Atheist philosopher Antony Flew dies

There is nothing wrong with being a deist, and if Anthony Flew converted to that from atheism, so what? At least he didn't totally sell out like C S Lewis did two generations ago!

Seriously, have you ever read Lewis' book Mere Christianity? As a teenager, I thought it was a brilliant work. Now I despise it.

Seriously, have you ever read Lewis’ book Mere Christianity? As a teenager, I thought it was a brilliant work. Now I despise it.

There is nothing wrong with being a deist, and if Anthony Flew converted to that from atheism, so what?

I can't wait to read the several touching deathbed confessions he will have made.

FL said: Why do you now "despise it" after previously considering it to be "a brilliant work"? ... The book didn't change, so what changed your opinion of the book?

The philosophical stance of Idealism which invariably pops up from ancient times to the present tends to see reality more as an Idea or energy. This sort of thing is not contrary to modern physics. This is of course thinking metaphoricaly, but how else can we think about reality? As one increasingly acknowedges that religious thinking and beliefs are metaphorical there can be an easy meeting of the two. It is of course a view(s) that tend not to be very doctrinaire.

huh?

FL said: I have read [Mere Christianity]. Serious question for you: Why do you now "despise it" after previously considering it to be "a brilliant work"? Not looking to generate a debate on this one. But I would like to hear your answer. The book didn't change, so what changed your opinion of the book? FL

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/debunking-the-liar-lunatic-or-lord-argument/ Debunking the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument Posted by Dale Husband on October 31, 2008 One of the favorite arguments put forth by Christian apologists is that of ”Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” in reference to Jesus. It was published by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, and later repeated by Josh McDowell in his works. Basically, it goes like this: “Jesus claimed to be God. If so, he must have been God incarnate in order to be accepted as a great moral teacher. If he was NOT God incarnate, then he must have been either a liar (evil) or a lunatic (diseased in the mind) and by definition someone who is evil or diseased in the mind cannot be a good moral teacher, so the only logical conclusion is that Jesus must have indeed been God incarnate, and therefore his teachings were infallible and was by nature superior to any other moral teacher that ever lived.”

As far as I am able to discern from his recorded words, Jesus never claimed to be God. That was a spin his followers later put on them.

He claimed to be the Son of God. But he claimed that every human being was the child of God, so why would he exempt himself? He taught his followers, when praying, to address God as "our Father". Not as his father, but as our father, the father of us all. He continually taught them about their heavenly father. This is further to complicate the fact that his usual self-deprecatory epithet for himself was "son of Man", which appears to be an actual Aramaic saying, meaning "this fellow" or "yours truly".

He said once, "Before Abraham was, I am." That's a metaphor easily misunderstood, and Christians have usually misunderstood it, just as the Pharisees did, as the passage records. They, too, failed to take it as metaphorical, and the Gospel writer actually mocks them for it. Jesus was saying metaphorically that his role as Messiah was known to God from the first covenant with the patriarch of the Jews. Do you really think Jesus was so ignorant of the generations of the Patriarchs given in Genesis as to claim to have been God by this? Had he been doing so, he would have said, "Before Adam was, I am."

He did think he was the Messiah of the Jews, at least until his trial, but that's a different matter altogether. The Messiah was not, as later Christian apologists tried to make out, merely some kind of uber-prophet, a spiritual leader alone. He would be a ruler, a governor who would rule his people Israel, a prince, a king. There was, however, never any suggestion in the prophecies that he would be God in person, and no sort of idea like that existed in the day. The Messiah would be the spokesman of God, and would he the final prophet; but his role would be to free Israel of foreign rule, and restore the Holy Land as the covenant promised. David Ben-Gurion has more claim to that title than Jesus.

As a claimant to governorship, he was of course a threat to the Romans, and he certainly was involved in some sort of riot or insurrection in Jerusalem that Passover. At his trial, he did apparently renounce his Messiahship with his famous "My Kingdom is not of this world," but it was by that time too late.

So I believe Lewis's argument falls to the ground, not only because it appeals to a cultural prejudice of Christians, but because of plain matter of fact. Jesus did not claim to be God, and hence was no con-artist, no scammer, no rogue. He was mistaken in his belief about his Messiahship, but I am happy to forgive that, for after all he died in torment for it.

And for the rest, he uttered words that appear to me to be both wise beyond any I know, and true gold, even though he uttered others I cannot agree with. I will not go further, and I don't believe he was the Son, nor God in his person any more than I am. But he was a great teacher of ethics to humanity; perhaps the greatest of all. In the face of his words and of his cross, I am happy to bow my head; and if that be inconsistent, so be it.

The simple fact that Jesus prayed to God (the Father) in many passages shows that they are two separate entities. The Christians of Gentile background were so immersed in Paganism that they could not understand how someone could speak with the authority of God and yet not be God. Note that the Jews did not consider Moses to be equal to God, even though he spoke with as much divine authority as Jesus would 1500 years later. If the early Christians had been content with Jesus as a new version of Moses, then they would not have had to come up with the absurdity of the Trinity to account for what Jesus was like. But they had to make Jesus look even greater than Moses to make their own religion look greater than Judaism. Good for public relations, bad for intellectual honesty.

No doubt, fanatics like FL will point to passages where Jesus appeared to do things only God could do (forgive sins, accept worship) and insist that the Holy Spirit was also a person within the Godhead, but that only illustrates how unreliable the scriptures (and those who interpret them) are. God may be unknowable, but he does not suffer from a multiple personality disorder. The Jews said their god was ONE God. Either that is true or it isn't. There is NO Trinity.

Dale Husband said: The Christians of Gentile background were so immersed in Paganism that they could not understand how someone could speak with the authority of God and yet not be God.

Dave Luckett said:

Dale Husband said: The Christians of Gentile background were so immersed in Paganism that they could not understand how someone could speak with the authority of God and yet not be God.

Ah, Dale? The Oracles? All of them were the god speaking through a human being. Pagans were perfectly used to the notion.

Dale Husband said:

Dave Luckett said:

Dale Husband said: The Christians of Gentile background were so immersed in Paganism that they could not understand how someone could speak with the authority of God and yet not be God.

Ah, Dale? The Oracles? All of them were the god speaking through a human being. Pagans were perfectly used to the notion.

Noted. So you are saying that the dogma that Jesus = God was NOT derived from Paganism?

Rewriting my earlier statement:
The simple fact that Jesus prayed to God (the Father) in many passages shows that they are two separate entities. The Christians of Gentile background were so immersed in Paganism that they understood Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God" as also being God, so they invented the Trinity. Note that the Jews did not consider Moses to be equal to God, even though he spoke with as much divine authority as Jesus would 1500 years later. If the early Christians had been content with Jesus as a new version of Moses, then they would not have had to come up with the absurdity of the Trinity to account for what Jesus was like. But they had to make Jesus look even greater than Moses to make their own religion look greater than Judaism. Good for public relations, bad for intellectual honesty.

No doubt, fanatics like FL will point to passages where Jesus appeared to do things only God could do (forgive sins, accept worship) and insist that the Holy Spirit was also a person within the Godhead, but that only illustrates how unreliable the scriptures (and those who interpret them) are. God may be unknowable, but he does not suffer from a multiple personality disorder. The Jews said their god was ONE God. Either that is true or it isn't. There is NO Trinity.

FL said:

Seriously, have you ever read Lewis’ book Mere Christianity? As a teenager, I thought it was a brilliant work. Now I despise it.

I have read it. Serious question for you: Why do you now "despise it" after previously considering it to be "a brilliant work"? Not looking to generate a debate on this one. But I would like to hear your answer. The book didn't change, so what changed your opinion of the book? FL

Noted. So you are saying that the dogma that Jesus = God was NOT derived from Paganism?

Dave Luckett said: Well... except that that was true in a sort of transcendental sense, and they were both one and separate persons, in both states at the same time. I've always thought that a rather quantum notion, but that, of course, is no more than my ignorance of quantum mechanics talking.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Well... except that that was true in a sort of transcendental sense, and they were both one and separate persons, in both states at the same time. I've always thought that a rather quantum notion, but that, of course, is no more than my ignorance of quantum mechanics talking.

Sounds a bit like Schrödinger’s poor cat in a superposition of dead and undead states until observed; and then its wave function collapses into one state or the other. Or, in the Many Worlds interpretation, it’s alive in one new world and dead in another.

I really hope that FL points to Jesus "forgiving sin" as proof of his Godhead.

I really hope that FL points to Jesus “forgiving sin” as proof of his Godhead.

Dale Husband said: Maybe that would explain Jesus' resurrection too?

FL said:

I really hope that FL points to Jesus “forgiving sin” as proof of his Godhead.

Actually, that's not a bad place to start, Dale. But unfortunately, I was serious when I said I wasn't trying to generate debate. A big reason being time crunch, though I'm sure I can get some posts in. I genuinely appreciate your specific replies there, though. FL

It was DAVE, not me who said that.

