Review of the Richard Dawkins – Wendy Wright Debate

This is a guest post by Dr. Adrian Keister, brother of the blog owner.

You can see this debate here.

This was an interesting debate, although I was a bit disappointed in both of them (that’s typical, actually; few people on either side, it seems, speak to the questions and concerns of the other side. It’s so much easier to repeat assertions than to actually address the arguments.).

Here’s my analysis of the video. D = Dawkins, W = Wright. Overall, I would criticize W for appearing to want to win the argument more than she wants to win Dawkins for Christ. I noticed in Brian Greene’s interview with D that D was not attempting to change her mind. He was attempting to reach the audience. Perhaps W was doing the same. I thought W’s demeanor was annoying – too overdone. Some would probably think it condescending, as if anyone who disagreed with her is stupid. Mind you, I think D had a bit of that as well, but it was hidden better. His condescension was more in the content of his comments and questions rather than in his tone – it was more academic condescension.

0:00 Introductions – no comment.

0:37 D asks W why she is concerned about evolution. W answers that what you believe about how people are created shapes what you believe about people. If you believe that people are created out of love, and have a spirit and soul, you’ll be more likely to treat other people with dignity and respect. The unspoken assumption here is that people ought to be treated with dignity and respect. W can get that from the Bible, although D won’t follow here there, considering his opinion of the God of the OT:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. The God Delusion

1:05 D replies that you have to contend with facts – in this case scientific facts. He compares evolution with gravity or the Milky Way.

1:10 W says that scientists have been censoring any evidence that contradicts evolution. She is questioning D’s use of the term “fact” here: is evolution a scientific fact? She mentions the fraudulent “evidence” that has been put forth in the past as evidence for evolution.

1:36 W argues that we should teach the controversy, and not censor out the other side of the debate.

2:02 D says that “Seriously, there isn’t a controversy.” I’m sorry, but this is laughable. There is a controversy! A little further on he repeats himself, “The fact of evolution is uncontroversial.” I would question the use of the word “fact” and the use of the word “uncontroversial.”

2:27 D says that Piltdown Man was never used as evidence for evolution. This is quite simply incorrect. D needs to check his history a bit more before saying things like that. Doubtless it’s not used as evidence now. This whole debate is a bit tangential. Both sides of the debate, if put under the microscope, can be shown to have made many mistakes.

2:37 W makes an incredibly important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. She claims that there is evidence for micro, but not for macro.

2:50 W attacks D’s attitude with what I would regard as an ad hominem, even if it’s true. It’s not useful for winning D over.

3:08 D asks where W studied science. This is yet another ad hominem. It shouldn’t matter what one has studied, in terms of the truth of one’s claims. Now, rhetorically, you can certainly question the believability of someone in this fashion (attacking that person’s ethos).

3:28 W makes a very important claim: that all so-called evidence for evolution, say, at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, is only in drawings. There aren’t real fossils there, or even photos of real fossils. So W claims. More on this later. She also mentions how scientists are creating a sort of protective hub around themselves, where they don’t allow any disagreement. The movie Expelled definitely corroborates these statements.

4:13 D claims that the evidence for evolution is substantial. He goes on to DNA evidence. His claim is that the DNA of human beings, monkeys, chimps, etc., has a beautiful hierarchical structure that can only be explained by evolution. To that I would reply in these words of Dorothy Sayers:

Are you occasionally perturbed by the things written by adult men and women for adult men and women to read? We find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator” (I think he put it more strongly; but since I have, most unfortunately, mislaid the reference, I will put his claim at its lowest)–“an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither; all it proves is that the same material causes (recombination of the chromosomes, by crossbreeding, and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations–just as the various combinations of the same dozen tones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause. – The Lost Tools of Learning.

So the argument that the DNA can only be explained by evolution is quite simply a non sequitur. Of course there can be similarities in the DNA if all animals were created by God. Just as God wanted certain animals to have similarities (limbs, hair, etc.), He could (and I believe did) use the secondary means of DNA to accomplish that.

Evolution may or may not have a good explanation for the hierarchy of DNA, but Mature Creation Theory (MCT for the rest of this review – this is what I believe) can certainly account for it.

5:00 D claims that evidence for macroevolution is in the DNA, and in the geographical distribution of species.

5:08 W dismisses the DNA and geographical distribution as “commonalities”. I could wish she had enlarged on this a bit further. She should have said something like, “Well, just because there are similarities in the DNA, even in a hierarchy, doesn’t imply that one species evolved into another. If you write God out of the equation from the get-go, and the only mechanisms available to explain anything are inside the cosmos, then naturally you’re going to see the similarities as evidence of macroevolution. But if there is a God Who created the universe, then He could easily have put those similarities there in order to achieve some unity in diversity.” She reiterates her question about the evidence.

