Being a Theistic Evolutionist without contradiction

Posted 22 June 2008 by PvM

“It is not, however, possible to be a Christian DARWINIST without contradiction. A Christian Darwinist is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: that evolution is both a tool and an autonomous process, that providence and chance are both ultimately real, that design is potentially detectable and that it is a priori indetectable. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained.”

Such concludes a posting on UcD by a new poster named Thomas Cudworth. The problem is that Thomas has failed to recognize several logical fallacies. First of all, the claim that design is potentially detectable is not one which logically follows from a Christian perspective. In fact, YEC have given up on detecting design and rejects any discrepancies between science and their faith. Furthermore, it is hardly self evident that God's Design should be detectable. In fact, some have argued that this lack of detectable evidence is both a requirement for free will as well as a foundation for our faith. So how can (Darwinian) evolution be a tool and autonomous process at the same time? Charles Darwin already provided the answer. One of the major processes of evolution is variation and natural selection. Those familiar with natural selection will remember that Darwin appealed to artificial selection to make his case for natural selection. In other words, God can at least in principle affect the process of natural selection. Second of all, the process of variation. Much confusion exists over the meaning of the term random here. Sufficient to say that random seems to be misunderstood by many an ID Creationist who misinterprets it as 'unguided', or 'guided by a pure chance process' when in fact logic dictates that random refers to the immediate relevance of said variation in the environment. Furthermore, science has shown how variation can become biased by the same processes of evolution, as long as the source of this variation in variation is genetic. In other words, natural selection can select for sources of variation which are more likely to be successful. The arguments are not much dissimilar from the observation that although the laws of gravity guide the motion of objects, humans have found ways to guide ballistic projectiles. Thus we come to the following claim

Once God sets a truly Darwinian process in motion, he has no control over whether it will produce Adam and Eve, a race of pointy-eared Vulcans, or just an ocean full of bacteria.)

First of all this suggests that Humans were the expected outcome of God's creation and while it is easy to understand this flawed logic, after all, we are the outcome of God's creation, this should not be confused with a forward looking goal. In fact, it is easy to argue that God's Creation was set in motion to eventually result in a form of life which could gain spirituality and a soul and thus become aware of His existence. Furthermore, even if God had set in motion a Darwinian process, He could still have intervened, as I have explained above, without violating natural law. In other words, the process would still appear purely Darwinian and at the same time would be guided. So contrary to the fallacious claims that 'true Darwinists' cannot be 'true Christians', it is self evident that such a position is not logically tenable. What I find puzzling is why people are intent on rejecting the good science of Darwinism and evolutionary theory as somehow being incompatible with their faith. That shows both a disregard for science, which is a typical ID Creationist affliction, as well as a significant lack in faith. What I find particularly ironic is the opening statement that

There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity for the belief that the earth is very old, and for less-than-completely-literal interpretations of Genesis.

Not only is there plenty of room, Christianity cannot and should not maintain a position which is at odds with known facts of science. As such, I find it far more puzzling to hear ID Creationists be critical about theistic evolutionist while remaining mostly silent about a far worse threat to science and faith, namely Young Earth Creationism. And yet Cudworth seems to 'argue' that

But Darwin’s mechanism leaves room for neither intelligence nor skill; it is the unconscious operation of impersonal natural selection upon mutations which are the products of chance. It follows that Darwinian evolution is not a tool, but an autonomous process, and therefore out of God’s control.

What Cudworth fails to realize is that autonomous processes can be affected and used as tools to control evolution. Once ID Creationist realize their mistakes, they should be quick to abandon their foolish objections to TE's and become more critical of YECers. But since ID Creationists are most likely to be YECers, it seems no wonder that their disagreements lie with Christians who have not found a need to deny the facts of science in other to have a solid faith. So let me end with Cudworth's original statement applied to a far worse threat to science and faith

“It is not, however, possible to be a Christian Young Earth Creationist without contradiction. A Christian Young Earth Creationists is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: namely that science contradicts consistently the claims of a Young Earth, and a purely faith based interpretation of the Bible that insists that God created in less than 10,000 years. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained.”

147 Comments

Jason S. · 23 June 2008

I don't think there exists a coherent account of how information damages will - or even more modestly - damages will in a way that is undesirable. I always get a kick out of used car salesmen using this apologetic approach, though. I'd let you look under the hood, but I don't want to rob you of your free will.

Draconiz · 23 June 2008

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us Pvm, nice article :)

rog · 23 June 2008

PvM,

Amen.

Jim Harrison · 23 June 2008

If you already believe in God, figuring out how to square that belief with the known facts of biological evolution is not that difficult, a pleasant and mostly harmless parlor game. The facts of evolution do not suggest and certainly do not imply the existence of a God, however. Indeed, since the yield of the "process" of evolution is so meager that the last thing it suggests is any kind of intention whatsoever. What chemist would ever choose a method of synthesis that takes four billion years and trillions of corpses to produce a single intelligent species?

k.e. · 23 June 2008

Breath taking projected schizophrenia.

Accept the ancients tales without question as objective fact and the YEC's projected reality doesn't gel with the real world.....leading to the "logical conclusion" that "god's world" is not real?

Indeed if the scientific method or as they like to call it "Darwinism" is not congruent with their version of god then one or the other is wrong.

Their craziness only allows one choice.

What next....hearing voices?

PvM · 23 June 2008

That my friend is a very good question. Of course time may not be of any consequence and the trillion corpses, it's not as if God killed them, most if not all met a natural death. But you are right the facts of evolution do not suggest nor deny the existence of a God.

Jim Harrison said: If you already believe in God, figuring out how to square that belief with the known facts of biological evolution is not that difficult, a pleasant and mostly harmless parlor game. The facts of evolution do not suggest and certainly do not imply the existence of a God, however. Indeed, since the yield of the "process" of evolution is so meager that the last thing it suggests is any kind of intention whatsoever. What chemist would ever choose a method of synthesis that takes four billion years and trillions of corpses to produce a single intelligent species?

PvM · 23 June 2008

k.e. said: What next....hearing voices?

Who said that... Show yourself...

James F · 23 June 2008

I'm afraid Stephen Colbert beat Cudworth to the punch. From his most recent interview with Ken Miller:

What about one of these days if intelligent design just takes the name evolution, wouldn't you be in trouble there?

The 900 foot straw man is that evolution is fine, it's Darwinism (which here becomes something resembling philosophical naturalism) that's the problem.

teach · 23 June 2008

One of the posters on UD had a good point - certainly, the uniting of one of several million sperm (well, more like billion, if you count the total number of times my parents probably did it) with one of several hundred thousand eggs was a random act and yet, here I am. What are the odds...

It's Cudworth's invitation at the end to join them that gets me. I can keep all my understanding of evolution if I will just be willing to accept that design might be detectable. Well, it might be, but since not a single IDer has even come close to demonstrating that in a way that is as simple and easy to understand and grasp as, that has even an inkling of the elegance, as evolutionary theory, well, I'll stay on this side of the divide they're trying to erect.

Likewise, I have yet to be convinced that morality can be explained by Dawkins in a way that is as simple and easy to understand and grasp as, that has even an inkling of the elegance of, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes I think that ID masks a shakiness in faith. Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?

Bubba Von Grubba · 23 June 2008

How can a Christian take the word of some carnival ringmasters over those of the good book itself? They demand their side show exhibits be promoted in taxpayer-funded schools while kicking the Bible out. They string up some chicken bones and lizard bones together and call it a trasitional form. They told us John Merrick was a transitional form! What a load of horse hockey! The feejee mermaid was more credible than this contemporary crud. I'll take the words of the good book anytime over the disciples of P.T. Barnum!

Jim Harrison · 23 June 2008

Interesting. PvM paraphrased me as writing "the facts of evolution do not suggest nor deny the existence of a God" when what I wrote was "the facts of evolution do not suggest and certainly do not imply the existence of a god."

While I cheerfully agree that facts of evolution do not formally contradict theism, they surely aren't favorable to belief. At the very least, what we have here is the dog that did not bark; for if the universe harbored a god, you'd surely expect to find some evidence of him in nature.

You keep telling me that there's an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.

PvM · 23 June 2008

James F said: I'm afraid Stephen Colbert beat Cudworth to the punch. From his most recent interview with Ken Miller: What about one of these days if intelligent design just takes the name evolution, wouldn't you be in trouble there? The 900 foot straw man is that evolution is fine, it's Darwinism (which here becomes something resembling philosophical naturalism) that's the problem.

I understand and disagree. Somehow ID Creationists do not have a problem with gravity but suddenly become screamish when it involves natural selection. Darwinianism, which insights are still a big part of evolution and evolutionary theory is not a problem, unless ID Creationists let it become philosophical naturalism. Such a confusion seems quite common amongst ID Creationists. Unfortunately

PvM · 23 June 2008

Sometimes I think that ID masks a shakiness in faith. Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?

Indeed, my point as well.

PvM · 23 June 2008

Jim Harrison said: Interesting. PvM paraphrased me as writing "the facts of evolution do not suggest nor deny the existence of a God" when what I wrote was "the facts of evolution do not suggest and certainly do not imply the existence of a god." While I cheerfully agree that facts of evolution do not formally contradict theism, they surely aren't favorable to belief. At the very least, what we have here is the dog that did not bark; for if the universe harbored a god, you'd surely expect to find some evidence of him in nature. You keep telling me that there's an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.

Now we come to issues of faith. Sure, evolutionary theory, like most any scientific theory does not deny or prove any form of theology, however to suggest that evolutionary theory or the facts of evolution are not favorable to belief may be a problem for belief. The evidence for God is for all to see, all one need to do is believe. Expecting that God should reveal Himself for your amusement seems rather ... well...

PvM · 24 June 2008

You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.

Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?

Dave Luckett · 24 June 2008

Jim Harrison asks: "What chemist would ever choose a method of synthesis that takes four billion years and trillions of corpses to produce a single intelligent species?"

A chemist who has all time and all space at his disposal, who experiences infinity and eternity as a gestalt, and to whom death is not an end?

tomh · 24 June 2008

Dave Luckett said: A chemist who has all time and all space at his disposal, who experiences infinity and eternity as a gestalt, and to whom death is not an end?

In other words, your average imaginary, fictional character.

PvM · 24 June 2008

tomh said:
Dave Luckett said: A chemist who has all time and all space at his disposal, who experiences infinity and eternity as a gestalt, and to whom death is not an end?
In other words, your average imaginary, fictional character.

The concept may include you standard fictional character but I'd say that most fictional characters hardly live up to the chemist described above.

tomh · 24 June 2008

PvM said: ... the trillion corpses, it's not as if God killed them, most if not all met a natural death.

Well, that's certainly a forgiving attitude. If you start a process that results in many deaths, is there no responsibility? At the very least, don't try it under the US legal system, for you will surely wind up in jail.

PvM · 24 June 2008

Death is unavoidable. Let's turn this around, if you start with a process that results in many lives is there no responsibility? Life and death, two sides of the same coin After all, using your logic we may as well send all parents to jail :-)

tomh said:
PvM said: ... the trillion corpses, it's not as if God killed them, most if not all met a natural death.
Well, that's certainly a forgiving attitude. If you start a process that results in many deaths, is there no responsibility? At the very least, don't try it under the US legal system, for you will surely wind up in jail.

tomh · 24 June 2008

PvM said: Let's turn this around, if you start with a process that results in many lives is there no responsibility?

Well, it's not a crime to cause life but it is a crime to cause death, so it would seem that there is a difference no matter how many times you turn it around.

PvM said: Life and death, two sides of the same coin

And just what coin would that be? I'm not familiar with it.

Jim Harrison · 24 June 2008

Once again, I've got no quarrel with apologists for religion. I just want to point out the irrelevance of their activity to nonbelievers. You really have to be in a peculiar place to be impressed by the kind of reasoning undertaken by proponents of theistic evolution. Simply interpreting things to avoid contradictions is intellectually trivial because contradictions are actually quite rare. Two propositions have to have a great deal in common to contradict one another--two randomly chosen propositions have a vanishingly small probability of doing so. And to speak less abstractly, since biology and theology have no terms in common, their propositions can hardly be logically incompatible. "God" can't be represented in the language of modern biology.

tomh · 24 June 2008

PvM said: Let's turn this around, if you start with a process that results in many lives is there no responsibility?

Well, it's not a crime to cause life but it is a crime to cause death, so it would seem that there is a difference no matter how many times you turn it around.

PvM said: Life and death, two sides of the same coin

And just what coin would that be? I'm not familiar with it.

PvM · 24 June 2008

Well, it’s not a crime to cause life but it is a crime to cause death, so it would seem that there is a difference no matter how many times you turn it around.

Death is inevitable, God no more caused death than parents who gave live to a child.

PvM · 24 June 2008

Jim Harrison said: Once again, I've got no quarrel with apologists for religion. I just want to point out the irrelevance of their activity to nonbelievers. You really have to be in a peculiar place to be impressed by the kind of reasoning undertaken by proponents of theistic evolution. Simply interpreting things to avoid contradictions is intellectually trivial because contradictions are actually quite rare. Two propositions have to have a great deal in common to contradict one another--two randomly chosen propositions have a vanishingly small probability of doing so. And to speak less abstractly, since biology and theology have no terms in common, their propositions can hardly be logically incompatible. "God" can't be represented in the language of modern biology.

