I just had the privilege of attending an advance screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein. The movie, which opens April 18, is a must-see for any American interested in freedom (that should be all of us!). Expelled uses the Berlin Wall as a metaphor for the wall that the academic and media establishments have erected to keep any intelligent explanation for origins out of the fortress of scientific respectability. Freedom is the victim of this wall: academic freedom and freedom of the press in particular.
The movie is not so much an investigation into the evidence for intelligent design as it is an expose into the suppression of anyone who says there’s evidence for intelligent design. Investigator Stein exposes the numerous instances of institutionalized bias against professors, scientists and journalists who dare to question Darwinian orthodoxy. Some who have questioned Darwin and merely mentioned that intelligent design may be a legitimate area of study have been summarily fired from their jobs and blacklisted in their career, hence the title Expelled. Why are the Darwinists doing this? What are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
If you follow the ID-Evolution controversy, you’ll recognize the players on both sides. Stein meets with ID proponents such as Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Myer and Guillermo Gonzalez, as well as Darwinists Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott and even Richard Dawkins. In Stein’s disarming manner, he exposes the bias and vacuousness in the positions of the Darwinists, even getting Dawkins to admit at the end that he has no idea how the first life began but that intelligent aliens might be responsible. With that, Stein points out that Dawkins is actually a proponent of Intelligent Design (for Dawkins, ID is OK if it points to aliens, but not OK if it points to God).
But Expelled is not some dry documentary with a bunch of talking-head interviews strung together. Interlaced with vintage film clips (some quite funny) and a variety of music genres (the opening is a violin version of Pink Floyd’s The Wall), Expelled moves along at an entertaining pace. Yet, it takes quite a serious tone when Stein (who is Jewish) makes the connection between the ideas of Darwin and the ideas of Hitler. Ideas do have consequences, and the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest led directly to Hitler’s quest to weed out undesirables in his plan to create the super race. Hitler even made the connection in his 1924 book Mein Kampf.
Several of the Darwinists interviewed expressed that they lost their faith in God because of Darwinism. Dawkins is famous for saying that Darwinism made him an “intellectually-fulfilled atheist.” However, as Stein points out, Darwin had nothing to say about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Today, due to discoveries of the universe (it exploded into being out of nothing) and life (“simple” life is far more complex than anything Darwin suspected), those origin questions are even more difficult to answer for the Darwinists. There are a couple of spots where Stein lets the Darwinists hang themselves with their outlandish speculations of how life began. It’s so embarrassing that after watching Expelled, those thinking of leaving the faith because of Darwinism may want to reconsider.
My one criticism of the movie is that I wish it had just a bit more on the evidence for Intelligent Design. There is animation of the interior of a cell, but there is no explanation of what is actually going on. One key point that needs to be made is this: when we see something with the evidence of design (say Mount Rushmore), we don’t simply lack a natural explanation for it, we have positive, empirically-detectable evidence for an intelligent sculptor (see Chapters 5 and 6 of our book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist). However, due to time contraints, I understand why the movie could not go into much detail on the evidence. The main point of the movie is not scientific evidence but academic freedom.
There’s a lot more that could be said, but Expelled is better seen than said. This is exactly the kind of movie that Christians should support because it’s much more than entertainment. The movie communicates an important message without feeling preachy. You can take anyone to this– believer or not. If you’re like me, my wife and 15 year-old son, you will walk away feeling that there’s an injustice being done to us all. Freedom is being suppressed, and we need to speak up to restore the spirit of free inquiry that made this country great. Expelled is helping to break down “The Wall.” Will you help as well?
Thank you for the review. It sounds like an excellent movie. I will be there opening day!
“Freedom is the Victim”
Who is unjustly in jail? Or are “hurt feelings” enough to be called “suppression”? They have their books and web sites and blogs. How can they be suppressed?
“a bit more on the evidence for Intelligent Design”
Of course the little problem with that is that there isn’t any. “God did it” just doesn’t seem to have much scientific predictability about it.
Onein6billion,
The purpose of the movie wasn’t to review the evidence, but to show that academic freedom is being suppressed. The punishments are not as serious as jail nor as trivial as hurt feelings– but losing your job over suggesting that intelligent design ought to be investigated is a blow to free inquiry and bit unjust, don’t you think? Should the creationists have fired Darwin for suggesting we ought to investigate natural selection?
Scientific Predictability? When you see the faces on Mt. Rushmore, your previous experience tells you that only an intelligent sculptor could have done that. It’s not just that you lack a natural explanation, but that you have empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. The universe and life are far more specified and complex than Mt. Rushmore. Might specified and complex evidence “predict” the intervention of an intelligent being? Doesn’t your post on this website– which is specified and complex and cannot be explained by natural forces– predict that similar messages require an intelligent being? That is the very question ID asks. Those who ask the question should not “expelled” for asking it.
But that’s just the point Frank, evolution has been examined so intensely, and has been vetted so many times over the past 150 years that the scientific evidence is irrefutable. Notice I said “scientific.” Your Mt Rushmore argument is based on an unfounded conclusion, which is your assumption that things that seem designed to your eyes must indeed be designed. This argument is in no way scientific, and neither is any of the “evidence” for intelligent design.
Also, Richard Dawkins and other atheists and proponents of evolution that were featured in the movie were told when they were interviewed that it was for a movie called Crossroads, which they were told was to be an even handed look at the intersection of science and religion. They were lied to. Isn’t there something in the Bible about that?
The real reason I’m posting here is because of the outrageous Hitler comparisons. I have not read Mein Kampf myself, but Wikipedia has some quotes from it which demonstrate that Hitler was a very devout Christian himself and likely a creationist.
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
I am not trying to claim that creationism in some way lead to what Hitler did, but simply to show that this claim is ridiculous. To paraphrase Dawkins, Hitler had a mustache, but we don’t suppose that having a mustache leads to Naziism.
This is all rather besides the point though, as I am an atheist and a believer in evolution, and I have many friends who are, and I can assure you that we all think what Hitler did in Nazi Germany was absolutely atrocious, so can we please, for goodness sake stop calling each other Nazis?
Other quotes from Hitler concerning this subject can be seen here:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
I have to pretty much agree with everything jjberg2 stated. Overwhelmingly, the ID movement seems to focus on how they’re sooooo”oppressed” and how “mean” those nasty atheists are to them. It’s like a presidential election: Instead of focusing on why they’re the right candidate, they sling mud at their opponent to discredit them.
I can’t say anything more about the Nazi references that jjberg2 didn’t already thoroughly cover. However, to say the least, it is extremely offensive to be compared to a Nazi simply for believing in evolution, especially as the claim is so ridiculous it shouldn’t even be acknowledged.
It seems to me that the ID movement is largely comprised of appealing to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and grandiose claims, as opposed to calm, rational scientific discourse backed by evidence.
jjberg and Matt.
jj, What is the “irrefutable evidence for evolution?”
jj, Science is built on observation. So when we observe something (like Mount Rushmore) that seems designed, isn’t it highly likely that it actually IS designed? Why have faith that it isn’t designed when observation tells us that it is?
jj and Matt, I am not calling all evolutionists Nazis. I am simply saying the philisophical underpinnings of the Holocaust was evolutionary theory. Please allow be to make two points related to your comments:
1) If there is no God, then there is nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did because there is no objective morality without God. So jj, I agree with you that what Hitler did was “absolutely atrocious,” but by what objective standard do you, as an atheist, judge it to be “absolutely atroucious?”
2) No one is claiming Hitler was consistent. He may have said many things that creationists would agree with. But the core of his philosophy certainly wasn’t “love your neighbor as yourself, ” was it? No, the core of his philosophy was Darwinism as he wrote here in “Mein Kampf:”
“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
He also wrote: “He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how the matter really stands. Yet far harder is the lot of him who believes that he can overcome Nature and thus in reality insults her. Distress, misery, and disease are her rejoinders.
Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all human progress.” (Forget Wikpedia, and read the entire book here http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.)
The logical outworking of this is the Holocaust. The logical outworking of Christianity isn’t killing “inferior” races but loving all people as youself.
Happy Easter.
Equating Darwinian evolution with Hitler is a logical fallacy and a tired argument. Perhaps you would enjoy these quotes from Hitler, too:
“Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years.” —Adolph Hitler
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no
religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious
foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and
religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people.” Adolf
Hitler April 26, 1933
[from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican
Concordant of 1933]
Atheism makes life beautiful NOW, no waiting for some phantom afterlife for which you have no scientific evidence. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Your arguments for everyone being religious and everyone having faith are prime examples of the straw man fallacy. Yet another logical fallacy is your assertion that without god there can be no morality..
How flawed your “not enough faith to be an atheist” position is! Faith is the ONLY refuge for believers, yet you argue against religious faith. Sure I have faith, but of a different sort, a different context. I have NO FAITH in that which can not be proved or that for which I have no empirical basis. Yes, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow and I have faith in my family and friends. however, that faith is grounded in evidence and reason. That faith is not an idea held despite no evidence for it, which, to be clear, is the definition of faith in a religious context such as you employ.
You, sir, are intellectually dishonest and perhaps even intellectually corrupt. You employ logical fallacies to comfort yourself because as you admit, your faith is weak. It is not strong enough, so you must find evidence – scientific, even – for your belief in god. That’s no the kind of faith YOUR bible teaches you should have. You are very close to discovering the freedom of non-belief, but you’re scared, for YOU are the victim of indoctrination. You are held captive by fear, for without fear, xianity has no teeth. Xianity is so absurd, it takes threats of eternal torture in hell just to keep its believers.
Have the courage I had, the courage to break the years of born-again brainwashing. Freedom is an amazing thing. Xianity never fulfilled me like being an atheist. I am FREE. I am CONFIDENT. And now I have REASON to believe I can handle anything life throws at me. Why do I need god? Why you YOU need god? I hope you find the courage to one day really examine why you need god.
The family that prays together is brainwashing their children. It’s a good thing 18 years of brainwashing can’t withstand one year of free thought in three out of four teens leaving home. Xianity in particular and religion in general is a blight upon humanity. I would die for your right to believe as you do. I fully support yours and everyone else’s right to be a religious as you want. But I don’t have to respect your beliefs. They are silly at best, and deserve to be ridiculed as such.
Happy Easter, to you, too! It’s a fine pagan holiday and further evidence just how deceptive and dishonest Christians really are. Too bad the real beauty of Easter is occulted by borrowed notion of a resurrected savior.
Crowell29a..
Crowell29a..
What is the objective basis of morality without God?
How can you have free will or courage if you are nothing but chemicals?
Why should you trust your reasoning faculties if you are nothing but chemicals?
Where does the Bible say Hell is eternal torture?
