Is Creationism Child's Play?

The DOI link seems to be not functioning.

Nick,

Thanks for this heads-up on the Science article (the link produces an error, however).

I and some of my colleagues had come to these conclusions back in the 1980s after watching the creation scientists for a few years. I'm a physicist, not a psychologist, but back then the whole area of Physics Education Research was getting off the ground in a much more formal manner.

There has always been anecdotal evidence of persistent misconceptions that were traceable to the experiences and preconceptions students bring with them into a physics course. Now, with over 40 years of formal research into these misconceptions, the Physics Education Research community has produced an extensive catalog of these problems in nearly every area of physics.

When observing the creation science people back in the 1970s, and since then, the intelligent design proponents, it was obvious to us that the same fundamental misconceptions permeated the thinking of both groups. These were exacerbated by the tactics of Duane Gish who developed and polished the technique of deliberately provoking scientists in debates with seemingly stupid cartoons of impossible creatures that were supposed to convince his audience of the stupidity of evolution. He already understood and exploited naive misconceptions about evolution that had been planted by irresponsible preachers among the fundamentalists. Add to this the deliberate efforts of their political activists, and you get an unusually resistant set of misconceptions that propagate among members of these sectarian groups. These sectarian groups have constructed a particularly strong echo chamber of fear and logic to reinforce their misconceptions. The recent emphasis on Hitler and the evil fruits of "Darwinism" is a reassertion of the fear factor in enforcing adherence to sectarian dogma.

Persistent misconceptions can carry all the way through a PhD program, and the ID/creationists who complete PhD programs all appear to have cobbled together a "logical" set of misconceptions that allows them to hold onto their prior religious indoctrinations. In fact, it is psychologically crucial that they do this given that their doctrines are "absolutely true" and doubting them places them in terror of the fires of Hell.

This also seems to explain the consternation they exhibit when they are "excluded by a closed-minded scientific cabal." I suspect that most of them really don't know what is wrong with their own understanding of science and consequently can only conclude they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Many of the recent ID/creationist letters-to-the-editor in our local newspaper reflect these fears and hatreds among the fundamentalists in our community. It is quite clear that the preachers in these churches are still using the same tactics.

Fixed the link I think. Thanks for that interesting comment Mike.

The challenge will come in convincing Biblical literalists that child-like thinking is in any way undesirable. Matthew 18: 1-3. "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Combine this with the ability to claim "persecution" when challenged (Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me".) and you are liable to make them giddy with pride.

The challenge will come in convincing Biblical literalists that child-like thinking is in any way undesirable. Matthew 18: 1-3. "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Combine this with the ability to claim "persecution" when challenged (Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me".) and you are liable to make them giddy with pride.

you are liable to make them giddy with pride.

Uh-oh. Isn't pride one of the seven deadlies?

"Uh-oh. Isn't pride one of the seven deadlies?"

Doesn't matter, since all creationists think they've got a 'get out of jail free' card.

[Gish] already understood and exploited naive misconceptions about evolution that had been planted by irresponsible preachers among the fundamentalists. Add to this the deliberate efforts of their political activists, and you get an unusually resistant set of misconceptions that propagate among members of these sectarian groups. These sectarian groups have constructed a particularly strong echo chamber of fear and logic to reinforce their misconceptions. The recent emphasis on Hitler and the evil fruits of "Darwinism" is a reassertion of the fear factor in enforcing adherence to sectarian dogma.

— Mike Elzinga

It's worth noting that old-time Creationists, who were examining the tale of Noah;'s Ark nearly 300 years ago, came to the "common sense" but logical conclusion that the story was an impossible situation, which led more or less directly to proposals of an old earth and evolution of biological species.

It's worth noting that old-time Creationists, who were examining the tale of Noah;'s Ark nearly 300 years ago, came to the "common sense" but logical conclusion that the story was an impossible situation, which led more or less directly to proposals of an old earth and evolution of biological species.

It's worth noting that old-time Creationists, who were examining the tale of Noah;'s Ark nearly 300 years ago, came to the "common sense" but logical conclusion that the story was an impossible situation, which led more or less directly to proposals of an old earth and evolution of biological species.

It's worth noting that old-time Creationists, who were examining the tale of Noah;'s Ark nearly 300 years ago, came to the "common sense" but logical conclusion that the story was an impossible situation, which led more or less directly to proposals of an old earth and evolution of biological species.

Interesting. Michael Shermer in his book " Why People Believe Weird Things" makes the point that smart people use the "adult" tools of logic and reasoning to defend conclusions, arrived at earlier in their lives, from un-smart reasons.

Thanks for the link, very interesting reading.

I haven't yet read the Science paper but I'd be careful about the inference that Creationism is somehow just child-like attitudes uncorrected by proper education. For example, the "common sense" epistemology and naive "Baconian attitude" you correctly attribute owes a great deal to late 18th century Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment figures like Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart. These are mainly figures of interest to intellectual historians now but they were tremendously influential in their own time and had tremendous impact on the early 19th century evangelicals who are the founders of modern American religion. Noll does a particularly nice job of discussing the importance of these thinkers in America's God and there is a nice essay by George Marsden on Creationism's infatuation with 18th century science.

It is easy to construct a psychological account of why just about anyone does just about anything. If you don't like someone's beliefs, or you take them to be false, you can always come up with some account of a non-rational process that is the REAL reason why they believe it. But being able to come up with a seemingly plausible "psychoanalytic" speculation about people's beliefs is quite a different thing from actually proving that they believe what they believe for those reasons. (This is probably one of the reasons Freud has become so discredited.) I could construct just as plausible an account of why people believe in naturalism and Darwinism. Such storytelling should not function as a replacement for the real question (with regard to creationists, Darwinists, or anyone else): Are these beliefs true? Do they match the evidence or not?

My recent introduction to ID and young earther creos, came about from interacting with people beyond my normal circle (science-medicine). This was a byproduct of participating in online forums having nothing to do with science, e.g. politics, social, financial, hobbies, etc.. If they claimed to be Martians, it wouldn't have been more surprising or jarring.

One guy (with a botany degree) claimed that humans could not be descended from apes because:
1. Apes do not have color vision.
2. Apes have a three chambered heart!!!
3. Apes have muscles in their feet whereas humans do not. (He was unable to explain how one wiggles their toes.)
All of these assertions are false as 2 minutes with a search engine would show.

My brief study of Homo creationist has yielded the following findings.
1. They tend not to be very well educated.
2. They don't seem to be highly intelligent (being polite here).
3. They were far more interested in reinforcing their pseudoscience then in questioning it.

This was not a publication quality study, of course. But I've seen enough to be concerned about the latest attack on science. The dark ages are history and should stay that way.

For the brighter and more self aware YECs, IMO, it is willing suspension of disbelief.

We all do this often to read a fiction book or watch TV or a movie. The author's task and skill is to make it easy so the work is entertaining.

The creos have just decided to check out from reality permanently. So they have a giant supercontinent breaking up 4,000 years ago and herds of mammoths, synapsids, and dinosaurs wandering through North America up until recently.

By itself this would be harmless. It is not harmless when they insist the rest of us do the same thing and try to sneak their stories into our children's science classes.

It's worth noting that old-time Creationists, who were examining the tale of Noah;'s Ark nearly 300 years ago, came to the "common sense" but logical conclusion that the story was an impossible situation, which led more or less directly to proposals of an old earth and evolution of biological species.

It is one thing to vaguely note, as many creationism observers have, that there is a peculiar childlike quality to many creationists and their methods of rhetoric and reasoning (e.g., AiG director Ken Ham's main message to the kiddies: "Were you there?")

how does this apply to people like lee strobel who claim to be former atheists?

personally, i think the guy is lying, but i dont have any direct evidence of this. what do you think?

I could construct just as plausible an account of why people believe in naturalism and Darwinism. Such storytelling should not function as a replacement for the real question (with regard to creationists, Darwinists, or anyone else): Are these beliefs true? Do they match the evidence or not?

snex,

I've sometimes thought that "former atheists" like Strobel, or Josh McDowell, or any number of others, could have gone through turbulent adolescences where they became "mad at God" for one reason or another. Many Christians are brought up in the belief that atheists are "mad at god"; so the charitable explanation is that they think that phase really was atheism, when in fact they never really gave up their theistic beliefs, and all their arguments are born out of that same set of assumptions that they were raised with. Hence the poor quality of their argumentation -- they will never convince a genuine atheist, but maybe that's the point. The target audience is more likely to be believers who are vacillating in their faith, and are much more likely to be swayed by arguments that essentially start with the assumption that god exists. After all, "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" will never convince someone open to the possibility of "Misquoted, Misunderstood, or Made-Up".

Which brings me to the other possibility, that they are liars. Certainly there's a sizable market for pious frauds in American fundamantalist community. Some people have made a comfortable living speaking at fundie schools and churches about their fanciful experiences in "Satanic cults" -- for which there is no independent evidence, of course, but it keeps the faithful afraid and in line.

Of course I have no hard evidence either, just my thoughts.

how does this apply to people like lee strobel who claim to be former atheists? personally, i think the guy is lying, but i dont have any direct evidence of this. what do you think?

— snex

Frank J.

"I don't doubt that ID leaders believe that life is designed"

It depends on what you mean by "believe". I doubt this very much, in many cases. But it depends on whether you think that a self-interested, sadistic Soviet bureaucrat could necessarily be said to "believe in Marxism". In some ways, yes, in some ways, no, I suppose.

I see what we call the "religious right" - and the non-Catholic "religious right" is almost individual for individual identical with ID/creationism - as more of a cult-like authoritarian socio-political movement. The only exception is among people who are so education-deprived that they don't know any better. There may be a few liberal religious figures who deny science, but I haven't seen any. Even evangelical Southern Protestants like Jimmy Carter tend to be pro-science if their theology and/or politics are liberal.

The real obsessions and goals of the religious right, as far as I can tell, revolve around sex, enforced displays of submission by non-leadership, and corporal punishment.

Since their demands are unpopular and difficult to live up to, even for themselves, they exploit the Bible. The idea is simple - justify intrusive, unreasonable, and inhumane policies, they turn to the only authority whose absolute power commands obedience without question - God.

Creationism and ID are effectively part of an authoritarian political system.

If it were a sincere, childish belief system, it might be associated with some particular political belief, but a 100% association with the political right wouldn't make sense.

Another obvious piece of evidence to support my conjecture - they constantly rail about what they imagine must be an authoritarian "political agenda" behind the straightforward acceptance of scientific reality. In their minds, you choose an authoritarian agenda for reasons of emotional disturbance, and then you find a "belief system" that justifies enforcing it.

Yes, I'm sure they "believe" in it at some level, and yes, I realize there are people on "the right" who don't like sharing their tent with creationists (but for now it seems that they have to).

It's true I keep bringing this up, but it's because the question keeps coming up -"Why are these people so 'dense', what is misleading them, why won't they acknowlege the facts?"

It's the agenda, stupid.

This message does not discuss elements of the right wing unrelated to, or in rare cases opposed to, creationism. I realize that there are Ayn Rand types out there who don't really like sharing the tent with creationists. I don't agree with you, either, but this message is not about the progressive income tax.

Especially the sense that things exist "for a purpose" when they have function has been mentioned previously in the literature as a "childish" view that often lasts into adulthood.

But I wonder just how much traction is to be had in identifying creationism/vitalism etc. with childhood psychology. For one thing, are ancient myths really "childish" or some such thing? And would being "childish" or "adult" be ipso facto a good or a bad thing?

It wasn't just Jesus who said "become as little children", Nietzsche also wrote things like, "The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement.... " Indeed, the child is thought to be "teachable", to be able to grasp new ideas (vs. many tired old minds), to be hope and renewal. The scientist, it is said, continues the child's experiments with the world, being curious, unprejudiced, and open-minded.

Of course that's the idealistic view, and yes, the severe typological thinking, difficulties with abstraction, and a not-uncommon stubbornness and refusal to consider new ideas is the downside of childhood.

The trouble is that we tend to alternate between depictions of childhood as hopelessly naive, uncomprehending, and one might even say "stupid", and the sense that children have a plasticity, openness, and lack of prejudice too rarely found in adults.

The truth is that adults are continuations of the children who gave rise to them, and many of the faults in children become faults in adults, while many of the virtues in children become virtues in the adults. It's getting childhood psychology and cognition down right that makes a good "adult mind".

Yes, of course the adult mind is different from the child mind. However, this would be true of both the good adult mind and the one that fails to deal well with the "modern world." I doubt that we're so much more adult than creationists, we just learned how to hone the bewildering varieties of openness and stubbornness in the child's mind into a kind of openness without loss of rigor in our present minds.

I could look at creationists/IDists either way, as children who look openly and naively at a world and take it "on its own terms" (so to speak---in fact interpretation is imposed on all of us to some degree), intuitively. Or I could look at them as people who in fact ceased to be children too soon, without having learned to think, merely ridifying from childish naivete into stubborn stupidity. Both are simply interpretations, however, of a more complicated pattern of reinforcement which has maintained some childish intuitions as adult dogmas, or alternatively, has let intuition go where possible (obviously, in the social sphere there often is no substitute for intuition).

People like Behe and Dembski try to come up with adult and progressive rationalizations for maintaining the beliefs of childhood, or one might say, of earlier human eras. To be sure, this looks a whole lot like childish rationalization, something which, however, is hardly unknown among adults. Yet in a way, much that drives the adult rationalizations of childish beliefs is the sense that there is something special and "true" about earlier forms of thought, and the belief in magic. Surely, we can just look at animals and decide that some magical being designed them? Why complicate everything, indeed? Those who do complicate it all just don't want to believe in baby Jesus, eternal life, and magic minds, and, having lost the innocence of the child (or a certain sort of Xian---according to them) to become bitter atheists (or some such thing), they just want to be mean and take it away from the rest of us.

Of course I'm back to their "childishness" in the last sentence, but my point is that either the fall from "childish innocence" is into something better or into a sad continuation of the prejudices and reactions of the child. They're both adult, unless we go for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, it's that we fall into knowledge, or we just fall. Behe and Dembski fell from the innocence of the child, without getting the (relative) innocence and openness that a competent adult wields.

None of us has exactly moved from childhood psychology into something completely different, we just grew up intellectually in better or worse ways. Rationalizing childhood beliefs is not something rare in adults, but it is far from being admirable, or a good use of the enhanced abilities that adults have.

A common psychological aspect of both adults and children, that of reaction, seems to have a lot to do with whether or not the fall from innocence is into knowledge or into rationalizations of childhood belief. The individual and collective reactions against growing up into a harder, and crueller---yet more interesting and open (in its way)---world, are what matter. And it is the collective reactions, above all, which maintain the (relatively) poor intellection of the child into so many adults, regardless of if they are of the creationist sort, or of the more magical-believing New Agers and those who long for the state of the "noble savage".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

CJO makes a good point. The psychological scenarios (as well as the suspicions of lack of intelligence, dishonesty, etc.) are the sorts of attempts to explain behavior that come when it seems that people are continuing to believe something that has been obviously proven to be false. If something is obviously false, then we have to account for the people who for some reason can't or won't see it. If there was nothing wrong with such people, it might call into question the "obviousness" of our evidence. It seems unlikely to us that normal, honest, intelligent, psychologically-functioning people can be on both sides of a dispute where the evidence clearly favors one side. I don't think this feeling is entirely warranted. Even good and intelligent people can be legitimately confused about things at times, especially when we take into account the depth of entanglement people have with a whole host of different assumptions about the universe, etc. However, I think I agree that there does seem to come a point where the evidence is so clear that we have to start asking deeper questions about why people will not or cannot see what is obvious. Both Darwinists and creationists generally see the creation-evolution controversy in this light. Creationists (and many theists in general) often argue that a fundamental pride and rebellious attitude towards the true God is what motivates people to be naturalists and Darwinists. Pride and rebellion cause them to suppress the truth, thus distorting their processes of reasoning so that they miss the obvious and end up endorsing nonsense, despite the intelligence of many naturalists which, if not subjected to their rebellious spirit, would lead them in a totally different direction. Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist. I don't particularly enjoy getting into motives too much, but I have to agree with CJO that sometimes it is necessary to do so. However, thoughts about motives should not take away from what in my last post I called "the real question," which is the state of the evidence. Sometimes discussions about motives can degenerate into ad hominem arguments and simply name-calling, which, of course, should never replace serious evaluation and argumentation.

A remember children, the next time that nice politician says they're going to take the "common sense" approach, what they really means is: "NO EXPERTS".

or alternatively, has let intuition go where possible (obviously, in the social sphere there often is no substitute for intuition).

or alternatively, has let go of intuition as the deciding factor where possible (obviously, in the social sphere there often is no substitute for intuition).

Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

Mark Haussam -

Thank you for your civil tone. On this particular forum, I try to strike a balance between expressing strong convictions, yet permitting instructive dialogue to unfold.

As you may see, I conjecture that what might be termed a sociopolitical agenda drives creationism (and not the other way around).

Can you please tell me how you feel that the law of the land (human law) should deal with the following issues? For each please state whether 1) the law should be determined by a majority of voters, or a law should be in place which cannot be overturned by democratic process, 2) whether the activity in question should be legal or illegal, 3) how the law should be enforced, and 4) how offendors should be punished - please be specific. 5) Also, if you feel that God will punish third parties in the same geographic vicinity if any of these activities occur, please specify that.

a) private homosexual acts between consenting adults
b) private heterosexual sex between unmarried consenting adults
c) gay marriage or unions
d) abortion, where a woman is pregnant due to a rape
e) abortion, where the future fertility of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy
f) use of images showing nudity or consensual sexuality, between adults, by adults.
g) mandatory Christian prayer in public schools
h) open practice of Islam, Wiccan, or other non-Christian religions, by otherwise law-abiding people.
i) corporal punishment by a Christian male to his "disobedient" wife.
j) a woman suing a man for divorce (any grounds)
k) a Christian male using severe corporal punishment to enforce religious behavior among his children.

Please answer.

Both Darwinists and creationists generally see the creation-evolution controversy in this light. Creationists (and many theists in general) often argue that a fundamental pride and rebellious attitude towards the true God is what motivates people to be naturalists and Darwinists.

Pride and rebellion cause them to suppress the truth, thus distorting their processes of reasoning so that they miss the obvious and end up endorsing nonsense, despite the intelligence of many naturalists which, if not subjected to their rebellious spirit, would lead them in a totally different direction.

Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist. I don't particularly enjoy getting into motives too much, but I have to agree with CJO that sometimes it is necessary to do so.

However, thoughts about motives should not take away from what in my last post I called "the real question," which is the state of the evidence.

Sometimes discussions about motives can degenerate into ad hominem arguments and simply name-calling, which, of course, should never replace serious evaluation and argumentation.

There has always been anecdotal evidence of persistent misconceptions that were traceable to the experiences and preconceptions students bring with them into a physics course. Now, with over 40 years of formal research into these misconceptions, the Physics Education Research community has produced an extensive catalog of these problems in nearly every area of physics.

— Mike Elzinga

Mark Hausam wrote:

Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary. By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist. I don't particularly enjoy getting into motives too much, but I have to agree with CJO that sometimes it is necessary to do so. However, thoughts about motives should not take away from what in my last post I called "the real question," which is the state of the evidence. Sometimes discussions about motives can degenerate into ad hominem arguments and simply name-calling, which, of course, should never replace serious evaluation and argumentation.

Mark Hausam wrote:

Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary. By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist. I don't particularly enjoy getting into motives too much, but I have to agree with CJO that sometimes it is necessary to do so. However, thoughts about motives should not take away from what in my last post I called "the real question," which is the state of the evidence. Sometimes discussions about motives can degenerate into ad hominem arguments and simply name-calling, which, of course, should never replace serious evaluation and argumentation.

I have sent the following note to the authors of the Science article.

Mr. Bloom and Ms. Weisberg,

As an example of resistance to "certain scientific findings" ("Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science," Science, 18 May 2007), you mention that "debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and nonhuman animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls." However, you cite no scientific work on the existence of souls and also refer to the nonexistence of souls, somewhat confusingly, as a "hypothesis." Is it a finding or a hypothesis? If the former, to what experiments do you refer? If the latter, how can disbelief in a hypothesis be characterized a form of resistance to "findings"?

Possibly the findings you have in mind are the numerous studies correlating neural events with mental events. Since "soul" is not, in the discursive context you cite, synonymous with mental events---believers seem to aver that soul persists during unconsciousness---these studies neither confirm nor disconfirm the existence of "soul." It may be difficult to say what believers do in fact mean by "soul"; if so, all the more reason not to characterize their belief as science-resistant.

You seem to equate the holding of untestable religious beliefs with "resistance to science." However congenial you may find such an equation, it is not a scientific one.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman

Paul in Romans: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.... "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.... "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

It is easy to construct a psychological account of why just about anyone does just about anything.

If you don't like someone's beliefs, or you take them to be false, you can always come up with some account of a non-rational process that is the REAL reason why they believe it.

But being able to come up with a seemingly plausible "psychoanalytic" speculation about people's beliefs is quite a different thing from actually proving that they believe what they believe for those reasons.

(This is probably one of the reasons Freud has become so discredited.)

I could construct just as plausible an account of why people believe in naturalism and Darwinism.

Such storytelling should not function as a replacement for the real question (with regard to creationists, Darwinists, or anyone else): Are these beliefs true? Do they match the evidence or not?

Comment #176512 Posted by Mark Hausam on May 18, 2007 9:36 AM (e) It is easy to construct a psychological account of why just about anyone does just about anything. If you don't like someone's beliefs, or you take them to be false, you can always come up with some account of a non-rational process that is the REAL reason why they believe it. But being able to come up with a seemingly plausible "psychoanalytic" speculation about people's beliefs is quite a different thing from actually proving that they believe what they believe for those reasons. (This is probably one of the reasons Freud has become so discredited.)

I could construct just as plausible an account of why people believe in naturalism and Darwinism. Such storytelling should not function as a replacement for the real question (with regard to creationists, Darwinists, or anyone else): Are these beliefs true? Do they match the evidence or not?

Mark the creo guy: I could construct just as plausible an account of why people believe in naturalism and Darwinism.

Creationism and ID are effectively part of an authoritarian political system.

— Harold

I have sent the following note to the authors of the Science article. Mr. Bloom and Ms. Weisberg, As an example of resistance to "certain scientific findings" ("Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science," Science, 18 May 2007), you mention that "debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and nonhuman animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls."

However, you cite no scientific work on the existence of souls and also refer to the nonexistence of souls, somewhat confusingly, as a "hypothesis."

Is it a finding or a hypothesis? If the former, to what experiments do you refer? If the latter, how can disbelief in a hypothesis be characterized a form of resistance to "findings"?

Possibly the findings you have in mind are the numerous studies correlating neural events with mental events. Since "soul" is not, in the discursive context you cite, synonymous with mental events---believers seem to aver that soul persists during unconsciousness---these studies neither confirm nor disconfirm the existence of "soul." It may be difficult to say what believers do in fact mean by "soul"; if so, all the more reason not to characterize their belief as science-resistant.

You seem to equate the holding of untestable religious beliefs with "resistance to science." However congenial you may find such an equation, it is not a scientific one.

Mark Hausam -

No answer to my questions, I see.

Obviously I expected you not to answer.

I take it for granted that your failure to answer indicates that you hold the predictable authoritarian views on all the issues I cited. But you won't answer, because it would "sound bad" to admit (on this forum) what you actually wish you could impose.

Prove me wrong.

To repeat...

Can you please tell me how you feel that the law of the land (human law) should deal with the following issues? For each please state whether 1) the law should be determined by a majority of voters, or a law should be in place which cannot be overturned by democratic process, 2) whether the activity in question should be legal or illegal, 3) how the law should be enforced, and 4) how offendors should be punished - please be specific. 5) Also, if you feel that God will punish third parties in the same geographic vicinity if any of these activities occur, please specify that.

a) private homosexual acts between consenting adults
b) private heterosexual sex between unmarried consenting adults
c) gay marriage or unions
d) abortion, where a woman is pregnant due to a rape
e) abortion, where the future fertility of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy
f) use of images showing nudity or consensual sexuality, between adults, by adults.
g) mandatory Christian prayer in public schools
h) open practice of Islam, Wiccan, or other non-Christian religions, by otherwise law-abiding people.
i) corporal punishment by a Christian male to his "disobedient" wife.
j) a woman suing a man for divorce (any grounds)
k) a Christian male using severe corporal punishment to enforce religious behavior among his children.

Please answer.

When i was a kid, we had Santa. Santa gave out lots of presents at Christmas. Santa was very generous. Santa also wrapped packages using the same wrapping paper and labels that Mom and Dad used. It was all with a wink of the eye.

My son, at maybe seven, asked me point blank: "Does Santa exist?" And i answered, "Are you likely to get more presents if he doesn't?"

This faith-shattering custom is healthy. But with Global Warming, Santa's North Pole hideout is in danger. And soon, very likely in my life time, we'll have an ice-free Arctic Ocean. It will be the death of Santa.

And unlike for Falwell, i'll hold a euolgy for Santa, praising his great deeds.

This idea that the Creationists hold a get-out-of-jail ticket is absurd. If they'd read the Bible, they'd know that "The road to salvation is narrow - like the razor's edge." And "Many are called, but few are chosen". And so on. Spouting lies is not on the path. It says so in Exodus, in no uncertain terms.

Nathan Parker asks in Comment #176581 if there exists a catalog in print of the misconceptions students bring with them into physics courses.

I wasn't using the word "catalog" in the same way you are apparently using it (a single book with a list of these), however there is a whole literature of this material distributed in journals and books. There is something close to what you are asking about in one of the more recent (within the last two years) issues of the American Journal of Physics that is in the form of a review article.

Here are a few places to pick up the thread.

The American Journal of Physics now contains a section on Physics Education Research (PER). At fairly regular intervals, AJP contains a section of review articles summarizing a field. There was one on PER within the last couple of years, as I mentioned above.

Physical Review ST PER is also a source of articles.

The American Physical Society Forum on Education now has articles (many are summaries or condensations of other articles published in AJP of PR ST PER).

A book of interest is A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching by Arnold B. Arons, Wiley, 1990. Arons was one of the prime movers to formalize the area of Physics Education Research. This particular book covers only a few introductory areas of physics, but the bibliography points to a lot of other research that had taken place up to the time of the publication of that book.

The original center, and one of the main sources of this kind of research, is the University of Washington's Physics Education Group (http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/peginfo.html )

I am not familiar with any similar kinds of research in biology, but some of the fundamental technical concepts related to biology and evolution (statistics, randomness, chaos, attractors, the laws of thermodynamics, and other ideas that overlap physics) are dealt with in some of the PER literature.

This should give you a good start.

To any biologist out there: Are there any similar activities dealing with the study of misconceptions in biology?

One of the other assumptions that seems to be going into this is that kids don't figure out for themselves that these ideas are transparently stupid.

Regarding the issue of authoritarianism:
Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, authors of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers (ISBN: 1591024137) found that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims both had considerably higher levels of authoritarian political beliefs than atheists and generally higher than the rest of the population. Their sample was rather small but it has been consistent over several years. I believe these ideas are further fleshed out in Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism by Altemeyer.

Very interesting debate. I think a good long look at cultural history might explain some of the things we see today.

For two, three, or four thousand years many religions have existed in fairly static cultures. What change occurred was mediated by the religious leaders (and often revolved around matters of religious interpretation). The members of those religions were led to believe that only their leaders could interpret the will of their god(s) (i.e. how the world worked). Successful religions put in place rituals, rules, threats of Hell, expulsion etc., which like any successful meme weeded out the non-believers.

Come the Enlightenment, or similar outburst of non-religious thought in other cultures, huge amounts of new information about how the world works comes to light (no pun!). It is not 'revealed wisdom' but science and new political thought. Religious hierarchies, in an attempt to defend their 'meme' can either:
a) incorporate the new information into their religious framework
b) deny that the information exists

The facts of evolution, the long age of the earth, and that there are many other religions and cultures, are a massive challenge to those religions which base their worldview on a few old 'divinely inspired' documents or oral traditions.

Some religions/sects/philosophies are trying to incorporate the new information into their world view (e.g. mainstream Christianity and the Theory of Evolution). Some more recent religions/sects/philosophies (e.g. the naive Biblicists, Marxism?) are still struggling unconsciously to secure their meme and see no option but to deny contrary evidence. If the evidence "does not exist" as a matter of "common sense" or dogma, you don't have to look at it, you don't have to think about it, you can call it rubbish or a conspiracy.

When contrary evidence is presented to a creationist I believe that they see it as a 'ploy' to get him/her to change their cultural allegiance. This is a huge world shaking step for them, particularly if their culture is an authoritarian naive biblical one. Rather than take that huge step they prefer to deny the rational need to change. I can see why, even if I think that they end up betraying their intellectual birthright.

In my opinion there are two main factors that help the process of intellectual development from the stage of intuitive understanding to a more critical scientific examination of the universe. First, one must learn the scientific method. It must be applied to questions where the intuitive answer is not correct. It must be learned to be superior to intuition. It must be learned to be trusted as a more reliable, although not always perfect, way to answer questions about the nature of the real world. The value of empiricism is something that must also be learned from experience. Second, the scientific method must be used to examine one's most deeply held beliefs. Those beliefs must be held up to the same scrutiny as any other beliefs. Those beliefs should not be allowed to remain unchallenged simply because it is threatening to do so. Indeed, just the opposite is true. Evidence pertaining to such beliefs must be examined and critically evaluated. If this does not occur, then those beliefs are of no value. A wise man once said that what you believe is not as important as why you believe it, and I was right.

Those trained in the sciences usually have such experiences. Those not trained in science often do not. Those trained in Biology are almost certainly exposed to the evidence for evolution. It is the rare biologist who is not persuaded by this evidence that evolution actually occurred.

Mike,

Good question. Yes, there is a rather extensive literature on the effect of misconceptions and prior biases on learning in Biology. Much of this literature can be found in the journal The American Biology Teacher (which is incidentally the journal that Dobzhansky made his famous quote in). Here are a few references. Others should feel free to add to the list.

McKeachie, Lin and Stryer (2002) Creationist vs Evolutionary Beliefs: Effects on Learning Biology. American Biology Teacher 64(3):189-192.

Cooper (2002) Scientific Knowledge of the Past is Possible: Confronting Myths about Evolution and Scientific Methods. American Biology Teacher 64(6):427-423.

Rutledge and Mitchell (2002) High School Biology Teachers' Knowledge Structure, Acceptance and Teaching of Evolution. American Biology Teacher 64(1):21-28.

Forgot this one:

Verhey (2005) The Effect of Engaging Prior Learning on Student Attitudes Toward Creationism and Evolution. Bioscience 55(1):996-1003.

Verhey (2005) The Effect of Engaging Prior Learning on Student Attitudes Toward Creationism and Evolution. Bioscience 55(1):996-1003.

CJO, thank you for your civil tone as well. It is appreciated, especially when the atmosphere of these sorts of conversations is so often so negatively charged with vitriol.

I do feel that the strong commitment to Darwinism and strong antipathy to creationism in the mainstream scientific community stems greatly from a methodological commitment to naturalism. I recognize that there are many worldviews represented in the scientific community, but the imposition of methodological naturalism does unite science with a particular philosophical worldview; and I think that the main reason methodological naturalism is so generally accepted as a good methodology in science when it comes to origins or the history of life is that many scientists are either naturalists or have thinking that consistently or inconsistently leans towards naturalism or at least puts more trust in naturalism in some areas (particularly science) than, say, information coming from the Bible. As a Christian, I don't like methodological naturalism as an assumption because it seems counter-productive to assume something you don't believe to be true in order to find truth. Why should I assume naturalism when I am doing science if naturalism isn't correct? For me to assume naturalism in science would be like an atheist assuming, purely for the sake of method, that the Bible is literally true when doing science. That would, of course, be ridiculous. Why is it any less ridiculous for a Christian to assume naturalism? Your starting assumptions influence your conclusions. One of the main creationist claims is that the evidence for Darwinism is only greatly compelling when one assumes naturalism. If you assume naturalism, something like Darwinism has got to be the way life arose (what other plausible naturalistic possibilities are there?), and so a commitment to naturalism makes the evidence for Darwinism seem incredibly compelling. But if you start with the assumption of Christian theism and the infallibility of the Bible, the evidence for Darwinism is at least far less impressive. Creationism of some sort seems the more rational alternative.

To Harold: I don't want to go into detail here on all of the issues you raised. I'm not worried about "sounding bad," (haven't I already blown that one by admitting that I am a creationist?) but I don't think it would be appropriate to describe my views on this subject in too much depth on this forum. I can give you some answer, though. I do believe that the law of the land should be based on the law of God (Romans 13:1-7). Obviously, this belief of mine has roots in other, deeper beliefs that I cannot exhaustively explain or defend in this forum. I don't think that view is against the idea of the sort of democracy we have in America. Most people think that there should be some things recognized in the law (such as adult human beings having a right to life, treating all races equally) that are incapable of being overturned by majority vote, while other things should be left to the majority. I think that the authority of government is instituted by God and owes allegiance to him and to his law as that law is revealed both in nature and in the Bible. I believe that the moral law of the Old Testament and some of the judicial laws of the Old Testament are binding on modern societies.

