Ö÷²¥´óÐã

I seem to recall William, that in your excellent interview with Ken Ham in March 2006, that you made the point to Ham that Warfield and Hodge (along with C.S.Lewis) both accepted an ancient age for the Earth and biological evolution.

Hodge definitely seems to have been a theistic evolutionist as Ham often criticises him in his talks. I'm not so sure about either Warfield or Lewis. Lewis apparently looked at YECism and rejected it but would he have been influenced by the Genesis flood ? Likewise Warfield ?

One thing's for sure though. Warfield definitely wasn't a YEC in the same mould as ken Ham.

I don't think there are many YEC in the same mold as Ken Ham.

I don't think there are many YEC in the same mold as Ken Ham

There's plenty Natmain. Don't forget about the likes of John McKay etc.

It is sadly true that some very distinguished Christian theologians have something of a blind spot when it comes to this important issue. The straightforward reading of Scripture would lead us to believe in a 6-day creation some 6000 years ago, and that there was no death before the entry of sin into the world.

Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with that view, but the general public are apparently not to be permitted to consider it, given that it is usually censored from the broadcast media.

However, for Christians, the bottom line has to be the teaching of Scripture - which is invariably more reliable than scientific speculation!

I don't know if Warfield was an evolutionist or not, but certainly I would agree that "Darwin's ideas are entirely consistent with biblical theology and pose no threat to any significant Christian doctrine". If there is a culture war going on between science and fundamentalism, it is because of the vanity of the first and the stubborness of the second. Scientists have a wicked habit of pointing to all the things in history which have subsequently turned out to be correct and saying, 'that's science'. As for all the unconscionable stuff like eugenics which in their day were regarded as mainstream science, well, we'll just forget about them and if anybody asks, we'll just call science (to quote Richard Dawkins) 'a self-correcting mechanism'. In other words, scientists don't take responsibility. Zyklon B? Nothing to do with us, Guv, we just invented the stuff to kill people with. Gas chambers? All we did was design them for a very specific purpose; you can't claim science had any moral responsibility for their use. For some incomprehensible reason, this blithe arrogance hacks a lot of people off, and it's often forgotten that fundamentalism in its modern form began as a visceral (though admittedly misguided) reaction against the then mainstream science of eugenics. In this, the fundies were correct and the scientists were wrong, although I predict any scientists reading this will go to the grave denying it; they'll just say that it wasn't science, since science is ONLY the stuff that was right: self-correcting mechanism, geddit? The mistake the fundies made was to attack the underlying theory (evoloution) rather than the misconstruction (eugenics), and so we're left with the megaphone diplomacy we have today between crackpot fundies on one side and ethics-free scientists on the other. Maybe Warfield saw it coming and felt he had to pick a side.

Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with that view,

No there isn't Philip, which is why none of the creationist claims appear in any science book nor are taught as science in any school, college, or university anywhere.

but the general public are apparently not to be permitted to consider it, given that it is usually censored from the broadcast media

and what evidence do you have that scientific data is being cencored both by the media, and more importantly by government bodies such as the department of education ?

Peter -- In that interview with Ken Ham, I made reference to BB Warfield's support for evolution, not to Charles Hodge's. Hodge regarded Darwinism as a form of atheism. But when James McCosh (formerly professor of philosophey at Queen's Belfast and a supporter of Darwin) arrived in Princeton as the University's new president, Warfield is reported to have said, "I was already a Darwinian of the purest water."

Fine on that William. I had thought you made reference to Hodge as well but maybe I was thinking of Ham's criticism of him and his (Hodge) belief in "millions of years", as Ham puts it.

I think the modern YECs deny the fact that in the early decades of the 20th century, the word creationist meant either an Old Earth creationist, or a progressive creationist (or gap theorist). YECism and flood geology was unheard of except in Seventh Day Adventism and the teachings of Ellen G White. The Genesis flood by Morris and Whitcombe is largely a reworking of a new geology by Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price.

Even the likes of Spurgeon and William Jennings Bryan accepted geological time.

PastorPhillip (#4)

...there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with that view, but the general public are apparently not to be permitted to consider it, given that it is usually censored from the broadcast media.

Is that the same scientific evidence that is not permitteed for qualified scientists to review? The same evidence that is suppressed from appearing in journals for peer review? Or is it simply because it doesn't have the same level of robustness as -real- scientific evidence?

It's a simple fact, your 'evidence' does not stand up to serious academic scrutiny and to portray it as having equality with real data would do nothing but confuse the issue. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but when you put lies on the same level as truth, that's not right.

If you do have links to some proper evidence, I'd be happy to read it though.

and that there was no death before the entry of sin into the world.

There is no mention in scripture that animals were not subject to death before the fall.

Fundamentalism a reaction to eugenics?? Don't make me laugh!

Helio, I said 'fundamentalism in its mordern form'. If you won't read what I write, try reading something like 'Summer of the Gods' by Edward Larson. Eugenics was a creed that held that people could be bred like cattle for specific properties. The fundies, despite the mantle of wall-eyed ignorance which scientists like to assign to them, realized immediately that once that mindset was allowed to take hold, we would end up in a position where an 'elite' gets to decide which are the desirable properties and, accordingly, who lives and who dies. Attractive as that proposition may be to some scientists (the obvious proviso attaching, of course) I think we all know that there WAS once such a society, don't we?

Casur1, I think you will find that the fundamentalists were often among the vanguard of those pushing *for* eugenics and resisting desegregation, except that they used different words for it. I haven't read Larson's book yet (although I do intend to; I have heard it is very good). By "fundamentalism in its modern form", you surely mean fundamentalism as defined in "The Fundamentals", or are you referring to an even more modern phenomenon? And are you REALLY saying that fundamentalism arose as a *reaction* to eugenics? Surely most historians would reject such a one-dimensional view.

You have made a subtle error in regard to the self-correcting nature of science. It is not about taking moral responsibility; it is about being in a position to say whether something was *scientifically* wrong or not. Morality, I fear, is rather different. For example, if we wanted to breed the population *whiter*, it could absolutely scientifically be done. That is not a scientific error. However it would certainly run counter to very very many ethical principles, and I would strongly oppose such a thing. But it could be done, in exactly the same way as we have bred dogs and cattle.