Thanks for your post.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
We can compare and contrast social organization, laws and mythologies of known cultures past and present to see the commonalities. I don’t claim to know the absolute origin, rather I claim the pursuit of truth. Like the universe itself, morality just *is*. Mind you, logic dictates just because I don’t have an absolute explanation does not mean yours is automatically correct. That said, I do have an explanation – evolution. Evolution is responsible for brains capable of rational thought, the same rational thought that shapes cultures, forms nations and crafts laws. Morality is the result of billions of years of evolution.
You, however, claim absolute truth from your god. The onus is yours to prove, scientifically and without the bible or faith, your god exists and has imbued morality upon us. You are making the claim of a god, you bear the burden of proof.
I do not deny the existence of any god or gods, rather I do not accept the existence of any deity. I agree, to say “there is no god” requires religious faith. I do not accept the existence of god. Based on my experience and education and understanding of the origin and power of mythology, I can comfortably say that if there is a god, it certainly won’t bear any resemblance to the god of abraham.
How can you have free will if your god is all knowing? Doesn’t he already know what you’re going to do? For that matter, didn’t he know before he created anything what would happen? Did you got NOT KNOW somehitng? Did he NOT KNOW about SATAN ahead of time? Did he NOT KNOW about adam and eve before he created them? Did he NOT KNOW he would have to sned his only begotten son to save our sorry asses? What else does he NOT KNOW, but you blindly trust him anyway?
Why do you need courage is your god has it all figured out for you?
Why would I NOT trust the reasoning faculties of chemicals fine-tuned by billions of years of evolution? Look at the great minds of history, look at the volumes of modern scientific discovery and understanding, all the result of “nothing but chemicals.” Far better reason than your god.
Given how much your god does NOT KNOW, why would you trust reasoning faculties given to you by him?
Revelation 14 (KJV) sounds like eternal torture, eh? (perhaps I should have said torment instead).
“9″: And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
“10″: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
“11″: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Heh. Jesus and the angels are even going to watch! Pass the popcorn, please..
well, i was halfway through jumping back in on this one but i think you covered it all chris. very well said!
Christopher,
One topic at a time: The question is not HOW you know murder is wrong (it might be by macro evolution if macro evolution is true as you claim). The question is WHY is murder wrong if there is no God? Why should someone not murder to get what they want if they can get away with it? Why should someone not rape to get what they want if they can get away with it? etc.
Blessings,
Frank
I don’t know whether to howl with laughter or cry in despair. I jest, of course. I’ll take howling with laughter. The answer to WHY it is wrong is this: would you want to be murdered? Is that how you want to be treated? No need for a supreme being to tell me I don’t want to be murdered or raped or robbed, etc. Duh.
Evolution has resulted in rational beings who observe others to determine how to behave and, more importantly, how NOT to behave. Evolution has yielded the golden rule, a concept on which no mythology
Btw, we have a problem. I am playing along, allowing you to lead. But I know what you’re doing and you should be ashamed. You asked FOUR questions, I answered them one by one but now you stipulate ONE topic at a time without addressing my responses to YOUR questions. I am not that easily distracted and I am aware of your intellectually dishonest tactics.
oops… unfinished thought:
Evolution has yielded the golden rule, a concept to which no mythology claim can lay exclusive claim.
Christopher,
Please stop judging my tactics or motives. I’m trying to understand your position one topic at a time. If you are open to a respectful discussion about issues, then we can continue. But if you’d like to continue to emote and impungn my position and character, then I have better things to do.
Back to the topic: Again, morality is not about what I want or don’t want happening to me. That could indicate HOW I KNOW something is right or wrong. But that’s not the question. I’m not asking you HOW you KNOW murder is wrong (your explanation is this sense evolved); I’m asking you WHY is murder objectively wrong? How can a biological process which acts on chemicals produce an immaterial, unchanging moral law outside and beyond humanity that all human beings are obligated to obey?
Frank
Frank,
Why does it NEED to be “objectively wrong?” Seems like you have an answer in need of a problem, also known as the logical fallacy of arguing from a false premise. God as an “objective basis for morality” is clearly unnecessary. When you indict atheists as having no OBfM, you are also indicting all other non-believers in the god of abraham. The evidence around the world and throughout history is clear – many societies exhibit moral behavior WITHOUT your god as their OBfM.
To be clear, when you ask WHY, you are asking for a REASON something is “objectively wrong,” correct? If so, then the REASON something is wrong can be answered as I suggested – I don’t want to be murdered, raped or robbed, etc. That is the REASON it is wrong. That REASON is what allowed us to form civilized societies. How can you say morality is not about what you do or don’t want done to you?
With regard to judging your tactics and motives, I think you are referring the closing paragraph of my previous comment. Is it not true you asked four questions, I answered and you redirected?
What is wrong with impugning (criticizing, challenging) your position or character? By the very nature of the discussion, I am challenging your position. Were you unaware of the multiple logical fallacies I identified? Why not defended those statements? Ignoring/evading my comments is ample reason to question your character, and I make no apologies for doing just that.
Hmmm.. I was too harsh. I should have been more charitable, though I will defend my position to a degree – you volleyed four questions, then abruptly scaled back to one at a time. “Redirecting” is not fair, and ignoring/evading may have been premature. For that, I apologize in spite of what I wrote above.
Christopher,
I am not talking about NEEDING murder to be objectively wrong. We both agree that murder IS objectively wrong. The question is, WHY is murder objectively wrong if there is no God? We are not talking about personal “reasons” because they cancel one another out — I may NOT WANT to be murdered, but Hitler may WANT to murder me. Independent of our personal “reasons”, why should Hitler not murder me if he can get away with it? (BTW, He was trying to create his own “civilized” society of the super race.)
In other words, if there is no obective standard beyond our biological brains, then morality is just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s opinion. But we all know that murder is more than just an opinion. In an atheist worldview, how do you justify this?
Frank
Christopher:
By your own words you have indicted yourself: “I was too harsh. I should have been more charitable.” Is that your morality speaking? Is that your internal code speaking? Is that what “successful societies” have taught you? By your logic you don’t want to be murdered, therefore no one should murder. By your logic then you don’t want others to be harsh to you so no one should be harsh. By your logic then you want to be treated charitable so every one should be charitable. What does your athiesm teach, encourage or expect you to do when others are harsh, do not act charitable or murder others? Or are there no expectations? By your logic then,if you want to eat strawberries, then you can and so can others. If you want to go to the movies, then you can and so can others. If you want to run a red light, then you can and so can others. Where do you draw the line in an athiestic society? Are you the only one with an internal code of conduct of some kind? Is everyone expected to live by their own code of conduct? I don’t follow.
Janis
Frank,
No, we don’t agree on “objectively wrong.” Yes, you appear to NEED this “objective basis” for morality. Hitler may WANT to murder you, but he does not WANT to be murdered. He is wrong. You don’t WANT to murder because you don’t want to BE murdered, or have anyone for whom you care murdered, making you right.
I don’t agree with your use of “civilized” in reference Hitler’s view of how the world should be.
What is so difficult about accepting treating others like you want to be treated as a world view? Not wanting to be murdered is more than mere opinion.
Janis,
Thank you for your questions. They are common questions about atheists asked by believers. However, you have fallen victim to logical fallacies in your assessment of my self-indictment. I have done no such thing.
Of course there are expectations. “I want to eat strawberries, so others can too.” This ignores to whom the strawberries belong. I would not want others to eat my strawberries, so i would not eat others’ strawberries.
It’s not that I don’t want others to be harsh to me, I don’t want them to be prematurely or unnecessarily harsh. I welcome constructive criticism, and sometimes it’s harsh.
The line is drawn via laws, which in turn are determined by consensus. You know, just like it works now, independent of religious morality.
Why would you even ask if I am the only one with an internal code? We all have an internal code and we are all expected to balance our internal code with the law. Atheism does not change that.
Why is it so hard for believers to understand that many atheists do good things just for he sake of being good? We don’t require the threat eternal damnation to compel us. Atheism makes life beautiful NOW, not in the afterlife.
“Selling eternal life is an unbeatable business, with no customers ever asking for their money back after the goods are not delivered.” ~ Victor J. Stenger
In response to your latest post. You say “atheists do good things just for the sake of being good”. What are good things?
I guess the better question would be. Why do good things? or Whats the difference between a supposable good thing or a bad thing?
Randy,
Good things like being a productive member of society and treating others as you would like to be treated. Humanitarian efforts. Mentoring. Teaching. Volunteering. Forming family and community bonds. Picnics in the park. Days at the beach. Hiking. Exercise. Research. Doctors. Police officers. Firefighter. Soldiers. Atheists do/are all these things and more.
Why? Well why do you do good things? Only because God tells you to? Or because you fear eternal torment? Why do you need god to tell you what’s good and bad? Character is what you do when no one is watching. But god is always watching and the satan is tempting you, thereby allowing to pretend those dark thoughts aren’t yours. You don’t have to come to terms with your own dark side.
Good and bad are indeed subjective. There is no denying that. As societies, we come to a consensus and devise laws to balance your opinion with my opinion. My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. Exactly where that is remains a very grey area, and rightly so. We don’t need god to do this or anything else. It’s up to us.
For anyone interested, I found an excellent essay on this objective basis for morality. It is from a decidedly biased source, so I should say this to be fair – I am very critical of most apologetic resources as I generally find them riddled with logical fallacies. It’s not so much WHAT you believe as WHY you believe that concerns me, to wit I offer this essay on morality:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html
I am curious, almost insatiably so. This is mental floss to me. I value this discourse more than sitting around with like minds. This is far more challenging and almost impossible in meatspace.
Christopher: It is wonderful to have an intelligent and mostly civil guy on here for this discussion. Thank you for hanging in there and for your thoughtful posts.
I have a question that you may be able to help me with. Since the darwinist crowd has absolutely no empirical evidence for the origination of life, what is so terrible about postulating and inquiring about ID? It is at least as plausible a theory as any other ones, is it not? It also opens up avenues of inquiry that would otherwise be closed. Why do the darwinists so viciously exclude any alternative explanations?
Jim:
If I may?
Let’s first make sure we are clear that Darwin’s theory doesn’t make any claims about the origins of life, it only deals with how life evolves after it comes into existence. So the failure of Darwinian evolution to explain the origins of life does not diminish its validity in the least, because it does not purport to explain the origins of life. It certainly is not a complete theory (bear in mind though the the phrase “complete theory” is oxymoronic, theories are never “complete,” the are simply built upon and improved), but in that sense neither is general relativity. Einstein’s General theory of relativity has been confirmed by observation again and again, it has been used to make predictions that have been shown to be correct, yet it only deals with gravity, it makes no claims about electromagnetism, or the strong or weak nuclear force. It is incomplete in the sense that it doesn’t explain the workings of the entire universe, and while it may not be the ultimate “TRUE” explanation of gravity, it is reliable enough that NASA uses it to make calculations in sending multi million dollar machines whizzing throughout our solar system. To tie it back, Darwinian evolution is much the same, it does not explain all of biology, or the origins of life, but it is accurate in what it does claim to know. There are researchers working on the subject of abiogenesis, and it is logical to assume that, just as we learned that the earth orbits the sun, and that living things are made of cells, we will eventually learn how life arose from non-living matter.