Now, lest anyone think I want to take over the government and enforce biblical morality, let me reassure you (at least a little). I don't believe the Bible authorizes a forceful (meaning violent) imposition of the biblical worldview and morality on a non-Christian society. I do think the government and our public society should be thoroughly Christian and based on the Bible, but I think that has to be accomplished by converting individual people to Christianity and influencing the culture and government in non-violent ways. In other words, I believe in doing what naturalists typically believe in doing to influence the government and society in naturalistic directions--call me CFI in reverse (sort of). : )

To all those who have accused me of making ad hominem arguments--I wasn't describing Christian accounts of naturalistic motives in order to argue against naturalism; I was just pointing out how some Christians and creationists see things. You missed my main point: We should NOT rely on ad hominem arguments but deal with the evidence. And, of course, I know that this forum has dealt extensively with arguments relating to evolution; I wasn't attempting to deny that. I was just warning against something we all are tempted to do, and against something that I think is very common in naturalist responses to theism and Darwinist responses to creationism.

Anyway, if anyone wishes to talk with me about any of these things further, please don't hesitate to email me (mhausam@hotmail.com). I would love to continue the conversation--but not on this forum, since that is not its purpose. Unless you are responding to something related to the purpose of this forum.

For me to assume naturalism in science would be like an atheist assuming, purely for the sake of method, that the Bible is literally true when doing science. That would, of course, be ridiculous. Why is it any less ridiculous for a Christian to assume naturalism?

— Mark Hausam

I do feel that the strong commitment to Darwinism and strong antipathy to creationism in the mainstream scientific community stems greatly from a methodological commitment to naturalism.

Mark, wrote:

"I recognize that there are many worldviews represented in the scientific community, but the imposition of methodological naturalism does unite science with a particular philosophical worldview;"

I don't believe that the method you choose to investigate nature, because it has proven to be a successful method, constrains you to any world view. Indeed this comment seems to disprove itself.

If I choose to use a ruler to measure length, does that mean I am philosophicallly opposed to using calipers? Especially if I choose a ruler because it has consistently given more accurate results when measuring certain types of things?

Likewise, doing science doesn't mean you can't be spiritual, religious or whatever. Methodological naturalism is distinct from philosophical naturalism. The two need not be inexorably linked together.

As for the relevance of this to the topic at hand, some begin life having been brought up in a religious tradition. If they cannot incorporate methodological naturalism into their world view at least long enough to try doing some science, then they might never gain an appreciation for the power of this approach.

For me to assume naturalism in science would be like an atheist assuming, purely for the sake of method, that the Bible is literally true when doing science. That would, of course, be ridiculous. Why is it any less ridiculous for a Christian to assume naturalism? Your starting assumptions influence your conclusions.

— Creationist Mark

We should NOT rely on ad hominem arguments but deal with the evidence.

One of the other assumptions that seems to be going into this is that kids don't figure out for themselves that these ideas are transparently stupid.

Mark Hausam:

If you are still checking replies and prefer a different forum, may I suggest talk.origins? An email debate misses the point. No one is trying to change your mind (if you even believe what most infer from your posts), and you won't change the mind of us "Darwinists." But there are many lurkers who might learn something from the exchange. I can't vouch for all us "Darwinists" (OK, actually I'm a "Kauffmaniac" but that's another story) but I for one will be polite and respectful.

Mark Hausam,

So how old do you think the Earth is? (And if you have a bit of time, why?)

Mark Hausam's misconception about the processes of scientific research and validation of evidence is one of the persistent misconceptions I was referring to in my earlier comments. I think it was Philip E. Johnson (the lawyer) who turned this misconception into a "philosophical" argument about the foundations of scientific discovery, conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism in the process.

The misconception is tied to the concept of "higher authority". In the minds of the ID/creationists, the higher the perception of the source of authority, the more valid are its pronouncements. Therefore, a statement by a PhD carries more weight than that of an MS which, in turn, carries more weigh than a BS or a high school diploma. This seems to be related to the trend of ID/Creationists seeking not only advanced degrees, but multiple advanced degrees.

In the type of venues preferred by ID/Creationists (choreographed debates, kangaroo courts, bully pulpits, etc.), these kinds of "credentials" are more impressive and therefore are closer representations of "Truth". Of course, the perception that the Christian bible is the word of the highest authority in the universe, namely the Christian god, means that any pronouncements made there are above anything else that can be pronounced.

What the philosophical arguments of the ID/Creationist proponents seem to miss is that there are things in this universe that can be independently investigated and verified by others who don't necessarily have to hold the same philosophical views. The venues in which science takes place are not those that the ID/Creationists choose. Instead, scientific arguments require independently verifiable evidence (not a surprise to those of us who have practice science all our lives). Scientific understanding and advancement no longer take place in choreographed debates by people sporting "impressive credentials" as emblems of their authority. As the title of a famous handbook states "A PhD is not enough". Evidence is what counts, and the evidence needs to be robust in the sense that science has come to understand it. It has taken a few hundred years for science to free itself from the pronouncements of "authoritative theists" of the past. Citing them simply confirms the misconceptions held by the individual who choose to do this.

The PhD is supposed to indicate only that one has learned how to formulate questions and carry out research that others can also verify and validate. The PhD is not a title that gives one's opinions or philosophical views equal weight to other PhD's.

However, as the evidence over the years has shown, fundamental misconceptions can propagate all the way through a PhD's training without necessarily being evident to the mentors. What then occurs is a PhD who has the illusion of authority yet is incapable of grasping the relevant issues in science, formulating answerable questions, or carrying out any research that adds anything significant to our understanding.

Mark Hausam's misconception about the processes of scientific research and validation of evidence is one of the persistent misconceptions I was referring to in my earlier comments. I think it was Philip E. Johnson (the lawyer) who turned this misconception into a "philosophical" argument about the foundations of scientific discovery, conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism in the process.

The misconception is tied to the concept of "higher authority". In the minds of the ID/creationists, the higher the perception of the source of authority, the more valid are its pronouncements. Therefore, a statement by a PhD carries more weight than that of an MS which, in turn, carries more weigh than a BS or a high school diploma. This seems to be related to the trend of ID/Creationists seeking not only advanced degrees, but multiple advanced degrees.

In the type of venues preferred by ID/Creationists (choreographed debates, kangaroo courts, bully pulpits, etc.), these kinds of "credentials" are more impressive and therefore are closer representations of "Truth". Of course, the perception that the Christian bible is the word of the highest authority in the universe, namely the Christian god, means that any pronouncements made there are above anything else that can be pronounced.

What the philosophical arguments of the ID/Creationist proponents seem to miss is that there are things in this universe that can be independently investigated and verified by others who don't necessarily have to hold the same philosophical views. The venues in which science takes place are not those that the ID/Creationists choose. Instead, scientific arguments require independently verifiable evidence (not a surprise to those of us who have practice science all our lives). Scientific understanding and advancement no longer take place in choreographed debates by people sporting "impressive credentials" as emblems of their authority. As the title of a famous handbook states "A PhD is not enough". Evidence is what counts, and the evidence needs to be robust in the sense that science has come to understand it. It has taken a few hundred years for science to free itself from the pronouncements of "authoritative theists" of the past. Citing them simply confirms the misconceptions held by the individual who choose to do this.

The PhD is supposed to indicate only that one has learned how to formulate questions and carry out research that others can also verify and validate. The PhD is not a title that gives one's opinions or philosophical views equal weight to other PhD's.

However, as the evidence over the years has shown, fundamental misconceptions can propagate all the way through a PhD's training without necessarily being evident to the mentors. What then occurs is a PhD who has the illusion of authority yet is incapable of grasping the relevant issues in science, formulating answerable questions, or carrying out any research that adds anything significant to our understanding.

(If this appears twice, it is because I didn't see it posted the first time I tried)

There is nothing in methodological naturalism that will necessarily conflict with religious beliefs. Naturalism simply says there is a real world and we will study it any way we can. It is neutral on the supernatural because it cannot be studied by humans with available tools.

Some of the findings of science conflict with some belief systems but so what. That is not science's problem.

There are countless belief systems. Just about any one of them has a creation myth. One common one is that the universe is timeless and people have always existed. Some of the more unusual ones in the US are the moonies who believe Moon is a god and the Heaven Gaters who died to rejoin the mothership beyond the comet. By itself these belief systems are relatively harmless although a few like the HG's were hard on the members. The harm is when one belief system seeks to impose itself on others such as by sneaking it into children's science classes.

The other harm is that if the DI wedgies by some miracle do destroy science as they have publicly stated is their goal, a new dark ages is the likely result. The scientific worldview has produced results whereas the theological worldview has produced among other things crusades, masacres everywhere from Bosnia to Iraq, and witchhunts. It won't happen right away but the USA will just fall behind the rest of the world who find committing technological suicide dumb. One day the USA will be a third world country and our children will be making cheap manufactured goods for Chinese owned companies.

Mark Hausam's misconception about the processes of scientific research and validation of evidence is one of the persistent misconceptions I was referring to in my earlier comments. I think it was Philip E. Johnson (the lawyer) who turned this misconception into a "philosophical" argument about the foundations of scientific discovery, conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism in the process. The misconception is tied to the concept of "higher authority". In the minds of the ID/creationists, the higher the perception of the source of authority, the more valid are its pronouncements. Therefore, a statement by a PhD carries more weight than that of an MS which, in turn, carries more weigh than a BS or a high school diploma. This seems to be related to the trend of ID/Creationists seeking not only advanced degrees, but multiple advanced degrees.

...am I the only one who thought the girl on the cover was kinda hot?

Oy. I've been working with my plants in the greenhouse for too long. I need to get out more...

I do feel that the strong commitment to Darwinism and strong antipathy to creationism in the mainstream scientific community stems greatly from a methodological commitment to naturalism.

whether or not methodological naturalism applies to the scientific method isn't even the point here; it's his contention that this is where the antipathy towards creationism stems from that's the real issue.

trust us Mr. Hausam, in case you haven't bothered to actually read this, or any other thread on PT carefullly, or bothered to examine the arguments about the vacuousness of ID carefully before now, the reason ID(creationism) is knocked has little to do with any purported supernatural features to it.

It's because in the case of YEC, it's based on false information and completely refuted information, and in the case of ID, there is nothing at all to it but hot air as soon as you scratch the surface.

so, are you implying we, as scientists, SHOULDN'T call out blatant misrepresentation and lies?

I would hope not.

Rampancy,

You're right. She's definately hotter that the chicks on the cover in the next post down. Still, that epidemiologist babe is even hotter, in my humble opinion. Check out her web site.

Oh no, now everyone will know that I'm a bigot, or a racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe or something else really, really bad. Of well, I'm already an "evilutionist" so what does it matter?

Comment #176614 Posted by Bunjo on May 18, 2007 3:32 PM (e) Very interesting debate. I think a good long look at cultural history might explain some of the things we see today. For two, three, or four thousand years many religions have existed in fairly static cultures. What change occurred was mediated by the religious leaders (and often revolved around matters of religious interpretation). The members of those religions were led to believe that only their leaders could interpret the will of their god(s) (i.e. how the world worked). Successful religions put in place rituals, rules, threats of Hell, expulsion etc., which like any successful meme weeded out the non-believers.

strong and quite reliable psychological generalizations can be made about creationists.... an old-fashioned Baconian attitude to science (Facts good! Theories bad!!)...

This business that a "commitment to Darwinism" or to methodological naturalism is driven by an antipathy toward creationism, or a hatred of religion, or a love of atheism is really off-the-wall and overused. These are code words for "You are going to burn in Hell and I am going to laugh for eternity."

When the ID/creationists argue that methodological naturalism rules out their own deeper insights into the universe, we have to wonder what those deeper insights are.

Just considering the monotheists alone, there is a history of centuries of infighting and killing each other in the name of their One True Intelligent Designer. And they haven't hesitated to use the products of science and technology to do their killing more efficiently. Is this what the Designer intended? Why are there so many sects within monotheism today? Is this evidence that they have some superior insight into the workings of the universe that supersedes what science has discovered? Since they have so much antipathy toward each other, who are we to believe? From where do they really get their "values"?

How does one account for the 130+ quote-mine examples from their literature now posted at TalkOrigins.org that many people have checked out and found to be distortions? What are we to make of the distortions in the literature pouring out of the Discovery Institute? What are we to make of their track record of "scientific research" (exactly zero) confirming the existence and nature of an intelligent designer (the Christian god)?

If Mark Hausam (or any one else) wants us to believe that those promoting ID/Creationsim have anything to offer, or that their insights are as valid as those produced by the processes of science, he/she is going to have to come up with some verifiable evidence that they can be trusted and not expect us to agree to the "Rule of Authority" in making a decision about what to believe. Given their dismal track record, I think most rational people would reject them in favor of what science has been able to demonstrate. This is not scientism; it's hard reality. Reality is tough sometimes, but better than spending an eternity in the company of a population of ID/Creationists (which could be a more realistic description of Hell).

There are many good religious people out there who have no trouble with science. I have had the good fortune over the years to have worked with people of nearly all nationalities, races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. Most were good scientists and technicians, and did not have the obnoxious need to proselytize to others that their religious insights were superior enough to demand special consideration in public school science or in scientific research. The lack of humility in the ID/Creationists is just part of a long line of evidence of their complete lack of understanding.

Just a simple question. Outside of those who teach evolution or ID, how does the belief in or not in macro evolution effect anything else outside of these studies?
Does it really matter except making a living teaching it? Oh, and yes we know that micro evolution exists.

If you go away on vacation for a few weeks and a leaking faucet in your house runs into a stopped up sink, what is the difference between a small rise in water level in the sink after a few minutes and a flooded bathroom after a few days? Does it really matter to someone who thinks it is only a small leak?

Regarding the issue of authoritarianism: Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, authors of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers (ISBN: 1591024137) found that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims both had considerably higher levels of authoritarian political beliefs than atheists and generally higher than the rest of the population. Their sample was rather small but it has been consistent over several years. I believe these ideas are further fleshed out in Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism by Altemeyer.

— Peter

"Just a simple question. Outside of those who teach evolution or ID, how does the belief in or not in macro evolution effect anything else outside of these studies?
Does it really matter except making a living teaching it? Oh, and yes we know that micro evolution exists."

It should matter to EVERYONE what is taught in schools, not just to teachers. It's interesting that you use micro- and macro- evolution as an example. Biologists don't use those terms; they were constructed by those who want to distort evolutionary theory. It would be no different in other subjects. If someone were to teach in math that the square root of a negative number is a real number, that would be a problem because it is incorrect. Teaching that there is such thing as microevolution and macroevolution would be no different than teaching that prairie dogs are canines or that the quadratic formula only works on Mondays and Wednesdays. In addition, the term "belief" has no place in this. A colleague of mine who teaches 9th graders physics says to them daily "talk is cheap; show me the evidence". He does more to set students on the path of understanding what science is by using this one statement.

I don't want to go into detail here on all of the issues you raised. I'm not worried about "sounding bad," (haven't I already blown that one by admitting that I am a creationist?) but I don't think it would be appropriate to describe my views on this subject in too much depth on this forum. I can give you some answer, though. I do believe that the law of the land should be based on the law of God (Romans 13:1-7). Obviously, this belief of mine has roots in other, deeper beliefs that I cannot exhaustively explain or defend in this forum.

I don't think that view is against the idea of the sort of democracy we have in America. Most people think that there should be some things recognized in the law (such as adult human beings having a right to life, treating all races equally) that are incapable of being overturned by majority vote, while other things should be left to the majority.

I think that the authority of government is instituted by God and owes allegiance to him and to his law as that law is revealed both in nature and in the Bible. I believe that the moral law of the Old Testament and some of the judicial laws of the Old Testament are binding on modern societies.

Now, lest anyone think I want to take over the government and enforce biblical morality, let me reassure you (at least a little). I don't believe the Bible authorizes a forceful (meaning violent) imposition of the biblical worldview and morality on a non-Christian society. I do think the government and our public society should be thoroughly Christian and based on the Bible, but I think that has to be accomplished by converting individual people to Christianity and influencing the culture and government in non-violent ways.

In other words, I believe in doing what naturalists typically believe in doing to influence the government and society in naturalistic directions---call me CFI in reverse (sort of). : )

2oldstroke: Just a simple question. Outside of those who teach evolution or ID, how does the belief in or not in macro evolution effect anything else outside of these studies? Does it really matter except making a living teaching it? Oh, and yes we know that micro evolution exists.

2oldstroke,

One of the goals of evolutionary biology is to determine how millions of species came to be on the earth. That question is important because unless you know where something came from you can never really understand it. That is why the answer is critical to our understanding of every structure, every function, every developmental pathway, every genetic mechanism, every aspect of every lifeform on the planet. That is why the study of evolution is critical in medicine, agriculture, taxonomy, etc.

Other than that, no I guess it really doesn't matter, unless you have some curiosity about the world around you. It doesn't really matter unless you are ready to go beyond fairy tales, myths and "poof" thinking. Most of all, it doesn't matter to anyone else whether it matters to you or not.

Oh, and yes we know that micro evolution exists.

Well, I was originally concerned about using this forum for off-topic conversations, but since everyone else (including Nick Matzke) is doing so, I suppose it must be OK! Besides, these issues are importantly related to the subject of the article.

The claim is made that methodological naturalism works. If it worked absolutely, that would be good evidence that philosophical naturalism is true. But does it? The examples given of it working are examples from everyday experiments, the development of technology, etc. But Christian theists (at least ones that have thought it through clearly enough) do not believe that "miraculous" occurrences are the norm. We believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, God works through ordinary, non-miraculous means. So we would also predict an orderliness and predictability to everyday life and experimentation. The fact that you don't need to think about miracles in everyday research is no surprise to us. It is a false dichotomy to have on the one hand a complete naturalism, without allowing for the possibility of any supernatural intervention at some points, and on the other hand to have a situation where only miraculous things happen all the time. There are many more options in th middle of these two extremes. Just because everyday experiments do not involve the miraculous is no evidence that the miraculous might not need to be considered when it comes to the origin of life and species. How probable miracles would be, and whether we should look for them or not in particular cases, will depend on other factors-such as whether or not the Bible is the Word of God and contains a reliable account of creation, etc.

Christian theism does not advocate blind belief in unquestioned authorities. Like naturalists, we believe in testing claims by the evidence. It is not blind belief, but the evidence, that points me towards Christianity and belief in the Bible. Also, I think it was harold who said that my REAL motive by believing in the Bible as infallible is that I just really like authoritarianism and snooping into people's private lives. Actually, my natural inclination is to leave people alone to do whatever they want. If I believe that certain laws should be imposed, it is because I believe God requires it, not because my personality inclines towards it. This is a good example of how easy it is to try to construct people's REAL motives and get it totally wrong. But you probably won't believe me. Also, one of the things I hate more than anything else is a reliance on blilnd belief. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very intolerant of claims being made without being backed up by the evidence. But I suppose you probably won't believe that, either.

Harold says that my answer about my political views shows a lack of honesty. That is simply untrue--but again, how can I prove to you what my real motives are? I am quite happy to be as straightforward as possible about my views, even though I know I am inviting hatred and insults by doing so on a list like this. I am willing to wade through all that and pursue rational discussions with anyone who wants to talk about these important issues. You are right, though, that I didn't go into all the detail you wanted. The reason for that is not lack of honesty or not wanting to "sound bad," but, to be honest, it is a bit of fear. I know my views are extremely unpopular on this sort of a list. I know that they will be construed as barbaric. I am hesitant to give anyone here any details of my beliefs that they might be able to use against me personally. I have put my name on the list (on second thought, I should have chosen a pseudonym),and that makes me vulnerable. It is a shame I have to worry about that. I wish I didn't. It hampers conversation to some degree (although not too much, fortunately). But the fact is, I do have to worry about it. I feel a little like Sam Harris, who I've heard will not tell people what school he is at for fear of reprisal because of his views. I do believe that the government should base itself on biblical morality, and that would mean that certain things, like same-sex-marriage, should be illegal, and I know that is exremely unpopular here. (Let me assure you, though--I don't believe in beating up people, including wives or children--see harold's questions for context.) Here's a challenge, though, to those of you who think biblical morality is barbaric: On what basis do you think so? By what standard are you declaring certain things morally wrong? I hope you can give a better answer than simply "because it's mean" or something equally unilluminating.

OK, one more thing to address now: Nick Matzke's question about the age of the earth. Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence. Biblically, I think the phrase "six days" in reference to God's creating is best understood as referring to a literal six days. These days may possible have been unusual in some ways, but I think the word "day" in that context means "day" in the normal sense of an alternating period between light and darkness, day and night. Scientifically, many creationist arguments seem to have merit, and I am not adequately convinced by the arguments of mainstream science on this point. I will admit, though, that many of the arguments on both sides are very technical, and I am not trained in technical geology, etc., so it is difficult for me to evaluate the arguments very thoroughly. I feel much more confident with the arguments directly over Darwinian evolution. It is difficult to find the time to sit down and go through these things systematically. I really want to do that more than I have up to this point. I want to study more in-depth the arguments of both sides. I have done some study, though, and what I have seen so far has not convinced me that the mainstream interprettion of the evidence is necessary or better than the creationist readings, and since the Bible seems to indicate a six-day creation, I fall onto that side of things. As I said, though, although I do accept a young-earth account of things, I am hesitant to be too dogmatic simply because I am aware that I need more time to study the issue more thoroughly. But that is my position at this point based on my best reading of the evidence. If people on this list want to mention some specific arguments in the mainstream direction, that would be helpful. I have seen, though, how an sssumption of naturalism has skewed thinking in the area of Darwinian evolution, and it does seem that the same assumption affects people's evaluation of the evidence on the question of the age of the earth as well.

OK, that's enough for now. I appreciate the engagement I am getting on this forum. I think this is a useful and interesting conversation. (I do wish some people could refrain from feeling like they have to find clever ways to insult me all the time, though. Can't you reign in your anger enough to stick to more of a peaceful, rational conversation? If I didn't know better, I would say some of you sound like fundamentalists--in the bad, stereotypical sense.)

Well, I was originally concerned about using this forum for off-topic conversations, but since everyone else (including Nick Matzke) is doing so, I suppose it must be OK! Besides, these issues are importantly related to the subject of the article.

The claim is made that methodological naturalism works. If it worked absolutely, that would be good evidence that philosophical naturalism is true. But does it? The examples given of it working are examples from everyday experiments, the development of technology, etc. But Christian theists (at least ones that have thought it through clearly enough) do not believe that "miraculous" occurrences are the norm. We believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, God works through ordinary, non-miraculous means. So we would also predict an orderliness and predictability to everyday life and experimentation. The fact that you don't need to think about miracles in everyday research is no surprise to us. It is a false dichotomy to have on the one hand a complete naturalism, without allowing for the possibility of any supernatural intervention at some points, and on the other hand to have a situation where only miraculous things happen all the time. There are many more options in th middle of these two extremes. Just because everyday experiments do not involve the miraculous is no evidence that the miraculous might not need to be considered when it comes to the origin of life and species. How probable miracles would be, and whether we should look for them or not in particular cases, will depend on other factors-such as whether or not the Bible is the Word of God and contains a reliable account of creation, etc.

Christian theism does not advocate blind belief in unquestioned authorities. Like naturalists, we believe in testing claims by the evidence. It is not blind belief, but the evidence, that points me towards Christianity and belief in the Bible. Also, I think it was harold who said that my REAL motive by believing in the Bible as infallible is that I just really like authoritarianism and snooping into people's private lives. Actually, my natural inclination is to leave people alone to do whatever they want. If I believe that certain laws should be imposed, it is because I believe God requires it, not because my personality inclines towards it. This is a good example of how easy it is to try to construct people's REAL motives and get it totally wrong. But you probably won't believe me. Also, one of the things I hate more than anything else is a reliance on blilnd belief. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very intolerant of claims being made without being backed up by the evidence. But I suppose you probably won't believe that, either.

Harold says that my answer about my political views shows a lack of honesty. That is simply untrue--but again, how can I prove to you what my real motives are? I am quite happy to be as straightforward as possible about my views, even though I know I am inviting hatred and insults by doing so on a list like this. I am willing to wade through all that and pursue rational discussions with anyone who wants to talk about these important issues. You are right, though, that I didn't go into all the detail you wanted. The reason for that is not lack of honesty or not wanting to "sound bad," but, to be honest, it is a bit of fear. I know my views are extremely unpopular on this sort of a list. I know that they will be construed as barbaric. I am hesitant to give anyone here any details of my beliefs that they might be able to use against me personally. I have put my name on the list (on second thought, I should have chosen a pseudonym),and that makes me vulnerable. It is a shame I have to worry about that. I wish I didn't. It hampers conversation to some degree (although not too much, fortunately). But the fact is, I do have to worry about it. I feel a little like Sam Harris, who I've heard will not tell people what school he is at for fear of reprisal because of his views. I do believe that the government should base itself on biblical morality, and that would mean that certain things, like same-sex-marriage, should be illegal, and I know that is exremely unpopular here. (Let me assure you, though--I don't believe in beating up people, including wives or children--see harold's questions for context.) Here's a challenge, though, to those of you who think biblical morality is barbaric: On what basis do you think so? By what standard are you declaring certain things morally wrong? I hope you can give a better answer than simply "because it's mean" or something equally unilluminating.

OK, one more thing to address now: Nick Matzke's question about the age of the earth. Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence. Biblically, I think the phrase "six days" in reference to God's creating is best understood as referring to a literal six days. These days may possible have been unusual in some ways, but I think the word "day" in that context means "day" in the normal sense of an alternating period between light and darkness, day and night. Scientifically, many creationist arguments seem to have merit, and I am not adequately convinced by the arguments of mainstream science on this point. I will admit, though, that many of the arguments on both sides are very technical, and I am not trained in technical geology, etc., so it is difficult for me to evaluate the arguments very thoroughly. I feel much more confident with the arguments directly over Darwinian evolution. It is difficult to find the time to sit down and go through these things systematically. I really want to do that more than I have up to this point. I want to study more in-depth the arguments of both sides. I have done some study, though, and what I have seen so far has not convinced me that the mainstream interprettion of the evidence is necessary or better than the creationist readings, and since the Bible seems to indicate a six-day creation, I fall onto that side of things. As I said, though, although I do accept a young-earth account of things, I am hesitant to be too dogmatic simply because I am aware that I need more time to study the issue more thoroughly. But that is my position at this point based on my best reading of the evidence. If people on this list want to mention some specific arguments in the mainstream direction, that would be helpful. I have seen, though, how an sssumption of naturalism has skewed thinking in the area of Darwinian evolution, and it does seem that the same assumption affects people's evaluation of the evidence on the question of the age of the earth as well.

OK, that's enough for now. I appreciate the engagement I am getting on this forum. I think this is a useful and interesting conversation. (I do wish some people could refrain from feeling like they have to find clever ways to insult me all the time, though. Can't you reign in your anger enough to stick to more of a peaceful, rational conversation? If I didn't know better, I would say some of you sound like fundamentalists--in the bad, stereotypical sense.)

Mark Hausam said: The claim is made that methodological naturalism works. If it worked absolutely, that would be good evidence that philosophical naturalism is true.

We believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, God works through ordinary, non-miraculous means. So we would also predict an orderliness and predictability to everyday life and experimentation.

It is a false dichotomy to have on the one hand a complete naturalism, without allowing for the possibility of any supernatural intervention at some points,

Christian theism does not advocate blind belief in unquestioned authorities. Like naturalists, we believe in testing claims by the evidence. It is not blind belief, but the evidence, that points me towards Christianity and belief in the Bible.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am very intolerant of claims being made without being backed up by the evidence. But I suppose you probably won't believe that, either.

That should be "bats are birds".

OK, one more thing to address now: Nick Matzke's question about the age of the earth. Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence.

This Mark Hausam uses the argument that it is not what HE wants or expects but it is what his god wants or expects.

Where is the verifiable evidence that Mark Hausam knows anything about the mind of god?

We all suspect that this type of argument is simply another form of displacement that attempts to deflect responsibility from oneself to something else.

So far he seems to be parroting lines given to him by his religious handlers rather than thinking for himself. Has anyone else noticed that the copies of the religious script, given out to these neophytes to recite, contain small idiosyncratic differences? Maybe after a sufficient number of recopies without a constant comparison against the original script, an individual might discover science. I wonder how many generations it would take.

Christian theists (at least ones that have thought it through clearly enough) do not believe that "miraculous" occurrences are the norm. We believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, God works through ordinary, non-miraculous means. So we would also predict an orderliness and predictability to everyday life and experimentation. The fact that you don't need to think about miracles in everyday research is no surprise to us. It is a false dichotomy to have on the one hand a complete naturalism, without allowing for the possibility of any supernatural intervention at some points, and on the other hand to have a situation where only miraculous things happen all the time.

— Mark Hausam

Christian theism does not advocate blind belief in unquestioned authorities. Like naturalists, we believe in testing claims by the evidence. It is not blind belief, but the evidence, that points me towards Christianity and belief in the Bible....Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence. Biblically, I think the phrase "six days" in reference to God's creating is best understood as referring to a literal six days. These days may possible have been unusual in some ways, but I think the word "day" in that context means "day" in the normal sense of an alternating period between light and darkness, day and night.

Scientifically, many creationist arguments seem to have merit, and I am not adequately convinced by the arguments of mainstream science on this point.

I feel much more confident with the arguments directly over Darwinian evolution. It is difficult to find the time to sit down and go through these things systematically. I really want to do that more than I have up to this point. I want to study more in-depth the arguments of both sides. I have done some study, though, and what I have seen so far has not convinced me that the mainstream interprettion of the evidence is necessary or better than the creationist readings, and since the Bible seems to indicate a six-day creation, I fall onto that side of things.

As I said, though, although I do accept a young-earth account of things, I am hesitant to be too dogmatic simply because I am aware that I need more time to study the issue more thoroughly. But that is my position at this point based on my best reading of the evidence.

If people on this list want to mention some specific arguments in the mainstream direction, that would be helpful. I have seen, though, how an sssumption of naturalism has skewed thinking in the area of Darwinian evolution, and it does seem that the same assumption affects people's evaluation of the evidence on the question of the age of the earth as well.

Mark, I find your position puzzling. You say you don't believe in authoritarianism, but you would adopt laws and customs because the bible tells you to. Isn't that exactly what you claim you don't do?

How does one decide which interpretation of bronze-age nomad wisdom is correct? Not all Christians believe the entire Bible is literal truth; some believe that much of it is poetry and symbolism. Over the centuries the number of denominations has only increased, so clearly, study of scripture doesn't lead to universal understanding. How do you know your version is the correct one?

I'm sure you've heard the questions before, but do you also never wear cotton/poly or cotton/wool blends? When Jesus is quoted by Matthew (7:12) as saying the golden rule "sums up the law and the prophets", doesn't that mean all the ritual and trappings went out the window, in the same way that there are now no unclean foods because of when he said it's not what goes in but what comes out? Sure, there's homophobia in the new testament too, but that was Paul, not Jesus.

Seems to me there's a whole lot of cherry-picking going on.

Lack of traditional capitals is a result of speed typing, not disrespect. I apologize if it offends you.

Mark,

Thanks for returning to the thread. I know it takes a lot of courage to expess your opinions in this forum. I hope you understand that when you claim that you are not an authoritarian and then cite the Bible as evidence that some prople will have a problem with that. I hope you understand that when you claim that laws in this country should be based on the Bible that some people have a problem with that.

As for the age of the earth, it has already been pointed out that your opiinion is in sharp contrast to all the evidence. If your views are indeed based on evidence, then perhaps you are unaware of all the evidence. Below I have listed a reference which gives six different types of data sets used to estimate geologic chronology. This is of course in addition to the voluminous literature on radiometric dating. (By the way radio carbon dating has been reliable calibrated back to 50,000 years). The MINIMUM estimate for the age of the earth is given next to each example. Note that ALL estimates are considerably more thatn 10,000 years. Most types of data involve no more assumptions than simple counting. Please examine the evidence carefully. If you still choose to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old, then at least admit that this opinion is not based on evidence.

Tree rings 50,000

Ice cores 440,000

Corals deposits 130,000

Pollen stratigraphy 5 million

Marine sediments 180 million

Magnetic reversals 160 million

Science 292:658-659 (2001)

Harold says that my answer about my political views shows a lack of honesty. That is simply untrue---but again, how can I prove to you what my real motives are?

I am quite happy to be as straightforward as possible about my views, even though I know I am inviting hatred and insults by doing so on a list like this. I am willing to wade through all that and pursue rational discussions with anyone who wants to talk about these important issues. You are right, though, that I didn't go into all the detail you wanted. The reason for that is not lack of honesty or not wanting to "sound bad," but, to be honest, it is a bit of fear. I know my views are extremely unpopular on this sort of a list. I know that they will be construed as barbaric.

I am hesitant to give anyone here any details of my beliefs that they might be able to use against me personally. I have put my name on the list (on second thought, I should have chosen a pseudonym),and that makes me vulnerable. It is a shame I have to worry about that.

OK, one more thing to address now: Nick Matzke's question about the age of the earth. Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence

Mark Hausam said: The claim is made that methodological naturalism works. If it worked absolutely, that would be good evidence that philosophical naturalism is true.

hmm, nested quotes broken today?

oh well.

A Note To Everybody -

I'm sure we agree that Mark Hausam has the ability to express himself in a calm and dignified way, which is somewhat unusual for a creationist.