The flaws in eugenics were many - there was a truly appalling confusion between nature and nurture, as well as a dreadful misunderstanding of how evolution actually works, not to mention an utter cluelessness as to what constituted a "desirable" phenotype in humans. It was just *such* a bad idea. However, it is perfectly scientific to say that if you wanted to increase some particular genetically determined trait or other in the population, you could in principle do it by a breeding programme.

Whether this makes humans "generally better" or not, however, is a different question. I would argue not; I would argue that there is really no "ideal" we can reasonably identify or aspire to, and that the best option for preserving humanity is to preserve genetic diversity in the population, and to study biology and human culture, and value all these things as resources.

Of course the truth was that eugenics was primarily a means of social control and engineering, and had very little to do with anything properly biological. If you want to improve the human race, a surer route would be to feed people, educate them, provide access to health care, and remove social barriers.

So do make sure you don't mix up your apples and your oranges. I'm sorry you feel I have misunderstood your point - I did read it, but I guess you could maybe phrase things a bit better. There IS an important distinction to make between the findings of science and the application thereof; failing to make that distinction does no-one any credit, and prevents lessons from being learned.

-H

Casur1,

You're also confusing your engineers with your scientists.

I doubt very much scientists created the gas chambers. They might've orginiated the initial ideas but it was the evil engineers that made them. Grrrr, nasty engineers.

Peter / Natman

The fact that you are not conversant with the scientific evidence which is consistent with the creation model rather proves the point I was making! There are, of course, a multitude of resources available to enable careful consideration of the creationist view - its just that prejudice keeps a lot of folk away from it!

However, addressing the issue of a Biblical theologian's view of Darwin's theory, it seems to me that an honest reading of both makes it obvious that they cannot be put together to make 'Theistic Evolution'.
That view is inconsistent with both the early chapters of Genesis and the 4th Commandment, not to mention eg what Paul says in Romans 5v12.

And is it not the case that while the evolutionary model says that man is gradually improving, the Bible teaches that he is a sinful being in a world flawed because of sin's consequences? How is it possible for those two be put together?

PastorPhillip (#15)

Here's the thing; the modern synthesis theory of evolution is a well researched, highly regarded and incredibly robust piece of science that has been collated and ammended over a long period of time and is possibly one of the most proven theories in modern science.

The bible needs, nay requires, a substantial amount of faith to even consider it as source of information on a par with the simplest of explanations of evolution. If you don't have faith that the bible is 100% accurate, without bias or falsehood then it's as useful as the Koran or Sruti as a scientific document.

cDesign, creationism, ID, goddit theory has NO credible scientific evidence for it. If you claim it does, then you're uttering a falsehood, whether you know it or not (perhaps you're believing what you're being told). Proponents of such pseudoscience might like to claim otherwise, but they have never, ever, put their money where their mouth is and had their research (if they've ever done any) into a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Finally, could you point out where in evolutionary theory it says that mankind is improving (it isn't, you obviously know little about evolution), and where in the bible it says that would even be a contradiction? Are you assuming that biological 'improvements' (in your thinking) also equal moralistic and 'sin' based improvements?

Natman

Its a pity you haven't noticed the huge amount of prejudice around this issue. Many people who accept the evolutionary model have never been told about the evidence which is difficult to reconcile with it, nor have they been given the opportunity to consider the evidence consistent with the Christian view according to the Bible.

And of course, many would rather there wasn't a God - who would mess with their lives and to whom they will one day answer.

The Bible teaches that man is distinct and different from the animal creation - physically, mentally and spiritually - and scientific evidence demonstrates the fact. The Christian view is the only one which adequately explains man himself - his nature, his moral failure and his inner longing for a relationship with God.

In contrast, evolution is a philosophy of despair, telling us that we came from nothing, are here for no reason and are headed nowhere. I can't help wondering what kind of part acceptance of evolution has played in the minds of the all to many who decide to end their own lives? I realise it is an uncomfortable question, but I submit that it is one which needs to be faced.

***You have made a subtle error in regard to the self-correcting nature of science. It is not about taking moral responsibility; it is about being in a position to say whether something was *scientifically* wrong or not.***


Helio, I'm not sure if you're actually aware of it, but you've just made my point for me: scientists don't take resoponsibility. You seem to have some idea that scientists are exempt from having to make moral choices because they're scientists, or to put it another way, because they form some kind of special geek club apart from the rest of humanity then they shouldn't be subject to the same moral strictures. It's a handy 'get out of jail free' card, but unfortunately, I'm not buying it. It absolutely IS about taking moral responsibility.

Natman, engineers are NOT scientists?????

pastorphilip,

Many people who accept the evolutionary model have never been told about the evidence which is difficult to reconcile with it, nor have they been given the opportunity to consider the evidence consistent with the Christian view according to the Bible.

No one seems to have been shown this evidence, perhaps you could solve this issue by making the evidence available to the people who need to review it.

And of course, many would rather there wasn't a God - who would mess with their lives and to whom they will one day answer.

There isn't one and I am as entitled to not believe in your fantasy as you are to have it.

The Bible teaches...
The bible is wrong on most things, why would I accept that bit.

evolution is a philosophy of despair...
Evolution is not a philosophy, the rest of your statement is simply emotional nonsense. Please supply any evidence you have to make such a statement.

Casur, scientists take responsibility as human beings. They have choices and they are no different from anyone in that regard. But the world is as it is; no myths can change reality, and wishful thinking will not make the atom indivisible. Think about it.

Seems strange to see a word like "evolutionist".Bit like seeing gravitationist or Earth sphericalist.

Dave #19

Here is just one piece of evidence Dave. it is about an Ichythysaur head in rock. The head 'spans' rock layers deemed to be One million years apart. But how can this be? The link below explains:



Yes I know it is not from your favourite publication. But I look at this from a Biblical viewpoint and it fits in with my model. You look at it from your viewpoint and how do you explain?

Also what about polystrate fossils? What about Transient lunar phenomena? What about the Wollemi pine, the Coelacanth and other 'living fossils? What about the apparent uniformity of cosmic microwave background that is inconsistent with a 'Big bang'?

I hope these are some examples of how natural phenomena don't always match up with long age/ evolution.