So, to answer why we “so viciously exclude alternative explanations,” …we don’t. We simply request that before you ask the rest of the scientific community to believe something, you come up with actual hard evidence that supports your conclusion. When you can do that, and your results can be replicated by others, then we will give it some attention. This is the process that all other scientific theories must go through, and if ID wishes to gain approval, it must as well.
Of course, this cannot happen, because ID is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and if you cannot falsify a hypothesis, it is useless.
Jim,
Thank you for the kinds words. I know I got testy with Frank, and I am still sorting out just precisely how I feel about our discourse. I appreciate your sentiments very much. Let that set the tone for our discourse.
Apologetics and ID proponents often seem to argue that because science can’t explain something yet, the answer is their God or an “intelligent designer.” They seem to perceive the absence of a scientific explanation as evidence for the correctness of their answer. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.
No, I do not find ID to be “at least as plausible a theory as any other ones” and I take issue with the use of “viciously exclude ANY [emphasis added] alternative explanations.” I think you confuse “rigorously” with “viciously” and fail to appreciate something said by Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I am unaware of any ID articles published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. ID is not testable, repeatable nor observable. It has not met the rigorous standards of science.
What other alternative explanations has science excluded that would justify your question of Why do the darwinists so viciously exclude any alternative explanations?” Science is open to anything meeting its standards.
Even I, a lowly IT manager without extensive formal training, can refute many ID arguments and much of its so-called science. What I can’t refute on my own I have reviewed in the research of others to my satisfaction that ID simply is not science, but religion (specifically christianity) in a thinly veiled disguise. Nonetheless, I try to keep up with the debate, refining my own views along the way.
We can go into more detail if you wish. I’ll follow your lead.
JJ,
How is Darwinism falsifiable?
Frank
Frank,
Please clarify your definition Darwinism. Do you use the term interchangeabley with the factuality of evolution, the theory of evolution or both? Or not?
Short answer will be fine.
[...] that have spurred? quite a good discussion (see below:? Atheists Have No Basis for Morality, and? “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim).? While there have been some good points made back and forth, it seems like we are getting down in [...]
Hi Christopher,
By Darwinism I mean the theory that all life forms have a common ancestor and evolved into their present states (i.e. were caused) by non-intelligent, natural forces.
Would that be your definition, or do you define it differently? Thanks for clarifing terms.
Frank
Frank,
Assume an organism in a population exhibits trait X, which greatly hinders its chances of survival. Now assume that as time goes by we see that trait X becomes more dominant in the population, meaning that organisms that have this trait are more successful at surviving until the age of reproduction than those that do not. If we observed this to be true it would contradict darwinian theory.
JJ,
Of course traits that help survival will help survival (that’s a tautology and wouid be true even if Darwinism was false). What I’m asking, is what evidence would falsify the Darwinian assertion that all life forms have a common ancestor and evolved into their present states by non-intelligent natural forces?
Frank Turek
Tell us, JJ.. Apologetics and ID proponents everywhere could really use a hand with that question!
Crowell29a, short on time for a thoughtful answer..
Damn, had about 3/4 of a response typed up, left it for later, and accidentally closed it. I, like Christopher, am strapped for time, but I’m hoping to get a response in either tonight or tomorrow.
JJ and Christopher: I would love to hear your reactions to this piece on Darwin and his doubts, and his largely unacknowledged debts to the originator of “Natural Theology”: http://www.godweb.org/darwin.htm
Thanks for your replies! Good stuff….
I am still waiting though for any scientific proof that life was NOT designed by a designer, as I personally, along with a lot of other REALLY smart people like Darwin and Einstein, see lots of evidence that there is a designer behind the forces of evolution. Where is the evidence that random forces could ever collude to create such intricate design in all aspects of the universe? Humanity seems to be on a scientific trail from the beginning of inquiry that simply takes us deeper into the evidence for design, just as Darwin started and advanced. The majority of scientists today in anonymous polls, if polls are to be believed, feel the same way. Same with medical doctors. It is absolutely true as well that they do not attribute their ideas about a designer to any religion. But a majority are “theists” of some sort. Why is this? Is it just the dominant culture? A reaction against the darwinian education system?
Love the thoughts and thinking! This is part of what we were made for in meatspace!
Jim,
It is a logical fallacy to say their is a designer because their is no proof there isn’t a designer. The onus is YOURS to show us we should accept there is a designer, which will still leave the question of who designed the designer?
I can’t stress this enough – your god is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. You assert there was a designer, you bear the burden of proof. What meets scientific standards suggests neither your god nor a designer.
I am saying the evidence we can scientifically does not add up to designer at this time, therefore I don’t accept the existence of your god (let’s be honest – that is what you mean by designer, right?).
To be clear, a majority of what group are theists? Med doctors? Please clarify, and please support the claim.
Checking the link.. have to respond to that in a later comment.
Likewise, this is very interesting. Thank you in return!
Can’t agree more with what Christopher said. There is no such thing as scientific proof that life was not created. You cannot prove a negative, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Bertrand Russell offered the famous example of the celestial teapot. I’ll quote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
I have not read the article you linked to in full. I started it, then took a look at how long it is, and realized I didn’t have time to read it and respond tonight as well. I’ll hopefully get to it at some point, although I’d bet the discussion will have moved on by that point. As for Einstein, creationists have been trying to hijack his statements for ages. Einstein categorically stated that the only sort of God he believed in was Spinoza’s God, which essentially redefines god as nature. In that sense, if you want to apply the term ‘god’ to some sort of underlying force or principle behind the all the natural laws of the universe, including those that drove the Big Bang and eventually the formation of life and evolution, then I too believe in this ‘god.’ I know this is not what you mean though. Einstein’s beliefs do not support your claims. Even if they did, the argument from prominent scientist’s personal opinions is once again a logical fallacy. It is very uncommon to avoid indoctrination into, if not Christianity, at least some sort of a belief in God. It is all around us in our society, even I who was raised free of religious influences (but not as an atheist, but rather allowed to make my own decisions) had to essentially talk myself out of such a belief over a period of time, because it seemed that everyone I knew believed it, so, to a 7 year old, this seemed like good logic. Add to that what many of them were taught as they grew up, indoctrinated into the faith, and the fact that it seems to be acceptable to not really be a Christian, as long as you believe in God, it is unsurprising that many do not shake the beliefs. So, now that I’ve reread your post in full Jim, yeah, I think you could say it is the dominant culture that causes these results, although a link would be nice, like Christopher said. Now, back to that whole Darwinism thing…
The thing is that the fact that individuals with traits that favor survival are more likely to survive and thus pass on the beneficial traits (this being the key part) is really what Darwinism is based on. From there we can use the theory to make falsifiable predictions, observe whether the predictions are true, and then, depending on the results, potentially update the theory to reflect everything that was known before as any possible new discovery. If the observations clash so violently with the theory that the differences cannot be resolved, then the theory must either be massively overhauled or thrown out completely. I admit I misspoke and oversimplified earlier. It would be far more accurate to state that the theory makes falsifiable predictions about what we can expect to see in the world around us. Darwin’s theory has proved capable of making predictions about what we observe in the world around us, through observation of bacterial and viral evolution from year to year (flu virus and bacterial resistance to antibiotics), through the fossil record, and, I think most importantly, through genetics and developmental biology. Once scientific theories reach the status of “theory” they extremely unlikely to be categorically disproved or “falsified,” as I mistakenly termed earlier, they are more likely to be (and indeed practically required to be) modified. It is always possible though that there could be a new revelation that could shake the theory to its core, and require a major overhaul or cause it to be completely disregarded. An example of a theory that was completely discarded is the geocentric theory, in favor of heliocentrism, whereas an example of a major overhaul would be the realization, with the Einstein’s general relativity, that Newtonian gravitation was only a specific case, a mathematical limit of general relativity that reduces to Newtonian gravity in the special case of relatively low mass objects. It is hard to imagine massive overhauls aside from the verification of one side of the theory vs another, ie, punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism, which would effectively falsify the opposing side, but even harder to imagine the entire theory being falsified, simply because there is so much evidence to support it. Again, I want to stress that I misspoke and was not at all clear before. Hopefully I’ve laid that out well. It is late, and I really need to be getting to bed, so I may have rushed this a bit. If anything is unclear please let me know.
Thanks, JJ. Interesting blog and links. Nice overview of some current thinking. I’ve been toying with the notion of a free thought blog myself. WordPress rocks!
Minor request.. please break your posts into paragraphs. I think it’s easier to read that way, but YMMV, of course. Enjoyed your posts nonetheless!
thanks for the praise
yeah, those last two posts were not exactly the most readable piles of words were they? I offer the excuse that it was very late and I was tired and should have been in bed instead of debating creationists. definitely not my best bit of writing…
Know what you mean? Oh yeah, I do!
JJ,
This seems to be the central point in your last Darwinism post:
“Darwin’s theory has proved capable of making predictions about what we observe in the world around us, through observation of bacterial and viral evolution from year to year (flu virus and bacterial resistance to antibiotics), through the fossil record, and, I think most importantly, through genetics and developmental biology.”
Bacterial and viral microevolution is uncontroversial because it can be observed. But in the end you still have bacteria and viruses. So where is the evidence that a bacterium can ultimately evolve into a completely different type and more complex being by random forces without intelligent intervention (macroevolution)? Where is the evidence for this in the fossil record that you cite?
Blessings,
Frank
JJ,
Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza (pantheism), but his theory of General Relativity points to a theistic God. Nature was created, so nature can’t be God. Sometimes people don’t allow scientific facts to inform personal beliefs. You may claim is the theists are doing this, but I think it is the atheists. Do you have our book?
Blessings,
Frank
Jumping in, apologies to JJ..
An imperfect theory suggests God. It also suggests other things that aren’t likely so – it breaks down, doesn’t work for quantum physics.
“Nature was created, so nature can’t be God.” So what created God?
Transitional fossils have been and are being found. That argument is now old and busted. Fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammal-like reptiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Before the embryonic stage, when the cells are only dividing and not growing in size, the zygote (blastocyst?) is encased in a “hard shell” called the zona pellucida. Once the zygote cells have divided to a certain number and begin to grow in not only number but size, too, the embryo “hatches” from the zona pellucida and THEN implants itself in the uterine lining.
We look like a segmented worm, then exhibit reptilian facial features, have gill slits four weeks or so after fertilization and a tail. We are indistinguishable from other mammalian embryos at five weeks. Seven weeks brings further distinction, but not from pig embryos.
