Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 04, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Second Letter to a Secular Nation
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



On just the second page of his introduction to Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris says it is well known that “the beliefs of conservative Christians now exert an extraordinary influence over our national discourse – in our courts, in our schools, and in every branch of government.” The key word is “now,” which is inserted to create the false impression that we are a nation moving away from secularization – perhaps even towards a theocracy.

It is difficult to imagine how anyone with an IQ above room temperature could imagine that we are not becoming an increasingly secular society – witness, for example, the accelerated and largely successful efforts to remove prayer or any mention of God from the classroom. That the beliefs of conservative Christians are exerting less influence in these realms has never been a question for serious debate. The debate has always centered on the effects of these rather obvious trends.

A native of Wilmington, North Carolina recently asked me some rather pointed questions about the state of education in America today. He attended New Hanover High School several decades ago when prayer in schools was still legal. He also claims to remember when students put their shotguns in their lockers and went hunting after school. Perhaps his best question was this: “Why is that we have more violence in schools years after we took the guns out of students’ lockers? Do you think that has something to do with us taking God out of our schools, too?”

The question is not an easy one at all. It requires a thoughtful, or, one might, say, “nuanced” response.

Christians who believe that restoring prayer in schools is a “solution” to the “problem” of school violence are deluding themselves. The issue is so much more complex than that. Along with the removal of God from our schools we have also seen the removal of fathers from our households. And we do a disservice to ourselves to focus merely on what is missing from our schools and from the lives of our students. We must also look at new threats they are facing.

Just across the street from New Hanover High School there are crack houses and heroin houses. Sadly, some of them have been owned by local community “leaders” who have turned a blind eye to what their renters have been doing just a stone’s throw from our public schools and school children. Conservatives are right to point out the fact that so many of these dealers are products of a failed experiment in welfare – and this also speaks to the issue of the absence of fathers. But liberals are right to point out that Wilmington’s drug problem skyrocketed during the 1980s when conservatives were leading the so-called war on drugs.

Since both the conservative Christian and the liberal secularist have failed our nation’s children it is important for both sides to retain a bit of humility. That is why I am concerned when I read words like this in Letter to a Christian Nation: “I have set out to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.”

Harris certainly falls short of his goal when he makes statements like this:

“According to a recent Gallup poll, only 12 percent of Americans believe that life on earth has evolved though a natural process, without the interference of a deity. Thirty-one percent believe that evolution has been ‘guided by God.’ If our worldview were put to a vote, notions of ‘intelligent design’ would defeat the science of biology by nearly three to one. This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design.”

It is temping to quarrel over Harris’ use of the term “unintelligent design.” But there is a more important problem with his statement; namely, that it ignores the true reason why so many people reject the position that life on earth has evolved entirely through a natural process. That reason, of course, is a lack of fossil evidence supporting the notion that evolution explains variations between, not just within, species.

The problem is compounded by the dismissive tone of atheists like Richard Dawkins. After years of hearing that gaps in the fossil record account for the reluctance of many to embrace Darwinism he attempted an extraordinarily dishonest sleight of hand. He argued that the presence of some intermediate life forms would actually increase the number of gaps to be explained. Thus, Dawkins tried to turn the absence of evidence into support not refutation of Darwinism.

Hence, Dawkins’ position can be summarized as follows: When Darwinists are right, they are right. When Darwinists are wrong, they are still right.

Clearly, Dawkins thinks that all those who question his worldview are stupid, perhaps best referred to as “Un-brights.” Harris seems to share that view, which is reflected in the following statement:

“53 percent of Americans are actually creationists. This means that despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago.”

It is difficult to believe that Sam Harris has never heard of the distinction between “old world” and “new world” creationism. Archbishop Usher’s assertion that the world was created around 4000 B.C. is an antiquated idea from the 19th Century. Unlike the Darwinists, creationists have been willing to modify their ideas over the last century-and-a-half when the evidence calls for modification. I now believe the universe is around 14 billion years old. Like Augustine, I’m an old world creationist. Harris may not have heard of old world creationism but, hopefully, he’s heard of Augustine.

Put simply, Harris’ assertion that all Christians believe the earth is six thousand years old (and are therefore stupid) is both patently false and patently offensive. It is on par with saying that all blacks believe whites invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks. It is simply a device born of bigotry meant to breed hatred and division.

But, of course, the question of when the earth was created cannot be addressed until we answer the question of whether there was a Creator. That is really the central issue. Once it is resolved, we may argue over the issue of when the creation took place. When we get to that point, I will gladly argue with supporters of Archbishop Usher who assert that the “entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago.” Of course, no one I know actually adheres to that belief.

(Note to Sam Harris: Genesis 2:4 says “… in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The Greek word for “day” is the same word used in Genesis One. The implications for Biblical literalism are rather obvious. See also, 2 Peter 3:8).

The purpose of this series of letters is not to advocate prayer in public schools. Nor is it to advocate the teaching of creationism in public schools. But I will question why so many professors assign Sam Harris in public university classrooms.

…to be continued.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Dear Lonestarblues
With all due respect, the un-Christian and un-American rants are your's. One needs only to look over your obsessively extensive comments to realize this. When you use the now-standard (and duplicitous) liberal dodge of drawing a false moral equivalence between Christians defending their faith from attack and the depredations of murderous Islamic fanatics, you reveal your motives. Again, the emnity is your's, not mine. My faith teaches against blind hatred. Your's, the secular faith of "progressivism", upholds it as a virtue.

Never-ending discussion...
Mack, GG-AZ, anyone else interested in continued discussion, please come over to D'Souza's "The Failure of 'Intelligent Design'" article @ http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/07 /the_failure_of_intelligent_design .

GG-AZ
"Overall, though, I think that you are being hypertechnical."

Hypertechnical? At least you have to make up new words to try an capture me. Ironically, though, it is you who follow that with hypertechnical words like orthologs and urochordates.

"Yong and Dolittle searched for 26 different proteins involved in mammalian clotting, and found orthologs for 21 of these in the puffer fish."

Let us note two things here. One, they searched only among living creatures, their finding say nothing about what came before. Two, they found mammalian clotting in fish--the orthologs in puffers, supporting the notion of common descent.

"Thus, there is a huge and unexplained gap between the urochordates, with no clotting mechanism whatsoever, and the full-blown clotting apparent in all vertebrates."

That's not what the evidence or conclusion Yong and Dolittle say. Your citation does not support your conclusion.

But let us say there is a gap. What does that mean? Should we take that as evidence? Evidence of what? All a gap would say is it is unknown, and arguing from unknowns is logically fallacious.

What you need to do is not point to gaps the way Creationists do, and which is the basis of ID, but produce evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Mack
"What steps? Observed where? Where is the example? If so called "science" cannot provide an observable example how is this not pure speculation?"

I thought you said you'd read the papers I provided a link to. If not, read them again, not some argument by a creationist who hasn't read them.

me "The claim of ID is that there is no possible explanation for a given example of complexity except Intelligent Design."

you "Can you give an example of something complex that was not designed?"

The atom. The universe. Life. Society. My favorite is the free market. Next would be forums like this one.

Mack
"You come across as a glass is half empty person.. There are a few design flaws in my Acura, but it is still one fine automobile."

That statement itself is a glass half empty. So now you get it. That's what evolutionary theory argues, that random mutation, natural selection and common descent are not the perfect design of God, but the good enough laws of nature. This view, I think, is a glass half full.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says: "Virtual perfection is not part of the natural world we see around us. Consider the human eye, if it were designed, as some have it, the backward retina is clearly an imperfection of really poor design."

You come across as a glass is half empty person. There are a few design flaws in my Acura, but it is still one fine automobile.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says: "Each of the steps have been observed. The explanation fits what's observed."

What steps? Observed where? Where is the example? If so called "science" cannot provide an observable example how is this not pure speculation?


"The claim of ID is that there is no possible explanation for a given example of complexity except Intelligent Design."

Can you give an example of something complex that was not designed?




Mack
"Can you give me an observed example where this has actually happened and not just something speculated by a scientist?"

Each of the steps have been observed. The explanation fits what's observed.

The claim of ID is that there is no possible explanation for a given example of complexity except Intelligent Design. Any reasonable explanation, that fits within what is known about biology, chemistry, physics, and so on, defeats that claim.

Irreducible complexity, on the other hand, is speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with scientific speculation. String theory, multiverses and the like are speculative. But it is not accepted as science until a means of testing it can be specified.


lonestarblues: blood clotting
I've followed the post you provided, and some of its references, and I'm reaching the limits of my layman's knowledge of biology and genetics.

Overall, though, I think that you are being hypertechnical. Your post references a 2003 article by Yong and Dolittle. Here is a quote from that article: "Blood clotting follows the same fundamental pattern in all vertebrates, from the early diverging jawless fishes to mammals." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/13/7527

There is no simpler version of this "fundamental pattern," which was my point. Yong and Dolittle searched for 26 different proteins involved in mammalian clotting, and found orthologs for 21 of these in the puffer fish. They searched for the same proteins in the sea squirt (a urochordate), and found none -- zero.

Thus, there is a huge and unexplained gap between the urochordates, with no clotting mechanism whatsoever, and the full-blown clotting apparent in all vertebrates.

Correction
me "Punctuated equilibrium is just a refinement on catastrophism."

Actually it is a refinement on both gradualism and catastrophism, the punctuated being the catastrophies and the equilibrium being the gradualism.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says, "The gist of the explanations from evolutionary theory is reducing functionality at best reduces functionality, iow, the reduced complexity has functionality."

Can you give me an observed example where this has actually happened and not just something speculated by a scientist?

GG-AZ
"I did not say that the evidence of punctuated equilibrium disproved gradualism. That was your misinterpretation. I said, correctly, that the evidence disproved gradualism."

Nor did I say you said that. I said the evidence that falsified gradualism supports punctuated equilibrium.

Just earlier you said science does prove anything. If it doesn't prove, it follows by the same reasoning that it also doesn't disprove.

Now to the point of punctuated equilibrium. You said "The theory of evolution predicted slow, gradual change in organisms from one form to another. The fossil record wholly contradicted this, most famously with the Cambrian "explosion.'" @ Saturday, April, 05, 2008 11:44 AM.

Evolutionary Theory follows either gradualism or catastrophism. Evidence that falsifies one supports the other. Punctuated equilibrium is just a refinement on catastrophism.

"There is no "evidence" of punctuated equilibruim, because it doesn't actually predict anything. It is essentially an excuse for explaining the absence of evidence. On the other hand, the presence of evidence is also consistent with punctuated equilibrium."