Just to conclude on Warfield. I believe the quote Will used above at # 6 was said by him at the start of his career at college. He may have moderated his stance later on.

LuxFuit (#22)

The Ichthyosaur fossil found straddling multiple strata (aka polystrate fossils) is not a rare occurance. Many instances of this are found, often with fossilised trees and it's not too difficult to explain, if you'd take the time to do your own research. Isolated examples of exceptions to the rule do not a theory make.

Transient lunar phenomena are just that, and they're not even recognised as a valid occurance, given every example has been seen by either a single individual or a single location. There are a few possible explanations, again, if you're prepared to research it. Quite what this has to do with evolution I'm not sure.

'Living fossils' are merely a testament to the tenacity of certain organisms to resist change over the millenia. I'll notice that you're only pointing out those species we assumed were extinct and now are not. You're quietly ignoring species such as the crocodile, shark and turtle. All of which have also not evolved much over several hundred million years. Again, your point?

Ah, the apparent uniformity of cosmic microwave background. Always a favourite, despite the fact it has nothing to do with evolution. It's a common trick of creationists to mix up cosmology, abiogensis and evolution in one giant sack, as if they're all related. Perhaps they are, but only the mind of those denying the evidence.

I suggest a site called 'Talk Origins' . Have a read through and it might answer some of your questions.

The most telling phrase you used was ...I look at this from a Biblical viewpoint and it fits in with my model. The bible is far from a complex science book, it's a collection of iron-age myths and religious texts, appended with a selection of texts describing an event decades earlier, all carefully assembled in the early middle ages to fit a political agenda. And, unfortunately for you, -your- model is irrelevant. Science is not a pick'n'mix of selectable concepts you can choose to adopt or discard. It's a complex series of peer reviews, experimentation and adaptations. If you disagree with it, then you put forwards your own evidences, done in such a way so that others can replicate the results, all tied in with a conclusion that others can reach as well.

You don't suppose sediments could exist as mud before they turn to stone, do you?

No one seems to have been shown this evidence, perhaps you could solve this issue by making the evidence available to the people who need to review it.

I wonder if he'll link us to either AiG's answers research journal, or CMI's journal of creation Natman?

I assume this is the "evidence" you're talking about Philip ?

Also what about polystrate fossils? What about Transient lunar phenomena? What about the Wollemi pine, the Coelacanth and other 'living fossils?

I hope these are some examples of how natural phenomena don't always match up with long age/ evolution.

So what ?

None of these YEC claims confirm either a young Earth or 6/24hr creation. In fact, all have been answered time and time again.

What about the apparent uniformity of cosmic microwave background that is inconsistent with a 'Big bang'?

Perhaps you could explain to us all how it contradicts big bang cosmology and confirms both a 6,000 year old universe and 6/24 hr creation ?

I wonder if he'll link us to either AiG's answers research journal, or CMI's journal of creation

No he will simply come back on another thread and tell us what he thinks is true, he does not debate he pontificates.

Well, what ABOUT polystrate trees etc!? How do ANY of these words tossed out by the ignorant actually support ANYTHING? The answer, folks, is that these are not arguments, just words chucked out with no substance behind them. Phil might just as well say, "Well, what about gibberflubes and freegulosities? They can't be explained under evolution, therefore a Giant Space Pixie magicked it all last week. What about sloorfingles? What about yibblecompots? Evolution fails."

Helio (@ 28) -

Phil might just as well say, "Well, what about gibberflubes and freegulosities? They can't be explained under evolution, therefore a Giant Space Pixie magicked it all last week. What about sloorfingles? What about yibblecompots? Evolution fails."

In other words, 'evolution' (by which I assume you mean the big macho 'macro-' variety) is accepted a priori as the explanation for everything, and no other conceivable explanation is allowed (since all other explanations have been packed off to the Gulag of Childish Caricatures - with hard labour to boot).

Well done, Helio, you've just scored A* in your 'dogmatic fundamentalism' A-level.

(Although it's a shame about the F minus in 'logic and sound reasoning'.)

You have made me feel really quite queasy with your dizzying circular argument.

And to think people like you STILL claim that your explanations about reality have nothing to do with philosophical presuppositions!

Please, oh pleeeease, reply to my post with one of your classic bluffs. I do find them soooo entertaining. Is it going to be 'cod' or 'cabbage' on the menu this time? Or both perhaps!?!

LSV,

The only distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is in the heads of those who deny the evidence and insist on some form of psuedo-science malarky that relies on an iron-age myth with no serious evidence to support it.

Like it or not, the vast majority of biologists (and by that I mean over 99%), the people who can read the truely scientific journals, perform the experiments and who work with it every day, have accepted the modern synthesis theory of evolution as fact. What makes you, anyone from the various theological institutes (that incidentally lack scientific credentials) or anyone really with nothing more than a smattering of high school level general science more qualified to decide on what's scientificly credible and what's not?

The arrogance astounds me; if you really, truely intent on proving that evolution is flawed and some form of magical miracle working made and maintains all the life on Earth, get yourself a biology degree, work for a PhD, do some research and publish the results. Then, and only then, will you be in a position to propose alternatives to the currently held theory.

Until then, accept that science is not democratic, nor is it fair to every crack-pot idea that comes dancing along waving a 6000 year old highly edited story to back it up and claim that the accumulated science of over 200 years of biology, geology, cosmology and astronomy is bunkum.

Dear Natman et al

Sorry for not responding sooner as I have had a death in the family circle.

I read your post with some interest and thought of the scene in babe where Fly talks slowly to the sheep as she thinks they are stupid. Did you type it slowly so that even a creationist could understand? :-)

The whole point of the Ichthyosaur head is that it is evidence that the rocks 'laid down over millions of years' perhaps weren't laid down over millions of years. And you have stated that many instances of these are found. Q.E.D.

The Transient Lunar phenomena are an indication that if these were volcanic activity then a small body like the Moon would have cooled down over millions or billions of years. TLPs are an indication of a young Moon and as it is our near neighbour perhaps we are the same age?

Living fossils are an indication that the age and timescale attached to their fossilised antecedents may not be true as there does not appear, yet, to be other examples in the newer rocks. I'm not ignoring the sharks and crocodiles (you do so at your peril!) it is just that they have survived over the same period which does not have to be the millions of years we constantly get bombarded with.