But we didn’t evolve from lower life forms.
You use this quote from Adolf Hitler to support your statement that Darwinian evolution was central to Nazi philosophy.
“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
That quote tells me that Hitler had a colosssal misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. So it wasn’t evolutionary theory that was central to Naziism but rather Hitler’s distorted misinterpretation of it.
Frank asks: “What I’m asking, is what evidence would falsify the Darwinian assertion that all life forms have a common ancestor and evolved into their present states by non-intelligent natural forces?”
Some things that come to mind:
Insects with feathers.
A fossil of a modern human that older than all the Australopithecus fossils.
Junk DNA in a fish that matched junk DNA in humans that’s not in other primates.
Now here are some things that I believe put the design hypothesis in doubt.
The darkling beetle has wings inside fused wing covers. The covers being fused makes the wings impossible to use. What kind of designer makes a feature impossible to use?
There are three totally different designs for eyes in the animal kingdom. Why wouldn’t a competent designer reuse his designs? Vertibrate eyes, mollusk eyes, and arthropod eyes appear to be the work of three different designers. Since any common ancestor shared by these groups did not have eyes, this is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict. The same argument for bird wings, bat wings, and insect wings.
Now take an example of something designed by humans. A car. A human designer with two different engine types and two different transmission types can design four cars. Nature’s designer gets stuck at three. She starts with engine E1 and transmission T1 to make car 1. Then changes the engine to E2 to make car two. Then changes the transmission to T2 to make car three. She is unable to change back to engine E1 to make the fourth car. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
One more comment.
I find it very refreshing that you allow comments from both sides of the argument. Many moderators (I think mostly on the creationist side of the aisle, but I could be wrong) don’t allow comments from people who disagree with them.
Ken,
Thanks for your intelligent posts. It’s much easier to arrive at the truth when you give all sides a fair hearing. I will always allow those who disagree with me to have their say, provided they do it in a professional and respectful way. Too many blogs generate more heat than light.
Check out my new post, “Designer Wouldn’t Have Done it that Way” Argument Backfires, for a response to your last post.
Thanks again,
Frank Turek
“So where is the evidence that a bacterium can ultimately evolve into a completely different type and more complex being by random forces without intelligent intervention (macroevolution)?”
In the DNA of all current (and some extinct) individuals and species. It is clear that all current species are related to some original “bacterium” that existed a billion years ago.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
“Where is the evidence for this in the fossil record that you cite?”
The fossils show a gradually changing “pattern” that indicates that successor species were modifications of preceding species. There are, of course, (smaller and smaller) “gaps” in the fossil record. The odds that any particular living entity will be found as a fossil are one in a billion, 10 billion, 100 billion?
There really is a “branching tree of life” that shows how all life is related.
onein6billion:
How does a common genetic code prove a common ancestor? A common genetic code could also point to a common creator.
The fossil record does not prove a common ancestor and it does not prove gradualism. This is precisely why palentologist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard posited “Punctuated Equilibria.” Gould wrote:
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1). Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2). Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”
In other words, Gould is admitting that fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed, and remain the same until extinction without any directional change– exactly what one would expect to find if creation were true. But since he was an atheist, creation was not an option for him. So he invented PE.
Frank
What Gould is saying is speciation occurs in small, isolated groups of a species, not across the board, and it happens relatively suddenly, but certainly NOT “suddenly” in the context you present the quote.
Here’s what apologetics generally omit:
“We [Gould and Eldredge] believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”
“Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. …. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
“Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
“Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.”
For the proper context of his usage of sudden, see this NYT article:
“We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”
“Evolutionary biologists had always ascribed such difficulties to the famous incompleteness of the fossil record. But in 1972, the two proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a revolutionary suggestion that the sudden appearances and lack of change were, in fact, real. According to the theory, there are long periods of time, sometimes millions of years, during which species change little, if at all.”
“Intermittently, new species arise and there is rapid evolutionary change on a geological time scale (still interminably slow on human time scales) resulting in the sudden appearance of new forms in the fossil record. This creates punctuations of rapid change against a backdrop of steady equilibrium, hence the name.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E1D91238F932A15756C0A9649C8B63
“Suddenly” in this context STILL means “interminably slow on human time scales.”
So yes, the fossil record DOES support (if not prove) a common ancestor.
Darwin appears to be incorrect about gradualism, but the he live well over 100 years ago. His work has been torn apart and refined time and time again, but it still largely stands to reason.
oops.. repeated a paragraph from Gould’s book in the NYT quote. Apologies..
By the way, Gould didn’t “invent” PE. He labeled it, gave it a name, but certainly didn’t invent the process itself.
Christopher,
Thanks for more detail on Gould. But couldn’t the observations in the fossil record about sudden appearance, stasis, and disappearance be equally counted as evidence for special creation? It seems like it only points to PE if you assume that evolution must have occurred, which of course begs the question.
Frank
Please tell me more about what qualifies as “special creation.” The fossil record does not suggest these new species literally appeared overnight. it suggests “new species arise and there is rapid evolutionary change on a geological time scale (still interminably slow on human time scales).”
How sudden is “special creation?” An hour? A day? A year? More?
“sudden”
Of course “sudden” means a few hundred thousand years.
Christopher,
From the fossil record–sudden appearance, stasis, sudden disappearance– we might conclude the creation was instantaneous. I don’t see how we arrive at PE from the fossil record unless we assume that evolution is true which begs the question. Am I missing something?
Frank
The fossil record does not suggest anything instantaneous as I understand. What we see in the fossil record is congruent with what evolutionary theory predicts we should see and changes are not observed to be instantaneous.
The fact of evolution IS true, unless you want to deny nearly the whole of scientific knowledge. Saying evolution did not happen is akin to saying the War of Northern Aggression (Yankees call it the Civil War) didn’t happen. (yeah, I know I’m trolling OT but it’s fun)
The theory of evolution is open to scrutiny. We KNOW it happened, but how/why? PE is one possible part of the larger explanation of the theory of evolution.
More on PE:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
From PBS:
Scientists have scrutinized the fossil records of many organisms looking for evidence of punctuated evolution. One group of coral-like sea organisms in particular, called bryozoan, shows this kind of pattern. The well-preserved fossil record of bryozoans shows that one species first appeared about 140 million years ago and remained unchanged for its first 40 million years. Then there was an explosion of diversification, followed by another period of stability for vast amounts of time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Christopher,
You are begging the question. You are assuming evolution is true in order to prove it. Again, the fossil record is congruent with creation.
Frank
“the fossil record is congruent with creation”
Of course – anything is congruent with an omnipotent supernatural being. So what? That means that there can never be any evidence that would support evolution and not creationism.
But scientists say that an omnipotent supernatural being is unnecessary. So, do you have evidence that supports the existence of such a supernatural being?
Begging the question is when the conclusion of an argument restates a premise.
Premise: Fossil record shows changes that appear suddenly (on a geological scale longer than human existence) and then remain mostly the same for long periods of time; rinse and repeat.
Conclusion: PE suggests isolated groups of a species undergo change in a geologically short time between periods of stability.
The argument is logically valid. The truth of the premise or the conclusion matters not to the validity of the logic. The conclusion is not merely a restating of the premise.
I second onein6billion. ANYTHING is congruent with “god” or any other unknown creator.
However, Frank, you have suggested a less than supreme being could be the “creator” as well. True, I cannot say it is out of the question. What I can say is the fossil record does not necessarily suggest a creator, or intelligent designer.
I think our argument boils down to this:
Frank, et al: There HAS to be a creator, intelligent designer, even if not God of the Bible.
Crowell, et al: It did not HAVE to be what Frank says. Design does not necessarily imply intelligence.
Is that a fair summary?
“Design does not necessarily imply intelligence.”
First you have to define “design”. Then you have to agreed that a particular appearance of “design” really is “design”. Then you can ask about “intelligence”. Does the design of a snowflake imply intelligence? What about a “one-celled organism”? How would someone decide if it was “designed”?
Is it wrong for a father to marry his consenting 20-year-old daughter? Most would say yes. And the question is “why”? The atheist would probably point to the fact that there would be a heightened chance of genetic mutations occurring in their offspring, while the Biblical theist would say that it is morally wrong based on a moral standard.
But what if this couple is unable to reproduce. Is it still wrong? For the atheist there would be no grounds on which to say, “No, this is wrong”. Both people are adults, both are consenting, their is no danger in producing children that have genetic mutations, this is what they want so who are you to say that they should do it? Yet, I think if the atheist is honest, something inside them would say that it is still wrong. Where does that come from?
In addition, I would submit that those on this forum so against ID are not truly looking at all the evidence. Direct empirical proof (verifiable through observation or experience) is not necessary to believe that there is a personal God who created the universe. I’ve never been to Africa. How do I know that it truly exists? Pictures? Maps? Videos? These all could have been faked? No? Is that possible? But I do believe (have faith) Africa exists (as do you) and I believe without having direct and personal evidence that this is the case. If you are going to be intellectually consistent, then you must require 100 percent direct-proof before you believe that Africa is really there — because that is what you are requiring of ID.
The same can be said of a God that created the universe. You do not need to actually see God in order to believe that He exists. The proof that you are requiring of Frank can be found in the Cosmological and Teleological arguments to name a few.
It seems that you are really not opened-minded, but are instead staunch in your position and refuse to look objectively at the other side.
To be accepted as science, ID must submit to the standards of science. I really don’t see why ID wants so bad to be considered science, as it is clearly SUPERIOR to science, correct? Why reduce ID to “mere science?”
Science is as science does. Otherwise, it ain’t science.
Btw, you can GO to Africa and see it for yourself. Reach out and TOUCH Africa. Would you care to take me to your God so I can do the SAME (you said it was the SAME)? Oh, and we don’t have to die to go to Africa, either, so none of that.
You refuse to see the distinction but have the audacity to say *I’m* not open-minded. Pot, meet kettle.
It seems I’ve hit a nerve. Much can be gleaned from just that as you attack me but don’t adequately address the issues I’ve raised.
The point isn’t that you are ABLE to go to Africa, the point is that you believe without actually having to go. Isn’t that right? If you held to the same standard you require of ID proponents, you’d never believe anything unless you personally experienced it. Instead, you have faith that the evidence placed before you — whether in pictures, maps, etc. — is true and accurate. All I’m trying to point out is that if you are going to require this standard of others, then you must require it of yourself. I don’t think there is anything audacious about that.
Or perhaps Christopher was just aggressively refuting your point. Why must we persist with the “your angry so therefore you must be dogmatically clinging to a fundamentally flawed world view and on top of that, this proves that atheists are disturbed and angry people in general” argument (I know you didn’t make the second claim, but it’s a similar argument that’s been used against me a number of times by others).
