Creationism really is a science stopper

There is some quote by Kurt Wise saying about the same thing, that the science doesn't matter and the most important thing is scripture.

The ultimate question answered. Why are we here the way we are?

1st guy: Magic apples of course.

2nd guy: Don't be silly, how could it happen with just that?

1st guy: Oh... well there was a talking snake too.

2nd guy: Oh, ok then.

Ron Okimoto said: There is some quote by Kurt Wise saying about the same thing, that the science doesn't matter and the most important thing is scripture.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Ron Okimoto said: There is some quote by Kurt Wise saying about the same thing, that the science doesn't matter and the most important thing is scripture.

I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from.

I open the book of Genesis, and in chapter 1 the Bible tells me exactly where living things came from:

12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

So, those living things came from the waters and the earth. That seems OK. Living things didn't come from heaven.

Unfortunately, it doesn't say where the majority of living things came from. Microbes aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Cudos to Todd Wood for being an honest xian fundy. If so many of them weren't lying through their teeth about evolutionary theory we wouldn't have the problems with them that we do.

When I open the book of Genesis, I see two conflicting stories about where living things came from.

And yet, Creationists still get pissed off because people still don't recognize Creationism as a science.

Todd wrote:

"That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life (and why I’ll probably never finish reading Meyer’s book). I already know where life came from. I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark."

That's why I don't care if you care about the origin of life. You will never have anything to contribute to science. You can hide in your little compartmentalized cubbyhole all you want. That isn't going to stop real scientists from learning all they can. You are free to study the "logistics" of the ark all you want, especially if you can ever find it. That doesn't mean that there was a world wide flood or that any scientist will care what stories you make up about it.

So, go back to your tax free church and tell all the fairy tales you want. But leave real science alone and leave you religion out of public school science classes.

The reminds me of a passage in a Terry Pratchet novel, where Ponder Stibbons is asking one of the professors of Unseen University how he explains all those fossils. The prof replies that he doesn't try to explain them -- it saves so much bother.

mplavcan said: The reminds me of a passage in a Terry Pratchet novel, where Ponder Stibbons is asking one of the professors of Unseen University how he explains all those fossils. The prof replies that he doesn't try to explain them -- it saves so much bother.

Matt G said: When I open the book of Genesis, I see two conflicting stories about where living things came from.

It's been said before, I think by PZ, but creationists really do miss out on all the fun. There are no real discoveries to be made, nothing to really investigate. They simply spend all their time trying to confirm what they have already decided must be true regardless of what any data show. It's just a big, fat waste of time.

The ol' "God said it; I believe it;, that settles it" followed by the ol' "la la la la ... I can't hear you". Actually, that's fine with me. I couldn't care less if someone wants to believe in orgone accumulators or crystal power or some fundamentalist interpretation Genesis as long as they don't try to push that attitude on the rest of us through the law or the schools.

I went to Prof. Wood’s page, and I declare, he’s rather cute! And I love that coy smile. At Bryan College, he probably doesn’t have tenure, right? He should be fired just for looking like a homosekshul.

Jonathan Lubin said: I went to Prof. Wood’s page, and I declare, he’s rather cute! And I love that coy smile. At Bryan College, he probably doesn’t have tenure, right? He should be fired just for looking like a homosekshul.

Seriously, according to the OT, haven’t all the questions been answered? After all, he’s stated that he doesn’t “care about the origin of life”. Why is he the director of the Center then?

I don't think it's a waste of time to study the logistics of Noah's Ark at all. Mostly because it doesn't take very long, but also because it's useful to know when you get into dumb arguments with creationists.

In fact, I have ended up in three debates regarding Noah's ark over the years (two of them were random proselytizers who showed up at my front door) and not one of them seemed to be able to demonstrate that they'd read past the part where he crashed into Mt. Ararat. Point out that Noah had some issues with alcohol and they get REALLY bent out of shape. But it's right there in the scriptures, dude!

The bit where Lot impregnates his daughters is also quite an eye-opener for many of these people.

So yeah, I don't think it's a waste of time to review the scriptures at all; if someone is going to put me in a position where I have to argue against them about the bible, I think it's probably productive if at least one of us has read it, and not just a whitewashed interpretation of it

I still shake my head that the Noah's Ark story is widely considered suitable for children.

kev said: I still shake my head that the Noah's Ark story is widely considered suitable for children.

That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life (and why I’ll probably never finish reading Meyer’s book). I already know where life came from. I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark.

— Todd C. Wood

I already know where life came from. I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark.

Andrew Sibley BSc, MSc EDM (Open), FRMetS Andrew Sibley is a Meteorologist working as a weather forecaster in the UK, including in the past, presentation of the forecast on BBC regional radio in the Southwest, Wales and Yorkshire. He has an MSc in Environmental Decision Making and takes a keen interest in science and environmental issues, and also aspects of Flood geology and the science of creation and Intelligent Design. He has recently completed a book entitled ‘Restoring the Ethics of Creation’.

Scientism is the belief that all truth can come through science - it goes back to Auguste Comte who wanted a religion of science with himself as the scientific Pope, and he influenced Darwin. My use of it is to imply that you are placing more weight upon the evidence than is warranted by the nature of inductive inferences.

My experience of science is about being taught that the things I was taught at the lower level were incorrect. Therefore my conclusion is that progress in science involves learning things that are not true, and then learning new things that are not necessarily true. i.e. like learning Newtonian mechanics, then being taught it needs modifying with relativity, or the billiard ball model of the atom being replaced with a wave particle duality model. So science provides us with models of reality as approximations to truth that are always provisional.

I sometimes get the impression that "literalists" don't read the Bible very carefully.

kev said: the part where he crashed into Mt. Ararat.

Still waiting for creationist experiments on whether or not god uses energy for the "poofification" process. No experiments or hypotheses yet. (That's because deep down inside they know it's total hogwash, I would suspect.)

TomS said: Elsewhere in the Bible we hear about animals coming from various sources, such as bees from the carcass of a lion, reminiscent of spontaneous generation.

But they all agree that the various living things did not come from nothing, nor from thin air. And that they did have a material origin. I sometimes get the impression that "literalists" don't read the Bible very carefully.

Matt said. I sometimes get the impression that “literalists” don’t read the Bible very carefully.

I've been doing The Blessed Atheist Bible Study at http://blessedatheist.com/ and I agree fully. Genesis, the most hilarious book of them all, is riddled with absurdities; physical, mental, and moral. How people can read the story of the flood in light of today's science and knowledge and view it as literal is beyond me.
We atheists should study the bible more in order to gain weapons to fight these idiots. It's effective to talk to them in their own language, for most of them have no idea what it actually says. In addition I've been having a ball writing about it. I wish I had started this years ago.

Matt G said: When I open the book of Genesis, I see two conflicting stories about where living things came from.

See Genesis 2:18-20. God wanted to make a "helper" for Adam, but instead of making a woman, he first made a bunch of animals. Strangely, there was not found among this menagerie a "helper" fit for Adam, so god then made Eve.
God seriously whiffed on his first try there. I mean, epic fail, right?

Seriously, is there a cimpanzee or is that a typo on his web page?

In the light of this from a dedicated and well-educated creationist professor:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. (All bolding original)

A serious question for creationists:

Let's grant that evolution is totally wrong, the universe is only 6,000 years old--whatever you want. My question is, Do you think we should continue to study evolution?

The reason I'm asking what you think is that scientists who study evolution, or work within an evolutionary conceptual framework, are amazingly productive. They have made our world better in may ways, from agriculture to medicine, from petroleum exploration to engineering design. Do you think they would have advanced as far, or even further in such fields with a creationary framework?

An answer of, "Well, if they want to believe such nonsense, let them, but they're wasting their time," is not acceptable. They are, after all, paid with OUR tax dollars in universities, museums, government agencies, etc. And they continue to teach younger generations that evolution is true. So do you think they should all give up on evolution--quit believing in it, quit teaching it, quit researching it, and quit using it as a framework for understanding biology?

Or is it OK with you if they keep believing it, using it, and TEACHING it, even though you know it's wrong, since it seems to pay off so well?

I just noticed that this guy Wood went to Liberty U for his undergraduate, yet was accepted into a PhD program at University of Virginia. That's disgraceful. University of Virginia probably turns down many applicants for graduate school who have legitimate biology backgrounds from universities that are properly accredited and don't lie about science.

Now there's another science-denying loony with PhD credentials.

We live in a decadent, depraved, corrupt society, in which it is considered a virtue to claim "religious beliefs" that amount to seeking to impose unimaginably harsh and inhumane, indeed sadistic, concrete, mindless rules on others, while simultaneously claiming that you yourself can literally do anything and get away with it, as long as you make a smirking "repentance" to your sucker god.

Much of the "Christianity" peddled in the US today amounts to an Orwellian, non-traditional, post-modern sociopathic, narcissistic cult, which is actually openly in the service of the more corrupt and insane of our two political parties, even when that party's ideology is outrageously at odds with the teachings of the character Jesus in the Bible. "Biblical literalism", "family values", etc - all just code words for the hyper-Orwellian claim that the amoral are the most moral.

But naturally, we can't do anything like require them to get a real undergrad degree before admitting them to a prestigious graduate program.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Other random observations: I'd love to see the title of his dissertation from UVa. I'd love to see what fellow members of AAAS and his other professional affiliations think of him, or what he does at meetings.

Thanks for the Blessed Atheist reference. i went there and will probably go back for more fun.
My favorite argument against the flood is genetics. after all Noah's children are all related and we can only hope that their wives are not. So they represent 4.5 genetic units. Do they really believe that all of humanity descended from only 8 people 4 of whom were full siblings? When surviving cheetahs are so inbred that they accept grafts like siblings and biologist estimate that their population was reduced to maybe as few as 1000 animals 10,000 years ago, how do they explain human variety with a reduction to only 8 people less than 4000 years ago. Evidence has never been the creationist's strong suit.

harold said: But naturally, we can't do anything like require them to get a real undergrad degree before admitting them to a prestigious graduate program.

Michael Tuite -

Behe did not express his incorrect ideas until he was well-established as a faculty member. Had he presented the nonsense in his books as a PhD thesis, one would hope that he would have been flunked out of the program. Behe did not get his undergraduate at Liberty U, either.

I notice that Wood does not seem to deny evolution, but merely abiogenesis (if I am understanding him correctly). Hypothetically, this is a position that "could be correct" from a current perspective, as we have no strong, definitive explanation for how life began. It is a classic "god of the gaps" position, though - if his faith is dependent on the lack of a strong model of abiogenesis, what happens when one is demonstrated?

My problem is that he went to Liberty U (ironically, if he is not a YEC evolution denier, they are probably mad about that as well), yet was accepted into a PhD program in science at U Va. Maybe he was required to take remedial undergraduate course work. If not, it's a disgrace. While Wood's scientific views may border on the mainstream, his undergraduate university by definition did not provide adequate grounding for mainstream graduate work in the biomedical sciences. That should be understood.

I strongly support the right of everyone to live and believe as they see fit. What I don't support is "affirmative action for fanatics". If you're too religious to get a real undergrad degree, that's fine, and spend your money on a Liberty U degree if you want. But you shouldn't be allowed in to a science graduate program without a real undergraduate degree.

In introductory biology lectures I have said that we do not know how life originated. It could have been by a divine act, or it could have been the result of natural processes. If we assume the former, we cannot study the origin of life. If we assume the latter, even if we are wrong, we will learn many interesting and useful things in our efforts. For example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm

Re: Mary...

My favorite counter to the flood is to point to living bristlecone pines that are old enough that they must have "survived the Flood"....

I notice that Wood does not seem to deny evolution, but merely abiogenesis (if I am understanding him correctly). Hypothetically, this is a position that “could be correct” from a current perspective, as we have no strong, definitive explanation for how life began. It is a classic “god of the gaps” position, though - if his faith is dependent on the lack of a strong model of abiogenesis, what happens when one is demonstrated?