The cosmic Microwave background was similarly brought in to show that there is evidence that does not fit in with the billions of years ago 'Big Bang'. And as far as I am aware (or Ö÷²¥´óÐã News would have told me)it hasn't been replicated yet in a science lab.

Yes I do look at the evidence from a biblical perspective because I have studied it for many years and I don't have any evidence to mistrust it. So I have looked at the evidence from this viewpoint. This is little different to a court where one lawyer proclaims the person totally innocent and the other as totally guilty. They use the same evidence but draw their own conclusions depending upon where they are coming from.

From the comments since it appears that I have stirred up a hornets nest. I don't get to W&T as often as I would like but I just couldn't sit back without standing up to be counted. Now my head is over the parapet; one brick at a time please.

Natman (@ 30) -

No, you're not going to shut people up like that by appealing to anti-free speech elitism - something, by the way, the church was rather effective at in the past - an evil the likes of you (quite rightly) rail against. Isn't it fascinating how intellectual tyranny has come full circle? It's a very sad day when the supposed champions of freedom of thought decide that the time has now come for them to set themselves up as the new popes, clerics, shamans and inquisition.

You can attempt to intimidate me as much as you like, but no one (however qualified) is going to force me to believe the totally insane idea that the complexity of life somehow magically 'self assembled', and in a universe of chaos the delicate intricacy of life was protected from every storm and hostile force over billions of years without any need for a principle of order, and not only that, but it managed to improve itself by pure chance (and I haven't even got on to the questions of consciousness and reason).

Furthermore, since science only deals with an aspect of reality, I will not be preached to by an academic elite some of who, wittingly or unwittingly, may be promoting a philosophical position under the guise of the natural sciences. Is the scientific elite now our new priesthood? It sounds like you're advocating a secular form of the worst and most oppressive kind of clericalism.

Unlike you, I can distinguish between the scientific method and philosophical posturing. So I suggest to you that you go off and educate yourself on the subject of the philosophy of science, and then you might possibly learn something about the limits of the scientific method. I'm all for science, as long as it remains precisely that: science. Once it strays into the area of philosophy then I have a right to contend with it, since it is no longer just 'science'.

Furthermore, if you are going to bandy around the word 'arrogant' I suggest you avail yourself of a mirror, because some of your comments about what you call 'religious' belief are not only arrogant misrepresentations, but incredibly childish caricatures, which make any sensible person cringe.

"Science is not democratic."

Exactly. Therefore it is not dependent on numbers. Seems like you've contradicted yourself.

LuxFuit,

Once more, from the top:

Polystrate fossils have been explained - The bending and twisting of the rock strata they've been entombed within. The rapid deposition of sediments in a localised flood. The partial burying of the corpse followed by the slower burial over time afterwards. Each example has its own explanations and each example of polystate fossils has hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of fossils buried in the standard manner to compare it to. It's not an argument killer like you seem to think it is. There was once a spelling mistake in the bible that said 'Thou shalt commit adultery', that doesn't imply that, because of that one anomaly (that was soon explained and corrected) the whole bible is under doubt.

Transient Lunar phenomena are considered to be many things, the one thing that they've never been considered is volcanic activity. Degassing, yes; impact events, yes; electrostatic phenomena, yes. Volcanic activity? No. Stop trying to fit something you once heard about into your viewpoint.

The thing about living fossils is that they do occur in the fossil record and have not shown much change over the years. I'm confused as to how you think this makes a difference? There are many, many ways of gauging the age of fossils and the earth, please tell me how they are all so flawed as to destroy the current theories.

Cosmic microwave radiation. The universe is expanding. All of it. There is no central point from which it came, nor is there a place to which it is going. There is no nothingness on the edge of the universe which it is expanding into. All the energy in the universe is, broadly speaking, averaged out over its entirity, therefore you would expect to see uniformaty.

I suggested a website for you to browse, it's clear you haven't and I suspect you're truely unwilling to confront your beliefs with evidence (not an uncommon trait in creationists). I have no problem with people holding onto their self-delusions. My issue is when people try to pass that ignorance on as proven facts when they're nothing more than a loosely held idea based on faith alone.

LSV,

You might not like it, you might rail against intellectualism, and the right of those with skills to determine the best way of implementing those skills, but that's how the world works.

I wouldn't expect my plumber to rewire a socket, I wouldn't expect a rocket scientist to design a bridge. Why, therefore, do you seem to think that anyone is capable of coming up with scientific theories and not just those with the credentials they've worked very hard to get?

You wouldn't dream of going upto an engineer who's building a skycraper and say "well, according to my Bumper Book of Fairy Stories, the equations you're using to build that are wrong, so do it this way instead". Likewise, if you saw an electrician wiring up a complex system, you (probably) wouldn't deign to tell him how to do his job, given he probably knows much better than you how it works.

Because certain aspects of science threaten (minor) elements of your faith, it seems every Tom, Rick and Sally should have the right to question theories, demand their ideas are taught as well (or instead), despite the fact their ideas have no merits. Is this right? Is this a destruction of free speech? No. Don't be silly.

And if you find the semantics I use to describe the invisible unicorn that some people call God, some Odin, some Zeus, some Krishna, etc, childish charicatures, then perhaps you're not as confident in your faith as you like. Surely it's just a name? Lots of people call the gods by different names. Why is your name so much more special?

@LuxFruit

. There's also a piece by the paleontologist featured in the AIG/Creation Ministries article.

Transient lunar phenomena observations are being coordinated by the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers and the British Astronomical Association to try and decide if they are real. If it turns out they are, there are plenty of avenues for investigation - outgassing, impact events, electrostatic phenomena and poor observation conditions before we jump to the conclusion that a frisky young moon is belching forth volcanic activity like it's going out of fashion.

Coelacanths, once very abundant with many genera and species, very nearly went extinct, as against actually going extinct as previously thought. There are now only two known species, both deep water varieties. For hopefully obvious reasons, deep water species in general are largely absent from the fossil record at present, so it is not actually a "problem" for the theory that they don't appear.