5:18 D takes a step back and attempts a definition of the word “evidence”. This would be a good move, provided he did it well. Unfortunately, he appears to define evidence as “whatever scientists accept as proof.” This is rather postmodern, to say the least. A better definition would be “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or false.” I think this is a better way to describe it. D goes on to talk about some sort of “agenda” that W has. Presumably, he’s attempting to point out that she’s biased. This, of course, is true. What D would presumably not want brought to the surface, is that he is biased as well. The only honest thing is to come out and say what your bias is, which W does, eventually, at 6:02, and 8:21.

5:58 D accuses W of rejecting science. It would, perhaps, be much more accurate to say that W rejects the mainstream scientific viewpoint, which is quite a different matter. D does what a lot of evolutions do: equate evolution with science. My objection to evolution as science is that the statement that we evolved from lower beings, and that life forms in general evolve from one species to another, is not scientific. D is not capable of producing evidence in the fossil record to support this. He says that the DNA is evidence, but the problem is that precisely the same DNA “evidence” can be interpreted more as evidence of a Creator. Actually, of course, the DNA doesn’t really support either viewpoint, independent of fundamental assumptions. If you assume that evolution is true, you will interpret the DNA as evidence for evolution (and, on the face of it, not having studied it, you understand, I would grant that the DNA evidence is compatible with the theory of evolution); if you assume that God created the universe about six thousand years ago, then you will look at precisely the same DNA “evidence”, and interpret it as evidence for a Creator (the DNA evidence is most certainly compatible with the creationist position as well). In other words, the DNA will not be able to settle the issue. Not only can D not produce evidence from the fossil record (see Duane Gish for the world’s leading fossil record expert – evolutionists have lost to him in debate too many times to do it any more), but we can’t see any species evolving from one species to another today. Evolutionists claim that’s because it takes too long. That’s convenient. So we have a process that, to our knowledge, has no clear-cut evidence that it ever occurred in the past, and no evidence that it occurs now. That’s a problem for any scientific theory.

6:02 W replies that there is no hidden agenda. I think she does say there is an agenda, and she comes out and says what it is. It’s just not a hidden agenda.

6:09 W basically accuses D of an ad hominem. I suppose, technically, she is right. But it is rhetorically effective to question someone’s ethos, which is presumably what D is doing. W is not wrong simply because she has an agenda. Everyone has an agenda, and a truth is presumably true no matter who (with whatever agenda) holds to that truth. W goes on to say that ad hominem attacks show, to her, that the evolutionists do not have confidence in the evidence, otherwise they would not need to resort to them. This is problematic. It’s her opinion, but it wouldn’t have to be true. Probably it is true in some settings. Is it rhetorically effective to say so? Again, are you trying to win the person, or the argument? Sometimes you can do both at the same time, but often, in today’s irrational society, to win the argument is to lose the person.

6:38 D denies ad hominem; I don’t think he’s right here. I do think he leveled an ad hominem against W. His argument essentially went like this: “You have a hidden agenda, therefore your argument cannot be trusted.” That’s a textbook ad hominem. It truly is amazing how bad at logic many otherwise intelligent (and D is obviously highly intelligent) people are.

D goes on to compare people who deny evolution with people in a Latin or Roman history class denying that the Romans ever existed. This, however, is begging the question (petitio principii). The historicity of evolution is precisely the point being argued!

6:58 W says that D’s “annoyance” is a perfect example of the hostility that evolutionists have against people who don’t buy into it, who ask for the evidence.

7:13 D says that you can just read an elementary biology textbook to get the evidence.

7:18 W says it’s interesting that D brings up textbooks, because of the fetus in the womb argument. This is Haeckel’s embryos. She says that this argument has been proven to be false (she should have used the word ‘invalid’; terms are clear or unclear, propositions are true or false, and arguments are valid or invalid. Terms cannot be true or false, nor can they be valid or invalid. Propositions cannot be clear or unclear, nor can they be valid or invalid. Arguments cannot be clear or unclear, nor can they be true or false.).

7:40 D dismisses her accusation by saying that it’s just a Victorian error, and it’s being dealt with. He even claims that modern textbooks don’t have Haeckel’s drawings in them as evidence for evolution. This is debatable. See the Discovery Institute’s review of several modern biology textbooks at http://www.discovery.org/a/3935. As late as 2004, at least, they were still using them. This video interview was done in 2012. I suppose it’s possible (I haven’t checked) that textbooks are no longer using Haeckel’s drawings, but given the usual academic inertia of textbooks, I would be surprised if no recently published modern biology textbook is using Haeckel’s drawings. Campbell’s Biology, 9th Ed., 2011, does not have the drawings anywhere that I could find, for what that’s worth, nor does it seem to mention the incorrect recapitulation theory. I would tend to agree with D more on the value of this discussion, actually. I do think it’s a problem that the textbook writers kept this error in their textbooks for this long, but this is hardly a strong argument against evolution.