First you say there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium, then you say there is. To say "the presence of evidence is also consistent with punctuated equilibrium" is to say the evidence corroborates the hypothesis. Science doesn't prove or disprove, it corroborates or falsifies. A hypothesis that in its predictions is consistent with the evidence is a good model of that evidence. This is what science is about, discovery of the best explanation for the data.

Mark
"I didn't say evolutionists."

OK, then I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

me "Every instance of IR claimed by ID has been explained. Where do you want to start?"

you "Let's start with bacterial flagellum."

This was explained by Kenneth R. Miller in "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity'" @ http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.htm l . Additonal detaizls, arguments and research papers are discussed @ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html .

The gist of the ID argument in all these cases is reducing complexity removes functionality. The gist of the explanations from evolutionary theory is reducing functionality at best reduces functionality, iow, the reduced complexity has functionality.

lonestarblues
I did not say that the evidence of punctuated equilibrium disproved gradualism. That was your misinterpretation. I said, correctly, that the evidence disproved gradualism.

There is no "evidence" of punctuated equilibruim, because it doesn't actually predict anything. It is essentially an excuse for explaining the absence of evidence. On the other hand, the presence of evidence is also consistent with punctuated equilibrium. So it's worthless as a scientific theory, as it cannot be disproven.

lonestarblues
I did not say that the evidence of punctuated equilibrium disproved gradualism. That was your misinterpretation. I said, correctly, that the evidence disproved gradualism.

There is no "evidence" of punctuated equilibruim, because it doesn't actually predict anything. It is essentially an excuse for explaining the absence of evidence. On the other hand, the presence of evidence is also consistent with punctuated equilibrium. So it's worthless as a scientific theory, as it cannot be disproven.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says,
"No, evolutionists have never claimed that. Evolutionary THeory concerns only how life transforms and adapts."

I didn't say evolutionists.

"Every instance of IR claimed by ID has been explained. Where do you want to start?"

Let's start with bacterial flagellum.




Mack
You cite from somewhere a definition of Darwinian Naturalist.

Extreme adaptedness smacks of survival of the fittest, which is not part of evolutionary theory. Virtual perfection is not part of the natural world we see around us. Consider the human eye, if it were designed, as some have it, the backward retina is clearly an imperfection of really poor design. Darwinian Naturalism, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. It seems to have derived from natural theology, the source of Paley's argument from design based on the watchmaker analogy, the old teleological argument, the new Intelligent Design.

Never would have guessed Darwinian Naturalism derived from religion.

Inspired by your citation, I google more information on Darwinian Naturalism. From "The new Darwinian naturalism in political theory" @ http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17326572.html : "The naturalism espoused by political theorists such as Fred Wilhoite and Peter Corning is enjoying a revival due to the works of leading contemporary political scientists such as Roger Masters and James Q. Wilson. The ideas of Aristotle, David Hume and Charles Darwin inspired these theorists to espouse a naturalistic interpretation of politics. Political scientists' objections to naturalism can be refuted by rejecting the dichotomies falsely associated with naturalism."

Why that's nothing more than what Hayek called scientism, the misapplication of scientific theories to nonscientific areas like politics.

Did you intend your argument of Darwinian Naturalism to be an argument against Evolutionary Theory?

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says: "I asked you to define eternal as it is not used by science. Instead you repeat."

In all seriousness. Have you no dictionary? You mean you have to wait till science gives you a definition? Come down from your ivory tower and shoot the breeze with the rest of us. In all honesty. You come across as elitist.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues says: "What is a Darwinian naturalist? Is that the straw man you're trying to knock down?"

OK, I'll play along with your feigned naivity.

"Darwinian Naturalists are fond of stressing the power of natural selection to produce the extreme adaptedness and the virtual perfection of the structural and functional properties of living things. Unlike their natural theologian forbears, however, they wish to insist that such perfection comes about without assistance from any sort of divine Mind orchestrating this process."

Steve
"Your combined and endless rants on this subject leads one to question your motives."

Rant? Where? I've pointed out and explained common misunderstandings and misrepresentations of science and evolutionary theory. Just where is the rant?

"Just why do you (as it appears) hate and fear Christianity and its precepts so strongly?"

From what does that appear? I do not hate or fear Christianity, I've said nothing against it, nothing about it at all. So just where do these appearances arise?

"But for Christian tolerance (and the force of arms of Christian soldiers) you would be living in a militant Islamic theocracy... where your atheistic statements would be punishable by death."

Christian tolerance? Is it tolerance to call explaining science a rant? To falsely accuse someone of hating and fearing Christianity? That sounds right on par with Islamofascism.

"Every man has, as they say, the right to go to Hell in his own way. However, when you attack Christianity, you likewise attack the moral foundation of America... which is, itself, the keystone of the entire free world."

Your false accusations begin to sound like an unChristian, unAmerican rant.

"So, then... what principally inspires your emnity?"

Nay, what inspires yours?

Dear Lonestarblues and SJ Doc
Your combined and endless rants on this subject leads one to question your motives. Just why do you (as it appears) hate and fear Christianity and its precepts so strongly? But for Christian tolerance (and the force of arms of Christian soldiers) you would be living in a militant Islamic theocracy... where your atheistic statements would be punishable by death. Ironically, as a result of your efforts, this could still happen.

Every man has, as they say, the right to go to Hell in his own way. However, when you attack Christianity, you likewise attack the moral foundation of America... which is, itself, the keystone of the entire free world.

So, then... what principally inspires your emnity? Is it Christianity, Western Civilization or America itself? All three? After all, they're inexorably tied together. Or are you simply motivated by the elitist secular agenda that seeks to denigrate all ideals of virtue and decency in a quest for political power?

In any case, think twice. Communism was unable to suppress God in Eastern Europe after eight decades of rule. If you think that it will be that easy to corrupt the heartland of America, then you'd better put a check on your egos. They're running away with you like spooked horses.

The suppressed alternative
--
Says Mr. Adams:

"Since both the conservative Christian and the liberal secularist have failed our nation’s children...."


This would seem to imply that there is a suppressed alternative in the proposition, namely that of the conservative secularist.

In other words, the concept of constitutional government embraced by the founders, with emphasis on the 1st Amendment.

I find it remarkable that "the wall of separation" between church and state commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson by both "Liberals" and Christian conservatives was actually associated most firmly in the Founders' minds with a Baptist theologian named Roger Williams (of Rhode Island).

Would anyone be surprised to learn that Rhode Island - long a defender of individual rights including freedom of conscience - should have been the first colony to declare independence from Great Britain and the last state (of the original 13) to succumb to Hamilton's strong-arm tactics and ratify the U.S. Constitution?

Even a benign tyranny - a Christian tyranny - is still a tyranny.

Hatred of tyranny is in our blood, and when we let the spirit of resistance against tyranny dissapate, we are no longer American citizens but mere subjects of a government utterly dead in sin.

Prayer be damned.

--

GG-AZ
"Now, there may -- or may not -- be a great many observations consistent with the hypothesis of macroevolution. This is open to debate. But regardless of their number and quality, the fact remains that no number of observations can ever prove the hypothesis."

And, again, evolutionists, scientists in general, do not claim proof. Why the long, elaborate straw man?

Also, biologists rarely talk about micro- and macroevolution, when they do, they mean simply a difference in degree. It's Creationists who bring up that up, a straw man meaning difference in Biblical kinds, a straw man because evolutionary theory actually argues against apes turning into men.

GG-AZ
"Fundamentally, the scientific method is incapable of proving any hypothesis."

This has been known since Hume pointed out the induction problem. The problem was solved by Popper who pointed out science is deductive and that evidence either corroborates or falsifies hypothesis, never proves them. In short, science does not claim scientific method proves hypotheses.

jono64a
me "My parents, in the 80s, still do this, probably my inspiration. This is what's important, volunteering help, not proving God exists, evidencing evolution."

you "Why not let the homebound and handicapped die under your evolutionary survival of the fittest faith?"

Evolutionary theory does not predict survival of the fittest, which was coined by Herbert Spencer as a metaphor for economics, and others, like Hitler, mistook for reality. The mistake, known as scientism, according to Hayek, is to believe man's traditions and institutions are or can be designed when the evolve spontaneously.

A better source for the natural basis of man's altruism in the form of empathy is Adam Smith's _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_: "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."

jono64a
"lonestarblues, stop your pathetic whinging and deal with the arguments addressed."

More ad hominem? You're the one who needs to stop attacking messengers and deal with messages.

"I'm arguing that no true Scotsman was neither born in Scotland, lived in Scotland nor has Scots ancestry. I also don't need some two-bit antitheist like you telling me who my fellow Christians are."

And you're still arguing the no true Scotsman fallacy.


"'True truth' is presumably Francis Schaeffer's pleonastic phrase. Schaeffer was pointing out that the Bible does not contain exhaustive truth, but is nevertheless true on whatever it affirms."

I've read Schaefer, what he says is this, from _Escape from Reason_: "It is an important principle to remember, in the contemporary interest in communication and in language study, that the biblical presentation is that though we do not have exhaustive truth, we have from the Bible what I term true truth. In this way we know true truth about God, true truth about man, and something truly about nature. Thus on the basis of the Scriptures, while we do not have exhaustive knowledge, we have true and unified knowledge."

Yet, knowledge comes from reason, not faith. Faith may find truth, but it can't be known through faith.

Husker2
"You wrote: "The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life." Not sure who argues this, it's a common Creationist straw man. Science doesn't argue it."

"I don't know if "science" argues it, but the biology texts in our high schools do."

The fine tuning argument Creationists argue comes from the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It would be odd for a biology textbook to discuss astrophysics.

The fine tuning argument Creationists use says the existence of life is so improbable God had to create it. The Anthropic Principle say the existence of life was inevitable.

You can see the distortion. If the biology text in your high schools talks about fine tuning, I'd replace them. Heck, if they discuss the Cosmological Principle, I'd replace them. Biology is one thing, physics another. And this stuff is graduate school material.

GG-AZ
"You say that my irreducible complexity argument about blood clotting 'ignores that simpler forms of blood clotting had functionality.' What simpler forms of blood clotting? Do you know of any? Has any scientist observed such a 'simpler form' of blood clotting?

"The answer is no."


Oh?

"Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003)." From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html .



"And if you don't even know what "simpler forms" of blood clotting might be, how can you say that they had functionality?"

Oh?

"The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually." Same link.

GG-AZ
"It looks like we agree that science can't begin to explain everything, and we agree that scientists keep looking for answers and 'refining' -- or sometimes completely abandoning -- their theories."

Yes, I call this the paradox of science. Every question answered raises new questions.

