Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Postmodern Christian Claim: All Truth is Subjective Except for My Objective Truth
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. --Karl Popper
Although I’ve been busier than usual with my new job, I have taken time to engage a few Christians in dialogue. What’s different about the latest batch of religious apologists is their willingness to reject all we know about reality in attempts to justify their absurd beliefs.
When backed into a corner rhetorically, many moderately-educated or well-read Christians resort to postmodern responses to basic questioning of their position. I’ve encountered this on more than one occasion. When confronted with a demand for evidence, they question whether our most basic methods of verifying or falsifying evidence are legitimate. This particular approach is formally known as postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a criticism of the notion that there can be objective knowledge of the real world. Over time it has seeped into almost all areas of academia including social science and theology.
Verification and falsification are basic animal instincts. We observe an object or event and question, “Is it true or false?” There are many ways to verify or falsify. Many come naturally—while others are learned. One way we can validate our personal observations is with corroboration. “Did you just see what I saw?” “Did you hear that, too?” We ask these questions to make sure we’re not just seeing or hearing something that isn’t actually there. Often times, when there's a foreign noise, my dog will look in the direction of the noise, then look at me to see my reaction. This is a most basic and common activity for animals and humans. Verification is how courts, law enforcement, academia, and all areas dealing with truth claims get at the truth. We use verification methods in everyday life whether searching for someone, price-shopping products or services, flipping news stations when big events happen, or listening to presidential candidates speak of their accomplishments. To deny this is how the world works is to live as an imbecile.
When confronted with a past event or something not readily observable, we depend on multiple sources of evidence. For instance, we can know with relative certainty that the Holocaust occurred, because of historical evidence, German and Allied state documents, both Nazi and Allied witnesses, and other information support the survivors’ claims. These multiple, independent sources corroborate the story. The validity of the story will vary based on the amount of evidence we have. The more independent witnesses and the more evidence we have supporting the claim, the more true we can say it is. The less corroborating evidence we have we can safely say it probably didn’t happen.
When a Christian is confronted with demands for evidence equal to that of the Holocaust, they realize their so-called evidence falls short. They cannot present corroborating contemporary, extra-Biblical sources for supernatural claims or even basic historical data to validate foundational events such as the supposed census during the time of Jesus' birth. There are no documents to support these claims outside the Gospels. For events that large during that era, we would assume there would be plenty of corroborating evidence. Since there is nothing to be found as of yet, we can assume the census and supernatural claims were made-up. When evidence is found, we can examine it, determine the validity of that particular claim, and maybe alter our assumptions. Verification is critical, because it helps us weed out baseless claims and get at the truth as best we can.
Pseudo-intellectual Christians understand that lack of evidence is a problem for their position, but rather than address it honestly, they resort to the red herring of focusing on method rather than substance. They question whether verification/falsification is valid for determining the validity of a statement and are incapable of providing an alternative method for determining truth. This does not bolster their claims and only serves to make them appear silly.
That’s not to say that because something cannot be verified it didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. We just need to rigorously examine whether it is or isn't true before we can make a determination. If it cannot be solidly decided in either direction, we should reserve judgment until there is ample evidence. Because the foundational Christian claims regarding their god, supernatural events, and their religion cannot be determined due to very poor evidence or no evidence at all, I reject their claims as baseless and without merit. If a Christian (or any religious person) makes a claim that is outside our basic understanding of the world and reality, they MUST provide multiple sources of verifiable evidence. There is no alternative. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Although I’ve been busier than usual with my new job, I have taken time to engage a few Christians in dialogue. What’s different about the latest batch of religious apologists is their willingness to reject all we know about reality in attempts to justify their absurd beliefs.
When backed into a corner rhetorically, many moderately-educated or well-read Christians resort to postmodern responses to basic questioning of their position. I’ve encountered this on more than one occasion. When confronted with a demand for evidence, they question whether our most basic methods of verifying or falsifying evidence are legitimate. This particular approach is formally known as postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a criticism of the notion that there can be objective knowledge of the real world. Over time it has seeped into almost all areas of academia including social science and theology.