No doubt, fanatics like FL will point to passages where Jesus appeared to do things only God could do (forgive sins, accept worship) and insist that the Holy Spirit was also a person within the Godhead, but that only illustrates how unreliable the scriptures (and those who interpret them) are.

Jesus and the Power to Forgive Sin (Mark 2:1-12; cf. Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26) In these accounts, four men carried a paralytic man ("palsy" -- KJV) to Jesus lying on a bed. Since they could not get near Jesus, they went up on the roof, removed the covering, and let the man down through the roof into Jesus' presence (Mark 2:2-4; Luke 5:18,19). Jesus told the man to cheer up because his sins were forgiven. This is just one of several occasions during Jesus' lifetime in which He claimed the power to directly forgive sins simply by speaking. Cf. Luke 7:48,49; 23:43. No mere human being, with God's approval, before or after Jesus, ever claimed to have the power to directly speak people's sins forgiven. Not even Peter (Acts 8:22). Such power is possessed, not by men, but only by God. Yet Jesus clearly claimed it, even in the presence of these doctors of the law. The Jewish scholars thought in their hearts that Jesus had spoken blasphemy, because only God can forgive sin (Mark 2:6,7; Luke 5:21). It is true that only God can forgive sin. Hence, it is blasphemy today when men claim that they can directly forgive the sins of people who come to them to confess sin. But the point missed by these Jewish leaders is that Jesus DOES possess Deity. There was no blasphemy in His statement, since God can forgive sins and Jesus was God in the flesh. Note that this is proved to be the case by the fact that Jesus immediately proceeded to do a miracle to prove His claim is valid. But Jesus knew what these men thought in their hearts, so He set about to prove them wrong. The first thing He did to prove them wrong was to read the thoughts of their hearts. This is a power no man has (1 Cor. 2:10ff). Only God has the power (I Kings 8:39), yet Jesus possessed it (John 2:24f). So He responded by asking them about the evil in their thoughts. Jesus asked these experts in the law whether it was easier to say a man is forgiven or to tell a paralyzed man to rise and walk. Of course, Jesus refers, not to the ease of SAYING the words, but to the ability to make them come true. Had He simply healed the man, they would have been amazed but would not have recognized that He was God in the flesh. But Jesus then proceeded to prove that He was God in the flesh: He told Him to arise, take up his bed, and go home. The man did as He was told, and the people were amazed and glorified God that such power had been given to men. But note that Jesus had stated His reason for healing the man. It was not primarily an act of mercy on the man, though mercy for his health was no doubt involved. But more than that, He said it was so they would know He had power on earth to forgive sins. It would confirm His word and prove the truthfulness of His claims. The point is that, whether He spoke a man's sins forgiven or healed him of paralysis, either act would require the power and authority of God. Hence, if Jesus claimed He could forgive sins and then raised the man, this ought to prove to any honest mind that His claim to forgive sins was also valid. Hence, instead of accusing Jesus of blasphemy, these men ought to have recognized and honored Him as being from God. And when He claimed power that only God could possess and then confirmed His word by miracles, then they should have granted that He was God, instead of accusing Him of blasphemy and denying even that He was a good man. Surely if He were guilty of blasphemy, God would never immediately give Him the power to do such miracles. David E. Pratte, Dec. 2006 http://www.gospelway.com/topics/god/jesus-forgiving-sins.php

Hence, instead of accusing Jesus of blasphemy, these men ought to have recognized and honored Him as being from God. And when He claimed power that only God could possess and then confirmed His word by miracles, then they should have granted that He was God, instead of accusing Him of blasphemy and denying even that He was a good man. Surely if He were guilty of blasphemy, God would never immediately give Him the power to do such miracles.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

In the first place, Jesus never said "I forgive your sins." He said "Your sins are forgiven", which is clearly different.

He did say that he had been given authority to forgive sins. He had it, then, as an agent of God, not as being God himself. Later, he passed that power on to others. At John 20:23 he makes perfectly clear that he can pass that agency on to people who were definitely not God; and he says that this is exactly the same agency arrangement as he has with God; "As the Father has sent me, so I send you", he says.

This is in perfect accord with his perceived role as Messiah. The Messiah was to be God's agent on Earth. To say that he was by these acts claiming to be God is to force unnecessary and unnatural meanings on them.

Jesus was not claiming to be God. He never did that.

What’s missing, FL, is direct proof from the Hebrew scriptures that only God is supposed to forgive sins. What about the high priests of the Jewish faith? Didn’t they do the sacrifices that were supposed to atone for sin? If a human being, speaking for God or quoting the Word of God, could not claim to forgive sins, then how could anyone ever be sure that sins were forgiven by God himself?

Hence, instead of accusing Jesus of blasphemy, these men ought to have recognized and honored Him as being from God. And when He claimed power that only God could possess and then confirmed His word by miracles, then they should have granted that He was God, instead of accusing Him of blasphemy and denying even that He was a good man. Surely if He were guilty of blasphemy, God would never immediately give Him the power to do such miracles.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.

There was–and is–no middle ground, Dale. Jesus was–and is–one or the other, and the Jews knew that too. A blasphember, or God Himself. They chose “blasphemer.” Which label do YOU choose?

Dave Luckett said:

There was–and is–no middle ground, Dale. Jesus was–and is–one or the other, and the Jews knew that too. A blasphember, or God Himself. They chose “blasphemer.” Which label do YOU choose?

FL vents the usual black-or-white, either-or fundamentalist gibberish. It's a comfort to him, no doubt. That's a mind so rigid it clanks. But there's no logic to it. It doesn't have to be either. Jesus was proclaiming a new idea, certainly, the idea that God would forgive sins without a third party intervening, but if FL thinks this is blasphemy, he's got a large bone to pick with Christianity itself. Funny how these guys nearly always end up with exactly the opposite end of the stick.

FL said: [a ton of bull$#it] There was–and is–no middle ground, Dale. Jesus was–and is–one or the other, and the Jews knew that too. A blasphember, or God Himself. They chose “blasphemer.” Which label do YOU choose? [Another ton of bull$#it] So again, Dale's objection is answered.

Dale Husband said:

FL said: [a ton of bull$#it] There was–and is–no middle ground, Dale. Jesus was–and is–one or the other, and the Jews knew that too. A blasphember, or God Himself. They chose “blasphemer.” Which label do YOU choose? [Another ton of bull$#it] So again, Dale's objection is answered.

Not with any hint of honesty or consistent logic, it isn't. But then, I didn't expect that from you. It's so typical of dogmatic extremists to take a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to reply to something and then utterly fail to properly answer it with truth.

Skeptic has posted a good article (not an obituary) about Antony Flew here.

Paul Burnett said: Some of us manage to put childish myths such as creationism behind as we leave the ignorance of childhood - others, such as yourself, fail to heed 1 Corinthians 11:13: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Why do you disobey your own holy book, FL?

Tom said:

Dale Husband said: 1. The historical and logical flaws in the Bible I discovered later that led me to conclude it was not the Word of God. 2. I was able to debunk one of the arguments Lewis put out that seemed so strong, until I removed my previous bias about it:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/debunking-the-liar-lunatic-or-lord-argument/ Debunking the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument Posted by Dale Husband on October 31, 2008 One of the favorite arguments put forth by Christian apologists is that of ”Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” in reference to Jesus. It was published by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, and later repeated by Josh McDowell in his works. Basically, it goes like this: “Jesus claimed to be God. If so, he must have been God incarnate in order to be accepted as a great moral teacher. If he was NOT God incarnate, then he must have been either a liar (evil) or a lunatic (diseased in the mind) and by definition someone who is evil or diseased in the mind cannot be a good moral teacher, so the only logical conclusion is that Jesus must have indeed been God incarnate, and therefore his teachings were infallible and was by nature superior to any other moral teacher that ever lived.”

This argument is completely bogus! And here’s why: First, we know NOTHING about Jesus that came directly from him. Everything written about him, including all quotations of his words, are second-hand or third-hand sources. See my earlier blog entry for more details: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-chain-of-abrahamic-religions-is-too-rusty-and-weak/

Why should we trust autobiographical statements more than second and third-hand accounts? Second and third-hand accounts could have been verified at the time. The question will have to be asked: are the testimonies trustworthy or not? Do they exhibit characteristics of good eyewitnesses and factual third hand reporting? I think they do.

Second, it is perfectly possible for someone to teach good morals and yet be a con artist. Indeed, you wouldn’t expect someone to openly proclaim “I am a liar and am immoral, corrupt, and serve evil causes!” You would expect someone to USE issues of morality to attract the well-meaning but gullible followers that the con artist could exploit for his personal gain later.

Okay, so you are calling Jesus a liar(con artist). Claiming to be divine and lying about ti don't really strike me as making a persona good moral teacher. If the foundation of those morals is a lie, how are they good?