When people with little actual understanding, or intentional misunderstanding, of the science at hand, make sweeping allegations that an entire 150 years worth of scientific research and broad worldwide consensus among legitimate scientists is entirely false, I think scientists (including science students such as I and “citizen scientists” such as Christopher) have a right to be just a tad miffed.
You may not have actually been to Africa, but we have a “scientific consensus,” if you will, from billions of people who actually have been there and attest to its existence. Technically, I suppose you could say that we have to be agnostic about the existence of Africa, in the sense that I can’t say with 100% certainty that it exists. Even if we go there and see it, we can’t necessarily claim to know that we were there with 100% certainty, because our entire existence could be a dream, perhaps none of this exists, or perhaps you do exist, but your brain was playing an elaborate trick on you. One can come up with any sort of philosophical claim that such and such a thing may not exist for some reason or another.
Of course, one can’t live this way. One has to make certain assumptions based on the overwhelming evidence around them. There is sufficient evidence then, that I can say with a large degree of certainty that Africa exists.
ID, is different. There is no proof, there is no evidence. The only support ID has is from logical conclusions derived from false premises. The cosmological and teleological arguments first require assumptions that we cannot verify.
The cosmological argument makes the assumption that the universe must have a cause. It is an a posteriori argument, based on past experience, which can only account for what you are familiar with in your day to day life. Just because the concept of an effect without a “causer” goes against your experience, doesn’t mean it is not possible. In my opinion though, perhaps one of the best refutations of the cosmological argument is the observation that we are attempting to apply temporal terminology to something independent of time. Our current temporal dimension was created at the big bang. The very meaning of “cause” and “effect,” in any human understanding of the words, simply break down and cease to have any meaning at this point.
phew, that’s a lot of typing, I think I’ll leave the teleological argument for another day or another person.
But JJ, since you weren’t there, can’t test it and you admit our understanding breaks down somewhere around this “big bang” then it must be a designer (aka God)!
bradah, your example is a false equivocation. Perhaps another example would be wise, one in which the same context of faith is employed. Faith in Africa is not the same as Faith in god. You even say empirical proof is not required to *believe* [emphasis added] in God, but you fail (refuse?) to recognize that is NOT the SAME as “believing” in Africa.
When science and ID are held to the same standard, ID doesn’t measure up (evidence – ID proponents questioning what science is and admitting they seek to change the rules of science). Similarly, you make a false equivocation to place your belief in God on the SAME level as the belief in Africa. That is absolutely absurd and an ideal example of being “blinded by faith.”
Curious – bradah, how was the world populated from Adam and Eve?
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
ID must first be allowed in to the scientific community to be tested. So far that has not happened. Imagine where we might be in science today if the same rigorous scientific inquiry had been permitted in a search for ID evidence, just has been done with Darwinism or any other great theory? I believe as did Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and MOST other great scientists before “the Great Suppression” started about the time of Darwin, that the more we investigate, the clearer will be our apprehension of the Design and the Designer.
In the beginning of the “Great Suppression” it became cool to be a materialist who scoffed at the supernatural/spiritual in the same way that the reverse was true for the previous 6 to 8000 years or so of human communications. (No, I am not adovacating young earth, so do not write me off here).
Ben Stein’s movie is right on on this issue of freedom, and the best way to shut up those who are wrong about anything is to let their ideas be thoroughly tested. Athiestic scientists have no interest in such a process because the mere possiblity of a theistic conclusion scares the pants off them. Hence “EXPELLED.”
If that was really the point Ben Stein wanted to make, then he ruined it with his Nazism allegations. He loses all credibility at that point. The claim is absolutely ridiculous and is rebutted effectively here, and, here.
So, lets pretend that part of the movie doesn’t destroy all of its credibility, and focus just on the “Great Suppression.”
You apparently don’t understand how the scientific community works. If someone has an idea and they think the current scientific consensus is wrong, the burden is on them to demonstrate it. All ID proponents have done is to suggest that “you know, all this stuff around us just seems too complex, there’s gotta be something bigger that created life.” That’s fine, they can do that, but they can’t expect the scientific community to unilaterally stop what they are doing and take a look at ID (or teach as an equal to evolution). Michael Behe, a leading ID proponent, even admitted during the Dover trial that the definition of scientific theory that was needed in order to include ID as such was so broad that it would include astrology as well. (and just in case, let me assure that astrology has no basis in science whatsoever)
ID proponents need to produce credible scientific research, as in, experiments in the lab or the field, that demonstrate their suggestion. If they do so, and they come up with positive results that support their assertions, trust me, the whole scientific community would be turned on its head. Such a conclusion would be so shocking to the scientific community that just about everyone in biological research would rush to replicate the experiments, to see if they could prove the conclusions wrong. This would not be out of fear of ID, but because this is how science works. People come to a new or revolutionary conclusion, and the first thing all their colleagues try to do is prove them wrong. If every attempt to prove the theory wrong through experiment fails, then the theory stands. This is the process that Darwinian natural selection has gone through. 150 years of research and every study only supports its predictions. This is the process through which all of our current scientific knowledge has been attained, and if ID is to be admitted, it needs to do the same. This is not some sort of discrimination against ID, thousands of incorrect hypotheses have gone through the same process and failed. They are simply wrong! And until ID proponents can show otherwise this is where ID falls.
oops, I only meant to bold the sentence “This is the process that Darwinian natural selection has gone through” but it looks like i forgot to close the tag. oh well, that whole last part is really the crux of the argument anyways
Oh, and I forgot:
First off, a very large number of Christians believe in Evolution, it is not a solely atheistic idea.
and,
I don’t know where you get the idea that it is trendy to be a materialist/atheist. Atheists are extremely disliked in this country. Parent-child relationships are destroyed because parents can’t accept their children’s atheism. Often, the parents die without the differences ever being reconciled.
Being an atheist essentially disqualifies you from ever running for political office, and many feel that they need to keep their atheism hidden for fear of straining friendships or facing discrimination at work, particularly in the military.
No one is an atheist or materialist because it’s trendy. They are such largely because they have looked at the facts and see no reason to believe in any god(s).
You place your faith in the Scientific Method………empirical evidence….proof. You cannot prove, for example how the universe began, yet you deny the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
I do not have “faith in Africa”. I believe that the evidence presented to me overwhelmingly proves that there is an Africa — even though I have no personal empirical evidence saying this is so.
You do the same with this and in many other contexts in your life. Yet, you will not do the same with ID even though the evidence is there.
JJ, You say, “Just because the concept of an effect without a “causer” goes against your experience, doesn’t mean it is not possible.”
I believe that theoretically you are correct, but with this line of thinking…….one could come up with all sorts of theories as to the origin of the universe. Have you heard the “we’re a block of iron” theory? Or that the Sun is the nucleus of a atom and the Earth is an electron on which we happen to live? The question to ask is what is the most logical assumption that can be made when all of the available evidence looked at.
I’d also add this “Just because the concept of an Intelligent Designer goes against your experience, doesn’t mean it is not possible.”
Also, I like to know if you believe there was nothing before the universe began.
I’d like to respond more fully, and maybe I will later, but I’m going to be brief now because it is 2:30am and I’m tired.
Certainly we could come up with all sorts of different theories. And technically we have to be agnostic about them, because we cannot prove a negative. It is certainly possible that the universe was intelligently designed, just as it is possible that it was created only moments before you began reading this comment, and all of your memories and past experiences were simply implanted in your mind at that moment of creation. That claim, however, is untestable, as anything could possibly be consistent with a designed universe. A supreme being could have designed it in any way he wanted to. This of course, means that even if there was an “intelligent designer,” he could have created the universe in such a way that the observable laws of physics and natural selection and others govern the way matter behaves. The question of an intelligent designer becomes a useless question from a scientific standpoint for reasons stated above.
As odd as this may sound, it depends on your concept of nothing. If you conceptualize “things” that “exist” only as those that exist in the 4 dimensions we observe, then no, nothing existed before the universe began, as those dimensions came into being with our universe, and the very concept of existence as we understand it is null before this point (this is according to my own limited understanding of the physics). However, as I understand it, much of modern theoretical physics predicts parallel universes and higher dimensions (recommended read: Parallel Words by Michio Kaku), so I’m definitely open to that possibility, and in that sense then I would say there was likely something that existed before our universe, although it would be a “something” likely far beyond our human ability to comprehend.
heh, turns out that wasn’t so brief…
bradah said: “Also, I like to know if you believe there was nothing before the universe began.”
There is no such thing as “before the universe began”. The concept of “before” requires time and time is part of the universe. It’s like saying “Do you believe there is nothing north of the north pole?”
“Direct empirical proof (verifiable through observation or experience) is not necessary to believe that there is a personal God who created the universe.”
Obviously not because there are a lot of silly people who claim they believe that even though there is no “empirical proof”. Now what exactly are you going to do different because of that belief? Vote for Huckleberry? Oh noes!
“It seems that you are really not opened-minded, but are instead staunch in your position and refuse to look objectively at the other side.”
There you go again – using a word that you don’t know the definition of: “objectively”. They have had 20+ years to come up with something “objective” and they have failed. So my opinion is that “intelligent design” (aka creationism) is non-scientific nonsense.
onein6billion: You basically say nothing except to resort to name calling.
……and what have evolutionists/materialists/darwinists come up with over the last 20 years proving their THEORY is based on factual evidence? There are many holes.
You talk of ID not being objective and having no evidence…..but will propose the parallel universe theory or the cyclical universe theory to name a few (both of which have little of this evidence you require)…………….theories that are far less probable than ID.
JJ, In the same way that you and others want to debate the concepts of “before” and “nothing” and “design” in terms of the universe’s origin, you have to be willing to apply these same rules to yourself. Accordingly, maybe the “facts” that atheists have looked at are, in fact, not really facts at all. Maybe they are just remnants of the background radiation left over from the big bang. This radiation, then, has entered your mind and you just think you are thinking of facts. Silly you say? I agree. The point is that If we are going to debate that meaning of “nothing” or “before” or “design”, then every other meaningful term in this discussion must be debated. If there is no standard of measure regarding the definition and concepts of words, then there is no way to intelligently debate the issues. You can’t propose alternate definitions for one position and then not propose them for yourself.
“There are many holes.”
Absolutely – every time a new “missing link” is found, it creates two new “holes”. And the logic – evolution has “holes” therefore “intelligent design” (whatever that means) must be true is sooo compelling. Not. Google Tiktaalik.
“propose the parallel universe theory or the cyclical universe theory”
Oops – there you go again. I thought we were discussing evolution and now you’ve tried to change the subject.
“theories that are far less probable than ID”
Oops – there you go again. Any scientific theory is more probable that a non-scientific non-theory. But these are not “evolution”. Evolution is the “tree of life”. And it’s obviously true.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
If for no other reason, Expelled is worth seeing because time and time again we see the same thing:
When the atheists are given the floor they sound so very erudite and self-assured yet, when they are simply asked one little question, “How do you know?” they fall apart and the façade of science and or logic gives way to a stumbling, fumbling person who is forced to admit “I don’t know.”