Well, according to "discontinuity systematics" humans and apes represent two distinct baramins and no intermediate forms can be found! Amazing! All you have to do is ignore all of the fossil, genetic and developmental evidence and presto, you magically get the predetermined answer you desire. Well, at least they are doing science! I mean they got a term and everything!

Now, if a genetic "discontinuity" of 1.5% is completely insurmountable except by divine intervention, exactly how many "baramins" are there supposed to be? And this guy is supposed to accept all of evolution except the origin of life? I don't think so.

I don’t think it’s a waste of time to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark at all.

Do they really believe that all of humanity descended from only 8 people 4 of whom were full siblings?

I notice that Wood does not seem to deny evolution, but merely abiogenesis (if I am understanding him correctly). Hypothetically, this is a position that “could be correct” from a current perspective, as we have no strong, definitive explanation for how life began.

Still no creationist "miracle systematics". Still no studies of the "poof". Are some "poofs" bigger than other "poofs"? Or are they the same? Still no research into this major area of creationism. (That's because secretly they know it's all a pile of hoo-haw.)

My favorite counter to the flood is to point to living bristlecone pines that are old enough that they must have “survived the Flood”.…

Michael Tuite said: I'm a grad student here at UVa and so when I read that Dr Wood had gotten his degree here I too was curious about the topic of his research (see below) . By the way, my first alma mater, U. Penn, gave a similar degree to Behe. Should I be concerned? Theory and application of protein homology by Wood, Todd Charles, Ph.D., University of Virginia, 1999 , 197 pages; AAT 9916390 Abstract (Summary) Two proteins that share a common ancestor are referred to as homologous. ...

So, I wonder if this guy gets paid more to not do any research, or to ignore the research that has been done? Do you have to get a subscription to all of the journals that you ignore and if not, how do you know what you are ignoring? Does he also get paid to not grow corn?

The problem with "god of the gaps" is that it's not the gaps in your knowledge, it's only the gaps in human knowledge. At least ideally.

But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture. - Henry Morris (1970) Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, p.32-33

Still waiting for a creationist divine communication theory. How does god inspire the Bible? Voices in their heads? Thought waves? Cue cards? What? Still no research into this vital core area of creationism. (That's because it's a bunch of malarkey, and they know it.)

It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises. But you guys really need to go a bit deeper. Deeper than the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the RNA world or whatever other theory science rightly investigates you get down to a basic question that has been asked for centuries. That is, "why is there something rather than nothing". At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make. You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal. Both are faith based and have nothing to do with science. If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

0112358 said: It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises. But you guys really need to go a bit deeper. Deeper than the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the RNA world or whatever other theory science rightly investigates you get down to a basic question that has been asked for centuries. That is, "why is there something rather than nothing". At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make.

0112358 said: It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises. But you guys really need to go a bit deeper. Deeper than the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the RNA world or whatever other theory science rightly investigates you get down to a basic question that has been asked for centuries. That is, "why is there something rather than nothing". At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make. You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal. Both are faith based and have nothing to do with science. If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

0112358 said: You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

0112358 said: It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises. But you guys really need to go a bit deeper. Deeper than the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the RNA world or whatever other theory science rightly investigates you get down to a basic question that has been asked for centuries. That is, "why is there something rather than nothing". At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make. You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal. Both are faith based and have nothing to do with science. If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

Dave Luckett said: The Universe exists. It is capable of being examined. You can assume, if you like, that it has a purpose. Personally, I don't assume that it does. Others here may differ. Still others will certainly assume that it does not. But you cannot argue that it must have one, or imply that it has one, simply from its existence.

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then matter as we know it is not eternal. Neither are space and time as we know them.

Course, that has nothing to do with biological evolution, which is simply the scientific explanation for matching nested hierarchies of species, geographic clustering of related species, observed changes over time in current species, and changes in species over geologic time. There is nothing religious about explaining those observed patterns in the evidence.

Henry

0112358 said: It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises.

But you guys really need to go a bit deeper. Deeper than the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the RNA world or whatever other theory science rightly investigates you get down to a basic question that has been asked for centuries. That is, "why is there something rather than nothing".

At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make. You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal. Both are faith based and have nothing to do with science. If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

As an atheist I visit a great many blogs each day, most are typically either science or atheist related. There are however two religious ones that I also visit and one of them is Todd Wood's blog (the other is Exploring the Matrix by James McGrath who is a liberal theologian). Wood is very similar to Kurt Wise and is YEC.

Sometimes he has some really interesting things to say and at others he is frustrating because in the end the Bible trumps any evidence.

I posted Wood's quotation on the Christian Premier site without saying it was by a YEC. Sure enough it was taken as an attack on YEC

Let's encourage the guy

0112358 said: You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal.

0112358 said: Both are faith based and have nothing to do with science. If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

If you choose to believe that matter is eternal you are no different than the creationist who chooses to believe that God is eternal. You may be less rational but you are certainly not any less religious.

It is certainly entertaining to pick an anecdotal example and use that to heap abuse on a group of people that one despises.

Polls show the majority of the US population is sick and tired of the death cult fundies. Most of those are other xians. You earned it by lots of hard work. Sponsoring xian terrorists who assassinate MDs, trying to impose your mythology on everyone else, openly hating the US democracy and trying to destroy it, and bring about a new Dark Age. Like most, you never read your magic book. "As you sow, so shall you reap."

RBH said: First, that question presupposes that the default state is 'nothing,' with 'something' therefore requiring explanation. But it's quite possible that the default state is 'something.'

Let the earth bring forth

Matt G said: When I open the book of Genesis, I see two conflicting stories about where living things came from.

In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that id being blessed by their God with rain and wells breaking forth. Thus life was created on Earth. Contrary to that; in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.

Just Bob said:

I sometimes get the impression that "literalists" don't read the Bible very carefully.

Hell, most of them don't read it AT ALL. They pack it with them, and may attend "Bible Study" (where passages are read TO them, carefully selected to back up the prejudices of their particular sect). But if you want to make one squirm, ask him if he has ever just sat down and read the Bible, covet-to-cover. Maybe 3% can answer yes, and I suspect that half of those are lying. It's the inerrant Word of God, they "live by it," and it's all literally true--but it's so crushingly boring (or they have such short attention spans) that they just can't stand to read more than a few carefully selected verses at a time. And it has apparently never occurred to most of them that they really ought to, you know, actually READ the thing. The irony of that always astounds me.

Dale, I believe that your reason for the Catholic Church discouraging translation is a little uncharitable. They thought the Scriptures were authoritative (though not infallible in matters of factual detail, as St Augustine made clear) but they always insisted that this was only the case if they were interpreted by the Church speaking with one voice, present and past, scholar and saint, Pontiff, Cardinals and people. They were uncomfortably aware that scripture was often obscure, equivocal and difficult, and they feared what would happen if it were translated so that anyone could interpret it as they wished.

They were right to do so. The result was, and is, endless schism.

Please note, I am not arguing for their point of view, merely expressing it.

Dave Luckett said: Dale, I believe that your reason for the Catholic Church discouraging translation is a little uncharitable. They thought the Scriptures were authoritative (though not infallible in matters of factual detail, as St Augustine made clear) but they always insisted that this was only the case if they were interpreted by the Church speaking with one voice, present and past, scholar and saint, Pontiff, Cardinals and people. They were uncomfortably aware that scripture was often obscure, equivocal and difficult, and they feared what would happen if it were translated so that anyone could interpret it as they wished. They were right to do so. The result was, and is, endless schism. Please note, I am not arguing for their point of view, merely expressing it.

Dale Husband said: You are aware that the Catholic Church tried for centuries during the Middle Ages to prevent people in Europe from translating the Bible from the Latin Vulgate to other, more modern languages, right? It's obvious that the church KNEW the Bible was full of baloney but wanted to keep its population of followers from ever knowing it.

eddie said:

Dale Husband said: You are aware that the Catholic Church tried for centuries during the Middle Ages to prevent people in Europe from translating the Bible from the Latin Vulgate to other, more modern languages, right? It's obvious that the church KNEW the Bible was full of baloney but wanted to keep its population of followers from ever knowing it.

Mr Luckett is being charitable by saying that this is a 'little uncharitable'. In the Medieval era, Latin was the lingua franca of literate people. There simply was no demand from the illiterate masses for a vernacular Bible, nor a large number of requests for one from the literate layfolk. In any case, St Cyril and St Methodius introduced the Slavonic liturgy in the 9th century. In doing so, they had to invent an entire alphabet, so the vernacular could be read at all. (This was, by the way, the anscestor of the cyrillic alphabet.) In the 7th century an English monk, Caedmon, translated the Bible into the vernacular. St Bede the Venerable did the same in the 8th century. There were Old English Bibles in the 9th and 10th centuries, and Anglo-Norman Bibles in the 11th. I believe German Bibles were around from the 8th. Not much evidence of a conspiracy here.

Dale, your post doesn't really make much sense. What wrong time frame? You claimed that the Middle Ages (5th-14th centuries) saw the suppression of vernacular Bibles. Which vernacular Bible I described fell outside of this time frame?

The East-West split is almost irrelevant in this discussion here. In any case, Pope Hadrian II appointed Methodius as archbishop of Moravia. And personally endorsed the Slavonic liturgy.

As for whether or not I can read Old English, I fail to see your point. (As it happens, my Middle English is much better.) Do you expect Medieval monks to translate into 21st century English? Surely they would have been better off translating into a language that people understood.

And your claim that people like Bede and Caedmon were 'operating under the radar', that is either very funny or very sad, depending on your point of view.

You might want to look at the 1408 Council of Oxford, which did rule that all vernacular translations needed church approval. This, of course, means that the vernacular would be permitted, just regulated.

It seems that every creationist who posts here is commanded to go and read some literature on the subject before making even the smallest pronouncement. You might start with looking up a definition of 'Middle Ages'.

My interpretation is that Wood is not as politically correct as the anti-evolution activists at the DI, but has the same political sympathies. IOW, he thinks that YECs and OECs are wrong about the evidence, but encourages them to believe whatever makes them happy. In contrast, a true activist would want to finish Meyer's book because it would give him more tools with which to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution.

Of course he is dead wrong about atheists and Noah's Ark. The reason they don't care about it is that there's simply no credible evidence for it. If there were, they'd be just as obsessed with following it where it lead as they are with the evidence that is there. And it's not just atheists. 90+% of devoutly religious scientists don't bother with Noah's Ark either. He knows that, but in that excerpt he is clearly writing to the "flock," so why confuse them with facts.

But naturally, we can’t do anything like require them to get a real undergrad degree before admitting them to a prestigious graduate program. While Wood’s scientific views may border on the mainstream, his undergraduate university by definition did not provide adequate grounding for mainstream graduate work in the biomedical sciences. That should be understood. What I don’t support is “affirmative action for fanatics”. If you’re too religious to get a real undergrad degree, that’s fine, and spend your money on a Liberty U degree if you want. But you shouldn’t be allowed in to a science graduate program without a real undergraduate degree.

The visible universe is huge, 13.7 billion light years across and old.

heddle said: Of course you can and of course they did. They can require good scores on the GRE and in the biology subject test. What they cannot require is a litmus test. Graduate school and a obtaining a Ph.D. doesn't carry with it any demand beyond: can you master the material, can you conduct research professionally, and can you write a thesis? It does not, nor should it carry with it any promise about how you will use the degree. It doesn't even require that you believe what you are doing. You simply have no basis to claim that he was not qualified for graduate work at an R1. Are you privy to U Va's admission committee? It may have been in spite of his education at Liberty rather than because of it--who knows? But you are just talking out of your ass when you characterize it as affirmative action. You have no way of knowing that.

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

heddle said: It doesn't even require that you believe what you are doing.