Third, even most insane people have some elements of lucidity in their characters. There is not an absolute distinction between the insane and those of normal mentality. Mental illness has many different manifestations and degrees of severity. Fourth, there is an incident recorded in the Gospels of Jesus cursing a fig tree just because it had no figs to give him at the time (and it wasn’t even the season for them) and the tree soon dies: Mark 11:14, 20-23, Matthew 21:19-21. He uses this irrational action as an example of the power of faith. Sounds like insanity to me!

This incident was an illustration. Note that in both Matthew and Mark the cursing and withering of the fig tree is linked with Jesus cleaning the Temple. Just as the Fig tree had lots of leaves but bore no fruit, so too the temple had a large display of outward goodness but not fruit. And so just like the fig tree, Jesus judged the temple and predicted its destruction. Lo and behold, it happened just as he said it would within one generation in 70 AD.

Fifth, the same liar, lunatic, or lord argument could be just as well applied to the founders of every other religion, including those with teachings very different from Christianity. Yet to be a Christian, you must assume that all those other religions are false!

I would apply the same argument to other founders, just as you say, and say that they were liars. Jesus, on the other hand, having claimed to be God and prophesied his own death and resurrection, as well as the judgment on Israel, cannot simply be a good teacher. If those things he said were true, he must be God. If not, then a liar or lunatic. As it turns out, he was right, and so he is God.

Quite simply, this argument is an appeal to religious and cultural prejudice. It is no more valid than arguments to support astrology, palm-reading, or belief in a flat Earth.

Perhaps you meant 1 Corinthians 13:11. It must be obvious to you that the intent of this passage is not to teach that becoming a man means rejecting the teachings of the Bible such as creationism. Your comment, with its twisting of words, is more in line with the kind of childish activities the verse is referring to. Be a man and talk like a man.

Why should we trust autobiographical statements more than second and third-hand accounts? Second and third-hand accounts could have been verified at the time. The question will have to be asked: are the testimonies trustworthy or not? Do they exhibit characteristics of good eyewitnesses and factual third hand reporting? I think they do.

Okay, so you are calling Jesus a liar(con artist). Claiming to be divine and lying about ti don’t really strike me as making a persona good moral teacher. If the foundation of those morals is a lie, how are they good?

This incident was an illustration. Note that in both Matthew and Mark the cursing and withering of the fig tree is linked with Jesus cleaning the Temple. Just as the Fig tree had lots of leaves but bore no fruit, so too the temple had a large display of outward goodness but not fruit. And so just like the fig tree, Jesus judged the temple and predicted its destruction. Lo and behold, it happened just as he said it would within one generation in 70 AD.

Tom said:

Paul Burnett said: Some of us manage to put childish myths such as creationism behind as we leave the ignorance of childhood - others, such as yourself, fail to heed 1 Corinthians 11:13: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Why do you disobey your own holy book, FL?

Perhaps you meant 1 Corinthians 13:11. It must be obvious to you that the intent of this passage is not to teach that becoming a man means rejecting the teachings of the Bible such as creationism. Your comment, with its twisting of words, is more in line with the kind of childish activities the verse is referring to. Be a man and talk like a man.

Tom said: Or maybe you've misunderstood the argument.

Stanton said: So, can you explain how rejecting reality, and supporting that rejection solely through lies, slander and nonsense, simply because you were taught to read certain parts of the English translation of the Holy Bible, under pain of eternal damnation is being and talking like a man?

Tom said: Or maybe you've misunderstood the argument.

No, Dale has not misunderstood the argument. You, on the other hand, have, especially what with the way you haven't explained yourself.

Tom said: No argument here: knowingly rejecting reality, lying, and slandering are certainly unmanly ways of speaking. However, I'm not going to agree with your characterization of Creationism as any of these things. I've read the relevant passages in Hebrew and Greek and still hold my view that young earth creationism is the proper interpretation of the Bible.

eric said:

Tom said: No argument here: knowingly rejecting reality, lying, and slandering are certainly unmanly ways of speaking. However, I'm not going to agree with your characterization of Creationism as any of these things. I've read the relevant passages in Hebrew and Greek and still hold my view that young earth creationism is the proper interpretation of the Bible.

IMO, anyone who insists their own interpretation of God's message(s) is the only valid and correct interpretation of God's message(s) has not put away childish things. A mature adult would be willing to admit that "I'm not sure, but I think..." is about as certain as we can reasonably get. To me, its the fundamentalists' refusal to admit even the possibility of error which puts them in the 'childish' category.

Tom said: Are you now willing to admit the possibility of error in the way you have interpreted the data which leads you to believe that chance plus natural selection is able to 'create' novel genetic information, cellular structures, organs, etc...and a common descent for all living creatures?

Are you willing to admit to the possibility of error in declaring there is no God and that materialism is all there is?

Even if the theory of evolution did get overturned by new evidence tomorrow, it would still be a very good approximation, analogous to the way Newton's laws of motion are still used whenever the effects of relativity are less than the margin of error in the result.

Henry J

Tom said: The question, then, is whether or not the teachings of the Bible correspond with reality. I genuinely believe they do.

Appearantly you do not read the same Bible most of us do.

Are you now willing to admit the possibility of error in the way you have interpreted the data which leads you to believe that chance plus natural selection is able to ‘create’ novel genetic information, cellular structures, organs, etc…and a common descent for all living creatures? Are you willing to admit to the possibility of error in declaring there is no God and that materialism is all there is? Bravo if you do, that is a great step.

What concessions, if any are you willing to make to us?

Getting back to the textual issue at hand, I’ve thoroughly investigated arguments for various interpretations of the Bible as regards creation and came to the view I have now when I previously did not. I’m still open to hearing arguments for alternative interpretations, but simply suggesting one will not automatically qualify it as reasonable, harmonious with the rest of the Bible, or valid hermeneutically. Each proposal must stand or fall on its own merits. That said, I am committed to the proposition that there is only one correct meaning to a text, which corresponds to the authors intent. It is my hope to attach the same meaning to the text(s) as the author(s) intended.

Since the Bible itself says that God created the universe as a whole, we can only rightfully consider THAT the Word of God and not the Bible itself. To do otherwise is to commit idolatry, which makes your whole statement above pointless.

Tom said:

Stanton said: So, can you explain how rejecting reality, and supporting that rejection solely through lies, slander and nonsense, simply because you were taught to read certain parts of the English translation of the Holy Bible, under pain of eternal damnation is being and talking like a man?

No argument here: knowingly rejecting reality, lying, and slandering are certainly unmanly ways of speaking. However, I'm not going to agree with your characterization of Creationism as any of these things.

I've read the relevant passages in Hebrew and Greek and still hold my view that young earth creationism is the proper interpretation of the Bible.

The question, then, is whether or not the teachings of the Bible correspond with reality. I genuinely believe they do.

Tom said: That said, I am committed to the proposition that there is only one correct meaning to a text, which corresponds to the authors intent. It is my hope to attach the same meaning to the text(s) as the author(s) intended.

Tom wrote:

"The question, then, is whether or not the teachings of the Bible correspond with reality. I genuinely believe they do."

Well all of the evidence shows that a literal interpretation of Genesis is just plain wrong. Your beliefs are irrelevant. It is much more likely that your interpretation of the bible is wrong than that all of the scientists in the world are wrong. You will not convince anyone of anything if you deny reality.

Stanton said: Hypocritically, [FL has] also chided us for asking about the dimensions of the "windows of heaven" that let in the waters of the Flood, as apparently, that is the only part of the Bible he considers to be metaphorical in nature.

eric said: Yes and no. Yes - the theory of evolution is tentative. New evidence could show up tomorrow which supports some other explanation. No - there is no "now" about it. You're implying we recently changed our minds. This is not so. AFAIK, pretty much every scientist in the last century or so considers theories to be tentative. They are best approximations to the current evidence, not Truth. All theories in science are tentative. Now, few scientists think that evolution will actually be overturned by tomorrow's evidence. We might go so far as to opine that you'd have to be pretty stupid not to believe it, given the overwhelming evidence in its favor. But in that respect the theory is no different from the germ theory of disease, or relativity, to name a couple of other very strongly supported theories as examples.

As far as I know, I've never said that and more importantly, science has never said that. You are attacking a strawman of your own creation. Science /= philosophical naturalism or materialism. As should be obvious based on the plethora of religious scientists. Surely you haven't missed their existence?

Dale Husband said: Appearantly you do not read the same Bible most of us do.

What concessions, if any are you willing to make to us?

Since the Bible itself says that God created the universe as a whole, we can only rightfully consider THAT the Word of God and not the Bible itself. To do otherwise is to commit idolatry, which makes your whole statement above pointless.

Tom wrote:

"In no way do I think or insinuate that science = philosophical naturalism or materialism. Instead, evolutionary science ~= philosophical naturalism or materialism. For example: Modern neuroscience, with its heavy evolutionary slant, is decidedly materialistic."