Verification and falsification are basic animal instincts. We observe an object or event and question, “Is it true or false?” There are many ways to verify or falsify. Many come naturally—while others are learned. One way we can validate our personal observations is with corroboration. “Did you just see what I saw?” “Did you hear that, too?” We ask these questions to make sure we’re not just seeing or hearing something that isn’t actually there. Often times, when there's a foreign noise, my dog will look in the direction of the noise, then look at me to see my reaction. This is a most basic and common activity for animals and humans. Verification is how courts, law enforcement, academia, and all areas dealing with truth claims get at the truth. We use verification methods in everyday life whether searching for someone, price-shopping products or services, flipping news stations when big events happen, or listening to presidential candidates speak of their accomplishments. To deny this is how the world works is to live as an imbecile.When confronted with a past event or something not readily observable, we depend on multiple sources of evidence. For instance, we can know with relative certainty that the Holocaust occurred, because of historical evidence, German and Allied state documents, both Nazi and Allied witnesses, and other information support the survivors’ claims. These multiple, independent sources corroborate the story. The validity of the story will vary based on the amount of evidence we have. The more independent witnesses and the more evidence we have supporting the claim, the more true we can say it is. The less corroborating evidence we have we can safely say it probably didn’t happen.
When a Christian is confronted with demands for evidence equal to that of the Holocaust, they realize their so-called evidence falls short. They cannot present corroborating contemporary, extra-Biblical sources for supernatural claims or even basic historical data to validate foundational events such as the supposed census during the time of Jesus' birth. There are no documents to support these claims outside the Gospels. For events that large during that era, we would assume there would be plenty of corroborating evidence. Since there is nothing to be found as of yet, we can assume the census and supernatural claims were made-up. When evidence is found, we can examine it, determine the validity of that particular claim, and maybe alter our assumptions. Verification is critical, because it helps us weed out baseless claims and get at the truth as best we can.Pseudo-intellectual Christians understand that lack of evidence is a problem for their position, but rather than address it honestly, they resort to the red herring of focusing on method rather than substance. They question whether verification/falsification is valid for determining the validity of a statement and are incapable of providing an alternative method for determining truth. This does not bolster their claims and only serves to make them appear silly.
That’s not to say that because something cannot be verified it didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. We just need to rigorously examine whether it is or isn't true before we can make a determination. If it cannot be solidly decided in either direction, we should reserve judgment until there is ample evidence. Because the foundational Christian claims regarding their god, supernatural events, and their religion cannot be determined due to very poor evidence or no evidence at all, I reject their claims as baseless and without merit. If a Christian (or any religious person) makes a claim that is outside our basic understanding of the world and reality, they MUST provide multiple sources of verifiable evidence. There is no alternative. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Monday, November 21, 2011
The State is my Shepherd
“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society.”--Hugo Chávez, Socialist dictator of Venezuela
In the West, Socialist dogma is presented as an alternative to Christianity. The similarities between Christianity and Socialism make this possible. Socialist thought is rooted in Christianity. Karl Marx, the father of Marxism/Socialism, was deeply impacted by religion. Although Marx’s father was Jewish, the family became Christian when Marx was young. Judeo-Christian concepts were instilled at an early age. In one school essay, a young Marx reveals his early Christian indoctrination and his solidarity with the oppressed by writing, “Who should not gladly endure sorrows, when he knows that through his continuing in Christ, through his works God is honored?”
As a young man, Marx was introduced to the work of Friedrich Hegel, who he cited consistently
throughout his life. Marx was part of the Young Hegelians, a group of influential leftists who promoted their particular interpretation of Hegel’s work. Because of his religious upbringing, there is no doubt Marx was drawn to the Hegel’s use of Christian vocabulary.
Hegel concentrates on the sinful aspects of man’s condition. He cites the Christian apostle Paul who spoke of humankind being alienated in their thinking because of sin and ultimate redemption through Jesus. Marx saw the oppressed as needing salvation from the evil capitalists just as Jesus and Paul voiced the need for salvation from this world of sin. Both offered a plan of redemption—one though the State and the other through vicarious redemption.
Socialists see humankind as corrupt and in need of guidance through laws and regulations while Christianity sees humans as alienated from the supernatural realm and in need of “spiritual” guidance. Both attempt to legislate morality according to their precepts and standards. Just as religion uses threat of a torturous afterlife as a deterrent from its moral standards, many Marxist or left-leaning governments dictate morality through threats of imprisonment, bans and Pigovian or “sin” taxes. The idea of a sin tax is to place an excessive tax on a product or service as a means to deter their use. In many communist countries, pornography is entirely outlawed. In the United States, a progressively democratic-socialist state, there are numerous sin taxes, such as the excessive tax on cigarettes and environmental laws. In recent years, the US has instituted countless new sin taxes and proposes countless others—such as “fat” taxes on fattening food and carbon taxes on companies to reduce pollution. This cult of government, as religion, seeks to shape the morals of its citizens to conform to State-sanctioned morality through taxes and bans.