8:00 D reiterates that W’s failure to accept the “massive evidence” shows her hidden agenda. So he asks again what that is.

8:30 W replies with a reductio ad absurdam argument (if done correctly, this is a valid argument form): philosophies based on the theory of evolution lead to practical political philosophies that devalue human life, whereas the Christian philosophy leads to a valuing of human life. At 8:48, she mentions that evolution assumes that human beings are merely material. She’s on to a big argument in favor of creationism here: can evolution and materialism account for the consciousness and creativity of human beings? There is a qualitative difference here between human beings and all other life forms on the planet.

9:07 D says that he “accepts all that” and “agrees with all that”; he means that he thinks people should be treated with dignity and respect. He goes on to say that W does have an agenda: that she wants human beings to be treated with dignity and respect. His argument here is that she is engaging in wishful thinking: W wants people to be treated with dignity and respect, and therefore she is going to re-interpret or distort scientific facts from a framework or worldview that allows her to come to the conclusions she wants. I think that D and W would both benefit from a discussion of the term “scientific fact”. What is a scientific fact? You could certainly point to real-world data as scientific facts, but is that what D means here? It would seem to me that he’s including the theory of evolution in the category; if he is, it’s yet another case of begging the question. The question of whether evolution is a scientific fact, whatever that means, is precisely the point of the debate! Now, if D is not including the theory of evolution in the category of scientific fact, then kudos to him. If he means simply the evidence that there is, the results and data of experiments, then good. However, W would definitely claim, I think, that those scientific facts (just the evidence) do not show forth evidence for evolution at all. This you can deduce from her repeated command, “Show me the evidence,” that D makes fun of in the Brian Greene interview.

9:30 Here W comes back to claiming that the evidence for evolution is nonexistent, and that evidence for creation gets censored out. That is, the evolutionists are cherry-picking the data. This is a serious accusation, and one that, if D is smart, he will address. Then W reiterates her statement that there is no evidence of one species evolving into another.

10:00 D reiterates his claim that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution of one species into another. He accuses W of not listening to the evolutionists, and only listening to each other.

10:15 W reiterates her command to show her the evidence, the bones, the carcass that shows one species evolving into another.

10:30 D claims that almost every fossil you find is an intermediate form. I think Duane Gish would beg to differ. W has a very interesting response: if there were such fossils, the Smithsonian Institute would have a bunch of them on display. They don’t, therefore there are not such fossils. She points out that the Natural History museum contains only drawings. I think it’s very instructive to do a Google search for something like “photos of intermediate fossils” or something like that. You do get a lot of drawings. You get some fossils, but I ask you this: do you get a nice progression of fossils, in an actual photograph, showing the progression of one species to another? If you find one, I’d be very interested to see it.

10:45 D makes the important distinction that, in terms of intermediate forms, we would be looking for intermediates not between dogs and cats (or modern species), but between an ancient species, and a somewhat less ancient species. He’s quite right here. The problem is, how would we know in advance that any particular fossil we found wasn’t just a different species, but an ancestor of a current species? Or asked another way, if you didn’t already assume evolution to be true, what would be the most natural explanation for fossils that correspond to extinct animals or beings? Would you look at a fossil that’s similar to modern bones, but not exactly like any modern bones, and think to yourself, “That must be an ancestor of this modern species.” Or would you look at it and think to yourself, “This species is very like such-and-such modern species, but it’s not exactly like any bones we see today. Since species go extinct all the time, I’m going to conclude that this fossil belongs to an extinct species.” I would hope that you would agree that the latter interpretation is quite reasonable. Now, I’m not going to say that the latter interpretation rules out any “need” for evolution. There is still the question of origins: in the beginning of life, were there many species coming into existence all at once, or was there only one life form from which all modern life forms descended? If you believe the Genesis account, many species came into existence in a very short time span (the recurring Genesis 1 phrase “morning and evening” rules out the day-age theory from the get-go; what would “morning and evening” of an age mean?) From 11:00 to 11:30, he mentions Australopithecus, and the “mountains of evidence” that there is a progression in these life forms. He asks W why she doesn’t see these as intermediate forms.

11:30 W says that the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show non-scientists that their theory is correct. She is, of course, entirely correct in this. All scientific theories are assumed “false until ‘shown’ to be ‘correct’”. She reiterates that the scientists don’t actually have this evidence, because she claims it is only in drawings, and not actual fossils. There are some fossils – you can see some of them on display at the Göteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum. W’s argument could be weak here, and at an important point. She should debate the fossils, but she is not a scientist. Because she is not a scientist, she has to go on secondary sources.

11:44 W turns D’s argument about hidden agendas back on D, saying that their could be hidden agendas on the part of the evolutionists. One example she produced was the idea that different races of humans are at different points in their evolution, an idea that showed up in Darwin’s writings. I think she should have pushed through to Hitler here, who definitely used the ideas of evolution to argue that the Aryan race was superior to all others, and that the Germans should, therefore, rule the world.