"You don't seem to understand that your belief that scientists will eventually find the answers is, itself, nothing but faith."

I thought you just said "we agree that science can't begin to explain everything". Now you say the opposite. You need to stop contradicting yourself.

I don't believe scientists can explain everything, I don't think any scientists thinks that. The only one saying it is you.

Scientists can't explain everything because of the paradox above and because they do not try to explain everything, only what falls under scientific method. Matters of faith are left to others.

"Yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of faith in a supernatural explanation for anything. That is closed-minded."

It certainly would be if I did such a thing. But, again, you put words in my mouth and thoughts in my mind that I neither say nor think.

GG
"I understand your argument, it's just logically flawed."

Let me ask you the same thing I did Mack, are you going to show me this or just claim it?

"If there is evidence of punctuated equilibrium, what is it? There isn't any."

But you said in your post that the evidence of punctuated equilibrium disproved gradualism. In the same post you also denied there was any evidence. Now you repeat there is none. So is that what you're going with? It would help if you'd make up your mind.

"So you say that the absence of evidence is evidence. If you think a theory can be proven by the absence of evidence, you've abandoned reason and science for faith."

I didn't say that and don't think it. Don't put words in my mouth and thoughts in my mind and then argue against them. Arguing straw men is a logical flaw.

Well, when are you going to show me the logical flaw in my argument. I've shown you yours.

Mack
"You couldn't be more wrong."

Are you going to show this or just claim it?

"Don't you realise what science (Some of it pseudoscience) is asserting?"

I do know the difference between what you claim science says and what science actually says.

"Big Bang (Chaos)"

Science doesn't associate Big Bang with Chaos. Big Bang is not a thing but a process, one that transformed energy and matter from one state to another.

Genesis tells the story of God creating order from chaos.

"Life springs from nonlife. Darwininian naturalists have always claimed that somehow life comes from something nonliving."

No, evolutionists have never claimed that. Evolutionary THeory concerns only how life transforms and adapts.

Genesis tells the story of God creating Adam from dirt.

What is a Darwinian naturalist? Is that the straw man you're trying to knock down?

"Matter is eternal."

I asked you to define eternal as it is not used by science. Instead you repeat.

"There is an explanation for irreducible complexity. You claim that science explains. Where?"

Every instance of IR claimed by ID has been explained. Where do you want to start?

"I have never heard a BELIEVABLE explanation."

Personal beliefs are irrelevant. The question is (a) is the explanation reasonable and (b) is it testable.

"The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life. You said that you're not sure who argues this. You claim that it's a creationist straw man."

No I said science does not arue it, only creationists.

"Are you asserting that the universe is not fine tuned for life or that it's just not talked about?"

Yes and yes. Fine tuning is a misrepresentation of the the anthropic principle.

An example of the fallacy
Here is an example of the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Hypothesis: My father is immortal. (Obviously, I mean my physical, biological, human father, not my "Father in Heaven.")

Expected observation: Every time that I see my father, he is alive.

I'm 40 years old, and my father is 65. I haven't counted, of course, but I estimate conservatively that I've seen my father alive about 10,000 times.

Can I conclude from this that my hypothesis is correct, and my father is immortal? Of course not.

Application to evolution
Thus, the theory of evolution -- macroevolution -- has not been, and never can be, proven by the scientific method.

The fundamental method of "proof" of macroevolution is to advance the hypothesis (emergence of new species as a result of random mutation, with beneficial traits preserved through natural selection), predict observations that should follow from this hypothesis, and then examine the physical (mostly fossil) evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis.

In terms of formal logic, let:
A = the hypothesis of natural selection, and
B = the observations expected if A were true.

The logical equation is then: If A, then B.

If the observations fit the data, then B is true. We cannot, however, deduce from this that A is true.

Now, there may -- or may not -- be a great many observations consistent with the hypothesis of macroevolution. This is open to debate. But regardless of their number and quality, the fact remains that no number of observations can ever prove the hypothesis.

Scientific method cannot prove truth
To take the discussion to a higher plane, I assert that the scientific method itself is fundamentally flawed. It is logically incapable of determining the truth.

Fundamentally, the scientific method is incapable of proving any hypothesis. It is only capable of disproving an hypothesis. To assert that the scientific method has "proven" something is to commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

This is explained well at Wikipedia, in the "Scientific Method" entry:

"In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhacen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.'"




Dear Mike
As a geologist, I often depended on the fossil record to give me a rule-of-thumb notion as to the age of the rock strata I was studying. It's an important tool when in the field. Having done so, I recognize the changing patterns of life on Earth over the years as a reality.

However, I am also a Christian. I find no discrepancy between my faith and the science I once pursued. I guess I've always accepted the concept of intelligent design... and well before the term originated. There are many questions in science that science itself cannot resolve. Premier among them is: "Why?"

That question is at once the simplest and the most incredibly pervasive. Many arcane and complex theories have come about; all of which attempt to show how the universe and its workings evolved by accident. Yet, among all of them, that basic question remains unanswered. It had to have started somewhere and somehow.

Whether our universe is unique or is an "inflation" off an earlier one- whether it's cyclical or not- if it's the result of 4-dimensional membranes in collision... whatever. There had to be an initiating event to it all. SOMETHING had to create it and set it all in motion. And, accepting that, it only stands to reason that this Power was an almighty one and that the work was done with a purpose in mind.

Atheists reject God- not from intellect- but from a lack of perspective... and one engendered from a psychological inability to accept their own humble state in a universe and a Design born of a Supreme Being.

Anti-Christian arguments from silence
Tacitus X dismisses a mitacle reported in Matthew because of silence in the other three Gospels. But he rejects the miracle of the Resurrection that is reported in all four! There is no pleasing dogmatic antitheists. See also http://www.tektonics.org/af/asilent.html

Charity is contrary to evolution
lonestarblues
"My parents, in the 80s, still do this, probably my inspiration. This is what's important, volunteering help, not proving God exists, evidencing evolution."
Why not let the homebound and handicapped die under your evolutionary survival of the fittest faith? Hitler was more consistent with his evolutionary beliefs (see http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwint oHitler.htm). You are piggybacking on the Christian morality which in turn is based on the Bible that you despise. See also ‘You should be feeding the hungry’ http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2383/

lonestarblues, dogmatic atheist
lonestarblues, stop your pathetic whinging and deal with the arguments addressed. I'm arguing that no true Scotsman was neither born in Scotland, lived in Scotland nor has Scots ancestry. I also don't need some two-bit antitheist like you telling me who my fellow Christians are.

"True truth" is presumably Francis Schaeffer's pleonastic phrase. Schaeffer was pointing out that the Bible does not contain exhaustive truth, but is nevertheless true on whatever it affirms.

OtherScripture treats Genesis as history
GG-AZ:
It's very easy to distinguish literal from figurative language from the grammar. Also, we can see how the rest of the Bible treats Genesis. Everywhere that Genesis is quoted, the people are accepted as real individuals, the events are treated as real history, and even the order of creative events are treated as history. The article http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3736 gives some examples.

lonestarblues
You wrote: "The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life." Not sure who argues this, it's a common Creationist straw man. Science doesn't argue it."

I don't know if "science" argues it, but the biology texts in our high schools do.

lonestarblues: blood clotting
You say that my irreducible complexity argument about blood clotting "ignores that simpler forms of blood clotting had functionality." What simpler forms of blood clotting? Do you know of any? Has any scientist observed such a "simpler form" of blood clotting?

The answer is no. The appeal to "simpler forms of blood clotting" is pure make-believe.

And if you don't even know what "simpler forms" of blood clotting might be, how can you say that they had functionality?

lonestarblues: Science and faith
It looks like we agree that science can't begin to explain everything, and we agree that scientists keep looking for answers and "refining" -- or sometimes completely abandoning -- their theories.

You don't seem to understand that your belief that scientists will eventually find the answers is, itself, nothing but faith. Yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of faith in a supernatural explanation for anything. That is closed-minded.

Punctuated equilibrium
I understand your argument, it's just logically flawed. If there is evidence of punctuated equilibrium, what is it? There isn't any. So you say that the absence of evidence is evidence. If you think a theory can be proven by the absence of evidence, you've abandoned reason and science for faith. You are left with nohing but a clever story that you can believe based on a complete absence of evidence. The reason that I call this "clever" is that Gould was able to fool most of the people with this nonsense, and pretend that he was still doing science.




lonestarblues
Lonestarblues: "As for 1 through 5 however, none of them follow from atheism, none even follow from science."

You couldn't be more wrong. You must know this unless you are trying to play some kind of semantic game.
Don't you realise what science (Some of it pseudoscience) is asserting?

1. Big Bang (Chaos) to robust complex systems of life on earth (Highly Ordered).

2. Life springs from nonlife. Darwininian naturalists have always claimed that somehow life comes from something nonliving.

3. Matter is eternal. Something has always existed. If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, what could there possibly be now?

4. There is an explanation for irreducible complexity. You claim that science explains. Where? I have never heard a BELIEVABLE explanation. Neither has Antony Flew. Not being able to explain this is what made Antony Flew reject atheism.

5. The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life. You said that you're not sure who argues this. You claim that it's a creationist straw man.

Are you asserting that the universe is not fine tuned for life or that it's just not talked about? I'm sure pseudoscience would not bring it up.





Mack
If I might intrude on your discussion...

"Atheists must believe..."

Some believe God does not exist, which is the same as faith. Personally, as an atheist, I do not believe either way. I also have no problem with you believing one way or another, or speaking out on it in the public square, it's all our religious freedom, thank God, so to speak. :-)

As for 1 through 5 however, none of them follow from atheism, none even follow from science.

"1. Order comes from chaos." Biblical, Genesis.

"2. Life springs from nonlife." Biblical, Genesis.

"3. Matter is eternal." Depends what you mean by eternal, that's a religious word. Science does argue matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

"4. There is an explanation for irreducible complexity." ID argues there is. Evolutionary theory explains.

"5. The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life." Not sure who argues this, it's a common Creationist straw man. Science doesn't argue it.

Slackers Uncritical Faith In Science
Slacker Writes: “Saying the fact that there are unanswered questions in science proves there is one or more gods is no different than saying it proves the easter bunny exists. It is pure nonsense. “

Believing in the Easter bunny is ACTUALLY more rational than what atheists believe.

Atheists must believe:
1. Order comes from chaos.
2. Life springs from nonlife.
3. Matter is eternal.
4. There is an explanation for irreducible complexity.
5. The universe randomly fine tuned itself for life.

Do you really believe science will someday verify these beliefs of yours? All you will ever have are blind theories and pure speculation by elitist scientists attempting to philosophize. You will hang on their every word I'm sure.

