I recently picked up a book entitled “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” by Daniel Dennett. He cited an interesting quote by Richard Dawkins:
[M]odern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Dennett goes on to address the response of theists that, be that as it may, there is a huge difference between believing in a Higher Power and not. Dennett’s suggests that, while most theists might call their idea of a Higher Power “God,” they mean entirely different things. Dennett compares this to saying that Lucy likes Rock [Hudson,] and Desi likes Rock [& Roll].” And then trying to say that there is something significant about Lucy and Desi both liking Rock. I don’t think theist definitions of “God” are quite that distinct, but I can go most of the way. The most I think we can say universally about the God/Higher Power of theists is that they believe in something that is outside nature. Any additional qualifications and you start having a God in which some theists do not believe. Make God some sort of super-being, for example, and you exclude all of those who believe God is some sort of ineffable essence.
For my part, if what we mean by “God” is something “beyond nature,” I can go so far as to say I’m agnostic. Agnostic means, “without knowlege.” I don’t see any real basis for believing that there is a human like superbeing who plucked out a rib and molded it into a woman, told Noah to build a boat, and had him put all of the animals except for the dinosaurs into it before flooding the earth. But, I can’t wrap my tiny little brain around the idea that all of the stuff that currently exists just simply “always existed.” (Then again, having a Higher Being that is a First Cause pretty much leads to the same question — where did the First Cause come from. We’ll just say “magic” and leave it at that for now.) So, I guess it’s fair to say I’m an atheist with respect to Poseidon and Baal and all of the Gods that no longer are the subjects of belief. I’m an atheist with respect to Jehovah and Jesus’ Dad and Allah and the other Gods who are currently having their period of belief. And, I’m agnostic with respect to the potential that there is/was a God/Higher Power that was a First Cause.
Just some random thoughts for a Sunday morning, I suppose.
Doug,
If you want to post more on Dennett’s latest book, that would be fine by me. I’ve read two of his earlier works, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and Freedom Evolves. Both are closely reasoned yet easy-to-read, traits which I’ve frequently found missing in modern philosophy (*cough* Derrida).
I was annoyed by about the first 40 pages where he basically talks about whether he should be asking these impertinent questions about religion. I understand the point behind the discussion, but operate from the default setting that asking questions is a good thing, so it wasn’t very interesting to me.
The bulk of the book (from that point to where I am currently — about half way) looks at religion from an evolutionary point of view. Religion is very expensive in terms of resources consumed so, the argument goes, it has to “pay for itself” otherwise the religious habit wouldn’t replicate itself. It also goes into the sorts of features that seem to make a religion more successful in terms of replication and distribution.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been studying it with a great deal of attention. I tend to read right before I go to sleep, and inevitably, I will hit a point where I’m nodding off and come across a good point to chew on as I fall asleep. So, I might not be the best reviewer.
It’s refreshing to have an intellectual discussion about religion and the nature of God..Reminds me of my college days!
But I see my name posted too much in here ,so I’ll take a break in order to give others a break.
Dawkins is always recommended.
In the moments that I can’t wrap my small brain around the idea of how all the complexities of life could have arisen, I just remember that there has been about 4 billion years for it all to take place. I’ve lived a third of one human lifespan up to now, so I can relate to that timeframe. Multiply that by about 500 and you’ve got the time humans have been building things, writing things down, etc. That’s a long time to contemplate. But obviously there’s been a lot of change in the world in just that time. Multiply that by 200 and you’re still only up to a million years. Now repeat that cycle four thousand more times. THAT’s hard to wrap my mind around. But it seems to me to be plenty of time for complex life to arrive, given some basic inputs like solar energy (not too little, and not too much), carbon, etc.
Of course, we can all argue where all the basic ingredients came from. But imagine if the universe were spotlessly clean–would the same theists have to imagine that some super-human god had tidied up the place? For me, the key problem is where did the basic building blocks come from? If you go back far enough, was there a time when these things were created? Could they have just always been there? I don’t know. But saying “God did it” doesn’t clear it up for me. As you ask, then where did God come from? Why is it less easy to imagine that disorganized elements, space dust, and the like have always existed, then to believe that God always existed?
Ha! My first “500” should have been a 50. Earth isn’t 40 billion years old…
Or,
Atheists are one god away from being theists.
One has to wonder why the brilliant scholar and reknowned atheist Antony Flew reconsidered his atheism.
Did you happen to watch the Jesus Bones documentary Sunday night. (Sorry. Don’t remember the title.)