Right. It's not science, it's just the science I don't like. Biologists aren't real scientists. They don't think the same way that other scientists do. They must be doing something fundamentally wrong if they reach conclusions I don't like.

Look dude, science uses methodological naturalism, that's all. ALL scientists, not just those who are not "contaminated" with evolutionary thinking. If anyone claims that they are using philosophical naturalism they are outside of the realm of science and into the realm of faith by definition. If you have a problem with those people then find some and argue with them. You cannot paint with such a large brush that you automatically reject the findings of an entire field of science simply because you don't like the conclusions.

Tom wrote:

"...if the geopolitical and geographical data which make up the narrative stage for the stories of the Patriarchs can be conclusively shown to not reflect historical reality, the stories would be cast into serious doubt."

And if a literal interpretation of a six day creation six thousand years ago is flatly contradicted by all of the physical evidence, then you must conclude that your interpretation of the text is wrong, or that the bible is completely worthless. You cannot just wave away all of the evidence by claiming philosophical bias on the part of all evolutionary scientists. That would be like claiming that the earth must be flat just because Jews said it was round!

Tom said: In no way do I think or insinuate that science = philosophical naturalism or materialism. Instead, evolutionary science ~= philosophical naturalism or materialism.

Stanton said: ANd yet, you are arguing, AND you're too dense and too dim to realizing that I'm characterizing the behavior of Creationists, or, did you not notice how FL has been lying and slandering and mocking us because we do not reject reality like he does? FL, for example, has done nothing but lie and slander in virtually every post he has made here for years upon years: in fact, he considers all Christians who don't assume Genesis is 100% true to be, at best, mewling compromisers, if he considers them to be Christian, at all. Hypocritically, he's also chided us for asking about the dimensions of the "windows of heaven" that let in the waters of the Flood, as apparently, that is the only part of the Bible he considers to be metaphorical in nature.

Then how come the vast majority of biblical scholars disagree with you? Where is the physical evidence that demonstrates that the earth was poofed into existence by God, using magic, 6,000 years ago as stated in a literal reading of Genesis? Where did it say that Jesus would specifically deny Salvation to anyone who thought Genesis was simply an allegory?

Funny thing, the teachings of the Bible don't depend on the book of Genesis being literally true. That, and you still haven't demonstrated how denying reality as mandated in Young Earth Creationism is not "childish" Why should we assume that Young Earth Creationism is correct, and not childish, if all of the Young Earth Creationists we have encountered are all childish liars who demand that everyone deny reality as they do, under pain of eternal damnation?

DS said: Right. It's not science, it's just the science I don't like. Biologists aren't real scientists. They don't think the same way that other scientists do. They must be doing something fundamentally wrong if they reach conclusions I don't like.

Look dude, science uses methodological naturalism, that's all. ALL scientists, not just those who are not "contaminated" with evolutionary thinking. If anyone claims that they are using philosophical naturalism they are outside of the realm of science and into the realm of faith by definition. If you have a problem with those people then find some and argue with them. You cannot paint with such a large brush that you automatically reject the findings of an entire field of science simply because you don't like the conclusions.

Tom said:

eric said: Yes and no. Yes - the theory of evolution is tentative. New evidence could show up tomorrow which supports some other explanation. No - there is no "now" about it. You're implying we recently changed our minds. This is not so. AFAIK, pretty much every scientist in the last century or so considers theories to be tentative. They are best approximations to the current evidence, not Truth. All theories in science are tentative. Now, few scientists think that evolution will actually be overturned by tomorrow's evidence. We might go so far as to opine that you'd have to be pretty stupid not to believe it, given the overwhelming evidence in its favor. But in that respect the theory is no different from the germ theory of disease, or relativity, to name a couple of other very strongly supported theories as examples.

I'm glad to see your "yes/no" answer, I think it is respectable. There are plenty of folks who speak in more fundamentalist ways about evolutionary claims.

Tom,

1) The width of the North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches.

2) Spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been measured with GPS (like that in a car navigator) to be about 1 inch per year. Note: The depth of the Atlantic sea floor, the thickness of sediments, the diversity of fossils, the age of the sea floor, the record of magnetic reversals all confirm the North Atlantic has been slowly and continuously widening at this rate.

What is the best estimate for the age of the North Atlantic Ocean?

How fast would the North Atlantic Ocean would have to be expanding to have formed in 6000 years?

Dale Husband said:

Why should we trust autobiographical statements more than second and third-hand accounts? Second and third-hand accounts could have been verified at the time. The question will have to be asked: are the testimonies trustworthy or not? Do they exhibit characteristics of good eyewitnesses and factual third hand reporting? I think they do.

Your first question completely misses the point. We just don't know, do we?

Have you tried reconciling the very different birth accounts of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke? It looks like both authors had some common ideas, but added different details to fill in the blanks as they went along, resulting in narratives that totally contradict each other. That CANNOT be the result of "factual third hand reporting". You fail.

Again, you miss the point. Since the accounts of Jesus were not first hand or even written by himself at all, the issue of whether Jesus was lying about himself is moot.

Jesus could have just illustrated that with a simple parable, without killing an actual fig tree.

Tom wrote:

"As I understand it, methodological naturalism is just fine, so long as one does not have to import a truck load of materialism or exclude the possibility of divine or intelligent action. I don’t reject whole fields of science because I don’t like the conclusions. I sometimes disagree with the conclusions because I believe them to be based in part on unprovable or even illogical presuppositions. Surely you can agree that those are legitimate grounds, right?"

Well perhaps you could give an example of a scientific conclusion that was based on "illogical presuppositions", especially ones that specifically excluded consideration of divine action. See the thing is that "there is no evidence for any divine action, therefore it can be safely ignored" is sufficient. You don't have to go on to "we assume there is no divine action therefore we will ignore any evidence of it".

DS said: Tom wrote: "...if the geopolitical and geographical data which make up the narrative stage for the stories of the Patriarchs can be conclusively shown to not reflect historical reality, the stories would be cast into serious doubt." And if a literal interpretation of a six day creation six thousand years ago is flatly contradicted by all of the physical evidence, then you must conclude that your interpretation of the text is wrong, or that the bible is completely worthless. You cannot just wave away all of the evidence by claiming philosophical bias on the part of all evolutionary scientists. That would be like claiming that the earth must be flat just because Jews said it was round!

Tom said: As I understand it, methodological naturalism is just fine, so long as one does not have to import a truck load of materialism or exclude the possibility of divine or intelligent action.

Tom said: As I understand it, methodological naturalism is just fine, so long as one does not have to import a truck load of materialism or exclude the possibility of divine or intelligent action.

eric said:

Tom said: In no way do I think or insinuate that science = philosophical naturalism or materialism. Instead, evolutionary science ~= philosophical naturalism or materialism.

This makes no sense to me because I don't see any significant differences in how the ToE was developed or is used and how, say, the theory of relativity was developed and is used. So if there's a difference, I've missed it. Perhaps you can explain it to me: in what way is evolutionary science more materialistic than any other type of science? Inorganic chemistry? Astronomy? High energy physics?

SWT said: I would be very interested in seeing some evidence of reputable mainstream scientists who would disagree with what eric said. Please provide some evidence for the statement of yours that I switched to bold font.

Rob said: Tom, 1) The width of the North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches. 2) Spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been measured with GPS (like that in a car navigator) to be about 1 inch per year. Note: The depth of the Atlantic sea floor, the thickness of sediments, the diversity of fossils, the age of the sea floor, the record of magnetic reversals all confirm the North Atlantic has been slowly and continuously widening at this rate. What is the best estimate for the age of the North Atlantic Ocean? How fast would the North Atlantic Ocean would have to be expanding to have formed in 6000 years?

Tom, there is no evidence that supports ASIC-thousand year old creation. None. And all scientists use methodological naturalism, whetherthey are religious or not. Science provides testable explanations, nothing more. Are you claiming that God can be tested in the laboratory?

Tom said:

Rob said: Tom, 1) The width of the North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches. 2) Spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been measured with GPS (like that in a car navigator) to be about 1 inch per year. Note: The depth of the Atlantic sea floor, the thickness of sediments, the diversity of fossils, the age of the sea floor, the record of magnetic reversals all confirm the North Atlantic has been slowly and continuously widening at this rate. What is the best estimate for the age of the North Atlantic Ocean? How fast would the North Atlantic Ocean would have to be expanding to have formed in 6000 years?

Assuming uniformitarian causes, the age would be 150 million years. For an alternative to plate Techtonic Plate Theory, check out the Hydroplate Theory by Dr. Walt Brown, which posits a rapid movement of the plates at the time of the flood. On another note, there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

Tom, you might consult

Cox, Allan (1973). Plate tectonics and geomagnetic reversal. San Francisco, California: W. H. Freeman. pp. 138–145, 222–228. ISBN 0716702584.