As for the cosmic microwave background radiation - scientists are studying it with ever more sensitive instruments to detect the tiny fluctuations that might unlock the puzzles. In short theorising, predicting, measuring, theorising some more, predicting some more ... That's what scientists do - when they're not sitting around on their flabby behinds contemplating their philosophical presuppositions, of course.

Seriously, is this the best you've got? Do bible literalists really take comfort in these scraps and feel they are justification enough to ignore all the evidence that points the other way?

LSV, all I get from you is V and no L. But I'm sure we'll hear from you when you have something rational to contribute. In the meantime, I hope your cushions are well fluffed up. Perhaps you might offer your opinion on Lux's points?

Natman: Funny you should mention plumbers and engineers doing jobs they are not expert in as I was thinking along the same lines re atheism and God. I was wondering why people would listen to the likes of Dawkins/Hitchens et al who by their own admission clearly know nothing of God since they don't believe God exist . It's a bit like Dawkins reading up on heart surgery, reviewing the papers and the literature and the techniques etc so that he could sound like an expert or even be an expert on the theory - but would you let him do your heart bypass if he had never even stepped into an operating theatre and had no experience of actually performing the operation?? Why then do people listen to him on God - when he clearly has no experience of something that he believes does not exist! Crazy. If people want to learn about art or some other subject they tend to do so from someone who specialises in that field, has experience and knows something of the subject - why then when it comes to God do people listen to a self-confessed non-expert??? (which he has to be as he doesn't believe God exists - so he obviously knows nothing of God).

Eunice, you are missing one vital point with your analogy.Engineers, scientists etc are coherent in their explanation of their subjects and it does not matter what part of the world you come from the characteristics of human anatomy are agreed.However belief in God is incoherent.Even the Christians cannot agree among themselves how to interpret their Holy book or what their God really wants...and thats before you even start to look at Islam or one of the myriad other religions.So your analogy is a false one.

From the comments since it appears that I have stirred up a hornets nest

No you haven't LuxFuit.

You've merely repeated a few YEC claims from AiG/CMI's websites, none of which disprove either an ancient Earth or Darwinian evolution.

Natman and grokesx have given you perfectly adequate scientific explanations for all them , and why none of these are taught as science in any school, college, or university anywhere.

I don't think any scientists are particularly worried about the numerous false claims from either AiG or CMI

nobledeebee: I agree belief in God is incoherent as it is not about 'believing in' but knowing.
I agree that there are many false claims put forward about God - usually by those who 'believe in' or equally who do not 'believe in' God eg atheists - and my point stands that people who claim that God does not exist clearly know nothing about God. Also whilst there are many false and inaccurate portrayals of God this does not mean that there are not people who can present a coherent explanation of God and who by how they live demonstrate this also. The trick is finding them amidst the vast amounts of pure garbage that exist re God.

The Dali Lama was asked by Leonardo Boff which is the best religion - he did not say Buddhism etc but said it is the one that brings you closest to God and the one that makes you a better person. He expanded that what makes you a better person is whatever makes you more compassionate, more sensible, more detached, more loving, more humanitarian, more ethical.....
He also said there is no religion higher than the truth.
And in the conversation between them it was mentioned that was not about whether one is religious or not - but about ones behaviour with family, at work, with peers, in the world etc
Also that the universe is the echo of our thoughts and actions.....the laws of action and reaction are not just for physics but human relations. What we put out comes back to us in some way.

Natman (@ 34) -

"You might not like it, you might rail against intellectualism, and the right of those with skills to determine the best way of implementing those skills, but that's how the world works."

Funny, but I actually agree with most of what you wrote in your post (apart from the nonsense in the last paragraph, but I will come to the whole question of "caricaturing people's views by association with an accepted absurdity" later, which seems to be the number one piece of atheistic apologetics at the moment). As for my 'railing against intellectualism', I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. There is a difference between 'the use of the intellect' and 'intellectualism', the latter often being an attempt to silence one's detractors through the appearance of the use of the intellect.

I agree totally that qualified scientists should be the ones who 'do science'. But they are not necessarily qualified to 'do philosophy'. All I have been saying is that there is a distinction between 'science' and 'philosophy' and it is important to understand that distinction. I want to discern to what extent scientific theories are dependent on certain assumed philosophical presuppositions and then to ask whether those presuppositions are justifiable. The assumption that a materialistic explanation for a phenomenon (such as, e.g. consciousness) must be accepted as the only valid one, is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical one. Therefore it stands outside the purview of the scientific method, strictly speaking.

My reaction to Helio's post #28 was based on my observation that he was denying anyone the right to question the theory of macroevolution, as if the theory is self-evidently true. But it cannot be self-evidently true, since it can never be anything other than a theory. Why? Because it is a construct attempting to explain unrepeatable events of the past through a particular interpretation of empirical data, such as the fossil record, for example. Some people ask legitimate questions about, for instance, the gaps in the fossil record. That is a perfectly legitimate question, and there is nothing inherently unscientific about asking pertinent questions (as if anyone could doubt that). But no. We are condescendingly told that there are certain questions we are not permitted to ask, because such questions may challenge the prevailing philosophy of the day, which in this case is materialism (a kind of secular fundamentalist religion). It really is the inverted form of the religious inquisition. That is why I say that secularists have come full circle.

As for your analogy of the engineer building a skyscraper, and using proper equations rather than a 'Bumper Book of Fairy Stories', I couldn't agree more. You may possibly have noticed that I subscribe to a world view in which the concept of 'intelligence' is centre stage - both as first cause and as sustaining reality. 'Intelligence' is the diametric opposite of 'fairy stories'. So I hope that you are not implying that my world view is somehow to be associated with 'fairy stories', when I have made it abundantly clear that a belief in intelligent design is a belief in the primacy of intelligence and the controlled directing work of information behind reality. In fact, it is only when the engineer acts like an intelligent designer that he can actually do his job! This is empirical evidence, if ever anyone needed it, that we associate design and complexity with the input of intelligence. But woe betide anyone who then extrapolates that empirical observation to reality as a whole!!! He then suddenly becomes a 'pseudo-scientist' instead of what he actually is: a proper scientist drawing logical conclusions from sound empirical observations.