As for political views, he has made it clear that he supports imposing his view of Old Testament Law. When pressed on the details, he finally admits that the details are so offensive that he'd cause a firestorm by actually discussing details.

We all know that the harshest possible "literal interpretation" (not really literal) of the Old Testament leads to claims that trivial acts by children, lack of obedience by women, or simple sexual acts between consenting adults, should be punished with cruel methods of execution. We all know that such "laws" could not be made up and enforced in a democratic, human rights-respecting society. I didn't see him deny being an "authoritarian", and a denial of that specific term would be silly at any rate.

trivial acts by children, lack of obedience by women, or simple sexual acts between consenting adults, should be punished with cruel methods of execution.

Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'

Also, one of the things I hate more than anything else is a reliance on blilnd belief. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very intolerant of claims being made without being backed up by the evidence. But I suppose you probably won't believe that, either.

Mark,

Sorry that you feel threatened by those who disagree with you. This may in fact help to explain why you find it necessary to base laws on your personal belief system, regardless of whether others agree with it or not. However, let me assure you that neither I nor anyone I know has any intention whatsoever of doing anything at all to you because of your beliefs. That would be stupid. What do I care what you believe anyway?

As for using your real name, how do we even know if that is your real name? How do you know if any of us are using our real names. We might have made up any names at all. As long as we use the same name consistently we have followed the rules, as far as I can tell. So Mark (if that is your real name) you can call me Dave (if that is my real name). Just don't call me "surely" (or Dave Scott). I mean you no harm. At least you have the courage to discuss your views in a civil manner. You may have noticed that that makes you somewhat of an exception among the creationists that like to hang out here.

Now, about that evidence I presented. How is that working out for you?

Sir Toejam,

The Halibut may be all well and good, but what about the piece of Cod that passeth all understanding? (Just thoought I'd throw that in for the halibut).

As a Christian, I don't like methodological naturalism as an assumption because it seems counter-productive to assume something you don't believe to be true in order to find truth. Why should I assume naturalism when I am doing science if naturalism isn't correct?

For me to assume naturalism in science would be like an atheist assuming, purely for the sake of method, that the Bible is literally true when doing science. That would, of course, be ridiculous. Why is it any less ridiculous for a Christian to assume naturalism?

Your starting assumptions influence your conclusions. One of the main creationist claims is that the evidence for Darwinism is only greatly compelling when one assumes naturalism. If you assume naturalism, something like Darwinism has got to be the way life arose (what other plausible naturalistic possibilities are there?), and so a commitment to naturalism makes the evidence for Darwinism seem incredibly compelling. But if you start with the assumption of Christian theism and the infallibility of the Bible, the evidence for Darwinism is at least far less impressive. Creationism of some sort seems the more rational alternative.

I thought Kenyon was YEC when I first heard of him 20 years ago before ID was created ex johnsonio. By associating with ID he kept that under wraps.

Also Common sense philosophy inspired many Evangelicals in the 19 century including all those who accepted geology eg C Hodge and even worse evolution - Warfield McCosh and many others.

YEC seems to come from 2 sources , one is from the Seventh Day Adventists courtesy of Ellen White and then the popular anti-intellectual evangelicalism associated with dispensationalism which encouraged a literal interpretation. This was not apparent as many accepted the Gap Theory allowing geological time.

Nick you recommended McCalla's book The Creationist Debate. It is an absolute load of crap. It gets its science wrong eg on radiometric age dating and its history of geology is just plain wrong as its treatment of the way Christians coped with geology then evolution. On geology Rudwick's Bursting the Limits of Time and my chapter in Myth and Geology (Special Publication of the Geol Soc of London no273 ed Piccardi and Masse March 2007) simply contradicts all the nonsense he writes.

Diana -

Here's where it gets really, really complicated, but try to concentrate - I didn't say anything about whether scientists or science-supporting people are rude or not. You could name a million rude scientists and it wouldn't address my comment. I said that some creationists are rude.

As it happens, it's painfully obvious to anyone who has dealt with them that creationists are far ruder, in general, than people who support science - with plenty of exceptions in both groups (but I'm guessing you're not an exception).

By the way, what's your specific stance on consensual homosexual acts between adults, as an example issue? Legal or illegal? Imprisonment or execution? Fourth ammendment rights and defense attorneys, or hunt'em down however it needs to be done?

OK, one more thing to address now: Nick Matzke's question about the age of the earth. Judging by my reading of the evidence at this point, I would say the earth is probably around 10,000 years old. (OK, that's your cue everyone! Bring on the insults!) The evidence I am referring to is biblical and scientific evidence

First, I am not taking issue with the idea that the experiences of childhood affect our adult lives. I am sure a paper could equally be written on 'attraction to science' being traced back to childhood (which happens to be my own experience). Second, there is a tension between the authors' primary example of resistance to science (denying evolution) and the other examples (alternative medicine, spirits, astrology, ESP, divination). I do not think these can be lumped together in this way. By and large, in the US, evolution-doubting is widespread among the Christian community, but these same people do not indulge in the other cases of "resistance".

Evangelicals and Crackpot Science By Robert C. Newman Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute Biblical Theological Seminary ABSTRACT: Because of the tension which has developed between the scientific and the evangelical communities in the past century and a half, Bible believers are often (rightly or wrongly) suspicious of the discoveries and theorizing of modern science. This has led to a rather widespread attraction to theories viewed as crackpot by scientists and other educated people. Some examples are discussed and strategies proposed to protect Christians from looking unnecessarily foolish before the watching world.

Diana,

I would like to introduce you to a guy named Pumpkinhead. After you look at a few of his posts denigrating evilutionists ancestry and suggesting various sexually deviant acts that we supposedly engage in, then you can come back and tell us how creationists really aren't all that that impolite. And those are just the comments the moderators let through!

I thought Kenyon was YEC when I first heard of him 20 years ago before ID was created ex johnsonio. By associating with ID he kept that under wraps. Also Common sense philosophy inspired many Evangelicals in the 19 century including all those who accepted geology eg C Hodge and even worse evolution - Warfield McCosh and many others.

YEC seems to come from 2 sources , one is from the Seventh Day Adventists courtesy of Ellen White and then the popular anti-intellectual evangelicalism associated with dispensationalism which encouraged a literal interpretation. This was not apparent as many accepted the Gap Theory allowing geological time.

The third barrier to an orthodox, but nonliteral, view of Scripture was the highest. With relentless pressure, skillful defenders of slavery insisted that any attack on a literalist construction of biblical slavery was an attack on the Bible itself. A clear example of this strategy appeared in James Henley Thornwell's fast sermon of 21 November 1860. Thornwell (1812-1862) was widely recognized as a theologian of integrity, probably the South's most highly respected religious thinker. He had been active in his native South Carolina as a pastor, college teacher, and seminary professor from the time of his ordination in 1835. Thornwell was an eclectic thinker whose deep grounding in the Scriptures, commitment to the Westminster standards, and suspicion of generically evangelical voluntary societies was combined with a smattering of Scottish philosophy but also serious reservations about the egalitarian tendencies of the new moral philosophy. When he address a blue-ribbon audience in Columbia in the immediate aftermath of Abraham Lincoln's 1860 election, a good portion of his sermon was devoted to denouncing the idea that African Americans constituted a species distinct from Caucasians. On this basis he boldly chastised his audience of elite South Carolinians for not treating slaves properly as fellow human beings. Yet Thornwell's additional concern was to make a point for Northern readers. When he described the opinion that humanity was made up of several species, each with its own origin, and then denounced this view as heresy, his more distant target came into view: "It is idle to charge the responsibility of the doctrine about the diversity of species upon slaveholders, as to load them with the guilt of questioning the geological accuracy of Moses." He then drove home the polemical dagger. Heretical teachings questioning the Bible's account of the age of the earth indicated clearly the kind of teaching that questioned the slavery found in both Old and New Testaments. Heresies concerning Adam and Eve as well as on the geological record "are assaults of infidel science upon the records of our faith, and both have found their warmest advocates among the opponents of slavery." [36] To audiences predisposed toward biblical literalism, Thornwell's reasoning was persuasive. To propose for whatever reason that the Bible did not sanction slavery was to attack not just slavery but the Bible as well. The theological crisis occasioned by reasoning like Thornwell's was acute. Many Northern Bible-readers and not a few in the South felt that slavery was evil. They somehow knew the Bible supported them in that feeling. Yet when it came to using the Bible as it had been used with such success to evangelize and civilize the United States, the sacred page was snatched out of their hands. Trust in the Bible and reliance upon a Reformed, literal hermeneutic had created a crisis that only bullets, not arguments, could resolve. [Note 36, p. 547: Thornwell, "Our National Sins," 50. For a modern explanation of how Thornwell's defense of a common sense race (and hence his defense of African Americans as fully human) was linked to his biblical defense of slavery, see Eugene D. Genovese, A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South (Athens, Ga., 1998), 4, 80-88.] (from pp. 399-400 of: Mark A. Noll (2002). America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford University Press. Italics original, bold added)

Nick you recommended McCalla's book The Creationist Debate. It is an absolute load of crap. It gets its science wrong eg on radiometric age dating and its history of geology is just plain wrong as its treatment of the way Christians coped with geology then evolution. On geology Rudwick's Bursting the Limits of Time and my chapter in Myth and Geology (Special Publication of the Geol Soc of London no273 ed Piccardi and Masse March 2007) simply contradicts all the nonsense he writes.

Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2007; v. 273; p. 39-49; DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.04 © 2007 Geological Society of London Genesis Chapter 1 and geological time from Hugo Grotius and Marin Mersenne to William Conybeare and Thomas Chalmers (1620---1825) Michael B. Roberts The Vicarage, 5 Lancaster Road, Cockerham, Lancaster, LA2 OEB, UK (e-mail: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk) In 1550 few questioned the 'biblical' age of the earth, but by the mid-nineteenth century no educated person accepted it. The change is considered to have been a period of conflict between Christianity and science over the age of the earth. In fact, the conflict was small because from the Reformation era most considered the bible to be accommodated to its culture and that at the beginning of time God created a Chaos, which was re-constituted in 'six days'. This was put forward by Grotius and Mersenne. then by the Theories of the Earth of Burnet. Whiston and others and then by later writers to allow for geological time. This reached its climax in early nineteenth century Britain with Chalmers. Conybeare and Buckland, thus preventing any major conflict between geology and Genesis. The perceived conflict of these centuries is a matter of retrospective interpretation, which does not do justice to those Christian thinkers, like de Luc, Chalmers and Townsend who accommodated geological time with little conflict, and those like Patrick, Ray and Whiston who opened up the way for this accommodation to geological time in the seventeenth century. The conflict between geology and Genesis is one of retrospective perception rather than historical reality. Only a minority of Christians, as with the anti- or scriptural geologists of the early nineteenth century, considered there to be a conflict.

(I've never been able to figure out how to do nested quotes on here. Anyway...)

Mark, you said: "One of the main creationist claims is that the evidence for Darwinism is only greatly compelling when one assumes naturalism."

I'm not sure this accurately describes the view of old-school YEC creationism; it sounds more like ID creationism to me. But accepting that statement for the sake of argument, I note that you may have given more away here than you intended, Mark. This sounds kind of like an admission that the evidence for evolution* is compelling. Certainly you're stating that this evidence only seems unconvincing if you throw out naturalism. Yet you yourself admit that you and many other creationists comfortably accept a large role for methodological naturalism in science. So what is the justification for choosing the question of species origins as the point where naturalism becomes unacceptable?

Of course, this is arguably a rather minor question compared to the more fundamental one of just what in the world "non-naturalist science" is, anyway. How does it work? What useful results has it produced? I can't immediately recall ever having heard a clear, substantive explanation of this from any crusader against naturalistic science, and they get asked quite often.

You said: "If you assume naturalism, something like Darwinism has got to be the way life arose (what other plausible naturalistic possibilities are there?)"

Well, none so far. Which is not to say it's impossible that someone might come up with one someday. Again, how do you think this makes your case for you?

You said: "But if you start with the assumption of Christian theism and the infallibility of the Bible, the evidence for Darwinism is at least far less impressive. Creationism of some sort seems the more rational alternative."

Which just shows that when one starts with faulty premises, one tends to come to faulty conclusions. This isn't news.

---

*It's not "Darwinism," it's the "theory of evolution," or TOE if you want a more user-friendly term. You creos have all been told this a million times, I know, but it always bears repeating.

Most fundamentalists will take it as a compliment if you say that their reasoning is child-like, and if the movie Jesus Camp is anything to go by, then many will not feel that indoctrination against science as a child is necessarily a bad thing either!

I just finished reading Ayala's little book Darwin and Intelligent Design and I must say it is really remarkable how many crucial and even uniquely insightful scientific and theological arguments against antievolutionism and intelligent design he packs into such a short and highly readable book. I provide some key points and highlights from it on my blog - http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

Mark Hausam is a case example on the childhood indoctrination studied in the Science article. Mark, do you agree with the conclusions presented? Did you have authorative adults with strong YEC beliefs around you, when you where a kid?

I'll give Mark 1,000,000 to one odds he wasn't born in India.

'Diana' misspelled the URL for that stupid Dembski 'humor' site (s)he tried to link to.

BTW, I think 'Diana' = 'Grady' = 'Clarissa'. Perhaps Nick should check their ISP numbers?

I just finished reading Ayala's little book Darwin and Intelligent Design and I must say it is really remarkable how many crucial and even uniquely insightful scientific and theological arguments against antievolutionism and intelligent design he packs into such a short and highly readable book. I provide some key points and highlights from it on my blog

Nick thanks for your comments in 177066

I have long been aware of Thornwell in the confederate states. His colleague Dabney said much the same, but in the 1860s they were an absolute rarity and I have struggled to find more than a dozen YEs (anachronism) in that period both in the USA and UK.

The Hodges are more typical but even then McCalla could not get him right p118.

His history of geology is dire and he totally misunderstands geologists like Murchison and Sedgwick p64-7 misreading earlier works by Rudwick. From his bibliography he referred to many sound books but still got it wrong

His paragraph on radiometric age dating on p 137 is worthy of AIG

He misunderstands the 17th century Theories of the Earth and to cap it all couldn't even read The Genesis Flood right!

I rest my case. His book is rubbish and will mislead people on the developing relationship on science and religion from 1600 to today.

What we have is a mirror image of Creationist books as here is a poor example of a new genre Anti-creationism which seems to find a ready market.

Michael -- it sounds like you are working on a book review of McCalla. If so let me know, I would find it useful! From my perspective as a total noob on the history of geology, chronology, etc., it was pretty eye opening, but obviously there appear to be issues from the expert perspective.

PS: As far as good and bad anti-creationism books, I think McCalla is still above average -- there has been a wave this last year or so, I have seen most of them, and a fair number are some combination of boring, derivative, or half-baked. OTOH there are some very good ones. But with each book it may depend on the expertise the reader is bringing to it. Experts are hard to satisfy but then the perfect book for the expert may be useless for the introductory reader.

Comment #177088 Posted by Petro on May 20, 2007 12:23 AM (e) Mark Hausam is a case example on the childhood indoctrination studied in the Science article. Mark, do you agree with the conclusions presented? Did you have authorative adults with strong YEC beliefs around you, when you where a kid?

Moses -

The relationship between creationism and authoritarian fantasies that I have so clearly pointed out and demonstrated (twice now; Diana ducked the question about executing adults for consensual gay sex acts, and she would have replied if she opposed the idea) is, of course, especially true for aggressive, relatively well-off, relatively (that's relatively) educated creationists.

I'd say it's nearly 100% true for those who argue against evolution on the internet, run for school board, get involved in political campaigns, and the like.

The relationship between authoritarian tendencies and creationism appears to be considerably stronger than the relationship between parental teaching and creationism, at least among the self-appointed leaders and intelligentsia of the political cult. They're often fond of boasting how they converted from parental atheism or liberal Christianity to "true" fundamentalism, and children of fundamentalists often choose a different religion. But every member of the DI is not-very-secretly working for Reconstructionism.

I don't want to smear a smaller group of people, such as some members of Jehovah's Witness congregations, Orthodox Jewish congregations, and the like, who may have beliefs that overlap with those of the "Conservative Christian Creationist", but not consciously fantasize about imposing dystopian, authoritarian "Biblical" rule on the US, with themselves as the rulers.

There are also people who are taken in by the term "intelligent design" and assume that it means some sort of theistic or spiritual philosophy which is apolitical and compatible with science (Kurt Vonnegut appears to have made this mistake, at least transiently, late in his life).

Nevertheless, when someone describes themself as a "creationist", or says that they "support ID" knowing what it really is and who the DI really is, it should be assumed that they are motivated by authoritarian, sex-obsessed political fantasies. I'm not saying that one "causes" the other - I think that whatever causes the obsession with brutal intrusion into other peoples' private lives and enforcement of submissive rituals comes first and colors the "interpretation" of the Bible (or whatever cultural embodiment of tradition and authority may be at hand) - but I can't prove that. I can, however, point out what appears to be a strong relationship.

I just noticed that the authoritarianism-creationism connection helps explain why "King James Bible literalism" creationism is mainly prevalent in English speaking countries relatively large Protestant populations, such as the US, anglophone Canada, and Australia, and to a lesser extent (I will explain why) the UK.

It's simple - in another environment, with a different set of cultural symbols, a person with the same authoritarian tendencies and fantasies will link them to a justifying "interpretation" of a local symbol.

The trick is to find something that's generally seen as "stern" and "traditional", but also seen as "overall good" - and then distort it into a system of thought that somehow exiges that you impose a brutal authoritarian system, with yourself as ruler.

We know that there are Christian YEC's and IDers in Finland, Poland, China, etc, but in those millieus, there are more convenient and more widely accepted works of philosophy, tradition, or religion to distort.

When I said that my reason for adopting a young-earth way of thinking was based partly on "biblical evidence," a lot of you took that to mean, apparently, that I accept the Bible on blind faith, arbitrarily assuming it to be true, and base my beliefs about the age of the earth on that. Therefore you called it authoritarian or relying on blind authority. However, I do not accept the Bible on blind faith, but because there is good evidence to conclude that it is true, and thus it is a rational source of evidence. So relying on the Bible is not opposed to relying on reason, but one source for reason to draw from. Relying on an authority can be rational, provided one has good reason to trust he authority.

Let me explain a little more clearly my methodology in thinking through the scientific questions we have been discussing. I reject reliance on blind faith entirely as irrational and even unethical. I believe in grounding all claims on rational sources of evidence. Starting from that foundation, I have concluded, based on the evidence, that Christianity is true and the Bible is infallible. Therefore, when the Bible describes the origin of the universe, earth, life, etc., I take it as an accurate, eye-witness (in a way) account of these things. So when I look at the scientific evidence, I come to it with those rational assumptions. It seems to me the best reading of the biblical text sees it as affirming creation in six days, defined as rotations of day and night, light and darkness. That probably implies regular, 24-hour days, or at least something very close to that (probably not billions of years). Now, if upon examination of the scientific evidence, the evidence clearly demands an interpretation that contradicts that view of the biblical creation accounts, then I would need to go back to those accounts and examine other plausible interpretations of them. If there were no plausible alternate interpretations, this would create a problem that would seem to call the Bible's historicity into account. But I don't anticipate that problem, because I think I have good reason to believe the Bible will be accurate (which doesn't mean I would ignore evidence to the conrary). Because my conviction that the best interpretation of the biblical evidence supports a six-day creation is pretty strong (though probably less than 100% certain), it would take a lot of very good, very clear scientific evidence to convince me of the mainstream science view. So when I go to the scientific evidence, I am strongly, but rationally, biased by the biblical evidence towards a young-earth reading of the evidence. If the evidence can at least plausibly and reasonably be read in a young-earth manner, I will probably go with a young-earth interpretation. A naturalist, on the other hand, or one who will accept only natural explanations in science, will come to the empirical evidence biased, by what they take to be rational reasons, towards an old-earth interpretation. It would take an enormous amount of evidence to convince them otherwise, because a naturalistic reading of evolution depends on an old earth.

Therefore, what we have when we are dealing with the empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution and for age of the earth questions is two different starting points from which the evidence is examined, and these starting points can lead to radically different readings of the empirical evidence and thus radically different conclusions. So here is a question for you, if any of you can be self-aware enough about your own assumptions to answer it: Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have--the reliability of the biblical text? To answer this question, you will have to be able to separate naturalistic assumptions from your evaluation of the empirical evidence and be able, for a moment, to see the evidence as if you were a biblical literalist, as if you were convinced that the Bible contains reliable history on origins and my interpretation of the text is accurate. I can do the same sort of thought-experiment in a naturalistic direction, and of course, when I do so, the evidence for evolution is obviously compelling.

I understand your arguments in favor of methodological naturalism. According to an orthodox Christian worldview, most of the time God works through natural means (the tsunamis, earthquakes, etc., are not exceptions but examples of this). By "natural means" I mean means that, while employed by divine providence for a purpose, yet follow natural, predictable laws. This is definitely true in everyday life almost, if not all, of the time, for all of us. Therefore I would not want a mechanic to try to use revelation from God to fix my care engine, because I don't believe he will receive such revelation. (If I believed he would receive it, though, I would want him to use it.) I get irritated with Chrsitians who make decisions in their lives based on supposed revelations they are receiving, because I don't think their expectation is biblical. Therefore, methodological naturalism, when applied to everyday experiments and things like that, will not be problematic. However, the orthodox Christian worldview does say that there have been points (and there will be points) in history where God has not worked through natural means. Creation is one of them. To apply methodological naturalism to these areas would be to make a false and misleading assumption and be guided by it. if I were a naturalist, I would have reason to employ methodological naturalism universally, but as a Christian, I have reason NOT to emply it universally. So how you see the reliabliligy of methodological naturalism in particular cases depends on what your worldview is, or other things that you believe (like whether you are a historic, orthodox Christian who takes the Bible seriously as history, or a naturalist, or something else). Do you see what I mean?

Someone asked me why I think Christianity is better than Hinduism or other supernatural religions. Ths short answer is that I believe in Christianity for the same reason most people, including people on this list, claim to believe what they believe--because of the evidence. I do not believe that Hinduism fits reality--the evidence is against it at a number of points. I do think the evidence points to Christianity. It is a naturalist assumption that one cannot rationally decide between competing supernatural claims. They assume that because they assume that all supernatural claims are absurd and without evidence, so there would be no way to arbitrate between them any more than one could rationally decide whose imaginary friend is more real than someone else's. Since I am not a naturalist, I do not share that assumption, so I don't believe it is impossible to rationally decide between supernatural claims.

Many of you seem to enjoy coming up with psychological explanations for why I believe what I believe. It is rather humorous (if frustrating), because all of your speculations are wildly off the mark. And yet you seem quite convinced of them. My personality is nearly as unauthoritarian as you can get. I do not secretly seek to possess power over people. My natural personality would drive me to a radical libertarianism in politics if I was just going with its natural preferences. And I do hate blind belief. I inculcate that to my children. If you try to tell one of my daughters something, assuming they will not be in their shy mode and not answer you, your answer is likely to be something like, "Where is your evidence for that? Prove it!" The fact that you can all feel like you have such strong evidence about me, and yet I have really given you almost none and your conclusions are completely off-base, doesn't give me much hope that you do your scientific thinking in other areas any better. Obviously most of you believe things because you want to believe them, because they fit your biases, not because of the evidence. You want to believe about creationists what you want to believe--and you will make it fit despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. I keep coming back to this description in my thinking about you--many of you (not all) seem like fundamentalists in the worse sense--close-mnded, bigoted, emotionally-driven, un-self-aware people who can't even reigh in your negative biases enough to even try to understand anyone who doesn't agree with you. Hopefully you are not like that in all of you life, but you definitely give the appearance of being like that when it comes to the subjects we are discussing. Oh, and I did not have authoritarian YEC parents. My parents were evangelicals (although my wife's were agnostic, and she believe the same things that I do), but they were far from authoritarian. I've had an interest in talking to people of different religions/worldviews since I was quite young, and my parents always supported me in that. They used to drive me to a synagogue service every Friday night when I was in ninth grade, pick me up from mosques, and all sorts of things. They are not clearly-convinced six-day creationists, and neither was I a six-day creationist until about 2 years ago (I am 29 years old now). So why don't you leave off thy psychoanalysis and try to keep your claims in proportion to your evidence? One would expect more from those who are professedly scientifically-minded.

I've got a lot to get to, but I'll have to continue later. Thanks to you who have given me some specific evidence on Darwinism and an old earth. I haven't forgotten it. I will come back to it later. Remember one thing: I am going to want to examine such evidence quite thoroughly before I will be convinced by it. I have wanted to do more of this for a long time, so I am enjoying having some opportunity to do it through this forum. Thank you. One question: Whoever it was who mentioned this, could you tell me a bit more about broken vitamin-C genes and why they support an evolutionary perspective in your view?

More later. Either tonight or tomorrow morning, depending on when I get some time.

Thanks,

Mark

I believe in grounding all claims on rational sources of evidence. Starting from that foundation, I have concluded, based on the evidence, that Christianity is true and the Bible is infallible.

— Mark Hausam

So here is a question for you, if any of you can be self-aware enough about your own assumptions to answer it: Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have---the reliability of the biblical text?

Many of you seem to enjoy coming up with psychological explanations for why I believe what I believe. It is rather humorous (if frustrating), because all of your speculations are wildly off the mark. And yet you seem quite convinced of them. My personality is nearly as unauthoritarian as you can get

All I can say, Mark, is that you have an interesting interpretation of the word "evidence". Further discussion is pointless.

qetzel wrote:

"You seem to think we are doing the same thing. You think we start from an assumption that the earth is old and evolution is real, and interpret all evidence accordingly.

That's not true. The reality is, if you start with NO assumptions, the evidence itself leads to a conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, and the that life evolved from a common ancestor."

I agree completely. What assumptions do you need to count tree rings or annual layers in ice cores? Just look at the evidence. That doesn't mean you have any assumptions whatsoever, except a willingness to look at the evidence. Why do you think looking at the evidence will give a reasonable answer? Because it has so many times in the past in so many different areas. This is not an assumption, it is based on experience. It is not assumed that a reasonable answer will always be forthcoming. It is not assumed that the right answer will always be found immediately. That would be like assuming that if the Bible is right about just one thing then it must be right about everything.

Another common psychological phenomenon in creationists is projection. In my experience they tend to assume that everyone actually thinks exactly the same way that they do. They simply can't conceive that anyone could possibly be different from themselves. This often manisfests in the assumption that scientists are "indoctrinated" or "brainwashed" or that they can't look at evidence without bias. Indeed, many posters on this blog usually assume that whenever a scientist makes a factual claim that they are just making stuff up. That is why it is important to provide references from the scientific literature to support factual claims.

Scientists must demonstrate that they really are different from someone who uses intuition to understand the universe. Scientists must not only espose the primacy of empiricism, they must also demonstrate it. Of course scientists are human. Of course they have biases and preconceptioons just like anyone else. The difference is that they strive to identify them, admit them and rise above them.

So, Mark, thanks once again for returning to submit yourself to such abuse. Now, about that evidence I mentioned, take your time. There's plenty more where that came from.

Evidence for a young earth.

Harold said: Nevertheless, when someone describes themself as a "creationist", or says that they "support ID" knowing what it really is and who the DI really is, it should be assumed that they are motivated by authoritarian, sex-obsessed political fantasies. I'm not saying that one "causes" the other - I think that whatever causes the obsession with brutal intrusion into other peoples' private lives and enforcement of submissive rituals comes first and colors the "interpretation" of the Bible (or whatever cultural embodiment of tradition and authority may be at hand)

Mark,

If you really do want to look at evidence, there is a great web resource called Talk Origins. They have an extensive archive dealing with creationist claims and providing evidence on many different topics. Just go to:

www.talkorigins.org

If you are interested in data regarding the age of the earth, try some of the following archives on that site:

/faqs/faq-age-of-the-earth
/icecores
/dating
/isochron-dating

If you are interested in genetic evidence, I would recommend starting with this archive:

/faqs/molgen

There is a vast literature on genetics and evolution. In my opiinion, some of the best evidence for common descent comes from genetics, including retroviral transposons. The material is technical, but the archive is written for non-scientists.

I hope you enjoy examining the evidence. That is how I came to accept the reality of evolution. It wasn't what I was taught. It wasn't what I wanted to believe. But, until you have actually examined the evidence, it is foolish to claim that your beliefs are based on evidence.

I have concluded, based on the evidence, that Christianity is true and the Bible is infallible.

Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have---the reliability of the biblical text?

could you tell me a bit more about broken vitamin-C genes and why they support an evolutionary perspective in your view?

I believe in grounding all claims on rational sources of evidence. Starting from that foundation, I have concluded, based on the evidence, that Christianity is true and the Bible is infallible.

I keep coming back to this description in my thinking about you---many of you (not all) seem like fundamentalists in the worse sense---close-mnded, bigoted, emotionally-driven, un-self-aware people who can't even reigh in your negative biases enough to even try to understand anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Mark wrote:

"Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have---the reliability of the biblical text? To answer this question, you will have to be able to separate naturalistic assumptions from your evaluation of the empirical evidence and be able, for a moment, to see the evidence as if you were a biblical literalist, as if you were convinced that the Bible contains reliable history on origins and my interpretation of the text is accurate. I can do the same sort of thought-experiment in a naturalistic direction, and of course, when I do so, the evidence for evolution is obviously compelling."

I hope you realize that you have just admitted that the ONLY reason that YOU do not find the evidence compelling is that your starting assumptions will not allow it, no matter what the evidence. Then you have the audacity to assert that unless we can start with the exact same assumptions and still conclude that the evidence is not compelling that we are the ones who are biased! OK, you're on.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. My father was a preacher, my mother was a sunday school teacher. I was a national champion Bible quizzer. I was a biblical literalist. I went to college with the firm conviction that evolution was completely wrong and that all the evidence led to that conclusion. Then a funny thing happened in college. I studied comparative vertebrate anatomy. Because of what I learned, I finally had to admit that evolution was really true. If I were intellectually honest, I had to admit it, no matter what I had been taught. No one tried to convince me of this. No teacher tried to influence me. The truth was obvious when the evidence was examined. Of course my family practically disowned me. To this day I am the black sheep they pray for.

I have spent the last thirty years studying the evidence for evolution. Yes, I find that evidence extremely compelling. I started with your exact same assumptions, misconceptions and biases, perhaps even more so. So don't you try to tell me I'm committed to naturalism.

Dear Glenn,

Thanks for your note. You write that you take my view to be that Bloom and Weisberg's "scientism is an illegitimate attempt to muscle those with views which differ from their own out of moral and ethical disputes."

Yes, that's pretty much my view. As I think you and I agree, any claim to have scientifically disverified "an untestable belief not in competition with scientific explanation" (your phrase) is bogus. All beliefs about unmeasurables, of whatever class, are untestable by scientific standards and therefore hewing to them cannot be characterized as "resistance to science." Acculturation in a modern scientific setting may render certain beliefs less plausible for some people, or positively repulsive, but this is a sociological and psychological phenomenon, not a form of scientific disproof.

I'm not familiar with Paul Nelson's writings. If he makes claims about observables (e.g., certain classes of neural event), then those claims can be scientifically disproved. But those are not the sort of claims being made, to the best of my knowledge, by (say) Catholics in the ensoulment dispute---which is the context that B&W reference.

Re. ID: When ID makes claims about observables/measurables it is, thus far, falsifiable, unlike a Catholic theologian's belief that a third-day fetus has a "soul." Of course, that does not qualify ID as "science": any of us might stand with a sixth drink in our hand making falsifiable fact-claims as fast as we could slur them out, but it wouldn't mean we were doing "science." To be a scientist you have to do more than just be demonstrably wrong about something. (I assume we more or less agree on this point.)

I do not, by the way, agree with Stephen Jay Gould that religion and science are innately "nonoverlapping magisteria." I do not see any useful sense in which Creationist claims about biology can be classified as not-religious, so clearly, some forms of religious belief are as overlapping as all get-out. But just as obviously, there are many categories of conviction, religious and other, that really are nonverifiable in any scientific sense, therefore nonfalsifiable or "nonoverlapping" with science. All ethical and aesthetic convictions, for instance. Or the belief in an "immaterial, immortal soul," which B&W pretend is disverified.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman

Pete Dunkelberg, Comment #177219:

Thanks for that link. Great story!

Is this blog post related to this thread? IOW, another explanation of why we have so many creos today.

Pete Dunkelberg --- One-sixth! That a lot.

Scary...

I believe in grounding all claims on rational sources of evidence. Starting from that foundation, I have concluded, based on the evidence, that Christianity is true and the Bible is infallible.... So here is a question for you, if any of you can be self-aware enough about your own assumptions to answer it: Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have---the reliability of the biblical text?

I haven't read the article, it's a shame you have not explained what was the actual research and methodology used, at least a paragraph of general notions. Just how good is this tudy, really? This question comes naturally to me since the conclusion of this "scientific study" is the inafitilism of creationism, an idea that is popular and greatly accepted among scientists and atheists so of course it will be greeted with roaring applause, but to me this means extra scrutiny is necessary. Self-indulgence alarm!!

I think the role of infantilism in creationism and religion in general has been for a long time a compelling argument, but to argue this, do we need or actually want any study like this? Is this actually evidence better than the good old arguments?
Will people use this study to say it is NOW "scientifically proven" that creationist people are infantile? I think that is an aberration. Isn't that somehow indulging in the Baconian ultrapositivist silliness of "facts good, theories bad"?