For information regarding magnetic reversals. I would suggest you examine your sources carefully before pronouncing inaccuracies.

Malchus said: Your statement concerning slack of magnetic reversals is, I believe, completely false. What is your source?

Tom said:

Rob said: Tom, 1) The width of the North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches. 2) Spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been measured with GPS (like that in a car navigator) to be about 1 inch per year. Note: The depth of the Atlantic sea floor, the thickness of sediments, the diversity of fossils, the age of the sea floor, the record of magnetic reversals all confirm the North Atlantic has been slowly and continuously widening at this rate. What is the best estimate for the age of the North Atlantic Ocean? How fast would the North Atlantic Ocean would have to be expanding to have formed in 6000 years?

Assuming uniformitarian causes, the age would be 150 million years. For an alternative to plate Techtonic Plate Theory, check out the Hydroplate Theory by Dr. Walt Brown, which posits a rapid movement of the plates at the time of the flood. On another note, there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

Tom said:

SWT said: I would be very interested in seeing some evidence of reputable mainstream scientists who would disagree with what eric said. Please provide some evidence for the statement of yours that I switched to bold font.

Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact." - http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/101500/the-illusion-of-design

Malchus said: Tom, you might consult Cox, Allan (1973). Plate tectonics and geomagnetic reversal. San Francisco, California: W. H. Freeman. pp. 138–145, 222–228. ISBN 0716702584. For information regarding magnetic reversals. I would suggest you examine your sources carefully before pronouncing inaccuracies.

Tom said: If you are looking for evidence of a sudden creation, radio polonium halos in granite seems like a good indicator.

Tom said:

eric said:

Tom said: In no way do I think or insinuate that science = philosophical naturalism or materialism. Instead, evolutionary science ~= philosophical naturalism or materialism.

This makes no sense to me because I don't see any significant differences in how the ToE was developed or is used and how, say, the theory of relativity was developed and is used. So if there's a difference, I've missed it. Perhaps you can explain it to me: in what way is evolutionary science more materialistic than any other type of science? Inorganic chemistry? Astronomy? High energy physics?

In no way do I deny the material world exists, or that material causes exist in great abundance and variety. But, I don't go the extra step of saying that EVERYTHING has a material cause. The ToE must say that things such as consciousness and the mind are the result of purely material causes and that the mind and brain are the same thing. The variety of ways materialists try to explain away consciousness and the mind is staggering (to the mind!) Materialist neuroscience is impotent to explain phenomena such as the Placebo and Nocebo effects in which the mind actually changes the brain, or near death experiences where the mind continues after clinical death. A nonmaterial soul which interacts with the brain is a much better, and clinically useful!, explanation for all of these things and much more. Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism. In brief, there are ways to approach any field of science without assuming the unproved assumption of materialism.

Malchus said: That evolution occurs is a fact - a direct observation, actually. What Eric referred to was the theory of evolution that explains that fact.

Tom said:

Malchus said: Your statement concerning slack of magnetic reversals is, I believe, completely false. What is your source?

Tom said:

Rob said: Tom, 1) The width of the North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches. 2) Spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been measured with GPS (like that in a car navigator) to be about 1 inch per year. Note: The depth of the Atlantic sea floor, the thickness of sediments, the diversity of fossils, the age of the sea floor, the record of magnetic reversals all confirm the North Atlantic has been slowly and continuously widening at this rate. What is the best estimate for the age of the North Atlantic Ocean? How fast would the North Atlantic Ocean would have to be expanding to have formed in 6000 years?

Assuming uniformitarian causes, the age would be 150 million years. For an alternative to plate Techtonic Plate Theory, check out the Hydroplate Theory by Dr. Walt Brown, which posits a rapid movement of the plates at the time of the flood. On another note, there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

In reality, the Hydroplate Theory is agnostic regarding whether or not the stripes in the Atlantic are weaker or reversed, so I'll back off on this point.

Yes. Evolution is a fact, barring some incredible piece of evidence that completely overturns all the accumulated knowledge of the last hundred years or more.

But although Dawkins doesn't like it, evolution also says nothing whatsoever about whether God was involved.

Evolution merely presents a natural explanation for the variety of the species of living things, and all their characteristics. Nothing more. It does not say that all things are material. It does not say that there is no God. It does not say that God did not create the Universe, or life. It has nothing whatsoever to say on those issues.

Evolution - and geology, and astronomy, and nuclear physics, and cosmology, among other sciences - do deny that the Genesis narrative is literal fact. The Theory of Evolution, and the entire science of paleontology, denies that God created life by instantaneous miracle during two literal days, the fifth and sixth. It further denies that God created living things severally, or in kinds that are immutable.

But unless you insist that Genesis 1 and 2 must be read as literal fact in their every word, the Theory of Evolution has no challenge to a belief in God as the Creator. If you do so insist, then I'm afraid that you do it in denial of the evidence, and with no rational reason.

Jesse said: Why, you just love to worship that God who is living in those gaps! You just assume that because science hasn't found an explanation yet, that it won't, therefore there is a soul and BAM! You threw God in there. I'm proud of you though, you threw an extra step in there. As for information, it's pretty damn easy to ignore when a big chunk of the information "arguments" against evolution involve the false assumption that thermal entropy is the inverse of information.

Tom said:

Jesse said: Why, you just love to worship that God who is living in those gaps! You just assume that because science hasn't found an explanation yet, that it won't, therefore there is a soul and BAM! You threw God in there. I'm proud of you though, you threw an extra step in there. As for information, it's pretty damn easy to ignore when a big chunk of the information "arguments" against evolution involve the false assumption that thermal entropy is the inverse of information.

Its not that I am looking to plug God into gaps in information. More accurately, there are gaps in materialism and evolutionary theory which are the result of lots and lots of information. Fundamental gaps which you may well decide to fill with promisory materialism.

Tom said:

Jesse said: Why, you just love to worship that God who is living in those gaps! You just assume that because science hasn't found an explanation yet, that it won't, therefore there is a soul and BAM! You threw God in there. I'm proud of you though, you threw an extra step in there. As for information, it's pretty damn easy to ignore when a big chunk of the information "arguments" against evolution involve the false assumption that thermal entropy is the inverse of information.

Its not that I am looking to plug God into gaps in information. More accurately, there are gaps in materialism and evolutionary theory which are the result of lots and lots of information. Fundamental gaps which you may well decide to fill with promisory materialism.

A nonmaterial soul which interacts with the brain is a much better, and clinically useful!, explanation for all of these things and much more.

Tom said: The ToE must say that things such as consciousness and the mind are the result of purely material causes and that the mind and brain are the same thing.

In brief, there are ways to approach any field of science without assuming the unproved assumption of materialism.

Tom, this remark:

"A nonmaterial soul which interacts with the brain is a much better, and clinically useful!, explanation for all of these things and much more."

is puzzling to me. In what possible sense is postulating an immaterial soul more "clinically" useful?

Malchus said: Tom, this remark: "A nonmaterial soul which interacts with the brain is a much better, and clinically useful!, explanation for all of these things and much more." is puzzling to me. In what possible sense is postulating an immaterial soul more "clinically" useful?

It appears that Tom is very much like all the other fundamentalist ID/creationists, including FL, in their “reasoning.”

They all claim to have studied the “scholars” on their holy book and have “proven” that the holy book is true both from its internal assertions and from those of the “scholars.”

Then they go to places like AiG, the DI, and ICR for their “science.”

Little do they seem to know that the so-called science they find there is demonstrably and objectively wrong in every single instance. It is conceptually wrong, the data and facts are wrong, and the process is wrong. It has all been deliberately bent to justify sectarian dogma.

But Tom, FL, and the others never think to check this out with the “thoroughness” they claim they are checking their holy book.

Why is that, Tom?

Tom said:

SWT said: I would be very interested in seeing some evidence of reputable mainstream scientists who would disagree with what eric said. Please provide some evidence for the statement of yours that I switched to bold font.

Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact." - http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/101500/the-illusion-of-design

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that Tom is very much like all the other fundamentalist ID/creationists, including FL, in their “reasoning.” They all claim to have studied the “scholars” on their holy book and have “proven” that the holy book is true both from its internal assertions and from those of the “scholars.” Then they go to places like AiG, the DI, and ICR for their “science.” Little do they seem to know that the so-called science they find there is demonstrably and objectively wrong in every single instance. It is conceptually wrong, the data and facts are wrong, and the process is wrong. It has all been deliberately bent to justify sectarian dogma. But Tom, FL, and the others never think to check this out with the “thoroughness” they claim they are checking their holy book. Why is that, Tom?

Tom said: That question is about on par with your own.

Tom said:

Malchus said: Tom, this remark: "A nonmaterial soul which interacts with the brain is a much better, and clinically useful!, explanation for all of these things and much more." is puzzling to me. In what possible sense is postulating an immaterial soul more "clinically" useful?