I disagree. If your dissertation, or the papers coming out of your research contain things you believe are not true at the time you submit them, I would consider that academic misconduct.

heddle said: SWT,

I disagree. If your dissertation, or the papers coming out of your research contain things you believe are not true at the time you submit them, I would consider that academic misconduct.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose I think String Theory is so bad that it is "not even wrong." One day I read a journal article and see some problem they are struggling with and I say: "Hmm. I can solve that." So I work out the math and submit the paper and it is peer-reviewed and then published. I have just performed research in and even substantively advanced a field that I "don't believe in." Have I committed academic misconduct? I would argue that I have not.

heddle said: SWT,

I disagree. If your dissertation, or the papers coming out of your research contain things you believe are not true at the time you submit them, I would consider that academic misconduct.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose I think String Theory is so bad that it is "not even wrong." One day I read a journal article and see some problem they are struggling with and I say: "Hmm. I can solve that." So I work out the math and submit the paper and it is peer-reviewed and then published. I have just performed research in and even substantively advanced a field that I "don't believe in." Have I committed academic misconduct? I would argue that I have not.

0112358 said: ... That is, "why is there something rather than nothing". At this point, if you choose to have an opinion, you have a faith based choice to make. You can believe that matter has always existed and is therefore eternal or you can believe that God created matter and it is God who is eternal.

SWT, Stanton

Suppose I believe rocks are 6000 years old. Then I do a landmark study that shows them to be 4 billion years old. Even though I expected a different result. I faithfully report the study, data, analysis and conclusion.

I publish the results. It confirms for most members of the community that rocks are old. However, I still believe rocks are young.

I would argue that not only I did not commit academic misconduct but in fact I did science exactly as it supposed to be done. When you publish a paper there is no requirement that you believe your results. There is only the requirement that you were faithful to the scientific method. Science is agnostic when it comes to what you believe.

heddle said: SWT, Stanton Suppose I believe rocks are 6000 years old. Then I do a landmark study that shows them to be 4 billion years old. Even though I expected a different result. I faithfully report the study, data, analysis and conclusion. I publish the results. It confirms for most members of the community that rocks are old. However, I still believe rocks are young. I would argue that not only I did not commit academic misconduct but in fact I did science exactly as it supposed to be done. When you publish a paper there is no requirement that you believe your results. There is only the requirement that you were faithful to the scientific method. Science is agnostic when it comes to what you believe.

Sorry, no. While science is supposed to be agnostic with respect to the beliefs of the investigators, this is a matter of ethics. It is this simple: you are reporting as factual something that you believe is not true.

Stanton said: Among other things, science does not ask the question "why is there something other than nothing?"

Stanton said: Furthermore, please explain why you think opposing the use of the Bible as a science textbook is irrational and religious.

386sx said: gazzillion things that one could choose to believe,

Unitarianism is what Protestantism becomes when its liberalizing tendencies are taken to the extreme.…..the result since the 1960s has been unity with diversity, NOT endless schism.

What they cannot require is a litmus test.

If my quick search is correct, UVA and Liberty are both accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, so it might be tricky for UVA to reject out of hand graduates of Liberty for admission to a graduate program.

I’ve reviewed a fair number of applications for graduate study, and I’ll accept students from less prestigious undergraduate schools if they have a strong academic record, strong test scores, demonstrated interest in research, and convincing statements of interest and purpose.

0112358 said:

Stanton said: Among other things, science does not ask the question "why is there something other than nothing?"

Exactly! Science is limited to the phisical world and cannot address ultimate questions of "Why?"

Stanton said: Furthermore, please explain why you think opposing the use of the Bible as a science textbook is irrational and religious.

You are putting words in my mouth. I do not think that the Bible should be used as a science textbook and your opposition to its use as such is certainly not irrational. My comment on rationality had to do with whether, given the order we observe in the universe, it is more rational to believe that matter has always existed or whether God created matter. Both possiblities of which science cannot address. The point is that whether you believe that matter is all there is, that God created matter, or one of the

386sx said: gazzillion things that one could choose to believe,

or whether you choose not to have an opinion on the matter we are all well beyond the scope of science.

Creationists may be wrong when they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and ID proponents may be wrong when they insist that they can provide scientific proof for a designer but they are no more wrong than those who maintain that they have a scientific basis for their materialistic world view.

However, standards are not “litmus tests”.

There will be more and more and more creationists given graduate from ostensible top institutions for the long indefinite future, as their cult dominates the political process. This guy attended an institution that directly denies and lies about the major elements of biomedical science. Yet the red carpet was rolled out for him at a major biomedical research university, one which is entirely taxpayer funded.

Yes, of course it’s accredited, because these “religious” authoritarians work for a political party which virtually controls the entire country, and actually does control almost anything “Southern”.

0112358 said: My comment on rationality had to do with whether, given the order we observe in the universe, it is more rational to believe that matter has always existed or whether God created matter. Both possiblities of which science cannot address.

The point is that whether you believe that matter is all there is, that God created matter, or one of the gazzillion things that one could choose to believe, or whether you choose not to have an opinion on the matter we are all well beyond the scope of science.

Creationists may be wrong when they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and ID proponents may be wrong when they insist that they can provide scientific proof for a designer but they are no more wrong than those who maintain that they have a scientific basis for their materialistic world view.

Exactly! Science is limited to the phisical world and cannot address ultimate questions of “Why?”

You are putting words in my mouth. I do not think that the Bible should be used as a science textbook and your opposition to its use as such is certainly not irrational.

My comment on rationality had to do with whether, given the order we observe in the universe, it is more rational to believe that matter has always existed or whether God created matter.

Both possiblities of which science cannot address. The point is that whether you believe that matter is all there is, that God created matter, or one of the or whether you choose not to have an opinion on the matter we are all well beyond the scope of science.

Creationists may be wrong when they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis

and ID proponents may be wrong when they insist that they can provide scientific proof for a designer

but they are no more wrong than those who maintain that they have a scientific basis for their materialistic world view.

I have to go with Heddle on this one. I'm real wary of the notion of "beliefs" in science as a criterion for degree-granting. For example, I do not "believe in" the modern theory of evolution, I "accept" it as the best available scientific account of the diversity of life on earth. When I did my P.D. in what would now be called cognitive science, I had people on my committee from two very distinct theoretical streams. There was no way I could "believe" both of them, nor did they expect me to. They expected me (in prelims) to know both, and in my dissertation defense to honestly report my methodology, data, and the inferences I drew. Nowhere did I sign a 'belief' statement for the degree.

Stupid beyond belief. But sure, cast aspersions on the highly secular and competent SACS accreditation people–about which you obviously know nothing.

RBH -

Heddle is correct about the admission process and my tendency to be irritated by people like Wood delayed my willingness to concede his points.

SWT also made some valid points, I believe.

Anger is a weakness. In my defense, I worked my ass off to go get myself an education, and I am annoyed when people disrespect science and learning in the way that I perceive Wood as doing (albeit, I concede, under the the influence of intense lifelong emotional pressure). I personally find the “PhD I secretly don’t believe in” route even more obnoxious than the diploma mill route.

0112358 said: Creationists may be wrong when they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and ID proponents may be wrong when they insist that they can provide scientific proof for a designer but they are no more wrong than those who maintain that they have a scientific basis for their materialistic world view.

eric said: Arguably not. If our current understanding of time and space as one thing originating in the big bang is correct, then science has also obliquely addressed the question of first cause. At least, it is hard to see how there could be a "first cause" for the universe if time originated in the big bang, because causal relationships require time, which our best theories tell us didn't exist before the big bang. The question "what caused the universe" may simply be like the question "what came before blue" in that it may be a grammatically correct question, yet one which doesn't ask anything meaningful. The ID/creationist concept - that before the universe there existed some intelligence, which performed actions to bring the universe about - requires we believe in some sort of objective, independent, extra-universal time (ether?) for the designer to operate in. But our best observations seem to indicate that time does not have these properties.

John_S said: Who claims they have a scientific basis for their materialistic world view?

0112358 -

So what? What is your point? You keep pretending that some stupid version of Thomas Hobbes is here and arguing against a straw man philosophical claim that no-one has advanced.

There is no rational reason for repeating a "rebuttal" to a straw man claim that you yourself invented.

(I hypothesize an emotional reason. You know creationists are wrong, but they're "on your team", so that generates cognitive dissonance. You want to "oppose" the science supporters for attacking a fellow "conservative Christian" in Wood, but you're smart enough to see that their on-topic critiques of the specific issue at hand are correct. So you cobble up some nonsensical pseudo-Hobbesian straw man claim about "material", put in the mouths of people who never came close to saying any such thing, and then beat up your own straw man and declare victory.)

Please, please stop now.

No one has actually claimed this

in so many words

but on this blog-site as well as many others, materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

There are three excellent books related to this topic, written by contemporary scientists who are also deeply religious. Intelligent design need not mean creationism; evolution need not mean lack of intelligence.

"The Language of God," by Francis S. Collins (Free Press/Simon & Schuster 2006). Dr Collins was head-Human Genome Project. He believes that faith in God and science can co-exist and be harmonious.

"Let There be Light," by Howard Smith (New World Library 2006). Dr. Smith is a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. He explains how modern study of the cosmos complements the Kabbalah.

"Intelligence in Nature," by Jeremy Narby (Jeremy P. Thatcher/Penguin 2005). Dr. Narby has a doctorate in anthropology. He makes a reasoned connection between shamanistic beliefs and modern science.

Dale Husband and Dave Luckett -

I usually enjoy your comments but have a few things to add.

Unlike Dave Luckett, I actually agree with the subjective values of UU, including worth and dignity of human life (unearned) and so on. These are subjective values.

Having said that, anti-Catholic bigotry is very real and very obnoxious.

Anti-Catholic bigotry does not consist of valid critiques of the philosophy and theology of Catholicism, nor of accurate historical depictions of the actions of Catholics, including the worst actions, both of which are to be encouraged in a free society.

Rather, it consists of statements or beliefs that support unjustified bad treatment of individuals who follow Catholic traditions, or which misrepresent or distort Catholic theology and philosophy in a way designed to create a negative view of such individuals.

Dale Husband's oversimplifications about the Catholic attitude toward the Bible were pretty mild. However, anti-Catholic bigotry is at odds with the very UU values that he seeks to promulgate.

For full disclosure, I am not Catholic - not even close to being Catholic.

0112358 said: Science is limited to the space-time continuum. It is not possible for science to explore beyond that continuum. In a sense science was born with the Big-Bang. By postulating a Big-Bang as the origin of matter does not even come close to addressing the question of first cause. There is no way science can know anything about reality prior to the Big-Bang if matter and time truly came into existence at that moment.

weird troll: No one has actually claimed this in so many words but on this blog-site as well as many others, materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

weird troll: There is no way science can know anything about reality prior to the Big-Bang if matter and time truly came into existence at that moment.

0112358 said: ... materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

amazon.com reviews: Stenger shows that no violation of the great conservation laws of physics, (e.g., the first and second laws of thermodynamics) necessarily occurred during the big bang and in the emergence of life: Current physics allows a zero-energy symmetric void to produce a non-empty universe with a total net energy of zero, thereby fulfilling energy conservation. An expanding universe allows local pockets of order to spontaneously form as the total allowable entropy of the universe increases. Current physical cosmological theories imply that our universe may be but a small bubble of an eternally inflating "multiverse" comprised of a potentially infinite number of universes characterized by different physical constants, thus providing a naturalistic explanation for the apparent "bio-friendly" conditions of our universe. Thus, Stenger argues, the universe is not tuned to us, but rather we are tuned to the universe. He also indicates how the great conservation laws of physics are simply consequences of the space and time symmetries of the void.

heddle said: SWT,

Sorry, no. While science is supposed to be agnostic with respect to the beliefs of the investigators, this is a matter of ethics. It is this simple: you are reporting as factual something that you believe is not true.