Re "Is this blog post related to this thread? IOW, another explanation of why we have so many creos today."

Is their fraction of the population up, or is it the amount of public commentary about it coming from them?

I concede that it is possible to conclude that the Bible is correct on some matters (e.g. the approximate geography of the area in question) or even that it is correct in all the matters that have been checked (of course, this is ignoring the internal inconsistencies) but how is it possible to conclude, based on evidence, that anything is infallible?

Will people use this study to say it is NOW "scientifically proven" that creationist people are infantile? I think that is an aberration. Isn't that somehow indulging in the Baconian ultrapositivist silliness of "facts good, theories bad"?

...or is it the amount of public commentary about it coming from them?

Sorry to get here after all the excitement. Very interesting debate for someone such as I who studies the psychology behind these stands. I found David Stanton's personal account very compelling. What a remarkable, against all odds, change.

Mark Hausen -- your claims to have a mature view about the age of the earth would be more convincing if you gave us explanations for the following data that indicate the earth is older than 10,000 years:

tree rings -- 11,000+ years

ice cores -- 110,000+ years by direct counting of annual layers

Radiometric dating -- millions of years. Don't worry about the complicated isochron method for getting exact ages, just explain why there are no nonradiogenic elements in the Earth's crust with half-lives shorter than 70 million years, but plenty of such elements with longer half-lives.

Finally, you seem unaware that the ponderous term "methodological naturalism" was actually coined by an evangelical Christian who supported the idea, and published it in Christian Scholars Review. The term just described a much older idea, also invented by Christians, which was that God created a rational world that could be understood through the operation of natural laws, and that invoking miracles to explain away evidence was dishonoring God's gifts of nature and reason. Reliance on natural law was at the heart of every major scientific advance from the 1600s on, and by the mid-1800s it was basically universally understood, especially by scientists who were Christians, that science's job was to discover and explain via natural law, and that miracles were outside of its purview.

This is all explained here and in the references given. So let's not have any silliness about methodological naturalism being an atheist plot or a non-Christian assumption...

PS: Your bit about how it's all about how you accept facts and like science you just "interpret" the facts differently, is classic creationist psychology -- I briefly described it as "facts good! theory bad!" but everyone who has done a lengthy study of the history of creationism seems to have noted it.

Mark:

If you really do believe in a young earth, and believe that you are basing it on evidence, then you should be just as eager to debate old-earth creationists. You say that you don't know much geology. Perhaps you can learn some from them. You do agree that they don't have a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism, don't you?

Dembski's obsession with farts and Ann Coulter's with fisting sprang to mind. Sexual deviancy driving the Hard Right?

Mark: I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to you when you were posting here. Are you still following this thread? My post is rather long and rambling, so unless I get some reply from you, indicating you're still here to read what I write, I won't bother.

I actually tried to cancel that last post immediately above.

However, there's nothing inherently inaccurate about it. I do hasten to add that many creationists may have exemplary and satisfying personal lives, and treat their spouses and families well. (Although still clinging to a sociopolitical agenda obsessed over the private sexual behavior of others, of course.)

It may be that deviant behavior by creationists/religious right figures is over-reported; nevertheless, it does seem from anecdotes to be at a high level.

I'm neither analyzing nor judging here, merely documenting observed behavior.

Bob,

Thanks for the kind words. My story was not an easy thing to post, since it is a true story. As a wise man once said, "it ain't easy bein me." (I said he was wise, I didn't say he was an English major).

OK, let's get into some evidential considerations. I am going to have to go slow on much of this, especially the scientific evidence. I can only take one thing, maybe two things, at a time for the most part. What we need to do is look at the evolutionist claims and the creationist claims on a particular subject, see what we know and what we don't know, and see what is a reasonable deduction from the actual evidence. I am learning as I go in many of these detailed cases, so bear with me.

Vitamin C genes: The claim has been made that there is good reason to think that humans and other primates share a common ancestor because they both have broken vitamin-C genes, whereas other animals do not. One creationist article dealing with the vitamin-C gene can be found here: http://www.icr.org/article/3271/. The author claims that it is difficult to determine what is a real pseudogene, because (as far as I understand the argument) sometimes parts of a pathway that produces one thing often produce something else. What might look like a "broken gene" might not be broken after all. If it is not a broken gene, the argument for common ancestry of primates and humans from this gene would lose its foundation. The gene, in that case, would just be a particular gene perhaps unique to primates, which would be equally well-explained by common design. Even if the gene turns out to be an actual broken gene, would that be better explained by common ancestry? Humans and other primates are definitely uniquely alike in various ways. Could it be that all primates origially were created with a functioning vitamin-C gene and then they all, or most of them, lost it due to the same environmental (or whatever) factors? In other words, the fact that primates all have the broken gene might just as easily indicate simply that created similarities between humans and other primates led to them suffering the same loss of gene function, whereas the differences between primates and other animals prevented that from happening to many of them. So, in light of all of this, why is common ancestry a better explanation than common design? Another question related to this: Are there any other species that have something that looks like it might be broken vitamin-C genes, besides humans and other primates?

Tree rings: Here are a couple of creationist articles dealing with tree rings: 1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/patriarch.asp 2. A common creationist claim seems to be that there is no living tree that has been dated to more than 5,000 years using "straightforward tree ring counting" methods. One of the implications of six-day creationism is that it will probably be impossible to date things like rocks and trees that came from before the flood. The reason is that things were created in a mature state. Adam and Eve, for example, were created as adults. Trying to figure out their age based on normal methods would be inaccurate for them. Similar, trees and other animals (as well as non-living things) would have been created in a mature state. Therefore, a tree could have been created with a number of tree rings already present. So clearly old, dead trees that could have come from before the flood will be useless in deciding between a young earth and an old earth, because one would expect the possibility of lots of tree rings in either scenario. Note that the "mature creation" idea is not an ad-hoc way of accounting for evidence that seems to be against the creationist position; rather, it is a natural implication of six-day creationism in itself.

Therefore, the only challenge from tree rings (or similar sorts of tree-dating methods) to YEC can come from living trees, or recently living trees. I already mentioned that creationists claim that there is no living tree that has been straightforwardly dated at more than 5,000 years. At this point, I need to do more research. Creationists are suspicious of some methods that have been used to date living, or recently living, trees to ages beyond 5,000 years. I want to know the basis of the suspicion. How have these older dates been reached? What has been the methodology? I need to know more of the specifics of the methodologies. I haven't found much yet on the King Clone bush, but I have found that one scientist, at least, has disputed the date of 11,000 years. Now, obviously, that doesn't prove anything in itself; but I want to know who that scientist is and why he wants to revise the date of that bush. I want to know the details of why the bush is commonly dated to 11,000 years.

OK, now I want to begin providing some positive evidence for Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible. Here, too, I will have to go slowly, focusing on one or two things at a time. Here I would like to start with evidence for the existence of God.

One of the basic Christian claims here is that the existence of an infinite-personal God (theism) is a logical deduction from the existence of the universe, meaning the space-time universe we see all around us and all the things and entities in that universe. There are a number of ways of exhibiting this connection, and a number of lines of converging evidence that leads to that conclusion. I am just going to go slow, taking it a bit at a time.

Christians argue that you have to have a self-existent, infinite (unlimited) being who is outside of space and time in order to explain the universe. One of the basic principles of logic is that all things or events that begin to be must have a cause of their existence, and a cause sufficient to produce the effect. Some atheists have argued that the universe itself could be self-existent, and thus not need a cause. The problem with this is that the universe simply isn't self-existent. The universe is not really a unified thing but a collection of interacting things. The collection as a whole must have had a beginning, and thus all the things in the collection must have had a beginning as well. Time itself had to have had a beginning. Since the big bang theory has been accepted, most scientists have accepted that time has not gone on indefinitely, but this is better proven by philosophical argumentation. Time cannot have gone on forever because it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite series. If time had been going on forever, there would have passed already an infinite number of, say, minutes. But there cannot have already passed an infinite number of minutes, because it would take literally forever to traverse an infinite number of minutes. You would never get to the end of the series, by definition. And yet, we have arrived at this present moment. So time hasn't been going on forever in the past, which means that the time-series began, and everything in the time-series began. We are therefore necessarily led to the existence of a cause for the beginning of the time-series and everything in it. There must be a reason why time began. If we say that the cause that began the time-series is in time, that just pushes the problem further back, because it, for the same reason, would have to have a cause outside of itself as well. So the first cause of all things must be outside of time. There is something that is timeless that "gave birth" to the temporal universe we all live in.

Also, not only does the temporal universe as a whole require an explanation outside of itself, but each moment in the time-series requires an explanation. Whenever something changes, there must be an explanation for the change, and it must come from outside the thing changing. If you roll a ball, and it suddently changes direction as it rolls, this requires an explanation. It would not do to say simply, "The ball just started rolling in a different direction without a cause." In each moment, things are as they are. We speak about the "potential" of things to change, but the potential cannot be in the things themselves. To speak of potential as existing as a part of the things themselves would be like saying that it is more than what it is. What it is is not all that it is but what it isn't is contained in what it is as well. So if things are as they are each moment, why do they become different the next. There must be a cause outside of time which explains the occurrence of each new moment.

OK, so we need something timeless to explain the temporal universe. Let's see what else we can learn about this timeless thing. Well, we can learn that it must be one thing and not many things. In philosophical terminology, the timeless thing must be simple and not complex. It must not be more than one thing or be capable of being divided into parts, which comes to the same thing. Why? Let's look at it this way: Let's try to envision two ultimate things. Let's call one A and the other B. Since both A and B are supposed to be ultimate, themselves uncaused, one cannot be the cause of the other. They cannot both be caused by some higher cause. If they are caused, they are not the ultimate first cause we are looking for. So they are both uncaused. There is a serious problem here. How can both A and B exist, sharing the same reality, the same laws of logic, both existing in a common context (universe), and yet be utterly and absolutely unrelated to each other? Clearly, there is a reality that functions as the context for both A and B, and neither A nor B can explain each other or that context. So there is a unifying reality that is not identical to either A or B, and this unifying reality will be the real first cause. Eventually, then, we must come to something that is not a collection of parts, something that is undivided and thus can be truly ultimate, the first cause of all things.

So we have a timeless, undivided substance. This substance will not be in space any more than in time, for obvious reasons. To be in space is to be a limited thing among other things. The unifying ground of all things would transcend the limits of being a particular thing in space.

What else can we know about this undivided substance outside of space and time that is the ground of the being of the universe? We can know that this substance will be infinite, or unlimited. By "infinite" I mean "unbounded." You can see why I say it must be unbounded. To be bounded would be to be one thing among others, which would mean that it would not be the ultimate first cause that explains all the particulars. It would be the fulness and source of all power, because there could be no energy coming from something outside of it. It would be omnipresent, because, again, it would be outside of space-time, not located in one particular place, which would again imply that it was merely one thing among others and thus not the ultimate first cause.

An important question arises at this point. Is this undivided first-causal substance personal or impersonal? That is, does it have a mind (or, more accurately, is it a mind) or is it mindless? Well, there is good reason to conclude that it must be a mind. A big question here is, "What is the relationship between matter/energy and consciousness or mind?" Naturalists assume, because they typically believe that all things are reducible to matter/energy, that consciousness is a property that emerges from interactions of matter and energy. But this does not fit the observable evidence. How can you tell a lightening bolt apart from a frog? Simply by observation. They are simply different things. Similary, you can tell mind/consciousnes apart from matter/energy (at least as we normally understand matter/energy). If you have a marble, most of us would agree that you do not have consciousness. What if you add another marble to it so that you have two marbles? Any closer to consciousness? If you add ten more marbles and arrange them in some pattern, you are still no closer to consciousness. If you add ten thousand marbles and arrange them in very complex patterns, even having them move about and bump into each other in complex patterns, you are still no closer to consciousness. If you have 10 trillion marbles and arrange them in inconceivably complex patterns, you are no closer to consciousness. The reason is that no matter how intricately you arrange the bits of matter, they are still nothing more, to put it crudely, than bits of matter bumping into each other arranged in a complex physical pattern. Now, if we replace marbles with electrons, neurons, energy particles or waves, molecules, proteins, or whatever, the situation will be the same. The brain is an enormously complex animated pattern of matter and energy particles forming complex patterns and moving about in complex ways. But this in itself can do nothing toward producing consciousness. It is clear that consciousness is connected with the brain, but it is also clear that consciousness is distinct from the activity of the brain conceived of as a material entity doing material sorts of actions and that consciousness cannot be produced from the brain's activity. There is much evidence to show a very close connection between brain and consciousness, but no evidence to show that the mind is reducible to the material properties of the brain. There is at least something like a symbiotic relationship, but no matter how close the relationship is, relationship is not the same as identity, and we have good reason (such as my argument above) to conclude there is no identity, or that consciousness cannot be reduced to a phenomenon of matter/energy as we usually understand the latter.

Now, here is the implication of this observation for our present discussion. The ultimate first cause, as we have seen, must be an undivided reality. Thus, all things are going to find their origin/source in one unified thing in the end. If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter/energy (and there is nothing else it could possibly reduce to as nothing else is logically possible), then conciousness must exist as such, unreduced, in the first cause. In other words, the unified, undivided substance that is the cause of all things must possess consciousness, or be a mind. It would thus be a personal being, as opposed to an impersonal thing.

This fact explains other things human beings are aware of, such as the intrinsic value of human life and the existence of ethics. If the universe were fundamentally impersonal, objective moral values could not exist, because objective values can be nothing more nor less than an ideal standard/preference/goal with regard to what we are supposed to be and do. If ultimate reality is impersonal, there is no purpose or goal woven into the universe as a whole. Personal traits, like goals and values, evolved from uncaring impersonal laws and phenomena. So we exist for no purpose, and thus there is nothing we are supposed to be or do. So there are no moral obligations. But we know we have normative ethical obligations that press upon us, that there are things we are supposed to be and do. Only a theistic universe can account for that. Also, to say that something, like a human being, has intrinsic value, is to say that we have a moral obligation to value human beings. But if there is no ultimate standard for what has value, a standard rooted in the fundamental nature of the universe, nothing has any intrinsic value. You or I might value things, but we would be under no ethical obligation to do so; it would merely be preference of ours, nothing more. But an ultimate, objective standard of value requires theism, because to have value means to be important, but important to whom? Not to the laws of physics, or matter/energy. Only an ultimate person could ground ultimate values. Without an ultimate person, I might value things, and you might value things, but there would be no objective, absolute standard of valuable-ness outside of our preferences, and thus no ethical obligation to value anybody.

I've gone on for quite a while now so let's stop here. I haven't given you a complete case for Christianity or the Bible yet, but I have given you a case for theism, which is a major step in that direction. How will you deal with the evidence? I suspect the temptation of many of you will be to ignore it and simply dismiss it by labeling it something like "philosophical mumbo-jumbo." That is a non-rational response to philosophical evidence that is common today in certain segments of the culture, including naturalistic circles. But you can't deal with serious arguments by dismissing them as silly without serious considerations. I won't do that with your scientific arguments, so don't do that with my philosophical arguments. I have given you evidence for theism. Your only rational responses are to accept it or show where my argumentation goes wrong. Anything else is a refusal, for one reason or another, to deal with the evidence. If you are not used to thinking philosophically, I would suggest you get used to it. We all have to learn new things sometimes if we want to be able to legitimately claim the title of "truth-seeker" to ourselves. Much of my philosophical argumentation is an attempt to spell out things that I think we all sense intuitively, whether we recognize it or not. But I am not content with intuition--I want to see the rational arguments laid out. So I have done so. There is more I could add, and no doubt I could say what I have said better, but the evidence for theism is there. How will you respond to it?

As we continue, I will give you more evidence for the Christian worldview and for the infallibility of the Bible. (Not all of it will take quite so long to lay out as today's portion has!) And we can continue to look at the scientific claims relating to Darwinism and YEC issues.

OK, enough for now! Thanks again!

Mark

So here is a question for you, if any of you can be self-aware enough about your own assumptions to answer it: Does the empirical evidence, in your opinion, demand an old earth and Darwinian evolution, or can it conceivably and plausibly be read in a non-Darwinian and/or young earth direction, if you were to come to it with the same starting assumptions I have---the reliability of the biblical text?

Mark Hausam wrote:

The reason is that things were created in a mature state.

This is a genteel/dodgy way of saying "God faked the evidence." And if your God would create a whole planetful of fake evidence, knowing in advance that his people would be so greatly deceived by it, then how can you be sure that Bible you consider "infallible" isn't similarly packed with misleading clues? Having faked a whole planet's geological record, faking one more book would be no problem at all, physically or morally.

Christian pholosophers and theologians rejected this "God faked the evidence" idea CENTURIES ago because of the implications: once you admit that our all-powerful Creator would allow us to be so deceived, then we are therefore under the power of an Evil Genius, not a just and benificient Creator; and we can no longer be sure that ANYTHING we perceive, by any means, can be relied on. If God would create trees with rings "proving" they were older than they really were, could he not also have created the entire Universe, as is, last Thursday, with implanted fake memories (what you call "a mature state") to make us think we've been around longer? Once we've admitted the possibility that our Creator is lying on that scale, then we can no longer be sure that anything we've ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt is even real at all.

Christians, like most other theists, believe that their God(s) is/are compassionate, just, and wise, as well as all-powerful. But a Universe so filled with misleading clues as you claim ours is, cannot be the work of a compassionate, just and wise Creator, nor even of an absent-minded one; it can only be the work of an Evil Genius. Is that what your God is? Or is Satan more powerful than your God?

If God faked the evidence, or knowingly allowed it to be faked, then your Bible is no more "infallible" than Bush's copy of "My Pet Goat;" and your entire world-view has no underpinning whatsoever.

One of the basic principles of logic is that all things or events that begin to be must have a cause of their existence, and a cause sufficient to produce the effect.

There is a serious problem here. How can both A and B exist, sharing the same reality, the same laws of logic, both existing in a common context (universe), and yet be utterly and absolutely unrelated to each other? Clearly, there is a reality that functions as the context for both A and B, and neither A nor B can explain each other or that context. So there is a unifying reality that is not identical to either A or B, and this unifying reality will be the real first cause. (emphasis added)

To be bounded would be to be one thing among others, ....

Mark,

You astound me. No really, I mean it. I would have bet cash money that you were never coming back here. Congratulations. However, quoting old discredited creationist claims is not evidence of anything. You were asked to examine the evidence for yourself. Instead you respond by quoting creationist web sites. That is not the way science works. Did you look at the tree rings? Did you look at the ice cores? Did you sequence the genes? If not, why should your opinion count for more that the opinions of those who have?

You asked if there were other "broken genes" in other species. I already gave you a web site with literally hundreds of examples of just such things in many species. Did you even bother to go and look at the site? Do you actually think that design is a better explanation for the human genome? Do you actually think that there are not good statistical tests of homology? Do you know that the same kind of thing has happened in other genes recently enough so that the gene identities cannot be reasonably questioned? Did you know that this topic is the basis of many medical studies regarding susceptability to disease?

As for the tree ring data, no there is no living tree older than 5,000 years. So what? There is no living human older than 150 years. Does that mean the world is only 150 years old maximum? There is an unbroken record, correlated with climatic conditions, that goes back over 50,000 years. You cannot explain that away with wishful thinking. As others have already pointed out, stating that things were "created in a mature state" is nonsense. You demonstrate once again that you will rationalize any evidence that does not conform to your preconceived notions.

As for your little thought experiment, I see you did not see fit to respond to my response. I suppose you could call me a liar, although I wouldn't recommend that strategy. However, my experience is not unique. Thousands of biblical literalists have come to the conclusion, based on the evidence, that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life we see on the planet. So much for commitment to naturalism.

I would suggest that you not trash up this site with long-winded arguments about the infallability of the Bible. The moderator has been quite lenient to this point, since you seem to be that rarity of rarities, a relatively civil creationist. However, any attemps to convert us wayward heathens to your brand of religion are inappropriate in this context. Quite frankly you are demonstrating exactly the behavior you were accused of in the first place.

Well, Mark Hausam hasn't surprised us in the least. He has simply repeated almost verbatim the standard misconceptions and "cannot possibly be" arguments of the ID/Creationists. Given the sources he cites, it is almost inevitable that he hasn't put in the time necessary to learn what the science really is. Unfortunately, now he has a lot of misconceptions he has to unlearn in order for him to be able to grasp where our understanding is today. But that is just what the ID/Creationists accomplish when they clutter up our current understanding of things with mountains of garbage.

Simply transferring problems about ultimate beginnings to a Christian god (or any other kind of god) doesn't solve anything. It just avoids the issue. Modern ideas about cosmology have not done this, even though the problem might seem intractable to the unscientific mind.

The ID/Creationists interpretations of philosophy and science have always been self-serving and, as a result, ignore volumes of information and arguments that have developed over the few hundred years that the scientific enterprise has been growing. One should at least be aware of all that before lapsing into arguments that go back into the late Middle Ages.

There are major misconceptions about probability, about the nature of infinity, the nature of time, the nature of mind, the nature of evidence. There is a total lack of awareness of the multiple lines of robust independent evidence that converge to produce the most probable conclusions scientists hold today.

And, above all, there is the prior commitment to place a particular sectarian view of the Christian religion as the condition for interpreting everything else; a commitment that is driven by fear that doubting it will condemn one's soul to eternal damnation.

This forum is not the place for Mark to get his education in science. The best we can do is suggest that he get busy and start developing another perspective. Learn from the science community, not just form the ID/Creationists. After all, those of us in science have learned the science as well as the ID/Creationists arguments. Why don't the ID/Creationists learn the science as well as their own ideology? At least they would be better educated.

Mark has some real demons to battle in order to escape the conceptual prison he is in. He very likely has been taught that we are unwitting instruments of the devil who are tempting him to abandon his security in eternity. Of course, because of the fact that we are "unwitting" instruments, cuts off any possibility that he can verify or refute that claim. So the safe thing to do (driven by deep down fear) is to hang on to what his religious handlers have told him.

We wish him well.

Jeeze, I think a couple of you are way too impatient with Mark.

Jeeze, I think a couple of you are way too impatient with Mark.

OK, let's get into some evidential considerations. I am going to have to go slow on much of this, especially the scientific evidence. I can only take one thing, maybe two things, at a time for the most part. What we need to do is look at the evolutionist claims and the creationist claims on a particular subject, see what we know and what we don't know, and see what is a reasonable deduction from the actual evidence.

I am learning as I go in many of these detailed cases, so bear with me.

Vitamin C genes: The claim has been made that there is good reason to think that humans and other primates share a common ancestor because they both have broken vitamin-C genes, whereas other animals do not. One creationist article dealing with the vitamin-C gene can be found here: [...]ww.icr.org/article/3271/. The author claims that it is difficult to determine what is a real pseudogene, because (as far as I understand the argument) sometimes parts of a pathway that produces one thing often produce something else.

What might look like a "broken gene" might not be broken after all. If it is not a broken gene, the argument for common ancestry of primates and humans from this gene would lose its foundation.

The gene, in that case, would just be a particular gene perhaps unique to primates, which would be equally well-explained by common design.

Even if the gene turns out to be an actual broken gene, would that be better explained by common ancestry?

Humans and other primates are definitely uniquely alike in various ways. Could it be that all primates origially were created with a functioning vitamin-C gene and then they all, or most of them, lost it due to the same environmental (or whatever) factors?

In other words, the fact that primates all have the broken gene might just as easily indicate simply that created similarities between humans and other primates led to them suffering the same loss of gene function, whereas the differences between primates and other animals prevented that from happening to many of them. So, in light of all of this, why is common ancestry a better explanation than common design? Another question related to this: Are there any other species that have something that looks like it might be broken vitamin-C genes, besides humans and other primates?

[Snip]Note that the "mature creation" idea is not an ad-hoc way of accounting for evidence that seems to be against the creationist position; rather, it is a natural implication of six-day creationism in itself.

Christians argue that you have to have a self-existent, infinite (unlimited) being who is outside of space and time in order to explain the universe. One of the basic principles of logic is that all things or events that begin to be must have a cause of their existence, and a cause sufficient to produce the effect.

Some atheists have argued that the universe itself could be self-existent, and thus not need a cause. The problem with this is that the universe simply isn't self-existent. The universe is not really a unified thing but a collection of interacting things.

The collection as a whole must have had a beginning, and thus all the things in the collection must have had a beginning as well.

Time itself had to have had a beginning. Since the big bang theory has been accepted, most scientists have accepted that time has not gone on indefinitely, but this is better proven by philosophical argumentation. Time cannot have gone on forever because it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite series. If time had been going on forever, there would have passed already an infinite number of, say, minutes. But there cannot have already passed an infinite number of minutes, because it would take literally forever to traverse an infinite number of minutes.

[snip]So the first cause of all things must be outside of time. There is something that is timeless that "gave birth" to the temporal universe we all live in.

[snip]So if things are as they are each moment, why do they become different the next. There must be a cause outside of time which explains the occurrence of each new moment.

[snip]Eventually, then, we must come to something that is not a collection of parts, something that is undivided and thus can be truly ultimate, the first cause of all things.

Now, here is the implication of this observation for our present discussion. The ultimate first cause, as we have seen, must be an undivided reality. Thus, all things are going to find their origin/source in one unified thing in the end. If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter/energy (and there is nothing else it could possibly reduce to as nothing else is logically possible), then conciousness must exist as such, unreduced, in the first cause. In other words, the unified, undivided substance that is the cause of all things must possess consciousness, or be a mind. It would thus be a personal being, as opposed to an impersonal thing.

[snip]But an ultimate, objective standard of value requires theism, because to have value means to be important, but important to whom? Not to the laws of physics, or matter/energy. Only an ultimate person could ground ultimate values. Without an ultimate person, I might value things, and you might value things, but there would be no objective, absolute standard of valuable-ness outside of our preferences, and thus no ethical obligation to value anybody.

I've gone on for quite a while now so let's stop here. I haven't given you a complete case for Christianity or the Bible yet, but I have given you a case for theism, which is a major step in that direction.

How will you deal with the evidence? I suspect the temptation of many of you will be to ignore it and simply dismiss it by labeling it something like "philosophical mumbo-jumbo."

That is a non-rational response to philosophical evidence that is common today in certain segments of the culture, including naturalistic circles.

But you can't deal with serious arguments by dismissing them as silly without serious considerations.

I won't do that with your scientific arguments, so don't do that with my philosophical arguments.

I have given you evidence for theism. Your only rational responses are to accept it or show where my argumentation goes wrong.

Anything else is a refusal, for one reason or another, to deal with the evidence. If you are not used to thinking philosophically, I would suggest you get used to it.

We all have to learn new things sometimes if we want to be able to legitimately claim the title of "truth-seeker" to ourselves. Much of my philosophical argumentation is an attempt to spell out things that I think we all sense intuitively, whether we recognize it or not. But I am not content with intuition---I want to see the rational arguments laid out.

So I have done so. There is more I could add, and no doubt I could say what I have said better, but the evidence for theism is there. How will you respond to it?

0As we continue, I will give you more evidence for the Christian worldview and for the infallibility of the Bible. (Not all of it will take quite so long to lay out as today's portion has!) And we can continue to look at the scientific claims relating to Darwinism and YEC issues.

OK, enough for now! Thanks again!

Jeeze, I think a couple of you are way too impatient with Mark.

FYI: Scriptural violence can foster aggression.
Source: Nature, Vol. 446, pp. 114-115 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446114b; Published online 7 March 2007
URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7132/full/446114b.html

FYI: Scriptural violence can foster aggression.
Source: Nature, Vol. 446, pp. 114-115 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446114b; Published online 7 March 2007
URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7132/full/446114b.html

I'm not familiar with Paul Nelson's writings. If he makes claims about observables (e.g., certain classes of neural event), then those claims can be scientifically disproved. But those are not the sort of claims being made, to the best of my knowledge, by (say) Catholics in the ensoulment dispute---which is the context that B&W reference.

— Larry Gilman

We are approaching 200 comments on this thread and it has technically gone off topic. [what else is new?] What would you suggest?

Mark Hausam said: In other words, the unified, undivided substance that is the cause of all things must possess consciousness, or be a mind. It would thus be a personal being, as opposed to an impersonal thing. This fact explains other things human beings are aware of, such as the intrinsic value of human life and the existence of ethics. If the universe were fundamentally impersonal, objective moral values could not exist, because objective values can be nothing more nor less than an ideal standard/preference/goal with regard to what we are supposed to be and do.

Glen, now I see your new Comment #177667. I agree with you, except:

1) you say you were patient yet your post is full of impatient unconstructive scolding. With your bedside manner I'm glad you're not my doctor.

2) you want metaphysics first but how about logic first? It seems like a prerequsit and it may have the advantage of being feasible.

So you were once a creationist? That gives you much more feeling for it than I have. But 'feeling' in this case is not sensitivity (: as far as I can tell. I don't see why you would think endlessly berating people is the way to advance understanding.

Glen wants Mark to read Kant, among many other things, before making a blog comment. Get serious. Just discovering logic would be a very good step. One step at a time.

) you say you were patient yet your post is full of impatient unconstructive scolding.

With your bedside manner I'm glad you're not my doctor.

2) you want metaphysics first but how about logic first?

It seems like a prerequsit and it may have the advantage of being feasible.

So you were once a creationist? That gives you much more feeling for it than I have. But 'feeling' in this case is not sensitivity

(: as far as I can tell. I don't see why you would think endlessly berating people is the way to advance understanding.

Unless he can disabuse himself of that belief (and it is so very difficult when one has spent a life of reinforcement of his beliefs), at least contingently, there can be no real discussion about these things with him.

— Davidson

I won't do that with your scientific arguments, so don't do that with my philosophical arguments.

— Davidson

You need to learn philosphy, and why Kant labels the metaphysics that you use as "speculation".

He thinks he's a philosopher,

In other words, the fact that primates all have the broken gene might just as easily indicate simply that created similarities between humans and other primates led to them suffering the same loss of gene function, whereas the differences between primates and other animals prevented that from happening to many of them.

So, in light of all of this, why is common ancestry a better explanation than common design?

Come on guys, maybe we should give Mark a break. After all, look at how entertaining he has been.

The thread topic was the childishness of creationists and what happens? Along comes a creationist who claims his views are based strictly on the evidence. He claims we are all blinded by our committment to naturalism and that is why we can't possibly draw the right conclusions from the evidence ourselves. But when confronted with that evidence, he claims he needs time to study it, even though he presumably already did. Then he completely ignores all of the evidence and claims that God just lied to us. Then he launches into a meaningless philosophical discussion in an attmept to prove the infallability of the Bible, after just having subscribed to the concept of a deceitful God.

I mean come on, this is priceless. And no matter how much we ridicule him, he keeps coming back for more. I'm sure he's convinced he's going to show us all the error of our ways and save us all. I wonder if he'll start quoting from Of Pandas and People next, or maybe Icons of Evolution. Man, if he brings up those embryo drawings I'm going to bust a gut. And anyway, the thread has not really gone off-topic. This guy is the perfect example of exactly what the article was talking about.

And anyway, the thread has not really gone off-topic. This guy is the perfect example of exactly what the article was talking about.

Hello again.

This is going to be my last post on this forum, and I want to address it partly to the lurkers, those who have been watching this discussion.

I hope you have had an opportunity to see the sort of people those who inhabit this list are. When I made a comment on this list originally, I had no idea it would grow into such a large discussion. When I saw that it was growing, I was happy, because I enjoyed the prospect of trying to have a rational discussion of the evidence with people I disagreed with. I have my beliefs about things, which are rational and based on good evidence, but I still have more to learn. I knew that Darwinists are usually biased towards their position by naturalistic assumptions, and I wanted to try to show some of that as well as learn some new things for myself.

You have seen the result. In response to my repeated attempts to engage in rational, respectful conversation, almost my only response has been emotional tirades; bitter, angry, hateful attacks; terrible, mean-spirited insults; arrogant, condescending tones and answers; absurd, wild speculations about why we idiots believe what we believe (include hints at charges of sexual deviance!); a total ignoring of everything I say, or, when not ignoring, carelessly misconstruing my comments and presenting them in the most uncharitable and worst possible light; unproven accusations of dishonesty, psychological projection, and a number of other things; repeated attacks on my learning, intelligence, and character; being palpably guilty of the majority of the things they were constantly accusing me of, etc. The objective observer will notice that I warranted none of this, nor did I stoop to their level to return their own arrogance and hatred in kind. I listened to what they said and tried to deal carefully and fairly with the evidence (a little at a time). Mostly their only response to my arguments and thoughts have been irrational attacks. They have routinely substituted insults and bullying for dealing objectively with the evidence.

These are people who claim to be guided by rationality, fair-mindedness and objectivity. I hope you see what an utter joke that is. If these people are so arrogant, absurd, childish, and emotionally-driven in this conversation, what sort of suspicion does that cast on the objectivity of their commitment to Darwinism (and, in some cases, naturalism)? Now, their claims have to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not simply rejected because of their childish, emotionally-driven behavior--we should not stoop to their level and do to them what they have repeatedly done to me. But, at the very least, these are clearly people that no one should put blind faith in to get the evidence right. Their non-rational attitudes have been laid quite bare. Don't implicitly trust these people to define truth for you!