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'leary presents a number of clinically fruitful treatments, one example of which is treating obsessive compulsive disorder by having patients reprogram their own brains.

Malchus said: Denyse is a journalist with no understanding of science. And the book does not appear to present any actual clinical practises of any value, but instead relies on a limited research sample and Mario's personal convictions to claim evidence for a soul. Have you actually read the work? And why should a single, outlier neurologist's opinions be considered support for your contention. Can you point to any ACTUAL clinical trials and experiments?

Mike Elzinga said:

Tom said: That question is about on par with your own.

Glad to see it struck a nerve with you. You are not as original as you think you are. After over 40 years of watching this shtick of the ID/creationist crowd, I have yet to see an original thought with any of them. They all mechanically repeat the same arguments over and over and over and over and … And they always get the science wrong. Why is that, Tom?

Tom said:

Malchus said: Denyse is a journalist with no understanding of science. And the book does not appear to present any actual clinical practises of any value, but instead relies on a limited research sample and Mario's personal convictions to claim evidence for a soul. Have you actually read the work? And why should a single, outlier neurologist's opinions be considered support for your contention. Can you point to any ACTUAL clinical trials and experiments?

Yes I've read the book, minus the last 50 pages or so. Its not necessarily the opinion of one non-materialist neuroscientist which I consider support for my contentions, but the reasoned arguments presented therein. Have you read it?

Tom said:

Malchus said: That evolution occurs is a fact - a direct observation, actually. What Eric referred to was the theory of evolution that explains that fact.

Microevolution is directly observed, a fact that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist Creationist would deny. No one that I know of denies this. What I and others deny is the extrapolation of changes in frequency of population (with already existing genetic diversity) or observed net loss of genetic information (such as with Lenski's ecoli experiments) to the formation of novel genetic information of body types. That animals can be placed into an imagined evolutionary tree is no more evidence of common descent with modification than placing spoons, forks, knives, sporks, and so forth into a tree will prove their common descent with modification. Dawkins supposes that Macroevolution is an established fact. He is, in fact, quite mistaken.

Tom said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Tom said: That question is about on par with your own.

Glad to see it struck a nerve with you. You are not as original as you think you are. After over 40 years of watching this shtick of the ID/creationist crowd, I have yet to see an original thought with any of them. They all mechanically repeat the same arguments over and over and over and over and … And they always get the science wrong. Why is that, Tom?

you have yet to see an original thought in the ID/Creationist group in the last 40 years? Thats interesting considering the ID movement itself is not 40 years old. That you think they always get the science wrong just demonstrates your own vitriolic observational bias, nothing more. Why is that, Mike?

DS said: ... You cannot just wave away all of the evidence by claiming philosophical bias on the part of all evolutionary scientists ....

Tom said: ... I don't reject whole fields of science because I don't like the conclusions. I sometimes disagree with the conclusions because I believe them to be based in part on unprovable or even illogical presuppositions. Surely you can agree that those are legitimate grounds, right?

Malchus said: Some time ago. Whether or not you find his arguments cogent, they represent only his opinion. Where are the actual clinical trials that demonstrate his arguments are true? Consider an analogy: if a single Biblical scholar, in conjunction with a Buddhist who knew nothing of Christianity developed a theory, based on his own personal convictions and a misreading of Psalms 22:3, that Christ was not the Son of God, bur merely a donke-selle, would you accept his opinion simply because you liked his arguments?

Tom, this comment, "I don’t reject whole fields of science because I don’t like the conclusions. I sometimes disagree with the conclusions because I believe them to be based in part on unprovable or even illogical presuppositions. Surely you can agree that those are legitimate grounds, right?" implies that you can ennumerate these "unprovable or illogical presuppositions."

I suggest that a more fruitful way for us to proceed would be for you to list some or all of these presuppositions for us to discuss.

The interrelatedness of science and the consilience of scientific theories implies that your beliefs are erroneous.

Tom said: Thats interesting considering the ID movement itself is not 40 years old.

Tom said:

Malchus said: Some time ago. Whether or not you find his arguments cogent, they represent only his opinion. Where are the actual clinical trials that demonstrate his arguments are true? Consider an analogy: if a single Biblical scholar, in conjunction with a Buddhist who knew nothing of Christianity developed a theory, based on his own personal convictions and a misreading of Psalms 22:3, that Christ was not the Son of God, bur merely a donke-selle, would you accept his opinion simply because you liked his arguments?

No, I probably wouldn't accept his opinion: in all likelyhood, his opinion would flatly contradict everything else I know about the Bible. Back to Beauregard: by making this analogy you aren't suggesting that he came up with the idea that the soul exists independently of the body, are you? Or that the mind interacts with the brain?

DS said:

Tom said:

Malchus said: That evolution occurs is a fact - a direct observation, actually. What Eric referred to was the theory of evolution that explains that fact.

Microevolution is directly observed, a fact that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist Creationist would deny. No one that I know of denies this. What I and others deny is the extrapolation of changes in frequency of population (with already existing genetic diversity) or observed net loss of genetic information (such as with Lenski's ecoli experiments) to the formation of novel genetic information of body types. That animals can be placed into an imagined evolutionary tree is no more evidence of common descent with modification than placing spoons, forks, knives, sporks, and so forth into a tree will prove their common descent with modification. Dawkins supposes that Macroevolution is an established fact. He is, in fact, quite mistaken.

Sir you are sadly mistaken. This branch of science is no more theoretical or materialistic that any other. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that it is. On the contrary, you have proven conclusively that anything that you dislike is simply shoved into the category with all othere things that you choose not to believe. You have ignored all of the evidence. You are wrong. Period. The conclusions of evolutionary biology, including macro evolution, are not based on any presupposition, they are based on evidence, pure and simple. Your ignorance of that evidence does no confer the right to reject an entire field of science. Or perhaps you can demonstrate why all of these scientists seem to get every other aspect of science right and just happen to get this one area wrong. Could it be simply your own biases and presuppositions?

Tom said:

DS said:

Tom said:

Malchus said: That evolution occurs is a fact - a direct observation, actually. What Eric referred to was the theory of evolution that explains that fact.

Microevolution is directly observed, a fact that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist Creationist would deny. No one that I know of denies this. What I and others deny is the extrapolation of changes in frequency of population (with already existing genetic diversity) or observed net loss of genetic information (such as with Lenski's ecoli experiments) to the formation of novel genetic information of body types. That animals can be placed into an imagined evolutionary tree is no more evidence of common descent with modification than placing spoons, forks, knives, sporks, and so forth into a tree will prove their common descent with modification. Dawkins supposes that Macroevolution is an established fact. He is, in fact, quite mistaken.

Sir you are sadly mistaken. This branch of science is no more theoretical or materialistic that any other. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that it is. On the contrary, you have proven conclusively that anything that you dislike is simply shoved into the category with all othere things that you choose not to believe. You have ignored all of the evidence. You are wrong. Period. The conclusions of evolutionary biology, including macro evolution, are not based on any presupposition, they are based on evidence, pure and simple. Your ignorance of that evidence does no confer the right to reject an entire field of science. Or perhaps you can demonstrate why all of these scientists seem to get every other aspect of science right and just happen to get this one area wrong. Could it be simply your own biases and presuppositions?

Surely you can't be serious that the conclusions of evolutionary biology involve no presuppositions. Others in this thread have even mentioned some of them, such as rationality, materialism, and methodological naturalism to name just a few.

I apologize, "rationality." Are you suggesting that rationality is anything more than an observation of how our brains work?

Tom wrote:

"Surely you can’t be serious that the conclusions of evolutionary biology involve no presuppositions. Others in this thread have even mentioned some of them, such as rationality, materialism, and methodological naturalism to name just a few."

Surely you can't be serious that the major conclusions of evolutionary biology are based only on presuppositions, that there is no evidence to support the conclusions, that all other conclusions by exactly the same scientists are just fine and peachy, but this one, the one you don't like, is somehow tainted by "materialism" any more than any other.

Look, to be charitable, I will simply point out that you were not aware of the data regarding the record of magnetic reversals at the Atlantic ridges, an observation fundamentally inconsistent with the hypothesis of a young earth. You are also apparently ignorant of the massive amounts of evidence that micro evolution and macro evolution have indeed occurred. If you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong about the age of the earth, there really is no point in discussing anything further. You claim that you respect the evidence, but apparently that is not the case.

Tom said:

Malchus said: is puzzling to me. In what possible sense is postulating an immaterial soul more "clinically" useful?

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'leary presents a number of clinically fruitful treatments, one example of which is treating obsessive compulsive disorder by having patients reprogram their own brains.

O'leary presents a number of clinically fruitful treatments, one example of which is treating obsessive compulsive disorder by having patients reprogram their own brains.