I see your point. And yet, the poster to whom I responded suggested that there were contradictions, something I considered to be foolish and ill supported.

tomh · 24 June 2008

PvM said: Death is inevitable,...

Not for God, apparently. Just for His creations. Religion is a personal matter as everyone knows. As you said, first you believe, then you see. You just can't expect to convince people that, out of all the thousands of possiblities, your own particular brand of religion is the correct one. Odds are that it is not.

PvM · 24 June 2008

Not for God, apparently. Just for His creations. Religion is a personal matter as everyone knows. As you said, first you believe, then you see. You just can’t expect to convince people that, out of all the thousands of possiblities, your own particular brand of religion is the correct one. Odds are that it is not.

Interesting point, is there such a thing as a wrong religion? Could all religions be right or share at least some truth components? Latest Pew Forum results suggest that more and more americans are warming up to the idea that other religions may not be that wrong. Except somehow for Jehova Witnesses who seem to be convinced that their religion is the only correct one. Fascinating but for me the big question is not as much as whose religion is correct but rather what we can learn from creation.

Rolf · 24 June 2008

PvM said:
Sometimes I think that ID masks a shakiness in faith. Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?
Indeed, my point as well.

The *only* problem is, it isn't about faith in God; it is about faith in the Bible the way they read it.

David B. · 24 June 2008

Clearly, if God were omnipotent, it would be entirely possible for him to influence evolution in a way completely undetectable by us, so the false dichotomy of ID or NS is a direct contradiction of Abrahamic tradition.

Nor is it a particularly strong objection that natural selection would be a particularly wasteful way of getting from organic sludge to thinking being. Genetic algorithms are routinely used by human designers to solve engineering problems because, compared with the required human effort, the 'waste' of the millions of failed attempts is trivial. Perhaps the element of surprise is a positive characteristic to our putative creator? He lets Gould's "tape of life" run and sees what rises above its humble beginnings to stand before him. Perhaps, even, we came about by directionless natural selection because God did, and this is what it means to "be made in his image"? It is probably impossible to know, surely, but why should that make it improper to consider?

What is a sticking point is divine omniscience. That rules out surprise or experiment as a reason for natural selection, and also any parsimony of effort, since a being that knew everything would not need a genetic algorithm to arrive at an acceptable solution. But then, omniscience is not particularly compatible with free will either, leading many theologians to reject or limit the concept.

In the end methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism. To do science, it is certainly desirable if not necessary to exclude supernatural explanations for phenomena under study, but I do not see that this dictates that one must therefore dismiss the supernatural entirely. If someone has faith that's fine with me, but if they want me to believe they'll need to bring proof.

Saddlebred · 24 June 2008

I am starting to understand why Lenny left (aside from the umm "friendly debates" with PZ and others).

"Time for another (seemingly weekly now) pointless holy war."

...yawn...

Simon (from the Netherlands) · 24 June 2008

Interesting thoughts and comments. Why is it that a Christian believes he or she is created and intentionally brought forth on this planet when there is no scientific evidence for that statement. But when it comes to evolution most of them can't seem to grasp the analogy and flee to YEC or ID idiocy. I want to ask PvM and other enlightened Christians not to use the term 'Theistic Evolution' and just be happy with our understanding of the natural world as first discovered by Darwin. Don't try to 'save creation' by putting the word 'theistic' in front of a perfectly natural process.

I believe there is a transcendent reality that would shed a different light on our lives if only we could see it. But we just can't. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these just might be love. So love science :-).

Frank J · 24 June 2008

PvM quotes Thomas Cudworth:

“It is not, however, possible to be a Christian DARWINIST...

Should one even take an argument seriously when it uses the word "Darwinist"? In CAPSLOCK no less? Sadly, it's a Catch 22. We do need to take it seriously, but only to show how these scam artists can't get their message across without playing word games. I just finished "Only A Theory" and will be writing an Amazon review soon. From the infighting among Miller's supporters (Christians, atheists, "generic theists" like me, etc.) and the quote mining from his detractors looking for inconsistencies with his earlier book, all I can say is that I hope that Miller's target audience - nonscientists who are not hopelessly fundamentalist, but doubt evolution or at least fall for "it's fair to teach the controversy" - is better at avoiding the bait.

Frank J · 24 June 2008

So let me end with Cudworth’s original statement applied to a far worse threat to science and faith: “It is not, however, possible to be a Christian Young Earth Creationist without contradiction. A Christian Young Earth Creationists is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: namely that science contradicts consistently the claims of a Young Earth, and a purely faith based interpretation of the Bible that insists that God created in less than 10,000 years. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained.”
— PvM

I’d bet that, behind closed doors, most professional IDers would fully agree with that statement. Of course they’d never admit it if any of their YEC fans might be listening. But even then, I would not expect them to deny it, only weasel out of it. One statement of Cudworth’s that caught my eye was the plea for TEs to just admit that design is detectable. That’s straight out of Behe’s review of John Haught’s “God After Darwin.” What surprised me reading that ~8 years ago was that nowhere in the review did Behe ask Haught to reject evolution, much less the old earth and common descent part that Behe himself concedes, and no professional IDer refutes directly (much to the dismay of professional, if not rank and file, YECs and OECs). The irony is that, when they are cornered about evolution, they only claim that design is detectable. So what do they want students to be taught? Everything but that! Specifically, the long refuted arguments against evolution straight from the OEC, if not YEC, play book, which they know would get demolished by a scientist like Miller, or even a science-literate theologian like Haught. Can it be any clearer that ID is nothing but a bait and switch scam, perpetrated by those who know that YEC and OEC were scientific failures before they were legal failures?

GvlGeologist, FCD · 24 June 2008

Can it be any clearer that ID is nothing but a bait and switch scam, perpetrated by those who know that YEC and OEC were scientific failures before they were legal failures?

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! - Capt. Renault, Casablanca

FL · 24 June 2008

What chemist would ever choose a method of synthesis that takes four billion years and trillions of corpses to produce a single intelligent species?

Jim's point was recently spelled out in detail by evolutionist blogster Jason Rosenhouse. Here, check it out, well worth reading.

Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

Rosenhouse correctly concludes:

Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend.

Nuff said!! FL

bigbang · 24 June 2008

Teach asks: "Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?"

PvM replies: "Indeed, my point as well."

If something isn’t detectable by science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reason, then why would anyone believe that that thing is in any way real or exists? They wouldn’t, and don’t, unless they are delusional, in denial, or lying.

Children often believe in, have faith in, Santa. They believe Santa is real, exists, and brings them toys; they may also believe that they have some amount of free will, moral responsibility, and that such a thing is somehow real and exists. However, most of them usually mature and realize and conclude that while in fact there does seem to be some amount of evidence and reasoning indicating that they do have some amount of free will, moral responsibility, that there is in fact no science, evidence, mathematics, and/or reason to believe that Santa is real or exists (except as an illusion in the minds of ignorant children).

But then there are others that will insist on perpetuating the myth of Santa Claus----obviously they are either delusional, in denial, or lying.

Whenever someone insists that their god isn’t detectable by science (i.e. evidence and/or mathematics and/or sound reasoning), as PvM claims is the case with his “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” then clearly their god is something that is not real and doesn’t exists, and they obviously are either delusional, in denial, or lying.

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008

PvM said:
You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.
Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?

Evidence.

bigbang · 24 June 2008

Teach asks: "Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?"

PvM replies: "Indeed, my point as well."

Think of it this way----say that you claim to have faith in your marriage, but that your wife moved out ten years ago, maxed out all your credit cards, was screwing everyone in town, and died of AIDS. IOW, there is no detectable science, evidence or reason for you to continue to have faith in your marriage to a woman that is now dead, had additionally broken every vow of that marriage, and obviously never had any intention of ever changing her behavior----the marriage is no longer real, nor does it exist, in any meaningful way. Anyone saying that they still have faith in such a marriage is either delusional, in denial, or lying.

DaveH · 24 June 2008

This is getting so bizarre with FL and Bigotty bangity.

Is bb saying that his god can be proven by science? If not, he's obviously an atheist by his own logic. Halleluja! Another kid for our side!

Also, (to use FL's favourite trick of quoting from sources he completely disagrees with to try to brow-beat people he partially agrees with; and just as an intellectual exercise since PvM is more than capable of fighting his own corner) how about:

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small" Friedrich von Logau 1654, trans. HW Longfellow.

or
"God moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform"
William Cowper 1779.

Raging Bee · 24 June 2008

Once again, our two current trolls, FL and bigbangbigot, try to dumb down a decent thread by spewing exactly the same nonsense and outright lies that we repeatedly refuted on other threads. They completely ignored every one of our painstaking refutations on all of the earlier threads, so I have no doubt they will ignore everything we say here as well. Both have proven themselves uneducable by choice, so there's really no use in letting them pretend they're engaging with us. (Still worshipping a deceiver-God, FL? How's that going for you?)

Ever notice how the quality of creationist trolling has gone down every month since the Dover ruling?

bigbang · 24 June 2008

Harrison says: “You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.”

And PvM coyly responds “Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?”

To which phantomreader42, in a moment of uncharacteristic intelligibility, retorts: “Evidence.”

Sorry phantom, there simply is no evidence for PvM’s god----his “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance”----b/c such a thing obviously is in no way real, it does not exist. There simply is no science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning for PvM’s god. When PvM says that he believes in, has faith in, a god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, it means only that PvM is delusional, in denial, or lying.

Flint · 24 June 2008

If you start out tabula rasa, and study science and the world around you, I doubt that gods and religious notions would ever cross your mind. They certainly don't NEED to; reality is marvelously consistent, complex, and dynamic. Who could ask for more?

But if you start out with some indelible belief in magical beings or forces or whatever and THEN start learning science and the world around you, you're faced with a rather difficult challenge - there is nothing for your gods to DO! Everything works perfectly well without them. What are they good for?

So the problem the Believers have is, they can't let go of their religion, they can't find any role for their god to play, they can't bring themselves to believe in gods who do nothing and can't ever be detected.

So the best solution is to regard these gods as maybe having been involved in getting some processes started (way offstage), or maybe somehow guiding reality at some level permanently below detection. Or maybe providing "spiritual guidance", a phrase with purely personal meaning (if any).

But the important point is that these solutions are not explanatory of anything in any way. They are simply rationalizations required by those whose gods can't be allowed to be imaginary, but can't be allowed to DO anything either.

Larry Moran · 24 June 2008

PvM said:
One of the major processes of evolution is variation and natural selection. Those familiar with natural selection will remember that Darwin appealed to artificial selection to make his case for natural selection. In other words, God can at least in principle affect the process of natural selection.

True, but that would mean natural selection is not science. Is that your position, that natural selection doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry but, instead, is influenced by supernatural forces? Do you think that makes science and religion compatible? See Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground.

PvM said:
... science has shown how variation can become biased by the same processes of evolution, as long as the source of this variation in variation is genetic. In other words, natural selection can select for sources of variation which are more likely to be successful.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Are you saying that some species have a special form of mutation that is biased toward beneficial alleles? Can you give me an example of such a species?

Nigel D · 24 June 2008

Raging Bee - I've given up reading anything that FL or BB post. It makes spotting the rational and on-topic posts easier.

Flint - interesting points. I would suggest, however, that God does have an important task - watching it all. Who needs daytime TV when you can see anything happening anywhere whenever you wish?

Stacy S. · 24 June 2008

A simple question for all of those who think that Christianity is not compatible with evolution.

Is this statement Correct? or Incorrect? ...

God is all powerful.

Eric · 24 June 2008

Very nice article PvM. Expect incoming quote bombs from our old friends BB and FL...

David B. said: What is a sticking point is divine omniscience. That rules out surprise or experiment as a reason for natural selection,

When I consider what sort of universe you'd need to *prevent* NS, it doesn't look exciting. Reproductive limits that somehow eliminate the competition for resources? Not fun. No generational variation? Really not fun. So, one reasonable theological defense of natural selection is the same one used for free will, which comes at the expense of evil: its the worst possible system - except for all the others (to borrow Churchill). And other posters have already mentioned the "faith" explanation. As in, proof staring you in the face tends to make it meaningless. From the diety's perspective, why rig the dice and expose yourself - this being a bad thing, evidently - when eventually, statistically, you're going to win the game (i.e. produce intelligent life) anyway?

In the end methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism. To do science, it is certainly desirable if not necessary to exclude supernatural explanations for phenomena under study, but I do not see that this dictates that one must therefore dismiss the supernatural entirely.

I agree. This is what was successfully argued in Dover, too. It is unfortunate that this concept is not taught more as a fundamental of science, it might eliminate some of the us vs. them mentality pervading much of religious fundamentalism (to be fair, we scientists have our own us vs. them folks too, though I'd argue its not nearly as common).

MDPotter · 24 June 2008

"if the universe harbored a god, you’d surely expect to find some evidence of him in nature."