Now, this description does not equally apply to everyone I have spoken to here. Some have been far more bitter, some more condescending, than others. A couple have actually made some kind of recognizable attempt, to some degree, to talk rationally with me. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But all of you (as far as I have had opportunity to talk to you enough to get an idea of how self-aware you are) have shown a great need for self-awareness in your thinking. You do not know how, or don't want to know how, to really try to understand other ways of thinking from what you are used to and are comfortable with. Horizons can be expanded by actually (gasp!) talking to people on the other side of an issue, but most of you don't care about truth; you are more interested in having childish fun ridiculing people who obviously are not nearly as intelligent and virtuous as you are (please don't miss the sarcasm there!). I'll leave you to pat yourselves on the back for your wisdom and cleverness and goodness and to smirk at the stupid creationist. That seems to be all you are capable of doing.

I wasn't trying to use this forum to show up (ironically, given the theme of the original article that started this post) the childishness of most of the Darwinists on this thread, although that has worked out very well. I actually really did want to have a rational conversation, and I would have continued for some time trying to do that. David Stanton's revealing and clever little post towards the end changed my mind. When he basically outright admitted that this whole converstation was, for him, merely a fun little game and that he has no respect whatsoever for those he disagrees with, I decided that it would be inappropriate to continue to subject myself to such a degrading conversation.

Thanks to those of you who sometimes tried to at least somewhat engage in rational conversation. Thanks to those who gave me some interesting things to think about. To most of you, your entertainment is leaving now. I hope this conversation can be used to encourage you some day, by God's grace (the only thing that can change your hearts), to become virtuous, honest, objective, scientific, fair-minded people in reality and not just in assertion.

I'll leave you all with a statement of my worldview, which I believe to be rational and true: There is one God who created all the universe for his own glory, to show his perfections. He created human beings in his image, existing to bring glory to him. The human race has fallen into wicked rebellion against its creator, and we are all corrupt and guilty sinners who deserve nothing but the eternal wrath of God in hell for what we are and do. God has offered salvation to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God himself in the flesh. He lived a perfectly virtuous life, died to pay the penalty for sins, and rose from the dead in victory over sin and death. He offers forgiveness and a new, righteous heart to all who will accept them from him. Only God's grace can change your heart to accept this gift and turn back to obedience to him. If you turn, you have only him to thank and praise. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame. Those who reject him will receive the fullness of his just wrath for all eternity, but those who accept him by his grace, his unmerited favor, will receive eternal life, glorifying and enjoying God to all eternity.

If anyone wants to talk more to me about anything (including learning more about my worldview, or even to argue and debate with me or rationally discuss evidence with me, so long as you leave the abuse behind), don't hesitate to get in touch with me. My email address is mhausam@hotmail.com. Many of the Darwinists here will probably ridicule everything I have said here, as they have everything else, but the truth is the truth in spite of them.

Goodbye!

Mark

So Mark Hausam is Realpc's son?

Um, sorry I didn't moderate this thread, there was some potential for making progress with this guy, instead we had people fighting with him about Christianity and everything else.

FWIW here is my 2 cents on talking to creationists who actually want to talk: the most productive way to proceed in this sort of area is to focus on one single very narrow issue like the age of the earth, or even just a piece of evidence for the age of the earth. The only way to ever change the mind of a committed creationist is to get them to learn enough about some particular topic that they can see for themselves the difference between the evidence and what the Bible/creation scientists are telling them. Then they get concerned and go to the library and start reading on all the other issues, and 6-12 months later they realize they just can't believe the YEC stuff any more.

This whole process is rare but has happened multiple times on talk.origins. But we appear to have more rage-against-the-creationists people than the explain-nicely people in this particular thread.

Mark, if you are still listening, ignore the insults and everything, just take some time to learn about why scientists think the earth is old. Here are 2 good books:

1. G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth

2. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History.

You cannot really say you have investigated the issues even partially unless you read this two books.

Mark,
As a lurker here, I thought I would tell you what I saw in this thread. You were polite, but refused to see any view but your own. You say you wanted to learn a few things, but when your "facts" were systematically destroyed you refused to learn the actual facts that were presented to you.
Speaking politely while refusing to listen to what the other people say isn't polite, it's just giving a sermon without raising your voice. Maybe a few of the other posters were a little harsh, but they obviously read and responded to what you were trying to say, and gave solid reasons for not accepting it.
Gary

Perhaps some of the advice Mark received here seemed a bit blunt. On the other hand, it was also beginning to appear that Mark was playing some of the games many of us have seen other ID/Creationists play (at least I thought so).

I am willing to offer my apologies to Mark if he was really being sincere. But his last remarks show him to be pretty thin-skinned for someone who claims he wants to understand things that can be scary to people coming from his background. And my own observations of his problems with science stand. Whether or not he chooses to believe it, his own thinking is full of misinformation and locked up in a logical trap that is all too familiar to those of us who have seen it many times before.

The understanding of science and its implications doesn't make people evil, uncaring, or any of the other accusations he makes of the people who responded to him. Most of what he is interpreting as cruelty is really frustration, anger, and dismay at seeing an intelligent person making a fool of himself and contorting himself into philosophical knots. If reasoning doesn't seem to be working, then many people quite naturally, from experience, begin to suspect game-playing.

It may be that he will never learn what science is really all about. If he persists, I suspect it will be rougher that marine boot camp for him. He will have to face the concerns of people who are close to him who will fear for his soul.

However, if he ever does come out the other end of this, he will realize that this science stuff is more liberating than he can imagine now, and he won't have to give up his soul.

The choice is his alone to make.

As I said in an earlier post, we wish him luck.

Mark, all you have managed to convince the lurkers of, is the complete vacuity of your arguments. If that was your goal, ummm, bravo! You apparently need to go and look up the meaning of "evidence" in a dictionary... As for the content of the discussion, Carl Rennie summarised everything that needed to be said in just a few lines way back at comment #176652

But to get back on topic a bit, I thought it might be interesting to try and analyse how people like Mark can get it so terribly wrong. The reasoning seems (if we are to believe the example of Mark) to go something like this:

"The Bible is infallible: The Bible says that God created the Earth about 6000 odd years ago: Therefore any evidence that indicates that the Earth is older must have been manipulated by God to give this appearance".

I mean, in a certain manner, it's at least internally consistent... Obviously, for most of us here there is a major flaw, the Bible isn't infallible. But how do you demonstrate that to someone like Mark? Most of our arguments for the Bible being fallible are based on things like "The Bible says that the Earth is less than 10000 years old, we have evidence to the contrary, therefore the Bible is wrong".

What thought processes are we using to determine that our position is correct, and Mark's position is false? Personally I arrive at that position because I'm an atheist, and hence, taking the word of the Bible over the word of say, The Lord Of the Rings, doesn't make any sense - they're both just works of fiction, and hence have nothing to say about the reality of the universe about us. But what are the reasons of theistic evolutionists and agnostics? Application of Occam's razor? Scholarly knowledge of the history of the Bible, and how it was created? The thoughts of religious authority, such as the Pope, on these matters? I'd love to hear from the non-atheists here as to how they personally discount the testomy of religious texts...

I wasn't going to let Mark know about this, but on second thought maybe you should understand we also learned something back in the 1970s (before your time) from one of your heroes, Duane Gish. He use to deliberately make up all kinds of really outrageous stuff to irritate the scientists he was debating and then explain to his audience just how angry and evil scientists were because of their belief in evolution. His audiences ate it up.

Your last lecture to the lurkers hasn't gone unnoticed. We know that game very well. If that is the game you are playing, then you are the bigger fool for revealing that you and your cohorts haven't matured in the intervening years. It's part of the profile.

I hope for your sake that this isn't the case.

But to get back on topic a bit, I thought it might be interesting to try and analyse how people like Mark can get it so terribly wrong. The reasoning seems (if we are to believe the example of Mark) to go something like this: "The Bible is infallible: The Bible says that God created the Earth about 6000 odd years ago: Therefore any evidence that indicates that the Earth is older must have been manipulated by God to give this appearance".

— demallien

So, in light of all of this, why is common ancestry a better explanation than common design?

Mark,

Sorry if I offended you, but in my own defense you really offended me first. I guess that is why I felt I eventually had to resort to ridicule.

First, you asked for evidence and I provided it. But you didn't look at the evidence. You didn't read the references, you didn't go to the web sites, you didn't try to understand anything. And all this after you presumed to tell us that you had already examined the evidence.

Second, you attacked our integrity by claiming that we were all blinded by our committment to naturalism. That was also extremely offensive to me. Still, I tried to be civil. I even opened up to you and revealed personal information in order to let you see that not only do I understand, but that I have walked many miles in your shoes. That is why I tried so hard to have a decent conversation with you. I identify with you more than you could possibly know. And what was your response to my personal revelation? You completely ignored it, never even mentioned it. Well, so what, who cares? Man, if I were using my real name here I'd feel pretty silly now.

And then, right on cue, you start trying to save us all with your testimony. Well, if you recall, I've been there and done that. Did I say I was no longer a Christian? Did I say I was in need of saving? Don't preach to me brother, Ive heard it all before.

So, goodbye Mark. I wish you well on your quest for truth, I really do. Do yourself a favor and take NIck's suggestions. Get a degree in Biology. Go into the lab and do some research. Then come back in about thirty years and let us know how it's going. Good luck.

First Mark claims he wants to engage in a rational discussion of facts, theories and logic. Despite his self-pitying claims to the contrary, it is plain to see that that is exactly what we gave him. I, for one, raised an objection to one of his most central points, and Glen, true to his well-known custom, gave several long and laborious point-by-point responses to his statements. And, instead of responding explicitly to any of our discussion, Mark simply ignores all of the substantive responses, cries about the insulting responses as if they were the only responses he got, and storms off in a huff, addressing his last post only to those who had not responded to him at all.

I won't bother with an extensive fisking, but I will quote a few choice bits...

In response to my repeated attempts to engage in rational, respectful conversation, almost my only response has been emotional tirades; bitter, angry, hateful attacks; terrible, mean-spirited insults; arrogant, condescending tones and answers; absurd, wild speculations about why we idiots believe what we believe (include hints at charges of sexual deviance!)...

Mark should have known that he was, at all times, perfectly capable of going past the insults and directly addressing only those points he considered worthy of his time. Instead, he did exactly the opposite, misrepresented criticism as "persecution," and went straight into overplaying the crybaby-victim card.

...a total ignoring of everything I say, or, when not ignoring, carelessly misconstruing my comments and presenting them in the most uncharitable and worst possible light...

This is not just an emotional reaction; it is a lie, told for the obvious purpose of defaming people who made him look like an ass. For someone who has said he wants to impose Old Testament law on everyone, this so-called Christian is pretty careless about obeying the Old Testament bit about not bearing false witness against one's neighbor.

Thanks to those of you who sometimes tried to at least somewhat engage in rational conversation.

Why did he not even try to respond to those attempts? Why didn't he at least thank the more civil respondents by name? Because that would only highlight exactly who, and which arguments, he was running away from.

If anyone wants to talk more to me about anything...don't hesitate to get in touch with me. My email address is...

So he won't talk to us here, but he will talk to us via email. Or so he says. Of course, if any of us conclusively refute his "logic" via email, he'll be able to deny it happened, and continue pretending he's always right and we're all just impotent raging heathens. I predict he will post claims, here or elsewhere, that no one ever refuted any of his claims, and/or he was flooded with anti-Christian hate-mail. (Why else would he post an email address on a blog where he claims to have got so many hateful responses?)

It's perfectly obvious by now that Mark came here with a script, and would have stuck to the script no matter what any of us said. His blatant misrepresentation of our responses is sufficient proof of that. WE didn't give him the response his closed doctrine led him to expect; so he gave it to himself instead.

I'd love to hear from the non-atheists here as to how they personally discount the testomy of religious texts...

Speaking for myself, I do not "discount" religious texts in their entirety; I merely discount certain peripheral bits of those texts, and human interpretations thereof that I find useless or erroneous.

In the case of the Bible, my reasoning is as follows:

1) The primary subject of the Bible, the subject the authors seem to want us to focus our attention on, is not science or history or the physical world; it is Man's relationship to God: how he feels about us, what he wants us to do, how he thinks we should behave. If you count on the Bible for the definitive word on any other subject, you are misusing the Bible, and will probably be misled into wrong or fruitless actions. (Ever notice how the YEC's pay so much attention to details in Genesis, and so little attention to the teachings of Jesus or the Ten Commandments?)

2) Man's relationship to God is so nebulous and transcendent a subject that it simply cannot be described in a literal way, especially to people who don't have the time to spare for full-blown seminary training. So the Bible is not written as a literal document, and is not meant to be interpreted so.

3) Pick a famous Bible story, such as the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, or even the Crucifixion and Ressurection; and ask yourself WHY it's considered important. Chances are you'll see that, whether or not it's believed literally true, it's also told for its symbolic truth, to dramatically illustrate some larger truth so that ordinary people can understand it. In the case of the Prodigal Son, for example, the literal truth of the story -- who, exactly, the Prodigal Son really was, how many siblings he had, etc. -- doesn't even matter; the whole thing could have been made up by a preacher in the Mideast, and it would still resonate as an allegorical/symbolic representation of an important truth about Man's relationship to God.

Anyway, that's my answer. Sorry to go even more OT than my last post...

[7:3] Why do you notice the sliver in your friend's eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, "Let me get the sliver out of your eye, when there is that timber in your own? You phony, first take the timber out of your own eye and then you'll see well enough to remove the sliver from your friends eye.

[18:3] And he said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' [Emphasis mine, obviously]

In the end is all about retaining power over the masses. Conversion to Jesus is just the convenient excuse so they believe they are following the call "to go and preach". However, this situation is a recapitulation of previous episodes when the Roman Catholic Church ruled over European societies. You can see a parallel of the tactics and reasoning used by fundies to retain power and those used by the Roman Church. Of course without the Inquisitorial tribunal but only because they don't have that much power over the society.
Treat the followers like kiddies and they will be submissive to your decree and will do your biding. Reason have no bearing in this scenario therefore science is a particularly big target. After all you have to save souls that will no doubt be condemned to eternal suffering in Hell.

Raging Bee wrote:

"It's perfectly obvious by now that Mark came here with a script, and would have stuck to the script no matter what any of us said. His blatant misrepresentation of our responses is sufficient proof of that. WE didn't give him the response his closed doctrine led him to expect; so he gave it to himself instead."

I completely agree. I never ridiculed this guy until after he had preven he had a very think skin and an almost pathological need to be abused. Even then I tried to be relatively civil and merely pointed out the flaws in his reasoning. And I'm the reason he doesn't want to play with us anymore? He was called a fool, ignorant, a liar, his knowledge and competency were denegrated, etc. Notice that I didn't do any of that.

What I think happened is that he might have actually learned something and then realized that he was completely wrong. Or maybe he just ran into something he couldn't find an easy answer for on some creationist website. Or maybe he just got lazy and decided evidence wasn't all that important after all. Now, how to find a convenient excuse to get out of this gracefully. I know, now I'm offended. Yea, that's it. That'll work.

Hello again. This is going to be my last post on this forum, and I want to address it partly to the lurkers, those who have been watching this discussion.

I hope you have had an opportunity to see the sort of people those who inhabit this list are.

When I made a comment on this list originally, I had no idea it would grow into such a large discussion. When I saw that it was growing, I was happy, because I enjoyed the prospect of trying to have a rational discussion of the evidence with people I disagreed with. I have my beliefs about things, which are rational and based on good evidence, but I still have more to learn.

I knew that Darwinists are usually biased towards their position by naturalistic assumptions, and I wanted to try to show some of that as well as learn some new things for myself.

You have seen the result. In response to my repeated attempts to engage in rational, respectful conversation, almost my only response has been emotional tirades; bitter, angry, hateful attacks; terrible, mean-spirited insults;

arrogant, condescending tones and answers; absurd, wild speculations about why we idiots believe what we believe (include hints at charges of sexual deviance!);

a total ignoring of everything I say, or, when not ignoring, carelessly misconstruing my comments and presenting them in the most uncharitable and worst possible light;

unproven accusations of dishonesty, psychological projection, and a number of other things; repeated attacks on my learning, intelligence, and character;

being palpably guilty of the majority of the things they were constantly accusing me of, etc.

The objective observer will notice that I warranted none of this, nor did I stoop to their level to return their own arrogance and hatred in kind.

For me to assume naturalism in science would be like an atheist assuming, purely for the sake of method, that the Bible is literally true when doing science. That would, of course, be ridiculous. Why is it any less ridiculous for a Christian to assume naturalism? Your starting assumptions influence your conclusions. One of the main creationist claims is that the evidence for Darwinism is only greatly compelling when one assumes naturalism. If you assume naturalism, something like Darwinism has got to be the way life arose (what other plausible naturalistic possibilities are there?), and so a commitment to naturalism makes the evidence for Darwinism seem incredibly compelling.

I listened to what they said and tried to deal carefully and fairly with the evidence (a little at a time).

Mostly their only response to my arguments and thoughts have been irrational attacks. They have routinely substituted insults and bullying for dealing objectively with the evidence.

These are people who claim to be guided by rationality, fair-mindedness and objectivity. I hope you see what an utter joke that is. If these people are so arrogant, absurd, childish, and emotionally-driven in this conversation, what sort of suspicion does that cast on the objectivity of their commitment to Darwinism (and, in some cases, naturalism)?

Now, their claims have to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not simply rejected because of their childish, emotionally-driven behavior---we should not stoop to their level and do to them what they have repeatedly done to me. But, at the very least, these are clearly people that no one should put blind faith in to get the evidence right. Their non-rational attitudes have been laid quite bare. Don't implicitly trust these people to define truth for you!

Now, this description does not equally apply to everyone I have spoken to here. Some have been far more bitter, some more condescending, than others. A couple have actually made some kind of recognizable attempt, to some degree, to talk rationally with me.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But all of you (as far as I have had opportunity to talk to you enough to get an idea of how self-aware you are) have shown a great need for self-awareness in your thinking. You do not know how, or don't want to know how, to really try to understand other ways of thinking from what you are used to and are comfortable with.

Horizons can be expanded by actually (gasp!) talking to people on the other side of an issue, but most of you don't care about truth; you are more interested in having childish fun ridiculing people who obviously are not nearly as intelligent and virtuous as you are (please don't miss the sarcasm there!).

I'll leave you to pat yourselves on the back for your wisdom and cleverness and goodness and to smirk at the stupid creationist. That seems to be all you are capable of doing.

I wasn't trying to use this forum to show up (ironically, given the theme of the original article that started this post) the childishness of most of the Darwinists on this thread, although that has worked out very well.

I actually really did want to have a rational conversation, and I would have continued for some time trying to do that. David Stanton's revealing and clever little post towards the end changed my mind. When he basically outright admitted that this whole converstation was, for him, merely a fun little game and that he has no respect whatsoever for those he disagrees with, I decided that it would be inappropriate to continue to subject myself to such a degrading conversation.

Thanks to those of you who sometimes tried to at least somewhat engage in rational conversation. Thanks to those who gave me some interesting things to think about.

To most of you, your entertainment is leaving now. I hope this conversation can be used to encourage you some day, by God's grace (the only thing that can change your hearts), to become virtuous, honest, objective, scientific, fair-minded people in reality and not just in assertion.

I'll leave you all with a statement of my worldview, which I believe to be rational and true: There is one God who created all the universe for his own glory, to show his perfections. He created human beings in his image, existing to bring glory to him. The human race has fallen into wicked rebellion against its creator, and we are all corrupt and guilty sinners who deserve nothing but the eternal wrath of God in hell for what we are and do. God has offered salvation to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God himself in the flesh. He lived a perfectly virtuous life, died to pay the penalty for sins, and rose from the dead in victory over sin and death. He offers forgiveness and a new, righteous heart to all who will accept them from him.

Only God's grace can change your heart to accept this gift and turn back to obedience to him. If you turn, you have only him to thank and praise. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame. Those who reject him will receive the fullness of his just wrath for all eternity, but those who accept him by his grace, his unmerited favor, will receive eternal life, glorifying and enjoying God to all eternity.

If anyone wants to talk more to me about anything (including learning more about my worldview, or even to argue and debate with me or rationally discuss evidence with me, so long as you leave the abuse behind), don't hesitate to get in touch with me.

My email address is [...]. Many of the Darwinists here will probably ridicule everything I have said here, as they have everything else, but the truth is the truth in spite of them.

Goodbye!

Some here are familiar with the "Gish Gallop" which Duane Gish developed and polished somewhere back in the 1970s. In a debate with a scientist, he would throw out a barrage of complete nonsense and the scientist would attempt to make a point-by-point refutation (the rules of the debate were allegedly to stick to the science). Gish would not even respond to the refutation, but would simply throw out another barrage. This sequence was repeated throughout the debate.

If the scientist got impatient, Gish would be sure to make the worst of it by suggesting to his audiences that this impatience was anger at having the evils of evolution exposed by him.

You may have noticed that Mark was doing a similar thing on this thread. Over the years there have been a number of roles that the ID/Creationists have developed and taken on in debates. These roles come from the imagined heroes in their pantheon of Christian warriors. The role has nothing to do with learning about science but, instead, to become a conquering warrior or a heroic martyr. In Mark's case, he chose the "Sacrificial Lamb" role. He played the gentle and innocent seeker of Truth hoping to learn as well as to influence.

His final post was an over-the-top Wagnerian opera death scene in which the lamb in his final death throws reminds his audience that, in his innocence and purity, he has been brutally shredded to death by the evil Darwinist wolves he came to tame as well as learn from. He even ended it with a final goodbye in a minor key.

This is a scene that is sure to bring tears to the eyes of a young mother who envisions the terrors faced by her children as they head off to public schools. And it reinforces the image of the evilness produced in humans by the belief in evolution.

I don't think I am being too cynical here. Mark could have been sincere, but in a public forum like this, that would be extremely unlikely. He was aware of the audience (lurkers). One doesn't do this kind of "humble" searching for truth in a public debate on a forum like this. I began to suspect this when he didn't respond to any of the refutations offered by others in this thread.

He apparently didn't pick up on some not-so-subtle hints that some of us may have been on to him, and my impression was that most people tried to read his stuff and respond appropriately. He was not treated any more rudely that a scientist would have been treated for making the same blunders.

This is why I think it is risky to attempt to engage in point-by-point refutations in these kinds of debates. Most of the time it is a trap. It is better to not get caught in the role playing and to simply but consistently refer the individual to the scientific literature, offering only some general guidance about where the problems are in the individual's thinking.

I keep coming back to this description in my thinking about you---many of you (not all) seem like fundamentalists in the worse sense---close-mnded, bigoted, emotionally-driven, un-self-aware people

Um, sorry I didn't moderate this thread, there was some potential for making progress with this guy, instead we had people fighting with him about Christianity and everything else.

FWIW here is my 2 cents on talking to creationists who actually want to talk: the most productive way to proceed in this sort of area is to focus on one single very narrow issue like the age of the earth, or even just a piece of evidence for the age of the earth.

The only way to ever change the mind of a committed creationist is to get them to learn enough about some particular topic that they can see for themselves the difference between the evidence and what the Bible/creation scientists are telling them. Then they get concerned and go to the library and start reading on all the other issues, and 6-12 months later they realize they just can't believe the YEC stuff any more.

This whole process is rare but has happened multiple times on talk.origins. But we appear to have more rage-against-the-creationists people than the explain-nicely people in this particular thread.

Mark, if you are still listening, ignore the insults and everything

just take some time to learn about why scientists think the earth is old. Here are 2 good books: 1. G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth 2. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History.

You cannot really say you have investigated the issues even partially unless you read this two books.

This is why I think it is risky to attempt to engage in point-by-point refutations in these kinds of debates. Most of the time it is a trap.

— Mike Elzinga

If so it is a poor one. A textual message thread developing over several days provides the sort of time and space required to fisk a "Gish Gallop" effectively. This is almost a perfect forum for point-by-point refutations. It's not necessary to continue to follow the "Gish Gallop" indefinitely; just long enough to show that the supposed "gentle and innocent seeker of Truth" is utterly uninterested in the replies, and by extension the truth. That's hard to do within the constraints of a verbal debate, it's much easier here.

It is not the fisking but the name-calling that provided a foil to the sacrificial lamb here.

You may have noticed that Mark was doing a similar thing [Gish Gallop] on this thread. Over the years there have been a number of roles that the ID/Creationists have developed and taken on in debates. These roles come from the imagined heroes in their pantheon of Christian warriors. The role has nothing to do with learning about science but, instead, to become a conquering warrior or a heroic martyr. In Mark's case, he chose the "Sacrificial Lamb" role. He played the gentle and innocent seeker of Truth hoping to learn as well as to influence.

Both Darwinists and creationists generally see the creation-evolution controversy in this light. Creationists (and many theists in general) often argue that a fundamental pride and rebellious attitude towards the true God is what motivates people to be naturalists and Darwinists. Pride and rebellion cause them to suppress the truth, thus distorting their processes of reasoning so that they miss the obvious and end up endorsing nonsense, despite the intelligence of many naturalists which, if not subjected to their rebellious spirit, would lead them in a totally different direction. Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary. By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist.

This is a scene that is sure to bring tears to the eyes of a young mother who envisions the terrors faced by her children as they head off to public schools. And it reinforces the image of the evilness produced in humans by the belief in evolution.

I don't think I am being too cynical here. Mark could have been sincere, but in a public forum like this, that would be extremely unlikely. He was aware of the audience (lurkers). One doesn't do this kind of "humble" searching for truth in a public debate on a forum like this. I began to suspect this when he didn't respond to any of the refutations offered by others in this thread.

[snip]He was not treated any more rudely that a scientist would have been treated for making the same blunders.

This is why I think it is risky to attempt to engage in point-by-point refutations in these kinds of debates. Most of the time it is a trap.

It is better to not get caught in the role playing and to simply but consistently refer the individual to the scientific literature, offering only some general guidance about where the problems are in the individual's thinking.

A textual message thread developing over several days provides the sort of time and space required to fisk a "Gish Gallop" effectively. This is almost a perfect forum for point-by-point refutations.

This has been some thread!

But I am convinced that Mark never comprehended that he has been thoroughly, completely fisked...

That's not a recommended teaching method.

Right, well I treated him quite well in the beginning

If you know anything about psychology, you know that the emotional content of an argument sways most people at least as much as the intellectual content

Frankly, "defenders of evolution" who can't exercise a little self-restraint when it comes to insulting people are some of the best recruiters a creationist could have.

No, you didn't, Glen. Your replies to Mark Hausam were haughty and condescending from the start (see #176580, and your following posts aren't better).

Both Darwinists and creationists generally see the creation-evolution controversy in this light. Creationists (and many theists in general) often argue that a fundamental pride and rebellious attitude towards the true God is what motivates people to be naturalists and Darwinists.

Pride and rebellion cause them to suppress the truth, thus distorting their processes of reasoning so that they miss the obvious and end up endorsing nonsense, despite the intelligence of many naturalists which, if not subjected to their rebellious spirit, would lead them in a totally different direction.

Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

By the way, in case anyone hasn't detected it by now, I am a Christian and a creationist. I don't particularly enjoy getting into motives too much, but I have to agree with CJO that sometimes it is necessary to do so.

However, thoughts about motives should not take away from what in my last post I called "the real question," which is the state of the evidence.

Sometimes discussions about motives can degenerate into ad hominem arguments and simply name-calling, which, of course, should never replace serious evaluation and argumentation.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the way that many of the pro-science posters behaved themselves on this thread.

I've been watching this exchange, and I couldn't help but notice the number of people who were ready to assume the utter worst about Mark Hausam, to the extent of putting words in his mouth (see raven in #176590, for example). harold, your grotesque insinuations about the sexual tastes of Christians were way, way out of line. Sir_Toejam, sometimes I swear you couldn't be polite to someone if your life depended on it.

It is extremely frustrating to see intelligent people behave so foolishly.

Why is it that creationism remains so popular? Why is it that we have so much trouble convincing religious people that we're worth listening to?

It certainly isn't because of the facts--- and yet so many of you behave as though facts are all that matter. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this debate. If you know anything about psychology, you know that the emotional content of an argument sways most people at least as much as the intellectual content.

If you deliver a cogently reasoned argument in an insulting tone, your opponent will find it very difficult to accept your reasoning.

Yet despite this, many posters here pay little or no attention to whether they're coming across as insulting or not.

Frankly, "defenders of evolution" who can't exercise a little self-restraint when it comes to insulting people are some of the best recruiters a creationist could have.

If you turn someone off to science or evolution by coming across as an arrogant prick, you've done as much harm as if you'd told someone that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

Get a clue: if you're going to convince any of the vast majority of the American public that evolution is correct, you can't afford to come across as arrogant or condescending in their eyes.

Act like you're an ambassador to another culture. Learn what's appropriate and inappropriate in that culture.

Until you do that, very few people are going to be able to hear your elegantly-reasoned scientific arguments--- and that's your fault.

And if you can't be bothered to develop that level of politeness, do science a favor and keep your mouth shut, because, frankly, you're doing more harm than good.

Of course one can google "Mark Hausam" and come up with things like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkghhMoCzU

It seems clear that he made up his mind a long time ago and no mere "evidence" could possibly change it.

And then look at his current teaching job and graduate student status. :-(

again, if you can't see the difference, you're gonna waste a lot of time, and I'd make an argument that if you waste time on the hopeless ones, THAT is doing a service to the creationists. Have you even considered the possibility that it's exactly what they want?

Mark:

If you're still reading this, I see that you are a member of a Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City. This means that where you live you are in fact a member of a religious minority. May I ask what your opinion of Mormonism is?

and continuing misrepresentation of folks like Mark as if he were willing to learn anything, rather than use the opportunity to preach, is naive at best.

As interesting as these forums can be, their prime disadvantage for me personally is that they can quickly become unfocused and take up more time than I have to available participate. The more traditional sources of information (books, libraries, journals, magazines, and the many internet sources) have a much higher density of information per word and track more directly to where one wants to go.

While I have enough experience and confidence with my own areas of expertise that come up in these discussions, this medium doesn't feel right and puts me off when it comes to expressing complex ideas. From a pedagogical perspective, it seems quite poor compared to other media I have used. With many voices vying for attention, trolls dropping in and deflection the conversation, frustration over being misunderstood, the mixing of crap with the good stuff, it often seems more like a place to acquire misconceptions about people and ideas instead of reliable knowledge.

One can watch free-for-alls on TV if that is what one wants. But when attempting to learn, the traditional sources seem better to me and that is where I would want to direct people rather than try to explain things on a forum such as this. Concentrated learning requires shutting out the bedlam, if only for a couple of hours at a time.

I marvel at how much time many of you can put into this. I can't sit on my duff at the computer for that long without cramping up, physically and mentally.

It seems clear that he made up his mind a long time ago and no mere "evidence" could possibly change it.

f you're rude to Sal Cordova, you play right into his hands; he looks like the "good guy" to a naive audience.

It seems clear that he made up his mind a long time ago and no mere "evidence" could possibly change it.

f you're rude to Sal Cordova, you play right into his hands; he looks like the "good guy" to a naive audience.

I don't know what kind of "proof" you want, STJ, but I have spent a fair bit of time hanging out with evangelicals, and they place a high priority on the way that people treat one another. (Think I'm wrong? Prove otherwise.) If you're rude to Sal Cordova, you play right into his hands; he looks like the "good guy" to a naive audience. And what's the point of being rude? It does nothing for science.

harold, your grotesque insinuations about the sexual tastes of Christians were way, way out of line

A few more thoughts on Mark Hausam and how he was treated here...

First, Mark was treated politely when he first identified himself as a YEC. In fact, he was explicitly welcomed and thanked for being more civil than most of his kind have been here. After that, many posters gave point-by-point responses to his assertions that, while often rough-sounding (like a teacher addressing a student who clearly hadn't done his homework), were on-point and directly addressed Mark's case. I've been on the receiving end of much worse, and less relevant, insults, both here and elsewhere, and it never stopped me from making the case I wanted to make. The insults directed at Mark were no more than what you'd expect in a widely-read public blog where anyone can post a response. Public debate on substantive issues can be rough; that's just a fact of life. Mark has no excuse for crying and running away from the debate he intended to start.

Second, if Mark was really as true a Christian as he claimed to be, then the teachings of Jesus would have made him wise enough, and strong enough, to weather the insults, stick to the points he thought worth defending, and calmly persevere in his quest to spread, and help us understand, whatever message he thought important. I'm not a Christian myself, but I've encountered Christian evangelists who were made visibly wiser and stronger by their Gospel; their bearing and behavior made them more convincing evangelists, and I respect them even though I did not adopt their beliefs. Mark's actions here prove he is not in that group: he accused us of misrepresenting his message, but made no attempt to correct any such misunderstandings -- a gross dereliction of duty for someone charged with leading others to the path of righteousness.

Third, regarding this point:

If you turn someone off to science or evolution by coming across as an arrogant prick, you've done as much harm as if you'd told someone that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

I agree that excessive incivility can hurt our cause, and it's something we need to observe every day; but we must also understand that the creationists and other tribalist demagogues go out of their way to force such situations, in order to deter their flock from listening to "others." The script is standard all over the world: make an insulting and/or stupid comment; when "the enemy" expresses anger at being insulted or lied to, cry about how harsh and angry they are; when "the enemy" ponts out the dishonesty of your remarks, label it "persecution" and say something like "I was willing to discuss the subject politely, but you meanies insulted me! You just blew your chance to persuade me, and I'll never listen to you again!"