Tom, God has given us minds that reason. Surely it is a sin to fail to use God's gifts? And it is that reason that reveals to us HOW the Work of God is constructed and how it functions. Where conflict exists between the fallible human understanding of God's Revelation and the plain facts of God's work, human understanding must give way. Science is the great tool we have forged to permit us to examine the Work of God. It is self-correcting in a fashion that exegesis is not.

What a wonderful thread! Tom may actually discover that he knows nothing about science and be prompted to learn more and thereby expand his understanding of this amazing universe. Or he may retreat back into his shell and reject that which contradicts some aspects of his world view.

One can love science and its exciting and elegant descriptions of the material world and at the same time embrace the irrational experiences available through our spiritual nature. Life is beautiful!

Denyse O’leary is certainly a counter-example to the idea that Man is a rational creature.

Malchus said: Evolutionary biology does not presuppose materialism. Methodological naturalism is not a presupposition, it is a technique. What do you mean by rationalism?

Tom said: Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: Evolutionary biology does not presuppose materialism. Methodological naturalism is not a presupposition, it is a technique. What do you mean by rationalism?

You remember how Martin Luther went on a rant about how "Reason is the pretty whore of the Devil" in that reason/rationality is the enemy of the faithful that needs to be trampled into the mud? He means that.

Tom said: Surely you can't be serious that the conclusions of evolutionary biology involve no presuppositions. Others in this thread have even mentioned some of them, such as rationality, materialism, and methodological naturalism to name just a few.

I see this as becoming another Byers or IBIG interminable thread.

What a wonderful thread! Tom may actually discover that he knows nothing about science and be prompted to learn more and thereby expand his understanding of this amazing universe.

Tom said: Microevolution is directly observed, a fact that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist Creationist would deny. No one that I know of denies this. What I and others deny is the extrapolation of changes in frequency of population (with already existing genetic diversity) or observed net loss of genetic information (such as with Lenski's ecoli experiments)

to the formation of novel genetic information of body types. That animals can be placed into an imagined evolutionary tree is no more evidence of common descent with modification than placing spoons, forks, knives, sporks, and so forth into a tree will prove their common descent with modification.

Having taken a lunch break, there are give or take 17 messages directed toward me. This will take me a while to respond, so please be patient.

Tom said: Having taken a lunch break, there are give or take 17 messages directed toward me. This will take me a while to respond, so please be patient.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Off the top of my head, these are some of the fields that Tom is rejecting: Geology Biology Physics Astronomy Paleontology

simply because they deny his "beliefs". The problem here as I see it is that Tom is basing all of his statements on his "believing" major parts of science to be wrong; parts of science that are used daily, successfully, to explain the world. This is something that Creationism simply cannot do. Tom simply does not realize that he is tremendously ignorant about the fields that he rejects. Notice that he repeatedly says that he "believes" something. He does not realize that his belief does not trump reality, and that "belief" is not something that is a part of science. He shows little inclination to remedy his ignorance.

Malchus said: No, he did not invent the idea of the soul. What do you mean by "mind" interacting with "brain"?

More likely I have different presuppositions than you do.

Come again?

If all of the Young Earth Creationists you have encountered are all childish liars, please accept my apology. As for trying to get you to deny reality, I would say creationists are trying to win over non-creationists to reality.

If the physical evidence flatly contradicted all of these things, then yes, either my interpretation would be wrong or the text of the Bible would be worthless. But it doesn’t, so they aren’t.

Malchus said: Martin Luther was also willing to countenance the shattering of Christendom for the sake of his own private conscience. Reason was not his forte.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: Evolutionary biology does not presuppose materialism. Methodological naturalism is not a presupposition, it is a technique. What do you mean by rationalism?

You remember how Martin Luther went on a rant about how "Reason is the pretty whore of the Devil" in that reason/rationality is the enemy of the faithful that needs to be trampled into the mud? He means that.

Tom said:

Malchus said: No, he did not invent the idea of the soul. What do you mean by "mind" interacting with "brain"?

Certain quantum phenomena operate in the brain and are critical to the operation of neurons. I believe Beauregard's contention is that these quantum phenomena, which are believed to be indeterminate, are more properly thought of as physically indeterminate. My understanding of logic leads me to believe that nothing which happens is ultimately indeterminate. The soul, I would posit, is the non-physical determinate of quantum phenomena critical to the operation of neurons which lead to quantum collapse and thought. The mind thus exists independently of the brain and interacts with it.

Tom said: ...there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

Malchus said: I apologize, "rationality." Are you suggesting that rationality is anything more than an observation of how our brains work?

Dale Husband said:

Tom said: ...there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

And when you make an outright falsehood like that in public, you only expose yourself as a con artist of the first order! SHAME!

Tom said:

Malchus said: Martin Luther was also willing to countenance the shattering of Christendom for the sake of his own private conscience. Reason was not his forte.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: Evolutionary biology does not presuppose materialism. Methodological naturalism is not a presupposition, it is a technique. What do you mean by rationalism?

You remember how Martin Luther went on a rant about how "Reason is the pretty whore of the Devil" in that reason/rationality is the enemy of the faithful that needs to be trampled into the mud? He means that.

I most certainly do not mean that reason or rationality is the foe of the Bible, Christianity, or myself. The rationality of the universe is a presupposition of all science, and a good one at that which I accept. This statement is meant to contradict DS's uncritical statement that the ToE requires no presuppositions.

Andrew Stallard said:

Tom said: Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism.

This is a silly throwaway line based on an equivocation on the term "information." Information in the scientific sense is the change in uncertainty in what will be received in any communications channel. This is very useful because all real-world communications channels are not perfect and contain noise. Information theory helps us work around this problem. For example, why does your computer make so few mistakes given the innumerable number of channels from the processor, memory , and hard drive. The answer is that you need error correcting code, which is based on information theory. Now, since DNA can make make mRNA which can make proteins, information theory can be applied to understanding Crick's central dogma. Tom Schneider of the National Institutes of Health does to, among other things, understand RNA binding to ribosomes. This is *not* the same thing at all as the colloquial meaning of the word information, meaning something that has semantic content. There is no ordinary, meaningful information in DNA can be decoded and read Dan Brown style. So, no, DNA has no information the way the word is used in everyday speech. I know you are not listening, but, what the heck, I'm bored!

Tom said: Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism.

Tom said:

Andrew Stallard said:

Tom said: Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism.

This is a silly throwaway line based on an equivocation on the term "information." Information in the scientific sense is the change in uncertainty in what will be received in any communications channel. This is very useful because all real-world communications channels are not perfect and contain noise. Information theory helps us work around this problem. For example, why does your computer make so few mistakes given the innumerable number of channels from the processor, memory , and hard drive. The answer is that you need error correcting code, which is based on information theory. Now, since DNA can make make mRNA which can make proteins, information theory can be applied to understanding Crick's central dogma. Tom Schneider of the National Institutes of Health does to, among other things, understand RNA binding to ribosomes. This is *not* the same thing at all as the colloquial meaning of the word information, meaning something that has semantic content. There is no ordinary, meaningful information in DNA can be decoded and read Dan Brown style. So, no, DNA has no information the way the word is used in everyday speech. I know you are not listening, but, what the heck, I'm bored!

Actually I am listening. How has anyone shown that DNA has no semantic content? Is it just that you are not able to decipher it? It possesses statistical randomness and syntax, why not semantic content?

Tom said: Let's be civil.

Tom said: Certain quantum phenomena operate in the brain and are critical to the operation of neurons. I believe Beauregard's contention is that these quantum phenomena, which are believed to be indeterminate, are more properly thought of as physically indeterminate. My understanding of logic leads me to believe that nothing which happens is ultimately indeterminate. The soul, I would posit, is the non-physical determinate of quantum phenomena critical to the operation of neurons which lead to quantum collapse and thought. The mind thus exists independently of the brain and interacts with it.

Tom, does a riverbed contain "information"? Does a weathered rock? DNA is much the same case: it had a specific topology that is the result of environmental actions over time. But we have no evidence to suggest that it is a "code" in the sense of a message encrypted by an intelligent agent.

eric said: Seriously, this is why one should study science (not the AIG version) before venturing to say, philosophically, what it means. If you don't, you end up making real howlers, like saying souls are responsible for wavefunction collapse.

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said: Seriously, this is why one should study science (not the AIG version) before venturing to say, philosophically, what it means. If you don't, you end up making real howlers, like saying souls are responsible for wavefunction collapse.

There is certainly a component of ID/creationism that exacerbates a delusional state in which people taken in by it live totally inside their own heads, believing they see all and know all. The real external world is irrelevant to them. And they do this even as they bang on computer keys expounding their "wisdom."

Tom said:

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said: Seriously, this is why one should study science (not the AIG version) before venturing to say, philosophically, what it means. If you don't, you end up making real howlers, like saying souls are responsible for wavefunction collapse.

There is certainly a component of ID/creationism that exacerbates a delusional state in which people taken in by it live totally inside their own heads, believing they see all and know all. The real external world is irrelevant to them. And they do this even as they bang on computer keys expounding their "wisdom."