The Anti-Jesus people want to have it both ways: They want to deny his existence, then announce they found his bones.
Kenn Gividen,
You wrote:
…which, while facile and cute, completely evades the point of the observation.
If Christians have good reasons for rejecting the existence of Baal, Zeus, Odin, and Anubis (among countless others), precisely how are those good reasons inapplicable to the Abrahamic deity? Recall that nearly all religious traditions have relied upon sacred texts asserting the existence of deities — to justify God with the Bible, and the Bible with God, is a circular approach that is just as legitimate when applied by any other religious tradition.
One does? What makes Antony Flew so significant? Moreover, does Professor Flew stand for what you think he does? Do you trust his own statements about his beliefs, or are you selective about them, picking and choosing to suite your purpose?
From the Wikipedia article on Flew:
Is Prof. Flew “one of you”? As a deist, he rejects the Christian God as he rejects revealed religion. As a deist, he is not a Christian. Of what worth are his deistic beliefs, then? They doom him to Hell just as surely as the atheists’ unbelief dooms them, or don’t you believe Matthew 7:13-14 or John 14:6?
Will Anthony Flew be somehow less alienated from Christ when he dies through his embrace of the heresy of Deism? If so, how do you justify this belief through scripture?
Regarding James Cameron’s Jesus bones thing, I can’t comment on it as I didn’t watch it (my wife and I had company, so maybe we’ll catch it later, if we can stand what I suspect will be Cameron’s showboating).
Atheism has no more to say about the possible existence of a historical personage named Jesus (or even a composite of historical personages assembled into the figure we identify as Jesus) than it does about Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, or Jim Jones. The latter have a substantially greater historical record to document their existence, but this is a difference of degree, not kind.
What atheists challenge are those assertions about Jesus which are necessarily supernatural (and thus, from a scrupulously empirical standpoint, mythological).
What becomes of Christianity if its central figure is not even partly divine, but wholly human? If Jesus did not die on the cross and ascend bodily into heaven, but married, had sex, fathered children, and died of old age or disease? How can the Son of God both be sacrificed for, and thereby expiate, the world’s sins if he lived a relatively pleasant life and died a peaceful death?
Christians can decide the answers to those questions for themselves, but the audience for whom the questions are philosophically compelling excludes both committed atheists and committed Christians — because for both, the status of Jesus’s divinity was never in doubt. The former regard it as impossible, and the latter as essential to the structure of reality.
In any case, the concept of “anti-Jesus people” seems to be a pretty fuzzy one, suitable for invective but little else. I had thought that one Ann Coulter in the world was enough.
Personally, while I’m either an atheist or an agnostic (see above for the details), I believe Jesus existed and would consider myself “pro-Jesus.” I can get on board with most of what he was teaching (the Sermon on the Mount is a little lefty for my tastes (e.g. love your enemy, be exceedingly charitable), but not drastically so). However, for example, I find that I disagree quite a bit with the stuff that Paul wrote.
Essentially, I suppose I cannot go along with the instructions with respect to belief in divinity. Generally, I can go along with Jesus’ instruction on how to conduct one’s life. The Golden Rule, turning the other cheek, don’t give charity or display your morality ostentatiously, forgive others their transgressions, don’t be greedy etc. — great advice.
So, am I anti-Jesus because I don’t believe in his divinity? Or, am I pro-Jesus because I think he was a good teacher of morality?
Branden,
Accept my apologies for not answering your entire post. The Flew example is mentioned to bring light to the fact that even the most stolid of atheists is willing to think outside the box. THE OBJECTIVE IS BE OBJECTIVE.
Doug,
Jesus asked, “Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?” The disciples responded “They say your an excellent preacher on par with Jeremiah, Elijah and John the Baptist.”
He then asked, “Who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered, “The son of the living God.”
Point being: It depends on one’s perspective. If you believe Jesus to be “son of man” — or exclusively human — it’s understandable to view him a good guy, but not divine.
Peter’s response includes the spiritual dimension.
INTERESTING OBSERVATION…
I sometimes challenge my fundamentalist friends to find one passage in the canonized gospels that directly refers to Jesus as “God.”
To my knowledge, the deity of Christ is directly addressed twice in the entire New Testament; once in Hebrews 1 and again in Titus. The former is (was) challenged by 19th century Greek scholar Brooke Westcott whose translation (with Hort) serves as the basis for modern English translations of the New Testament.