11:58 D tries to deflect this by saying that this idea was Victorian.

12:00 W says that Darwin is the hero of evolutionists.

12:08 D says that Darwin is a hero, but not with respect to racism. D brings the conversation back to Australopithecus, and the “beautiful progression” there.

12:20 W says that they’re still lacking the material evidence.

12:23 D says the material evidence is there: go to the museum and see it.

12:26 W goes back to the philosophies (see 8:30) that have come out of the evolutionary theory: she reiterates that such philosophies have had horrific results, whereas the philosophies that have respected people have been the most successful societies. Reductio ad absurdam arguments can be done well. However, here it feels more like a dodge. She should deal directly with Australopithecus; perhaps she does not know enough to do that.

13:02 W goes back to the DNA argument. All people have distinct DNA (she must mean except for identical twins, who share the same DNA; identical twins is surely irrelevant to the discussion at hand). She takes this as evidence that every person is created individually.

13:36 D says the DNA shows that each person has evolved individually. He says that there are DNA differences between people, otherwise natural selection couldn’t happen. I’ve already dealt with the DNA evidence in my comment concerning 5:58.

13:43 D reiterates his presentation of the fossil progression, which I dealt with in my comments concerning 10:45.

14:01 W says she has seen the evidence, and that it’s not convincing. She should have put forth another argument for why it’s not convincing, instead of reiterating her view that the “aggressive evolutionists” need to stop censoring the creationists (she’s correct on this point, incidentally; no evolutionist should censor any creationist just because of their view on origins. If anyone feels tempted to do so, they should reread Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and keep their peace.).

14:38 D confesses to being frustrated, but denies that it’s about suppression. He mentions several fossils again (presumably the Australopithecus chain), and tells W to go and look at them again.

14:49 W claims, again, that the fossils aren’t there. I’ve dealt with this already in my comments regarding 10:30 and 11:30.

15:00 W reiterates that evolution has produced ideologies highly destructive to the human race. At this point, I’m going to stop the detailed analysis, and see if either of them start listening to the other’s arguments, or whether there’s not going to be anything else of substance.

17:25 D claims that there are fossils from about any vertebrate group W would care to name. Presumably he means that there are intermediate forms from any ancient vertebrate group to any other less ancient vertebrate group. I don’t think I buy this. If you do a Google image search of something like “photos of progression of intermediate fossils from amphibians to reptiles” you find an incredible number of … drawings. Yes, there are a few photos, but not nearly so many as you should expect. Nor are they laid out in anything like a “progressive” nature. That is, one fossil usually looks nothing at all like another. Now, if the theory of evolution is true, and the macroevolution only comes about by a whole series of microevolutions, then the fossil record should contain a whole raft of these intermediate forms. The changes should be minute enough that anyone could look at a progression of fossils and agree that there is a definite progression. This is not the case. So then the evolutionists trot out the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” – long periods of slow change punctuated by short periods of immense change. The problem with this theory is that the fossil record for such a theory is likely to be indistinguishable from the fossil record expected if the mature creation theory is true. Dating methods such as rubidium-strontium make an enormous number of assumptions that may or may not be reasonable. In particular, they make continuity assumptions: the fundamental constants of the universe have been constant for billions of years, etc. A world-wide flood, e.g., might put a damper on that sort of thing. For that matter, what about the necessary conditions to effect these punctuations of great change? Might those conditions affect the results of a rubidium-strontium dating?

20:25 D says that the idea of God “tinkering with creation” is blasphemous. This reveals D’s ignorance of the Christian God. The Christian God is unique: the infinite-personal Creator God. That is, God is transcendent, but yet also imminent. God is always concerned about His creation – He constantly upholds it, and if, for a second, He were to withhold His sustaining power, the entire universe would instantly cease to exist. This is not the God of the Deists – the cosmic watchmaker who “winds up” His creation and lets it go.

22:22 D asks if evolution could be the working-out of God’s purpose.

22:26 W replies that there are Christians who believe that.

25:00 D makes a startling observation: that he does not want to live in a Darwinian society. But, he respects facts which, of course, as we know, lead him to believe in evolution. I find it rather amusing that D lumps “Darwinian society” with a “George Bush” and “Margaret Thatcher” society. The free market is very different from what D imagines it to be.

26:00 W says D has agreed with her about the kind of society that Darwinian theory produces. I’m not sure there is as much agreement as W and D think there is. They both think that Darwinian principles would lead to a ruthless society. However, their idea of what a ruthless society is differ.

29:40 D asks is there is any positive evidence in favor of creation.