Where is that in the scientific method? In fact, I think you are dead wrong. If I perform an experiment that shows rocks are 4 billion years old but I think they are really 6000, I am obligated to report the results and, in the paper, keep my mouth shut about what I "believe" given that there is no science to support it. We teach this in lab all the time: report your results, not what you think the results should be. [Illustrations removed for brevity]

If you’ve followed the scientific method, but don’t believe your own results, you are being dishonest unless your report also includes those doubts about the results and the basis for those doubts.

Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark.

— Todd Wood

harold said: I notice that Wood does not seem to deny evolution, but merely abiogenesis

0112358 said: There is no way science can know anything about reality prior to the Big-Bang if matter and time truly came into existence at that moment.

Mike Elzinga said: It’s like saying, “I already know that 2 plus 5 equals seven; I don’t need to study no stinkin’ mathematics!”

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: It’s like saying, “I already know that 2 plus 5 equals seven; I don’t need to study no stinkin’ mathematics!”

No, it's more like saying "I already believe strongly that 2 plus 5 equals 10, so there is no need for me to listen to the mathematicians, it will not affect my faith." That alone would be sad enough, were it not for the tendency of creationists to go into the schools and try to prevent mathematicians teaching the kids real math on the grounds that mathematics refuses to fudge on the fact that 2 plus 5 actually equals 7.

I have to protest when people claim or imply that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is profound. As far as I'm concerned, it is simply a compound question that assumes facts not in evidence and is thus an instance of a well known fallacy. Rather than signaling something profound, the interrogative "why" introduces a question that only makes sense if you are asking about the actions of a human being or perhaps an animal, at all events something that can reasonably be assumed to have a purpose. Asking the universe for its purpose assumes that it is the sort of thing that can have a purpose. You might as well ask a proton why it stopped beating its wife.

Jose -

Yes, thanks, it has been pointed out to me twice that Wood actually is an outright evolution denier.

Heddle -

We are in agreement on the subject of grad school admissions. I am not always right, but I am willing to admit it when I have been wrong.

Although I agree that my previous comments do not amount to an argument against U Va grad school admissions policy, I would like to note that they do serve as a decent commentary on the ethics of those who exploit the system.

As a reply to heddle, SWT, etc.:

What seems to me what should be the biggest issue is this:

How can a supposedly devout Christian who doesn't believe what they are doing report it honestly?

If they are truly believers in the literal truth of Genesis, how can they (Woods and Wells, for example) do actual research and report it as fact? Isn't that a form of lying? They may in fact (from our point of view) be doing good science, but from their point of view, they are sinning.

The other issue is that when we see a creationist publishing work that they effectively deny, what kind of reliability can we place on it? After all, by publishing this work, they have admitted that they are willing to lie.

John_S said:

0112358 said: ... materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

I'm not sure I know what a "materialistic leap of faith" is.

All. Thanks for the discussion. It's been an education.

0112358 said:

John_S said:

0112358 said: ... materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

I'm not sure I know what a "materialistic leap of faith" is.

A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer. It is the hope that science will eventually give us answers to those scientifically unanswerable questions such as ultimate first causes. It is the attitude that, since science can only address questions about the material world, the material world is the only world that exists.

0112358 said:

John_S said:

0112358 said: ... materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

I'm not sure I know what a "materialistic leap of faith" is.

A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer. It is the hope that science will eventually give us answers to those scientifically unanswerable questions such as ultimate first causes. It is the attitude that, since science can only address questions about the material world, the material world is the only world that exists.

0112358 said: All. Thanks for the discussion. It's been an education.

Stanton, there's no denying that strong materialism, the belief that all things that exist are material, and strong philosophical naturalism, the belief that natural causes are all the causes there are, does inform some discourse here, generally. Perhaps you have no position on it, or take an opposing view. I have no position, myself, but there are certainly others who have.

But you're quite right that for the purposes of this discussion, the question is irrelevant. We are all agreed, I think, that science can, should and must investigate and explain natural phenomema - like, for example, living things - with the understanding that the cause is material and natural, and that to assume or to posit a supernatural or inexplicable cause is to stop that process cold.

The same applies to taking the position that There Are Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. (Which, might I remark, in an irrelevant aside, is just as theologically unsound as it is scientifically abhorrent.)

A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer

It is the hope that science will eventually give us answers to those scientifically unanswerable questions such as ultimate first causes

It is the attitude that, since science can only address questions about the material world, the material world is the only world that exists

John_S said: I'm not sure I know what a "materialistic leap of faith" is.

We are all agreed, I think, that science can, should and must investigate and explain natural phenomema - like, for example, living things - with the understanding that the cause is material and natural, and that to assume or to posit a supernatural or inexplicable cause is to stop that process cold.

— Dave Luckett

GvlGeologist, FCD said: As a reply to heddle, SWT, etc.: What seems to me what should be the biggest issue is this: How can a supposedly devout Christian who doesn't believe what they are doing report it honestly? If they are truly believers in the literal truth of Genesis, how can they (Woods and Wells, for example) do actual research and report it as fact? Isn't that a form of lying? They may in fact (from our point of view) be doing good science, but from their point of view, they are sinning. The other issue is that when we see a creationist publishing work that they effectively deny, what kind of reliability can we place on it? After all, by publishing this work, they have admitted that they are willing to lie.

0112358 said: A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer.

A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer.

It is the hope that science will eventually give us answers to those scientifically unanswerable questions such as ultimate first causes.

It is the attitude that, since science can only address questions about the material world, the material world is the only world that exists.

harold, if the words "about the physical Universe" were inserted after the word "questions" in the definition you quote, would not the point stand?

I believe it would. It appears to me that it is a leap of faith to believe that all (non-normative) questions about the physical Universe must have a naturalistic answer. I think that this is what 0112358 might have meant. I agree that his/her language was imprecise, but I have been guilty of worse, myself.

It's a leap of faith I'm perfectly happy to make, but all the same, I cannot put my hand on my heart and aver that it must be so. I can only say that science can't look for any other sort of answer, and note that looking for naturalistic answers has proven inordinately powerful and fruitful.

It appears to me that it is a leap of faith to believe that all (non-normative) questions about the physical Universe must have a naturalistic answer.

Dave Luckett - That doesn't sound at all like a leap of faith to me. It sounds like a tentative conclusion based upon evidence and the application of logical principles thereto. Give yourself some credit.

I define myself as (among many other things) a materialist. I'm quite happy to declare that there are no supernatural influences at work in the universe, which operates according to fixed, impersonal physical laws, which are, at least in theory, discoverable via the scientific process.

This is not a faith position. It is a reasonable conclusion based upon the incontrovertible fact that supernatural explanations have failed entirely to provide useful answers about the operation of the universe, while materialist explanations have proven extraordinarily fruitful. After a few thousand years of testing, no leap of faith is necessary to come to my conclusion - no more than it is to decide microorganisms and not evil spirits cause the flu.

Like any honest, evidence-based conclusion, it's open to revision by new evidence -although human history gives little hope such evidence will be forthcoming. Not to mention that it's difficult to think of a conclusive test of supernatural explanations that would be really adequate to "prove" them.

The gentleman or lady above with the scintillating and memorable screenname would appear to define all conclusions about and descriptions of the universe as leaps of faith. That's the only way I can make sense of assertions that my materialism is a religious position roughly equivalent to creationism.

MPW said: Dave Luckett - That doesn't sound at all like a leap of faith to me. It sounds like a tentative conclusion based upon evidence and the application of logical principles thereto. Give yourself some credit.

Dave Luckett said: Stanton, there's no denying that strong materialism, the belief that all things that exist are material, and strong philosophical naturalism, the belief that natural causes are all the causes there are, does inform some discourse here, generally. Perhaps you have no position on it, or take an opposing view. I have no position, myself, but there are certainly others who have.

But you're quite right that for the purposes of this discussion, the question is irrelevant. We are all agreed, I think, that science can, should and must investigate and explain natural phenomema - like, for example, living things - with the understanding that the cause is material and natural, and that to assume or to posit a supernatural or inexplicable cause is to stop that process cold.

The same applies to taking the position that There Are Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. (Which, might I remark, in an irrelevant aside, is just as theologically unsound as it is scientifically abhorrent.)

0112358 said: No one has actually claimed this in so many words but on this blog-site as well as many others, materialistic leaps of faith are not criticized while supernatural leaps of faith are (as demonstrated in this thread on Wood).

Dave Luckett said: It's a leap of faith I'm perfectly happy to make, but all the same, I cannot put my hand on my heart and aver that it must be so. I can only say that science can't look for any other sort of answer, and note that looking for naturalistic answers has proven inordinately powerful and fruitful.

Sorry, that one sentence should read "It’s neither dogmatic nor unreasonable to reach a tentative conclusion based on the current state of our knowledge."

I always thought "Iron Man" would make a great polka, if you speed it up enough. I may even try that myself at some point.

As so often happens...

A troll makes up a ridiculous straw man version of "materialism" or some such thing.

The troll has correctly predicted that others will misread what he, the troll has written, and begin defending their own rational views. Due to common biases, others will assume that the word "materialism" is being used in the way they use it. Even though the troll just told you that he has redefined it.

In the process, they validate the troll-created straw man. Instead of saying "your definition of materialism is invalid", they say "Oh, how wonderful it is to be a materialist, how proud I am...". Potentially creating the false impression that the trollish straw man is accurate.

Here's an analogy of what happens -

Troll: "Norwegian patriots make the leap of faith that Norway is the only thing in the universe, and that other nations, planets, etc, don't exist".

Responder: "I'm a proud Norwegian patriot because Norway exists, I can measure Norway, Norway is a just society, blah blah blah Norwegian patriotism is a rational position blah blah blah".

All of which is surely valid, but does not address the fact that the troll has used the term "Norwegian patriot" as a label for an irrational straw man of his own creations. Norwegian patriotism defined as the belief that Norway is the only thing that exists in the universe is not rational. Of course, only a straw man constructing troll would define it that way, but in this case, that is what he did. By misreading and jumping in to defend your version of Norwegian patriotism, you only validate the straw man.

To me it makes far more sense to call the straw man out for what it is.

Denying science is not a "spiritual leap of faith", it is denying science. Wood was justifiably strongly critiqued for denying science; I don't even know whether Wood is sincerely religious and never will, but I know he denies science. Accepting science as a way to study the physical world is not a "materialist leap of faith". Science is grounded in assumptions, like any other system of thought, but the assumptions are natural ones that most people make, including most religious people.

There is not one person posting here who believes that "all questions have a naturalistic answer". Even if you claim you believe this, you do not. Of course, this is partly a semantic trick - what is "naturalistic"? - but even so, it is easy to find questions that don't have a naturalistic answer, by any reasonable definition.

I don't understand why everyone insists on pretending that a troll said something other than what he said.

0112358 said: A materialistic leap of faith is the strong hope or faith that all questions must have a naturalistic answer.

0112358 said: It is the attitude that, since science can only address questions about the material world, the material world is the only world that exists.

0112358 said: All. Thanks for the discussion. It's been an education.

eric said:

MPW said: Dave Luckett - That doesn't sound at all like a leap of faith to me. It sounds like a tentative conclusion based upon evidence and the application of logical principles thereto. Give yourself some credit.

I agree, and with SWT. It's not a "leap of faith" to bet on the favorite horse in the race (i.e. that there will be discovered a natural explanation for some phenomena). Particularly not when that horse has won every race completed to date, and 11's alternative horse has yet to finish a single race. Frankly in that situation, it would be a leap of faith to bet on any other horse.

That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life (and why I’ll probably never finish reading Meyer’s book). I already know where life came from. I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark.

That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life unless it has a naturalistic explanation. I already know where life came from. I open the book of science and science tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a supernatural scenario seems like a waste of time to me.