Christianity and Marxism/Socialism are nearly identical. The only glaring difference is one
postulates a supernatural utopia and the other an earthly one. Both must manipulate and control their adherents to achieve their utopias. Human freedom must be suppressed—whether it’s through new laws and regulations, through an unfeasible religious moral code or through fear and intimidation. Each has setup elite groups to facilitate the methodical overthrow of individual freedom and replace it with a collective morality, which leads to tyrannical behavior by the
leadership in the end.
In his essay “Two Concepts of Liberty”, the great 20th philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin describes how governments seek to control its citizens as children and how they ultimately fall into tyranny and dictatorship, thus destroying freedom and brutalizing its individuals. This has been demonstrated throughout history with the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, the Crusades, the Taliban, and other Islamic governments. He states facetiously about the British Empire in an interview, “Human beings are children. We must first herd them together, create certain institutions, make them obey orders, and we hope later they will see how well we’ve done for them.... It always leads to bad consequences in the end.”
Marx, Hegel, and Feuerbach understood the value of Christian indoctrination. Christianity emphasizes empathy toward the poor and downtrodden. It teaches people to be dependent. They play on fears and demonize individualism. Marxists/Socialists have seized these doctrines and incorporated them into their dogma. They view us as children and the goal is a massive nanny state, whose ultimate end is totalitarianism and tyranny.
A freethinker opposes both religion AND socialism.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Occupiers complaining about tuition costs
According to my calculations, the top 1% of universities in the US are sitting on over $230 billion in endowments. The total amount of all endowments is astronomical. Why are idiot students complaining about Wall St. when they should be complaining directly to the schools? This shows the idiocy of the movement.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Usual Suspects
Several people have asked my opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests and I feel it’s time to articulate my thoughts in a meaningful way. My initial reaction was based on past observations of similar movements and, honestly, stereotypes. Sure, I have a tendency—as all people do—to make rash judgments where hackneyed folk are involved (i.e. dirty hippies, smelly anarchists, etc.).At first, I was unimpressed with what I saw. It was just another gathering of 20-somethings and hippie-rejects looking for an opportunity to lash-out at their wealthy parents for not “being there” when they were children, for not buying the car they wanted at 16, or for not sending them their first college of choice. It’s easy to assume these people are just looking for the next trendy social movement so they can feel part of something bigger than their tiny, enclosed world of iPads and Gears of War. It’s understandable. I was a rebellious 20-something myself once. It’s too easy to make these assumptions when the usual suspects are involved.
It’s tempting to think this entire movement is manufactured and orchestrated from plush conference rooms of organized labor and other special interest groups. It’s tempting to think the left-leaning groups supporting the protests are hoping for violence so they can swoop in to save the day and protect us from evil corporations. It’s easy to classify these protests as left-leaning events when Cornel West, Van Jones, Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, unions, socialist groups, and others are praising it.
It is too easy to point out that these same people were silent when the bail-outs were distributed in 2008 and 2009. It’s easy to point out that these same people were silent when Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were making fraudulent loans to families who couldn’t afford the mortgage notes. It’s easy to point out that in interview after interview the protesters are having difficulty articulating a clear and concise purpose and solution. It’s easy to think the protesters are provoking the police in hopes of capturing brutality on their iPhones to broadcast instantly across the world and cry foul. I won’t spend any more time stating the obvious.Many average folks are unwittingly taking to the web to show solidarity. The sense of entitlement coming from these average Joes and Janes is what irks me most. Many of the “99%” are posting pictures of themselves stating their education level or qualifications followed by “I am the 99%.” For example, one I saw this morning stated, “I served in the US Army. Served 16 months in Iraq. Now I deliver pizza. I am the 99%.” Did he expect to come back from Iraq and have a cushy office job?
The only message I’ve been able to glean from the entire event is “Hate Wall Street.” That’s all fine and good. Now, what do you intend to DO about Wall Street between tokes of marijuana? Is this an “awareness” campaign, photo-op, or a precursor to revolution? Revolutions have agendas and goals—not vaguely worded “demands”.
The protesters are demanding free education for all and a $20 per hour minimum wage among other things. Education and jobs are privileges and not rights. Rights are inherent and do not require the infringement on others (Read: excess taxes) to institute. Rights are inherent and not granted by an all-powerful State. Privileges are perks.Needless to say, I’m still unimpressed with the protests. Do these protesters think “change” will magically occur like everything else in their cushy lives? Do they think sitting around in one spot for an extended period of time accomplishes anything other making them look like lazy, trust-fund babies? I don’t exactly understand what the protesters are hoping to accomplish other than bitching and moaning and I don’t think they do either.