29:49 W points to DNA. I think this is weak, as I’ve mentioned before. Much better would be to point to the idea of irreducible complexity, such as the human eye. The human eye is a complex integrated organism. If you remove any feature of it, it’s not as though the eye works but not as well. No, if you remove any part of the eye, it ceases to function altogether. It is inconceivable that such an organism could have evolved from any previous kind of eye. Natural selection implies the idea that you go from simpler to more complex, as the more complex works better. But how could you have gotten to the human eye that way, by gradual stages? There are no previous stages! I definitely take this as evidence of design.

30:30 W points out that most mutations die out, which is true. This, however, is not a particularly strong argument against evolution, because the theory of evolution says that that should happen!

32:00 D undertakes an immensely important task: defining his terms. He should have done this a long time ago, as should W. He defines what Darwin’s theory of natural selection is. First, there is individual variation. By this he means that every individual, apart from monozygotic twins (identical twins) is different from every other individual. He says this is fundamental to the theory. So far, so good: I can’t disagree with this statement. Within that variation, D continues, some survive better than others, and some reproduce better than others. That’s how we get evolution. So D concludes that just because there is individual variation, that doesn’t constitute an argument against evolution, because evolution presupposes individual variation. D is quite right that the presence of individual variation does not rule out natural selection. However, it is unclear how what D describes (on the scale of microevolution, I’m quite willing to admit that natural selection occurs) can account for variation between species (or macroevolution). Species are different from one another precisely insofar as a member of one species cannot (ordinarily) mate with a member from another species. In fact, the wiki on Species defines a species as “one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.” The wiki goes on to mention that this definition is difficult (and from the point of view of evolution, I can see why), but I see no issue with this definition from the creationist viewpoint.

33:05 D reiterates that individual variation is not evidence against evolution, rather it is evidence for evolution. Actually, of course, it is neither. It’s consistent with both evolution and creation. So he needs to stop saying it’s evidence for evolution!

33:45 W indicates that human beings have a spirit, and are not just material. This is an extremely important point. However, its effectiveness hinges on whether it is granted by the evolutionist that people have a soul or not. If they do, evolution definitely cannot explain why – evolution by Darwinian natural selection is a theory that confines itself to the material world, and has no recourse to anything unphysical. This is why you have many biologists who deny that people have a soul.


35:00 D explains that in terms of a self-consciousness, he believes in a soul; he doesn’t believe in an immortal soul, and his language indicates that he believes every aspect of a human being’s existence is material. That is, he doesn’t believe in the immaterial. He takes Carl Sagan’s maxim: “The cosmos is all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be.” So W’s argument about soul and spirit is doomed not to work with D – he doesn’t agree with her fundamental assumption that there is an immaterial soul belonging to every human being.

35:50 W asks an important follow-up question: if soul is defined in terms of consciousness, then is a mentally disabled person – one who has no consciousness – lacking a soul?

36:00 D says that they have no consciousness. In his own terms, then, he would say they have no soul – as he defines soul. However, a minute or so later, D says that a placenta has no soul, because it doesn’t have a brain. This (rightly) confuses W: does a person have a soul because they have a brain, or because they have consciousness? W asks a clarifying question to answer this point.


37:00 D answers that someone without a brain that can exhibit consciousness would not have a soul. However, this does not answer W’s question. W is asking about someone who has a brain that, perhaps, at one time could exhibit consciousness, but has been damaged, say, and can no longer exhibit consciousness. D does not answer this question. Unfortunately, W doesn’t follow-up with a more careful question. I will not comment on W’s story of persecution. W is on her home turf here, and D can hardly be expected to comment on it – and he doesn’t.

44:00 D says that by “The Controversy”, he thinks that W means the debate between science on the one hand, and biblical Creation on the other. Again, D is trying to grab the high ground here, but I certainly would not give it to him. The debate is NOT between science and biblical creation. I think it’s worth setting down my beliefs on this matter, because I think the issue is important.

First, we define a scientific statement as a proposition (propositions have the property, by definition, that they are either true or false) that can be tested by observation. The observation can be of various types. We could use any of our five senses, or we could augment and enhance those senses by technological means. In any case, it is by an observation that we test a scientific statement.

Second, we define science as the collection of all scientific statements, together with the experimental apparatus to test the statements, and the people who do the testing. There is an interplay here, as well, between the statements and the experiments. That, too, is part of science.

Now, by these definitions, I ask you: is the theory of evolution scientific? Well, the theory of evolution certainly makes predictions that can be tested. However, is the statement, “We all evolved from primordial goo to the highly complex life form known as homo sapiens” scientific? Are there any experiments we could run to test it? Well, the only real experiment we could run to truly test this statement is to generate a whole raft of universes (you must have repeatability in science), evolve them in time for billions of years, and see how they turn out. This is not possible, even in theory, much less practice. Therefore, the statement above is not scientific. Now, by the same token, the statement, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” is not scientific, either. Both of these statements make predictions about the future, and those can be tested. However, at its root, the origins question is not a scientific question.