Kenn Gividen,
Certainly; but the argument that isn’t made is, generally, unpersuasive. :)
This statement is difficult for me to evaluate. How are we to measure an atheist’s “stolidity”? How can I tell if I am more or less stolid an atheist than Antony Flew? Is (or was) Flew more stolid because he’s devoted more words to the subject?
Furthermore, what does it mean to “think outside the box”? I’m familiar with the use of this term as a cliché — but I’m not conversant with its application in reasoned argument. Can you help?
Well, okay, but aren’t subjectivism and irrationality ways of “thinking outside the box”? What about leaps of intuition or epiphanies? What have any of these things to do with objective reality as discerned through independently verifiable emprirical measurements?
I do not understand how your rebuttal to my post is supposed to inform or enlighten me in any way, let alone persuade.
Regarding Doug’s point, I agree with him that there is material in the gospels, particularly with regard to ethical matters, that is preferable to, say, elements of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
But you didn’t answer his question regarding his status as “pro-Jesus” or “anti-Jesus” — your response was equivocal, more like a Zen koan than a categorical statement.
But you opened this door:
Doug has invited you to step through it. Is he a member of this “anti-Jesus” group? Am I? Don’t abandon your objective of being objective!
Brandon,
Is is.
Believing the world is flat or round has no bearing on its flatness or roundness. It is what it is.
What happened 17.3 billion years ago is what happened, regardless of what one believes.
The human mind tends to confuse belief with reality. Consequently we war over our perceptions of what we believe to be real, never willing to surrender to the possibility that our perceptions may be flawed.
Millions of humans lived and died believing what they perceived to be a flat earth. They conjured gods to explain what they could not understand.
The Apostle Paul addressed this issue when he wrote, “We walk by faith, not by sight.†Did the Apostle blindly walk into walls? Of course not. He was simply considering that reality extends far beyond perception. And perception is often wrong.
None disagree THAT is is. But all disagree WHAT is is.
Some believe evolution is. Others believe creationism is.
Do you know what is is?
Kenn,
I’ll make a deal with you — answer the questions I have pending for you, and I’ll get to yours. :)
My apologies. Again.
I tend to enter discussions with a debate mindset.
When engaged in “debatish” discussions, I’ve learned to cut to the chase. Answering someone’s questions to their satisfaction is something akin to bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon. No matter how many questions you answer, there are always more and none are answered to the other’s satisfaction.
As the objective is be objective, the point of debate is make one’s point — not to answer questions.
The theory of debate — and this goes beyond our discussion — is that the person who asks questions is the person who controls the debate. Therefore, I’ve learned to answer questions with questions. That accomplishes two things. It robs the opponent of accusing me of not answering the question and allows me to control the debate; to take the ball and run with it, being mindful that defense is important but only by offense can one score the points necessary to win the game.
Considering there is no audience of thousands hanging on every word, I suppose all that is not relative.
So, if you have one question to ask, what would it be? I’ll do my best to offer a direct response.
Regarding what IS is, it’s pretty clear from the evidence that evolution wins out over literal creationism. The earth isn’t young. Dinosaurs and humans didn’t live together. The entire earth didn’t flood. In my mind, there isn’t a debate there, because one side has evidence, and the otherside has heresay evidence (scripture).
I believe Jesus existed. I don’t believe he is the son of a god, or that any gods even exist. The only “evidence” of Jesus being the son of a god is the bible, which doesn’t qualify as evidence at all, frankly. That leaves it being a matter of faith, which–lucky for organized religion–can’t be disproved.
I don’t think that’s a matter of luck. I’m relatively certain that’s a design feature.
A decade ago it was an accepted fact that Neanderthal was our ancestor. DNA changed that. We now “know” that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens had a common ancestor.
Neanderthal is what it is regardless of what we once believed or now believe.
Is is.
So *is* Schrodinger’s cat alive or dead in that darned box?
(I know, I know. It’s probably unfair of me to drag quantum mechanics into this.)
Doug –
Is it relevant that your web site seems to be intelligently designed?
Or did it evolve to its current level of complexity?
Better start in with the Turing tests.
Kenn,
I don’t think the point of this blog is to have a debate. I think the point is to have a discussion. I’m perfectly willing to subject my own thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny, even where they might be shaky or ill-informed, but only as long as others are willing to do the same.
If we go about as walking placards for philosophical positions, then we are just as wooden as characters in an Ayn Rand novel — and just as incapable of development.