Fourth, on the question of which tactic "works" best when debating creationists, I think that depends on where your own intellectual strengths are, who you're arguing with, and where. My general rule is: find out what matters most to your "opponent," and argue at least part of your case from there. In Mark's case, he quickly made it obvious that his entire case was based on clinging to the Bible as an "infallible" source of Truth, so I tried to address that basic underpinning of his world-view. His total failure even to acknowledge my point leads me to conclude that he was unable to refute it -- and may, in the provacy of his bedroom at least, be wondering if he was really right after all.

Finally, we don't really know whether any of our arguments succeded or failed in Mark's case. He stormed off in a huff from this thread, but seeds of doubt may have been planted, and perhaps, as he and his friends grow up, he may find a secure place to stand against the lies he was fed in the name of his Savior. Or not. People are known to recoil in horror at an "alien" idea, then come to understand and embrace it months or years later.

If you're rude to Sal Cordova, you play right into his hands; he looks like the "good guy" to a naive audience.

And that's why Sal makes rude responses all but inevitable, by spewing outright lies while pretending to be the very embodiment of brown-nosed civility. It's his schtick, and his place in the creationist movement.

Which is why, when Sal shows up at all, many of us base our rudeness on an explicltly-laid-out factual case, using quotes and references, to prove he's a liar. That won't convince the die-hard tribalists, of course, but it may sow seeds of doubt in anyone who gives a shit about truth and honest Christian behavior.

The script is standard all over the world: make an insulting and/or stupid comment; when "the enemy" expresses anger at being insulted or lied to, cry about how harsh and angry they are; when "the enemy" ponts out the dishonesty of your remarks, label it "persecution" and say something like "I was willing to discuss the subject politely, but you meanies insulted me! You just blew your chance to persuade me, and I'll never listen to you again!"

"Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a 'controversy' to teach."

Glen D.: Did you read what I wrote?

So, what did we say that was inaccurate (I know you didn't say it was, I'm pointing out that truth matters, yet not to you concern trolls)?

You keep insisting that nothing you said was incorrect.

— Spitzer

My whole point was that being accurate is not enough.

Do you think that it's enough?

If it is, then go convince all the creationists that evolution makes sense. We'll be waiting right here.

I agree that excessive incivility can hurt our cause, and it's something we need to observe every day; but we must also understand that the creationists and other tribalist demagogues go out of their way to force such situations, in order to deter their flock from listening to "others." The script is standard all over the world: make an insulting and/or stupid comment; when "the enemy" expresses anger at being insulted or lied to, cry about how harsh and angry they are; when "the enemy" ponts out the dishonesty of your remarks, label it "persecution" and say something like "I was willing to discuss the subject politely, but you meanies insulted me! You just blew your chance to persuade me, and I'll never listen to you again!"

It is easy to construct a psychological account of why just about anyone does just about anything. If you don't like someone's beliefs, or you take them to be false, you can always come up with some account of a non-rational process that is the REAL reason why they believe it.

Thank you for your civil tone.

And what's the point of being rude?

Well, this was quite the thread, but has certainly gone downhill here in the coda...

well, I'd make the suggestion that the reason a troll like Mark was so easily able to hijack the thread is that by and large the vast majority of visitors do not have access to the actual paper being discussed.

which brings up the general point that the limited access to many of these articles greatly limits discussion historically, as well.

My suggestion would be either for the contributors to do a more thorough job detailing the methods and results of the papers presented, try to choose papers that DO have public access to make their points with, or figure out some way for blog participants to get limited access in some form.

Also, I think science blogs should lobby scientific journals for public access to what they think are important papers for public policy discussion.

I highly encourage everyone to review the current status of the open access journals, and support those journals who participate.

http://www.doaj.org/

Well, this was quite the thread, but has certainly gone downhill here in the coda...

Well, this was quite the thread, but has certainly gone downhill here in the coda...

onein6billion,

Thanks for the link. It was very revealing. It is now obvious that this guy was lying to all of us from the very beginning. It now appears that when he realized that he would not be able to convince any of us that he was right and that he would definately not be able to convert any of us that he simply gave up. I for one now regret giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but in the same issue of Science as the article under discussion, there was a short announcement concerning a new journal being put out by the ICR. It is described as a "professional peer reviewed journal . . . to support theories such as the young earth, the global flood and the non-evolutionary origin of the species." This should be good for a few laughs. And since when do journals request data supporting any particular theory? I guess contrary data won't even be considered, go figure. Perhaps this topic would deserve a new thread. Perhaps one is already in the works.

Popper's Ghost & harold --- Thanks for the heads-up regarding B. Spitzer.

I guess we can't get him banned yet?

I (almost) always like it when Popper's Ghost shows up on these threads, not only because he's usually right, but because he makes the rest of us look like saints by comparison (and I don't necessarily think that "saint" is a good thing, especially when dealing with Spitzer and Hausam, but it does deflect attacks).

And no, this isn't in the least way a criticism of his harsh, name-calling posts. There's a lot to be said for just noting what an effing moron someone is and moving on. However, I'll leave that up to PG.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

My suggestion would be either for the contributors to do a more thorough job detailing the methods and results of the papers presented, try to choose papers that DO have public access to make their points with, or figure out some way for blog participants to get limited access in some form.

Well, this was quite the thread, but has certainly gone downhill here in the coda...

My suggestion would be either for the contributors to do a more thorough job detailing the methods and results of the papers presented, try to choose papers that DO have public access to make their points with, or figure out some way for blog participants to get limited access in some form.

Well, this was quite the thread, but has certainly gone downhill here in the coda...

Popper's Ghost & harold --- Thanks for the heads-up regarding B. Spitzer. I guess we can't get him banned yet?

Popper's Ghost shows up on these threads, not only because he's usually right

but because he makes the rest of us look like saints by comparison

I guess you've forgiven me for rudely dismissing you in our previous exchange (I didn't want to get into a fight with you when there are far more deserving targets for both of us; but I was embarrassed by the way I handled that, so I never went back to see your response).

Perhaps he should cogitate over the fact that expressions of contempt are so powerful that judges are allowed to take away one's liberty without due process for any such expression toward the court.

I haven't seen many responses to Harold's observations, but I thought they were interesting and relevant to the issues raised by the Science paper.

I don't know if Harold would have raised them had Mark not showed up (my first impression was that he saw an opportunity to question a real example when Mark appeared), but the fears that many of these authoritarian groups have about evolution include the immorality issues they associate with evolution (if we are descended from apes we will act like apes).

So my own impression was that Harold was unfairly attacked.

If I may offer another somewhat more critical observation (but not intended to discredit the cogent points made by persons making them), I felt that some appeared a little thin-skinned when attacked. Maybe it has to do with my being a physicist and an ex-submariner (and maybe a bit more "thick-sculled") but I felt it would have been wiser to ignore the personal attacks and simply defend the point at issue.

But over all, I think most here did quite well given the crazyness of some of the arguments by the trolls.

But I was thinking of asking, is it the Christian aspect that typically motivates Spitzer to go on these attacks? I've seen him around without really noticing what he responds to, and didn't even recall that he was such an inept and self-righteous bozo. If he's on some sanctimonious religious trip it would explain him somewhat.

Phil Johnson cites The Blind Watchmaker as inspiring him to start the ID movement. To hear Johnson tell it, the ID movement might never have existed if reading that book hadn't lit the fuse.

Whether the audience is the opponent or whether the audience is the lurkers, insulting an opponent is going to turn off a lot of people, especially Christians.

did you have an amusing anecdote behind that statement?

Yeah, because the fans of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Swift Boaters, virtually every hate radio jock in American history (Father Coughlin, anyone?), the KKK, racists, etc. ad nauseam ... not a single one is Christian, nosiree. No, it's especially scientists, with PT contributors being at the top of the list, who insult their sweet innocent cheek-turning neighbor-loving Christian opponents.

Yeah, because the fans of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Swift Boaters, virtually every hate radio jock in American history (Father Coughlin, anyone?), the KKK, racists, etc. ad nauseam ... not a single one is Christian, nosiree. No, it's especially scientists, with PT contributors being at the top of the list, who insult their sweet innocent cheek-turning neighbor-loving Christian opponents.

Yeah, because the fans of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Swift Boaters, virtually every hate radio jock in American history (Father Coughlin, anyone?), the KKK, racists, etc. ad nauseam ... not a single one is Christian, nosiree. No, it's especially scientists, with PT contributors being at the top of the list, who insult their sweet innocent cheek-turning neighbor-loving Christian opponents.

Oooh, sorry about the multiple posts.

This server not only remains inadequate, its problems apparently morph into new forms which I don't recognize immediately. I kept getting a site that said "Forbidden", even as what I wrote posted.

I hope someone is thinking about improving the server, cause it's sure been doing a bad job lately, from agonizingly slow posting times, to outright crashing.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Re "I kept getting a site that said "Forbidden","

That is a rather inappropriate error message for what is probably a server or network congestion issue.

Henry

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the way that many of the pro-science posters behaved themselves on this thread.

LOL.

I miss Great White Wonder.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the way that many of the pro-science posters behaved themselves on this thread.

LOL. Where is Great White Wonder when you need him?

[slightly saner mode]I get it now, Spitzer just wants science to end and a golden age of fundie love to prevail. You know, the Age of Aquarius.[/slightly saner mode]

I still haven't figured out what to think of Mark Hausam. I'm a charitable person and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk him up to at least being earnest, if annoyingly unresponsive to direct questions.

But I'm around evangelical types a lot, and this illustrates on of the most frustrating problems with trying to have a discussion about science with a YEC, even an earnest one.

We're just speaking a different conceptual language.

To a YEC, evolution is just another religion, and talking to an evolution believer is just like talking to a member of any other faith. Most religions even require a little proselytizing anyhow, and it's a familiar ritual.

A polite and earnest Christian can certainly have a civil conversation with someone with other beliefs, and may even listen courteously to the other guys sales pitch, but that's what it is, a sales pitch for another, competing religion.

Social protocol then demands that the other believer grant them the same courtesy and listen to their talking points, because, after all, their religious views are just as valid and protected in the public arena and should invite the same respect from men of good will.

These are matters of faith.

There is simply no framework in their world that there is some material, objective way to test matters of faith.

Yes, yes, on a conscious level they may talk about how they have evidence but that's not really how it works deep down inside. They simply have no mechanism that allows them to entertain the notion that their basic framework might be totally, completely, wrong.

Just ask someone who's deeply religious "What would you do if somehow you unambiguously discovered that God does not really exist".

You will never get an answer. The response will always be a version of "Well, I know that won't ever possibly happen".

They can speculate about what would happen if their spouse was eaten by wolves, or their house was hit by a meteorite, but not how they could be wrong about their God.

Personally, I think it's an avoidance mechanism in the face of overwhelming evidence, like all the parents who believe their sweet little teenager can't be having sex after finding a half empty package of birth control pills in her sock drawer. But I'm an engineer, not a psychologist, so hey, what do I know?

Science, on the other hand has no such qualms. The status quo in physics and life-sciences has been shaken to it's core over and over again in the last two centuries. That's how progress is made.

Can the TOE be wrong? Of course it can!

How do you tell? You examine all the evidence you can get your hands on, again and again and if the explanation doesn't fit the facts you get a new explanation.

You can ask a scientist what would happen if he suddenly, unambiguously found out that there was a God, and he'll typically answer quickly and insightfully (usually something like "I'd ask him... ")

That's why people like Mark get so flustered here.

We're speaking two different languages.

To them, even the honest ones, it's not an argument about facts any more than trying to convert the Buddhist next-door is an argument about "facts". It's about religion, about philosophy, and even a earnest YEC has a horrible time with hardcore science because we're so damned rude.

There's a protocol for religious debate, I'll politely listen to you proselytize about your false god, then you have to listen to me witness about the glories of mine.

We scientists don't do that. We keep harping about evidence, worthy in it's own sense, to but sure, but of trivial value compared to something really important like infallible faith.

Mark is upset because we don't take his philosophy seriously, he says so several times in those exact words.

We don't give a fig about philosophy, we're upset because he doesn't take out evidence seriously. We say so many times.

We both complain that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I deal with the laws of physics professionally and I don't have the luxury of pretending that the simple rules of nature don't work the way they very demonstrably do.

But I surely don't know how to get through to those people who insist on it. I just hope they're not out there right now making my new antibiotics.

I still haven't figured out what to think of Mark Hausam. I'm a charitable person and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk him up to at least being earnest, if annoyingly unresponsive to direct questions.

But I'm around evangelical types a lot, and this illustrates on of the most frustrating problems with trying to have a discussion about science with a YEC, even an earnest one.

We're just speaking a different conceptual language.

To a YEC, evolution is just another religion, and talking to an evolution believer is just like talking to a member of any other faith. Most religions even require a little proselytizing anyhow, and it's a familiar ritual.

A polite and earnest Christian can certainly have a civil conversation with someone with other beliefs, and may even listen courteously to the other guys sales pitch, but that's what it is, a sales pitch for another, competing religion.

Social protocol then demands that the other believer grant them the same courtesy and listen to their talking points, because, after all, their religious views are just as valid and protected in the public arena and should invite the same respect from men of good will.

These are matters of faith.

There is simply no framework in their world that there is some material, objective way to test matters of faith.

Yes, yes, on a conscious level they may talk about how they have evidence but that's not really how it works deep down inside. They simply have no mechanism that allows them to entertain the notion that their basic framework might be totally, completely, wrong.

Just ask someone who's deeply religious "What would you do if somehow you unambiguously discovered that God does not really exist".

You will never get an answer. The response will always be a version of "Well, I know that won't ever possibly happen".

They can speculate about what would happen if their spouse was eaten by wolves, or their house was hit by a meteorite, but not how they could be wrong about their God.

Personally, I think it's an avoidance mechanism in the face of overwhelming evidence, like all the parents who believe their sweet little teenager can't be having sex after finding a half empty package of birth control pills in her sock drawer. But I'm an engineer, not a psychologist, so hey, what do I know?

Science, on the other hand has no such qualms. The status quo in physics and life-sciences has been shaken to it's core over and over again in the last two centuries. That's how progress is made.

Can the TOE be wrong? Of course it can!

How do you tell? You examine all the evidence you can get your hands on, again and again and if the explanation doesn't fit the facts you get a new explanation.

You can ask a scientist what would happen if he suddenly, unambiguously found out that there was a God, and he'll typically answer quickly and insightfully (usually something like "I'd ask him... ")

That's why people like Mark get so flustered here.

We're speaking two different languages.

To them, even the honest ones, it's not an argument about facts any more than trying to convert the Buddhist next-door is an argument about "facts". It's about religion, about philosophy, and even a earnest YEC has a horrible time with hardcore science because we're so damned rude.

There's a protocol for religious debate, I'll politely listen to you proselytize about your false god, then you have to listen to me witness about the glories of mine.

We scientists don't do that. We keep harping about evidence, worthy in it's own sense, to but sure, but of trivial value compared to something really important like infallible faith.

Mark is upset because we don't take his philosophy seriously, he says so several times in those exact words.

We don't give a fig about philosophy, we're upset because he doesn't take out evidence seriously. We say so many times.

We both complain that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I deal with the laws of physics professionally and I don't have the luxury of pretending that the simple rules of nature don't work the way they very demonstrably do.

But I surely don't know how to get through to those people who insist on it. I just hope they're not out there right now making my new antibiotics.

I still haven't figured out what to think of Mark Hausam.

B. Spitzer said: ...we really should be winning this debate. As far as the science goes, we're 100% in the right. So why aren't we pulling more of the public over to our side? I can't help but think that it's because we're doing a strategically poor job in the way that we present our case to the public.

It's all very well and good to say that, by scientific standards, politeness consists of getting your facts straight. But that's not what "politeness" means to most non-scientists out there.

Stevaroni wrote: Just ask someone who's deeply religious "What would you do if somehow you unambiguously discovered that God does not really exist". You will never get an answer. The response will always be a version of "Well, I know that won't ever possibly happen".

Mark is upset because we don't take his philosophy seriously, he says so several times in those exact words.

Hello.

I've been continuing to watch all the posts since my last. It looked like the conversation was ending yesterday, but there were some new interesting posts when I checked it this morning.

Let me respond to a few things that have been said since I stopped posting. My real reason for leaving the thread was precisely what I stated in my last post. I was feeling very degraded and insulted. It seemed like many of you were just using me for entertainment. Stanton's post about how "we keep ridiculing him, and he keeps coming back for more" hit me especially hard. I actually felt like I had a moral responsibility to my own dignity to leave off the conversation at this point.

Something that might help you all understand my reaction is that I really have hardly ever participated in an ongoing blog conversation. They are enormously time consuming and I haven't had the time. The internet seems to bring out a lot of vitriol in people, and I am not used to that level of it. I'm not saying that that excuses it, but it is common. I am all in favor of straightforwardness and bluntness, but too much vitriol is not only disrepectful, it is unproductive.

I really was sincere in wanting to carry on a rational conversation. I did not lie to anyone. I am what I made myself out to be. I have things I am very conviced of. I have things I feel a need to learn more about. One thing I truly, honestly want to learn more is more of the specific arguments on both sides over the age of the earth. Of course this forum is not a good place to try to do that thoroughly, but I saw an opportunity to make some progress, so I took it as for as long as it would last. By the way, some people have suggested that the link to my debate with David Keller over whether God is necessary for ethics indicates that I was lying on this thread all the time. Why does it suggest that? I never hid the fact that I am a committed Christian. I even gave an argument about the ethics issue in my next-to-last-post. I never mentioned the debate simply because I never had any reason to mention it.

I was trying to deal with the evidence. I was not simply ignoring people and sticking to my closed-minded worldview. I didn't answer everybody's questions every time I posted because I only had a limited amount of time to post, so I focused on a few major things each time. I don't have time to blog all day, it is too time-consuming. And I was dealing with the evidence, a little at a time, as I said I would.

Anyway, I didn't mean to offend anyone. David Stanton, you were offended because I didn't respond to your personal story. I didn't know it was so important to you. I didn't respond not because I wanted to insultingly ignore you, but because I only had a short time to post and wanted to focus directly on more evidential considerations, which was where the conversation seemed to need to go. It is difficult to keep up with such a long, ongoing thread when you only have a short time each day to deal with it.

We started out at the beginning of the whole conversation when CJO pointed out that when someone seems to be denying clear evidence, it makes sense to ask about motives. I agreed with that, and I still agree. My policy about motives is this: Assume the best of someone until you are forced by the evidence to think worse. Sometimes it is necessary to think worse. Much of what irritated me was that so many people seemed so ready to think the worst about me when, really, I had given no one any real evidence to support the harsh characterizations. I just wanted to avoid the attitude of trying to figure out someone's real, secret motives and just deal with the evidence.

By the way, I don't agree about scientists and religious people speaking different languages. I REALLY am interested in evidence, and believe what I believe because I think it is supported by the evidence. If the evidence said that God deosn't exist, I wouldn't believe in God. A lot of people in all worldviews don't want to look at evidence, but that is not true of everyone. I am open to rational discussion.

Anyway, I hope that explains a little more about me. If you suspect something sinister or deceptive, just ask me about it and see if I can clear it up for you. Give me a chance to explain before you concoct some horrible scenario.

I can't keep up an ongoing conversation on this blog, simply because it is time-consuming. I have looked up the books Nick Matzke suggested and I am right now attempting to get a hold of them. If anyone does want to talk to me or ask me something, I will lurk here longer, but be patient if it takes a while for me to respond, and don't be upset if I respond shortly and quickly. It is not trying to ignore you, it is really a time issue. I am a die-hard for conversation between different sides, and I want to try to foster it as much as I can.

Have a good day!

Mark

Mark,

Thank you so much for coming back. I really did feel bad that you were offended by my remarks. I also feel like I owe you an explanation.

First, I am sorry that you were offended by being used for entertainment. However, you must realize that for those of us who have gone through this personal struggle for ourselves already, for those of us who have had extensive dealings with people who refuse to accept evidence, it can be highly entertaining. Still, if I had known that writing that particular comment would be so offensive to you, I would never have written it.

Second, no response to my personal story was necessary. What I really wanted was for you to see that it is possible for someone not committed to naturalism to be convinced by the evidence, despite strong social incentive against such a conversion. That was the challenge you presented. I responded to your thought experiment directly. I answered a question you posed. You never acknowledged that response. That was just another indication that you had no real respect for evidence, at least to me.

Third, I did eventually call you a liar directly. I do not apologize for that. However, once again, I do feel that I owe you an explanation. You came here claiminig that you were not "authoritarian". You came here claiming that your beliefs were based on evidence. In my opinion neither statement is true. In the video you very carefully explain exactly why you feel that you can have no moral behavior unless moral constraints are imposed by an all-powerful independent source. That to me is the definition of authoritarianism. You absolutely refuse to even admit the possibility that you can develop a moral code independent of these imposed moral imperatives. I will not argue the point with you, except to point out that many disagree. Still, that I why I felt you were being less than honest. You also claimed to believe in the infallability of the Bible. That is not belief based on evidence, at least not in the scientific sense. Since you claimed your beliefe were based on evidence, I assumed that you had already looked at the evidence. I was astonished that you had no data to bring to the conversation. I was astonished that you were not already familiar with the data that exists. I wasn't surprised, just astonished. The fact that you needed so much time to examine the evidence showed that you really hadn't ever looked at it before. Basing beliefs on ignorance is not the same as basing beliefs on evidence. You must first examine all the evidence, then come up with the best explanation for all the evidence. That is why I called you a liar.

Fourth, you did eventually stop all pretense and just start preaching directly. I never said I was no longer a Chrisitan. I was offended that you assumed that I needed saving. Quite frankly, I believe that testifying for your faith was the real motivation for your posting. I hope I am wrong. I hope you really are willing to look at the evidence. I hope your mind is really open.

I am sincerely delighted that you have taken Nick's suggestions. It is possible for people to change their beliefs based on the evidence. I am living proof. Good luck.

Mark -

Really do go read as much of www.talkorigins.org as you can possibly digest. They have several FAQs related to the age of the earth, discussion of many of the creationist claims made by ICR and AiG, and fora for discussing that evidence. (I personally find it a more interesting subject than biology, so I don't hang around panda's thumb much.) And the best forum for discussing creationism vs evolution (and the related topics of creationism vs cosmology etc.) is talk.origins on usenet (which today is most easily reached through 'Google Groups', though there are many other portals).

You're right about the general level of vitriol on the internet.

If you're willing to hang around here (or another related forum) you'll find it a lot more productive and pleasant if you ignore the vitriol and respond to the specific points raised in objection to your statements.

Realize that a lot comes across differently in print than intended. I don't think you intended to imply that people who pursue methodological naturalism actually do so out of a desire to pursue "unnatural lusts" with others of the same gender, but one of your early posts came across that way thanks to your rather odd reference to Romans 1:18-22. Most people -- but not all, of course -- ignored this implication and concentrated on the nature of your argument.

If you refuse to be sidelined by the people you simply can't converse with productively, you'll have more productive conversations.

(I do think we're pretty much doomed as far as having a productive conversation with you about this, and that stevaroni in #178924 hit on exactly why. But I could be wrong.)

By the way, I don't agree about scientists and religious people speaking different languages. I REALLY am interested in evidence, and believe what I believe because I think it is supported by the evidence. If the evidence said that God deosn't exist, I wouldn't believe in God. A lot of people in all worldviews don't want to look at evidence, but that is not true of everyone. I am open to rational discussion.

Both Darwinists and creationists generally see the creation-evolution controversy in this light. Creationists (and many theists in general) often argue that a fundamental pride and rebellious attitude towards the true God is what motivates people to be naturalists and Darwinists. Pride and rebellion cause them to suppress the truth, thus distorting their processes of reasoning so that they miss the obvious and end up endorsing nonsense, despite the intelligence of many naturalists which, if not subjected to their rebellious spirit, would lead them in a totally different direction. Paul, in Romans 1:18-32 in the Bible, provides a good example of typical theistic reasoning about why naturalists really believe what they believe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

I really was sincere in wanting to carry on a rational conversation.

— Mark Hausam

I did not lie to anyone.

— Mark Hausam

The reference to Paul has been much understood. Part of that is my fault. My reference had nothing to do with suggesting people are naturalists because of homosexuality. That is not Paul's point. Paul's assertion is that the existence of God is clearly seen through the evidence of nature, so that those who don't believe in God are without excuse. Their rejection of God stems from rebellion rather than intellectual honesty. Paul also argues that God's basic moral law is known to all through the evidence coming from the creation. Paul brings up homosexuality only as one example of the rebelliousness of a world that has rejected God. He did not imply that ALL rejectors of God are homosexual.

I brought up Paul's point to show that theists have ideas about the motives of naturalists just as naturalists have ideas about the motivations of theists. This was, of course, in response to the point of the thread--trying to explain psychologically why creationists believe what they believe. Creationists wonder why Darwinists believe what they believe also. Now, here is a place I should have been more clear. David Stanton is quite right to point out that not everyone who is a Darwinist of some sort is a naturalist, nor are all Christians creationists in the ICR sense (i.e. young earth creationists). However, Although in some areas I am not familiar with all the details of the scientific claims on both sides, from what I do know thus far, it appears to me that worldview presuppositions do play a large role in whether at least certain aspects of the Darwinist view of things, or the creationist view of things, seem like the best explanation or not. The mainstream scientiric world has adopted methodological naturalism, which commits scientists to only consider natural causes when theorizing about the anything, including the origin of life and species. Wherever the phrase "methodological naturalism" came from, there can be no doubt that it is assumed and enforced in the scientific community. You are simply not allowed to invoke a supernatural explanation in science these days. That is why creationism is rejected as science not just because it is regarded as wrong, but because it is "religious"--it invokes the supernatural. ID is rejected, at least partly, on those grounds as well.

Now, the imposition of this rule makes me, as a theist, very nervous, because I don't have any reason to think that nature will obey science's arbitrary rules, and, as a Christian, I have reason to believe there was in fact supernatural involvement in the creation of life. I don't think all scientists are philosophical naturalists, but the imposition of this rule at least leads me to suspect that the overall scientific consensus on these issues has been weighted by a methodology that at least implicitly assumes philosophical naturalism. In places where I have been able to think through the evidence so far, I have seen this influence. For example, why are scientists so confident that some naturalistic mechanism--like random mutations and natural selection--is the real explanation of the diversity of life? Even if we were to grant that the fossil record proves common ancestry, why would that prove that a naturalistic mechanism is responsible for diversification? How can we really know what the mechanism was by empirical investigation, since we didn't see it happen? Why is some purely naturlistic mechanism more likely than guidance from some supernatural being? One of the main thrusts of ID is to argue that the machine-like nature of life leads more naturally and obviously to an inference that life was designed by an intelligent being than to an inference that life arose purely by unguided naturalistic mechanisms. Even if we don't like some of the specifics of how ID argues this, why is this not a reasonable idea, at least just as scientific as any naturalistic scenario? Is it at least partly because of the imposition of methodological naturalism in science?

With regard to young earth-old earth issues, the arguments here tend to be more technical and harder to grasp. I can see through to the naturalistic assumptions in many Darwinist arguments, but it has been difficult for me to do that in this area, because things are usually beyond my ability to grasp due to their extremely technical nature. However, in every case I have looked into so far, the creationist arguments seem at least just as reasonable as the mainstream arguments. This fact, plus my suspicions of how mainstream science is done with the imposition of methodological naturalism, plus my awareness of how methodological naturalism weights the evidence for Darwinism, makes me distrustful that mainstream science has been any more fair here than they have been with Darwinism.

There is another element that influences me in all of this as well--the biblical evidence. There has been some confusion in this thread as to how much I have looked at the evidence for the young-earth-old-earth controversy. I have done some broad, quick looks at some of scientific arguments on both sides, leaving much more detailed work to be done. But I have done much more detailed examination of the biblical evidence. I have examined the evidential case for accepting the Bible as the word of God and as infallible very thoroughly, and I am quote competent therefore to conclude that the Bible is infallible based on the evidence. Therefore, what the Bible says has hugely significant evidential value in determining questions of the origin of life and species. If the Bible tells me that the world was created in six days, that in itself, because I have conclusive reasons for trusting the Bible, gives me good, conclusve reasons to believe the world was created in six days. I am not 100% convinced, but I am convinced with high probability, that the Bible does teach that the world was created in six days, so therefore I have strong evidential reasons to believe that it was. Most of you do not regard this part of my evidential claims as real evience, so you think I have no substantial evidence for my creationist position. I, on the other hand, do regard my belief in the Bible as being a part of the real evidence, so I would say that I have examined much of the evidence relevant to the young earth-old earth question. I beiieve the Bible can count as evidence, because I believe I have good reason to trust the Bible. If some of you think my trust in the Bible in these areas is misplaced, either because the Bible is not reliable or because of faulty interpretation, or whatever, this difference between us is more of a philosophical difference rather than being one based in the scientific evidence. So I do feel competent to say something about the six day question, although my knowledge needs improvement in some areas.

When it comes to Darwinism, and when it comes to YEC issues (although here I am not quite as confident, wanting to examine more of the scientific evidence and not quite 100% oonfident of the biblical position on the six days), I believe that methodological naturalism has biased the mainstream scientific perspective. I should be clear though that I don't mean to say that all scientists are naturalists or that all mainstream scientists believe in Darwinism and an old earth because they are directly influenced by naturalism. David Stanton gives us a good example of someone who did not come to those conclusions because of prior naturalistic beliefs. I grant it. But I do think that the existence of a scientific consensus tends in itself to be a powerful motivator for people to trust the mainstream position, and perhaps even many people who aren't directly influenced by naturalism are indirectly influenced by the strongly weighted character of the presentation of the evidence from the consensus of the mainstream community. Perhaps not all have been influenced in that way, but I'm sure many have. Even many non-naturalist scientists are extremely protective of methodological naturalism--why, except that they have been influenced to be so by the biases of the mainstream community, or because they have let naturalistic thinking influence them to some degree? But let me make another thing clear: I don't think that all people who are Darwinists are so because of rebelliousness against God. I do think that all people who are naturalists are so because of rebelliousness against God. I did not make that distinction sufficiently clear before. I apologize for that.

Many of you will probably be inclined to think I am rigid and authoritarian, not open to listening to evidence from other positions, because I think I have good reason to believe the Bible. If you think this, you are wrong. Thinking that people who believe the Bible must be less open to listening to evidence from the other side than people who do not is a bias, probably originating from naturalism, that has no basis in reality. I am entirely reason-based in my thinking. Believing the Bible is not at all opposed to being entirely reason-based, but obviously a naturalist would think it is. I think being a naturslist is opposed to being reason-based. My philosophical argument for theism wasn't meant to be preachy, but to be the beginning of a good, solid argument for why I believe the Bible, and thus trust it in these areas. I think the philosophical arguments are good and constitute real evidence. Many people today reject out of hand that sort of philosophical reasoning as worthless, but this is an unjustified bias.

By the way, I didn't come on this thread to preach, but to do exactly what I said I wanted to do. My giving of my worldview when I was about to leave wasn't my intention from the beginning, but it seemed appropriate as we had been talking about some reasons for believing the Bible. So I wanted to leave a more complete statement of how I look at the world before I left.

I think a lot of the previous discussion had a lot of misunderstandings on all sides. I am sorry for any of those that were caused by me, and I am sorry for any misunderstandings on my part of anything you were trying to do. It is hard to know how things will sound in this sort of format. Let's just agree to ask each other about anything that sounds offensive or strange before drawing conclusions from it. That should help quite a bit. Also, if I seem to be ignoring something because I don't want to deal with it, that is probably not true. It is just hard to keep up with every point. If you want to ask me something, and I don't answer you, point out your question as something you would strongly desire me to answer. Of course, all this assumes anyone will want to talk more on this thread, which is not a foregone conclusion. We may be done here with all we want or need to do. Or we may not. Either way is fine with me. I may try to check out talk.origins as well sometime soon. Thanks for the suggestions about that.

Have a great day!

Mark

Frank J, I just saw your post. I'll get back to it later.

Mark

Mark,

"I have examined the evidential case for accepting the Bible as the word of God and as infallible very thoroughly, and I am quote competent therefore to conclude that the Bible is infallible based on the evidence."

If you want to think scientifically, this is the first thing that must go. Evidence cannot lead to infallibility. It is not even theoretically possible. No scientist, no paper, no theory is ever deemed infallible in science. Even the theory of evolution, despite the overwhelmiing evidence, is not above reproach. That is how our knowledge increases. That is how we make progress, by constantly questioning even our most basic assumptions. Forget the Bible when looking at the evidence, that should be your goal. That doesn't mean you have to reject the Bible. All I am asking is that you lay it aside for a while. If you can't or won't do that, then any further discussion is pointless. You need to get past this authoritarian mindset and think for yourself.

"David Stanton gives us a good example of someone who did not come to those conclusions because of prior naturalistic beliefs. I grant it."

Thank you for finally acknowledging the point. If it is possible to look at the evidence and come to this conclusion, then you should at least be willing to try. Even if all of science is tainted by "naturalism", you should still be able to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. Don't take anyone else's word for anything. That is exactly the point. Sequence the genes for yourself if you don't trust anybody. That is how science works. That's what I did. You don't need to trade one form of authoritarianism for another. What you need to do is break out of the box altotether. Believe me, I know how hard it can be. You don't have to give up your faith or your morals to look at evidence, you just have to give up your reliance on authority. It can be a very liberating experience.

