While I am usually pretty confrontational when it comes to debates and discussions about topics that matter to me, it is rare that someone with the credentials of the person that had this discussion with me blunders in so many ways. Most of his blunders are not obvious, and many that read this dialog will believe he did not blunder at all, but in the end it is up to you - the reader to decide. I think he blundered in the following ways, making the following presumptions:
1. Scientists make no assumptions about facts.
2. Evolution is provable and falsifiable
3. Science has nothing to do with God or faith
4. Order arises out of chaos
5. Evolution does not attempt to describe our origins.
What was more interesting is that he purported a belief in God - which he may have; the difficulty is that evolution in its current state and a belief in the Christian God is mutually exclusive - if you are intellectually honest with yourself. Sure, evolution occurs in nature - but God spoke and the world was made - he didn't sneeze and say 'Oh, look, an ape - perhaps we can nudge it into becoming human...'
Nick Yonko
Who is being hostile? I thought you were calling people who reject evolution as truth as 'ignorant'. Wasn't that in your post on the other facebook wall?
Respondant #1:
Nick, take a breath. Ignoring evidence is a great means for being hostile when one feels threatened.
Ignoring is the root of Ignorant: It allows people to react with emotion instead of engaging in honest dialogue.
I'm not saying everyone is ignorant who believes in ID: there are lots of reasons why people subscribe to one tribe or another.
I'm asking a reasonable question.
Respondant #2:
I.d. Is not science
Nick Yonko
OK - deep breath taken.
Nick Yonko
And yes, ID is not science - it is a presupposition taken to support the pursuit of a scientific explanation
of the origins of the universe. Similarily, evolution is not science - it is a presupposition that God does not exist
and that the world was created through anonymous processes - again with the aim of explaining the origins of the universe.
Nick Yonko
Here is a good article on Intelligent Designs origins:
http://www.faithandscienceresource.org.uk/id/rise_id.html
Respondant #2:
Evolution makes no claims about god whatsoever.
Respondant #1
Nick, again you are confused or patently ignoring by definition what science is.
The Scientific Theory of Evolution is certainly based on the verification of thousands of falsifiable hypotheses
using accepted scientific methods: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population
spread over many generations. Respondant #2 is correct and this CANNOT be dismissed or excluded
from any I.D. arguments: the theory of evolution does not make ANY claims about the ultimate origins of life -
only the observed transformations of species as indicated through many lenses at a number of levels of the biological sciences.
That "good" article is chock full of Straw Man arguments: they set up the opposition in a partial frame and
then use logic or other means to contrast it. This a political / rhetorical move and must be guarded against from all sides.
As evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" - it's pretty innocuous
Respondant #1
by the way, in teaching "Critical Thinking" courses, I use Intelligent Design and the Scientific
theory of Evolution as one lens to apply Critical Discourse. I have students read articles across the
spectrum (there are more than "two" sides here) and dissemble each author's arguments looking for
Point of View, Assumptions, Inferences, Alternate Explanations, and Applications.
I've taken Graduate Students to arguments at the School Board on contested books by I.D.
proponents and collected books and websites on this topic.... And I have NEVER yet seen I.D.
scientists successfully argue for their "alternate theory". It doesn't even come close to reaching the
astonishing breadth and depth of explanatory power as the Theory of Evolution. Rather,
the Kansas School Board would rather change the definition of Science, itself. Bad Science is
almost as dangerous as Bad Religion. But not quite.
Nick Yonko
No, I am not patently ignoring anything. And again, give me one instance in nature where macro-evolution
was un-falsifiably seen to occur? You are making the fundamental assumption that God does not exist, correct?.
I am making the fundamental assumption that he does. If you believe God does not exist, the only available
explanation for the origins of life is evolution. I am not going to try to convince you that what
you call science is Bad Science - macro-evolution is unfalsifiable because it has never been seen to occur; it is
unprovable for the same reason - however, logical assumptions based on the false premise of a missing deity
have given it credence in the absence of any other explanation.
If you would like, list some of the 'thousands of falsifiable hypotheses using accepted scientific methods'
the you purport evolution has behind it and I will answer them as best I can - with the presumption that God exists,
or at the very least without denying his existence.
Respondant #1
I am definitely NOT making the argument that God does not exist. What gave you the idea that I'm
arguing AGAINST God? That's ridiculous. The realm of science is strictly regulated to what is observable and
deducible. Seriously - that's what you BELIEVE is not true, but it is. Scientists are people and they believe all
kinds of things... but the process of science as a means for uncovering the nonintuitive, surprising,
even uncomfortable truth is undeniable. But they don't delve into matters of ultimate Truth.