Even Mr. [pseudo] skeptic himself, Michael Shermer, authoritatively stated that those people were not fired due to their views on ID until he was asked “How do you know?” at which time he admitted “I don’t know.”
How does Richard Dawkins know that God’s non-existence is 99% certain? He does not know.
It is truly fascinating what happens when these personages do not have students in a classroom as a captive audience, or when they are not given a pre-scripted lecture—when they are challenged by the most basic questions they simply fall apart.
aDios,
Mariano
Oh for goodness sake Mariano. How do you know God exists!?!?!?!?
Ooooooohhhhhhhh gotcha there didn’t I, you don’t know for sure do you. Guess you’re completely wrong and your argument completely falls apart.
Seriously?
The phrase “I don’t know” is the foundation of science. Get a clue.
Aw, I got in too late to have the first word…oh, well.
Bottom line: Ben Stein is a royal tool. He misrepresents just about every scientific position he mentions in that movie….anybody who says that movie is informative clearly is not very informed themselves….
[/random ejaculation]
JJ Berg;
I am afraid that you have missed the point.
The atheists in the movie are opposing the supernatural based on methodology that does not deal with the supernatural.
But setting that aside, they oppose the supernatural based on what? On what they claim to “know.”
They then expound upon that which they know.
They are then asked how they know.
They then admit that they do not know.
Ergo, their opposition to the supernatural is baseless.
Now, if God exists – how would you propose that we could “know” about it?
ow, if God exists – how would you propose that we could “know” about it?
How do you propose we could know that God exists? The only methods we have of examining our world involve the natural, not the supernatural. So how, then, can anyone realistically say that they “know” God exists, unless their faith is so overwhelmingly pretentious in nature that they claim this is true simply because they believe it so powerfully?
Yeah, sure, and your opposition to the existence of all the norse gods, and greek gods, and african tribal gods, and the flying spaghetti monster, the pink unicorn, the celestial teapot, and…oh.. i dunno, lets throw in my invisible friend George for good measure, that’s all baseless then according to your argument, so you’ve got to allow the possibility they exist.
Now, really, non of us believe in those things though because we know it would be foolish to do so. We “know” they don’t exist, just like atheist “know” your god doesn’t exist. We don’t KNOW in an all caps absolute truth way, but we know darn well enough what seems plausible and what doesn’t, and the big man in the sky (or any other way you want to imagine him) just doesn’t cut it.
Yeah, so i didn’t proofread that. sorry for all the ridiculous typing mistakes. you should be able to figure out what i meant
JJ Berg and Tim D;
I understand the point about “I don’t know” being the foundation of science and let us note that science goes one step further to “I want to know” and “How do I find out?” This is the fuel and beauty of science.
Is clear water pure?
How can you prove to a blind person that sight exists? What evidence can you provide? Will you tell them that a flame has a shape.
How can you prove to a deaf person that sounds exist? What evidence can you provide? Will you tell them that wages crashing cause sound?
I suppose that we would argue from analogies which they would have to accept “by faith”—as a logical inference—they may intuit sight and sound.
Is the assertion that “The only methods we have of examining our world involve the natural” evidenced by conclusions based on methods of examining the natural world? The fact is that all of our basic starting points are not derived by naturalistic methods of examination but are what may be termed “intuition,” or “axioms” or “first principles.”
In fact, this is how JJ Berg argues against a certain God (“your god doesn’t exist”). The argument is “We don’t KNOW in an all caps absolute truth way, but we know darn well enough what seems plausible and what doesn’t, and the big man in the sky (or any other way you want to imagine him) just doesn’t cut it.”
Certainly, “big,” “man,” and “sky” or not applicable to my theology but what does that matter? After all, any other way that I may want to imagine God fails based on knowing darn well enough. But how do you know darn well enough? How do you determine “what seems plausible and what doesn’t.”
Also, keep in mind that you are on the website of an author, Frank Turek, who does not argue to “‘know’ God exists” but that a cumulative case takes us towards God’s existence as most probable.
As far as “norse gods, and greek gods, and african tribal gods, and the flying spaghetti monster, the pink unicorn, the celestial teapot, and…my invisible friend George.” Christians do not arbitrarily reject these but rather, apply natural theology to them and consider them to not withstand since natural theology tends to make certain supernatural entities more probable than others.
By the way, I do not believe in unicorns. I do not mean that I merely lack a unicorn belief—I positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns. I do not call myself an aunicornist or an agunicornist or a non-unicornist, or anti-unirornist. Since there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns I feel justified in positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns.
Why do some atheists refuse to state that they positively affirm the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence at all?
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano: “Since there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns I feel justified in positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns.”
And yet you’ve no proof that they don’t exist. So if you feel justified doing that, what’s wrong with atheists doing the same for God.
“I do not call myself an aunicornist”
You might do if much of the rest of the country blethered on about unicorns all the time, and tried to get unicorns put on the school curriculum, or get new laws based on their existence, or moaned about how only people who believed in unicorns could be moral etc.
But how do you know darn well enough? How do you determine “what seems plausible and what doesn’t.”
Also, keep in mind that you are on the website of an author, Frank Turek, who does not argue to “‘know’ God exists” but that a cumulative case takes us towards God’s existence as most probable.
I don’t claim to be any closer to objective “truth” than you do, except in the sense that you think you are closer to objective truth. I think that is not true, of course. I think we are both quite equal on the grounds of our beliefs, concerning where they ultimately come from.
By the way, I do not believe in unicorns. I do not mean that I merely lack a unicorn belief—I positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns. I do not call myself an aunicornist or an agunicornist or a non-unicornist, or anti-unirornist. Since there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns I feel justified in positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns.
There is a difference between lack of evidence for, and evidence for lack of; this is something Christians used to say a lot before they decided that science “proved” Christianity. What I mean is, it is impossible for you to prove a negative, that unicorns do not exist, because any evidence you propose, I can simply say that they could be somewhere you haven’t looked, or they could have moved since the last time you looked (thus keeping you endlessly checking the same spots over and over again for all eternity). However, if you take the evidence that unicorns exist (of which there is none), it is easy to draw a conclusion that they do not. Now you know what I believe about God.
Why do some atheists refuse to state that they positively affirm the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence at all?
Finally, a good question! I can’t speak for atheists in general (I’m but a single atheist, myself), but I do not “positively affirm” the non-existence of God because I do not believe it is possible to know one way or the other if something like God truly exists beyond our collective perceptions or not. I mean, if it does, there is no way we can ever perceive it, so I deem it useless to try — by definition, “beyond our collective perceptions” means, “beyond our ability to perceive.” In which case it effectively doesn’t exist; It will never interact with me in a way that I can perceive, and so even if it does interact with me I will never know it. So this is a moot point.
However, while I think it is rational to disbelieve in God, I also afford that it can be rational to believe in a Creator. And thus, I must allow for the personal choices of others to account for the details of that Creator (i.e. I respect the religions of others, in a basic sense). I think either choice can be made with the same basic evidence; two people can look at the same evidence, draw different conclusions that both make some (or a lot, or a little) sense, and have neither party necessarily be “wrong,” or “right.”
The bottom line being that we just don’t know, so it only makes sense to allow a due representation of differing perspectives.
Andrew Ryan;
You asked “what’s wrong with atheists doing the same for God”?
I wish that more would do so. Some atheist take “atheism,” which is supposed to make a statement about God’s existence or lack thereof, and veer it away to be a statement about what they “lack” belief in—something could exists but I could still lack a belief about it.
Tim D;
If you “do not believe it is possible to know one way or the other if something like God truly exists” are you not an agnostic?
To any and all: what would be considered evidence for God’s existence?
aDios,
Mariano
“Some atheist take “atheism,” which is supposed to make a statement about God’s existence or lack thereof, and veer it away to be a statement about what they “lack” belief in”
No, atheists just take your sentence below and replace the word ‘unicorns’ with ‘God’:
“Since there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns I feel justified in positively affirm the non-existence of unicorns.”
If you “do not believe it is possible to know one way or the other if something like God truly exists” are you not an agnostic?
Essentially, I suppose that would also be a fitting term. I tend to lean closer to atheist, though, for a number of reasons (call it a slow progression). I don’t think I’ll ever truly be 100% atheist though, in the sense that I will ever believe that “God does not exist” is a fact; nor, given the current standard of “evidence” being offered by apologists like Turek, will I ever truly be a “believer,” much less Christian, in the opposite sense.
To any and all: what would be considered evidence for God’s existence?
That’s a very complicated question….there is no one particular thing I could see that would “convert” me (short of an omniscient being literally planting the certainty into my brain that He or She or It exists); although there are things that I could see that would sway me, perhaps.
It’s been argued to death that DNA is like a code in a computer program, so irreducibly complicated….it’s also been argued that complexity = design. However….
(1) Design =/= God. God could be a designer, but there is no implication in this equation that design = God; if we assume it is true, then complexity = design, but design =?= God. It could, but we can’t determine that with the information given. It’s an incomplete statement.
(2) If we assume that there is a designer, and he/she/it isn’t God (but that Christianity is still true — i.e. there is another reality outside of this one that is made of beings similar to us, but that this other reality was in turn created by God), then we have to find an explanation as to why “God” put His word into this creation of his creations; it creates a strange sort of loophole. It could be argued that the creators of this world gave us the Bible to show us “God’s truth” without having to have God intervene directly….but then, why refuse to mention themselves at all? Why cut straight to God? Wouldn’t you be more inclined to believe such a thing if it was sent to you straight from a physical, literal creator, who in turn told you that his or her creator told him or her to believe these things? This makes little sense; perhaps they sent us the Bible as it was sent to them? This raises other unanswered questions, such as why the texts were not edited to include additional “hints” about the other false religions that these same sources no doubt also created (or perhaps there are other forces than these supposed creators that created the “false” religions?); more loopholes, more endless circles of questioning. These make little sense and are of little use rationally, so we can reasonably discount them as an immediate possibility; if this universe was not created by the Almighty Supreme Ultimate Super Mega Final Nobody-Is-Bigger-Than-Him Final God, who is the God of all things and existences in every sense of the word, then it is not likely that the next universe up (or any one thereafter) was, either.
(3) So….if Christianity is true, then it has to be true in this reality, not any realities that may exist in a different sense outside of this one (i.e. if this universe is the creation of another functioning universe that exists in a different kind of plane, i.e. not space or time). So when, in response to the idea that this universe may have been created but not by God, the idea that “God had to come into play somewhere” is completely shot down, because once we leave this universe of space and time and start supposing universes that exist in neither space nor time (or in a different, unconnected sector of space and/or time), we depart from the necessary assumptions that are required in this universe to determine that “God created the universe.” There are no longer restrictions to time and space, beyond this universe, from which to infer such a conclusion.