Helio has made the point a number of times that "we scientists start with where we are and work outwards". Well, what I see in the world, in which I live, are engineers constructing skyscrapers by the use of intelligence. I start with the empirical evidence of the association of intelligence and design and then work outwards to conclude that the design of the universe is the result of intelligence. I am simply using Helio's method. But apparently if Helio's method leads to an inconvenient philosophical conclusion then what is urgently needed is a panicky call to the groundsman to uproot those white wooden netted structures and quickly move them to another part of the football field (if you know what I mean)!!

As for your ongoing method of caricature, you have decided to associate a particular idea with a set of absurd and comical fantasy characters. But you provide no evidence to justify this association. So the idea of an intelligent basis to reality (OK, let's use the word 'God' to refer to this) is associated with 'invisible unicorns', fairies, Santa Claus and the rest of it. Since you are making this association, it would be helpful if you could provide the reasoning, by which you justify this association. I am well aware that one of the arguments (in fact, the only argument) atheists use to justify their atheism rather than admit to agnosticism, is this 'association with an absurdity' methodology. I wouldn't mind quoting a chunk of this, but since the rule about how much we may quote is rather hazy, you'll have to read it for yourself.

McGinn makes the point that, although we cannot 'prove' the non-existence of God, it would be unreasonable to consider the existence of God as a possibility, in just the same way that it would be unreasonable to consider the possibility of the existence of Santa Claus. Therefore agnosticism is an unreasonable position to take. It all sounds eminently logical until you ask the question: on what basis does he justify putting the existence of 'God' and the existence of 'Santa Claus' in the same epistemic category? It appears to be the result of his own personal feelings and perception. If it is to do with the idea of invisibility (as if God can only be believed in if he is a lump of matter floating around), then I assume that he would call human consciousness, or even reason itself, a fairy or a pink unicorn or some other such nonsensical fantasy being.

What perhaps he (and you) may not realise is that I can employ exactly the same method of "caricature by association with an accepted absurdity" with regard to your views: for example, the idea that complexity arises out of chaos (or nature left to its own undirected and uncontrolled devices). Suppose I stated that I know that life definitely did not arise by that means (in other words, I was not prepared to be agnostic about the matter), you could then perhaps put forward the argument that "you can't prove that it didn't happen". (This is the same argument theists often put to atheists concerning the existence of God). I could then retort with Colin McGinn's methodology by saying: "OK, strictly speaking, I can't 'prove' that it definitely didn't happen that way, but I will associate the idea with a caricature, which then no one in their right mind would believe. So since it is ridiculous to believe that a Mercedes could self-assemble in a scrap yard hit by a hurricane, in the same way it is unreasonable of me to believe that a far more complex living cell could arise from non-living matter without the input of intelligence."

Now, I can imagine your reaction to this. You would undoubtedly take umbrage at this and angrily protest that this is a false analogy, etc. But in fact, in essence and in methodology it is no different from the kind of comparison and analogy people like Colin McGinn (and you) make concerning the idea of an intelligent creator.

So we can both play this game of throwing caricatures at each other, based on our own respective philosophical perceptions and 'feelings' about what is true.

It's obvious that you revile any spiritual views, because you are a committed dyed in the wool empiricist. But, as I have stated many times before, empiricism is a position of faith just as much as any 'religious' viewpoint. Therefore if my views are worthy of grotesque caricature, then I see no reason why yours should not deserve the same treatment, as I have explained.

LSV,

So you're going to leave the theories of the evolution of life and the origins of the universe to the scientists with the appropriate qualifications? That you're going to accept that they, with their wider ranging knowledge of the subject and continuing the growth in the amount of evidence are, in fact, the best people to show us these theories?

In effect, are you conceding that all those qualified scientists have come up with the best theory based on the available evidence? Evidence that you yourself will admit is beyond the scope of your own experiences?

I don't think so some how. You'll continue to propagate a flawed idea based on unverifable and out-dated mythology put forwards by theologians unqualified in biological, cosmological and biochemical spheres, assigning some form of 'intelligent design' into a system that neither needs it, or shows it.

I'm quite happy to have my views caricatured, I relish in the debate and seeing just what theists can latch onto with regards my views and opinions.

I also get tired of the 'prove gods don't exist' idea. The burden of proof is on the person who is inserting a new variable. Unlike the existance of gods, conceps such as abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang have some evidence on their side.

I'm not even going to go down your road of comparing the origins universe to a skyscraper. The Watchmaker analogy has been thoroughly refuted by people a lot more eloquent than I.

Natman (@ 42) -

"I don't think so some how. You'll continue to propagate a flawed idea based on unverifable and out-dated mythology put forwards by theologians unqualified in biological, cosmological and biochemical spheres, assigning some form of 'intelligent design' into a system that neither needs it, or shows it."

You're absolutely right in your assessment that I won't leave it. And in case you're tempted to comfort yourself with the thought that I am contradicting myself, let me just say that you have not been paying any attention to what I wrote. I made a clear distinction between 'science' and 'philosophy'. You refuse to accept that the empirical scientific method has limitations. Within the proper limitations of the scientific method, then, of course, I accept that there are specialists whose expertise I have no right to question. For instance, I accept that I am no brain surgeon, and so I am in no position to question the methodology by which a suitably qualified brain surgeon may go about his business. But if that same brain surgeon should try to convince me, on the basis of his science, that I am required to accept a certain metaphysical view of reality, I will happily tell him that he has grossly overstepped his intellectual remit! Thankfully most scientists are a bit more mature than that, and a bit more mature than some of the naive contributors on this blog, who seem to think that you can conduct a few scientific experiments and thereby know everything about every aspect of reality. It really is pitiful reasoning (if I can dare to dignify such nonsense with the word 'reasoning').

However, if you think that I am going to be duped by evasive arguments, then you'll be disappointed. Why should I submit to the opinions of people who themselves admit that there are serious difficulties with their materialistic theory, such as, for example, the committed atheist Dr Susan Blackmore who admitted that the materialistic basis of consciousness was "a mystery" (see my comment about this on the recent "Religion and Ethics in the News" thread)?