0112358 said: So if we look at the topic of this thread. Wood is quoted as saying:

That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life (and why I’ll probably never finish reading Meyer’s book). I already know where life came from. I open the book of Genesis, and the Bible tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a naturalistic scenario seems like a waste of time to me. Just like it would seem like a waste of time to an atheist to study the logistics of Noah’s Ark.

My question would be, how is Wood's attitude any different than the commenters sited above? To me they seem to saying about the same thing:

My question would be, how is Wood’s attitude any different than the commenters sited above? To me they seem to saying about the same thing: "That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life unless it has a naturalistic explanation. I already know where life came from. I open the book of science and science tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a supernatural scenario seems like a waste of time to me."

From Wood, at least, I do not believe anyone has anything to fear regarding the destruction of science as we know it.

since science can only address questions about the material world,

weird troll: My question would be, how is Wood’s attitude any different than the commenters sited above? To me they seem to saying about the same thing:

Numeralperson: For others who are open to the possibility of a non-material world in addition to a material world there may be other ways of knowing. This isn’t necessarily a “science stopper” although, as has been pointed out, it can be.

0112358 said: Here are three examples of what I, perhaps not so eloquently, am trying to get at. Eric agrees with MPW and SWT. Unless I am misreading them they all appear to believe that since science can only deal with questions about the material world naturalistic answers are the only rational ones. This is an illogical conclusion to reach and is as faith based as positing God when we are talking about ultimate first causes which is to what I had referred.

0112358 said: Wood may have no interest in personally studying naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life because he believe that ultimately God created it.

0112358 said: My question would be, how is Wood's attitude any different than the commenters sited [sic] above? To me they seem to saying about the same thing:

That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life unless it has a naturalistic explanation. I already know where life came from. I open the book of science and science tells me exactly where life came from. Speculating on how it might have happened in a supernatural scenario seems like a waste of time to me.

Henry J said:

since science can only address questions about the material world,

Is dark energy regarded as a material? Henry J

Henry J said:

since science can only address questions about the material world,

Is dark energy regarded as a material? Henry J

0112358 said: Here are three examples of what I, perhaps not so eloquently, am trying to get at. Eric agrees with MPW and SWT. Unless I am misreading them they all appear to believe that since science can only deal with questions about the material world naturalistic answers are the only rational ones.

Fibonacci,

What are the different ways of knowing?

How do you decide which is best?

Rob

eddie said: Dale, your post doesn't really make much sense. What wrong time frame? You claimed that the Middle Ages (5th-14th centuries) saw the suppression of vernacular Bibles. Which vernacular Bible I described fell outside of this time frame? The East-West split is almost irrelevant in this discussion here. In any case, Pope Hadrian II appointed Methodius as archbishop of Moravia. And personally endorsed the Slavonic liturgy. As for whether or not I can read Old English, I fail to see your point. (As it happens, my Middle English is much better.) Do you expect Medieval monks to translate into 21st century English? Surely they would have been better off translating into a language that people understood. And your claim that people like Bede and Caedmon were 'operating under the radar', that is either very funny or very sad, depending on your point of view. You might want to look at the 1408 Council of Oxford, which did rule that all vernacular translations needed church approval. This, of course, means that the vernacular would be permitted, just regulated. It seems that every creationist who posts here is commanded to go and read some literature on the subject before making even the smallest pronouncement. You might start with looking up a definition of 'Middle Ages'.

I set my quibbles about the limits of scientific enquiry aside in the case of Wood. I read the blog post where Wood states his YECism in explicit and undeniable detail. I have rarely read so overwhelming an averral of catastrophic cognitive dissonance. You'd have to be crazy to know about the evidence that Wood actually knows about, and still believe that. I must confess that I got a cold shiver down my spine reading it - and it's 100 degrees outside.

It's one thing to believe that the material is not all there is or may be; it's quite another to assert that the Earth and the Universe is 6000 years old, that people lived for 900 years, that there was a worldwide flood, that death and meat eating did not happen until after original sin, and so on and on into insane realms of nonsense and demented babble.

Woods is a raving loony.

HH, without in any way retreating from that, I would stubbornly hold that the conclusion, "there is nothing but the material", does not follow from the fact that everything we actually have discovered is material. We use determinedly material methods to investigate the material, and can hardly be surprised if those methods do not reveal the immaterial. Which is not, of course, to say that those methods should not be employed on every front that will yield to them. They most certainly should.

Dale Husband said: I checked your statements and found them to be more accurate than mine. Thank you. Still, the attempt to "regulate" Biblical translations based on theological bias is something that we must not tolerate today. We must uphold freedom of religion and oppose censorship, including criticism of the Bible and Christian dogmas.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

Rob said: Fibonacci, What are the different ways of knowing? How do you decide which is best? Rob

0112358 said: Are you sure I didn't just pull some numbers out of a hat and they ended up in that order?

0112358 said:

Rob said: Fibonacci, What are the different ways of knowing? How do you decide which is best? Rob

If you choose to believe that there exist things that science cannot investigate you open up the possibility that there is a God. If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

As you know, one way of knowing is by scientific investigation. Science is the best way of knowing about the physical world.

If you choose to believe that there exist things that science cannot investigate you open up the possibility that there is a God.

If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

Now, some questions for you: Why do you refer to me as Fibonacci?

Do you know that or are you infering that?

Are you sure I didn’t just pull some numbers out of a hat and they ended up in that order?

0112358 said: Now, some questions for you: Why do you refer to me as Fibonacci? Do you know that or are you infering that? Are you sure I didn't just pull some numbers out of a hat and they ended up in that order?

DARN IT!

1) I accidentally posted with a trial user name to see if the period was acceptable in a user name.

2) I should have asked for some funding from the DI ... this might be the first actual explicit application of the explanatory filter in the real world, and by publishing it here, I've lost the opportunity to put it in to the peer-reviewed literature ... my CV weeps ...

0112358 said: Why do you refer to me as Fibonacci?

stevaroni said: Religion admits to no gap, and tries to get people to simply stop asking pesky questions.

SWt.1 -

Actually, I noticed something. You correctly give the probability

Since usernames can be between 1 and 128 characters long, and since at least three characters are needed to express a Fibonacci sequence in a meaningful way, the probability of choosing such a sequence at random is actually 2 times...

Sum (64^-n)(p(n)), for n = 3 to n = 128, where p(n) is the probability of choosing that particular number of characters for one's username.

Of course, p(n) must be estimated, ideally by looking at the distribution of lengths of usernames already in existence.

Oops, that was meant to be "you correctly give the probability of choosing a 128 digit username that is a Fibonacci sequence by random chance".

I read the blog post where Wood states his YECism in explicit and undeniable detail. I have rarely read so overwhelming an averral of catastrophic cognitive dissonance. You’d have to be crazy to know about the evidence that Wood actually knows about, and still believe that.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. (All bolding original)

Frank J said: Do you have a link to where “Wood states his YECism in explicit and undeniable detail”?

ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS. ALL SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE" FOR EVOLUTIONISM IS REDUCIBLE TO THE TEXTS WRITTEN BY EVOLUTIONISTS. TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

And to illustrate the consequences of Wood's teaching, we have here a ranting Troll...if you stand quietly and don't feed it, and it might crawl back under its rock. Todd Wood provides ample fertilizer for the growth of this sort of ignorance.

yum install Jesus said: ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS. ALL SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE" FOR EVOLUTIONISM IS REDUCIBLE TO THE TEXTS WRITTEN BY EVOLUTIONISTS. TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

I was just noticing "install Jesus". Is this like a virus that shuts down thought by deleting key files, or just a Windows update that crashes your intellect through a software conflict?

yum install Jesus said: ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS. ALL SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE" FOR EVOLUTIONISM IS REDUCIBLE TO THE TEXTS WRITTEN BY EVOLUTIONISTS. TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

yum install Jesus said: ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS.

TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

Nice - a parody of the "post-modern" style of creationism. That's gone out of style in recent years, but was somewhat common pre-Dover.

and besides the evidence for evolution is NOT a text or two - it’s the collections of fossils as well.….

I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago......I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!

yum install Jesus said: ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS.

yum install Jesus said: TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

[root@istrain ~]# yum install jesus
Loaded plugins: dellsysidplugin2, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
No package jesus available.
Nothing to do
[root@istrain ~]#

-DU-

yum install Jesus said: ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS MUST ULTIMATELY COME FROM TEXTS. ALL SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE" FOR EVOLUTIONISM IS REDUCIBLE TO THE TEXTS WRITTEN BY EVOLUTIONISTS. TODD WOOD AND I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE TEXT WRITTEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY!

If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

Dave Lovell said:

0112358 said:

Rob said: Fibonacci, What are the different ways of knowing? How do you decide which is best? Rob

If you choose to believe that there exist things that science cannot investigate you open up the possibility that there is a God. If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

Then how do you decide which god is best?

0112358 said:

Dave Lovell said:

0112358 said:

Rob said: Fibonacci, What are the different ways of knowing? How do you decide which is best? Rob

If you choose to believe that there exist things that science cannot investigate you open up the possibility that there is a God. If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

Then how do you decide which god is best?

Anyone who is convinced that a belief in God is reasonable must search out this answer for himself. I don't mean this in some relativistic sense that whatever works for a person is true for that person. Two opposing points of view can't both be true. It seems to me that if God is the ultimate source of a physical world that can be understood using our reason he must be a reasonable God. We should not have to throw aside our reason when we come to him.

Fibonacci,

How do you know god is a him?

Rob

How do you know god is a him?

I believe the Hebrew uses a set of pronouns that are unique to Almighty God, and which neither assign gender nor imply inanimation, as English pronouns do. Indeed, some of the imagery used by God when speaking through the prophets is decidedly feminine. I'd need to look up references, but at one point God says she is in labour to produce something.

English can sometimes duck the implications of its pronouns by resorting to the impersonal pronoun "one", but that sounds distinctly like the Queen, God bless her, speaking of herself (otherwise she'd have to say "My Majesty", which is considered a little over the top these days). The plural is also now not considered incorrect when the general case is meant. "Each to their own," and so on.

Well, language evolves, you know.

Well evolution is in crisis. Thats why it has to be constantly said its not. Indeed the author of this thread must use a creationist to give it thumbs up as a still working idea. Amazing but revealing.

The books, public discussion, and ample opportunity for everyone to cash in on this contention indicates there is something in the air about evolution failing as a explanation or even as a claim to being a scientific explanation.

In fact this biblical creationist is "worried" that evolution won't be dispatched by my crowd but others with us getting only the bronze or maybe the silver in the kill.

As Charles Darwin said evolution is not worth a look unless geological presumptions are first accepted. So evolution is only a biological hypothesis based on another field of study's conclusions.
Evolution was never a true hypothesis of biology. This allowed it to avoid serious scrunity but is today the problem of why it doesn't persuade those who need substantial evidence for substantial claims.

When will these IDiots realize that there is nothing wrong with evolution. Like the OP said, evolution is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation and it has gobs and gobs of evidence for it.

I think it is better to say ID, philosophical materialism and philisophical naturalism are teetering on the verge of collapse. All of them have failed to give a satisfactory explanation of reality without being utterly devoid of evidence, horribly incoherent or utterly self-refuting and illogical. I think we can all rise up against these three follies.

Long live Darwin and Aristotle.

When will these IDiots realize that there is nothing wrong with evolution.

— Ari

Henry J said:

If there is a God it is possible that he has spoken and we can know based on what he has spoken.

Even if that is possible, how do we decide who gets to decide what it was that God said when She spoke? Henry J

And, oh, good, Byers says evolution is in crisis, so it must be in rude health, since Byers is our little Bizarro man.

Dave Luckett said: I believe the Hebrew uses a set of pronouns that are unique to Almighty God, and which neither assign gender nor imply inanimation, as English pronouns do. Indeed, some of the imagery used by God when speaking through the prophets is decidedly feminine. I'd need to look up references, but at one point God says she is in labour to produce something.