That's for clergy and philosophers. Scientists postulate natural laws that explain how phenomena occur
without invoking the supernatural, Nick. That's science. Doing so does NOT, however obviate the supernatural
- because it only seeks to explain things by way of what we can actually observe. God is not directly observable.
That's why they call it Faith.
I do not deny God's existence and neither does the Theory of Evolution despite what you may insist.
Nick Yonko
Interesting - so, what does evolution accept as fact that it cannot observe? Anything?
Respondant #1
Scientists propose theories that fit the given evidence - some of which hasn't yet
been directly observed yet, yes. A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements:
It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains
only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the
results of future observations. The Special Theory of Relativity is an example... the Theory of Evolution is another.
A Scientific Theory doesn't "accept" anything as fact. But it's an accepted theory by most
scientists because the massive amount of evidence gathered from the geologic record and
studies of ecosystems, plant morphology, genetic sciences, biophysics, and the many other
biological sciences and their corollaries fits very well with the Theory of Evolution.
There isn't near the level of "speculation" or "alternative explanations" available like ID folks claim.
These are specious arguments.
Respondant #1
questions for you: how does I.D. purport to make any explanations about ANYTHING from a scientific perspective? Anything?
Nick Yonko
Science utilizes deduction to pursue theories based on assumptions made by the scientist in question.
If you truly believe that scientists make no assumptions of the facts based on presuppositions, you need
to revisit the history books. The evidence for Intelligent Design is in the very ecosystems themselves.
Nothing in nature spontaneously creates systematically ordered living beings without a prior cause.
Discarding logic in the face of 'evidence' is foolish - you must draw conclusions from the
evidence. No evidence stands alone without the applied logic of the scientist. That logic requires
presuppositions that the scientist then works to prove either true or false. Most scientists believe
God does not exist. I have given you a long list of scientists that do with signficant accreditations.
If you want scientific explanations go to them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Respondant #2
Lmao! This could be a comedy bit. Whos on first? Are you really telling him to be logical? Wow
Nick Yonko
Why shouldn't I? Since he is discarding the very principles of deduction he
is purporting to uphold by accepting as fact PRESUPPOSTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS
just as I am. At least I have the honesty to admit it.
Respondant #1
I've taken a bit of time to try to discuss with you the difference between Faith and the
aims and methods of Science in a fair and decent manner, Nick. No need to be so personal in
your indictments. It appears that in the course of this discussion you've drawn a few conclusions a
bout my character rather than to address questions in a civil way. Projecting your own judgments
about what you think I represent and conflating those with what I'm actually saying, you accuse me
of being an atheist, illogical, dishonest, and foolish. I could be one or two of those, sure. But it's telling
to me that you've paid scant attention in your replies to answers I've given to your questions. You can
be as angry as you like. Do you know what Occam's Razor is? It means that Deduction and Logic aren't
the only tools in the shed. If there is evidence of I.D. within the ecosystem... where? Just because
there might not be a Hand guiding evolution to create the puny humans doesn't mean that God does NOT exist
Respondant #1
Nick says: "Nothing in nature spontaneously creates systematically ordered living beings without a prior cause"...
this seems to be the point at which you jump off thinking that I'm not logical by not "accepting" this. But it's
demonstrably NOT TRUE my friend. Order DOES come out of chaos quite regularly all by itself and the mechanisms
for this have been under study for decades. If you would study Ilya Prigogine's work on NonLinear Dynamics (Nobel Prize),
or other physicists such as Richard Feynman, you might understand better than I can say it in a little Facebook Window.
These guys are not backwater scientists either. Oh - and about that - Read Kuhn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
... I'm FULLY aware that science changes based on what we know at the moment, based on the evidence that we have
and the prevailing cultural overtone. Yep, Science is messy and human and given to "herd mentality", ya got me there.
But faith is NOT scientific. period.
Respondant #2
Jon, are you familiar with the i.d. court case from dover? _i think the town is dover_It is fairly recent
Respondant #1
and ya know what? If you want to be a scholar, you should act more like a gentleman.
I've lost the motivation to continue this discussion following such un-Christian Like conduct. Have a good day.
Respondant #1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Nick Yonko
I understand your anger, and have responded to your un-gentleman like accusations in kind. I am looking
forward to looking into the scientists you mention, and the data they present. If you truly believe I have
responded in a fashion that was different that how I was treated, I apologize. In closing this discussion I thank you for your time.
Nick Yonko
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/prigogine.html
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The New Atheism
For those that are unfamiliar with the term 'atheism', the term is defined by dictionary.com as 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God.' or more generally 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.' While either of these definitions are suitable for the purposes of this blog, there is little doubt in my mind that today's atheist is focused on disbelieving the Christian God and not any other god.