I believe I’ve developed a lot since my teenage years through discussions with smart people, and constantly exposing myself to new sources of knowledge and speculation. I intend to do a whole lot more developing before I’m in the grave.
My goal of personal development is a self-interested one, but I’m willing to share end trade with others. Your approach does not seem based on exchange.
I agree with you that if we don’t share the same goals, our methods are unlikely to be congruent. I guess it’s up to Doug to weign in, if he chooses, about which of our approaches is more suited to his forum. Or maybe there’s a third I have thoughtlessly overlooked.
I apologize to everyone else for the meta-discussion.
Kenn Gividen,
You wrote:
What’s your source? On the one hand, I think your timeline may be off. I’m 32, started learning about human evolution at a young age, and cannot recall ever being exposed to a scientific proposition that Neanderthals were our direct ancestors. The “cousin” theory has been controlling for as far as I can remember. If you can’t substantiate your claim, I’ve got a Time-Life book on human evolution in a box somewhere, and it must date back to 1983 at the latest.
On another point, the Neanderthal genome has not been sequenced, so it’s difficult for us to know for sure what the relationship is. For example, it could be the case that Neanderthals both split off from the line of development that led to humans, but later successfully interbred with the ancestors of humans. It’s important to remember that speciation events are frequently declared retrospectively, so it may be that Neanderthals were never truly a distinct species, or they fell within a gray area. Dawkins and other writers on genetics and evolution have more to say on this.
The good news is that there is a project underway to sequence the Neanderthal genome, which I personally find very exciting. I look forward to the results, whatever they are.
(source)
Branden,
I’m open to discussion, but rather than drown ourselves in floods of questions and counter-questions, it would be preferred to consider just one.
Doug (& Parker),
I always hate it when evolutionists refer a book or web site rather than engaging in conversation.
However, this site page deals with environmental requirements for life to exist and is worth reviewing:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
Brandon,
ref neanderthal…
http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/20060601.shtml
or google
“descended from neanderthal”
Kenn,
Your reasons.org cite does not assert that that the scientific consensus ever was that humans descended from Neanderthals. It simply quotes third-party commentators predicting that full sequencing of the Neanderthal genome will prove that humans didn’t descend from Neanderthals.
I’m not interested in Google searching to find grounds for your — so far unsupported — claim that scientific consensus, 20 years ago, today, or ever, claimed direct descent of humans from Neanderthals. The assertion was yours, and the burden is on you to support it.
Kenn,
You wrote:
I thought this was a debate, not a conversation. ;-)
I’m not much given to a bunch of rules, and I don’t have a lot of preconceptions about what this site is “about.” I just ask that folks remain civil to each other, and maybe remain within shouting distance of the original topic. Disk space is cheap, and text doesn’t use much of it.
Other than that, I merely have my own preferences which, in this respect, shouldn’t matter more than anybody else’s. I find a casual back and forth more readable than formal point or counter-point. And I find a couple of questions or points and responses thereto more easily digestible than a laundry list of questions or responses that look like answers on a take home quiz.
At the end of the day, I’m really just happy that thoughtful people like Kenn and Branden choose to come here and read and comment.
I heard we got $100/click
Gimme time. I’ll be making sales calls out of state tomorrow.
In them meanwhile, here’s one of a zillion…
Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens which contributed significantly to the evolution of modern Europeans
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040127085316.htm
Sales calls? Okay, in your case, belief in an all-merciful God is probably a prerequisite… ;-)
Folks –
My comment on whether this blog was intelligently designed or evolved to it’s current complex state was meant to be tongue in cheek, to keep the mood light – there’s no need to parse it any more closely than that!
I don’t think that that whole debate (or conversation) is very instructive about moral behavior in the modern world, in any case.
That is, my views on what constitutes moral behavior do not depend on determining whether we have come to be here by chance, or by intent.
I learned that we weren’t descended from Neanderthals in I think 1987 in Mr. Godfrey’s high school biology class in Richmond, Indiana. That being said, it isn’t necessary to show every intermediate of every species in order to show evolution to be the central uniting theory of biology–and a far, far (repeated about a billion times) better explanation that creationism. For one, it’s observable and testable. I deal with evolution and natural selection on a daily basis when dealing with antibiotic resistance. I go home to my six dogs, all various breeds and mutts, all descended from canis lupus after human preference served as a selective pressure acting on naturally occurring mutations to result in all the breeds we have now, just in the span of a few thousand years. It matters not to me one bit that sometimes we discover one intermediate fits in the line of descent better. In fact, it actually reenforces evolution, showing that selective pressures don’t always allow for survival, but often lead to extinction of the line.