What about faith? If you are able to detect evidence of the object of your faith, how is it still faith?
Aren't evidences of God supposed to be miracles? Burning Bush, virgin birth, resurrection, etc?
Wouldn't the simple attempt to detect God in nature be an act of faithlessness?
How about a lack of faith in God to create mechanisms that allow the unfolding of the universe as we perceive it? Who knows and can define the limits of God's power?
Does God leave fingerprints all over everything else but evolution?
How is evolution outside God's realm? How could it possibly be?

PvM · 24 June 2008

Lenny left?

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 24 June 2008

There simply is no science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning for PvM’s god.

2 Cor 5:7 . . . what evidence is there that you love your spouse? You can fix his favorite meals, attend to his every desire, sacrifice yourself for him - but you could do those things for him without loving him, too. Just as your husband has faith that you love him, so we walk in faith with God. I don't feel I've expressed myself clearly here, but time is short.

Eric · 24 June 2008

No, you expressed yourself very well. Bigbang used marriage as an analogy for why christians should expect there to be measurable proof of God's existence, and your quote refutes that quite exquisitely (or should I say, biblically?). eric

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:
There simply is no science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning for PvM’s god.
2 Cor 5:7 . . . what evidence is there that you love your spouse? You can fix his favorite meals, attend to his every desire, sacrifice yourself for him - but you could do those things for him without loving him, too. Just as your husband has faith that you love him, so we walk in faith with God. I don't feel I've expressed myself clearly here, but time is short.

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008

~~bigbang~~ bigot said: Harrison says: “You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.” And PvM coyly responds “Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?” To which phantomreader42, in a moment of uncharacteristic intelligibility, retorts: “Evidence.” . Sorry phantom, there simply is no evidence for PvM’s god----his “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance”----b/c such a thing obviously is in no way real, it does not exist. There simply is no science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning for PvM’s god. When PvM says that he believes in, has faith in, a god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, it means only that PvM is delusional, in denial, or lying.

To PvM's credit, I have not seen him claim to have evidence while knowingly lying, as you do on a regular basis.

Ravilyn Sanders · 24 June 2008

So much of angst and worry about how to reconcile evolution with Christian or Semitic faith. Did any one of you guys look up how the Hindus and Buddhists square this circle? After all they make up some 33% to 40% of the world population.

Age of earth is not an issue for them. Centrality of earth is also not an issue. They talk about lands unknown, and worlds unknown.
They believe in multiple Gods, multiple Messengers and even God taking the form the worshipers take Him to be. The famous water takes the shape of the pot it is poured into analogy. The idea of birth/growth/death cycle applied to not just humans and animals but also to the mountains, rivers and nations, the idea of karmic burden etc will provide a good treasure trove to mine to square evolution with their theology.

pantheophany · 24 June 2008

PvM, your argument don't seem to address Crudworth's core claim. This is partially Crudworth's fault in conflating the words "Theistic" and "Christian," but I fear you have gone even further down this wrong road. Crudworth's key claim I believe is this one:

A non-providential God is clearly not an orthodox Christian God, and it therefore appears that theistic evolutionism generates heretical Christianity.

None of your arguments address this as far as I can see. You have argued that evolution is compatible with religion perhaps, and you've argued that religious adherents shouldn't fight scientific discoveries. But nothing in this post suggests that is compatible with Christianity and certainly not orthodox Christianity (defined by the Nicene Creed I assume Crudworth means, and I would agree with that definition). Even if we remove the confusion of "Christianity" and "Theism" (of which Christianity is a subset), your arguments seem entirely Deist. There is no sense of an active, interceding God. Such a God should almost certainly show up in scientific inquiry unless he were actively hiding himself. That we see no such results does seem to speak against the compatibility of much of science with Theism, just as Crudworth claims.

pantheophany · 24 June 2008

Ravilyn Sanders said: So much of angst and worry about how to reconcile evolution with Christian or Semitic faith. Did any one of you guys look up how the Hindus and Buddhists square this circle? After all they make up some 33% to 40% of the world population.

It is worth reading How to Practice by the 14th Dalai Lama on this subject. In it, he notes the difficulty that Tibetan Buddhism has with the Big Bang. If the universe has a beginning, then that violates a core teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. His reaction is noteworthy. He does not give up his religious belief that says the universe is infinite in time. He says, let us wait and understand the science better. And if, when we understand the science better, we still see that the universe is finite, then Tibetan Buddhism will have to change. But let's not rush things; we have plenty of time. Whether this is a good response I will leave to the reader, but the difference is noteworthy. We see here faith at odds with science, but not faith at war with science.

harold · 24 June 2008

Let's cut through the BS here.

There are innumerable examples of people who hold some religious faith, yet also accept the scientific method in general and the theory of evolution in particular, and have no misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

PvM is merely one example among many.

Whether you, personally, find their faith convincing is not the point here.

A frequently constructed false dichotomy is that no possible religious faith whatsoever can be compatible with the theory of evolution - that one must "choose" one or the other.

This false dichotomy is used most aggressively by fundamentalists.

Proseletyzing or self-justifying atheists (especially those who "converted" from a religious belief) often make use of it as well, albeit in a less obnoxious way. This group seems especially prone to the type of nonsensical anthropomorphising of "natural selection" quoted above by FL. Of course, nature can be perceived as "cruel" only by the standards of the tiny and recent proportion of species who have highly developed cognitive and emotional components to their nervous systems. Presumably only humans; even cetaceans, canines, felines, and non-human primates don't seem to be affected by this particular form of angst.

But all of this is somewhat pointless. You can certainly explain why the theory of evolution leads you, personally, to reject some particular religious view. (The converse is illogical; we know life evolves, so religious views that deny this must be false.) But the existence of people who hold some religious view and also accept scientific reality is undeniable.

FL · 24 June 2008

Hey, while we're discussing these things: Does anybody have a rational right to expect that the God mentioned in the Bible, who reportedly self-discloses Himself to humans and seeks a personal relationship with humans, would leave evidence of His existence for us humans within the natural world? The Bible's answer is a very clear "YES."

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. --- Ps. 19:1-4

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. --- Romans 1:20.

FL :)

Frank J · 24 June 2008

Still taking the IDers' bait, I see. By now I can imagine Einstein and Bohr both saying "Stop telling God what to do, and start demanding that IDers lead (develop that theory they have been promising but admit doesn't exist), follow (concede evolution) or get out of the way."

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008

Thank you, PvM. Very well explained from a Christian point of view.

I'll add to the mix of opinions that science has to remain functionally atheist in order to be valid, otherwise anything unexplained is discarded with the easy answer of a "God in the gaps" theory (i.e., Creationism or ID), and inquiry is therefore aborted. Science dies, and with it one of the most spiritual pursuits there is: understanding the universe. The scientist, while functionally atheist at work, can remain entirely spiritual in daily life without internal contradiction, although our atheist friends will dispute this.

It is no stretch for me to understand the beauty of the rainbow from a scientific-light-refraction standpoint and a personal belief that the rainbow signifies a particular promise from a God I believe in; neither the promise nor the beauty is compromised by the dual belief.

chuck · 24 June 2008

FL said: ...Nuff said!! FL

FL said: Hey, while we're discussing these things...

I knew it wouldn't last ;)

bigbang · 24 June 2008

Harrison says: “You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.”

PvM coyly responds “Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?”

phantomreader42 retorts: “Evidence.”

Bigbang assures phantom that: “there simply is no evidence for PvM’s god.”

To which phantomreader42 lamely retorts: “To PvM’s credit, I have not seen him claim to have evidence while knowingly lying”

PvM said somewhere that he’s a scientist, and yet he nevertheless also claims to believe in a god for which there is no (and never will be) evidence, science, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning that would indicate that his god is in any way real or exists. And for this you give PvM credit? B/c he has faith in something for which there is no and never will be evidence, something that obviously isn’t real or that exists in any meaningful way? Then, I’m sorry to say, I have to conclude that you too, phantomreader, are either delusional, in denial, or lying.

Stanton · 24 June 2008

Contrary to what Creationists would have you believe, the Big Bang Theory has very little relevance to biological evolution. Essentially, the Big Bang's relevance to the Theory of Evolution is on par with the relevance of arguing over the phylogeny of whales, hippos, mesonychids and other artiodactyls has with making cheesecake. Having said this, has the Dalai Lama since read about the "Big Crunch" hypothesis, where it's hypothesized that the matter of the current universe has its origins in the super-condensed matter of the previous universe?

pantheophany said: It is worth reading How to Practice by the 14th Dalai Lama on this subject. In it, he notes the difficulty that Tibetan Buddhism has with the Big Bang. If the universe has a beginning, then that violates a core teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. His reaction is noteworthy. He does not give up his religious belief that says the universe is infinite in time. He says, let us wait and understand the science better. And if, when we understand the science better, we still see that the universe is finite, then Tibetan Buddhism will have to change. But let's not rush things; we have plenty of time. Whether this is a good response I will leave to the reader, but the difference is noteworthy. We see here faith at odds with science, but not faith at war with science.

Greg Esres · 24 June 2008

PvM wrote:

Death is inevitable, God no more caused death than parents who gave live to a child.

Ah, no. The parents did not create the Universe and are thus powerless to prevent the death. And it's not so much the deaths, anyway, as in the manner of them. Horrible. An omnipotent God would choose a more humane way, if he were good.

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008

~~bigbang~~ bigot said: Harrison says: “You keep telling me that there’s an elephant in this phone booth, but damned if I can find him.” PvM coyly responds “Faith my dear friend, faith. What more do you need?” phantomreader42 retorts: “Evidence.” Bigbang assures phantom that: “there simply is no evidence for PvM’s god.” To which phantomreader42 lamely retorts: “To PvM’s credit, I have not seen him claim to have evidence while knowingly lying” . PvM said somewhere that he’s a scientist, and yet he nevertheless also claims to believe in a god for which there is no (and never will be) evidence, science, mathematics, and/or sound reasoning that would indicate that his god is in any way real or exists. And for this you give PvM credit? B/c he has faith in something for which there is no and never will be evidence, something that obviously isn’t real or that exists in any meaningful way? Then, I’m sorry to say, I have to conclude that you too, phantomreader, are either delusional, in denial, or lying.

Well, bigot, since you're clearly stupid, insane, and dishonest, I don't see why your "conclusion" should have any relevance to anyone. What you don't seem to understand is that PvM isn't here proselytyzing. He's got some beliefs that he has no evidence for, and for whatever reason he's unwilliing to give them up. But he's not trying to force his irrational beliefs on others. He's not trying to undermine science to prop up his faith. That's what you and your ilk do. PvM doesn't have the slightest shred of evidence for his god. And he is fully aware of this. In my experience, he has never falsely claimed to have such evidence. He is not trying to convert others. He doesn't expect anyone else to change their beliefs at his demand, which WOULD require evidence. To my knowledge, he hasn't made any claims that are flatly contradicted by evidence, nor maintained such claims when the evidence against them was pointed out repeatedly. That's what you've been doing, bigot. Believe whatever bullshit you want, as long as you keep it to yourself. But if you expect anyone else to follow you, that's when you need some damn evidence. PvM can get around this because he isn't looking for followers. You and your fellow trolls are. Bigot, you've spent days regurgitating the Darwin = Hitler lie. You've demanded people believe you without offering the slightest speck of evidence. You've made blatantly false statements and egregious misrepresentations, which you continue making no matter how many times you're corrected. Your entire argument is apparently founded on the belief that you can read the minds of dead men, a belief which is clearly insane. PvM may be delusional. YOU, however, are clearly both delusional and a liar.

Frank B · 24 June 2008

Bubba Von Grubba said I’ll take the words of the good book anytime over the disciples of P.T. Barnum!

The "good book" slanders God by claiming He ordered genocide and rape. Bubba, do you believe God ordered genocide? How can we all be God's children and have free will and have hope of redemption with a father who has ever ordered genocide? Also something to consider, when performing genocide one is very likely performing at least one abortion. Some people have a big problem with any human performing abortion. Think about it. The good book is a collection of stories that often contradict each other. Why would you deny the evidence because of a book like that. Bubba, you have been brainwashed.

Draconiz · 24 June 2008

Ravilyn Sanders said: So much of angst and worry about how to reconcile evolution with Christian or Semitic faith. Did any one of you guys look up how the Hindus and Buddhists square this circle? After all they make up some 33% to 40% of the world population. Age of earth is not an issue for them. Centrality of earth is also not an issue. They talk about lands unknown, and worlds unknown. They believe in multiple Gods, multiple Messengers and even God taking the form the worshipers take Him to be. The famous water takes the shape of the pot it is poured into analogy. The idea of birth/growth/death cycle applied to not just humans and animals but also to the mountains, rivers and nations, the idea of karmic burden etc will provide a good treasure trove to mine to square evolution with their theology.