And, oh, good, Byers says evolution is in crisis...

— Dave Luckett

Robert Byers said: Well evolution is in crisis.

Byers wrote:

"Evolution is in crisis."

Only a really desperate person would claim that since evolution explains evidence from many different fields of science that it is "in crisis". Byers must be the one in crisis.

Thousands of papers are published every year in peer reviewed journals containing evidence consistent with evolutionary theory. The field continues to grow and expand and new subfields and applications are discovered every year. I guess evolution must really be in crisis if it continues to explain evidence in more and more fields of science!

After one hundred and fifty years and millions of dollars spent, there is still not one shred of evidence for creationism. Now there is an idea with no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever. It has been shown time and time again to be a science stopper. I guess it will never be "in crisis", at least using the Byers criteria.

Byers babbled: Well evolution is in crisis.

Robert Byers said: Well evolution is in crisis.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Well evolution is in crisis.

Anyone know when Byers started posting here? I swear he's been saying 'evolution is in crisis' on PT for over a year now.

Hey Robert - has it been in crises for the entire 150 years, or did it just now come into crises (in which case all those creationists from the '70s and '80s were wrong about it being in crises then?)

DS said: After one hundred and fifty years and millions of dollars spent, there is still not one shred of evidence for creationism.

It seems to me that if God is the ultimate source of a physical world that can be understood using our reason he must be a reasonable God.

We should not have to throw aside our reason when we come to him.

Robert Byers said: Well evolution is in crisis. Thats why it has to be constantly said its not. (snip) Evolution was never a true hypothesis of biology. This allowed it to avoid serious scrunity but is today the problem of why it doesn't persuade those who need substantial evidence for substantial claims.

harold said: 0112358

It seems to me that if God is the ultimate source of a physical world that can be understood using our reason he must be a reasonable God.

This can be seen as begging the question, or simply as a non sequitur. Why should a god always be "reasonable", simply because he created one thing that can be understood using reason?

stevaroni said:

harold said: 0112358

It seems to me that if God is the ultimate source of a physical world that can be understood using our reason he must be a reasonable God.

This can be seen as begging the question, or simply as a non sequitur. Why should a god always be "reasonable", simply because he created one thing that can be understood using reason?

Before we can discuss if God is "reasonable", I think it might be nice of 011 to provide some evidence that God is.

stevaroin wrote:

"As if that’s not enough, we’re in March already, and by my count there have only been about 30 good papers released this whole year!
"

Actually, the journal Evolution alone has published about 45 papers so far this year. Now, as to whether all of them are "good" or not, I'll leave it to you to decide.

Then again, that doesn't include the dozens of other journals that regularly publish papers on evolution, such as Nature, Science, Cell, Genetics, etc. And of course there are all the other evolution journals, such as Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Systematics, etc. There are probably more that thirty evolution journals that have each had one or two issues already this year.

Man, what a crisis!

Robert Byers said: Well evolution is in crisis. Thats why it has to be constantly said its not. Indeed the author of this thread must use a creationist to give it thumbs up as a still working idea. Amazing but revealing. The books, public discussion, and ample opportunity for everyone to cash in on this contention indicates there is something in the air about evolution failing as a explanation or even as a claim to being a scientific explanation. In fact this biblical creationist is "worried" that evolution won't be dispatched by my crowd but others with us getting only the bronze or maybe the silver in the kill. As Charles Darwin said evolution is not worth a look unless geological presumptions are first accepted. So evolution is only a biological hypothesis based on another field of study's conclusions. Evolution was never a true hypothesis of biology. This allowed it to avoid serious scrunity but is today the problem of why it doesn't persuade those who need substantial evidence for substantial claims.

To be not snarky for once, the whole point of faith is believing without evidence, isn’t it (viz. the babelfish)?

— fnxtr

Dave Luckett said: English can sometimes duck the implications of its pronouns by resorting to the impersonal pronoun "one", but that sounds distinctly like the Queen, God bless her, speaking of herself (otherwise she'd have to say "My Majesty", which is considered a little over the top these days). The plural is also now not considered incorrect when the general case is meant. "Each to their own," and so on. Well, language evolves, you know.

Dave Luckett | February 27, 2010 4:09 AM | Reply | Edit Dale, I believe that your reason for the Catholic Church discouraging translation is a little uncharitable. They thought the Scriptures were authoritative (though not infallible in matters of factual detail, as St Augustine made clear) but they always insisted that this was only the case if they were interpreted by the Church speaking with one voice, present and past, scholar and saint, Pontiff, Cardinals and people

I wonder, has any reasonable person ever referred to a scientific theory as being "in crisis"?

If a scientist discovers something wrong about a theory, he/she describes the data that's inconsistent with it, and if the complaint turns out correct, that puts a limit on the scope of the theory, and reduces the confidence level in its use outside of its proven scope. (Sort of like the way Newtonian mechanics is still used within the scope in which it is a reasonable approximation, but can't be used outside that scope.)

Henry J

Dave Luckett said: The plural is also now not considered incorrect when the general case is meant. "Each to their own," and so on. Well, language evolves, you know.

Henry J said: I wonder, has any reasonable person ever referred to a scientific theory as being "in crisis"? If a scientist discovers something wrong about a theory, he/she describes the data that's inconsistent with it, and if the complaint turns out correct, that puts a limit on the scope of the theory, and reduces the confidence level in its use outside of its proven scope. (Sort of like the way Newtonian mechanics is still used within the scope in which it is a reasonable approximation, but can't be used outside that scope.) Henry J

When pressed, ideologues change the subject, taunt, get snarky, and insult everyone’s intelligence. But they themselves never, never, never, ever learn the science.

— Mike Elzinga

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: I wonder, has any reasonable person ever referred to a scientific theory as being "in crisis"? If a scientist discovers something wrong about a theory, he/she describes the data that's inconsistent with it, and if the complaint turns out correct, that puts a limit on the scope of the theory, and reduces the confidence level in its use outside of its proven scope. (Sort of like the way Newtonian mechanics is still used within the scope in which it is a reasonable approximation, but can't be used outside that scope.) Henry J

Indeed; there have been a number of examples in physics. Much of the early theoretical work on quantum electrodynamics produced infinities in the calculations of self-energy. Many theorists (e.g., Dirac) referred to this as a “crisis.” But the main difference between informed critiques of science and ideological critiques that use these words is that the ideologues never know any science. When pressed, ideologues change the subject, taunt, get snarky, and insult everyone’s intelligence. But they themselves never, never, never, ever learn the science.

Frank J said: Might there be a tiny chance that some of them do learn the science - for the sole purpose of becoming better at changing the subject, taunting, getting snarky, and insulting everyone’s intelligence? If they did learn the science, how would we ever know? They could never demonstrate what they have learned, because that would undermine their propaganda.

Interestingly enough, if there ever was a "theory" in "crisis", that theory is Christianity, and it has been such for nearly two millennia. There is an unending string of disputes ("concision", Nicolaitans, Gnostics, Arians, monophysites, monothelites, ... Romanists, Cathari, Albigensians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, anabaptists, baptists, quietists, Old Believers, Old (and New) Calendrists, Seventh-day Anti-Trinitarian Pentecostals [...].

To the extent that any of these disputes have been resolved, the resolution nearly always came from the deaths (whether quiet and natural, or assisted by holders of the "correct" opinion) of those who propounded one set of the particular views at issue.

While it is often difficult to find members of a single congregation who agree with each other in all respects, the disputes amongst biologists normally amount to something with much less contextual significance than the controversy over "homoousion" and "homoiousion" (the famous "iota of difference" -- still a source of argument after over 1600 years in a couple of places on Earth).

Find another shibboleth, Mr Byers.

David Utidjian said: I was thinking of the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, in physics of course. -DU-

You said that Newton was a peculiar sort of Christian. Can you (or someone here) explain that for me please?

Bradley B. said: You said that Newton was a peculiar sort of Christian. Can you (or someone here) explain that for me please?

Bradley B. said: You said that Newton was a peculiar sort of Christian. Can you (or someone here) explain that for me please?

D. P. Robin said:

Bradley B. said: You said that Newton was a peculiar sort of Christian. Can you (or someone here) explain that for me please?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html has it down pretty well. Also, he refused to take communion directly before death. dpr

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s I was one of those who made the mistake of giving these ideologues the benefit of the doubt. It was only after I and others witnessed these characters turning right around and reusing their refuted misconceptions and misrepresentations in every new venue that we finally caught on.

— Mike Elzinga

Shebardigan said: Interestingly enough, if there ever was a "theory" in "crisis", that theory is Christianity, and it has been such for nearly two millennia. There is an unending string of disputes ("concision", Nicolaitans, Gnostics, Arians, monophysites, monothelites, ... Romanists, Cathari, Albigensians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, anabaptists, baptists, quietists, Old Believers, Old (and New) Calendrists, Seventh-day Anti-Trinitarian Pentecostals [...]. To the extent that any of these disputes have been resolved, the resolution nearly always came from the deaths (whether quiet and natural, or assisted by holders of the "correct" opinion) of those who propounded one set of the particular views at issue. While it is often difficult to find members of a single congregation who agree with each other in all respects, the disputes amongst biologists normally amount to something with much less contextual significance than the controversy over "homoousion" and "homoiousion" (the famous "iota of difference" -- still a source of argument after over 1600 years in a couple of places on Earth). Find another shibboleth, Mr Byers.

I'm listening to one of "The Great Courses" CDs, learning about early Christianity. I learned of an interesting hypothesis recently explaining (in part) why biblical literalists must always deny evolution, and most other forms of science. (That wasn't the goal of the reasoning, but the reasoning makes some sense of the evolution-denier.) It is a fundamental requirement of the religion, as they see it. Let's see if I can explain.

Working backwards, the foundation of Christianity is a belief that Christ rose from dead. God had to raise Christ from the dead because he had died. But if Christ was the anointed one, the "Christos", why did he die? God must have had a reason. Remember, Christ and his apostles were apocalyptic Jews. They believed that the End Times would occur in their life time, when God raises all of the dead for final judgement. The raising of Christ was thought to be the first sign of those end times, the first of all those who would be raised. Looking at Hebrew scriptures, they found it prophesied that one without sin would die for the sins of others. Christ was without sin, so that must be God's plan. But what "sin" would have Christ died for? It must have been the original sin of Adam and Eve.

So, if (according to Evolution) Adam and Eve didn't exist, then by definition there could have been no Original Sin. If there was no Original Sin, then Christ could not have died for our sins. If Christ did not die for our sins, then his death was meaningless, and this wasn't God's plan after all. No Plan; a meaningless death; no resurrection. What do you have left? Judaism. And we all know how icky that is.

Ergo, Evolution strikes at the very foundation of Christian belief. It isn't merely a matter of a literal reading of Genesis, though that's part of it.

At least, it makes some kind of sense. Perhaps.

harold said: 0112358

It seems to me that if God is the ultimate source of a physical world that can be understood using our reason he must be a reasonable God.

This can be seen as begging the question, or simply as a non sequitur. Why should a god always be "reasonable", simply because he created one thing that can be understood using reason?

Ergo, Evolution strikes at the very foundation of Christian belief. It isn’t merely a matter of a literal reading of Genesis, though that’s part of it.

Frank J said: But wouldn't they do the same exact thing if they did understand the science? Make no mistake, my giving them the "benefit of the doubt" that they might understand more than they let on is no compliment. In fact it's a much more serious accusation than accusing them of being either unwilling or unable to learn. The only clue I can think of would suggest that they honestly misinderstood something (as opposed to deliberately misrepresnting it) is when they quietly abandon specific arguments after the refutation is pounded into them. Rank and file creationists tend to do that often, but not the activists.