So, getting back to your question….what would convince me that God exists? If someone could prove that, if this world was created (which I do not discount as a possibility, although it is not my foremost rational preference or belief), that it was specifically by a certain God — not through moral implications, but through simple scientific fact. I do not believe that morals even exist, in the objective sense, so I hope you realize that arguing from a moral perspective does not have any effect on me (i.e. “if morals exist then God must exist,” etc.), unless you can first prove that morals do exist in some way that is not related to expression of these morals; to that I add, it doesn’t matter if we are all wired to kill each other and eat each other’s young, that doesn’t mean it’s “moral.” According to Christians, even if gays are wired to be gay, that doesn’t make it “moral.” So saying that we all share basic ideas of “good” and “evil” does not answer the question or prove anything, it simply assumes, and in more ways than one.
I am confident that the evidence to do this does not exist, however. So I will be quite surprised if you manage to do just that, given the thousands of years of research that have preceded you.
Andrew Ryan;
Thank you for clarifying that you positively affirm the non-existence of God.
I will certainly tap you as a resource since I am constantly dealing with atheist who have been so indoctrinated by the New Atheist movement that they actually think that there is no such thing as atheists who positively affirm the non-existence of God. They actually think that this was Christian ploy to make atheist look foolish.
Believe me, I appreciate the honesty.
Tim D.;
Before responding any further I wanted to simply ask for clarification:
I understand you as stating that you have read and considered Frank’s cumulative case and found it wanting—is that so?
Now, boiling down your response—it seems to all come down to this: what would convince you that God exists would be “simple scientific fact” that “this world was created”—what would you consider a “simple scientific fact.” I am asking for this bit of clarification since people mean very different things by “science” and since science does not deal in “fact” per se but with the best guess we have thus far.
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano, and I thank YOU for positively affirming the non-existence of Unicorns. I appreciate YOUR honesty. It can’t have been easy for you, I’m glad that you found the courage. And I’m glad I found a Christian who is happy to admit that without the evidence to support a notion, they are happy to reject it, even though they can’t say for certain.
I understand you as stating that you have read and considered Frank’s cumulative case and found it wanting—is that so?
Quite so, quite so~
Now, boiling down your response—it seems to all come down to this: what would convince you that God exists would be “simple scientific fact” that “this world was created”—what would you consider a “simple scientific fact.” I am asking for this bit of clarification since people mean very different things by “science” and since science does not deal in “fact” per se but with the best guess we have thus far.
That’s sort of a trick question; there is no one simple thing that would “convince” me in the blink of an eye, about this you are right. But that is because this is a very complicated issue; there would have to be a significant number of things, all of which point toward one inescapable conclusion in one direction or the other — that God exists, or that He doesn’t. And if we’re talking about a specific deity, then it gets that much harder to prove it in any sense (much less scientifically).
It’s sort of like what I told another commenter in another topic; my belief/disbelief is kind of like a meter that reads from 0-10, with 0 being “true atheism” (i.e. positive affirmation of disbelief) and 10 being “100% religious” (i.e. positive affirmation of belief). I’d say I’m probably about a 5 or a 6 on the scale, as I’ve come to rest at a comfortable medium over the last few years without much progress in either direction. Each thing (fact, bit, nugget, whatever word you prefer for this case) that I find hinting at one case or another would, in effect, cause the meter to “sway” towards that end. There is no one thing that would automatically cause it to sway from one end to the other, or from the middle all the way to one extreme; it would be a long and delicate process of systematically reaching the same conclusion in spite of varying pieces of evidence and unique experiences.
I appreciate your elucidation and you would do well to label yourself agnostic.
I think that the problem is that since, in a manner of speaking, we cannot have absolute, undeniable, irrefutable, proof of anything you are in the middle and will remain in the middle.
This is mostly guess work but I suspect that while you claim to be in the middle you are considering “evidence” based on a worldview that is already and presuppositionaly atheistic/reductionist/absolutely materialistic.
The problem is that, for example, you could be leaning towards theism due to accepting the divine creation of the universe but someone could think of a materialistic theory off of the top of their heads and if you found it compelling you would be back tracking—ever waxing and waning or as the Bible puts it “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”
aDios,
Mariano
I think that the problem is that since, in a manner of speaking, we cannot have absolute, undeniable, irrefutable, proof of anything you are in the middle and will remain in the middle.
Perhaps you’re right~
This is mostly guess work but I suspect that while you claim to be in the middle you are considering “evidence” based on a worldview that is already and presuppositionaly atheistic/reductionist/absolutely materialistic.
When it comes to considering evidence, I am actually quite simplistic in the basic sense (although I think more deeply about issues that are more deeply ingrained under mountains of evidence one way or the other); I have come to trust the physical world because it is through knowledge of the physical world that I am alive today. It makes a lot of sense to acknowledge, for example, that the speeding mass of a vehicle screaming down the highway will probably injure or kill me if it hits me, and so I should avoid such things. This isn’t necessarily based on physics or science — I know what happens when a car hits someone, even if I don’t know the how or why, for example — but it is based on evidence, which can be said to be scientific. Created or evolved or otherwise, I do believe our brains were designed/evolved/whatevere’d to rely upon evidence in order to survive. If I see a person run down in the street by a truck, I tend to make the deduction that the same thing would happen to me, and since I don’t want that to happen, I avoid the street while cars are coming. It seems that the Christian order is in line with this methodology, in every real way except for one: the idea of trusting God. There is this meme circulating that trusting God defies/denies evidence, which I find most puzzling granted that we rely upon evidence in almost every other aspect of life. Why, then, are we required to deny that which keeps us alive in order to believe in a higher power? I understand that it’s possible to posit a higher power or “creator” based on the world we live in; what I do not understand is the idea that it’s one particular deity from a particular religious text, or that one who does not obey this particular deity or this particular text will be punished by the supreme being. I am okay with making minor leaps of faith here and there, if it helps improve my outlook….but by and large, specific religious doctrines tend to require far too many such leaps, and the demands piled upon those beliefs (i.e. tithing 10% of one’s income to the church) call many of them into question; it would be a different story if there were just two or three religions and we knew that one of them was real, just not which one….but there are far more, and we don’t know if any of them are real. So trying to guess the right one (or even deduce it) becomes a task just short of impossible.
Dammit. Brick of text
Should’ve spaced better….
Tim D.;
I hope that you do not mind but in my response I will include corrections to some misconceptions, at least form a Judeo-Christian perspective.
An evolutionary understanding of our brains is that it is interested in survival and not truth. Yes, it is true that a speeding car can kill you and so you do not get in their way. But, if you did not get in their way because you thought they were ugly, or were wheeled predators, or wanted to marry you, you would still survive. Evolution brains do not care what you think as long as what you think helps you survive.
I think that in referring to things such as your previous knowledge of what happens when car collides with person you are, in a sense, relying in continuity for which arbitrariness cannot account. In other words, why is there continuity in an arbitrarily arranged universe?
True, there is a meme circulating that trusting God defies/denies evidence. And there is an atheist meme (of a particular sect of atheism) that we can have absolute knowledge of God’s non existence. Both of these are fallacious. I am not sure what you meant by being “required to deny that which keeps us alive in order to believe in a higher power” but would state that I do not see how believing in the God of the Bible defies/denies evidence.
It is certainly difficult to link together a very neat chain of causation from inferring a creator to particular theology. Yet, we can infer certain characteristics of the creator from nature and so the process of elimination begins there.
As for “faith” both theists and atheist are to be faulted for confusing this term. It is not “belief without evidence,” or “I just believe and that’s all.” Rather, it is trust, it is the end result of a syllogism.
For example, I tell you that 2+2=4.
You ask me for evidence.
I say, “Life a finger, this is called ‘one,’ lift another, this is ‘two.’ Ok now, lift the same amount on the other hand. Now count them.”
You say, “Ok, one, two, three, four. Hhhhmmmm, ok, yes, I get it, I will accept that.”
It is the I will accept end result that is “faith.”
Those who claim that there is a requirement to tithing 10% are misapplying Old Testament Temple practices to today’s church.
aDios,
Mariano
Yes, it is true that a speeding car can kill you and so you do not get in their way. But, if you did not get in their way because you thought they were ugly, or were wheeled predators, or wanted to marry you, you would still survive. Evolution brains do not care what you think as long as what you think helps you survive.
And I don’t see your point here, as those reasons make no sense. It’s not like we just draw a reason out of a hat, you know; it’s not just about what keeps me alive, it’s about why it keeps me alive; if I analyze why a car kills me, for instance, I can find out why other similar incidents will also probably lead to death. This kind of knowledge is how we come to learn about things we can’t actually directly observe, like certain particles within an atomic nucleus — we know that a large, speeding object will kill you, and so we know that this applies to any large object, not just cars. And so a deeper understanding of why this is so leads to answers in similar situations; so yes, while it is possible to accept the arbitrary truth that cars will kill you if they hit you while moving at a high speed and accept that as “enough,” it does not form the complete picture that further analyses does — is the car magical? Does it have a force-field around it while it’s moving? Or is there some physical reason relating to motion and momentum, and how that momentum passes into your body and causes you to move very quickly and abruptly, thus causing damage? If we understand the latter, we can look at other heavy objects — boulders, buildings, meteors, etc. — and realize that they, too, will kill us if they hit us, even though they aren’t cars. I might have never seen a boulder land on and kill a man, but I know that’s most likely what would happen if indeed a boulder fell on a man.
Compare this to staying out of the way of a car because “it’s ugly,” and we get drastically different results; a perceived “ugly person” will not have the same effect, as he/she is not capable of reaching such speeds (or, hopefully, having such mass) as a moving vehicle. The rationale does not carry over.
I think that in referring to things such as your previous knowledge of what happens when car collides with person you are, in a sense, relying in continuity for which arbitrariness cannot account. In other words, why is there continuity in an arbitrarily arranged universe?
What do you mean by “arbitrariness?”
And there is an atheist meme (of a particular sect of atheism) that we can have absolute knowledge of God’s non existence. Both of these are fallacious. I am not sure what you meant by being “required to deny that which keeps us alive in order to believe in a higher power” but would state that I do not see how believing in the God of the Bible defies/denies evidence.
A meme of which I am not a supporter, in fact; see my earlier post(s) for clarification.