Dear Ravilyn Sanders As a Buddhist I hope I can answer some of the points for you (Though my sect is not Tibetan so I can't presume to answer for the Dalai lama). On the whole, Buddhism is atheistic in regards to God and agnostic about other gods(Which are classed as outer dimensional beings not so different from us), belief or disbelief in them doesn't send you to hell or affect your life in any considerable way. Buddhism stresses that the individual is his/her own salvation and instead focuses more on the state of mind and how we live our lives. Theravada Buddhism (which I am part of) is quite secular and draws a distinct line between faith and science, we have a precept that clearly separates what is answerable by Buddhism and what is not. The origin of the universe, the origin of space/time and the origin of life fall into this precept because whether you know the answer or not doesn't affect the practice of Buddhism in anyway. We Buddhists expect secular knowledge to come from secular source and spiritual knowledge to come from spiritual source(ie. scripture, holy texts) So most Theravada Buddhists readily accept everything science tell us about the universe. Actually the notion that things change over time fit in very well with the key concept of Anicca which states that all conditioned things eventually cease to exist, but also that all conditioned things are in a constant state of flux. Of course, there are the literalist morons in every religion and some will read the scripture as a science book(Sam Harris made some good points about this and said that we should discard some parts, I agree with him). However, buddhism has a doctrine called kalama sutta in place to counter this type of idiocy. The Sutta provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:

1. Oral history 2. Traditional 3. News sources 4. Scriptures or other official texts 5. Logical reasoning 6. Philosophical reasoning 7. Common sense 8. One's own opinions It looks complex, design! design! 9. Authorities or experts Me iz Dr. Dr. Willaim Dumskiz 10. One's own teacher

When things are in conflict with the scripture, we simply weigh in the empirical evidence. If the scripture is wrong then Buddhism has to change, just like the Dalai lama would do. So far, none of that has happened yet. Regards,

Stanton · 24 June 2008

Then there's the problematic, little known, and often ignored fact that "the good book" was never intended to be a science textbook in the first place. I mean, if people like FL and Bubba Von Grubba insist that the Bible should be used as a science textbook, then, how come they are totally unwilling to demonstrate how the Bible can be used as a science textbook?

Frank B said:
Bubba Von Grubba said I’ll take the words of the good book anytime over the disciples of P.T. Barnum!
The "good book" slanders God by claiming He ordered genocide and rape. Bubba, do you believe God ordered genocide? How can we all be God's children and have free will and have hope of redemption with a father who has ever ordered genocide? Also something to consider, when performing genocide one is very likely performing at least one abortion. Some people have a big problem with any human performing abortion. Think about it. The good book is a collection of stories that often contradict each other. Why would you deny the evidence because of a book like that. Bubba, you have been brainwashed.

bigbang · 24 June 2008

phantomreader42 says: “But he’s [PvM] not trying to force his irrational beliefs on others.”

Wrong again, phantomreader. PvM is trying force his irrational beliefs, in his irrational, unreal god----that even he himself doesn’t seem to believe exists in any real, testable, and meaningful way----on those that he perceives don’t believe in the god that he believes they should believe in. E.g., FL believes in what FL perceives to be a real God that truly does exist, but PvM is trying to force his own irrational, unreal god----that even he himself seems to realize doesn’t exist in any meaningful way----on FL.

So as it turns out, PvM is indeed looking for followers of his irrational, unreal nonexistent god, but only among those that already believe in a God that they themselves perceive as being real and existing (and intervening).

phantomreader42 says: “Believe whatever bullshit you want, as long as you keep it to yourself.”

I hope PvM can follow your advice, but I doubt he can b/c, as you suggest, he almost certainly is delusional.

PvM · 24 June 2008

bigbang said: Teach asks: "Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?" PvM replies: "Indeed, my point as well." . If something isn’t detectable by science, evidence, mathematics, and/or sound reason, then why would anyone believe that that thing is in any way real or exists? They wouldn’t, and don’t, unless they are delusional, in denial, or lying.

I am sad to hear that you require scientific evidence before you can believe in God. Thank God that may be a minority opinion although it is a major atheistic position. Yes Bigbang, you do grant Atheists the power over your faith. Yes, one may be delusional for believing in God despite of all the evidence or lack thereof, and yet, I would gladly wear the badge of 'delusional, in denial or lying' if you believe that accurately describes Christian faith.

PvM · 24 June 2008

So as it turns out, PvM is indeed looking for followers of his irrational, unreal nonexistent god, but only among those that already believe in a God that they themselves perceive as being real and existing (and intervening).

I do understand that some reject the Christian God for reasons that are beyond logic, and it seems that Bigbang may lack the necessary faith that most Christians have when they come to accept God as the Creator. Nothing wrong with that but it does lead Bigbang down a path of irrelevant claims, ad hominems and more. That;s too bad

FL · 24 June 2008

I haven't said anything here about "Bible as a science textbook."

Btw, does anybody in this forum have a
specific and considered answer
that resolves evolutionist Rosenhouse's clear "theological purpose" question?

PvM · 24 June 2008
I hope PvM can follow your advice, but I doubt he can b/c, as you suggest, he almost certainly is delusional.
Wow... Me and millions of others, delusional... Imagine that.

PvM · 24 June 2008
PvM doesn’t have the slightest shred of evidence for his god. And he is fully aware of this. In my experience, he has never falsely claimed to have such evidence. He is not trying to convert others. He doesn’t expect anyone else to change their beliefs at his demand, which WOULD require evidence. To my knowledge, he hasn’t made any claims that are flatly contradicted by evidence, nor maintained such claims when the evidence against them was pointed out repeatedly. That’s what you’ve been doing, bigot.
Well stated.

PvM · 24 June 2008
Ah, no. The parents did not create the Universe and are thus powerless to prevent the death. And it’s not so much the deaths, anyway, as in the manner of them. Horrible. An omnipotent God would choose a more humane way, if he were good.
Parents can make the choice not to procreate and thus are as powerful in preventing death as anyone else. What's so horrible about these deaths? Why would you expect an omnipotent God to handle life and death issues differently?

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008
~~bigbang~~ said: phantomreader42 says: “But he’s [PvM] not trying to force his irrational beliefs on others.” . Wrong again, phantomreader. PvM is trying force his irrational beliefs, in his irrational, unreal god----that even he himself doesn’t seem to believe exists in any real, testable, and meaningful way----on those that he perceives don’t believe in the god that he believes they should believe in. E.g., FL believes in what FL perceives to be a real God that truly does exist, but PvM is trying to force his own irrational, unreal god----that even he himself seems to realize doesn’t exist in any meaningful way----on FL. So as it turns out, PvM is indeed looking for followers of his irrational, unreal nonexistent god, but only among those that already believe in a God that they themselves perceive as being real and existing (and intervening).
So, bigot, your claim is that PvM is trying to force his belief on an irrational, evidence-free, nonexistent god...on people who already believe in an irrational, evidence-free, nonexistent god. Did you learn that from a psychic vision from someone who died before you were born? How do you not fall down more? Oh, poor, poor, persecuted FL! That dastardly Darwinist is trying to convince him to accept the mountains of evidence for evolution, without even asking him to give up his imaginary friend! How horrible! Since you're clearly too stupid to realize it, that last paragraph was something called sarcasm. But then, FL is one of your fellow trolls, so you will defend his idiocy from the dread assault of reality to your last breath. I notice you don't seem to have any problem with FL's own willful rejection of reality. Nor can you bring yourself to see any problem with your own constant lying. But suggesting that it might just be possible for someone who believes in a god without evidence to consider evidence in some other area, now THAT'S the mortal sin for you, bigot. Says a lot about you. You don't give a flying fuck about facts, you're just peddling your own bullshit. You'll gladly defend any lie from the Dishonesty Institute. And as much as you bitch about PvM's lack of evidence, you will never, ever, ever offer the slightest speck of your own. The kettle called, Bigot. It said YOU'RE the one who's black.

JuliaL · 24 June 2008
PvM, There's something that has long puzzled me about religious people who make this claim that Cudworth did:
But Darwin’s mechanism leaves room for neither intelligence nor skill; it is the unconscious operation of impersonal natural selection upon mutations which are the products of chance. It follows that Darwinian evolution is not a tool, but an autonomous process, and therefore out of God’s control.
If randomness places a process "out of God's control," that appears to mean, for example: 1. God has no power to affect a lottery. 2. God has no power to affect an attempted suicide, providing the person uses some method like Russian roulette. 3. God has no power to be of use to a person who uses a particular old-fashioned Bible study technique: opening the Bible at random and, with one's eyes closed, pointing at a particular verse. And so on. My question is whether people like Cudworth do in fact believe that while there is a God who can intervene in the world, all a person has to do to remove God's ability to intervene in a situation is to introduce an element of randomness in that situation. Would you happen to know the answer to that? It would seem that if this is true, that Cudworth (and others like him) believe God can easily be excluded from anything a person wishes, just by the introduction of randomness, that Cudworth is explicitly arguing for a non-omniscient God.

PvM · 24 June 2008
So, bigot, your claim is that PvM is trying to force his belief on an irrational, evidence-free, nonexistent god…on people who already believe in an irrational, evidence-free, nonexistent god. Did you learn that from a psychic vision from someone who died before you were born? How do you not fall down more?
ROTFL. I'd say my words and actions speak clearly for themselves, somehow Bigbang is not hearing them

Airtightnoodle · 24 June 2008
An enjoyable read, along with the comments. Thanks for sharing.

Stanton · 24 June 2008
FL said: I haven't said anything here about "Bible as a science textbook."
Yet, you make it clear that this is what you want. Unless of course, you can demonstrate why you believe the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it does perfectly conform to a literal reading of the Bible, even though it does conform to what reality has shown us.

jeffinrr · 24 June 2008
PvM said: The evidence for God is for all to see, all one need to do is believe. Expecting that God should reveal Himself for your amusement seems rather ... well...
And the evidence is ??? Sorry I must have fallen asleep during the show. Because it seems I missed the part where there was evidence. Seriously, I have trouble seeing evidence of an involved, caring God. Does that make me arrogant PvM? Jeff

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008
Missed this one earlier:
PvM said: The evidence for God is for all to see, all one need to do is believe.
So, it's not real evidence then. If you can only see it if you already believe, that's not evidence. Just assuming your conclusion and carelessly throwing around meaningless platitudes. I think you're using the wrong word here. The "evidence" you're speaking of is not anywhere close to real evidence. If it were, it would exist regardless of whether one believed or not. Bigot the troll is obviously lying, but you need to watch what you claim is evidence. If you're going to claim there is evidence of your god, put up or shut up. Too bad the trolls can't do either.

PvM · 24 June 2008
What I said, or intended to say is that for believers, the evidence for God is all around us. So yes, you need to be a believer in order to see the evidence.
Seriously, I have trouble seeing evidence of an involved, caring God. Does that make me arrogant PvM?
Not at all. It just means that you are not likely to see what believers see as evidence of a God.

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: What I said, or intended to say is that for believers, the evidence for God is all around us. So yes, you need to be a believer in order to see the evidence.
as mentioned earlier, if the evidence were there, EVERYBODY would see it. and for those that didnt, you could easily point at it. why are you unable to do this? your behavior in this manner is not in any way different from how creationists arrive at their belief in creationism.

PvM · 24 June 2008
as mentioned earlier, if the evidence were there, EVERYBODY would see it. and for those that didnt, you could easily point at it. why are you unable to do this? your behavior in this manner is not in any way different from how creationists arrive at their belief in creationism.
I fail to see you point. All I state is that the evidence is easily visible to those who believe in God. I see the sunset, the flicker in my daughters' eyes, etc, and see in it a wonderful Creation. Others may very well look at the same evidence and come to fully opposite conclusion. I have no problem with that.

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: I fail to see you point. All I state is that the evidence is easily visible to those who believe in God. I see the sunset, the flicker in my daughters' eyes, etc, and see in it a wonderful Creation. Others may very well look at the same evidence and come to fully opposite conclusion. I have no problem with that.
you are misusing the word "evidence." if what you were talking about were "evidence," rather than "wishful thinking," you could publish a scientific paper on it. dont equivocate the word "evidence."

Rules For · 24 June 2008
To borrow a page from Sam Harris' book:
I am sad to hear that you require scientific evidence before you can believe in Zeus.

PvM · 24 June 2008
you are misusing the word “evidence.” if what you were talking about were “evidence,” rather than “wishful thinking,” you could publish a scientific paper on it. dont equivocate the word “evidence.”
You still seem to be missing the point and argue about minor disagreements about how one interprets the word.