You are completely wrong about the burden of proof bias. Since you hold to a materialistic philosophy, there is a burden of proof on you, just as much as there is on me. I remember you once spoke highly of 'scepticism'. If that is the case, then you should welcome criticism of your philosophy. The fact that you seem to have deluded yourself into imagining that your world view is 'self-evident' and therefore above any kind of assessment or criticism proves that you reject the idea of 'scepticism'. In fact, I am far more of a sceptic than you are, and I am very willing to analyse critically all aspects of my own world view (as I have done for many years). If you could provide me with a logical argument that the burden of proof only rests on 'religious' believers and never on philosophical materialists (without resorting to subjectively generated caricatures), then I might listen to your point of view. I have asked this question in the past, and all it has elicited is the usual boorish, angry and ignorant response, which I interpret as an inability to back up your beliefs with evidence and sound argument.

I note that you claim that the argument from design has been refuted. You may like to know that I am also able to write the words "has been refuted" on my keyboard. One finger goes there, the other here, and I can put the letters "h-a-s b-e-e-n r-e-f-u-t-e-d" all in the right order. Aren't I clever? Of course, having the ability to put a series of letters in a certain order does not create meaning. So if you expect me to believe this nonsense, why don't you actually provide irrefutable evidence that the complexity of life really has been created by chaos - and, most of all, that the empirical evidence falsifies the role of an intelligent creator. And prove this without resorting to any kind of philosophical argument or personal atheistic bias. I really would love to see anyone - whoever they are - prove categorically that a complex system could never under any circumstances have been designed by an intelligent being, and that therefore the only rational conclusion is that all complex systems are always, unfailingly, the work of blind chaos. Frankly it would be beneath the dignity of the inmates of the worst lunatic asylum to attempt to present an argument to prove that!

And finally... I still await a refutation of my argument about the self-refuting nature of empiricism - an argument that proves that philosophical naturalism is based on a 'leap of faith'. It looks like I'm going to be waiting a long time for that....

LSV,

Since you're so convinced that the empircal method is so flawed, and requires as much faith as any theistic belief, I await your paper in a journal anyday now and the clamour of the scientific world at your door to acknowledge that, all along, they were entirely wrong.

Your only outpourings are on a forum on the internets. I shall continue to read the real evidence put forwards by qualified scientists and base my judgement on people who seem to know what they're talking about.

I really would love to see anyone - whoever they are - prove categorically that a complex system could never under any circumstances NOT have been designed by an intelligent being, and that therefore the only rational conclusion is that all complex systems are always, unfailingly, the work of blind chaos. Frankly it would be beneath the dignity of the inmates of the worst lunatic asylum to attempt to present an argument to prove that!

Natman -

"Your only outpourings are on a forum on the internets. I shall continue to read the real evidence put forwards by qualified scientists and base my judgement on people who seem to know what they're talking about."

The trouble with me is that I'm a committed sceptic, and so I am doomed to think for myself. What a terrible burden it is that I have to bear, don't you think?

By all means run off to 'the big boys', if you must. Perhaps some of them (especially those who understand a bit of philosophy) might even want to come and duff up this poor little sceptic. I look forward to the day. Then I might get some sensible answers to my questions!

The trouble with me is that I'm a committed sceptic, and so I am doomed to think for myself. What a terrible burden it is that I have to bear, don't you think?

Yet you believe in a 4000 year old iron-age myth of creation by magic, that has NO evidence to back it up? If you were so willing to think for yourself, then you would have nothing to do with religion, which is, ultimately, the epitome of forced thinking.

Not very skepical.

Your ability to pull out of a post only the bits you want to deride, whilst ignoring anything that confronts your opinions ranks you with the highest of all creationist delusionists. Well done.

The trouble with me is that I'm a committed sceptic, and so I am doomed to think for myself. What a terrible burden it is that I have to bear, don't you think?

Is that scepticism a committed philosophical position? If not, what philosophical colours do you nail to the mast? Or are they to be kept under wraps like your personal evidence for god - that dainty flower which would apparently wither away under the glare of a critical eye?

VSL, your entire argument appears to be that the epistemic basis of the scientific process has not been secured; since the theistic model is similarly unsecured, both should be accorded the same degree of credibility. Do I understand you correctly?

Within the theistic model, you will concede, surely, that the most significant thinkers agree that evolution *works*, so it is not at all clear to me how you feel you can attack evolution by facile and childish posturing on the epistemological issue (which is irrelevant, as has been pointed out to you many times).

In other words, even if I *grant* you the existence of n magic space pixies, evolution *still works*. Science *still works*. The only difference is we're not making any claims to the existence or non-existence of the gods. I could claim to believe in the same pixie you do, and I could still ask you to defend your claim that (say) the healing of Jairus's daughter was a miracle, rather than simply a natural event that was simply thought to be a miracle by credulous people. Natural stuff still happens, even under a theistic model.

So, whither your "critique"? Why do you think your armchair cod-philosophical mumblings have any relevance to the reliability or otherwise of evolutionary theory? Are they similarly relevant to gravity, or do you conceive that as "Intelligent Falling"? Are they relevant to electronics, or do you think your computer really has a lot of wee men inside it, pulling levers and popping switches?

You call yourself a sceptic - I don't think that word means what you think it means, boss.

Natman (@ 46)

grokesx (@ 47)

Helio (@ 48)

Help I'm being ganged up on!

Helio: "...it is not at all clear to me how you feel you can attack evolution by facile and childish posturing on the epistemological issue (which is irrelevant, as has been pointed out to you many times)."

That's right. When you can't refute an argument, just dismiss it as irrelevant (oh, and don't forget to spice it up with plenty of insults, as we all know that insults count as sound scientific evidence). Which page of the atheists' playbook is that tactic on? Sadly for you, the epistemological argument is highly relevant, but since I have stated why so many times, I'm not going to repeat it yet again.

grokesx: "Is that scepticism a committed philosophical position? If not, what philosophical colours do you nail to the mast? Or are they to be kept under wraps like your personal evidence for god - that dainty flower which would apparently wither away under the glare of a critical eye?"