Hey, protesters, if I'm wrong, show me.
Monday, May 16, 2011
My prediction regarding the Rapture
Mark my words: It will never happen. You, Christians, will be waiting and waiting for nothing. It will not happen May 21, 2011, and it will never happen. When you are on your death bed, remember my words: it won't happen.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
What it would take for me to believe in your god
I want to see him heal a retarded person right before my eyes.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Jesus was Evil
Jesus was one of the most evil characters in religious fiction. Today, his followers take pride in presenting him as a loving, caring, mild-mannered desert magician/redeemer, but in reality he was cruel and vengeful. He is the first to mention “hell” in the Bible (Matthew 5:22, Mark 9:43, Mar 9:43-44, Mark 9:45). The context is always the same—it’s a consequence for not abiding by his/God’s commands. The threat is used to influence behavior and this makes him cruel and evil in my opinion. He does not love unconditionally as he is portrayed. His daddy/he establishes an unrealistic set of rules and then threatens to cast us to hellfire for eternal torture if we do not abide them. This is the epitome of love with condition.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why I do not accept Jesus’ divinity (or anyone’s for that matter)
Happy Easter, everyone. This is my favorite pagan holiday because it celebrates fertility—and who doesn’t appreciate that? Well, maybe those who have unintentional pregnancies, but that’s an entirely different topic. For now, I’d like to focus on the Christianized version of this ancient holiday—particularly Jesus’ supposed divinity, and his mythical resurrection.
I am not certain Jesus even existed. There is no clear evidence outside Scripture, which was most certainly written by those who wanted to perpetuate the myth. A majority of biblical scholars—conservative and liberal alike—concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. Most of Jesus’ followers were illiterate Aramaic speakers, while the authors of the gospels were educated Greeks. Therefore, we are certain the writers cannot vouch for Jesus’ existence. However, we know for certain Pontius Pilate existed because we have many outside sources to validate this—from local writings to Roman logs to physical evidence of his actual house.
If Jesus existed, we can be certain he wasn’t divine. First, there were a number of messianic claimants during this time in his particular part of the world. He was most likely just another uneducated peasant claiming the mantle of Jewish savior. Second, and most obvious, there is no such thing as “divinity”. None of his miracles can be substantiated. Nothing he did has been verified by extra-biblical sources. Most magicians and miracle workers during this time were charlatans and there is no reason to think otherwise about Jesus.
Finally, people cannot rise from the dead. It’s impossible. If he existed, was tortured, and lay in a tomb, his body was either stolen or he simply wasn’t dead and walked out. Either is more plausible than supernatural resurrection. There was no one living at that time in that part of the world to verify this event and we have no rational reason to believe it happened.
While some of what Jesus said was “good” and “moral”, we have no reason whatsoever to believe he was divine or supernatural. It’s highly likely the stories of Jesus of Nazareth were either outright fiction or embellished stories of one of many poor, radical Jewish miracle workers in the Middle East two thousand years ago.
I am not certain Jesus even existed. There is no clear evidence outside Scripture, which was most certainly written by those who wanted to perpetuate the myth. A majority of biblical scholars—conservative and liberal alike—concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. Most of Jesus’ followers were illiterate Aramaic speakers, while the authors of the gospels were educated Greeks. Therefore, we are certain the writers cannot vouch for Jesus’ existence. However, we know for certain Pontius Pilate existed because we have many outside sources to validate this—from local writings to Roman logs to physical evidence of his actual house.
If Jesus existed, we can be certain he wasn’t divine. First, there were a number of messianic claimants during this time in his particular part of the world. He was most likely just another uneducated peasant claiming the mantle of Jewish savior. Second, and most obvious, there is no such thing as “divinity”. None of his miracles can be substantiated. Nothing he did has been verified by extra-biblical sources. Most magicians and miracle workers during this time were charlatans and there is no reason to think otherwise about Jesus.
Finally, people cannot rise from the dead. It’s impossible. If he existed, was tortured, and lay in a tomb, his body was either stolen or he simply wasn’t dead and walked out. Either is more plausible than supernatural resurrection. There was no one living at that time in that part of the world to verify this event and we have no rational reason to believe it happened.
While some of what Jesus said was “good” and “moral”, we have no reason whatsoever to believe he was divine or supernatural. It’s highly likely the stories of Jesus of Nazareth were either outright fiction or embellished stories of one of many poor, radical Jewish miracle workers in the Middle East two thousand years ago.