Further to Raven's comment about metaphor or analogy.

Ask yourself, what difference would be made to the theology if the story of Adam and Eve were taken as metaphorical?

Would it not still be the case that human beings are alone among animals in having a highly developed ethical sense, the "knowledge of good and evil", which descends from two general human characteristics, namely, the understanding of consequence and the ability to empathise? Isn't it true that all human beings fail to act ethically or altruistically in all cases? Is this not essential to the human condition: that all humans have a knowing choice, and all humans choose evil sometimes?

But that's all that is required for the idea of Original Sin to be valid. The fact of knowledge, and the real freedom to make a choice, which necessarily entails the choice of evil, is enough. It doesn't matter if we call our first ancestors to acquire those things "Adam and Eve" or "H habilis" (or whatever). Some human ancestor acquired it, just as a (possibly more distant) human ancestor acquired bipedality. To my mind, no violence is done to a scientific understanding of human origins by such a belief.

From this, if (I say IF) you accept the rest of Christian theology, you accept that there is a general human condition for which a general vicarious atonement may be made, and the rest follows.

Hence, to fully accept Christian theology it is not necessary to take the story of Adam and Eve as literal. The story may be metaphorical or allegory or analogy, and the point still stands.

Honestly, I don't think most religiously motivated anti evos even think far enough back to original sin to analyze evolution. I mean AIG spells it out, I'm too lazy to find a specific reference but this shouldn't be too hard for anyone that dares to venture onto AIG's website.

They basically explain that the bible says that there was no evolution (or more to the point it doesn't mention evolution, so therefore by their twisted logic there was no evolution) and also it says that everything it says is true. And if one thing is found to not be accurate then the accuracy of the whole thing is in question, and the true believers can never even consider that option so they must always reflexively deny that the contradictory information is true.

Sure, it's true that a lot of the findings of science contradict the bible. But evolution has become the popular point to focus on. Purported biblical literalists are able to rationalize away things like the statements in the bible that the sky is separated from the heavens by a crystal barrier that has windows in it through which rain falls. But their creation myth is something that they're not prepared to compromise on, it's the thing that explains how we're all so special because we were supposed to be god's chosen pet. If we evolved then he didn't create us out of whole cloth and they lose their special feeling. I don't think it's the part about all of humanity being cursed for all time as a result of the actions of the first pair of humans that they're attached to, it's the part about god making those first two humans. Evolution threatens that, and that's what they're not willing to give it up.

You can see this in the ways they complain about evolution. They'll protest that under evolution we're "just animals", that that somehow would diminish what we are. I saw someone on youtube protest that through evolution scientists are attempting to diminish our "prominence". I've never seen anyone protest that if evolution is true then there was no original sin.

Curiously I can remember going through this as a child. Not from religious indoctrination, just as a result of the way I had structured my understanding of the world. I had humans defined as not being animals, we were people. We were something else. I can remember my mother telling me that humans are animals too and the way this seemed so wrong to me at the time. I think to my world view at the time there was animal, vegetable, and human.

Needless to say I was quite discombobulated when I was first introduced to the concept of viruses. I really didn't have a category ready for them.

Scott said: I'm listening to one of "The Great Courses" CDs, learning about early Christianity. I learned of an interesting hypothesis recently explaining (in part) why biblical literalists must always deny evolution, and most other forms of science. (That wasn't the goal of the reasoning, but the reasoning makes some sense of the evolution-denier.) It is a fundamental requirement of the religion, as they see it. Let's see if I can explain. Working backwards, the foundation of Christianity is a belief that Christ rose from dead. God had to raise Christ from the dead because he had died. But if Christ was the anointed one, the "Christos", why did he die? God must have had a reason. Remember, Christ and his apostles were apocalyptic Jews. They believed that the End Times would occur in their life time, when God raises all of the dead for final judgement. The raising of Christ was thought to be the first sign of those end times, the first of all those who would be raised. Looking at Hebrew scriptures, they found it prophesied that one without sin would die for the sins of others. Christ was without sin, so that must be God's plan. But what "sin" would have Christ died for? It must have been the original sin of Adam and Eve.

So, if (according to Evolution) Adam and Eve didn't exist, then by definition there could have been no Original Sin.

If there was no Original Sin, then Christ could not have died for our sins. If Christ did not die for our sins, then his death was meaningless, and this wasn't God's plan after all. No Plan; a meaningless death; no resurrection.

What do you have left? Judaism. And we all know how icky that is.

Ergo, Evolution strikes at the very foundation of Christian belief. It isn't merely a matter of a literal reading of Genesis, though that's part of it. At least, it makes some kind of sense. Perhaps.

But their creation myth is something that they’re not prepared to compromise on, it’s the thing that explains how we’re all so special because we were supposed to be god’s chosen pet. If we evolved then he didn’t create us out of whole cloth and they lose their special feeling.

Stanton said: So please explain why there is still death and sin running rampant around the world even though Jesus died (temporarily) for our sins?

And if one thing is found to not be accurate then the accuracy of the whole thing is in question, and the true believers can never even consider that option so they must always reflexively deny that the contradictory information is true.

(2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

Stanton said: On the one hand, you're neglecting the fact that Christianity teaches that all humans are inherently sinful by their very nature, even without compounding their sins with the sin of Adam and Eve.

Frank J said:

To be not snarky for once, the whole point of faith is believing without evidence, isn’t it (viz. the babelfish)?

— fnxtr

Exactly. I think the whole purpose of "scientific" creationism and it's "scientific" ID love child is to frantically salvage those (including the promoters themselves in many cases) whose faith is not strong enough, and requires "evidences."

Exactly. That’s the purpose of the entire effort to discredit the theory of evolution: To rescue faith.

— Rolf Aalberg

Scott said: Ergo, Evolution strikes at the very foundation of Christian belief. It isn't merely a matter of a literal reading of Genesis, though that's part of it. At least, it makes some kind of sense. Perhaps.

...no literal “fall” means no reason for atonement and redemption, and the whole industry falls in a heap.

— Shebardigan

Frank J said:

...no literal “fall” means no reason for atonement and redemption, and the whole industry falls in a heap.

— Shebardigan

I don't go into that topic much, but since you have background in theology, and no apparent "agenda,"

I'm curious of your opinion on this: AIUI, many Judeo-Christians are comfortable with the "fall" being strictly about souls. The reasoning being that, once our ancestors acquired knowledge of good and evil, that was the "turning point," and it really didn't matter where the molecules that made up their bodies at the beginning of their lives came from. Even some anti-evolution activists like Michael Behe appear to think that way. I realize that many others can't bear to think that the molecules had anything but a unique origin along with the souls, but I also think that 90+% of the people simply have never thought it through.

Frank J said: AIUI, many Judeo-Christians are comfortable with the "fall" being strictly about souls.

Frank J said: The reasoning being that, once our ancestors acquired knowledge of good and evil, that was the "turning point," and it really didn't matter where the molecules that made up their bodies at the beginning of their lives came from. Even some anti-evolution activists like Michael Behe appear to think that way.

D. P. Robin said:

D. P. Robin said:

Bradley B. said: You said that Newton was a peculiar sort of Christian. Can you (or someone here) explain that for me please?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html has it down pretty well. Also, he refused to take communion directly before death. dpr

My computer acted up. Sorry, link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views dpt

Stanton said:

You sound suspiciously like some fundamentalist Christians...

[...]and it really didn’t matter where the molecules that made up their bodies at the beginning of their lives came from. [...]

Scott said: I've concluded that the only means of combatting such stupidity is to come at it from a theological perspective. Arguing why they are wrong from a religious standpoint might have a better chance of success. Maybe. To do that, I need to understand the underpinnings of the theological mind set. Something like a Jonathan Wells in reverse, I guess. Though, unlike Wells, learning something new (like the history of religion) has a fun, intrinsic value all its own. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: Is such optimism realistic, given centuries of religious warfare and the continued proliferation of hundreds of mutually suspicious sectarian dogmas, each claiming to have the exclusive inside track on righteousness?

Actually, the very fact that there are so many schisms in Protestant theology might be a useful lever.

sylvilagus said: Just for interest's sake, use of the plural "their" as a singular non-gendered pronoun has been acceptable since at least the 1600's, both in spoken English and even in major literary works. The claim that it was "incorrect" was imposed upon actual English usage by normative grammarians and English teachers who were trying to force English to match their gender ideologies. This was quite conscious at first, and only later a more or less unconscious bias among certain types of academic communities. This is much the same reason that we were never suppsoed to "split infinitives" ... because latin infinitives are single words and cannot be split, it was argued that English infinitives SHOULD not be split, flying in teh face of actual usage (and logic) to force a specific ideology of language.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Dave Luckett said: The plural is also now not considered incorrect when the general case is meant. "Each to their own," and so on. Well, language evolves, you know.

This use of "they" (called the "singular they") is quite old, and has been used by the most respected of writers. Shakespeare used it, Thackery used it, Austen, Dickens, Hemingway used it. The rule that you're not supposed to use it in singular situations is one of those silly ones made up by 18th and 19th century grammarians to make English more like Latin. Go ahead and use it; English teachers are simply wrong when they say you can't. Eventually it will probably be used in all singular situations, just like "you," originally a plural/formal form is. It certainly beats the heck out of he/she.

For most folks in this camp, investigating material origins beyond this point is not a fruitful theological endeavor, as there aren’t really any urgent questions to be answered.

— Shebardigan

I think a fair summary of the Roman Catholic Church’s (current) attitude toward evolution is that God creates the immortal soul; how he gets the mortal flesh to put it in, whether by evolution or some other means, is irrelevant to the faith and is therefore left to scientists.

— John_S

Henry J said:

[...]and it really didn’t matter where the molecules that made up their bodies at the beginning of their lives came from. [...]

Wouldn't most of those molecules (or at least the atoms or atom groups comprising them) have come from the mother's food intake? (Regardless of evolution from ancestry.) Henry J

I’m considering Creationist “thinkers” separately from the average rank and file who haven’t read much of anything, let alone the Bible they think is the literal truth.

— Scott

If I understand you, you are suggesting that the “problem with evolution” is really a “problem” with reproduction, development, growth or metabolism? If you aren’t suggesting that, then I will.

— TomS

There is an actual example of an argument against evolution which has been seriously used as an argument against reproduction.

The concept of "irreducible complexity" (but not by that name) was used by several students of nature in the 18th century as arguments for "preformation". Preformation (at least in one form) being the theory that each individual living thing existed inside its progenitors back to the beginning of creation, a denial that reproduction produced new living things.

This was a popular theory (and it was a real theory, not just a denial of reproduction) among many real, famous, hard-working, sincere, intelligent, knowledgeable students of living things who often did real experiments which appeared to demonstrate it. And one of their arguments was that the various interacting parts of the individual could not act in separation from the other parts, so that they had to have been created simultaneously, rather than develop.

Shebardigan said: Heh. Here's a slice of my "agenda": I live in Texas State Board of Education District 9, and for the first time in decades voted in the Republican primary just so I could vote against Dr McLeroy. Roped a bunch of others into doing likewise. Looks like he won't be returning to the SBOE.

stevaroni said: [For those to whom Texas politics are inside baseball, down here you are free to pick your party affiliation when you step into the polling place, essentially re-registering on the spot. So you can, and we often do, pick the primary battle that matters most to us. My wife is always aghast whenever I convince her to cast a strategic "Loki vote" on the Republican side, marveling that she ordinarily wouldn't be caught dead "voting for those trolls".]

And why can't God wrestle?

Shebardigan said: Such was the case in this household. SWMBO was aghast at the thought of having her voter registration card stamped "REPUBLICAN" (they note which primary you voted in) and conveniently failed to take it along to the polls.

Shebardigan said: Such was the case in this household. SWMBO was aghast at the thought of having her voter registration card stamped "REPUBLICAN" (they note which primary you voted in) and conveniently failed to take it along to the polls.

