexing lack of sincerity shown by evolutionists everywhere, who evidently don’t consider their discovery suitable for passionate implementation.
The Theory of Evolution says it happened. That’s it. It doesn’t say it was good, it doesn’t say we should seek to promote evolution, and it doesn’t make any moral claims. Evolution says it happened.
>Few, however, make the nihilistic connections screaming to be made.
Agnosticism screams nihilism with or without evolution.
> evolutionists … don’t consider their discovery suitable for passionate implementation. … This is all very perplexing, but ultimately, because the evolutionist’s demands are too modest, we must question their legitimacy.
Evolution claims to be true. This is no more restrained or invasive than any other theory that has stood the test of time.
When I say “stood the test of time,” I’m referring to the fact the overwhelming majority of scientists accept it. At least when it comes to the question of “is it true,” physicists don’t care if the idea of relative time seems ridiculous to laypeople. Mathematicians don’t care if laypeople understand their proof. Evolutionary scientists don’t care if half of America disagrees with over 99% of them. That’s why they usually sneer – they won the real fight about a century ago.
I care because modern, American, conservative Christianity has found itself on the wrong side. Creationists often give out the idea that if you want to show agnosticism is reasonable, you have to show evolution is reasonable. Scientists then do just that.
“[It would be] a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe.” – Galileo
Correction: talkorigins.org not .com
Hey Jeffrey, I wrote this post a couple years ago (August '05) and it wasn't a response to anyone in particular.
I just skimmed my original post, and I think I pretty much still agree with myself, although if I were going to write on the topic again, I'd find more straight forward ways to talk about it.
Good to hear you're not as vociferous as Dr. Zen was--that man went down talking.
I haven't returned to this topic in a couple years because it's not a hill I choose to die on. There are other things I'd much rather spend my time arguing over. Now and then I toy with the idea of saying something else, though...we'll see.
Unless I write a new post, I probably won't get into "debate" mode again, other than to say that I still find evolution very underwhelming. I appreciate your interest, though. Each to his own.
>I haven't returned to this topic in a couple years because it's not a hill I choose to die on. There are other things I'd much rather spend my time arguing over.
Fair enough. A decent part of my interest in the topic comes from the way it stretches me, not from its inherent value.
Post a Comment