So the debate is not between science and creation. The debate is between evolution and creation. Attempts to say that evolution is scientific beg the question: I say it’s not science to begin with!

D goes on to ask why W would single out the Babylonian-Jewish creation “myth” – why not add the Hindu version, or other versions?

44:30 W replies that she wants to teach the controversy between evolution and intelligent design. She is not arguing that we should teach biblical creation in, say, public schools.

45:00 D asks W who she thinks the intelligent designer was. W rather side-steps this one, and merely says that scientists can debate this one. But she says that, however it might have happened, she believes that the schools should teach the theory of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution, and let the evidence speak for itself.

53:30 D brings in Karl Popper, a very influential philosopher of science. Popper’s big idea was falsifiability: he defines a scientific statement as one that can, in theory, be falsifiable by observation. I think this is too strong, and I think the current direction is away from Popperian falsifiability. However, no one can deny that observation is absolutely central to science. Interestingly, D mentions the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and claims that this theory has never been refuted. I beg to differ. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity posits that there are no preferred reference frames. If you want to talk about the sun revolving around the earth, you go right ahead. The mathematics might be slightly more complicated, but that is neither here nor there. The atheists have loved to poke fun at the church because of the Galileo controversy. Galileo agreed with Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun, and because the church took a too-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, they insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. The church persecuted Galileo. And yet we find that the General Theory of Relativity says the debate was pointless. There’s nothing wrong with thinking that the sun revolves around the earth, and there’s nothing wrong with thinking that the earth revolves around the sun. Pick whichever you want.

56:19 D mentions irreducible complexity. He says that scientists dispute whether they really are irreducibly complex, and seems to dismiss this incredibly important objection to evolution in a single sentence.

59:20 W says that if there really was a vast amount of evidence in favor of evolution, that would influence a large number of people. This is a bit of an ad populum fallacy (appeal to the masses: if everyone’s doing and thinking x, then x must be right).

59:49 D says there is “beautiful, elegant evidence” for fish coming out of the water onto land. If you google “evidence that fish came out onto land fossil photos”, you again get tons of … drawings. There are a few fossils, but again, they are isolated, unusual fossils. There is no progression that I can see that uses real, fossil photos. D also mentions the reptilian jaw transitioning into the mammalian. You can google that and still get very few, and very isolated photos of real fossils. Even the page here: if you scroll down to the bottom, has a “series” of “humanid fossils.” Supposedly, they are in a chronological order, at least from B through N. It’s not at all obvious to me that there is a progression in physical features. I see a bunch of normal variation, not in any particular order.

There are no substantive arguments beyond this point.

Summary

I find D’s arguments unconvincing, but not really because of W’s arguments. W didn’t seem to answer D’s heavy guns here. In particular, she didn’t answer his “evidence” even once convincingly. She kept saying only that she had looked at the evidence, and that it wasn’t convincing to her. Now I think D is making the mistake of thinking that if anyone with an open mind were to look at the evidence, they would be convinced of evolution. This is surely a bit naive. In today’s world, the number of truly irrational people is astounding. But, in addition to that, there are many, many creationists out there who have looked at the evidence (Duane Gish is a prime example), and see it as evidence of intelligent design, and not evolution.

W was weak on her “evolution leads to evil societies” approach. Both W and D agree with this point, but W never followed it up with a “so how can you be comfortable with this gap in your life? On the one hand, Darwinian theory entails natural selection, which is brutal and ruthless. On the other hand, you want the society of people to be caring, loving, and gracious. On what basis can you argue for the latter, given the former? Shouldn’t the facts and evidence dominate your ideologies? On what basis can you go against nature? By what authority?” At this point, D can say nothing, because he has no basis for saying that any one set of ethics is better than another. He might say that we shouldn’t murder, because it is for the good of society, or it is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it’s circular – you have to use the word “good” in this argument, and you can’t define that without a standard of some sort. And if you have a standard, what makes your standard any better than anyone else’s? If you have no superior life form handing down the law, then there is no basis for absolute ethics, without which the entire philosophy collapses.

D was weak in that he kept assuming W had not seen the evidence, despite her assertions to the contrary.

W was weak in her evidence for creation or intelligent design. She should have pushed irreducible complexity a lot harder.

D was weak in that he was quite surprised that anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs. He claims that he would never do that, but I wonder what would happen if he was in charge of who gets what money from, say, the NSF. Would he give any money to ID people like Stephen Myers?

Conclusion

D obviously won this debate, but not with strong arguments. He won the argument because W’s arguments were exceptionally weak. He had some weaknesses himself, to be sure, but overall, W’s weaknesses were greater. D had a much more winsome style – W comes across as annoyingly combative.