GG-AZ
"There is also no evidence that intermediate fossil forms ("missing links"), which share some characteristics of a (presumably) ancestral form and a (presumably) descentant form, are actually demonstrative of an evolutionary descent from the ancestral to the descendant form."

Again, an exaggeration. Evolutionists agree transitional fossils are not direct evidence, but it can be easily inferred. Direct support for common descent comes from genetics.

"Yet no one believes that the new world monkey evolved into the old world monkey, which then evolved into the chimp."

That's right, no one argues these things, that's not what common descent is about.

"I'm not saying that the evolutionists are definitely wrong, just that the evidence is inconclusive either way."

You haven't really addressed anything evolutionists argue from the theory.

"Irreducible complexity"

Among the many problems with this concept are the following. One, it ignores that simpler forms of blood clotting had functionality. Two, it's a tautology that cannot be tested, so is not a scientific hypothesis. And three, it's nothing more than arguing from incredulity.

This last criticism is important to understand. Scientists day in and day out question and challenge the hypotheses and findings of science, resulting in revisions and refinements, punctuated equilibrium an example, theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics two more. That's what scientists do. Scientists involved in ID are big on the questions and challenges, but they stop short of responding to and resolving the issues and instead exclaim incredulously it just can't be explained! Meanwhile other scientists research the issues and provide explanations.

GG-AZ
"The theory of evolution predicted slow, gradual change in organisms from one form to another. The fossil record wholly contradicted this, most famously with the Cambrian "explosion." This observation flatly disproved neo-Darwinism."

The theory initially predicted gradualism. The fossil record showed instead what is called punctuated equilibrium, periodic catastrophic changes with grandual change in between. The theory was not "disproved" (proof is not what science is about), it was refined. Just like Newtonian Physics was refined by Einstein's theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

"Gould then cleverly aqdvanced the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which hypothesizes that small, remote populations could evolve rapidly and without leaving fossil evidence. As far as I know, this remains the current view of evolutionists."

Why the subjective use of clever. It wasn't clever, it followed reasonably on the evidence. And he didn't say periodic catastrophic changes would leave no fossil evidence, just that it would be more difficult to find. And evidence is found in the fossil record to support this.

"This isn't science, it is faith."

How do you jump to that conclusion? It's a non sequitar even from your understadings of Evolutionary Theory.

"It is a theory advanced to explain the absence of the evidence that was expected to support the theory of evolution."

That's what scince does, explain the evidence, which includes absense.

"There is no evidence to support the 'punctuated equilibrium' model."

You just got done arguing the idea of gradualism was contradicted by the fossil record: "The fossil record wholly contradicted this, most famously with the Cambrian 'explosion.'" Now you deny your own argument.

That isn't science, it is faith.

Irreducible complexity
My father, who specialized in hematology and practiced in the field for about 40 years, was persuaded almost instantly by the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade. This is an extraordinarily complex process, which is essential to any creature with blood -- if the blood doesn't clot fast enough, the creature bleeds to death, while if the clotting isn't locally contained, the creature dies due to excessive clotting.

It strains credulity to believe that this process could have appeared in its entirety by random mutation, like Athena from the head of Zeus. However, there is no reasonable explanation of a series of small mutations, each of them beneficial, which would have led to the clotting cascade.

Intermediate fossil forms II
There is also no evidence that intermediate fossil forms ("missing links"), which share some characteristics of a (presumably) ancestral form and a (presumably) descentant form, are actually demonstrative of an evolutionary descent from the ancestral to the descendant form. Here are a couple of examples:

(1) We could line up modern skeletons of a chimpanzee, an old world monkey (say a macaque), and a new world monkey (say a howler). The old world monkey would appear to be an "intermediate form" between the new world monkey and the chimp. For instance: (a) the new world monkey has a prehensile tail; the old world monkey has a tail that is not prehensile; and the chimp has no tail -- suggesting "evolution" away from the need for a prehensile tail; (b) the new world monkey has 2-1-3-3 dentition, while the old world monkey and chimp each have 2-1-3-2 dentition -- again suggesting "evolution" toward the chimp's dentition. On the other hand, the three skeletons appear related as they have features in common, such as opposable thumbs on all four limbs.

Yet no one believes that the new world monkey evolved into the old world monkey, which then evolved into the chimp.

(2) For that matter, a motorcycle looks like an intermediate form between a bicycle and a car. Thus design, not just evolution, can lead to the observation of intermediate forms.

I'm not saying that the evolutionists are definitely wrong, just that the evidence is inconclusive either way.

Intermediate fossil forms
The theory of evolution predicted slow, gradual change in organisms from one form to another. The fossil record wholly contradicted this, most famously with the Cambrian "explosion." This observation flatly disproved neo-Darwinism.

Gould then cleverly aqdvanced the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which hypothesizes that small, remote populations could evolve rapidly and without leaving fossil evidence. As far as I know, this remains the current view of evolutionists.

This isn't science, it is faith. It is a theory advanced to explain the absence of the evidence that was expected to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the "punctuated equilibrium" model.

jono64a
I don't think that it's as easy as you suggest to distinguish those portions of the Bible meant literally from those meant symbolically or figuratively.

For example, in John 3:3, Jesus told Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven." He did not mean this literally, though Nicodemus misunderstood (at first).

As another example, in Matthew 21:18-19 there is the account of the barren fig tree: "Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, 'No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.' And at once the fig tree withered. This is described as a literal event, and I believe that it was. But it is also an acted-out parable about unbelief and false belief, invoking John the Baptist's preaching from Matthew 3:10.

Hal Donahue
The federal courts are not the final arbiters of truth. Courts can be wrong, and often are. In fact, different courts often disagree with each other.

You know, Ann Coulter has written -- insightfully, I think -- that the secular courts are the "priests" of the "Church of Liberalism."

Jay33 and johnTaylor
I have a slight correction to your discussion of the languages of the Bible.

johnTaylor is correct that the entire NT was written in Koine Greek.

Almost the entire OT is written in Hebrew. There are short portions in Aramaic and Chaldean in the books relating to the Babylonian exile, such as Ezra and Daniel.

Beastie Boy
Probably one of the dumbest statements made in these posts:

"Back in America's heyday, we were more socialist, in the sense that we had strong and effective unions protecting the rights of the worker."

celtic-dragon
I completed my masters 15 years ago.

That came about 14 years after the first degree.

I had hoped to go on, but a job supporting a family came first. I now am in education in a different field.

Faith cannot be quantified.

You wrote: "I can't believe that otherwise intelligent people will swallow this kind of insanity."

It seems insanity to you. To those of us who have faith, it is not.

By the way, I had several professors, very intelligent men, tops in the field of oil production, who were also strong in their faith. We did not hear it in lectures, but they were open about their faith outside the classroom.

Also, you mention "actual, observable reality."

I will tell you that actual, observable reality changed somewhat in the years between the two degrees. I was surprised to find that some unassailable facts in undergraduate classes had become discounted theories.

On a side-note: We were required to take a basic astronomy class for our degree. Our astronomy professor, a brilliant man, was a Christian who believed in the six-day creation account.

deanO
"There is no time in eternity! So how old was the world when God created it? Some assume that if the world were created, then it would have been new at its point of creation. I assert that God just may have created it old!"

******************************************

Ah, yes.

The "Matrix" movie explanation for everything. The Earth isn't really old...it just looks that way to fool us. For all we know, God may have even created us with false memories just a moment ago, if we want to go down that path too far.

I can't believe that otherwise intelligent people will swallow this kind of insanity. Interesting how people can invest so much emotion in a particular interpretation of the Bible that they will deny actual, observable reality to defend it.

The Age Of Things
There is no time in eternity! So how old was the world when God created it? Some assume that if the world were created, then it would have been new at its point of creation. I assert that God just may have created it old!

jono64a
"Collins and Miller refutations given"

Still arguing the messenger instead of the message? And still arguing no true Scotsman put sugar in their porridge? All you've done is provide links to the Creation Ministries' opinions of the men and their faith.

Let's look at the message of Creation Ministries, their "What's it all about?" page. They associate the following with evolution: "Many today think that humans exist merely because of a freak cosmic accident that had no cause or purpose....from random chemical reactions emanating from a cosmic accident...." Impressive? For its depth of misrepresentation. Evolutionists claim no such thing, science claims no such thing. ONly creationists makes these claims as straw men easy to knock down. And they, too, argue the no true Scotsman fallacy: "Creation Ministries International exists to promote the reality that God has revealed ‘true truth’ to us in the Bible." True truth?

Mimophants don't impress me either, any means to an end believed good is not moral.

Good article Mike
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the articles and comments today. Congrats to all who posted here. Mike, you have a way of bringing out the best and the worst in people, so I assume you've done your job.

I don't think there is any possible way anyone could sum up this ID vs Evolution in 2000 words or less, but I have often wondered why should we?

To me this sounds like two brothers fighting, never to agree on anything. One says the chicken came first, the other says the egg. Yet while they argue, they forget to feed the chickens and no more eggs! My thought is that one supports the other, both should be taught in a theories class and not as sciences. A lesson in critical thinking, if nothing else.

I was raised knowing 9 planets in our solar system. Oops! now there's only 8, or more than 9, depending on who's definition of what constitutes a planetary body. How many more are still in deep orbit around the sun that we haven't detected yet? Tell me, how many kids got that question wrong in science class, and now that we 'know better', many less were right than were wrong.

The fallibility of science is glaring, we can't accurately predict weather, earthquakes or any 'natural' phenomena, yet we are so unnaturally certain that man came from monkeys that we are willing to toss God right out the window? Even the dumbest gambler knows to hedge his bets.

Food for thought. I was called an imbecile yesterday, today I might make some sense, or maybe not? Who cares? I'm going to go feed the chickens now.

Retired geek disappoints
What?! All this dramatic build-up and what we get is "I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose - I do not answer for you and you are not responsible for me." The mountains quake, the earth splits open - and a mouse appears!

Very disappointing. Zero for intellectual content.

Jeff's shabby "faith"
Is it more probable that physical laws were violated or that a zealot was mistaken or lied?

If the "resurrection" is your "best attested event," you're in real trouble. Matthew 27.51-53 purports to report on incidents during the resurrection:

"And, behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

None of the other three Gospels mention this remarkable occurrence, which, had it occurred, would obviously have been too significant for the other New Testament writers or Roman historians to ignore, or deem unremarkable. The Romans could write quite well! Worse yet, the gospels of Matthew were written anywhere from 37 to 67 years after that supposed event, when they were suddenly "remembered." P.T. Barnum had more credibility!