So, after the insightful comments above the point stands; if we are really interested in seeking truth in scientific endeavors or otherwise we must put aside our preconceived notions. Such notions do not befit men (or women) of science. The preconceived notion that the Bible is riddled with errors is as unhelpful as the preconceived notion held by Biblical literalists that evolution is rubbish. Unless, of course, you hold the preconceived notion that nothing exists except that which science can scrutinze, which, as has been mentioned before, is a notion with no scientific basis.

0112358 said: So, after the insightful comments above the point stands; if we are really interested in seeking truth in scientific endeavors or otherwise we must put aside our preconceived notions.

No. The notion that the Bible is riddled with errors about nature, if interpreted literally, is not preconceived. It is a fact demonstrated by observation.

The Biblical stories about the beginnings of the Universe, the Earth and life, about the number of legs on crickets, about a world-wide flood, about methods for treating skin diseases, about the rise of agriculture, about the ages of the patriarchs, about how to breed goats, about the firmament and astronomy, all are factually wrong, with much else.

I'll quibble with the best of them about the limits of scientific enquiry, and about the non-necessity of materialism. People here have been watching me do it for years, usually with charity. But that doesn't mean I'd accept anything the Bible says about nature as having any authority whatsoever, and the same for what it says, as such, about ethics or morality. Not that what it says about those is consistent.

The Bible is exactly what you'd expect of its origins and process. That's all. That alone is enough to convince me that if it's a holy book, it's because people say it is, and for no other reason. Things that are holy to people should generally be respected - for the same reason that you don't tell Grandma that you've found letters that prove that her dearly beloved husband, whom she buried last year, was committing adultery between 1967 and 1974. No decent person delights in inflicting unnecessary pain. The question is, when does pain become necessary?

It becomes necessary when I am informed that I must accept a false equivalence like the one 0112358 implies above. It's one thing to accept materialism and philosophical naturalism as a premise. You can't be proven wrong. It's another to say that the Bible is not "riddled with errors". That's provably false. The two cases are not equivalent, and I cannot acquiesce in the suggestion that they are.

Alex H said: And after the bible was looked at with no preconceived notions, tested, and found that it was, in fact, riddled with errors, what then?

Error... Error... Error... Must sterilize...

Dave Luckett said: No. The notion that the Bible is riddled with errors about nature, if interpreted literally, is not preconceived. It is a fact demonstrated by observation.

The Bible is exactly what you'd expect of its origins and process. That's all. That alone is enough to convince me that if it's a holy book, it's because people say it is, and for no other reason.

It becomes necessary when I am informed that I must accept a false equivalence like the one 0112358 implies above. It's one thing to accept materialism and philosophical naturalism as a premise. You can't be proven wrong. It's another to say that the Bible is not "riddled with errors". That's provably false. The two cases are not equivalent, and I cannot acquiesce in the suggestion that they are.

We are all really more alike than any of us care to admit.

Ari said: I think it is better to say ID, philosophical materialism and philisophical naturalism are teetering on the verge of collapse.

0112358 said:

Dave Luckett said: It becomes necessary when I am informed that I must accept a false equivalence like the one 0112358 implies above. It's one thing to accept materialism and philosophical naturalism as a premise. You can't be proven wrong. It's another to say that the Bible is not "riddled with errors". That's provably false. The two cases are not equivalent, and I cannot acquiesce in the suggestion that they are.

You are right, the two cases are not equivalent but the attitude of someone like Wood toward evolution as reported in this thread and the attitude of many of the commenters here toward the Bible are very much the same.

0112358 said:

Dave Luckett said: No. The notion that the Bible is riddled with errors about nature, if interpreted literally, is not preconceived. It is a fact demonstrated by observation.

Yes, I agree. The Bible is not a science book and much of what is written there is not to be taken literally.

The Bible is exactly what you'd expect of its origins and process. That's all. That alone is enough to convince me that if it's a holy book, it's because people say it is, and for no other reason.

I would disagree. I believe there is more to it than natural origins and process, though these are certainly part of it.

It becomes necessary when I am informed that I must accept a false equivalence like the one 0112358 implies above. It's one thing to accept materialism and philosophical naturalism as a premise. You can't be proven wrong. It's another to say that the Bible is not "riddled with errors". That's provably false. The two cases are not equivalent, and I cannot acquiesce in the suggestion that they are.

You are right, the two cases are not equivalent but the attitude of someone like Wood toward evolution as reported in this thread and the attitude of many of the commenters here toward the Bible are very much the same.

To which I would add, if you want to know what Big Bang Theory actually says - and it doesn't say that matter came from nothing - why not take the alarming and radical step of actually studying it?

Just Bob said: Or do you have a "predetermined conclusion" that there HAD TO BE two Goliaths, but that there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN multiple Jesi?

It never fails!

Exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and excruciating entanglements in word-gaming; that’s all that ever comes out of the “arguments” of a fundamentalist; never any contact with reality.

Mike Elzinga said: It never fails! Exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and excruciating entanglements in word-gaming; that’s all that ever comes out of the “arguments” of a fundamentalist; never any contact with reality.

I did a bunch of thread cleaning. The Byers and IBelieveInGod sidetracks are now on the BW, where arguments about how many Goliaths can dance on the head of a pin can be continued.

IBelieveInGod said: <!-- <!–

raven said:

that’s all that ever comes out of the “arguments” of a fundamentalist; never any contact with reality.

Plus they lie a lot and just Make Things Up to fill in the gaps. There must have been two Goliaths from Philistine. Never mind that this isn't mentioned in the bible or supported by the text. And two Elhanans who killed Goliath and Goliath's brother. Seems like the ancient Hebrews had a severe shortage of names. As another commenter pointed out, there also seems to be 3 or 4 Jesuses of Nazareth as well.

Hey, one day you like everyone else will meet the Creator. –>

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

-->

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

ckc (not kc) said: Will she buy us a round?

Wheels said:

kev said: I still shake my head that the Noah's Ark story is widely considered suitable for children.

All the adaptations I've seen gloss over the more adult material, or usually end (as you observed) just after the landing.

Dale Leopold said: As the father of two children, who my wife and I have raised as Unitarian Universalists, we taught them several of the biblical stories, as filtered through our own rather skeptical sensibilities (but politely and with at least a modicum of respect). The Noah's ark story was very, very tough, given that it purports to tell of the greatest ever mass genocide (of humans and other animals). I think that even without any editorializing by us, both kids were puzzled and appalled by the story (as they were with the Passover Angel of Death story). I still shudder when I see the way Noah's Ark is pushed on Christian kids--"Aawwww...those animals are so *cute*! Put a poster of them in your pre-schooler's bedroom!" I'd sooner put up a poster of Auschwitz!

Wheels said:

kev said: I still shake my head that the Noah's Ark story is widely considered suitable for children.

All the adaptations I've seen gloss over the more adult material, or usually end (as you observed) just after the landing.

Let me get this straight, a faculty member at Byran College whose title is "Director of the Center for Origins Research" say . . . That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life . . ."

Anyone else see something strange here? But then his undergrad work is from Falwell's Folly (Liberty University).

Is there any way to tell how much bandwidth I would need for a small website?

Ted Herrlich said: Let me get this straight, a faculty member at Byran College whose title is "Director of the Center for Origins Research" say . . . That’s why I don’t care about the origin of life . . ." Anyone else see something strange here? But then his undergrad work is from Falwell's Folly (Liberty University).

CORE: The Center for Origins Research at Bryan College is the world leader in creationist biology research. We believe that science is an avenue for learning about God by studying the things He made. Rather than merely opposing evolution, we seek to develop a new way of looking at biology that honors the Creator. We conduct research in five areas: recognizing and interpreting design, the origin of natural evil, the geographic distribution of creatures (biogeography), the origin of species (speciation) and the classification and description of species (biosytematics). We use the results of our research to develop new and exciting educational opportunities for the public to learn about creation and the Creator.

SWT said: It's not at all strange if you look at what the "Center for Origins Research and Education" says it is supposed to be doing:

CORE: The Center for Origins Research at Bryan College is the world leader in creationist biology research. We believe that science is an avenue for learning about God by studying the things He made. Rather than merely opposing evolution, we seek to develop a new way of looking at biology that honors the Creator. We conduct research in five areas: recognizing and interpreting design, the origin of natural evil, the geographic distribution of creatures (biogeography), the origin of species (speciation) and the classification and description of species (biosytematics). We use the results of our research to develop new and exciting educational opportunities for the public to learn about creation and the Creator.

CORE: The Center for Origins Research at Bryan College is the world leader in creationist biology research.

Creationist Biology , entire new new revised volume p. 1 Remember, all those sciencey types who apparently have no problem feeding, clothing and sheltering you, stretching your lifespan to 250% what your Biblical ancestors might have enjoyed, curing diseases that felled entire continents of old, putting men on the moon and filling your life with endless miracles of technology... They don't know nothin. Also, despite what looks like an insurmountable pile of carefully documented evidence to the contrary, accumulated over 150 years of methodical testing, actually Goddit¹. And we know this is true because... Hey! look at the pretty bird over there!! p.2 index & references ¹Bible, all, Vol1 c.-1500.

Now that was funny !

The Center for Origins Research at Bryan College is the world leader in creationist biology research. (Which ain't sayin a whole lot considerin the competition). We believe that science is an avenue for learning about God by studying the things He made. (Which somehow real scientists have failed to do so far. Gee, I wonder what they are all doin?) Rather than merely opposing evolution, we seek to develop a new way of looking at biology that honors the Creator. (Yea, cause you can't do that just by studying reality. You have to make up a bunch of stuff if reality doesn't conform to your preconceptions). We conduct research in five areas: recognizing and interpreting design, the origin of natural evil, the geographic distribution of creatures (biogeography), the origin of species (speciation) and the classification and description of species (biosytematics). (Because no real scientists actually study those things, at least not in the right way, you know, the way we want them to.) We use the results of our research to develop new and exciting educational opportunities for the public to learn about creation and the Creator. (So that students can pay us money to brain wash them and hide the truth from them.)

All you gots to do is read between the lines. BS degree indeed.

"Natural evil" is the theological term given to those outcomes easily recognisable as evil - like, the suffering of innocents - but that come about through no human agency. It introduces the problem of theodicy - the fact that there are plainly evils that God could prevent, and either doesn't - in which case He is at least not entirely good - or can't - in which case He isn't omnipotent. Both are anathema to Christians. Every apologia attempted for this fails in one way or another, or had last I looked.

I'd really like to know what form the "research" takes that they say they're doing into this. I will bet money that it doesn't involve an experimental approach.

Dave wrote:

"I’d really like to know what form the “research” takes that they say they’re doing into this. I will bet money that it doesn’t involve an experimental approach."

I can easily envision an experimental approach to this topic. For example, you could steak young virgins in rock slide zones and test whether prayer would alter the probability of a rock slide or not.

Well, I didn't say it would be a good idea.

Reality is what it is. Reality is neither good or evil. Humans make moral choices that can be judged good or evil based on some criteria. Trying to figure out if natural phenomena are good or evil is like trying to find out whether fire is good or evil. Fire give you power. The choice of to how to use that power can be judged good or evil, but fire by itself makes no moral choices.

Staking out virgins would regrettably involve the commission of human evil prima facie, and would therefore not be a valid test of natural evil.

On closer inspection, the Bryan College program proposes finding the origin of natural evil. But creationist after creationist here - Byers, FL, the wretched IBIG on the BW - pops up to tell us that physical evidence cannot provide knowledge of "origins". Only an eye-witness can do that. One supposes that the Bryan College research team understands that.

So I wonder what witnesses to the origin of evil these guys are interviewing, and how they have subpoena'd them? Or, should I say, summoned them?

We use the results of our research to develop new and exciting educational opportunities for the public to learn about creation and the Creator.