Parker,
Thanks for your insights.
I’m not sure what your point is.
T,
You’re screwing up my strategy.
Neanderthal is not the issue. The issue is that evolution “facts” change as new light is brought by research.
What happened happened. Is is.
Kenn,
The great thing about revealed knowledge is that one never has to admit one’s wrong.
This is the antithesis of science, which relies upon reproducible results, verifiable observations, and falsifiable hypotheses.
I fear we have no common ground upon which to conduct discussion or debate.
Just to put myself into historical perspective I attended high school between 1956-1960 and I was registering for my senior year in college on the same day Kennedy was assassinated.
I remember a Biology teacher saying to the HS class that the Scopes Trial had settled once and for all that Evolution was an established fact.The theory of plate tectonics didn’t seem to be accepted by all at that time but it was pointed out that South America and Africa look like they go together and perhaps had been together.These snippets of memory make me feel sad because we are falling back into a new ignorance on issues and re-opening the debate of Evolution vs Creationism.We should be spending our time and resources more productively. The RCC were forced to come to grips with science discovery through Gallileo and Copernicus, and would have been destroyed if they hadn’t. Why are we re-opening Middle Ages debates? The Western World has gone through the Age of Reason,our thinking has been transformed,and made possible the great advances in living standards through science. I’ve never seen a conflict between science and religion.If someone wants to believe that Science is God’s way,so be it, that’s fine,just teach science scientifically.
I just read all the 34 posts above in this sequence and it suddenly came to me: We best be discussing why we are even debating science vs religion (and it is more of a debate than a discussion judging from the tone) It’s just plain sad.
That’s kind of funny since Scopes technically lost that trial, and the creationists “won.”
In any event, obviously, a legal trial, regardless of the questions presented or the outcome is not going to “settle” a scientific/religious question. Odd that a biology teacher would make such a claim.
A biology teacher said that the Scopes Trial had settled once and for all that Evolution was an established fact? If that is literally what he/she meant it is a comment on our society that people believe that litigation is the crucible for finding fact regarding questions of faith and science, regardless of the result. And I would hope the teacher meant that the Scopes’ Trial brought forth persuasive evidence that evolution was true rather than it made a fool of a dying old populist in W. J. Bryan.
I disagree that debating this point is fruitless. Revisiting the lessons of the past is highly instructive, and a caution against arrogance.
Galileo Galilei was one of the great empiricist of science. I’ve always thought Copernicus to be overated. The heliocentric theory was old, and his particular system was deeply flawed and didn’t work as well as the Ptolemaic system. Kepler had the real insights into explaining observed planatary motions.
I hope there are comments on this issue,but I think that anti-evolution is seen mainly as a Southern Evangelical movement.It’s only in very modern times that the ID theory has been pushed on a national level.It’s like after Scopes, Creationism was relegated to cultural reference and to a particular area of the country.It focused the argument and made it an issue of educated vs religious sects. .My focus is more on public opinion than what the legal judgment was.
The fact that Gallileo and Copernicus were different in scientific methodology wasn’t the main focus for me,although its an interesting insight.. . Both caused the church credibility problems,as much in how the church treated them as in what they professed.
Debating is fruitless in the sense that there is no common ground to debate on .This was a comment by Branden in an above post and I agree.
I sure can’t speak for my Biology teacher in 1957 and I shouldnt repeat what I don’t remember exactly,but I was just trying to recall an era when the issue was settled as far as educated people seemed to think,and probably it is still is in that sense.
Is is absolute truth. Whether or not one is right or wrong has no bearing.
That seems to be the creationists bone of contention. Read their commentaries on irreducible complexity.
Creationist offer a critical prespective to evolutionism. And visa versa. Viva le debate.
My understanding is that Galileo was a stolid theistic Christian who disagreed with the Catholic misinterpretation of the Bible.
And…
The creationists technically won the Scopes trial, but evolutionism was forever thereafter permanently creased into the gray matter of the American psyche. Maybe that’s what the professor meant.
And once again, it can’t really be a “debate” because one side doesn’t have any evidence. Instead, it’s one side with a theory that has withstood challenge for well over a century, and the other side saying, “Yeah, but….” and nothing comes after that.