Moreover, on what basis can believers in one religion deny the reported miracles of other religions? How does one distinguish historical fact from mythological fancy? Let me guess: your religion is right and the others wrong. No "testimony" of any miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to proof because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not mere say-so.


Retired Geek - energy is ? Pt. 2
Like a power plant, in some ways. Energy can be shot out to do different things--light a home, run a machine. The power plant cannot create matter (except indirectly through the machines it runs) and it has no directed purpose or intent not guided by the plant manager or computers that run it. The power plant lacks the same thing as the Scarecrow. If it only had a brain!

Someone mentioned that lightning, thunder etc. were considered supernatural until science advanced enough to explain them. The existence of the super(supra)natural (beyond, outside of physical nature and its laws) is proven by some scientists ("regular" ones, not just paranormal psychologists) with evidence of ESP, telekinesis, near death experience, people living past lives, spirits, the list goes on. Our science based on the natural world just isn't adequate to observe, analyze, and codify the supernatural into a codex of "supernatural laws." Perhaps it can be some day with a combination of (super)natural science, reason and logic, and even faith (intuition, gut feeling).

The supernatural (not to be confused with fantasy or science fiction) is also a manifestation of the Giant Cosmic Brain. Maybe when we can penetrate the supernatural and understand it we may meet the Giant Cosmic Brain.

Or maybe I've watched too much "Star Trek."

Answer for Mack
You ask why, since I don't know the answer to every single question that can be asked about the origins of the universe this doesn't mean there must be a god.

I'll assume you are seriously asking this question.

Not so many years ago scientists could not explain how the sun produced its energy, why it has burned for so long without going out, and could not predict how long it will last.

Did that mean there was a god? No, it just means they did not know the answer to these things.

After a number of years of study and hard work they now know the answer to all these questions. Does that mean that if you believed in a god before that now the scientists have proven your god does not exist.

If we don't know the answer to a question, all it means is we don't know. It doesn't give us the ability to say it proves anything at all.

Saying the fact that there are unanswered questions in science proves there is one or more gods is no different than saying it proves the easter bunny exists. It is pure nonsense.

Retired Geek - energy is ?
This is outside my area of expertise but I'm interested in the topics. Besides, I did stay at a Holiday Inn near the Smithsonian once.

I have arrived at the conclusion that one of the following explains the origin of energy.

Sincere questions: Is it necessary to explain the origin of energy? Does the existence of energy require that it have an origin? Does origin imply beginning, beginning imply time, and since energy exists independent of time (and place, too, right?), would that mean that energy exists independent of beginning and origin?

1) energy does not exist.

2) energy spontaneously occured from nothing.

3) energy is eternal or without the element of time.

4) energy was created by intelligence.

Without mixing any of the aforementioned, cite a fifth explanation of the origin of energy.

5) There is no origin--energy IS.

Then what is energy? I would have to borrow from #4 but I can't mix any of the aforementioned. If you can cut me some slack on the rules, I would combine 4 and 5.

6) Energy is intelligence--a Giant Cosmic Brain that exists independent of origin, end, time, and space.

The human brain creates energy without destroying matter (not for sure, but I think that's right). Some human brains can create energy that "fiddles" with matter--bending spoons and such. This can be done with purpose and intent, not accidentally. If our pitiful human brain can do this, what can the big brain do?

The Giant Cosmic Brain can/could/might squirt out bolts of energy to create purpose and intent any possibility of matter that it imagines--the universe for example, with bits and pieces of matter and energy. Are the disparate manifestations of energy still connected to the source, the Giant Cosmic Brain?

Correction:
The lineage from adam to Christ, then adding the years since Christ's crucifixtion to now adds up to 6,000 years.

God reveals himself
to the simple. A good move on His part because He knew the intellectual egomaniacs would never accept anything outside of their own knowledge and feelings. Also, I'm not sure ALL Christians agree that the Earth is 6,000 years old. the Bible gives the lineage from Adam to Christ which adds up to 6,000 years. Show me any civilized records that date back any farther than that.

Collins and Miller refutations given
lonestarblues, being a mimophant doesn't impress me. I provided references that deal with the messages of Collins and Miller. And I'm not going to be told by any Bibliophobe who I am allowed to consider a fellow Christian. If an atheistic governent started persecuting Christians, they wouldn't have the slightest evidence to convict Miller. And his defence attorney could easily point to his trashing of the Bible (Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken") and allying with rabid misotheists like Dawko or Eugenie Scott (Paul told us not to be unequally yoked).

Sorry about duplication
But the site was not registering it as posted.

Days are ordinary, not "God's days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

Days must be normal days not "God days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

Days are ordinary days not "God days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

jono64a
"lonestarblues, Collins really is a dogmatic evolutionist, and his scriptural understanding is abysmal. I doubt that Kenneth Miller is a Christian at all."

Two for one: One, no true Scotsman fallacy, two, ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Retired Geek
"Origins should be taught in a philosophy class. 'a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means'"

I'm good with that. Thing is evolutionary theory doesn't address origins.

"Common definition of faith: 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof.'"

Is that all faith means to you?

"One side believes 'faith' in God is a proof."

Faith cannot establish truth.

"The other believes 'faith' in future knowledge is a proof."

I thought we were talking about evolutionary theory. Science itself is not about proof. What are you talking about?

Day WITH A NUMBER is normal day
I'd rather be in Alaska, what a moron. The LXX dates from 250 BC. Genesis 1 is vastly older than that, and was written in Hebrew, which is what mattered. But your crass outburst changes nothing. In the Greek, hemera with a number means an ordinary day. It is folly to wrench its meaning from a place with a different context. Even in English, there are different meanings of the word "day" which are clear from the context. You might say, "in Eisenhower's day, he took 10 days to travel from Normandy to Berlin". There would be no problem knowing that "Eisenhower's day" means the time when he flourished, but "took 10 days" means 10 ~24-hour periods, because the latter has a number. The days in Genesis 1, like those in Numbers 7, are likewise numbered, so must mean ordinary-length days.

Self-immolation?
Joycey: "People who believe in what is impossible loose their ability to be reasonable.
--------------------
The short definition of an evangelical Christian.

Your ignorance is showing, Ice
Icedog: "You either have no understanding of socialism or you are completely ignorant of American history....I'm guessing probably both.
---------------------
We've always had a mixed economy. Back in America's heyday, we were more socialist, in the sense that we had strong and effective unions protecting the rights of the worker. Today, it is brutal capitalism for the unit of production, and blessed socialism for the ownership class. Think Bear Stearns.

Jeff, 2
"'Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory 'untestable'"

Interesting. First you cite Laudan refuting Popper's claim about the need for falsifiable hypotheses in science. Then you not only try to apply the refuted falsifiability but you cite in support Popper who you just argued against. Which is it?

Popper changed his mind by 1978, Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355: “When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory....I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.”



Getting back to ID, how is it testable?

Jeff
me "ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson."

you "Hardly, but it is a common ruse."

That ID is science, yes. That it's Creationism, no. You say it yourself: “It allows for God as Designer”. That's Creationism.

"...the means by which phenomena are identified and criteria are applied work the same regardless...."

Irreducible complexity is not phenomena. It's criteria is a tautology, it defines the question as the answer.

"If you find a dictionary on the street, you determine it is a product of design rather than of numerous successive modifications via natural selection."

For one, you speak of an artifact, when what's natural is the question. For another, you speak of man's design, but how do you go from man's design to God's? You risk designing God in man's image. Thus, ID is not even good religion.

I've read Wells, Dembski, Behe, Johnson and many more: Where is the falsifiable hypothesis? How is it testable? Without that it's not science. --Behe, btw, accepts the three pillars of evolutionary theory: randdom mutation, natueal selection and common descent. He says the evidennce overwhelmingly supports them. His only argument is with random mutation.

"Re falsifiability, there are a number of qualifications for this too. Larry Laudan wrote falsifiability 'has the untoward consequence of countenancing as "scientific" every crank claim which make ascertainably false assertions.'"

What he wrote indicates a lack of understanding what falsifiability in scientific method means. It certainly doesn't mean making false claims, lol. It means making claims that predict outcomes and the means by which to test that in a repeatable way by anyone in the field. Falsifiability demarcates BS from science, the opposite of philosopher Laudan's opinion.

Genesis is historical narrative
Happy Jake, how could you possibly stretch the date of Adam back to 200,000 years? There would have to be over 6000 missing names from the genealogies.

Yes, considering that we still know so little about aging, why not take Methuselah's age as literal. What do you think it means? See "Living for 900 years" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/

Genesis is no parable, it is Hebrew historical narrative, as shown by its grammar and how the rest of the Bible treats it. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5450/

It is no parable. Just think of what parables say:

Mt 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.

Mt 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.

Lu 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Parables in the NT are clearly stated to be such, and always an explanation of X is like Y, or W is [represents] Z.

Kenneth Miller, ally of misotheists
lonestarblues, Collins really is a dogmatic evolutionist, and his scriptural understanding is abysmal. I doubt that Kenneth Miller is a Christian at all. A review of his dreadful book can be found at http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826

Question for Slacker
Slacker says: "Are there questions that science cannot currently answer? Such as how did the first self replicating molecule come in to being? When did it occur? Why is there something rather than nothing in the first place?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that there is a god."

Why not? It sounds like you believe in atheism (or agnosticism)of the gaps. Somewhere, somehow science will explain how something came from nothing. Somewhere, somehow we'll figure out how we evolved from mud. It really is hard to take naturalism seriously.

Here's a thought, maybe it was a special kind of mud or a special kind of nothing. Let's wait for science to spoon feed us the answers.

lonestarblues
Origins should be taught in a philosophy class.
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means"
-------------------------------------------------
Common definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

One side believes "faith" in God is a proof.

The other believes "faith" in future knowledge is a proof.
-------------------------------------------------


Both sides are "faith" based and neither should be taught as science

Husker2
Your criticism is fair with respect to your claim that I was haughty.

I suppose I was.

I'm not not always sure just how to respond to jaw dropping ignorance, however. That is just what Lboe displayed, so I admit to being rather harsh. C'est la vie.

I have no idea where you are in your studies. I am a senior in Geology, having taken a long break from school. Yes, I know there are always some sort of anomalies in the sediment record. I also know they are generally explainable without resorting to Catastrophism to account for them. You must know perfectly well that the fossil record is clear and unambiguous WRT the gradational and increasing complexity of life...from the Cryptozoic Burgess Shale Fauna all the way to the Quaternary. Trying say that thousands and thousands of feet of geologic record that has been deposited, intruded by volcanics, uplifted, eroded, covered with additional sediment, subjected to crustal deformation and so on and so on with attendant fossil correlation in various phases is some how the product of a single flood event is simply equivalent to asserting that gravity does not exist. That does not even begin to address the mechanics of deposition.