Perhaps that assumption is driven by my ethnocentrism (dictionary.com: 'a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.') However, Christianity is certainly not only the religion of the United States, but it is a religion of the world and has adherents in all cultures. Not surprisingly, most of those cultures find themselves coming together on the soil of the United States, thus my country becomes a type of petri dish of cultural conflict. If two cultures, religions, philosophies, or worldviews can conflict in some way, they do so in the United States, and frequently in the court of public opinion - ie. the media.
It seems that Christianity and its adherents are frequently at the center of those conflicts. I recently posted an article from the Family Policy Institute written by Joseph Backholm, their executive director (found here). A divorced couple set up a parenting plan for their child, and the father took issue with the child being home schooled. However, New Hampshire law only allows the modification of the parenting plan in fairly extreme circumstances. The judge ruled to modify the plan. The only issue at hand was the child's faith. I don't know if the father, who wanted the child to go to public school changed his faith, or if he even ever had any faith, or if the mother suddenly developed a Christian faith after the divorce. Whatever the case, the judge ruled that the child's faith was of significant enough harm to the child's well being that the parenting plan should be changed. It is a strange world that tells us that having faith in God is detrimental to our children.
Again, this may be me focusing on things in my world that are relevant to me, but the number of religious cases in this country that are tried in the courts that involve Christianity in the past year are, to my cursory count, well above 200 on the christianpost.com web site. Most frequently, the cases seem to be between atheists and Christians. Why is this the case?
There are several reasons that could be cited to explain this - some ludicrous and some valid; but I believe the best explanation is found in the words of Jesus himself: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34 NIV) Christianity, by its very nature, creates conflict.
Christianity is the religion of conflict, but not conflict by self initiated agression with an aim toward conquest or self aggrandizement - Christianity is about a clashing of spirits. Jesus never sought anyone's demise or physical destruction - unlike Islam. Jesus brings a sword because he puts the proverbial line in the sand. You are either for Him or against Him and adherents to the faith He created cannot and should not compromise the core tenets of their faith. Jesus did not allow it. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 NIV) For those that believe that Jesus is who he said he was, there is no other way to get to heaven but through Him.
What is so astonishing to me about this is that the very line in the sand that Jesus draws is the line that so many churches are attempting to blur in the name of "Seeker Friendliness" or "Cultural Relevance". Atheism has little to argue against in that type of environment. Atheists compare the soft, fruity Christianity of today with just living their lives the way they see fit and they don't see any benefit to adding all the Christian baggage to their lives. I can't blame them - no benefit and big cost - that doesn't sound like a good deal.
This type of faith is never what Jesus preached. He didn't want us to live the lives we have always been living and then just add baggage. No wonder atheists, and those that despise Christianity, are attacking it so vigorously. It isn't that Christianity hasn't done anything to garner the conflict - we have, and our leader, Jesus, was the one who took the first swipe at business as usual. It is that we have positioned ourselves like bratty young children saying 'I dare you to hit me!' and when they do, we sit back and run comfortable social clubs for them that they can come into when they please and spit on when it suits them. It's almost like we feel guilty for Jesus - trying to cushion the blow of His polarizing philosophies so that people don't get mad. What gives us the right?
Call me dramatic, call me hyperbolic, call me insane. The fact is, if we claim the name of Jesus we will draw conflict - and making our churches soft by making them "Seeker Friendly" or "Culturally Relevant" increases the conflict that comes our way because atheists and others that hate us see the weakness inherent in those positions. People don't want the church to be soft and easy to move in to - the church should be demanding and challenging; not by being hard-ass, but by being real and calling people to real faith. Life is hard and it draws its own challenges to us. The heros of the Christian faith did not consider making their parishoners comfortable as a very high priority but they called them to repentance on a daily basis.
We must change our churches by demanding change in ourselves so that we can bear real fruit and show our detractors that what we believe in isn't just baggage, but it is real. This does not mean they will suddenly love us - that isn't the point. The point is to bring people into relationship with the real Jesus Christ - not with our fancy social clubs. The two are NOT the same.
In the United States this is especially hard because we are so comfortable. Nothing here compels us to change because we have everything we need. If we were being persecuted on a daily basis, we would see miracles working in our lives like they do in China, Indonesia, and the Sudan - but we don't have that kind of test here in the U.S. - yet. Make no mistake, however, it is coming - Jesus promised it would "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:20). And to me, I think it is coming in a rush through the courts and the law and the media in ways we haven't yet seen and in ways we couldn't imagine.
In the end, the point is that we need to take off our Christian masks and start being real, no matter the cost - that is how we draw people to Jesus.