Mark Hausam wrote: I can't keep up an ongoing conversation on this blog, simply because it is time-consuming.

Dear Mark, re your post #179248,

Over the last couple of decades, critics of science (such as Phil Johnson and Alvin Plantinga) have argued that "methodological naturalism" is an unnecessary-- and philosophically loaded-- way of doing science. ID proponents have argued that it unfairly excludes the supernatural from science. You seem to have picked up this argument from them, concluding that the supernatural has been arbitrarily banned by the rule-makers of science.

There are some interesting counter-arguments-- I could point you to a couple of essays by Pennock, for example-- but I personally feel that the entire debate is beside the point. The "ground rule" for science isn't that the supernatural is excluded. The ground rule is that we have to test our ideas against the empirical world. (I apologize to any philosophers of science present; I'm oversimplifying, but I hope I'm not doing too much violence to the ideas.) We have this ground rule not because of any bias or arbitrary philosophy, but because it works. It has an extraordinarily good track record for helping us to figure out how this world operates.

As far as I'm concerned, you can invoke all the supernatural explanations you want, as long as you test those explanations against the empirical world. If your explanations turn out to have genuine, reliable predictive power, then they're successful. Here's the problem, though: no-one has ever come up with supernatural mechanisms with the reliable, testable predictive power that "natural" explanations have. It's not, as you suggest, that supernatural explanations are banned from science before they can get a fair hearing. It's that supernatural explanations are banned from science because they've gotten a fair hearing, and they have proven themselves to be unable to make useful, testable predictions.

In the same way, ID is rejected as science not because there is some arbitrary rule against it, but because ID has failed to come up with any testable, useful ideas. In the form in which it's usually championed by ID proponents, it does not have any predictive power whatsoever.

You ask why scientists are confident that a naturalistic mechanism (random mutation and selection) is the real explanation for the diversity of life. Well, we're not 100% certain, and we never will be. However, we know that if random mutation and selection are responsible for life's diversity, then we ought to see certain testable, reliable patterns: patterns in the fossil record, patterns in the geographical distributions of organisms, patterns most of all in the genetic similarities and differences among living organisms today. The theory of evolution makes an almost infinite number of risky predictions-- that is, predictions which could potentially prove incorrect. But, when we've checked, we've found, over and over again, that those predictions are accurate. Moreover, the various different patterns match up. The ages of the fossils match up with the differences in the genomes of living organisms; the functions of living systems match up with what we know about the nature of selection. That leads us to believe that the theory is getting at something genuinely true about the history of life.

Does this rule out all miracles, or all intelligent design? No. It remains entirely possible that God intervened directly in the history of life. Science does not rule that out. But what the ID proponents are claiming is not that God could intervene-- they are claiming that God has intervened, and, more importantly, that they can prove this scientifically. This last claim is false. Whatever God may or may not have done, they have not been able to prove ID in any scientific manner.

With respect to the age of the Earth, you state that "the creationist arguments seem at least just as reasonable as the mainstream arguments". This is perhaps where things get a little sticky. I wouldn't say exactly that scientists and religious individuals speak different languages, but they certainly do have different cultures, and those cultures have very different expectations. In scientific culture, you're expected to test ideas fiercely and mercilessly, and one of the reasons that some of the posters here have been so angry with you is that you've presented some ideas without subjecting them to the in-depth criticism that scientific culture demands.

Let me refer back to a couple of examples that you brought up. It was pointed out that humans and the great apes all have a pseudogene for vitamin C, a gene that is broken in exactly the same manner. You referred to another website, which made the argument that perhaps the common environment shared by humans and apes caused that gene to break in the same way in each of them. All right, but now we need to test that idea! How does the environment act so that the same gene is broken in these different species? From what we know about genetic changes, is there any evidence that such a mechanism exists? If such a mechanism exists, shouldn't all organisms become genetically more alike when they share a common environment; and shouldn't, for example, all marine mammals be unusually alike genetically? Shouldn't all of the plants in a wet tropical forest become more similar to one another than to plants in a temperate forest? You see, if that explanation for the vitamin C pseudogene is correct, there should be thousands of clues out there that confirm that explanation. Has anyone has looked for those clues? What did they find?

Even if you don't know the answers to questions like these, in scientific culture you're expected to at least realize that the questions exist. And the truth is that most of them have already been asked, in one way or another, usually a very long time ago. For example, the idea that God made His initial Creation with the "appearance of age", as you suggest above, has been argued about since 1857. (Also, if you know how tree rings form, you'll realize that trees don't need them in order to function-- God could have created perfectly functional mature trees with no rings at all.) If you bring up these ideas without indicating that you've done your homework on them, or at least that you're aware of some of the major objections to them, people are going to get very impatient with you, at least on this blog.

I won't go into the Biblical evidence in any great detail, because I'm not a Biblical scholar. However (as others have mentioned here), unless you can demonstrate empirically that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is intended to be interpreted in a straightforward literal fashion, you can't expect the scientific community to accept the literal text of Genesis as scientific evidence. That's not to say that you can't take that evidence into consideration personally, but please remember that scientific evidence is limited to what can be tested empirically. It's that empirical testing which has an excellent track record, and if you want something to be considered as science, it has to meet that standard. In scientific culture, you're expected to keep empirical evidence separate from subjective evidence, and restrict yourself to the empirical evidence. (That's not to say that subjective evidence is less important than empirical evidence. I imagine that many posters here believe that-- indeed, many may think of "subjective evidence" as an oxymoron. However, I personally think that when you're putting together a world-view, subjective considerations must be taken into account.)

A book that you might be interested in looking at is "Paradigms on Pilgrimage". It's written by two Christian scholars, one of whom is a Biblical scholar (and was the pastor of the church I attended in college). He argues that, based on Biblical evidence alone, Genesis should not be interpreted literally. I mention it largely because of my personal respect for the author, who, in my experience, is a man of scholarly authority and an admirable Christian leader as well.

Regrettably, I don't usually have time to respond to posts here in detail, and I will be "off the grid" for a while soon, so I apologize if I'm unable to serve as a resource for the questions you may have. If you have comments on what I've said, please feel free to make them, but please don't be insulted if I don't reply in a timely fashion-- it is not intentional. I'd second the suggestion of some of the posters here that you seek a different forum to discuss these issues; PT isn't the most suitable place for such a discussion. I hope I haven't been too long-winded. I wish you the best.

There is another element that influences me in all of this as well---the biblical evidence. There has been some confusion in this thread as to how much I have looked at the evidence for the young-earth-old-earth controversy. I have done some broad, quick looks at some of scientific arguments on both sides, leaving much more detailed work to be done. But I have done much more detailed examination of the biblical evidence.

— Mark Hausam

Obtaining 100% certainty is not a goal that is likely to be achieved in anything, especially in religion. Nor can one trust the "evidences" from the readings of religious texts.

Religious zealots (certainly the monotheistic ones) have been warring among themselves and killing each other for centuries. The number of sects continues to grow. They display considerable animosity toward each other's interpretations of religious writings. They continue (especially in the U.S.) their war on science as though science is another threatening religion. None of this should give a thoughtful person confidence in the knowledge possessed by members of all of these sects.

Over the last 300 years or so science, as we now know it, has developed and nearly freed itself from this quagmire sectarian bickering. There is nearly universal consensus on the fundamental theories and supporting evidence that constitutes our picture of the universe today. And this cuts across all ethnic, religious, racial, and national backgrounds.

In attempting to make an assessment about where the best knowledge lies, I would recommend taking these facts into consideration. This is not hard to discern, and anyone can check. Authoritarian religious handlers have a habit of keeping their flocks from thinking about things like this. As long as their followers fear to ask, they can be counted on to buy into the sectarian line, and the sectarian leaders retain their position of power and authority over their followers.

I've just come back to this thread tonight, so I've missed some of this afternoon's comments, and I'd like to comment in turn on Mark H's (#179248) description of science, which uses phrases like "science's arbitrary rules" and makes statements like "The mainstream scientiric [sic] world has adopted methodological naturalism, which commits scientists to only consider natural causes when theorizing about the anything, including the origin of life and species."

I (and probably most other posters here) think that you really don't understand what science is, if you are making statements like "science's arbitrary rules". Let me use an analogy to show you how I think of science, as a practicing (during my undergraduate and graduate days) scientist, and now as a science educator (primarily) in a community college.

I do woodworking as a hobby. I make furniture of various kinds, do carpentry, and make turned objects. In doing so, I use a number of tools. Each activity in woodworking has a tool best suited for the job, a saw for cutting wood, planes and sandpaper for flattening and smoothing wood, screwdrivers and hammers for driving fasteners, a lathe for turning something into a round shape, etc. I could probably use a screwdriver to cut a piece of wood in half, but it wouldn't work very well, and would give a very poor product. Some things wouldn't work at all in forming a woodworking project - a fire extinguisher would be useless in making a piece of wood flat, as a rather ridiculous example. No one has handed down a decree that only saws are to be used in cutting wood, or that a hammer is the only tool to be used to drive nails. It is just that years of experience (in some cases, millennia - woodworking has a very long history) has shown that certain tools just work, or work better than others.

It's the same with science. Science is the tool that we have found best allows us to understand the world and universe around us. Methodological naturalism is not an "arbitrary rule"; it the only way of doing science that has allowed us to discover the hard facts of our surroundings. Can we interpret the world around us using supernatural explanations? Sure, but many years of science has shown us that it doesn't work well.

Does this mean that religion is useless? No (although some readers may disagree). Although a fire extinguisher can't flatten a piece of wood, it still has very important uses.

As an experienced woodworker, I'd get offended if someone who had never done woodworking suggested that a method that had been repeatedly tried in the past was better than what I use, when their method has been repeatedly shown to work poorly or at all. I'd also object if they showed me a horribly made stool and told me that it was a beautiful example of a well made bookshelf.

As a scientist, I get offended when someone who has no idea what they are talking about says that they not only have a better method but gives me factually false interpretations of the world around us. I'm not a biologist (the primary area of interest to most posters here, AFAIK. In my own field (paleoceanography), I've dealt with several areas of research, for which the only sensible way to interpret them, consistent with what we know about how reality works, is that the world is millions of years old. And yes, I do get offended when someone who has no idea about what they are talking about, says that they know better than me, or distorts the data to imply something that is contrary to reality.

The rules of science are not "arbitrary". They are used because they work.

Thanks again for all your thoughts.

When I say the Bible is "infallible," I don't mean that I trust it without having good reason to trust it from the evidence. I mean that the evidence points to its being the word of God and thus without error. It is falsifiable. If its claims did not match up with reality, it would be falsified. There is no authoritarianism here, just following the evidence where it leads.

I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Bible is the a communication from God, that it is infallible, and that Genesis is meant to be read historically. Therefore, I have good, sufficient reason to believe that God has given us an eyewitness account of creation. Let's say I'm right about that. Would it make sense for me to "put the Bible aside" as David suggests? Science is a search for truth. When scientists investigate the origin of the universe, life, etc., they want to know what really happened. Shouldn't the investigation therefore take into account all available evidence? If the Bible constitutes important information on the subject, shouldn't it be taken into consideration as we try to understand these things? If it really gives us an eyewitness account, putting it aside in our investigation of origins would be like a detective trying to solve the mystery of a crime while "putting aside" a key eyewitness testimony and refuing to take it into consideration, calling it "authoritarian" to pay attention to the eyewitness. I am not saying that I would ignore scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible if any were found; I am saying that I have good reason to believe the Bible constitutes a piece of that evidence, and I must take it into consideration. When I look at the scientific evidence, I will look at it as someone who has more information on the subject from an omniscient eyewitness. If the empirical evidence can be interpreted in a way that fits with that eyewitness testimony, I will go with that interpretation, because I have good reason to do so. This is rational and scientific, because I am taking into consideration all the available evidence in a search to find out what really happened. Isn't that what the scientific method is intended to do?

If you don't like what I have said, it is probably because, for one reason or another, you don't think the Bible is a trustworthy eyewitness testimony as to what really happened at creation. Fine. This is where the real difference between us lies. But I am not any more authoritarian for thinking I have good reason to trust the eyewitness than you are for thinking you have good reason not to. This conflct can theoretically be resolved on rational grounds. We must consider the evidence that leads me to think the Bible gives us the sort of information I think it does.

The reason creationists and ID people worry about methodological naturalism is precisely because of this conflict. What irritates creationists is that mainstream scientists claim to be following the evidence without any influence from other, more philosophical considerations, such as a disbelief in the Bible as historically reliable. One's take on the nature of the Bible makes a big difference as to what evidence one thinks one has, and therefore can influence how one interprets the direct empirical evidence. If I "put the Bible aside," the conclusion of my investigation might be different than it would be if I didn't put the Bible aside. So I need to know what the evidence would lead me to do--put the Bible aside or take it into consideration. I believe the latter is the correct procedure. For science to be reliable, it must not cast aside any available evidence, especially something as important as an eyewitness testimony from an omniscient being.

So I do have competence to speak about this issue. I have an eyewitness account--and that gives me the right to make claims about the creation and how it took place. There are things I want to learn more about, and I will continue to take all evidence with the utmost seriousness, but i will not pretend like I don't have a great deal of information on the subject already. If you have to pretend like the Bible is not the Word of God ("put it aside"--it amounts to the same thing) in order to be considered to really be doing science, that just proves the point about methodological naturalism (or at least methodological deism).

Vitamin C: What I was suggesting here was that maybe environmental factors, adaptation and/or mutation, and natural selection led to the loss of part of the vitamin-C pathway in all primates. The similarity of primates might be a factor in why they all were susceptible to the same result and some other animals weren't. Is this a reasonable possibility? Would this be consistent with a denial of common ancestry? If so, it is not evidence for common ancestry.

On Frank's OEC question: I am aware of the OEC position, flat-earthism, etc. I don't think the biblical evidence supports these two positions in any of their forms. Part of my investigation of the evidence is looking at what the Bible actually says. What is says seems best read in a young-earth manner as far as I can tell at this point. I am not infallible; I could be wrong. But that is my best reading of the exegetical evidence at this point.

On methodological naturalism working: Most creationists don't believe that God performs miracles everyday or miraculously alters people's lab experiments, etc. So the recognition of nothing but natural laws will probably not be a problem in everyday science, inventions, etc. You could say it "works" in these areas. But when it comes to areas where there is likely to have been, or where we have reason to believe there was, something above those natural laws going on--such as during the time of creation--methodological naturalism will not work any more, but will hinder the search for truth.

Some of you seem irritated that I won't take your word that science supports an old earth and Darwinism. GvlGeologist, for example, seems to come across this way (maybe unintentionally). You seem to be implying, "I'm a scientist--I've studied these things, so when I tell you the evidence points in an old earth direction who are you to disagree? If you aren't immediately persuaded by my list of evidences (even though you haven't examined them thoroughly for yourself first), you must not care about science." On the contrary, I am being scientific. I refuse to believe the evidence points to an old earth just because a bunch of scientists tell me so. I will examine all claims one-by-one, but I will not take your word for it. I agree with David Stanton on this--no authoritarianism, including the authoritarianism of trusting the "experts." I am from Missouri. You will have to "show me," and that painstakingly, if you want me to be persuaded.

Appearance of age: Just a brief comment here. Appearance of age does not mean God lied or planted bad evidence. Appearance of age is simply a natural by-product from a six-day creation. God created life very quickly. He either created adult forms or caused extraordinarily rapid growth. he also probably created the world and rocks in a supernatural way. This would just naturally tend to throw off attempts to calculate age. It is not deceptive; it is simply a fact that needs to be taken into account (but only someone who believes the Bible would probably even consider taking such an important fact into account--we have important information that those who don't believe the Bible don't have). Who's to say God wouldn't create tree rings? Why assume that tree rings only exist as indicators of age? They do that, but perhaps their ultimate purpose is aesthetic? Maybe God created Adam and Eve with belly buttons. Perhaps they are an aesthetic part of the human body and also happen to have a function in birth? Sometimes we are thrown off track by making assumptions that we have no warrant to make.

Mark

Comment #177214

Posted by fnxtr on May 20, 2007 10:23 AM (e)

All I can say, Mark, is that you have an interesting interpretation of the word "evidence". Further discussion is pointless.

Mark,

You challenged me to demonstrate that one could come to the conclusion that evolution was true without a committment to naturalism. I demonstrated to you that I had done exactly that and you finally agreed.

I challenged you to put the Bible aside and examine the evidence. You are apparently emotionally incapable of doing that. Until you can do that, I certainly don't have any more to say to you. I suspect that many others will feel the same.

Oh, by the way, do you really think it matters if you have an "eyewitness account" of something? Is that all that is considered in a murder investigation? Would they take the testimony of an eyewitness as being conclusive if all the evidence contridicted the testimony, even if the eyewitnes were otherwise credible? Watch CSI some time, you might learn something about evidence.

Well, I guess you have demonstrated conclusively that the authoritarian mindset can be so firmly entrenched that virtually nothing can touch it. At least you didn't lie about it and try to keep preaching to us. Feel free to come back any time you are ready to try to change. Until then, good luck, you'll need it.

Mark Hausam dodged thusly: Vitamin C: What I was suggesting here was that maybe environmental factors, adaptation and/or mutation, and natural selection led to the loss of part of the vitamin-C pathway in all primates. The similarity of primates might be a factor in why they all were susceptible to the same result and some other animals weren't. Is this a reasonable possibility? Would this be consistent with a denial of common ancestry? If so, it is not evidence for common ancestry.

B. Spitzer said: Let me refer back to a couple of examples that you brought up. It was pointed out that humans and the great apes all have a pseudogene for vitamin C, a gene that is broken in exactly the same manner. You referred to another website, which made the argument that perhaps the common environment shared by humans and apes caused that gene to break in the same way in each of them. All right, but now we need to test that idea! How does the environment act so that the same gene is broken in these different species? From what we know about genetic changes, is there any evidence that such a mechanism exists? If such a mechanism exists, shouldn't all organisms become genetically more alike when they share a common environment; and shouldn't, for example, all marine mammals be unusually alike genetically? Shouldn't all of the plants in a wet tropical forest become more similar to one another than to plants in a temperate forest? You see, if that explanation for the vitamin C pseudogene is correct, there should be thousands of clues out there that confirm that explanation. Has anyone has looked for those clues? What did they find?

Mark Hausam is beginning to look like a caricature played by a good actor. His arguments track the ID/Creationist line so well that it appears someone is reading from a script.

Instead of the Wagnerian death scene I pictured earlier, I am now beginning to see the death scene of the Frog King of Far Far Away in Shrek 3.

Trying to post is getting difficult. Here is another try. Sorry if there are multiple posts.

Mark Hausam is beginning to look like a caricature played by a good actor. His arguments track the ID/Creationist line so well that it appears someone is reading from a script.

Instead of the Wagnerian death scene I pictured earlier, I am now beginning to see the death scene of the Frog King of Far Far Away in Shrek 3.

Mark,

A plain reading of most English versions of the Bible shows that it's self-contradictory. For example, Genesis 1 says God created the vegetation on the 3rd day, and man on the 6th. Yet Genesis 2 says God created man before there were any plants.

Both of those cannot be strictly true. At best you can try to come up with interpretations to explain away the discrepancy. In that case, even if the Bible is infallible, our interpretation of it will not be.

Alternately, you can argue that English translations of the Bible may sometimes be inaccurate. In that case, the Bible is not infallible. (Not in every version, at least.)

As soon as you are honest and admit that either the Bible requires interpretation, or it contains mistakes (or both), you should also admit that the 6 days of creation may also be either open to interpretation or a mistake. Then, when you look at the multiple independent lines of evidence that the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years, you can no longer honestly fall back on the Bible to claim that such evidence is somehow being misinterpreted.

Regarding your vitamin C argument, I'd like to present you with an analogy. Suppose you're on safari in Africa, looking at water buffalo. Most of them are dark colored, but suddenly you notice one is white. Later you see another white one. Intrigued, you decide to study white water buffalo. You determine that all the white ones seem to live in a relatively small area.

"How did this happen?" you think. Maybe all the white ones are genetically related and they inherited some mutation for albinism from a common ancestor. Or, maybe there's something in that area that causes water buffalo to sometimes turn white.

Just two different ways of interpreting the evidence, right? The think is, science doesn't stop there. Science asks follow up questions, and makes predictions based on which idea might be right. So, you keep studying the white buffalo, and suddenly you notice that all the white ones have shorter horns than the others. How does that fit in?

Well, if they're all genetically related, it's easy to explain as just another trait inherited from their common ancestor. It's harder to fit into the environmental factor idea though. For that, you'd have to posit either one factor that has both effects, or two different factors that just happen to affect all the same animals. Not so likely, but not impossible.

So now what? Why, keep studying, of course. You catch some of the white buffalo, collect their blood, and compare it to blood from normal buffalo. The normal buffalo prove to have a range of blood types (call them X, Y, and Z). Interestingly, all the white ones have type Y blood.

Now hopefully you can see that this is further evidence that our hypothetical white buffalo almost certainly derived from a common ancestor. It's extremely unlikely that some environmental factor could cause some buffalo in a given area to be white, and have short horns, and have only type Y blood. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

On the other hand, the common ancestor hypothesis predicts that related animals should share multiple charactersitics that distinguish them from unrelated ones.

The vitamin C example is like this analogy. It doesn't 'prove' common descent all by itself. But when you put it together with all the other evidence, the rational conclusion is inescapable: humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

You can reject that if you want. You can explain away each and every piece of evidence. It's easy to do if your starting point is 'God exists and He is all powerful and He created everything in six literal days.' But you are not arguing from evidence. If you still claim that you are, you're either deluding yourself or you don't understand what evidence is.

I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Bible is the a communication from God, that it is infallible, and that Genesis is meant to be read historically.

I agree with David Stanton on this---no authoritarianism, including the authoritarianism of trusting the "experts." I am from Missouri. You will have to "show me," and that painstakingly, if you want me to be persuaded.

Mark said:
"When I say the Bible is "infallible," I don't mean that I trust it without having good reason to trust it from the evidence. I mean that the evidence points to its being the word of God and thus without error."

i know this is a science forum but since you talked about historical-socio-cultural issues (the bible) i thought it would be useful to check out this book:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Hardcover)
by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

maybe if you examine your premise(the bible) you can get to a different viewpoint?

Guys, I appreciate the effort here, I really do. But, in my opinion, trying to convince Mark that the Bible isn't infallible isn't the right approach. He's never going to admit the possibility. His mind is already made up on this point. The best we can hope for is that he can put the Bible aside for a little while. Here is what he says:

"If it really gives us an eyewitness account, putting it aside in our investigation of origins would be like a detective trying to solve the mystery of a crime while "putting aside" a key eyewitness testimony and refuing to take it into consideration, calling it "authoritarian" to pay attention to the eyewitness. I am not saying that I would ignore scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible if any were found; I am saying that I have good reason to believe the Bible constitutes a piece of that evidence, and I must take it into consideration. When I look at the scientific evidence, I will look at it as someone who has more information on the subject from an omniscient eyewitness. If the empirical evidence can be interpreted in a way that fits with that eyewitness testimony, I will go with that interpretation, because I have good reason to do so."

You see, his starting assumption trumps all evidence. He can't seem to realize that, if the Bible is literally true, putting it aside cannot possibly hurt his argument. If the Bible is literally true, then the evidence must inevitably lead to the same conclusion independently. Even if you have an eyewitness account, any good DA will still need to build a case based on evidence, if for no other reason than that something could happen to the witness. If the witness is credible, why should that bother anybody? His unwillingness to even consider the possibility of examining the evidence without the prior assumption of biblical inerrancy demonstrates conclusively his authoritarian mindset, all protestations to the contrary. I guess he just doesn't have sufficient faith to look at the evidence without his assumptions.

Oh well. Why should it be our job to convince him of anything? Who cares what he believes? Let him find out the truth for himself if he's sincere.

Oh well. Why should it be our job to convince him of anything? Who cares what he believes? Let him find out the truth for himself if he's sincere.

All I can say, Mark, is that you have an interesting interpretation of the word "evidence". Further discussion is pointless.

— fnxtr

Following on from Mike's post, it would seem that Mark's big hang-up is that he considers methodological naturalism to be an arbitrary rule, and hence our dismissal of the Bible, in part on grounds based in methodological naturalism (MN), is for him unjustifiable.

Furthermore, for him, this "failure" on the part of science is grounds to dismiss any scientific evidence that conflicts with his Bible. Meh!

You know Mark, scientific studies have been done to determine if people praying for a sick person helps the sick person - it doesn't. But every time that we put a new medication on the market, it's because it has been scientifically demonstrated to be effective. That medication was created by applying scientific principles - what a funny coincidence! Why do you think that might be? (Hint: methodological naturalism works, and the rest is just bollocks)...

You've misunderstood my position a bit. I am open to evidence that contradicts my position. When I said I cannot put aside the Bible when looking at the evidence, I tried to make it clear that I did not mean that I will accept the Bible no matter what and ignore contrary evidence. My basis for believing the Bible is that its claims match up with reality in striking ways--it gets God right, human nature right, the relationship between God and humans right, the nature of human evil right, the only possible way of escaping from human evil right, etc. It matches what we ought to know from our experience and interaction with ourselves and with the world so well that it must be taken seriously as a divine revelation. Since my acceptance of it as divine revelation is based on its conformity with reality, it is immensely falsifiable. If it didn't match reality, its claims would be falsified. I am open to listening to claims from non-Christians, or more liberal Christians, that it doesn't match the evidence of reality. I have to take those claims seriously and evaluated them honestly.

I also will not and cannot ignore any possible contrary evidence coming from science. David is quite right: If the Bible is correct, then the evidence from science should match up. Here is another area where the Bible is falsifiable. If I am confronted with clear evidence that cannot jive with the claims of the Bible, that would call the Bible's historicity into question. I would acknowledge that. As I said, I am open to responding to whatever evidence there is. However, it is also true that I believe I already have strong evidence that the Bible is trustworthy, so I fully expect the evidence to match (but again, this does not mean I would ignore evidence to the contrary). My belief in the Bible can be falsified, but until it is, I already have strong reason to believe it, so I must take it into account in my evaluation of evidence. I must use the Bible as an aid in interpreting the scientific evidence. This is important, because there can often be multiple interpretations of the scientific evidence, and one's knowledge from other areas can affect what interpretations seem more reasonable. Take, for example, the dating of tree rings. If the Genesis account is true, and six days is the correct interpretation, you would expect an appearance of age to very likely exist in various features of the non-living and living earth. So, if you were trying to date the age of the earth from the scientific evidence, you might look at the tree rings of fossil trees. If you look at those rings from the perspective of taking Genesis seriously, you will remember that trees before the flood might have been created already having tree rings, perhaps many of them. So you will hesitate to draw conclusions of age from the rings. If you come to the scientific evidence without an acceptance of the six day interpretation of Genesis, and instead assume a naturalistic uniformity throughout past time, you will probably take the rings as good indicators of age. This is not a matter of the Genesis-believer ignoring or distorting the evidence; it is a matter of the evidence being interpreted, quite legitimately, differently due to differing beliefs coming from other sources. Another example of this might be the dating the age of rocks. If we accept Genesis, who knows in what state various rocks were created, how much the ratio of parent-daughter elements might have been in the rock from the beginning, etc. Thus, a person who comes to the scientific evidence accepting Genesis will be more agnostic on the possibility of dating rocks based on parent-daughter ratios of various elements, etc., whereas a person coming to the rocks assuming naturalistic uniformity might not be so agnostic but might think they can confidently date the rocks. I know I am presenting a very simplified picture here, but hopefully you see the point I am making. There can certainly be evidence that simply must be interpreted in an old-earth way, and if that evidence were strong and clear enough, it would cast doubt on the Genesis account in its six day interpretation. But sometimes evidence may be interpreted as proving an old earth when, in reality, its seeming to point that way is based on an interpretation of the evidence that is based on dubious or false assumptions. If the reason the evidence is interpreted in an old earth way is that an assumption was made of naturalistic uniformity rather than an assumption based in Genesis, this evidence would be suspect to one who accepts Genesis. It would be a circular argument--the proof would be based on an assumption based on a the very belief the evidence is supposed to prove. In order to falsify Genesis, there has to be evidence that cannot be legitimately interpreted in conformity to Genesis. There has to be evidence such that its only reasonable interpretation, without dubious or false assumptions, contradicts Genesis. If there is such, we must listen to it and take it seriously. But if the interpretation of the evidence is based on naturalistic or uniformitarian, or any other false assumptions, believers in Genesis have no reason to take it seriously. It is a circular argument.

So I am not being authoritarian. I am pointing out a legitimate, significant issue for interpretation that needs to be taken into account. I do believe that I have sufficient evidence to take the Bible seriously, evidence that is sufficient for me and that should be sufficient for all people, evidence that passes any reasonable scientific test. I gave some of that evidence before in my argument for theism, but that was only a beginning. I could go on and present much more. In a nutshell, I accept the Bible as valid because it accurately describes reality. The Christian worldview, derived from the Bible, tells the truth about the world we live in, about ourselves, about God, etc., in a way that far surpasses any other worldview. In addition to this, after correctly diagnosing our condition of guilt and rebellions against God, it claims to offer a remedy from God that, upon examination, turns out to be the only possible sort of remedy--the death of Christ to satisfy the justice of God against human sin and to give to humans his righteousness, that we might be brought into a right relationship with God. His life, death, and resurrection also purchase for humans the power to change our hearts back to loving obedience to God rather than wicked rebellion. Given all of these things, the only rational response is to accept the Christian worldview, the Bible, as divine revelation. I could go into more detail, add more to the picture, but hopefully this gives you an idea of the direction of my thinking here. I like the way C. S. Lewis described the evidence for the Christian worldview: "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen--not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

So that is how I look at things. As I said, my beliefs are quite falsifiable, including from evidence coming from scientific sources, although this evidence would have to be quite unmistakably clear in order to overturn the immense amount of evidence I have for the Bible and for my interpretation of it from other sources. You are all right--It would be good for me to look into the scientific evidence in much more depth. I intend to do so. I look forward to it. I am looking forward to reading the books Nick Matzke recommended. Do any of you have a good recommendation for one or two books that deal clearly and thoroughly with the evidence for Darwinism, both in terms of common descent as well as the mechanisms of evolutionary change? If you must choose between books that focus on common descent OR the mechanisms of change, I would be more interested at this time in common descent. Thank you!

Thanks again for all your help, suggestions, comments, etc.

Mark

Mark, what I am about to say to you is neither a metaphorical flourish, nor an insult, it is quite simply a statement of fact: you are delusional. I mean that literally.

Multiple lines of scientific evidence, including astronomical observations, models of the creation of the solar system, radiometric dating, ratios of isotopes in the earth's crusts, ice cores, tree rings, fossils, geological understanding of the evolution of the earth's mantle, and numerous other techniques all tell the same story - the earth, and indeed the universe, are way older than the estimated dates from the Bible. Going the other way, there is not a single line of scientific enquiry that indicates that the Earth has the approximate age proposed by the Bible, not one.

Any continued claims on your part that the Bible is not in disagreement with the observed facts, is, as I have already pointed out, delusional, a major disconnect from reality. Well, it's either that you are delusional, or that you are lying through your teeth, and trolling. Choose whichever of the two labels pleases you the most... Don't be surprised though when many PT participants note your ability to put together coherent sentences, and hence lean towards "troll" as being the more likely of the two labels, and treat you accordingly.

Or, you could prove me wrong by clearly stating that you are in fact aware that there are mountains of evidence that contradict a literal reading of the Bible. But you aren't going to do that, are you Mark?

Mark: glad to have you back.

You seem to have no time to respond to the points we've made, but plenty of time to complain about how little time you have. Funny, that. If your time were so limited, why not simply quit complaining, get straight to the point, respond to the points being made, and ignore all those horrid insults? As an unsympathetic professor pointed out to me long ago, most professions entail, in large measure, explaining important and complex concepts using unfairly-limited time and space.

I actually felt like I had a moral responsibility to my own dignity to leave off the conversation at this point.

What about your "moral responsibility" to clear up all those misunderstandings and misrepresentations of your belief that you were complaining about when you ran out on us? That would have done your dignity a lot of good as well.

I was trying to deal with the evidence.

No, you're not -- not if you're "explaining" evidence contrary to your beliefs by alleging that "God created the Earth that way" (which is, as I said before, what your "created in a mature state" argument amounted to).

David Stanton, you were offended because I didn't respond to your personal story. I didn't know it was so important to you.

I'm guessing David posted that story because he thought it important to YOU as well, and to the debate in general, not merely because it was important to himself. And you simply brushed it off and implied it was only important to him. And you've taken the time to admit you had read it, but still not time to respond to it -- thus (in my estimation at least) compounding the intial insult.

I can see through to the naturalistic assumptions in many Darwinist arguments, but it has been difficult for me to do that in this area, because things are usually beyond my ability to grasp due to their extremely technical nature. However, in every case I have looked into so far, the creationist arguments seem at least just as reasonable as the mainstream arguments. This fact, plus my suspicions of how mainstream science is done with the imposition of methodological naturalism, plus my awareness of how methodological naturalism weights the evidence for Darwinism, makes me distrustful that mainstream science has been any more fair here than they have been with Darwinism.