As for being “required to deny,” I simply mean this: I do not see enough evidence to justify my putting such faith into a being like the Christian God. Other people claim they have, and that’s fine, but a lot of these people make it a habit to tell me that I’m “wrong” and that my worldview is “skewed” or “inaccurate.” To which I say, “I’ve seen nothing to suggest that,” for reasons I’ve described here. And so we’re forced to agree to disagree, and again that’s fine. But the fact of the matter is, anytime someone makes a claim that is very, very far-out in my worldview, I expect at least some evidence. Granted, I’ve seen some people make a halfway decent case for Christianity….but no better a case than could be made for the existence of any deity based around a creation myth. The science arguments that Turek used in the Hitchens debate, for instance, only justify the existence of a creator, not any one specific creator. Turek also tends to isolate and assault particular arguments against certain aspects of Christianity, thus defending the religion against attempts to disprove it….but at the same time, he’s not really doing much to prove it in that same sense. He’s just pointing out that you can’t really disprove it, which is something I could have easily told you at any time; no religion can really be disproved in that sense, hence the debate.
In summation….while I don’t think I’m ready to say that it “defies/denies evidence” to assume the existence of a creator (as I do believe I said in my most recent post in this topic), I am still that much further away from feeling comfortable in positing the existence of a God (especially a particular one) myself. My current position on the matter is something like, “You have yours and I have mine.”
As for “faith” both theists and atheist are to be faulted for confusing this term. It is not “belief without evidence,” or “I just believe and that’s all.” Rather, it is trust, it is the end result of a syllogism.
For example, I tell you that 2+2=4.
You ask me for evidence.
I say, “Life a finger, this is called ‘one,’ lift another, this is ‘two.’ Ok now, lift the same amount on the other hand. Now count them.”
You say, “Ok, one, two, three, four. Hhhhmmmm, ok, yes, I get it, I will accept that.”
It is the I will accept end result that is “faith.”
I see what you’re getting at, but this is a common misinterpretation by people attempting to equate science with faith; the words “two” and “plus” and “four” are not the same things as the amounts “two” and “four,” or the concept of “plus.” The words describe the concepts, but they are not equated with the concept. For instance, if we did not have a word to describe it, you could still imagine the number in your head — you could picture “three fingers,” even if you did not know the word “Three” to describe it. It’s a lot like when you feel an emotion but have difficulty putting it to words.
Now, as for the amount versus the word….you can change the words “two” or “plus” or “four” to anything you like, so long as the meaning is clear and they are known to refer to the concepts of the amounts that we now understand them to be associated with. And while the words and the definitions may change, the actual amounts will not; we can change the word “five” so that it describes the concept we know understand to be described by the word “six,” but you will still have the amount of fingers that was formerly equivocable with “five.” The actual amount that is described by the word does not change at all, regardless of whether you accept it. You can still choose not to accept it, but I would hardly call the choice to accept it at this point “faith”….unless, of course, we are also referring to the trust of your senses (such as “sight” and “hearing”) as “faith.” Faith generally implies that there is no way to know if it is true or not; now of course, in the truest sense of the word, nothing can be truly known — this world could be like The Matrix, and nothing we see or feel is real, or it could be that everything we see and feel is real. But we can’t know, so we accept that. But is that the same as “faith in God?” I don’t think so; perhaps it’s faith, but not the same kind. Faith in something that we can see and interact with in a very literal sense is not the same as faith in something we cannot. You can grow up in any culture, any environment, any worldview, and still come to understand that the world around you is basically “real” for all intents and purposes. To challenge this is to challenge anything and everything, until nothing means anything. Thus, if we are to operate in any useful way, the only thing we must agree on is a single starting point — what do we trust first? Do you trust your eyes to tell you what is in front of you? Do you trust your ears to let you know if a sound is being made around you? Do you trust your nerves to tell you when something is pressing against your body? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then I ask; how do you claim to know anything?
Those who claim that there is a requirement to tithing 10% are misapplying Old Testament Temple practices to today’s church.
I’m just repeating what all the Evangelical Christian figures around me say; if I give you any “misconceptions,” I’ll let you know now that they come straight from the horse’s mouth.
The cars analogy seems to confuse instinct with reason. A genuine example similar to the ‘avoiding cars cos they’re ugly’ scenario is that we avoid animal excrement not due to reason but because we’ve evolved to feel disgust at the smell. We don’t think ‘I’ll stay away from that due to parasites and disease’, we just feel revulsion. It’s instinctive. This is very useful to us.
But we’ve also evolved the ability to divine truth. It ultimately led to us being able to reason out other ways of avoiding disease and parasites. If you see a tasty bun on a chopping board, and someone tells you that someone just chopped raw chicken on that board, then you know that the bun would make you sick. It is then not instinct that stops you eating it. It is reasoned knowledge.
Similarly, we’ve evolved to fear snakes. For many, this is so strong that it’s hard to overcome even when they know a snake is harmless. Again, this is instinct, and one we share with many animals that have no reasoning skills at all. Alongside this, humans have the ability to reason out when a situation might be dangerous, even if it triggers off none of our instinctive fears. This obviously gives us tremendous advantage as a species.
It would take a long time for a species to evolve an instinctive fear or disgust of guns or fast cars in the same way we did a fear of snakes. Hunndreds of thousands of years perhaps. The dodo was dead before it realised humans were bad. If we relied on evolving false ideas like ‘cars are ugly’, we’d die out. Instead we’re able to react quickly to new problems by anticipating them, perceiving what their genuine threat is (i.e. a fast object moving at speed with cause my body damage), and then reasoning solutions to them. For this we needed the ability to detect reality, the truth, whatever you want to call it.
Tim D.;
)
“those reasons make no sense” is my point. The reasons do not matter, only survival matters, why is irrelevant to survival even if it is interesting and may lead us to further supposed knowledge. I can apply my nonsense reasons to other heavy objects. As for an “ugly person,” I don’t know—some people run away from them too
I do not enough evidence to justify my putting such faith into an atheist/agnostic position. Other people claim they have, and that’s fine, but a lot of these people make it a habit to tell me that I’m “wrong” and that my worldview is “skewed” or “inaccurate.” To which I say, “I’ve seen nothing to suggest that.”
Actually the halfway decent case for Christianity founded upon natural-theology does not make a case for any deity based around any creation myth—it actually implies exclusion of these by implying certain characteristics of the creator and the creation.
“The words describe the concepts, but they are not equated with the concept.”
Interesting, let me work with this:
What is the # one?
One is well, “One” or “1” or “I.”
No, those are symbols that we have invented in order to express the # one. So what is the # one?
The # one is a concept.
What is a concept?
A concept is an idea.
Where do ideas exist?
Ideas exist in a mind.
Is the # one temporal or eternal?
Since I do not know that the # one had a beginning, it is eternal.
Thus, the # one is an eternal idea that existed in a mind and an eternal mind in which such ideas exist is what we call God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Ryan;
Ah, yes, the argument from “evolution” (whatever that is) that can explain all things without explaining anything. We fill the gaps in our knowledge by saying “Evolution did it” and what happens when we are found to do things counter to evolution? Well, evolution did that too or, as Richard Dawkins struggles to explain it, we rebel against evolution, they are blessed mistakes, etc.
aDios,
Mariano
“We fill the gaps in our knowledge by saying “Evolution did it” ”
Or ‘God did it’. Except we have evidence for evolution, and none for God.
The reasons do not matter, only survival matters, why is irrelevant to survival even if it is interesting and may lead us to further supposed knowledge.
It does matter; you are offering a ridiculously-oversimplified version of the survivalist worldview. It’s not just a matter of “take the first thing that keeps me alive, regardless of consequence, and do that over and over again.” There are other things to fulfill; the human body has more requirements to live than just basic nutrition and shelter. Those are preferable things to have, yes, but once you’ve learned to survive for so long, what do you do? Do you just keep repeating the same overly-simple survival tactic over and over again until you die from old age? No; you seek out things to do….things like entertainment, or ways to lessen the load of work required to keep you alive. This is where the human mind comes in; the brain is not a robot, and it is not content with doing the same thing over and over again.
But all that is really a digression….the point is that of course the reason is relevant! Survivalism is not so simple that it says, “if it keeps me alive, it’s good enough.” That is not the whole answer, because it doesn’t address the whole question; survival is meaningless without definition. How long will it help you survive? How efficiently will it help you survive? How practical or easy to apply is it? These are all very important questions, indeed.
“The words describe the concepts, but they are not equated with the concept.”
Interesting, let me work with this:
What is the # one?
One is well, “One” or “1” or “I.”
No, those are symbols that we have invented in order to express the # one. So what is the # one?
The # one is a concept.
What is a concept?
A concept is an idea.
Where do ideas exist?
Ideas exist in a mind.
Is the # one temporal or eternal?
Since I do not know that the # one had a beginning, it is eternal.
Thus, the # one is an eternal idea that existed in a mind and an eternal mind in which such ideas exist is what we call God.
I’m glad you explained this to me; I’ve always wondered how some people could turn just any old thing into “proof” that God exists, and although I hardly think this comprises anything close to “proof,” at least now I understand this meager process….
The number one is a concept, yes; that concept can only exist in a human mind, yes; however….
(1) The concept describes a physical property, a physical state of being (“1″ of something means that it is singular and that it is unaccompanied by anything else), and so while the concept itself does not extend beyond our mind, the state of being it describes does
(2) To me, the fact that such a concept can only exist in a human mind is evidence that it is human invention; you seem incapable of imagining that, before humans existed, such concepts did not exist….instead, you choose to postulate that a “mind” of some sort has always existed in which this concept has also existed. I say to you, then, on what grounds do you make this supposition? The fact that it requires a mind to “exist” is not proof at all, for concepts do not technically “exist” at all in any sense but a philosophical one. What about the restriction of its existence to a human thought-vessel comprises proof, to you, that a God exists?
Hi Frank…
Just recently discovered your work. Am examining your website.
If you ever get a chance, check out a group called “Answers in Genesis” (AIG). They have wonderful website I think you would enjoy looking through.
Protesters featured in a section of “Expelled” were actually protesting AIG’s Creation museum (naturally not credited). Founder Ken Ham also pops up in Bill Maher’s “Religulous” film.
Haven’t made it out to the Creation Museum myself. However, it does receive plenty of publicity.
Food for thought if interested…
Kindest,
Beau
Frank Turek is a a shameless liar. He said: “No, the core of his philosophy was Darwinism as he wrote here in “Mein Kampf:”
Frank where in Mein Kampf is the word evolution or Darwinism mentioned? How many times are the words, “God,” “savior” and “Lord” mentioned in Mein Kampf Frank? We can easily do some fact checking on anything Frank Turek says and prove he is a man with no conscience, no integrity, a reckless disregard for the truth and a shallow understanding of his own religion, and possesses the kind of sientific imbecility common in all creationists.
Expelled is a very disappointing movie. A big NEGATIVE for Christianity or truth. The previews were compelling but the movie consists of Ben walking around asking a few mostly weak questions with inconsequential follow up if any. I bought the film hoping to have something useful to share with others but this is not the case. I felt decieved.
There is no apologetics or serious investigation into anything. Yes it appears some people were slighted but where was any meaningful Christrian or apologetic truth provided.