You couldn’t be more wrong about evolution “facts” changing as evidence arises. The cornerstone of the theory–descent with modification through natural selection acting upon random mutations–has never changed despite the last century of new discoveries. It just hasn’t. Nor will it. Saying that a few transitional species become reordered as DNA studies are performed–since the ONLY way we had to order them before was through location of bones, morphology, and other artifacts–does not detract from the theory’s strength in the least, and does NOTHING for the side of creationism. Evolution survives these reorderings as stronger evidence is found, and in fact is strengthened by them.
Kenn,
You wrote:
Bluntly, this is a bullshit concept. Why? Because that which is incapable of further analytic resolution cannot be treated as synthetic. Let’s review the definitions of “complex”:
A “complex number” in mathematics is “a number of the form a+bi where a and b are real numbers and i is the square root of -1”. Why do we call it “complex”? Because it’s composed of two parts.
If something is not capable of being reduced, it’s not complex. If it is capable of reduction — that is, if we can discern components or structure within it — then it is complex.
Is the Trinity simple or complex? Both? Neither? The answer, or so I’m told, is that there is no answer. You’re supposed to accept it as a paradox, lest you be accused of a heresy like Monarchianism or Subordinationism.
“Irreducible complexity” is a statement with no semantic content, like “empty full”. It is meaningless, because it is self-contradictory. Attributing mystical or holy power to self-contradictory statements is evidently a popular pastime judging by the frequency of its practice, but so is lying.
Semantically void expressions like “irreducible complexity”, like “colorless green ideas”, must be excluded from the discourse of science because they are not subject to coherent analysis. They generate no predictions and explain no facts. They’re good for motivating people to rise from the pew and tremble at the impotence of their own brains, but that’s about it.
Dawkins deals quite deftly with the “irreducible complexity” issue. In short, he argues that an organ like a rudimentary eye, that only allowed the organism to see bits of shadow and light would still confer selective advantage over non-mutated members of the species that had no such organ. They would leave more surviving offspring, the trait would increase in frequency. Then the next mutation might cause the rudimentary organ to perform slightly better. Repeat times a few million years and suddenly the eye isn’t such an impossibility. A 10% functioning eye, or an eye that hasn’t evolved a lens, or some other incomplete eye is in fact quite an advantage over no eye at all.
Branden says irreducible complexity is a void expression. Dawkins, on the other hand, seems to grasp the concept as a valid expression that can be refuted. Both can’t be right.
Evolutionists don’t like irreducible complexity because it challenges their core theory.
The complexity of eyeballs has nothing to do with the IC (tired of typing it). We’re dealing with more basics. Namely, what is life’s minimum complexity?
Says Eugene Koonin, “Comparative genomics, using computational and experimental methods, enables the identification of a minimal set of genes that is necessary and sufficient for sustaining a functional cell.”
Irreducible complexity asks how the minimal set of genes, themselves immensely complex, come to be being? Again, the value of creationists is they ask probing questions that demand more than superficial answers.
Know your enemy: Listen to Dr. Hugh Ross tackle irreducible complexity
pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20031021.rm?start=01:39:02.0
We all understand the concept of ‘applied science’..more efficient toasters, safer techinques in road construction…But what is ‘applied creationism’or ‘applied ID’? Just think about it.
The complexity of eyes having nothing to do with irreducible complexity would be news to almost every creationist I’ve ever debated in the last fifteen years, as it is almost always the first example they give.
They’re clueless.
Agreed ;)
People tend to begin with a conclusion — be it creationism, evolution or whatever — then build a defense to support their perspective.
It may be true that people tend to begin with a conclusion and seek to prove it,but Scientific Method, of observation,compiling of data,synthesis of that data and forming a theory,is our best path to maintain objectivity.We need to keep this universally accepted process pure,lest the results be adulterated to serve just one consituency.If some day faith and science come together,it will be through science.Some of us already see no conflict between faith and science,but we recognize that faith is a personal evaluation and judgment. Two parishioners sitting in the same pew have differing perspectives of what they maintain they believe.There are levels of perception,and we need an accepted process free of personal biais. The newer theory of the continuing accelerated expansion of the Universe,which side does it serve? That shouldn’t be the question.It’s God’s plan or Scientific Theory or both…but it’s surely not faith,and science brought us to it.
Galileo looked through a grainy telescope and was surprised to notice that Saturn was not one, but three bodies.
Years later after technology improved it was learned that Galileo mistook rings for additional bodies.
As our “telescopes” improve we need to be mindful that other conclusions are awaiting.
BTW – Dr. Hugh Ross has excellent presentations Testable Creation Model.