I've well exceeded the time allotment I should dedicate to Internet discussions for the day. The flood of disparate comments is a little overwhelming--not necessarily by the content, but by the time commitment it would take to consider and formulate a response to each. Mike Enzinga, while probably a well educated man, is more akin to a troll on these boards in the insulting content of his messages. You are not advancing discussion Mike, you are simply telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I will leave you all to your parting shots.

Tom said: Mike Enzinga, while probably a well educated man, is more akin to a troll on these boards in the insulting content of his messages. You are not advancing discussion Mike, you are simply telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I will leave you all to your parting shots.

Malchus said: If you wish to claim that DNA contains semantic content, you will have to demonstrate that yourself.

Tom said:

Andrew Stallard said:

Tom said: Further, the ToE must suppose a purely material cause for the information content encoded in DNA. Some materialists will deny there is such a thing as information in the face of this problem, but that only demonstrates the bankruptcy of pure materialism.

This is a silly throwaway line based on an equivocation on the term "information." Information in the scientific sense is the change in uncertainty in what will be received in any communications channel. This is very useful because all real-world communications channels are not perfect and contain noise. Information theory helps us work around this problem. For example, why does your computer make so few mistakes given the innumerable number of channels from the processor, memory , and hard drive. The answer is that you need error correcting code, which is based on information theory. Now, since DNA can make make mRNA which can make proteins, information theory can be applied to understanding Crick's central dogma. Tom Schneider of the National Institutes of Health does to, among other things, understand RNA binding to ribosomes. This is *not* the same thing at all as the colloquial meaning of the word information, meaning something that has semantic content. There is no ordinary, meaningful information in DNA can be decoded and read Dan Brown style. So, no, DNA has no information the way the word is used in everyday speech. I know you are not listening, but, what the heck, I'm bored!

Actually I am listening. How has anyone shown that DNA has no semantic content? Is it just that you are not able to decipher it? It possesses statistical randomness and syntax, why not semantic content?

Well Tom can run away if he wants to. He is also free to ignore evidence if he so chooses. Of course he will convince no one with either of these tactics. Oh well, at least he was more polite and knowledgeable than the last guy who trashed up the bathroom wall with 5,000 posts of nonsense.

Hopefully there will be another thread in the near future where his misconceptions can be addressed. Why do these guys always believe the crap put out by AIG? Why are they so ready to be convinced that all scientists are deluded and yet manage to get somehow everything else right? Perhaps the bathroom wall would be a better place for this kind of stuff anyway.

By the way, DNA possesses information, lots of it. A good geneticist can get lots of information about lots of different things from DNA sequences. Just because it take intelligence to interpret the information, doesn't mean that it takes intelligence to create the information. Arguing that DNA has "semantic" information is just arguing semantics!

DS said: Just because it take intelligence to interpret the information, doesn't mean that it takes intelligence to create the information.

Tom said: I've well exceeded the time allotment I should dedicate to Internet discussions for the day. The flood of disparate comments is a little overwhelming--not necessarily by the content, but by the time commitment it would take to consider and formulate a response to each. Mike Enzinga, while probably a well educated man, is more akin to a troll on these boards in the insulting content of his messages. You are not advancing discussion Mike, you are simply telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I will leave you all to your parting shots.

Tom said: Flounce!

Tom said:

Dale Husband said:

Tom said: ...there are no magnetic reversals on the sea floor. There are bands of greater and lesser magnetism, but they are not reversals--again, well explained by Hydroplate Theory.

And when you make an outright falsehood like that in public, you only expose yourself as a con artist of the first order! SHAME!

Please read further, I've retracted my statement. Let's be civil.

Tom said: you have yet to see an original thought in the ID/Creationist group in the last 40 years? Thats interesting considering the ID movement itself is not 40 years old. That you think they always get the science wrong just demonstrates your own vitriolic observational bias, nothing more. Why is that, Mike?

Tom said: That animals can be placed into an imagined evolutionary tree is no more evidence of common descent with modification than placing spoons, forks, knives, sporks, and so forth into a tree will prove their common descent with modification.

I was going to reply to Tom, but it would be a waste of my time. He, like most of the creationists to post here, is ignorant about the science he attempts to post about. The information is available on most college campuses around the country (Liberty U and similar ilk excepted, of course) and all over the web, in places like Talk Origins, and an enormous etc., but Tom has never looked there, and will not.

He may think that, by my refusing to engage him, he has won his argument, but having seen it so many times, I see no point in trying to educate someone who isn't willing.

I'll simply point out that those scientists who use reality based science that he doesn't "believe" in have done something useful in creating our civilization, something that creationist pseudoscience never have and never will.

Tom said: Mike Enzinga, while probably a well educated man, is more akin to a troll on these boards in the insulting content of his messages. You are not advancing discussion Mike, you are simply telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Tom said: Let's be civil.

Tom said: ... Mike Enzinga, while probably a well educated man, is more akin to a troll ...

eric said:

Tom said: Certain quantum phenomena operate in the brain and are critical to the operation of neurons. I believe Beauregard's contention is that these quantum phenomena, which are believed to be indeterminate, are more properly thought of as physically indeterminate. My understanding of logic leads me to believe that nothing which happens is ultimately indeterminate. The soul, I would posit, is the non-physical determinate of quantum phenomena critical to the operation of neurons which lead to quantum collapse and thought. The mind thus exists independently of the brain and interacts with it.

Indeterminant QM interactions occur all over the body, not just the brain. My wife will be pleased to know you've proved what she's long suspected, that certain parts of me have a mind of their own. Such QM interactions also occur in rocks. Do rocks have souls? Seriously, this is why one should study science (not the AIG version) before venturing to say, philosophically, what it means. If you don't, you end up making real howlers, like saying souls are responsible for wavefunction collapse.

Andrew Stallard said: Needless to say, this hypothesis is very controversial and appears almost impossible to test, if for no other reason that nobody understands how quantum gravity actually works.

Andrew Stallard said: Now, Penrose and Hameroff have theorized about a certain kind of wavefunction collapse called "Objective Reduction" based on quantum gravity. It means that the wavefunction collapses because of the curvature of spacetime induced by the particles themselves. They theorize this happens in certain organelles called microtubules.

eric said:

Andrew Stallard said: Now, Penrose and Hameroff have theorized about a certain kind of wavefunction collapse called "Objective Reduction" based on quantum gravity. It means that the wavefunction collapses because of the curvature of spacetime induced by the particles themselves. They theorize this happens in certain organelles called microtubules.

So, to explain a QM effect we don't observe (some special collapsing) they hypothesize a mechanism we can't test (gravitationally induced self-collapse), which really should apply to all particles, but because they want to use it to explain consciousness, they have to claim this mechanism occurs only in a specific arrangement of CHON atoms (microtubules). Now, to be consistent with the observation that consciousness only seems to occur in humans, the organelle hypothesized to have the quantum effect should be unique to (or uniquely concentrated in) humans, but their current candidate actually isn't. Is that about right?

Mike Elzinga said:

Andrew Stallard said: Needless to say, this hypothesis is very controversial and appears almost impossible to test, if for no other reason that nobody understands how quantum gravity actually works.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) explains a lot of the behaviors of things like the Lamb shift, the electron g-factor anomaly, and many other hyperfine features of quantum mechanical processes, including spontaneous transitions. Ultimately it may come down to things like the “quantum foam” of space-time, but at any rate, the vacuum is a pretty lively place. I worked on the electron g-factor at Michigan for a while, but Hans Dehmelt blew us out of the water by leap-frogging us by at least two orders of magnitude. He deservedly got the Nobel Prize for his clever technique. But physics is phun, so I just moved into another area.

Andrew Stallard said: I hope you your new area will get you a trip to Stockholm!

Now, since all non-zero rest mass particles also have gravity, they can curve spacetime.

Henry J said:

Now, since all non-zero rest mass particles also have gravity, they can curve spacetime.

I thought zero rest-mass particles also produced some gravity force, just less of it? (Proportional to the amount of energy present, whether that energy is "rest mass" or not.) Henry J

Andrew Stallard said:

Henry J said:

Now, since all non-zero rest mass particles also have gravity, they can curve spacetime.

I thought zero rest-mass particles also produced some gravity force, just less of it? (Proportional to the amount of energy present, whether that energy is "rest mass" or not.) Henry J

I'm now headed to the corner to affix my dunce cap. There are a set of solutions for general relativity for electromagnetic radiation. Pp wave solutions. So as far as theory goes, the answer is yes. (I was a biophysics major so general relativity was an elective I passed by.)

Completely off-topic, but it looks like PT has come under heavy attack from blogspammers. I know nothing about this, but is there anything that can be done about it.

Dave Luckett said: Completely off-topic, but it looks like PT has come under heavy attack from blogspammers. I know nothing about this, but is there anything that can be done about it.