FL · 24 June 2008
Quick comment:
Ah, no. The parents did not create the Universe and are thus powerless to prevent the death. And it’s not so much the deaths, anyway, as in the manner of them. Horrible. An omnipotent God would choose a more humane way, if he were good.
Just a side note: this is not my paragraph. PvM's response says a "reply to comment from FL", so I just wanted to make things clear, that one is not mine. But the last sentence is completely in line with evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse's specfic question. And his question is sincere, and it is specifically asked of theistic evolutionists.
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn’t God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
It's not about trolling. It's not about the usual bantering, and it's certainly not about any tomfoolery notions of "Xian Death Cults. Rosenhouse has genuinely come up with a sharp issue that MANY theistic evolutionists (especially the online ones who specifically say they are Christians, but really all of them) HAVE NOT been able to resolve. I know, 'cause I've been asking and listening in other forum. If the Pandasthumb TE's, whom I would consider the more "evolved" and more "professional" TE's, cannot resolve evolutionist Rosenhouse's issue in specific detail from a Christian POV, then that's a MAJOR failure, not minor, not inconsequential. You'll still be free to personally believe (or wish) that "evolution is compatible with Christianity", but you won't be able to sell folks on that specific claim's RATIONALITY anymore. FL

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: You still seem to be missing the point and argue about minor disagreements about how one interprets the word.
the "point" seems to be that you, just like the creationists, want to assimilate scientific sounding words and apply them to your non-scientific beliefs. "evidence" is a word of science. if you have "evidence," then you are talking about science. if you have "evidence" of your god or religious beliefs, then that "evidence" must be examinable by others. thats what "evidence" is - it is open to anybody. but what you have is not open to anybody. its your own personal wishful thinking. normally this is not an issue. but you and others like you insist that your wishful thinking can actually give you insights about the nature of reality, rather than merely the inner workings of your own brain. im sorry, but this is the height of arrogance. your wishful thinking is NOT evidence for any gods, or any other aspect of objective reality, and you are being anti-scientific (not just non-scientific) by pretending that it is.

Eric · 24 June 2008
Apologies if this is a somewhat redundant post...server problems again...
snex said:
PvM said: I fail to see you point. All I state is that the evidence is easily visible to those who believe in God...
you are misusing the word "evidence..."
Methodological naturalism to the rescue again here. There are other types of evidence than "scientific." Look up the definition, its much broader than just empirical observation. Nonscientific evidence includes (e.g.) evidence from authority, emotional evidence, or personal revelation. These are not considered evidence by science - they don't count in science - but they are types evidence nonetheless. I think you two are arguing past each other as Snex seems to be talking about scientific evidence and PvM is not. In fact you both agree that there is no scientific evidence for God. Re: the previous posts on buddhism and the posts on PvM supposedly trying to convert people (which I just don't see). I'd hazard a guess that most PT readers get most angsty about the public policy issues rather than the theological ones. I.e. we science types get concerned about religous movements that try and change U.S. high school science curricula and textbooks, or try and spread religion in the classroom. Religious movements that 'neither pick our pocket nor break our leg' don't get much play on PT because, well, there's no public policy issue to them. In this respect Buddhism, Hinduism, and PvM's brand of Christianity are all perfectly fine. (Yeah, I know, some of you guys are going to zing me with 'tax-exempt religion picks my pocket.' So be it, I'm focusing on education issue here.)

Henry J · 24 June 2008
As far as evolution being cruel, sadistic, wasteful, etc. - the organisms would have died pretty much in the same ways whether or not the descendants of their species evolved into different species. So I'm not sure whether this objection really applies or not.
Henry

Eric · 24 June 2008
FL said: Rosenhouse has genuinely come up with a sharp issue that MANY theistic evolutionists (especially the online ones who specifically say they are Christians, but really all of them) HAVE NOT been able to resolve. I know, 'cause I've been asking and listening in other forum.
Its fora. You have just rephrased the greater philosophical 'problem of evil.' I.e. why do bad things happen in a world under the power of an omnipotent omniscent omnibeneevolant diety. As far as I can tell, your fundamentalist literalist religion hasn't solved that problem either, so I'd quit throwing stones. An no, before you go off on a quote storm, 'original sin' doesn't solve that problem either, because the follow-on question then becomes, if evil is an inheritance, why would such a creator allow innocent souls to inherit evil.

snex · 24 June 2008
Eric said: I think you two are arguing past each other as Snex seems to be talking about scientific evidence and PvM is not. In fact you both agree that there is no scientific evidence for God.
i didnt ask the original question, but it was pretty clear from it that the person asking was asking for scientific evidence, not PvM's wishful thinking. so when PvM replied with wishful thinking, he was the one equivocating. when a skeptic of your beliefs is asking you for evidence, its pretty obvious what kind of evidence he is talking about, so to reply with any other kind of evidence is dishonest.

Romartus · 24 June 2008
Rosenhouse has genuinely come up with a sharp issue that MANY theistic evolutionists (especially the online ones who specifically say they are Christians, but really all of them) HAVE NOT been able to resolve. I know, ‘cause I’ve been asking and listening in other forum.
If the Pandasthumb TE’s, whom I would consider the more “evolved” and more “professional” TE’s, cannot resolve evolutionist Rosenhouse’s issue in specific detail from a Christian POV, then that’s a MAJOR failure, not minor, not inconsequential.
You’ll still be free to personally believe (or wish) that “evolution is compatible with Christianity”, but you won’t be able to sell folks on that specific claim’s RATIONALITY anymore.
FL
Hey Fl Troll. What's with the use of cap letters again !? You remind me of a tourist in a foreign land who believes shouting in his own language will get things done. Are all creos hard of hearing ??

Romartus · 24 June 2008
Actually that was the troll talking
Rosenhouse has genuinely come up with a sharp issue that MANY theistic evolutionists (especially the online ones who specifically say they are Christians, but really all of them) HAVE NOT been able to resolve. I know, ‘cause I’ve been asking and listening in other forum. If the Pandasthumb TE’s, whom I would consider the more “evolved” and more “professional” TE’s, cannot resolve evolutionist Rosenhouse’s issue in specific detail from a Christian POV, then that’s a MAJOR failure, not minor, not inconsequential. You’ll still be free to personally believe (or wish) that “evolution is compatible with Christianity”, but you won’t be able to sell folks on that specific claim’s RATIONALITY anymore. FL
Hey Fl Troll. What's with the use of cap letters again !? You remind me of a tourist in a foreign land who believes shouting in his own language will get things done. Are all creos hard of hearing ??

Romartus · 24 June 2008
Someone said earlier - the loonies always end up using CAPS to shout you down. It is a very useful 'rule of Panda's Thumb' I would suggest.

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
PvM, I think the problem with the word "evidence" is that to those claiming to think like scientists, "evidence" is the result of applying the scientific method to a hypothesis and then having a verifiable, testable result. Faith can never fit into that mold, any more than elusive concepts like "beauty" and "love" can (in fact, "testing love" doesn't prove it, but rather destroys it, in violation of the "scientific method").
To a lawyer, "evidence" means something else entirely, where a collection of facts can support a hypothesis just by volume, as opposed to the lack of facts on some opposing side of the argument. This kind of evidence works for those who frame the question as an "either/or" proposition. Most people come to the issue with the presupposition that God could exist, so the "preponderance of the evidence" is "evidence." That type of proof is valid in many areas, but not in science.
The punishment for a Christian to support science in general and evolution in particular comes not only from the more fundamentalist factions of faith, but also from the atheists. Both groups insist that conformity of thought be absolute, and they appear surprisingly similar when the arrows start flying.
We could leave the issue for them to slug it out in school board meetings across the land, but given a choice between the strident atheist and the fundamentalist, most Americans will choose to side with the fundamentalist. He, at least, appreciates beauty and loves his wife, and they can identify with him. He is wrong, but at least he is more like us.
So we can't let that happen. The best bet is to ignore the more strident atheist voices, and continue on. You have presented a wonderful essay for the person of faith to consider. You have a lot of courage presenting it here, where I'm sure you realized the hostile reaction you would get from some.

PvM · 24 June 2008
What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn’t God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
Nothing horrible really. Animals lived their lives 'to the fullest' in a well balanced ecosystem. If God have created all life as it is now 3.5 billion years ago we would have seen the same amount of 'suffering'. I find this a somewhat weird argument.

PvM · 24 June 2008
Get a life.
snex said:
Eric said: I think you two are arguing past each other as Snex seems to be talking about scientific evidence and PvM is not. In fact you both agree that there is no scientific evidence for God.
i didnt ask the original question, but it was pretty clear from it that the person asking was asking for scientific evidence, not PvM's wishful thinking. so when PvM replied with wishful thinking, he was the one equivocating. when a skeptic of your beliefs is asking you for evidence, its pretty obvious what kind of evidence he is talking about, so to reply with any other kind of evidence is dishonest.

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: Get a life.
what an eloquent and enlightening reply. i would also like to thank frank hagan for pointing out that we atheists have no concept of beauty or love, and that we dont love our wives. with friends like these...

bigbang · 24 June 2008
Phantomeader42 says to PvM: “ but you need to watch what you claim is evidence. If you’re going to claim there is evidence of your god, put up or shut up. Too bad the trolls can’t do either."
.
Wake up phantomreader. PvM is the “troll” here, at least in the way that you happen to be using that word. Face it phantom, I’m far, far more intellectually honest and consistent than PvM, who is now claiming that you have to believe in god b/f you can see the “evidence” for god----IOW, you phantomreader, lack the ability, the discernment, the whatever, to see, to grasp the evidence of god b/c you, you atheist, lack belief in god. Kind of like the emperor’s new clothes. What a load of utter nonsense. Glad PvM is on the Darwinian side of the argument----he makes all you guys look silly.

PvM · 24 June 2008
Somehow the feeling was mutual. And thank you for your compliment, I do attempt to adapt to a style most likely to be understood by the recipient.
snex said:
PvM said: Get a life.
what an eloquent and enlightening reply. i would also like to thank frank hagan for pointing out that we atheists have no concept of beauty or love, and that we dont love our wives. with friends like these...

PvM · 24 June 2008
bigbang said: Phantomeader42 says to PvM: “ but you need to watch what you claim is evidence. If you’re going to claim there is evidence of your god, put up or shut up. Too bad the trolls can’t do either." . Wake up phantomreader. PvM is the “troll” here, at least in the way that you happen to be using that word. Face it phantom, I’m far, far more intellectually honest and consistent than PvM, who is now claiming that you have to believe in god b/f you can see the “evidence” for god----IOW, you phantomreader, lack the ability, the discernment, the whatever, to see, to grasp the evidence of god b/c you, you atheist, lack belief in god. Kind of like the emperor’s new clothes. What a load of utter nonsense. Glad PvM is on the Darwinian side of the argument----he makes all you guys look silly.
Intellectually honest... You're so funny Bigbang, do you even know what the words mean?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 June 2008
Eric said: Methodological naturalism to the rescue again here.
Um, that is an unsubstantiated philosophical..., well, belief. Which is ironic, since we were discussing beliefs vs the definition of evidence here.
Eric said: There are other types of evidence than "scientific." Look up the definition, its much broader than just empirical observation. Nonscientific evidence includes (e.g.) evidence from authority, emotional evidence, or personal revelation. These are not considered evidence by science - they don't count in science - but they are types evidence nonetheless.
First, I think snex makes an excellent point. To be acceptable general evidence it would have to be general. One would think. Second, knowledge is validated beliefs. (I omit "true" from the philosophical definition, because it is an impossible and irrelevant ideal - facts give knowledge without being "true" in this sense.) Of your list evidence from authority can be generally validated - by conforming with already validated facts. I would count empirical facts and theories as evidential knowledge. Even if there is a gray area between consolidated scientific fact and, say, technological usage. For example, it seems to me that learning that something works in practice is not general evidential knowledge, as it has to be disseminated as "evidence from authority", or become validated in the process.

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
snex said:
PvM said: Get a life.
what an eloquent and enlightening reply. i would also like to thank frank hagan for pointing out that we atheists have no concept of beauty or love, and that we dont love our wives. with friends like these...
Well, that's not what I said; I was talking about the perception of the average American, faced with the choice between the strident atheist and the strident fundamentalist. But we can explore it if you'd like. Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?

Stacy S. · 24 June 2008
PvM -
This whole thread reads like it should have been named "Bash PvM here", and you are still always gracious, regardless.
I just wanted to jump in and say that I appreciate you. :-)

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: Well, that's not what I said; I was talking about the perception of the average American, faced with the choice between the strident atheist and the strident fundamentalist. But we can explore it if you'd like. Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?
since both of these matters relate to my own subjective experience, the idea of some kind of shared objective evidence for them is nonsensical. but theists are claiming more than their own subjective experience - they are claiming that some external, intelligent, personal agent exists and is responsible for creating the universe, possibly life, and performing various miracles throughout history. if religious people only stuck to things like morality and beauty, there would have never been a problem between religion and science. but time and time again, whenever the two cross, it is always religion doing the crossing. why do you suppose this is?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 June 2008
harold said: A frequently constructed false dichotomy is that no possible religious faith whatsoever can be compatible with the theory of evolution - that one must "choose" one or the other. This false dichotomy is used most aggressively by fundamentalists. Proseletyzing or self-justifying atheists (especially those who "converted" from a religious belief) often make use of it as well, albeit in a less obnoxious way.
Yes, that is falsely constructed, because it is a strawman put over on atheists. First, most often proselytizing atheist like Dawkins claim that it is the general practiced religion that is incompatible with science. For example, Dawkins wrote a whole book laying out why creationist religion, encompassing ID, YEC, OEC and TE, makes an improbable claim. Second, the notion that one must "choose" is wrong. Science is verifiably correct, while religion isn't. So where is the rational choice here? More over, it could also be that one claim is simply incorrect. Again, if that turns out to be the case there is no rational choice.
Frank Hagan said: The punishment for a Christian to support science in general and evolution in particular comes not only from the more fundamentalist factions of faith, but also from the atheists. Both groups insist that conformity of thought be absolute, and they appear surprisingly similar when the arrows start flying.
It is rather preposterous to claim that rejection of religion is a conformity of thought or absolute, either on the individual or the social plane. Again, look at Dawkins above. He claims that creationism is improbable - but moreover he is willing to change provided evidence to the contrary. It is rather boring to see that strawman paraded around. Put it down and relax those shoulders! Atheists are among the least conformists out there - famously to organize creationists is "like herding cats". [Actually I think it as all these repetitions and strawmen that makes debating religion seem so entrenched. At least Dawkins and others try to move it against the huge inertia. And of course we have the changing demographics of the world. E pur si muove!]