I think the Dawkins – Lennox debate was considerably better. Lennox has a Ph.D. in mathematics, and another in philosophy. Dawkins, in my opinion, is not able to hold his own against someone of Lennox’s caliber; Dawkins is, in the words of David Berlinski (a Jewish atheist mathematician, who can’t stand it when fellow atheists use their atheism to beat down ID people – he’s a very interesting fellow), “A crummy philosopher.” Berlinski also said of him, “Very intelligent. A bit of a reptile, but very intelligent.”

34 Comments

  1. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 12:34 am

    In what profession is Adrian Keister a doctor? And is Mature Creation Theory synonymous with Young Earth Creationism?

  2. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 1:05 am

    …W says that the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show non-scientists that their theory is correct. She is, of course, entirely correct in this. All scientific theories are assumed “false until ‘shown’ to be ‘correct’”….

    Actually this is not an accurate description of how science operates. In principle, no theory can be shown to be correct to the exclusion of all other possibilities. A theory is deemed correct if it explains the data better than competing theories and is consistent with prevailing views on nature. Therefore the burden of proof on the evolutionists is not to show that evolution is “correct” but merely to show that it is better than competing theories and is consistent with the prevailing view of nature.

    Please note that I am not defending evolutionary theory here. I’m pointing out why creationists have not made much headway. It’s not sufficient to show the weaknesses of evolution – an alternative theory that better explains the data must be presented.

  3. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 2:34 am

    …Dating methods such as rubidium-strontium make an enormous number of assumptions that may or may not be reasonable. In particular, they make continuity assumptions: the fundamental constants of the universe have been constant for billions of years, etc. A world-wide flood, e.g., might put a damper on that sort of thing. For that matter, what about the necessary conditions to effect these punctuations of great change? Might those conditions affect the results of a rubidium-strontium dating?…

    These sorts of criticisms of radioactive dating don’t get very far because it is not sufficient to point out weaknesses and assumptions – instead an alternative theory must be presented that explains the ratios of various elements measured in minerals with greater consistency than the current theory. And it needs to explain exactly how a worldwide flood would have an impact on these ratios or show that fundamental constants have not been constant. Otherwise its just the same sort of hand waving the evolutionists do, but less effective in wider society.

  4. ackbeet said,

    May 11, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    @Joel @1: This is Adrian Keister. My Ph.D. is in Mathematical Physics, although that is largely irrelevant to the validity of any of my claims. It does mean that I am no expert on biology or the fossil record, but I would definitely claim to be an authority on the scientific method.

    Mature Creation is perhaps a refinement or subset of Young Earth, in that we believe the earth was created recently, but with an appearance of age. So Adam would look, say, 30 years old instead of a few seconds old. The trees would already have fruit on them that he could eat. The starlight would already be streaming to the earth. That sort of thing. We don’t have all the reasons why God did that, but utility, beauty, and the glory of God would be among them.

    @Joel @2: My explanation of the scientific method was more geared towards a lay audience. Hence the quotes around the words ‘shown’ and ‘correct’. I am more of a mathematician than a physicist; to ‘prove’ something means, to me, to have a valid deductive argument, starting from reasonable assumed premisses, with the conclusion as the last line. This rules out all science from the get-go, because science uses inductive reasoning (for the most part; I realize there are short steps here and there which are deductive. But in the grand sweep of science, inductive reasoning rules the roost.) Inductive reasoning is not valid or invalid: it is plausible or less plausible. It cannot arrive at truth with 100% certainty, ever. So I cringe whenever I hear a scientist claim that “science has proven ____.” No, they haven’t. I don’t disagree with your description of the scientific method, but I don’t think that my description is inaccurate. I don’t, however, think it is the case that theories are always only ever evaluated against competing theories. Surely they are often evaluted against the data by themselves.

    As to creationists showing that their theory matches the data better, I think I would take a step back for a second and make some definitions.

    1. A scientific statement is a proposition that can, in theory, be tested by an observation. 2. Science is the collection of all scientific statements, together with the equipment needed to make the observations, as well as the people to do them.

    Now, with this definition, let’s examine the statement, “The universe is billions of years old.” So you’ll notice here that I’m not including evolution into this statement at all – merely talking about the age of the universe. This statement is not scientific according to my definition. The experiment you would really need to do here is to generate a whole raft of universes, evolve them in time billions of years, and see how they come out relative to ours. This is not possible even in principle. Therefore, the statement is not scientific. By the same token, the statement, “God created the universe about 6000 years ago.” is not scientific either, for precisely the same reasons.

    Ultimately, then, the question of origins is a matter of history and not science. Scientific methods are entirely inadequate to answer this question. It is a matter of belief and fundamental assumptions rather than science.