For instance, you would know that lecustrine depositional processes are markedly different from fluvial depositional process...and both types of sediment suites in turn look nothing like marine depositional suites or alluvial fan deposits and so forth.

Things have to pointed out when serious mistakes are made WRT science. I am not a lawyer, and I would not presume to tell lawyers they are flat wrong concerning something I know nothing about. I advise Lboe to find out about Geology before making a silly claim.

Right on, Jerry
"There are no quick fixes to the moral decay of American society, our pluralism and political correctness, welfare systems and social justice by government has effectively destroyed families. The stupid arguments about creation vs. evolution is a sidebar. "

Exactly. We can't do anything about whether we were created or evolved or both. We can, poor and rich alike, take responsibility for ourselves and get rid of welfare and "social justice".

We can quit being so damnably self-centered and get over being offended over any stupid little thing.

We can become self-reliant and get government out of our lives.

We can quit bickering over Christian this or atheist that, blah blah blah.

Most of you are a buncha infantalized whiners who want everything your way and simply cannot live and let live. Get your busybody noses out of everyone else's business and take a good hard look at yourselves.

husker 2
Thanks for the information and support
Lboe

I always assumed "Intelligent design"
was just creationism dressed up, another (failed) attempt of evangelicals to get the discussion of "God" back into the school system.

Retired Geek
"Ignorance will never be in short supply."

No kidding.

"Pick which view you wish and I will pick mine. Some will try to convert others to their view because they fear for our soul or fear we are living in scientific ignorance etc. My solution is that all four views should be taught and let the student decide. No persuasion should force feed the student or have their view required."

Sort of speaks to moral relativism, doesn't it?

Should we teach religion in science classes and science in religion classes are you saying?

On force we agree, keep politics out of it, keep government out of it--out of education altogether.


"I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose...."

Liberty of conscience. We agree again.

lonestarblues n2
Re falsifiability, there are a number of qualifications for this too. Larry Laudan wrote falsifiability “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which make ascertainably false assertions.” (Laudan, The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, in Michael Ruse (ed), But Is It Science?, pg 337-50; cited in Wells, PIG to Darwinism and Intelligent Design) For a much fuller treatment, see The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories, by Stephen C. Meyer (2005, http://www.discovery.org/a/2834). An excerpt: “Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory “untestable” and classified it as a “metaphysical research programme.” While he later revised his judgment, he did so only after liberalizing his notion of falsifiability to allow the weaker notion of “falsifiability in principle” to count as a token of scientific status.”

Newton and Hume had different worldviews. Whodathunkit?

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Mack, get a grip
No one is claiming "spontaneous generation." The theory of evolution is not dependent on "spontaneous generation" to explain the "descent of species."

Get a grip.

Are there questions that science cannot currently answer? Such as how did the first self replicating molecule come in to being? When did it occur? Why is there something rather than nothing in the first place?

Sure. But that doesn't mean that there is a god.

lonestarblues n1
“ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson.”
Hardly, but it is a common ruse.

Pardon the repetition: ID is not Creationism. It is not limited to explaining Genesis and other books. It allows for God as Designer but also allows for people as designer; the means by which phenomena are identified and criteria are applied work the same regardless. If you find a dictionary on the street, you determine it is a product of design rather than of numerous successive modifications via natural selection. DNA? It has more information than an encyclopedia. That’s a brief differentiation. You can get more detailed scientific descriptions in a number of places, including Wells’ book to which I referred, William Dembski’s book, The Design Revolution, etc.

Continued…

Silly Christians & Theists of all kinds
Here is the heart of this discussion -

I assert there is no evidence for the existence of god. Theists think that there is at least one god, maybe more.

Now even if I am right, that doesn't mean that you can't or "shouldn't" believe in one or more gods. But it is "just" a belief, not a fact.

Why does my non belief "take precedence" over your belief for the world of science? Because a real scientist does not rely on belief to explain the world, invent things, cure diseases.

If a scientist doesn't know the answer to some question, they treat it as an opportunity. They study, do experiments, analyze the results, formulate hypotheses, device ways to test them and build and refine theories. They advance our understanding, create airplanes, computers, medicine, and rocket ships.

Belief in god won't produce a thing, will not advance our knowledge one iota.

What is the DUMBEST thing a theist can do in this discussion? Claim that because there are things scientists cannot explain there must be a god. How absolutely STUPID!!! Suppose the scientist discovers an explanation in the future? Is the theist then going to say, Sorry Slacker, guess you were right all along, there is no god. I doubt it.

That is why the "god of the gaps" argument for god is such a silly one.

Descent From What?
Lonestar Blues writes: "Plenty. The fossil record supports it, genetics, supports it, and much more at the link you began reading--nothing has falsified it. Michael Behe, a proponent of ID even accepts common descent."

Descent from what? Mud? Spontaneous generation is irrational. It doesn't matter if it happens quickly or slowly. This is why most do not believe in Darwinian Naturalism.

Despite all the endless Naturalist propaganda in academia for umpteen years people find it unbelievable. It doesn't match the complexity of all the multitude of robust systems working in harmony that they see everyday. Most people intrinsically know that it violates the law of cause and effect. Something can't come from nothing.

It's up to science to find the evidence and they have failed. It's not that they aren't getting the word out. They are. What is lacking is believable evididence.



Tacitus X
Either you are not reading everything I wrote, or I am not be as clear as I intend.

For example, "There are also corroborating evidences, and some of them are in other Scriptures (writers, context, audiences, prophecies, etc)." You've heard of Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, Clement, etc.? They wrote, some positively, some negatively, of Jesus of Nazareth. You know of the pros and cons of eyewitness testimony, and how some judges and lawyers have written that the gospels are good examples of such testimony, that they are not the equivalent of claims that the world is supported by elephants standing on a turtle's back? That they describe, like other historians, events that actually took place? You’ve read that Jesus testified to a number of OT writers, Peter called Paul’s writings Scripture? How would these not qualify as testimony rather than “hearsay”?

Are you aware of the validity of different kinds of evidence, scientific, historical/archeological, legal, textual, etc.? Have you heard that the Bible is the best attested document of antiquity based on different kinds of evidence? That the resurrection is one of the best attested events in antiquity? That prophecy and fulfillment are evidence of special value, historical as well as religious? Or do none of these types of evidence make any difference to you?

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

lonestarblues
Good for you and your parents. All of us can only imagine what they go through, even when we come face to face with it.

I enjoy a lively debate where we can share our views even if all of us lose it at times. God speed!

celtic-dragon
I studied geology at LSU.

Your haughty attitude towards Lboe does nothing to further your argument.

If you have taken the classes you suggest, then you know that in stratigraphy alone, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples that go against prevailing theories.

You can make your arguments without the superior attitude. To insult someone's religious beliefs, calling them delusional, puts you into the same category as Will.

Joycey
You are "circular reasoning" with a vengeance.

You are happy to offer "proof" of "god's" existence by quoting scripture. You say a "god" must exist because there's all this STUFF (the act of creation) around us & stuff wouldn't exist unless "god" created it.

Your circular reasoning is, in fact, so heavily circular that it's spin.

Start back at point A. Do not use the Bible as a reference point. That's part of the problem. Now, prove a god exist (PS. Just because there's all this stuff around us....galaxies & black holes from stars collapsed in on themselves....or just because there's a Grand Canyon & poison ivy & marijuana & homosexual animals doesn't mean a "god" is somewhere up there scheming & creating).

Tacitus X,ModMark,Ingles,lonestarblues
Ignorance will never be in short supply. No one holds all knowledge or truth. I for one believe each should stand by their own beliefs and modify them as we continue through life based on our own perceptions.

I have an issue with those who view reality in a psychotic manner - but that is just me.

I listed the 4 areas that one might view the origin of matter - believe it or not I have personally encountered those who hold each view. All of us are ignorant in some areas and fall short of perfection.

Pick which view you wish and I will pick mine. Some will try to convert others to their view because they fear for our soul or fear we are living in scientific ignorance etc. My solution is that all four views should be taught and let the student decide. No persuasion should force feed the student or have their view required.

I have been fortunate in that I have worked with those where IQ's in the 170's and 180's were common. My partner of several years was an atheist and I a recovered humanist worked in harmony. I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose - I do not answer for you and you are not responsible for me.

Retired Geek
"My wife and I work with a group that helps those who are homebound because of age, handicap (physical or mental) or other problems. It is amazing how many there are and that they have no one to help them."

Good for you! I, too, have worked with homebound aged and those handicapped. My parents, in the 80s, still do this, probably my inspiration. This is what's important, volunteering help, not proving God exists, evidencing evolution.

Icedog
Please at least be intellectually honest.

You said,
"The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

First, the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record in no way contradict the theory of evolution. The fact that there transitional fossils do exist and have been found IS evidence FOR evolution.

Your quote above does not jibe at all with reality. I can find plenty of scholarly articles that do in fact show plenty of evidence for transitional fossils. FOR EXAMPLE:

Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the just last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:

Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).

AND ON AND ON. You can quibble about whether this leads you to believe in the possibility of evolution or not. But you can't claim that the "gaps" in the fossil record are disproving the theory.

Second, and more importantly, Why do you even care. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. But believing in the correctness of modern evolutionary theory, genetics, etc. in no way requires you not to believe in god. No more than the fact that there are plenty of unanswered questions in science requires me to believe in any gods.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff
Again, quoting the Bible to prove its truth is fallacious and reptition doesn't change that. Hearsay doesn't improve with age. The fact that 3,000 year old Hindu writings state the Earth is held up by four elephants that stand on the back of a turtle, balanced on top of a cobra, doesn't "prove" that it does. No one is saying your "scriptures...disappear," they just aren't proof of the truth of the matter asserted. They merely show that someone once wrote something down.

Your examples all assume what you're trying to approve (the divinity of Christ) - more circular reasoning (to which you seem especially prone).

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all have reams of ancient "holy documents" attesting to various contradictory miracles. "Faith" is worthless as a guide to sorting out these competing claims. They can plead as loudly as you.

I am back from my duties
My wife and I work with a group that helps those who are homebound because of age, handicap (physical or mental) or other problems. It is amazing how many there are and that they have no one to help them. Our group is represented by religious, non religious, the political spectrum, different ages and races. We all have a common enemy - those who are in despair and lonely.