PvM · 24 June 2008
if religious people only stuck to things like morality and beauty, there would have never been a problem between religion and science. but time and time again, whenever the two cross, it is always religion doing the crossing. why do you suppose this is?
Both sides cross the line and the mere fact that one believes that one side crosses the line occasionally, cannot excuse the crossing of the line by the other side. Of course, believing that there exists or does not exist an external intelligent personal agent who was responsible for creating the universe and life, and performing various miracles hardly seems as a crossing the line between science and religion. Of course when one attempts to use (or abuse) science to prove or disprove issues of theological relevance then one may likely cross the line, in either direction.

tomh · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said: ...given a choice between the strident atheist and the fundamentalist, most Americans will choose to side with the fundamentalist. He, at least, appreciates beauty and loves his wife, and they can identify with him.
Is this really how persons of faith view atheists? Because atheists don't believe in a god, any god, they can't appreciate beauty or love their wife? Is that how you view atheists? I realize that a person of faith easily believes things without evidence, but a viewpoint such as this goes way beyond lack of evidence.
You have presented a wonderful essay for the person of faith to consider. You have a lot of courage presenting it here,
Did it really take so much courage to make a post on the Internet? Was he in some danger here?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said: Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?
Engaging in love and appreciation of beauty is rather easily observed in populations, as all behavior including various emotions. What is you point?

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: Both sides cross the line and the mere fact that one believes that one side crosses the line occasionally, cannot excuse the crossing of the line by the other side.
both sides cross the line? show me a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal trying to apply scientific principles to defining beauty, or telling us how we should value life. what a silly claim you have made.
PvM said:Of course, believing that there exists or does not exist an external intelligent personal agent who was responsible for creating the universe and life, and performing various miracles hardly seems as a crossing the line between science and religion.
it doesnt? what is science's domain and what is religion's? science's domain is the natural world. that natural world includes: its formation, the formation of life within it, and alleged historical events that happened within it. any religion that tries to make assertions about these things and it is overstepping its bounds.
PvM said:Of course when one attempts to use (or abuse) science to prove or disprove issues of theological relevance then one may likely cross the line, in either direction.
what is an "issue of theological relevance?" can you give me a formula that i can apply to any given issue that will calculate its theological relevance? let me guess, if the bible talks about it, its theologically relevant. this is not only narrow-minded, but it also necessarily brings creationism back onto the table. of course, if you deny that being in the bible is your formula, i have no idea where you could be getting the idea that jesus died and rose from the dead. such a claim originates from nowhere else.

PvM · 24 June 2008
both sides cross the line? show me a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal trying to apply scientific principles to defining beauty, or telling us how we should value life. what a silly claim you have made.
You read but you fail to comprehend my dear friend. I do appreciate the effort though

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: You read but you fail to comprehend my dear friend. I do appreciate the effort though
and as usual, a theist utters words but manages to convey no information. that is one talent i must commend them at excelling at.

tomh · 24 June 2008
PvM said: You read but you fail to comprehend my dear friend. I do appreciate the effort though
What does this mean? You make a claim, you're asked for an example to substantiate the claim, and your reply is, you don't understand. I don't know about your "dear friend", but I personally fail to comprehend. Of course, it is a no-lose style of debate.

PvM · 24 June 2008
Nice stereotyping.
snex said:
PvM said: You read but you fail to comprehend my dear friend. I do appreciate the effort though
and as usual, a theist utters words but manages to convey no information. that is one talent i must commend them at excelling at.

snex · 24 June 2008
PvM said: Nice stereotyping.
again, no information provided.

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
snex said:
Well, that's not what I said; I was talking about the perception of the average American, faced with the choice between the strident atheist and the strident fundamentalist. But we can explore it if you'd like. Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?
since both of these matters relate to my own subjective experience, the idea of some kind of shared objective evidence for them is nonsensical. but theists are claiming more than their own subjective experience - they are claiming that some external, intelligent, personal agent exists and is responsible for creating the universe, possibly life, and performing various miracles throughout history. if religious people only stuck to things like morality and beauty, there would have never been a problem between religion and science. but time and time again, whenever the two cross, it is always religion doing the crossing. why do you suppose this is?
The system put the wrong attribution to the quote; that was mine, not PvM's. In this thread, I don't see religious people crossing the line and insisting that scientists accept theistic evolution. Rather, I see atheists insisting that PvM's belief is a delusion, or a lie, and its not enough that he accepts evolution. Implicit in the argument is that he must abandon faith as well. Even in your challenge you desire to enforce a kind of conformity, limiting the range of belief and expression of people of faith. Is it enough to say you believe in evolution, or must you also pass a series of litmus tests to, what, be admitted to the "true rational beings" club?

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
tomh said:
Frank Hagan said: ...given a choice between the strident atheist and the fundamentalist, most Americans will choose to side with the fundamentalist. He, at least, appreciates beauty and loves his wife, and they can identify with him.
Is this really how persons of faith view atheists? Because atheists don't believe in a god, any god, they can't appreciate beauty or love their wife? Is that how you view atheists? I realize that a person of faith easily believes things without evidence, but a viewpoint such as this goes way beyond lack of evidence.
You have presented a wonderful essay for the person of faith to consider. You have a lot of courage presenting it here,
Did it really take so much courage to make a post on the Internet? Was he in some danger here?
Yes, I would say in those cases where school boards have met and found in favor of the Creationists, it was because of the perception that science and evolution was "anti-God". Strident atheists don't help that perception, unless you think calling the 96% of the people in this country "deluded" or "liars" makes them friends. PvM was obviously in no danger, but forging ahead where you predict few will support you does take psychological courage. YMMV, of course. Opinions are, well, opinions, and my expression of support remains.

snex · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said: The system put the wrong attribution to the quote; that was mine, not PvM's. In this thread, I don't see religious people crossing the line and insisting that scientists accept theistic evolution. Rather, I see atheists insisting that PvM's belief is a delusion, or a lie, and its not enough that he accepts evolution. Implicit in the argument is that he must abandon faith as well. Even in your challenge you desire to enforce a kind of conformity, limiting the range of belief and expression of people of faith. Is it enough to say you believe in evolution, or must you also pass a series of litmus tests to, what, be admitted to the "true rational beings" club?
you are correct. acceptance of evolution is not enough. creationists accept heliocentricity, but we agree that they are not in the "club." acceptance of heliocentricity is not enough. geocentrists accept newton's laws of motion, but we agree that they are not in the "club." acceptance of newton's laws of motion is not enough. so what is it that gets you into the "club" then? it is not acceptance of some random conclusion of science. it is not even acceptance of all the conclusions of science. it is the willingness to use the method of science in your own personal life, about all objective claims you encounter. this includes claims about gods and their activities in the world. and when you apply the method to those claims, you must be willing to abide by the results, even if they tell you that what you believed is probably not the case. that is how you earn your membership in the "true rational person club" - by being rational not when it is merely convenient for you, but whenever objective claims are made.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 24 June 2008
if religious people only stuck to things like morality and beauty, there would have never been a problem between religion and science.
Whoa up there, mister. There are many religious folks (PvM, Ken Miller, Keith Miller, Jeremy Mohn . . .) who have worked pretty damn hard against the encroachment of non-science into science classrooms. They've been slammed by fundamentalists like Cudworth & FL as not being True Christians^TM and accused of being delusional by some here. I read complaints that TEs aren't vocal enough, compared to the anti-science folks. When you're getting crap from both directions, it takes a helluva backbone to keep standing up for science. Unfortunately, the general public does see atheists as bogeymen. I don't understand how alienating TEs will help combat that perception.

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
snex said:
PvM said: Well, that's not what I said; I was talking about the perception of the average American, faced with the choice between the strident atheist and the strident fundamentalist. But we can explore it if you'd like. Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?
since both of these matters relate to my own subjective experience, the idea of some kind of shared objective evidence for them is nonsensical. but theists are claiming more than their own subjective experience - they are claiming that some external, intelligent, personal agent exists and is responsible for creating the universe, possibly life, and performing various miracles throughout history.
How long have you studied theology? On what basis can you say that theists claim more than their subjective experience? Even within just Christianity there is a wide and diverse body of thought on these issues. Whenever I see statements such as yours, purporting to encapsulate theology into a brief sentence, I cannot help but think of the Creationists who do the same with science. As a lay person in both schools of thought, I can tell both sides that the other is much more complex and rich in diverse thought than they suppose.

Frank Hagan · 24 June 2008
snex said:
Frank Hagan said: The system put the wrong attribution to the quote; that was mine, not PvM's. In this thread, I don't see religious people crossing the line and insisting that scientists accept theistic evolution. Rather, I see atheists insisting that PvM's belief is a delusion, or a lie, and its not enough that he accepts evolution. Implicit in the argument is that he must abandon faith as well. Even in your challenge you desire to enforce a kind of conformity, limiting the range of belief and expression of people of faith. Is it enough to say you believe in evolution, or must you also pass a series of litmus tests to, what, be admitted to the "true rational beings" club?
you are correct. acceptance of evolution is not enough. creationists accept heliocentricity, but we agree that they are not in the "club." acceptance of heliocentricity is not enough. geocentrists accept newton's laws of motion, but we agree that they are not in the "club." acceptance of newton's laws of motion is not enough. so what is it that gets you into the "club" then? it is not acceptance of some random conclusion of science. it is not even acceptance of all the conclusions of science. it is the willingness to use the method of science in your own personal life, about all objective claims you encounter. this includes claims about gods and their activities in the world. and when you apply the method to those claims, you must be willing to abide by the results, even if they tell you that what you believed is probably not the case. that is how you earn your membership in the "true rational person club" - by being rational not when it is merely convenient for you, but whenever objective claims are made.
Ah, so you would say that Newton himself was not a scientist? Or that men like today's Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is not a scientist? I await the list of people who pass the snex test for orthodoxy!

tomh · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said: I see atheists insisting that PvM's belief is a delusion, or a lie, and its not enough that he accepts evolution. Implicit in the argument is that he must abandon faith as well.
Even to you that must sound silly. Who cares if he abandons his faith, let alone that he "must" abandon it. The original post tried to make the case that proclaiming oneself a theistic evolutionist involved no contradiction. Since some people disagree with that claim there are comments about the subject. Other than a moron troll or two, like FL, no one is calling him a "liar". Since PvM often writes about his faith here he no doubt enjoys discussing it. You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy playing the Christian victim card, talking about how courageous PvM is to publish such a thing and whining about all the abuse those nasty atheists are giving him. Poor Christians, 90% of the country on their side and they're still so persecuted.

386sx · 24 June 2008
Sometimes I think that ID masks a shakiness in faith. Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?
And this is a bad thing to have a shakiness in the faith of something when that something is not detectable in scientific ways? OMG the horror!!

SWT · 24 June 2008
Observations and evidence are different things. Observations only have value as evidence within some interpretative framework. If one of my students goes into the lab and determines (1) the adsorption isotherm of an enzyme onto a specific surface, (2) the enthalpy of adsorption associated with the same adsorption process, and (3) the effect of adsorption on the reaction kinetics for the same enzyme, all I have are data. The data don't become evidence until my student applies, for example, specific adsorption and kinetic models. Once that happens, the data have the potential to be evidence for (or against) a particular interpretation. I do note, however, that in these discussion, "evidence" is sometimes used interchangeably with "data." This is often not a problem, because the key elements of the interpretive framework are usually tacitly agreed to. In my example above, I am not likely to challenge my student's use of UV absorbance to determine enzyme concentrations. We've worked out the method, calibrated it, and cross-validated it with other methods, so we have good reason to trust the results. Thus, the applicability of UV absorbance becomes one of the tacitly agreed-to elements of the interpretive framework. Now, let's consider again PvM's comment:
PvM said:
as mentioned earlier, if the evidence were there, EVERYBODY would see it. and for those that didnt, you could easily point at it. why are you unable to do this? your behavior in this manner is not in any way different from how creationists arrive at their belief in creationism.
I fail to see you point. All I state is that the evidence is easily visible to those who believe in God. I see the sunset, the flicker in my daughters' eyes, etc, and see in it a wonderful Creation. Others may very well look at the same evidence and come to fully opposite conclusion. I have no problem with that.
It seems clear to me that what PvM means, put a little less poetically, is "All I state is that when I interpret what I see in the sunset or in the flicker in my daughters' eyes through the framework of my belief in God, I see evidence of a wonderful Creation. Others may make the same observations but interpret them differently. I have no problem with that." And I have no problem with that.