So in other words, you've admitted that you reject "Darwinist arguments" not because you understand the concepts and evidence, but because you DON'T understand them, and because of your preconceived "suspicions of how mainstream science is done." Suspicions which are only reinforced by your ignorance of how -- and why -- "mainstream science is done."

Thinking that people who believe the Bible must be less open to listening to evidence from the other side than people who do not is a bias, probably originating from naturalism, that has no basis in reality.

No, it's not a bias; it's a conclusion based on what those who "believe the Bible" -- especially yourself -- have actually said: you have admitted you are ignorant of vast areas of relevant knowledge, you make up a rationalization that allows you to simply ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your belief (God planted all that evidence when he created everything "in a mature state"), and you reiterate your belief in one book (a book that doesn't even have a bibliography), without even acknowledging ANY of the arguments and evidence we've presented here.

Appearance of age: Just a brief comment here. Appearance of age does not mean God lied or planted bad evidence. Appearance of age is simply a natural by-product from a six-day creation. God created life very quickly. He either created adult forms or caused extraordinarily rapid growth. he also probably created the world and rocks in a supernatural way.

In other words, God used supernatural means to create things that appeared, on close examination, to be much older than they really were. And God, being all-knowing, must have known that he was creating a planet-full of physical evidence that, when interpreted according to physical laws and principles that have already been shown to work in all other circumstances, point conclusively to a completely different explanation of the origin of species and the age of the Earth. So yes, you are indeed saying God faked the evidence by the planetful, whether you admit it or not. (Unless, of course, you wish us to believe that your "extraordinarily rapid growth" argument means that eithteen-billion-odd years of events happened in six days; which would cast a LOT of doubt on what you, and your interpretation of the Bible, mean by the word "day.")

And if you use "supernatural means" to explain away evidence that contradicts your beliefs, than you cannot pretend you're "being scientific" or "concerned with the evidence."

This would just naturally tend to throw off attempts to calculate age. It is not deceptive; it is simply a fact that needs to be taken into account (but only someone who believes the Bible would probably even consider taking such an important fact into account---we have important information that those who don't believe the Bible don't have).

You can't call it a "fact" unless, and until, you can prove it by some means other than "The Bible tells us so."

Who's to say God wouldn't create tree rings? Why assume that tree rings only exist as indicators of age?

We do not "assume" it; we conclude it based on years of observation. This difference between "assuming" and "observing" and "concluding" is one of the many important technical concepts that you admit you don't yet understand; and until you understand it, you cannot claim any superior position from which to discount centuries of accumulated knowledge.

They do that, but perhaps their ultimate purpose is aesthetic? Maybe God created Adam and Eve with belly buttons. Perhaps they are an aesthetic part of the human body and also happen to have a function in birth?

Got any physical evidence to back up all that isle musing? And you've just admitted that your argument amounts to "God faked the evidence" -- just like a furniture-maker creating "stressed" or "antiqued" furniture with the conscious intent of making it look older than it really is.

Sometimes we are thrown off track by making assumptions that we have no warrant to make.

And chief among those misleading assumptions is "God must have made it that way, no further inquiry is necessary." That assumption has NEVER led to any progress or increase in knowledge, in the sciences or any other field. That is why it is roundly rejected by scientists -- and cops, generals, enterpreneurs, politicians, builders, lawyers, doctors, etc., etc. (How many crimes have been solved by resorting to Bible quotes? That didn't work so well in the Burning Times, did it?)

So that is how I look at things. As I said, my beliefs are quite falsifiable, including from evidence coming from scientific sources...

You have just given us your reasons for arbitrarily rejecting a planetful of physical evidence, based on the assumption that "God made it that way for reasons we needn't explore." So no, your beliefs are not "falsifiable," therefore they are scientifically vacuous. If you want to believe all that yourself, that's your personal choice. But if you call it "scieitific," fully cognizant of your (explicitly admitted) ignorance of science, then you are either a fool or a liar.

Mark: on the question of how, exactly, we are supposed to use and interpret the Bible, perhaps you should try to address the points I made on that subject in Comment #177895 above.

Mark, re "evidence": I do not think that word means what you think it means. In particular, "evidence" does not include revelation. In standard scientific usage, evidence is by definition available to everybody. It is synonymous with the scientific usage of "fact". As somebody said above, if you ever doubt the facts, you are free to find them and look at them yourself. Contrast this with your usage of "evidence" which, based on your subjective language when you talk about it, is actually better described as "revelation".

Science only deals with evidence which is available to all. It does not --- it cannot --- include revelation. C.f. religion, which concerns itself with the interpretation of revelation to reach faith. If religion used evidence to reach conclusions, it wouldn't result in faith.

You can save us a lot of time if you can categorize how you came to know some of the things you claim. Is the Bible infallible because of evidence? Or because of revelation?

Mark,

Btw, in a free country there is nothing wrong with using revelation as a way to personally know things. The problem is when revelation is conflated with evidence, and when it is used as the basis for authority. You must acknowledge that you're doing a bit of both.

Mark Hausam revealingly said: My basis for believing the Bible is that its claims match up with reality in striking ways---it gets God right, human nature right, the relationship between God and humans right, the nature of human evil right, the only possible way of escaping from human evil right, etc.

It [the Christian bible] matches what we ought to know from our experience and interaction with ourselves and with the world so well that it must be taken seriously as a divine revelation. Since my acceptance of it as divine revelation is based on its conformity with reality, it is immensely falsifiable. If it didn't match reality, its claims would be falsified.

Forget comparative religions -- Mark needs to learn the basics of his own religion! Most of what he's said would embarrass all but the dumbest of his fellow Christians, and was rightly rejected by Christian philosophers centuries ago.

Can anyone here paste that famous quote from St. Augustine about Christians making fools of themselves by claiming to know things that any Pagan can see just ain't so?

Since my acceptance of it as divine revelation is based on its conformity with reality, it is immensely falsifiable.

Do you realize how lacking in self-awareness most of you are? You seem to be unable to really understand the thinking of someone who actually has a different worldview from yours. Instead of really listening carefully and trying to understand, you oversimplify, caricature, and reject without serious consideration.

Many of you are quite convinced I don't know anything--reason, the meaning of evidence, logic, history, and pretty much everything else. You are quite convinced you've got my psyche basically figured out. Well, I happen to know myself, and you are completely off base. You are confident you understand me, but your evaluations are groundless and almost completely inaccurate. Obviously, for you, confidence is not in proportion to having a good reason to be confident. Your getting things so ridiculously wrong here doesn't give one much confidence you know what you are talking about in other areas. You obviously have a difficulty with keeping your claims in proportion to your evidence.

You keep asserting things without proving them, as if they are obvious. And yet your assertions simply reflect your ignorance that there are real, intelligent people who think differently from you. They reveal your apparently undiscovered biases. You assert that evidence doesn't include revelation; that there are lots of good ways to interpret the Bible non-literally; that I can't possibly know something about the nature of God from reason; that conflicts among monotheists must mean none of them have any good reason to believe what they believe. These are nice assertions. I am well aware that there are lots of people who hold these beliefs, and I understand the argumentation behind them. I happen to think they are wrong. Revelation can be evidence accessible to everyone. It is dishonest or uninformed to claim to believe the Bible without accepting its historical and other factual claims. Conflict among monotheists doesn't prove that Christians don't know the truth. Those are my assertions. We can both assert. But assertions won't do it; we need facts. I am willing to give you my reasons for my assertions. Do you have any good reasons for yours? In order to have good reasons for yours, you really need to try to seriously understand how I (and others like me) think and why, rather than simplistically caricaturing and rejecting. So far, none of you have shown that you have the self-awareness and other-awareness to have done this or to be doing it now. It is difficult to have an intelligent conversation when you can't understand anything but your own viewpoint.

Let me give you one example. I claim to know that God exists. I gave you some arguments for the existence of God a while back. Hardly anyone has attempted any real response to those arguments. Glen responded with a long post, but his response was dismissive and didn't really deal with any of my arguments substantively. It all pretty much amounted to, "All this metaphysics stuff is stupid, so there!" Well, I don't think it is stupid, and I am not going to be convinced by loud, unproven assertions to the contrary. Pete Dunkelberg (I believe) actually attempted an intelligent response, but it pretty much amounted to a complaint that I don't know how to define "logic." Actually, I do. I'm sorry he didn't like my particular use of the term in that context, but that hardly amounts to a substantive critique. (I also appreciated Pete's attempt, condescending though it was, to be respectful. Thank you.) All of you simply assert that I cannot know anything metaphysical, such as something about the nature of God. That is your belief, where is your proof? I think I can know these things. Am I supposed to believe I can't, against my own experience, simply on the basis of your authority? Sorry, I'm too scientifically-minded to work that way.

The Bible does not contain contradictions. The thing about rabbits not being ruminents and bats not being birds is an unfair evaluation of the Bible. The Bible is not interested in 21st century scientific classifications. It uses phenomenological and common-sense language--not surprisingly, since it is not just written to 21st century biologists. It may class all birds and bats together as flying creatures, but this is not an error, it is simply not attempting to describe things with the level of detail a biologist would. Now if the Bible said rabbits could fly, we'd have a problem. But it doesn't. If you are being careless, it is easy to find apparent contradictions in the Bible (and probably just about anything else). If you care about getting things right, you will be able to tell the difference between a contradiction or error and a common-sense or phenomenological description. (By the way, what in the world is your reference for seeing the whole world from the top of a tree? I have no idea what you are talking about here.)

I've given you some proof for the existence of God in post #177611. Why don't you deal with some of that seriously? After that, I can give you some more evidence for my beliefs. And perhaps it is about time to start providing some proof for some of your many strong claims. Revelation can't be accessible to all and doesn't constitute evidence? Prove it. The Bible can be legitimately and honestly interpreted without taking its historical claims seriously? Prove it. The existence of conflict among monotheists proves that none of them have the truth? Prove it. Metaphysical arguments are fatuous gibberish? Prove it. Lack of biologically precise language is the same as error? Prove it. It is time to break out of the little box of a universe most of you seem to inhabit and learn to understand the complexity of what is really out there and other ways of thinking besides what you are used to.

B. Spitzer, I want to thank you for your attempts so far to try to listen to what I have to say and to engage it seriously (and for standing up for me earlier amidst the absurd slanders of others, taking some slander yourself in the process). I greatly appreciate it. You say I must provide empirical evidence of the Bible before it can be taken seriously. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Bible, or the Christian worldview, must predict accurate things about the world we observe. I do believe the Bible does this incredibly well, which is why I believe it should be taken seriously. There is much that can be said here, but let me start with what I have already started with--the evidence for the existence of God I gave in post #177611. Here is one example of where the Bible lines up with reality whereas some other worldviews, such as naturalism, do not. Naturalism predicts that God will not be a logically necessary ingredient to explain the universe. Christianity predicts he will be. It turns out that you cannot explain the universe we observe without the existence of God. This falsifies naturalism and supports Christianity (although other confirmations must be had before a complete case for Christianity is made). Do you consider this a valid example of what you call empirical evidence? If not, why not specifically?

Thanks!

Mark

Well, Mark, I don't intend to repeat myself. Many responded to that post, and it was the post that revealed most clearly your lack of understanding of modern scientific concepts. It includes misconceptions that to all the way back to Zeno. And it revealed a complete lack of awareness of the long history of discussion, both philosophical and scientific, that has addressed the arguments you make. Several people pointed that out to you.

This is not the forum for you to get an education that is going to take you many years, given your current state and mindset. You will have to go to libraries, read science texts, and anything else that has been suggested here to bring yourself up to date.

No one here hates you or wishes you ill. Don't misinterpret bluntness as rudeness. Many people replying to you have excellent credentials and many more years of experience than you do. Many have been where you have been and discovered they were not seeing the whole picture. Don't copycat the criticisms we have made of your positions without understanding the big picture. You only make things worse for yourself and those you claim to represent.

Good luck to you.

It turns out that you cannot explain the universe we observe without the existence of God. This falsifies naturalism and supports Christianity (although other confirmations must be had before a complete case for Christianity is made). Do you consider this a valid example of what you call empirical evidence? If not, why not specifically?

OK, I'll play, can't work until the caffeine kicks in anyway...

Mark, do you know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have you Heard the Word? Why don't you look up It's Noodliness on Wikipedia, and come back and explain to us why your God is more credible...

Pastafarianism forever!

How predictable. Three responses so far to my arguments about the existence of God. None of them even try to deal specifically with the specific arguments.

Elzinga's response: "That's just stupid, and everybody knows it! You're just dumb and uneducated!" Thanks for a brilliant and illuminating response.

Sir Toejam's response: "We're wating our time! He hasn't been convinced by our brilliance yet!" Keep on shining helpful answers like that, and maybe someday I will be--if I stop looking for real evidence, that is.

demallian's response: "Why do you believe in God more than the Flying Spaghetti monster?" I already told you in the post I referred you to. Go back and read it, then give a response rather than asking over again the same question I already answered.

Any more brilliance, anyone? Boy, how could I have missed the clear evidence for atheism. . .

Mark

Mark,

No, you haven't already answered my question. I don't see anywhere in your post a discussion of why the Bible is more trustworthy than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Care to explain how you arrive objectively at the conclusion that one is better than the other?

What does it take for you "Darwinists" to stop taking Mark's bait?

He admits to knowing about OEC and ID, only after much of my nagging, and is aware that they are just as much in conflict with his position as evolution is. But with your help he quickly reverts back to the pretense that it's either "the Bible" (his interpretation only, of course) or "Darwinism."

Mark, if you really want to learn about common descent, check Douglas Theobald's online article "The 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." (yes, he uses "evidences" tongue-in-cheek). You can use it 2 ways. It is a gold mine for quotes to mine, if that's what you want. But it also has 29+ potential falsifiers for "macroevolution," that not one anti-evolutionist, whether YEC, OEC or IDer, has ever attempted to fulfill. Why would that be?

Revelation can be evidence accessible to everyone.

Mark Hausam dodged thusly: The thing about rabbits not being ruminents and bats not being birds is an unfair evaluation of the Bible... It may class all birds and bats together as flying creatures, but this is not an error, it is simply not attempting to describe things with the level of detail a biologist would. Now if the Bible said rabbits could fly, we'd have a problem.

If you are being careless, it is easy to find apparent contradictions in the Bible (and probably just about anything else).

what in the world is your reference for seeing the whole world from the top of a tree? I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I hate to say I told ya so... meh, no i don't. You all spent 3 very patient days trying to explain things to him, and in the end, this is what you get. Not one iota different from where he started. shrug.

Instead of really listening carefully and trying to understand, you oversimplify, caricature, and reject without serious consideration.

And once again, you completely fail to describe exactly what we got wrong.

Revelation can be evidence accessible to everyone.

Most of the "revelations" I've heard of have been personal and unverifiable -- including those of the various authors of the books of the Bible, who have no proof other than "God showed me this and you'd better believe me."

I am well aware that there are lots of people who hold these beliefs, and I understand the argumentation behind them. I happen to think they are wrong.

You've just admitted you DON'T understand a huge amount of technical and logical stuff that backs up a lot of our argumentation; now you're saying you understand it all. Color me unimpressed. And all you've said in response is that you "happen to think" we're wrong, without telling us why we should happen to think so too. Personal belief don't mean squat outside your own life, unless you can back it up with something that exists outside your own head.

[The Bible] may class all birds and bats together as flying creatures, but this is not an error, it is simply not attempting to describe things with the level of detail a biologist would.

You're absolutely right -- which is why (as I've said before in a post you completely ignored) it is foolish to try to use the Bible as a science text, as you insist on using Genesis. That's not why it was written, and it makes no sense to use something for a purpose it was not made to serve. Using the Bible as a science text makes no more sense than shoveling snow with a screwdriver.

Revelation can't be accessible to all and doesn't constitute evidence? Prove it.

Lots of people have had revelations to which I am not privy; and I've had a few to which no one else is privy. None of it means squat in a peer-reviewed paper or a courtroom. What more proof do you need?

The Bible can be legitimately and honestly interpreted without taking its historical claims seriously? Prove it.

MILLIONS of Christians, if not billions, do just that every day: they draw moral values, spiritual strength, and common-sense guidance from the Bible, and get their knowledge in other areas (history, science, world affairs, etc.) from other texts. And they live honest, unpretentious and fulfilled lives according to the teachings of Jesus, commanding respect from all without threatening anyone or ignoring any complicated or uncomfortable truth. That's more than Christians of your sort can say. The very fact that you have to demand such proof -- and get it from a Pagan, no less -- speaks volumes about your understanding of your own faith.

The existence of conflict among monotheists proves that none of them have the truth? Prove it.

Did anyone here even make that assertion? Some of us merely said that all that conflict proves that Christian thought and experience is more complex than you seem to think it is.

Lack of biologically precise language is the same as error? Prove it.

Again, you misrepresented our position: the error is in taking a book with such biologically imprecise language, and pretending it's an "infallible" source of information on biological subjects such as the origin of species. If it has "imprecise language," as you've just admitted it has, then it cannot be considered reliable on that particular subject.

There is much that can be said here, but let me start with what I have already started with---the evidence for the existence of God I gave in post #177611.

That's the post where you tried to tell us that God knowingly planted a planetful of systematically misleading clues, in order to justfy ignoring all the evidence that contradicts your creation-story. And your "proof" of God's existence is no more honest or credible.

But since you insist, I'll go through a kinda-random sampling of the inconherent non-sequiturs and unfounded assertions that constitute your "proof:"

Some atheists have argued that the universe itself could be self-existent, and thus not need a cause. The problem with this is that the universe simply isn't self-existent.

An assertion with no facts, observatins or logic to back it up. Besides, if the Universe can't be "self-existent," are you sure God can be?

Since the big bang theory has been accepted, most scientists have accepted that time has not gone on indefinitely, but this is better proven by philosophical argumentation.

Non-sequitur. Yes, the Big Bang is accepted, but that does not imply concensus on what, if anything, existed before it. Some scientists speak of an Oscillating Universe: Big Bang, expansion, slowing down due to gravity, brief stasis, contraction, Big Crunch, repeat forever. In my own opinion, Big Bang = "Let there be light!" But there's no proof of that, at least not yet.

Time cannot have gone on forever because it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite series. If time had been going on forever, there would have passed already an infinite number of, say, minutes. But there cannot have already passed an infinite number of minutes, because it would take literally forever to traverse an infinite number of minutes.

If it's possible for an infinite number of minutes to exist, then why is it not possible for someone or something (you're a bit unclear here) to "traverse" them (you're a bit unclear on that too)?

And yet, we have arrived at this present moment.

"We" were born/created within the possibly-infinite timestream, and "arrived" "here" -- another point within the same timestream -- from "there." So what?

Also, not only does the temporal universe as a whole require an explanation outside of itself, but each moment in the time-series requires an explanation. Whenever something changes, there must be an explanation for the change, and it must come from outside the thing changing.

So far at least, all observed changes have been adequately explained using the physical laws and cause-and-effect relationships that prevail within "the time-series." "Explanations" involving agency from outside "the time-series" have proven unreliable at best, insane or dishonest at worst.

There's more to your "proof," but I think I can stop here and conclude that it's groundless and based on arbitrary assumptions and bogus word-games. George Orwell said it best: the more you think in abstractions, the more the words you choose to use will rush into the vacuum and do all your thinking for you. Use different words, and you will be led to different thoughts.

Furthermore, even if you can prove the existence of _A_ supreme being, you still have yet to prove WHICH supreme being(s) we should all worship and obey; and -- more to the point here -- none of this proves we can ignore centuries of valid science in favor of this or that vaguely-written creation-story.

Mark Hausam said: Time cannot have gone on forever because it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite series. If time had been going on forever, there would have passed already an infinite number of, say, minutes. But there cannot have already passed an infinite number of minutes, because it would take literally forever to traverse an infinite number of minutes.

That's sort of like arguing that infinity can't exist because if it did it would have properties that a finite thing wouldn't have. (Such as being equivalent to a proper subset of itself.)

Henry

I claim to know that God exists. I gave you some arguments for the existence of God a while back. Hardly anyone has attempted any real response to those arguments. Glen responded with a long post, but his response was dismissive and didn't really deal with any of my arguments substantively. It all pretty much amounted to, "All this metaphysics stuff is stupid, so there!" Well, I don't think it is stupid, and I am not going to be convinced by loud, unproven assertions to the contrary. Pete Dunkelberg (I believe) actually attempted an intelligent response, but it pretty much amounted to a complaint that I don't know how to define "logic." Actually, I do. I'm sorry he didn't like my particular use of the term in that context, but that hardly amounts to a substantive critique.

Here is one example of where the Bible lines up with reality whereas some other worldviews, such as naturalism, do not. Naturalism predicts that God will not be a logically necessary ingredient to explain the universe. Christianity predicts he will be. It turns out that you cannot explain the universe we observe without the existence of God. This falsifies naturalism and supports Christianity (although other confirmations must be had before a complete case for Christianity is made). Do you consider this a valid example of what you call empirical evidence? If not, why not specifically?

The universe is not really a unified thing but a collection of interacting things.

Whenever something changes, there must be an explanation for the change, and it must come from outside the thing changing.

The brain is an enormously complex animated pattern of matter and energy particles forming complex patterns and moving about in complex ways. But this in itself can do nothing toward producing consciousness.

Boy, how could I have missed the clear evidence for atheism...

demallien ---

Her Noodliness!

What does it take for you "Darwinists" to stop taking Mark's bait?

bloody extortionist!

:P

David Benson,

Pfft, you do of course have proof that Its Noodliness is female, don't you?

RAmen

Way back in my earliest post (#176430, before Mark showed up) I was mentioning what I and some of my colleagues had observed back in the 1970s and 80s about the unusually persistent sets of misconceptions that are common and propagate within some of the fundamentalist communities.

It appears that the only significant change we have seen since then is the emphasis on the "materialism" shtick that was introduced primarily by Philip E. Johnson. By asserting that there are two justifiable ways of looking at evidence (one that includes supernatural revelation in the Christian bible, the other that contains only the evidence from the material world), it implies that both are justifiable but the one that admits the supernatural has to be superior by definition.

This, of course, goes back to Thomas Aquinas (with roots going back even farther to Augustine), who claimed that Man resides in the intersection of two worlds (a spiritual world and a material world) and draws knowledge from both. In principle the knowledge one obtains from both worlds must agree (after all, God made the world). However, if they do not agree, one is supposed to doubt the "corruptible knowledge" from the material world and give priority to the knowledge from the spiritual world because that comes directly from God by revelation. (Mark seems to think we don't understand this concept.)

However, the rapid expansion of knowledge in the intervening centuries and our increased understanding of the development of religions have made this whole picture obsolete. Anyone who has studied this history knows what I am talking about. None of the ID/Creationists appear to have studied this history (or they are reading the corrupted version of history coming out of the Discovery Institute) so they believe they have come up with a new idea which makes them impervious because those of us who are corrupt can't possibly see what they see from their supernatural insights.

So many of these ID/Creationists are both bulletproof and thin-skinned, meaning they are impervious to arguments from the "materialists" and sensitive to the barbs and arrows those godless devils throw at them. The latter makes them heroes and potential martyrs to their cohorts whenever they engage the atheistic Darwinists. This is an unbeatable combination. Unfortunately it is also wrong but they are imperviousness to the historical and scientific record as well.

Many here have patiently and extensively put forward the many reasons Mark's "arguments" don't hold water. You have more patience than I have.

I have developed a type of triage strategy in my own attempts to deal with the ID/Creationists. Generally, if an ID/Creationist comes loaded with a bunch of arguments, this one is already beyond "treatment" because he is armored-up and ready to do battle and is willing to accept martyrdom. So I tend to withhold knowledge and time from such an individual. Nothing works with them anyway. They are usually playing to some gallery.

At the other extreme are those who are comfortable with their philosophical and religious knowledge, are eager to learn and willing to put in the time and effort to do so. These I can help, and I don't withhold knowledge and time from them.

In the middle are the ones who need broader theological and philosophical instruction as well as scientific instruction. I can handle the latter in my own areas of science, refer them experts in other areas of science, and refer them to well-respected theologians and philosophers for the rest.

Many of my colleagues over the years have not had sufficient exposure to the theological and philosophical issues and history to effectively sort these issues out. My own exposure was serendipitous. Back in the 1970s the Scientific Creationists were goading scientists into debates, and the scientists were thinking they were debating science. The rules of the debate were to "stick to the science". They didn't understand that the debate had nothing to do with science; it was really religious and (pseudo)philosophical. I saw a number of debates that were disasters for the scientists who didn't pick up on the clues.

It seems to me that more of our scientific training will have to include these kinds of issues in the future. As long as much of our research money comes from the public, we owe it to them to at least understand the bigger picture. I have never regretted my exposure to these ideas. I think it made me a better researcher and instructor. It put my own research in a broader context and made it more interesting.

I personally find Mark's world depressing and devoid of humor and potential.

You have to admit though Mike that this thread is brilliant! How many other threads start off with a scientific paper, and then provide an interactive example of the paper's subject for us to play with? It's practical science gold! Kudos to Nick Matzke :-)

And now back to waiting for the next installment from our labrat :-)

As I continue to reflect upon this conversation, it does seem that probably the biggest difference between my thinking and many of yours is that I take seriously the claim of the Bible to be a reliable revelation from God. I believe that God exists, and that it is possible to have such a revelation. I believe the Bible evidences itself to be such a revelation. This means that I come to the specifically scientific evidence for origins believing I have additional information on the subject, and that affects my interpretation of that evidence. Most of you seem to think the idea of revelation is inherently non-objective or non-evidential and cannot be part of one's evaluation of the evidence. We have, therefore, a deeper philosophical disagreement that undoubtedly affects the way we evaluate things.

I am an empiricist, too. I think my arguments for the existence of God are empirical. They actually use the same kind of reasoning used by scientists (as well as by people in everyday life). Scientists believe they have found evidence of many planets orbiting distant stars. Many of them cannot be seen directly, so how do they know they are there? They deduce their existence from their gravitational effects on their stars. In a similar way, many of the classic proofs for God's existence logically deduce the existence and much of the nature of God from empirical observations of the natural universe, one's own consciousness, etc. There is a strong tendency among many scientists (and others) to want to separate "scientific arguments" from "religious" or "philosophical arguments," but I think this is ultimately a false dichotomy that doesn't hold up. Richard Dawkins seems to agree with this analysis. In The God Delusion, he rejects Gould's NOMA and argues that the existence of God is a scientific question. Arguments for the existence of God are scientific arguments. of course, Dawkins thinks they are bad arguments whereas I think many of them are good. But if they are good arguments, then God would be scientifically established and all the implications of that (possibility of revelation, etc.) would have to be taken into account in further scientific research.

OK, let's deal with some responses to responses to my arguments. I am going to try to go through these rather quickly. (OK, I'm naive. : ))

On rabbits being ruminents and bats being birds: Here are a couple of good websites that provide a good, more full response to these objections: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp and http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html. As I said before, these objections make the mistake of confusing real error with more laid-back biological descriptions. The Bible's definition of "chew the cud" is broader than ours and can include rabbits. "Birds" in the Bible is a broader category than our modern one as well--it lumps pretty much all flying creatures together. So there are no errors here. A lot of times, accusations of biblical error or contradiction stem from a superficial and shallow reading of the text. It is actually, in some ways, similar to the "quote mining" practice many Darwinists think creationists constantly engage in.

Let me deal with some of the responses to my arguments about the existence of God. Thank you for your thoughts on this, for trying to point out specific objections. I am going to try to go VERY quickly through these, since there are a lot of small objections. If you don't remember my post very well, you might have to go back and look at it to remember what I am responding to, since I must use a bit of shorthand here.

"All your arguments are simply ungrounded assertions." No, they are not. They are based in good logical thinking. They are substantive arguments that need to be dealt with on a deeper level than being merely dismissed without serious consideration, which is what this response is doing.

"Time could have been going on forever in the past." No, it couldn't have. I am well aware that the concept of an infinite past does not mean there was a beginning infinitely long ago--that is not my point. My argument is that if you posit an infinite past, you will have to say that time has actually been going on infinitely, which means an infinite amount of time--say, an infinite number of minutes--has to have actually occurred. But it is impossible for an infinite amount of minutes to have actually occurred. That would be an inifinite series of minutes that will have been completed and traversed, but you can't traverse or complete an infinite series. It would take literally forever to actually traverse an infinite number of minutes, and yet an implication of saying that the past has been going on forever is that we have actually traversed such an infinite. The past is not hypothetical. By definition, it has already, actually happened. If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time has actually already happened, not just hypothetically but really. But this is impossible by definition. So time cannot have been going on forever.

"Consciousness can be reduced to matter/energy." No, it cannot. Glen didn't even attempt to deal with my arguments here, so I don't have much to say.

"Science starts with evidence, not with unproven assumptions." That assumes my arguments are "unproven assumptions," which they are not. They are good, even empirically-based arguments that therefore should constitute a part of the evidence that sciantists consider.

"There can be two totally unrelated things." I argued that the Ultimate Reality has to be simple being, one thing without parts. One reason for this is that you cannot have two ultimate things, neither one derived from the other or from some higher reality. The reason is that any two things will always share a common reality. They will share laws of logic. They will be simiarl in some ways, if only by both existing, sharing the same laws of logic, etc. Such a situation will not be able to explain the unity of the universe we live in. If the two ultimate things were truly completely and utterly unrelated, they would not share a common reality. Since they do, we have to explain where that unifying reality comes from. Whatever exlains that unifying reality will be the real Ultimate Reality. To explain that unity, it cannot be a combination of two or more things totally unrelated to each other but must be a complete unity itself. This is a bit hard to articulate. I will be happy to go into greater depth if anyone is interested. At any rate, the logic of my argument stands. You simply cannot have two totally unrelated things constituting some unified Ultimate Reality.

"It is possible to have only one object that is bounded/limited." No, it isn't. When we talk about something being bounded in this context, we are saying it comes to an end and then there is more reality outside of it. Whatever that reality outside of it is, it is not identical with the original object (since it is outside of it). If it is not the object itself, it is something different from the object. So you will have at least two different "things" or parts of reality. For reality to be truly unified, you must have something without parts and without any other reality existing ultimate besides that one simple thing/being. If no other reality exists, that being would constitute the whole of reality and thus could have no other reality "outside" of it. It would thus have to be unbounded or unlimited (one meaning of the term "infinite").

Sometimes we get confused dealing with these things because we fail to distinguish what really exists, what must exist, etc., with mathematical ideas or concepts that may be useful mathematically but which cannot exist in the real world. An infinite series, for example, can exist as a mathematical idea, but it is logically impossible that there should be a real infinite series of anything in real life. We can imagine mathematically an infinitesimal point, but such a point is impossible in reality. The concept of infinite as an unending series of finite amounts of something is not possible in reality. But if we mean by "infinite" something that is unbounded, not only is that possible, it must necessarily exist.

"Who created God?" No one. God is a self-existent being. He is a necessary being who is the origin of all causal chains. Something must be self-existent, unproduced from something else, or there would be no basis for the existence of anything. If everything borrows its energy from something else, we leave unexplained where the energy comes from. It must come from somewhere, and yet if everything borrows it from something else, there will be no place it can finally come from. At the back or bottom of all reality, there must be some self-existent reality, something that is the very ground of being, itself unproduced from anything else. This cannot be the universe we observe, because it exhibits properties (such as passing through time), which are incompatible with being self-existent. So there must be some transcendent reality. This plus other arguments lead us to condlude this ultimate, self-existent reality is God.

"God is no better than flying spaghetting monster." I need more info on the nature of such a creature. I assume he is partially made of noodles. He would therfore be made of bounded parts, and therefore could not be the unified ground of all being (see original post and above for details). Therefore, he cannot be logically deduced from the observable universe. Therefore, I have no evidence for his existence.

"Revelation is obviously subjective and personal, and cannot constitute evidence." I disagree. I think there are good, objective reasons for accepting the Bible as information from God. My theistic arguments are a part of my case for that.

"You keep saying you don't understand things and then you say you do." Like most people, I understand some things and not others. This is not exactly contradictory. I am very familiar with the philosophical (and yet still empirically-based) arguments for my position. I am very familiar with biblical exegesis. I am very familiar with how assumptions can play a role in our evaluations of evidence. I am not very familiar with the technical arguments for and against an old earth, although I have some basic overall knowledge.

"The Bible is not a science book." That is true. It speaks in common-sense and phenomenological terms, rather than in strictly accurate 21st century biological or other scientific language. However, it does make understandable claims that mean something, and my assertion is that it is always right when it does so. The Bible seems to claim that for itself, so I find it inconsistent to claim to accept the Bible as revelation and then ignore what it says about itself and other things. We must be careful when we draw historical or scientific information from the Bible, because it doesn't speak with scientific precision or intend to address all we want to know. However, we must respect its factual claims. As I said before, if the Bible claimed that rabbits habitually fly, that would be an error, plain and simple, because they don't. When the Bible says God created the world in six days, it seems most reasonable to understand that according to its common-sense meaning. The context seems to support that as well.

"A lot of Christians read the Bible differently." I know. But that doesn't prove they are right.

OK, that is enough for now. I did get the info for the website Frank J gave me. Thanks. Any other book recommendations on Darwinism? I want something that is reasonably accessible to the non-specialist but is thorough.

Thanks!

Mark