Law enforcement provides training, meals on wheels provide food along with food ministries and local merchants etc - some install insulation, fix stairs, safety hazards, help clean etc. Some drive them to appointments, deliver prescriptions, send holiday and birthday cards, telephone them and bring them books and other media from the libraries.

There are some things I probably do not know about that others do.

Lboe
You are seriously delusional to believe that the entire fossil record is simply a product of the Noachian Flood. Your ignorance is honestly embarrassing. Please, bestir yourself and go take a Geology 101 class at your local community college. Follow that up with Historical Geology, or Paleontology if it is available for you to audit. (Paleo is usually a 400 level class, so look at a university)

You will learn quite a bit, and you may even have some fun. You will certainly learn how fossil correlation works, and how sedimentation and stratigraphy go hand in hand with that.

When you can explain to me what a disconformity is, and how it is different from a nonconformity or an angular unconformity, I will be more interested in what you are saying.

Bonus points if you can what recumbent folds are.

Joycey
"How can you prove God exists without looking at what He has done?"

Why do you need to prove God exists, whatever that may mean to you? Isn't faith necessary and sufficient?

Jeff
"From what I have read (several of his books and a number of articles), Dr. Wells is more of a proponent of ID than a Creationist."

ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson.

"I agree there is evidence to support modification, but not much with respect to the common ancestor."

Plenty. The fossil record supports it, genetics, supports it, and much more at the link you began reading--nothing has falsified it. Michael Behe, a proponent of ID even accepts common descent.

"I am for open scientific inquiry, not shutting people out or refusing tenure because one does not agree or conform to a theory."

When ID comes up with a falsifiable hypothesis, scientists will take it seriously.

Gonzalez wasn't refused tenure for that, just more wedge politicization. He's like a business that can't compete in the market so employs politics instead.

"Newton wrote that science was open to influence from, even direct interaction by, the Creator, the God of the Bible."

Hume wrote that would violate the laws of nature.

Again, Newton separates his beliefs from his laws. His laws would have held true whether he believed in God or didn't. His belief adds nothing to the laws of physics. --I'm not saying anything against faith in saying that, I have nothing against faith.

Tacitus X
I wasn't trying to propose that quoting the Bible alone proves my point. There are legitimate points to be made using Scripture. There are also corroborating evidences, and some of them are in other Scriptures (writers, context, audiences, prophecies, etc). You can choose to dismiss them, but that doesn't make them invalid or disappear.

You can subscribe to the definition of faith that you stated. I disagree. I distinguished between reason/knowledge and faith. What example do you have of faith being limited to "belief in the absence of evidence and logic"? The example I gave of Thomas' change of mind when he saw Christ's hands and side is valid, historical (plenty of other documents to peruse on that score), and relevant to the definition of faith as trusting God based on what He has done, and, going beyond just knowing, crossing the bridge of the cross. You can accept it or reject it.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Separating God from what He has made?
How can you prove God exists without looking at what He has done? If He hadn't done anything we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,have been "clearly seen", being understood through what has been "made" so they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

lonestarblues
From what I have read (several of his books and a number of articles), Dr. Wells is more of a proponent of ID than a Creationist.

I understand about lack of evidence. I also understand evidence that is circumstantial, contradictory, or even fake. I agree there is evidence to support modification, but not much with respect to the common ancestor.

I am for open scientific inquiry, not shutting people out or refusing tenure because one does not agree or conform to a theory.

Newton wrote that science was open to influence from, even direct interaction by, the Creator, the God of the Bible.

You've probably seen this quote:
"For it became Him who created them [all material things] to set them in order. And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of Nature..."
-- Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, Book III, 1704, in Great Books, vol. 34, pg. 542

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Jeff answered
Quoting the Bible to prove its truth is the classic logical fallacy of circulus in probando (circular reasoning). Hint: there's a reason they're called "fallacies."

Whether you like it or not, faith is belief in the absence of, or contrary to, reason. If you have logical grounds and evidence for something, you have knowledge, not faith. Belief in the absence of evidence and logic ("faith") is predictably disastrous. Reality doesn't care what you believe.

Flowery language notwithstanding, "assurance of things hoped for" is precisely what every con man is selling to every gullible mark.

canuck
Then you'll love Heather Mac Donald, a skeptical conservative, who answers "What is Left? What is Right? @ http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html , or Larry Arnhart's _Darwinian Conservatism_.

lonestarblues, others
Saying that a "god" was always here, uncreated & timeless, "was, is and always will be", IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. In fact, it is the opposite, an anti-argument, a point of departure that is irrational from the start.

By the same logic, if "god" was & has always been here, then the exact same "argument" can be made for the universe. It always has been here. Not creation needed. Let's use that as the point of departure.

earth
There is according to some readers of ancient writings that at one time the moon and the earth were one.By the way there are untold ancient clay tablets and stone stelae in museums all over the world,and how many have not yet been discovered.It is doubtful they would have much to say about the origin of earth.This argument will continue long after we are all gone.

To some....
Wow! I thought I was the only conservative atheist left, it's good to know I am not alone. There is hope.

Jeff
"Dr. Theobald includes the following: 'The only incontrovertible evidence for an ancestor-descendant relationship is the observation of a birth; obviously this is normally rather improbable in the fossil record. Intermediates are not necessarily the same as the exact predicted ancestors; in fact, it is rather unlikely that they would be the same.'...Dr. Jonathan Wells makes a similar point...."

Yes, transitional fossils are evidence of only evolutionary transitions, not of specific ancestry. But the claim made above by many was not transitional fossils exists.

As for common ancestry we need to turn to other evidence, such as genetics, which, Francis Collins, ex-head of the Human Genome Project, and Evangelical, says supports common descent.

Lack of evidence is not falsification.

"Wells...."

Yes, familiar with him, Creationist at the Discovery Institute.

"On a related note, the restriction of science to materialism is also recent. Newton and many others didn't think that way."

Methodological materialism--just to be clear.

If you look at Newton's work on physics, nothing he says depends on God. As Laplace said to Napoleon, I am not in need of that hypothesis.

Newton does in conclusion bring God in as creator and law-giver. This separation of science and religion is evident as well in the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and others.

Most evolutionists today are Christian. How do they manage?

Philosophy used to include it all. Specialization is like speciation. We see it in economics as well.

Old Earth vs. New Earth
A list of what happens on each "day" is below. Can someone tell me how the first 3 days could be 24 hour days if God hadn't separated light from darkness yet ("Day" 4)?

Adams is correct that in the Bible "day" is used many times in reference to an age or a timeperiod that isn't 24 hours. Personally, I believe in old earth, but this really shouldn't be a factor in one's belief in the Christian God.

_______________________________________________
1st day: God creates light.

Second day: God creates the heavens.

Third day: God commands the waters to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees.

Fourth day: God separates light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

lonestarblues
"...The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification."

Does this mean we are made up opf spare parts? LOL

johnTaylor
me "Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?"

you "Yes, absolutely."

Then by the same argument it is reasonable to say energy and matter have no origin, no source.

"Time is just one means of measuring His creation: it's the dimension along which change occurs."

Einstein showed time is relative. Particle physics suggests it is an emergent property of matter and energy. It's man's measure of things.

"He isn't bound by that measurement any more than He is bound by distance."

We know energy and matter are not. How do you know God isn't?

"His life, unlike ours, is not comprised of (a past He can't get back to) + (a future He's not in yet) + (tiny moving point called 'the present')."

His "life"? Aren't you limiting God by anthropomorphizing Him?

"I am who I am."

Tells us nothing about Him, yet you are telling all these things you conceive.

me "Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method."

you "But doesn't this viewpoint just exclude God a priori as a potential agent?"

No. If God is an agent He would move meters, He could be measured--defined, and limited. But I thought God lies outside that.

"I mean, isn't there a danger that it is falsely limiting?"

No. Science studies only what it can meter and measure and model. It doesn't pretend to address the supernatural, or to deny it. Science leaves that to philosophers and theologians and the rest of us.

jono64a, your ignorance is appalling
I don't know what you mean by "faulty eisegesis" and I'm convinced you don't know either.

You try to berate and patronize Adams by saying, "Mike, Genesis was written in *Hebrew*, not Greek..." jono64a, have you ever heard of the Septuagint? You're correct in your assertion that the original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew, but scholars have viewed the Septuagint (a Greek translation) as a reliable source for centuries.

I don't know if you are an educated fool or an uneducated fool. And if you're not a fool, stop acting like one.

will
Whoa. I was not trying to be devious. I certainly AM up front about being a Christian. Yes this does include the overtly supernatural events in the Bible.

I think the problem lies with "take atheists to task for not being open-minded." If that's how it came across, that isn't what I intended. The idea of being open-minded never came into it ... how did I convey that?

lonestarblues
I did read some of the material on the site you posted. Dr. Theobald includes the following:
"The only incontrovertible evidence for an ancestor-descendant relationship is the observation of a birth; obviously this is normally rather improbable in the fossil record. Intermediates are not necessarily the same as the exact predicted ancestors; in fact, it is rather unlikely that they would be the same."

Dr. Jonathan Wells makes a similar point:
“But no paleontologist worth his rocks – including Stephen Jay Gould – would claim that the series of whale fossils represents an actual lineage, because none of the animals could conceivably have given birth to any of the others. According to Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, all of the fossil whales have ‘distinguishing characteristics, which they would have to lose in order to be considered direct ancestors of other known forms.’ At best, each of the fossils represents a terminal side branch on the whales’ tree of life….Darwinists acknowledge that not one of them would be in the “m” lineage leading to the modern whale, m[10].”
-- Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery, 2006, pg 19-20

Wells provides copious notes in his book, including the URL for Thewissen’s site where whales are also discussed. See his “Icons of Evolution” book as well.

On a related note, the restriction of science to materialism is also recent. Newton and many others didn't think that way.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

john Taylor
Aha! I've pegged you.

When you take atheists to task for not being open-minded enough to believe in a God, it is conditional to YOUR God. And all that baggage of virgin births & the out-of-date Laws in Leviticus & Deuteronomy & Exodus and supernatural resurrections & every animal on earth loaded up onto an Ark (2 by 2) as the merciful & loving God annihilates that world in a tyranical "Great Flood".

Please be less devious in your postings. You are not just asking people to remain "open-minded" to "god", but to a very specific, literal interpretation of your god, as set to words by ancient nomadic middle-eastern jews 2500 years ago.

lonestarblues
"Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?"

Yes, absolutely. Time is just one means of measuring His creation: it's the dimension along which change occurs. He isn't bound by that measurement any more than He is bound by distance. His life, unlike ours, is not comprised of (a past He can't get back to) + (a future He's not in yet) + (tiny moving point called "the present"). This is why His Name is "I Am."