386sx · 24 June 2008
Sometimes I think that ID masks a shakiness in faith. Why must the work of God be detectable in scientific ways? Is faith not enough for you people?
Yeah, let's not have a shakiness in faith when something isn't detectable in scientific ways. Much better to have a shakiness in faith if it is detectable in scientific ways. Sorry, but religion is really dumb sometimes! No offense intended, of course!

snex · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said: How long have you studied theology? On what basis can you say that theists claim more than their subjective experience? Even within just Christianity there is a wide and diverse body of thought on these issues. Whenever I see statements such as yours, purporting to encapsulate theology into a brief sentence, I cannot help but think of the Creationists who do the same with science. As a lay person in both schools of thought, I can tell both sides that the other is much more complex and rich in diverse thought than they suppose.
are you asserting that christians do not claim that the resurrection of christ was a real historical event in the same way that george washington crossing the potomac was? where are these christians? is PvM one of them? are you? is ken miller?
Frank Hagan said: Ah, so you would say that Newton himself was not a scientist? Or that men like today’s Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is not a scientist? I await the list of people who pass the snex test for orthodoxy!
notice how frank ever-so-subtly switches "rational" out for "scientist." did he think i would let that slip? not a chance. i never said you cant be a scientist. i said you arent being rational. and nobody who has read newton's works on alechemy, let alone religion, would call the man completely rational. lets not forget that francis collins asserts that human morality could not have possibly evolved naturally, and that therefore must have been put there by a supernatural agent, some might even say, an "intelligent designer." collins' argument is exactly identical to that of the IDers - logical fallacies and all, and yet you want to label him rational while excluding them? sorry but it doesnt work that way. collins can be an excellent geneticist, and you may be an excellent car mechanic (or whatever it is that you do), but that does not make you rational. what makes you rational is in my previous post, and i note that you failed to offer any substantive response to it.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 June 2008
[Oh noes! I can't find my first comment and now I was going to use some it over at the thread spawned over Bad Math Good Math. Okay, if I missed it or it resurfaces later, so be it. I will try to recapture the gist of it:]
Draconiz said: The Sutta provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:
Seems like a reasonable list. But the problem is rather about the verification, as this thread makes clear. As usual I fail to observe any coherency in apologist arguments, probably because they assume their conclusion and cherry pick for gaps to put their gods in. So let me look at todays cherry picking.
PvM said: Furthermore, science has shown how variation can become biased by the same processes of evolution, as long as the source of this variation in variation is genetic. In other words, natural selection can select for sources of variation which are more likely to be successful.
As much as I like to speculate in evolving evolution, it doesn't change that evolution is autonomous and non-teleological, nor that variation is independent of the functional needs of the organism. Selection gives feedback so that the genome in effect learns from the environment. I realize that feedback is confusing. Cosma Shalizi shows that learning systems can be modeled by time and so causality working backwards. It is done by an inappropriate closure between the learning system and its environment, a full model doesn't have those attributes.
PvM said: In fact, it is easy to argue that God’s Creation was set in motion to eventually result in a form of life which could gain spirituality and a soul and thus become aware of His existence.
Hmm. To claim compatibility with evolution one would first need to show observational evidence for this functional trait of a "soul". People have abandoned this quest. More importantly, this is in conflict with the claim that "this lack of detectable evidence is both a requirement for free will as well as a foundation for our faith." And detectable evidence is both a requirement for science as well as a foundation for theories. The main problem is that evolution is path dependent. And deterministic chaos, which is part of the environment and therefore affects these paths, makes it impossible to know the exact path from initial conditions. Now, I assume, you could claim that gods may be omnipotent, even if this is a problem for the above claimed free will, however it is defined. But I fail to see how such an impossible knowledge of infinite precision, breaking the logic of math and physics, saves the argument by concluding that gods are illogical. And of course the argument is supposed to be based on the very same logic that is rejected.

PvM · 24 June 2008
The main problem is that evolution is path dependent. And deterministic chaos, which is part of the environment and therefore affects these paths, makes it impossible to know the exact path from initial conditions.
Exactly, that part provides a foundation for 'free will' while the realization that evolution might eventually, somewhere in this vast universe end up with some form of life which will gain a spiritual awareness provides the answer to the question.
And detectable evidence is both a requirement for science as well as a foundation for theories.
Exactly. Your point being?

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008
~~bigbang~~ bigot said: I’m far, far more intellectually honest and consistent than PvM
Wow, that's a new level of stupidity even for you, bigot! You're calling yourself intellectually honest after repeating known lies for days at a time? What color is the sky on your planet? You do remember you're the one who blamed "Darwinism" for the Holocaust based on nothing more than your delusions that you can read the minds of dead men, don't you? Or are you just a spambot who had a recent memory wipe? Not even a well-written spambot. PvM is using a pretty odd definition of "Evidence" if he thinks it includes wishful thinking and imaginary friends. But you, Bigot, you don't even seem able to comprehend basic English. In what universe can you lie as easily as you breathe and still expect people to accept you as "honest"? Although I will grant that you're consistent. Consistently dishonest and stupid.

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008
Frank Hagan said:
snex said:
PvM said: Well, that's not what I said; I was talking about the perception of the average American, faced with the choice between the strident atheist and the strident fundamentalist. But we can explore it if you'd like. Do you have any evidence that you love your wife, or that you enjoy beauty?
since both of these matters relate to my own subjective experience, the idea of some kind of shared objective evidence for them is nonsensical. but theists are claiming more than their own subjective experience - they are claiming that some external, intelligent, personal agent exists and is responsible for creating the universe, possibly life, and performing various miracles throughout history.
How long have you studied theology? On what basis can you say that theists claim more than their subjective experience? Even within just Christianity there is a wide and diverse body of thought on these issues. Whenever I see statements such as yours, purporting to encapsulate theology into a brief sentence, I cannot help but think of the Creationists who do the same with science. As a lay person in both schools of thought, I can tell both sides that the other is much more complex and rich in diverse thought than they suppose.
Two words: Courtier's Reply.

Damian · 24 June 2008
I could literally spend the rest of my life arguing with PvM and other Christians about why I don't personally believe that it is justifiable to, not only accept the principal that any sort of God exists — never mind that which could reasonably be classified as Christian — but to allow the acceptance of that "fact" about the universe to influence your life to such a degree. But that requires consent on the part of the other individual, and quite frankly, most atheists are perfectly happy to accept the honesty of PvM and others, even if we don't agree with their view on this particular issue. And it works both ways, as well.
I don't believe that faith is likely to be a winning strategy for our species as we attempt to move forward, and certainly not when it concerns such a life altering question, and one which can affect a great many other people, but as long as people are willing to honestly assess scientific findings and to accept secular principles, particularly in the political arena (for obvious reasons, although that doesn't mean that all arguments must be devoid of religious language and reasoning), it really isn't any of my business what other people believe.
I am delighted that the Christians that frequent this site (as well as others) are willing to explain how evolution (and science in general) is, to them at least, theologically consistent with their faith. In fact, I wish that it would become a more prevalent feature of this site, for the reasons that I expressed in a thread yesterday. I genuinely believe that the issues concerning the acceptance of evolution are, to a large extent, theological, and not about the evidence at all. If that is true, we can present as much evidence as we like and it won't make the slightest difference. We are essentially asking people to make a choice between accepting certain aspects of science — which has few obvious benefits, as you can still reap the material rewards, even if you lose out intellectually — and their faith in God.
And I am not simply talking about fundamentalists, either. Most Christians, in my experience, believe in a God that is not easily squared with the findings of science. Luckily, many of them simply haven't thought about it to any great extent or our problems could be much worse. Of course, we all know that any God that isn't consistent with the findings of science doesn't exist in practice (unless we have made some monumental errors, that is), and therefore, it is the concept of God that needs to change, not the science. But that is a theological question and I simply don't see enough effort on the part of the Christians that have found a way to accept both science and religion to alter the theological landscape of the US. I realize that I'm possibly being unfair here, at least to a number of people.
Sadly, there is more of a backlash against atheists who have understood this problem better than most Christians and have, rightly in my opinion, attempted to exploit it. If there isn't a major effort to change the conception of God that many millions of Christians believe in, and it is that conception — that theology, if you will — that has lead to so much anti-scientific thinking in the US, at least in part, then the only alternative is to attack God as a concept, itself. Well that is the theory, anyway, and I realize that Christians are hardly likely to agree with it, but I can't alter the theological landscape in America, not least because I'm British, but I'm an atheist to boot!
If I were to express my own opinion on the faith issue, I am yet to see even mildly convincing refutations of the problems of evil and/or suffering, so I have a hard time understanding how anyone can believe in anything but an evil (or completely disinterested) deity. And that is an even more insurmountable problem for FL, and all fundamentalists, than it is for PvM. Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced that FL has either the ability, or the inclination, to reason about such issues. Why concern yourself with terrible pain and suffering when you can just believe that it is all part of God's wonderful grand plan? Regardless of how "mysterious™" God is, isn't it strange that we sinful humans are more ethically advanced than the perfect, loving creator of the universe?
The only way to explain away the problem of evil is to bizarrely rationalize that we too, one day, may see the moral and ethical value in all of the suffering and pain. Or that God is a bit of an amateur, just finding His feet in the universe development business, and that this effort is on a par with the child's painting that you pin to the fridge.

bigbang · 24 June 2008
Hagan says to snex: “Even in your challenge you desire to enforce a kind of conformity, limiting the range of belief and expression of people of faith. Is it enough to say you believe in evolution, or must you also pass a series of litmus tests to, what, be admitted to the “true rational beings” club?”
.
Snex responds: “you are correct. acceptance of evolution is not enough…. so what is it that gets you into the “club” then? it is not acceptance of some random conclusion of science. it is not even acceptance of all the conclusions of science. it is the willingness to use the method of science in your own personal life, about all objective claims you encounter. this includes claims about gods and their activities in the world….”
.
Thank you, thank you, snex; thank God for atheist Darwinians that at least posses enough intellectual honesty and rigor to acknowledge the obvious. Wow, that was painful. Now, have the rest of you Darwinians and so-called Darwinian TEs learned anything? (Remember my deluded Darwinian TE friends, what snex is saying has been the conviction of nearly all top Darwinians, like Meyers, Provine, Dennett, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, etc, etc.)
I’d sure lke to se P. Z. add his two cents and perhaps convince any remaining “credulous idiots” here that still think it’s possible to be a TE, a Christian Darwinist without contradiction.

phantomreader42 · 24 June 2008
Eric said:
FL said: Rosenhouse has genuinely come up with a sharp issue that MANY theistic evolutionists (especially the online ones who specifically say they are Christians, but really all of them) HAVE NOT been able to resolve. I know, 'cause I've been asking and listening in other forum.
Its fora. You have just rephrased the greater philosophical 'problem of evil.' I.e. why do bad things happen in a world under the power of an omnipotent omniscent omnibeneevolant diety. As far as I can tell, your fundamentalist literalist religion hasn't solved that problem either, so I'd quit throwing stones. An no, before you go off on a quote storm, 'original sin' doesn't solve that problem either, because the follow-on question then becomes, if evil is an inheritance, why would such a creator allow innocent souls to inherit evil.
I don't think FL really cares about solving that problem, or any problem for that matter. I'm reminded of a scene near the end of the movie "The American President" talking about his opponent:
President Andrew Shepherd said: I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, she's to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a whore.
That's FL and the entire religous right in a nutshell, isn't it? Not the slightest shred of evidence. No interest in solving any problem, or making anyone's lives better. No interest in the truth, not even the ability to recognize it when it's staring them in the face. Just lies and innuendo, fraud and fearmongering and witch hunts. Power over principle, power over everything. Fueled by the desperate hope that if they keep people busy hating the right scapegoat, they won't notice that the right-wing nutjobs are letting everything fall apart around them, tearing down everything that's worth a damn and pawning it for a few measley pennies.

snex · 24 June 2008
bigbang said: Thank you, thank you, snex; thank God for atheist Darwinians that at least posses enough intellectual honesty and rigor to acknowledge the obvious. Wow, that was painful. Now, have the rest of you Darwinians and so-called Darwinian TEs learned anything? (Remember my deluded Darwinian TE friends, what snex is saying has been the conviction of nearly all top Darwinians, like Meyers, Provine, Dennett, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, etc, etc.) I’d sure lke to se P. Z. add his two cents and perhaps convince any remaining “credulous idiots” here that still think it’s possible to be a TE, a Christian Darwinist without contradiction.
its not that there is a contradiction in being a TEist. there isnt. just like there is no contradiction in being a "theistic gravitationist." but the purpose of this blog is to get the public to understand and accept evolution. well, how can we do that? evolution is built on logic and science. if all we do is get people to accept evolution without giving them the foundations of logic and science, then all we have done is replaced one priesthood with another. but once you let the cat of science out of the bag, you can no longer try to stuff it back in when people start asking about the science of dead rabbis from galilee.