Monday, April 18, 2011
My email correspondence with Apologist Kyle Butt
As promised, below is the entire, unedited email conversation I had with apologist Kyle Butt. As you can see, his arguments are extremely weak and are not what I would expect from a trained apologist.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.
As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.
Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?
I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel
-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:
I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.
To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:
--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.
Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."
So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.
As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).
Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:
“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).
“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).
The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”
An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).
Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).
The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.
The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/
Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).
What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:
Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).
We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.
Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).
It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/
Good to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-------------------------------
December 20, 2011
Normally I respond more quickly. I've been trying to finish up several year-end projects. Thanks for the essay and I appreciate your renewed interest in the discussion.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.
As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.
Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?
I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel
-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:
I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.
To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:
--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.
Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."
So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.
As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).
Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:
“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).
“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).
The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”
An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).
Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).
The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.
The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/
Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).
What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:
Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).
We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.
Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).
It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/
Good to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-------------------------------
December 20, 2011
Kyle,
Either you don’t understand the scientific process or you’re playing dumb. You and I both know that if creationism were supported by repeatable scientific processes, testing, and empirical data, it would be included in these prestigious journals.
I can’t believe you actually cited the weak paper by Meyer. Yes, I’m aware of the story. Wasn’t there a movie about it called “Expelled”? Don't hold me to that. I didn't see it. Let’s not rehash what’s in popular circulation, please. I’m also fully aware of how Sternberg was supposedly railroaded. Sternberg worked with Meyer exclusively going entirely against accepted editorial practices. I’m glad he was rebuked and I support it. They were obviously being deceptive to get the paper published published. Am I hearing you correctly that you support such behavior? As for the paper itself, it contained no independent research or lab results. It was nothing more than a review of others’ work. The scientific community and I want to see hard results that can be replicated in labs and tested. Please address this particular comment and do not veer around it.
Here’s my follow-up question: Can you cite ANY work that has been conducted in labs or otherwise to further the “work” conducted by Meyer in 2004? Have creationists just been sitting on their hands this whole time? Scientists work despite controversy if they are passionate about a subject. Where is the body of work or are Meyer, Sternberg, and you going to whine for 8 more years about Meyer’s pathetic piece of garbage? Can you cite other supposed-scientific papers being submitted as we speak or is this it for you?
Nice SETI strawman, by the way. You didn’t remotely answer my question correctly. I want evidence, not philosophizing. So, I’ll ask my question again: Can you cite PEER-REVIEWED EVIDENCE demonstrating DNA points to a creator? That’s really all I want from you at this point.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Brown
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Unconditional Love
Is there one instance in the Bible where God did something good without asking for anything in return?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Come, let’s reason together (Isaiah 1:18)
In my former life, I wanted to be a Christian apologist. Seriously and don’t laugh. Christian apologetics is the attempt to offer a rational explanation for the faith. Apologists seek to defend the faith against objections through public lectures, debates, books, and websites. The idea is to argue that Christianity is reasonable and evidence-based, but requires metaphysical considerations. That caveat is where my contention lies. A common argument is God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of revelation, both in nature and through the Bible. This field has sprouted many famous apologetes, including St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaff, and Lee Strobel.
I’ve argued with plenty of Christians—laypersons and pastors alike—but I have never had an opportunity to debate a full-fledged apologist. Recently, I was meeting with my State House Representative, Sheila Butt, and she told me her son, Kyle, is an apologist who has written numerous books. He currently works at Apologetics Press, a publishing house established in the 70s and based in Montgomery, AL. He publicly debated Dan Barker, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2008.
I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.
Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,
I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.
Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,
“So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?”
I explained that indirect observation is but one component of science. Scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on inference alone while religion does. In science, indirect observation can be used at various stages, but ultimately we must have testable, measurable evidence if we are to send a spacecraft to the hypothetical planet. We wouldn’t dare send the craft without having exact measurements of distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc. The beauty of science is that it’s predictable. Sure, it’s fun to speculate or infer an intelligent agent as a source of creation, but ultimately you have to define this entity and it has to be testable and measureable if it interacts within the material world.
He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.
He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.
After my last email educating him on evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, DNA, and paleontology, I haven’t heard back. It’s been eight days and I suspect I won’t hear anything else. My repeated question as to how he personally determines the truth of a statement/proposition was left unanswered. So much for “rationally defending the faith”. I appreciate him being a good sport, but I expected so much more. Oh well, on to the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)