Exodus 3:14 ---
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
See also John 8:58.

Also:
"Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method."
But doesn't this viewpoint just exclude God a priori as a potential agent? I mean, isn't there a danger that it is falsely limiting?

Tacitus X, will
The idea that faith and reason are divorced is relatively new (a couple of hundred years). Faith is described in the Bible as “assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1). It is not “belief in the absence of, or contrary to, reason” or belief because there is no “proof.” This is not at all what Thomas found when Jesus showed him His hands and side (John 20:26-31).

Faith is something to which God responds (e.g., John 3:16) when people decide to trust Him because of – not in spite of, nor contrary to, nor in denial of – what He has actually, historically, done. Christ came to live, die, and rise again, which He did, in space and time. He did this for everyone, but not everyone accepts it. Non-acceptance cannot be said to be due to there being no evidence.

Biblical faith is reasonable but it transcends reason. Reason can comprehend historical evidence, but that is not enough. The bridge from learning about Jesus Christ, His life, death, and resurrection, and getting to know Jesus personally, to be saved, is only possible when He makes it so. He says He stands at the door and knocks (Rev. 3:20) and will bless those who let Him in. He also provides the ability to do that. Similar to John 14:6 quoted above, Jesus also said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him…” (John 6:44).

Faith is not the subject; faith is a choice, an exercise of the will, a decision to trust in Someone who has shown Himself to be trustworthy. Faith is also a sustaining belief, but faith alone is not that which sustains. The reality, the vitality, the power of faith is only as real, vital, and powerful as the One who is the object of faith. “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Retired Geek
"The real question is not how old or young the earth is but the origin of energy."

OK.

"Energy can be changed from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed therefore is always conserved."

First law of thermodynamics. We agree that is true.

But then, if it can't be created or destroyed, as we've agreed, it has no origin, no source, just is.

Not a good argument? Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?


In another post you ask "Do you apply this same logic with theoritical science and quantum physics?"

Yes.

Pinto Man
"You can't find transitional species, there aren't any."

I provided a link to just such evidence. Didn't you bother to go there and read? It would take several weeks to read all that. And it's just a small subset of the evidence.

The link in case you missed it: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" @ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . See also link given just above, "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution" @ http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html .

"The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old."

Take that up with YECs (Young Earth Creationists).

"Order does not come from chaos."

Agree. But that's what the Bible says God did.

"Material cannot form itself."

Agree. First law of thermodynamics.

"If we are just matter then the evolutionists can quit arguing because there is nothing they can do about our differences."

Evolutionists don't argue we're just matter. That's metaphysical materialism, a defunct philosophy. Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method.

schlicty
"Hey Doc, where are the fossils?"

If you actually care to look, start with "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution" @ http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html . It says: "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species....The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification."

The four choices
Sure, I can't think offhand of any other options besides those four. That doesn't mean there aren't any other possibilities - as I noted, when the Earth was thought to be flat, it was 'obvious' that there had to be an edge, or else it went on forever. I rather suspect that origins of universes is an area where we just haven't had the right insights yet. Until orbital mechanics were understood, meteors were mysterious - how could a rock fall from the sky? What held it up before?

But even if we assume those are the only options, how can tell which one's right? What experiment can we perform to differentiate between them? Pending such an experiment, I'm still going to have to stick with "I dunno" (though I'm pretty sure #1 is wrong).

Mike
"It is temping to quarrel over Harris’ use of the term “unintelligent design.”...That reason, of course, is a lack of fossil evidence supporting the notion that evolution explains variations between, not just within, species."

THe Dover Court case literlly exposed the lie here Mike but you knew ythat didn't you?

Ray Ingles
Ray Ingles wrote:"We don't know what happened before a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang"

-------------------------------------------------
How can there be a big bang unless something existed to "big bang"?
I have arrived at the conclusion that one of the following explains the origin of energy.

1) energy does not exist.

2) energy spontaneously occured from nothing.

3) energy is eternal or without the element of time.

4) energy was created by intelligence.

Without mixing any of the aforementioned, cite a fifth explanation of the origin of energy.

Retired Geek - Origin of energy?
The short answer: I dunno. Looks like no one else knows, either.

Longer answer: Mass/energy fits all the tests we can currently perform for something "eternal" - we've never seen it be created or destroyed. How, then, can we confidently assume it ever *was* created? We don't know what happened before a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang, but that just means we don't (currently) know. There's been a lot of things that we didn't know about that were confidently declared to be 'supernatural' - lightning, earthquakes, cellular reproduction, etc. - that we now understand pretty well.

I admit that human minds don't like infinite regresses, but they also don't like uncaused causes. I haven't seen any good case made to reject either; more, there may be other options we just haven't thought of yet. Humans have fared very badly making assumptions outside of the environment we evolved in - Relativity showed that our intuitions about time and space are, well, wrong, and QM did the same for our intuitions about causality. When people thought the Earth was flat, the only options seemed to be that it either had an edge or went on forever. Once Earth's curvature was recognized, we could understand how it was finite but unbounded.

In an area like 'origins of universes' where we can't do experiments yet, if ever, I'm really loathe to just trust human 'common sense' on the topic. Nature's always been more surprising than we've expected.

jax33
Sure, understood. You're right that this would seriously damage the usefulness of modern translations. Fortunately there wasn't a multi-language excursion involved: today's translations come straight into English from the ancient manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm told, were particularly valuable.

Because He can
It is disappointing to me to hear someone say that they are a creationist and then describe a theory for creation modified from the literal Biblical account in order to try to explain the "old" earth.

Can't a God who created the earth is six literal days make the earth "old"? Adam wasn't a baby when he was created (was he?) - he was created "aged".

I wasn't there so I don't know. However, until I am told otherwise I will believe that God made in six literal days - and it was very good. To believe anything less would be a futile excercise diminish power of our omnipotent God.

will
---
But by your logic, the muslim god is every bit as "real" as the christian god. By your reasoning, if I picture the "creator" as not having a vested interest in the human race (not "listening" to millions of prayers or "answering" them, etc), than that "God" is OK too?
I read a play a few months ago ("Corpus Christi") where Jesus is presented as a gay man, with gay disciples. In your view, this is OK too? Just as long as I keep open-minded to a general "God"? Or in your view, is evangelical christianity & a belief in the literal word of the Jewish Bibles (parts 1 & 2), the only "Way"?
---
No to all of the above except the last, because all of these would be logically inconsistent, and God is a God of logic and order.
Islam is not internally consistent (don't have time to go into THAT one right now, but Islam is hopelessly logically flawed).
Jesus could not have been gay because that would be inconsistent with the morality of the Law of Moses, which as the Messiah and the Son of God, He came to fulfill.

Yes to the last question, kind of: The only way is Jesus. All other religions say, "that's the way, go do that"; Jesus says, "I am the way, come to Me" (John 14:6).
This doesn't in any way lead to the "you must be like ME because I'M right" position. We are both in the image of God, we have both trashed that image by deliberately sinning, and we have both been bought by the sacrifice of Jesus. The only difference between us is that I have accepted the forgiveness He offers and you (it would seem) have not ... yet. But I hope you will. God is not going to rip you off.

John Taylor
Thank you for your knowledegable reply I couldn't get my head to think translation (senior moment).Speaking of translating,I remember back in the seventies on the Johnny Carson show they told a joke in english first to a frencman, then to a german, then to a Jew.When it was repeated in english you couldn't make any sense of it.That is why I question translating.

Response to retired Geek
Retired Geek writes "I have read Hawking and I find your answer non sequitur to what is the origin of energy?"

The problem is that your 8:15 post did not actually ask a specific question, so I assumed that was the idea you were slyly approaching.

Your question above is premised on the notion that energy (and the universe as a whole) has an "origin." Existence as a whole does not require a causal explanation. The concept of "causation" is meaningless outside of existence since it requires entities that act.

Similarly, prior to the Big Bang, there was no "time" since time is a measurement of the relative motion of entities. Without entities, there is no "time."

Given your choices, number 3 makes the most sense with the above caveats, and at least has the virtue of being consistent with the principle that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

What's your solution? I expect it's a doozy!


Icedog
"Really? You're going to be more famous than Darwin and Einstein put together!"

Would that it were so, but unfortunately these transitional fossils are already known to the people who study them. It seems that people who would rather read creationist propaganda are the ones that don't know about them, and I don't think I'll be earning any fame from them. Darwin, one of the greatest thinkers in history, is continuously derided with ad hominum attacks from them.

john Taylor
But by your logic, the muslim god is every bit as "real" as the christian god. By your reasoning, if I picture the "creator" as not having a vested interest in the human race (not "listening" to millions of prayers or "answering" them, etc), than that "God" is OK too?

I read a play a few months ago ("Corpus Christi") where Jesus is presented as a gay man, with gay disciples. In your view, this is OK too? Just as long as I keep open-minded to a general "God"? Or in your view, is evangelical christianity & a belief in the literal word of the Jewish Bibles (parts 1 & 2), the only "Way"?

Ray Ingles
I will give you an earth age that you like whatever that might be (yesterday -> several trillion years).

I will posit you a modest question.

What, where, when is the origin of energy?

Retired Geek
Thank you for your response. You're probably correct in asserting that a number of theories would be afloat concerning these elemental structures given their unknowns.

When I have time I'll have to pursue the matter(very bad pun intended).

BTW I think I would have enjoyed your vacation musings.

One of my sons is getting his Master's in Philosophy. His thesis is on reconciling Space, Relativity, and the Transcendental Aesthetic. I've seen the outline and look forward to reading the paper.

SECOND LETTER TO A CHRSTIAN NATION
DR. ADAMS
A third thought is that there was no death in the universe until Adam and Eve sinned. They brought on death. Therefore no gap theory.

All the fossils are from the flood of Noah's time

Lboe

Mike H
I'm sure I'll never change your mind, but I believe the fossil is referred to as "The Missing Link". Thank you Ice Dog for your reply to the Darwin minion.

A modest question...
How come nobody can make money applying creationism?

Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

geek, will
RG: "I have spent most of my time trying to keep up with OOP, relational databases and so on in computer programming."
Welcome to the club! Not retired, but doing full-time Java development for a major bank. OO + relational is the platform of choice for the industry these days.

Will: "Having no "god" is ground zero, neutral ground, rational thinking ... Atheists have no need to justify their beliefs."
Only if we presuppose that God does not exist. Why is the probability structure of atheism the default position?
In other words, what you are stating is known as methodological naturalism, and in and of itself it is no more innately logical than theism.
God is not bound by the characteristics of His creation, any more than I can't count past 1,000 because I write a program that rejects numbers of that size.