Perhaps that assumption is driven by my ethnocentrism (dictionary.com: 'a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.') However, Christianity is certainly not only the religion of the United States, but it is a religion of the world and has adherents in all cultures. Not surprisingly, most of those cultures find themselves coming together on the soil of the United States, thus my country becomes a type of petri dish of cultural conflict. If two cultures, religions, philosophies, or worldviews can conflict in some way, they do so in the United States, and frequently in the court of public opinion - ie. the media.
It seems that Christianity and its adherents are frequently at the center of those conflicts. I recently posted an article from the Family Policy Institute written by Joseph Backholm, their executive director (found here). A divorced couple set up a parenting plan for their child, and the father took issue with the child being home schooled. However, New Hampshire law only allows the modification of the parenting plan in fairly extreme circumstances. The judge ruled to modify the plan. The only issue at hand was the child's faith. I don't know if the father, who wanted the child to go to public school changed his faith, or if he even ever had any faith, or if the mother suddenly developed a Christian faith after the divorce. Whatever the case, the judge ruled that the child's faith was of significant enough harm to the child's well being that the parenting plan should be changed. It is a strange world that tells us that having faith in God is detrimental to our children.
Again, this may be me focusing on things in my world that are relevant to me, but the number of religious cases in this country that are tried in the courts that involve Christianity in the past year are, to my cursory count, well above 200 on the christianpost.com web site. Most frequently, the cases seem to be between atheists and Christians. Why is this the case?
There are several reasons that could be cited to explain this - some ludicrous and some valid; but I believe the best explanation is found in the words of Jesus himself: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34 NIV) Christianity, by its very nature, creates conflict.
Christianity is the religion of conflict, but not conflict by self initiated agression with an aim toward conquest or self aggrandizement - Christianity is about a clashing of spirits. Jesus never sought anyone's demise or physical destruction - unlike Islam. Jesus brings a sword because he puts the proverbial line in the sand. You are either for Him or against Him and adherents to the faith He created cannot and should not compromise the core tenets of their faith. Jesus did not allow it. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 NIV) For those that believe that Jesus is who he said he was, there is no other way to get to heaven but through Him.
What is so astonishing to me about this is that the very line in the sand that Jesus draws is the line that so many churches are attempting to blur in the name of "Seeker Friendliness" or "Cultural Relevance". Atheism has little to argue against in that type of environment. Atheists compare the soft, fruity Christianity of today with just living their lives the way they see fit and they don't see any benefit to adding all the Christian baggage to their lives. I can't blame them - no benefit and big cost - that doesn't sound like a good deal.
This type of faith is never what Jesus preached. He didn't want us to live the lives we have always been living and then just add baggage. No wonder atheists, and those that despise Christianity, are attacking it so vigorously. It isn't that Christianity hasn't done anything to garner the conflict - we have, and our leader, Jesus, was the one who took the first swipe at business as usual. It is that we have positioned ourselves like bratty young children saying 'I dare you to hit me!' and when they do, we sit back and run comfortable social clubs for them that they can come into when they please and spit on when it suits them. It's almost like we feel guilty for Jesus - trying to cushion the blow of His polarizing philosophies so that people don't get mad. What gives us the right?
Call me dramatic, call me hyperbolic, call me insane. The fact is, if we claim the name of Jesus we will draw conflict - and making our churches soft by making them "Seeker Friendly" or "Culturally Relevant" increases the conflict that comes our way because atheists and others that hate us see the weakness inherent in those positions. People don't want the church to be soft and easy to move in to - the church should be demanding and challenging; not by being hard-ass, but by being real and calling people to real faith. Life is hard and it draws its own challenges to us. The heros of the Christian faith did not consider making their parishoners comfortable as a very high priority but they called them to repentance on a daily basis.
We must change our churches by demanding change in ourselves so that we can bear real fruit and show our detractors that what we believe in isn't just baggage, but it is real. This does not mean they will suddenly love us - that isn't the point. The point is to bring people into relationship with the real Jesus Christ - not with our fancy social clubs. The two are NOT the same.
In the United States this is especially hard because we are so comfortable. Nothing here compels us to change because we have everything we need. If we were being persecuted on a daily basis, we would see miracles working in our lives like they do in China, Indonesia, and the Sudan - but we don't have that kind of test here in the U.S. - yet. Make no mistake, however, it is coming - Jesus promised it would "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:20). And to me, I think it is coming in a rush through the courts and the law and the media in ways we haven't yet seen and in ways we couldn't imagine.
In the end, the point is that we need to take off our Christian masks and start being real, no matter the cost - that is how we draw people to Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)