A truly beautiful metaphor. And what exactly have you got against 'dainty flowers'? Since the dainty flower has weathered incredible storms through its (supposed) long evolutionary career, I'm sure it could cope with a critical eye or two. Of course, I am being mischievously literal, but I can't help using your analogy to make the point that I happen to think the argument from design is not bunkum, and that 'dainty flowers' are dainty for a reason. You chaps seem to think this argument is bunkum, although no evidence seems to be forthcoming, apart from the usual dogmatic philosophical assertion that a (hypothetical or even conceivably coherent) materialistic explanation must always be accepted as the true one (which is, of course, a 'leap of faith', as I have repeatedly pointed out, and no empirical evidence is available to refute that point).

As for scepticism - no this is not a philosophical position but a methodology. Let's call it 'methodological scepticism' and not 'philosophical scepticism', shall we? It's called "being willing to criticise a belief system". But it seems rather strange to me that those who fancy themselves as 'sceptics' assume that scepticism is a one-way street. I regard it as a two-way street. So we have a difference of town planning there.

So chaps, now that you have 'little dainty me' cornered in the playground, what exactly are you asking me to do? Let me try and work it out, according to your own belief system (or what you would prefer to call your own 'knowledge system'. We'll quietly ignore the fact that a denial of the role of 'belief' is a serious epistemological faux pas). I take it that you are all empiricists. Helio did say that we "start with where we are at and work outwards". So, let's suppose that I have a Damascene experience and suddenly 'enlightenment' blazes all around me coupled with a profound sense that philosophical materialism is saying to me "why oh why are you persecuting me?", and I fall on my knees blinded by the amazing revelation that there really is no meaning or purpose to life and no intelligence behind the universe. What then? After recovering my sight, I then look around me, and it hits me. The appearance of design and complexity and meaning and purpose all around me is just an illusion!! Of course! How could I not see that?! It's all a big con. Behind all this beauty and intricacy (and daintiness), not to mention the sense of morality, reason and purpose, there is just a dark howling chaos. And this chaos created all this stuff! Of course it did. It must have done, because, starting with where I am at (as Helio so sagely advised me) I can see that chaos always produces complexity.

After my Damascene experience I then encounter some really very silly people. Simpletons really. Backward superstitious folk. These uneducated peasants seem to think that there is a causal connection between the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'complexity'. Ha ha ha!!! Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in all your life?! And then they have the cheek (ignorant, unqualified lot that they are) to project that delusion onto reality as a whole. They impudently dare to argue that "they are only starting with where they are at, and basing their beliefs on empirical data". How outrageous and impertinent! After my glorious investiture into enlightenment I now know (not just believe, as I keep insisting, when these stubborn cod philosophers challenge me on that point) that, even though we start with where we are at, that does not mean that we take it too seriously. If our eminent and learned leaders tell us that we should build a view of reality by denying the causal link between intelligence and complexity (despite the fact that this causal link is the warp and woof of our experience of life) then that is what we should do!!

So yes. I think a Damascene conversion to unsubstantiated and empirically unsupported dogmatism might be an interesting way to go. On second thoughts.... nah. I think I'll leave it, thanks. I can't seem to disconnect the ideas of 'intelligence' and 'complexity' in my mind. Sad, innit? Must be the evolutionary path I took. Still, it helps my survival (which is all ideas are supposed to do anyway - at least according to your philosophy).

So there you go. I have investigated the Damascene option. And I'm afraid my scepticism has just got the better of me. So I guess I'll just have to remain in the 'darkness' of purpose, meaning and hope. It's tragic (apparently).

Oh blast... I nearly forgot to comment on this priceless critique of my position:

Helio: "Are they similarly relevant to gravity, or do you conceive that as "Intelligent Falling"? Are they relevant to electronics, or do you think your computer really has a lot of wee men inside it, pulling levers and popping switches?"

You know, Helio, I get really frustrated with my old banger of a car. When it breaks down (as I say, it is rather old) and I open the bonnet, I get really fed up with those little men playing hide and seek with me. I am sure that there must be little men who keep the engine running when I'm driving it, because I have it on good authority that my car was actually originally manufactured by intelligent beings (the employees of VW, no less). And, of course, you are quite right, when something is the product of intelligent design then it must unfailingly have a proper 'follow-up' of a team of little men keeping the machine going. So why do these wee chaps keep disappearing when I open the bonnet, I ask myself? ...

... Ah, I know! There aren't any little men there at all! Of course, how could I be so silly to imagine that there were. But, hang on... if there aren't any little men keeping the workings of my car going, then that must mean ... gosh ... that my car was never originally designed and manufactured in the first place!!

In other words, Helio, an asinine question deserves nothing less than a sarcastic response!

Well, chaps, I'll let you lot have the last word. Don't all rush at once. An orderly queue please. It's bye for now (or should I say 'auf wiedersehen').

LSV,

As usual, an eloquent and meta-physical essay that completely fails to address any of the major points raised against you. Well done. You should get a job at AiG or the Disco'tute.

No evidence for your own opinions, save for circumstantial meanderings and arguments from incredulity, yet you also avoid actually addressing the evidence put forwards in support of what's actually going on.

You're not a skeptic at all, merely someone who hides behind their philosophy to avoid the real world.

Helio had it right on the head, even if the playing field was level, and all things are ultimately a matter of faith, even empirical methods, evolution, and the non-existance of gods still have a far higher evidence stack on their side.

'That's right. When you can't refute an argument, just dismiss it as irrelevant (oh, and don't forget to spice it up with plenty of insults, as we all know that insults count as sound scientific evidence).'

VSL, once more we see posturing rather than a defence of your position. My point remains - your supposed attack (futile) on the epistemology of naturalism leaves evolution unscathed, because it works in both a theistic model of the universe and a properly metaphysically naturalistic one. Therefore (and this is true - deal with it), even IF your amusing sorties against naturalism were valid (and as you say we have been round the block on this; I don't recall you making any argument deserving of the term "cogent", but hey, I'm leaning over backwards to be kind to you), the validity of the scientific theory of evolution remains unscathed. COMPLETELY unscathed, just as meteorology, electronics, fluid dynamics etc do.

It's a bit of a fail, dear boy. If you wish to attack the theoretical basis of evolution, you may try to do so on scientific grounds, but as I have shown, your feeble epistemological warblings actually relate to an entirely irrelevant part of the ontology.

If you can't understand this, it's too bad.

@LSV

So that'll be, "I'm not gong to tell you," then?

Or going, even.