fshagan · 24 June 2008
tomh said:
Frank Hagan said: I see atheists insisting that PvM's belief is a delusion, or a lie, and its not enough that he accepts evolution. Implicit in the argument is that he must abandon faith as well.
Even to you that must sound silly. Who cares if he abandons his faith, let alone that he "must" abandon it. The original post tried to make the case that proclaiming oneself a theistic evolutionist involved no contradiction. Since some people disagree with that claim there are comments about the subject. Other than a moron troll or two, like FL, no one is calling him a "liar". Since PvM often writes about his faith here he no doubt enjoys discussing it. You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy playing the Christian victim card, talking about how courageous PvM is to publish such a thing and whining about all the abuse those nasty atheists are giving him. Poor Christians, 90% of the country on their side and they're still so persecuted.
The original post is saying that there is no contradiction to the Christian or other person of faith, a position that is held by the mainline protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and most I've talked to in the reform and conservative tradition in Judaism (I have no idea where Islam stands on the issue.) The insistence on conformity of thought occurs when non-believers insist that believers must abandon their faith to be "true" scientists, or to be "rational" or not "deluded." For example, snex stated this when challenged: "it is the willingness to use the method of science in your own personal life, about all objective claims you encounter. this includes claims about gods and their activities in the world. and when you apply the method to those claims, you must be willing to abide by the results, even if they tell you that what you believed is probably not the case. that is how you earn your membership in the “true rational person club” I maintain that's an irrational demand, that the desire to see complete conformity of thought is anathema to the idea of rational thought itself. My challenge about proving you love your wife stands; it is not the kind of thing you can prove with the scientific method anymore than God is, or the ideas of philosophers. The reply has been that its a "shared experience" ... the kind of sloppy evidence provided by theists.

fshagan · 24 June 2008
snex said:
Frank Hagan said: Ah, so you would say that Newton himself was not a scientist? Or that men like today’s Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is not a scientist? I await the list of people who pass the snex test for orthodoxy!
notice how frank ever-so-subtly switches "rational" out for "scientist." did he think i would let that slip? not a chance. i never said you cant be a scientist. i said you arent being rational. and nobody who has read newton's works on alechemy, let alone religion, would call the man completely rational. lets not forget that francis collins asserts that human morality could not have possibly evolved naturally, and that therefore must have been put there by a supernatural agent, some might even say, an "intelligent designer." collins' argument is exactly identical to that of the IDers - logical fallacies and all, and yet you want to label him rational while excluding them? sorry but it doesnt work that way. collins can be an excellent geneticist, and you may be an excellent car mechanic (or whatever it is that you do), but that does not make you rational. what makes you rational is in my previous post, and i note that you failed to offer any substantive response to it.
If I've misquoted you, I apologize. In challenging PvM on his article, which appears to me to be written to answer a simple question of compatibility of Darwinism with Christianity, it seems to me that you are making the case that his position is not rational. Being "rational" then means holding to a specific set of beliefs, and everyone who has gone before, Newton, Pascal, et.al., are not rational. If I've misunderstood you, then let's clarify. 1. Do you believe it is possible for a Christian to believe in evolution and remain a Christian? 2. Atheism = rational. Any other belief = irrational and/or deluded?

fshagan · 24 June 2008
phantomreader42 said: Two words: Courtier's Reply.
You don't see the similarity to the line of reasoning in that article and what the atheists are doing here? I fear the arguments will be with us always, because some who defend science are irrationally hostile to religion, and some who defend religion are irrationally hostile to science. *sigh*

snex · 24 June 2008
fshagan said: I maintain that's an irrational demand, that the desire to see complete conformity of thought is anathema to the idea of rational thought itself.
this is the very method used to discover the theory of evolution, and every other scientific theory. if you think it is irrational, then WHY do you want creationists to apply it to come to understand evolution? theists are just sour grapes over the fact that when we do apply the scientific method to their objective claims, they never turn out to be correct. but do theists ever learn to stop making them? no, rather than humbly go back to discussing beauty and morality, they blame everything on those pesky atheists who insist on asking hard questions.
fshagan said:My challenge about proving you love your wife stands; it is not the kind of thing you can prove with the scientific method anymore than God is, or the ideas of philosophers. The reply has been that its a "shared experience" ... the kind of sloppy evidence provided by theists.
why dont you give us a list of things that the scientific method is good for demonstrating and a list of things that it is not good for demonstrating? no need to be exhaustive, lets just keep the list centered on claims made by evolutionary theory and claims made by your brand of religion. once youve done that, explain why you think religion is any good at demonstrating any of the items on list B.

snex · 24 June 2008
fshagan said: 1. Do you believe it is possible for a Christian to believe in evolution and remain a Christian?
yes, but this is trivial. it is possible for a christian to believe in gravity and remain a christian. creationists manage to do this, but nobody here would say that they are therefore rational people.
fshagan said: 2. Atheism = rational. Any other belief = irrational and/or deluded?
with the current evidence we have, yes. that may change as new evidence comes forward, but like the intelligent design "theorists," believers in gods never want to do any research for finding and demonstrating their gods. all they have is the same types of PR campaigns and propaganda machines that the IDers use to push their ideas on the ignorant public. im not accusing all of you of making disgusting movies like expelled or anything like that, but how many of you self-professed christians take your children to church and talk to them as if god were a real being, jesus actually rose from the dead, etc? are you teaching your children to critically examine these claims, or do you expect them to swallow them whole? have you critically examined these claims? if so, by what standard? it seems to me that anybody who believes in the virgin birth has not done any critical thinking about it in the slightest.

PvM · 24 June 2008
You and Bigbang should hang out more often, you're made for eachother.
snex said:
fshagan said: 1. Do you believe it is possible for a Christian to believe in evolution and remain a Christian?
yes, but this is trivial. it is possible for a christian to believe in gravity and remain a christian. creationists manage to do this, but nobody here would say that they are therefore rational people.
fshagan said: 2. Atheism = rational. Any other belief = irrational and/or deluded?
with the current evidence we have, yes. that may change as new evidence comes forward, but like the intelligent design "theorists," believers in gods never want to do any research for finding and demonstrating their gods. all they have is the same types of PR campaigns and propaganda machines that the IDers use to push their ideas on the ignorant public. im not accusing all of you of making disgusting movies like expelled or anything like that, but how many of you self-professed christians take your children to church and talk to them as if god were a real being, jesus actually rose from the dead, etc? are you teaching your children to critically examine these claims, or do you expect them to swallow them whole? have you critically examined these claims? if so, by what standard? it seems to me that anybody who believes in the virgin birth has not done any critical thinking about it in the slightest.

FL · 24 June 2008
Eric, Damien, Phantom Reader, I can understand that you guys would like to shift the focus away from Jason Rosenhouse's specific and sharp challenge to TE's.....
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn’t God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
.....and instead talk about something else like the problem of evil in general, or how much more ethical than God you happen to be, or some fictional "President" movie, or other assorted hooly-magoo's. You're trying to shift away from what you apparently don't have an answer for, and would simply rather discuss Anything Else. On most occasions, I wouldn't mind discussing the P of E. Plenty of good resources both print and online to discuss that topic with, from the foundational book of Genesis to the classic Book of Job in the Bible, to the books of the New Testament that touch on the subject, to Kewl Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Winfried Corduan, and Kewl Apologists like Norman Geisler and Peter Kreeft (not to mention Kewl Evangelists like Billy Graham). Lots of good stuff from many directions. http://www.leaderu.com/focus/goodevil.html Probably wouldn't change Damien's mind, of course, and probably not yours either Eric, but it would be a fun diversion. But that's why I'm NOT going there. I DON'T want a diversion, as you do. I DON'T want to shift the discussion, as you do. The exact name of this thread is "Being a Theistic Evolutionist Without Contradiction", and that's EXACTLY what Jason Rosenhouse's challenge is addressing. He's not asking theistic evolutionists to discuss and resolve the entire P of E with all of its philosophical and theological angles. He's specifically asking TE's to just tell him the "theological purpose", the "WHY", of God using the "bloody cruel sadistic selfish" red-tooth-&-claw evolutionary process for a gazillion years and a gazillion cruel animal deaths JUST TO evolve a few humans at the end of the game. Just tell him that much. Since TE's clearly say that God used evolution to evolve the first humans into existence, Rosenhouse's challenge is 100 percent legitimate and on-point. So I'd like to see Eric and Damien and PhantomReader answer that challenge rather than try to do a mile-long diversion on the P of E or "President Andrew Shepherd". (And as we've already seen, there's been plenty of additional rational challenges to this claim of "Being a TE without contradiction" from other PT participants. Very interesting stuff; a most delicious thread.) FL

teach · 24 June 2008
Many years ago, I went on a trip to the Amazon as part of a course in tropical biology. We were accompanied by a fine scientist, an expert in millipedes, who looked upon this trip as an opportunity to uncover a new species or two. He was so intent on those millipedes, on seeing the world through only that lens, that he missed a huge portion of the experience - the culture, the people, the overall grandeur of the rainforest as a whole. I learned a lot from him. But it wasn't about millipedes.
Before I dive into my opening unit on the nature of science at the beginning of the school year, I remind my students that there are many ways to understand the universe and ALL that it entails and if they choose to limit their way of understanding to just science or just faith or just math or just art or just literature, they may learn a lot, but they may miss out on the overall grandeur of it all. And with that, we launch into learning about the universe in ways that are logical, rational, observable, testable and predictable. It is only one small part of their education.

snex · 24 June 2008
teach said: Many years ago, I went on a trip to the Amazon as part of a course in tropical biology. We were accompanied by a fine scientist, an expert in millipedes, who looked upon this trip as an opportunity to uncover a new species or two. He was so intent on those millipedes, on seeing the world through only that lens, that he missed a huge portion of the experience - the culture, the people, the overall grandeur of the rainforest as a whole. I learned a lot from him. But it wasn't about millipedes. Before I dive into my opening unit on the nature of science at the beginning of the school year, I remind my students that there are many ways to understand the universe and ALL that it entails and if they choose to limit their way of understanding to just science or just faith or just math or just art or just literature, they may learn a lot, but they may miss out on the overall grandeur of it all. And with that, we launch into learning about the universe in ways that are logical, rational, observable, testable and predictable. It is only one small part of their education.
hey thats great, but you forgot to mention how exactly faith helps us understand anything about anything, let alone the universe. this is the mantra of the theist, that faith is just a "different way of understanding," but darned if they can tell you how it works or why they cant even come up with a consistent picture of reality when they use it.

Eric · 25 June 2008
Torbjorn! So glad to be responding to someone not BB or FL. :)
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: First, I think snex makes an excellent point. To be acceptable general evidence it would have to be general. One would think.
Yes...to be acceptable general evidence. To be acceptable personal evidence, not so much. 'General' is pretty much similar to 'scientific.' Both are lowest common denominators - that minimum on which everyone, from wildly different backgrounds, can agree. Now, as I scientist I think this is a great thing. And, referring back to some of your previous posts and justified belief, general evidence may be the *only* good basis for "knowledge." However its not the only type of evidence on which regular humans make decisions. Even us skeptic-type humans :)
I would count empirical facts and theories as evidential knowledge.
Me too.
Even if there is a gray area between consolidated scientific fact and, say, technological usage. For example, it seems to me that learning that something works in practice is not general evidential knowledge, as it has to be disseminated as "evidence from authority", or become validated in the process.
Um, I don't get what you're saying here. Technology is an extension of science as it is the ultimate (large set of) confirmation experiment(s). There is no appeal to authority required to make an airplane fly. This is why the 'journal of irreproducible results' is a geek joke. Anything you can't count on as a reproducible phenomenon isn't science. Technology is therefore just applied reproducible experiment.

PvM · 25 June 2008
He’s specifically asking TE’s to just tell him the “theological purpose”, the “WHY”, of God using the “bloody cruel sadistic selfish” red-tooth-&-claw evolutionary process for a gazillion years and a gazillion cruel animal deaths JUST TO evolve a few humans at the end of the game. Just tell him that much. Since TE’s clearly say that God used evolution to evolve the first humans into existence, Rosenhouse’s challenge is 100 percent legitimate and on-point. So I’d like to see Eric and Damien and PhantomReader answer that challenge rather than try to do a mile-long diversion on the P of E or “President Andrew Shepherd”.
The question is flawed. Nothing cruel, sadistic or bloody about the evolutionary process. Only as a strawman can FL further his flawed assumptions. Of course, even if the why may be unclear, the facts clearly show that evolution happened over the time period of 4 billion years. So perhaps FL's purpose is to argue that he lacks the faith and is instead joining the ranks of the atheists? I would not be surprised.

PvM · 25 June 2008
hey thats great, but you forgot to mention how exactly faith helps us understand anything about anything, let alone the universe. this is the mantra of the theist, that faith is just a “different way of understanding,” but darned if they can tell you how it works or why they cant even come up with a consistent picture of reality when they use it.
Fascinating, an evangelical atheist, I have not met many of them recently. Instead of accepting that there are others who have a different faith, they decide to question, ridicule. Not much different from evangelical Christians who deride atheists. You pretend to know what the theist believes and yet you show little interest to explore their position. Perhaps atheists are not much different from other religious people. But my contribution is not for the benefit of those on either extreme but rather to the rational middle.