    That said, there is a branch of modern mathematics known as semigroup theory. One of its results is concerning memoryless systems. Let’s consider a system that evolves in time from state A to state B to state C. Then let’s consider an identical system, but it evolves in time from state B to state C. Semigroup theory says that if you’re in the system, with no outside information, there’s no way you can distinguish between these two systems. Conclusion? Science will never be able to disprove Mature Creation. Mature Creation simply says that God created the universe when He did, and made it look old for various reasons. This theory will fit all data, almost by definition. This theory will, of course, be unappealing to atheists, because it invokes God, and we can’t invoke God in science. Or can we? Recall the famous Laplace-Lagrange-Napoleon incident! Apparently, you used to be able to invoke God. But now, thanks to Immanuel Kant, we can’t. Unless you throw out Kant like I do. But I digress.

    @Joel @3: Mature Creation, as I have shown above, will fit all data easily. So why would someone like me espouse Mature Creation, when other theories that don’t invoke God also seem to fit theories (again, I’m not talking about evolution here)? For one very simple reason: I am a believer, and my fundamental starting point, my presupposition, is that the Holy Bible is inerrant, inspired, and infallible. Therefore, I take the Genesis account of origins to be historical fact. This view contradicts no scientific result of which I am aware. Indeed, since science can never actually arrive at truth, it will always be less certain than the biblical record which is always certain. There can be no conflict between science and the Bible, because of the different epistemological levels they inhabit. Moreover, the Bible norms science, not the other way around.

  5. Don said,

    May 11, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Adrian 4,

    Mature Creation simply says that God created the universe when He did, and made it look old for various reasons. This theory will fit all data, almost by definition.

    Unfortunately your Mature Creation idea is more of an assertion than a theory. This is not to say it’s wrong, but it’s not a scientific theory. Specifically:
    1) It cannot be tested by observation (contra the first part of your definition of science)
    2) It in fact explicitly overrules empirical observations
    3) It has no predictive power (contra the part of the definition of science which you left out)

  6. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Thanks for your response, Adrian. I will reply in separate comments because it is easier on a tablet. I agree that your background is largely irrelevant to the validity of your claims, but whoever posted for you on Greenbaggins deemed it important to introduce you as “Dr.”, and since the credential was viewed as relevant, I figured it was fair to ask what it was in to understand your background better. As for me, I am an atmospheric scientist who took geology classes as an undergraduate but no biology since high school.

  7. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Does Mature Creation include God creating fossils and complex geology at the beginning?

  8. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    …I don’t disagree with your description of the scientific method, but I don’t think that my description is inaccurate. I don’t, however, think it is the case that theories are always only ever evaluated against competing theories. Surely they are often evaluted against the data by themselves….

    Yes, that’s true. My point is that theories are routinely accepted despite the presence of some contradictory data so long as the contradiction is minor. It usually isn’t sufficient to raise some contradictory data to displace a theory – a better alternative must be put forward.

  9. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    …1. A scientific statement is a proposition that can, in theory, be tested by an observation. 2. Science is the collection of all scientific statements, together with the equipment needed to make the observations, as well as the people to do them.

    Now, with this definition, let’s examine the statement, “The universe is billions of years old.” So you’ll notice here that I’m not including evolution into this statement at all – merely talking about the age of the universe. This statement is not scientific according to my definition. The experiment you would really need to do here is to generate a whole raft of universes, evolve them in time billions of years, and see how they come out relative to ours….

    You do realize that this is a very idiosyncratic view? Yet it is unclear to me why you think the current scientific view on the age of the universe is not observation ally based, nor why you think experimentation is required to address the issue. You may disagree with the interpretation of the observations, but there are observations.

  10. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    … Ultimately, then, the question of origins is a matter of history and not science. Scientific methods are entirely inadequate to answer this question. It is a matter of belief and fundamental assumptions rather than science….

    I’d say it is more a matter of philosophy/theology since we could have been created yesterday with memories of a history.

    …Science will never be able to disprove Mature Creation. Mature Creation simply says that God created the universe when He did, and made it look old for various reasons….

    Let’s accept this view for the sake of argument. If God made the universe look old, doesn’t that imply that on one level He wants us to view it as old, say in carrying out science?

  11. ackbeet said,

    May 11, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Don @5: You’re quite correct. I should have used a term other than “theory”. I wasn’t using “theory” in its truest scientific sense there. How about “view of origins”? You can, of course, test it in a very limited fashion, as per its predictions and consistency, but not, as we both have pointed out, in a truly scientific manner.

    Can you give examples of where Mature Creation explicitly overrules empirical observations? In what sense are you using the term “overrule”? I guess I would normally think of “overrule” as in, “Well, the result of this experiment was that the average value of x was 5.4. But since we believe in Mature Creation, the actual value must be 7.8. Therefore, we accept the value of 7.8.” This is not what I’m claiming Mature Creation is doing. Instead, I would say that Mature Creation would say, “Well, the experimental value is certainly 5.4. However, this is consistent with an alternative view of origins, where the universe looks older than it is.”

    And thank you for pointing out the “predictive power” element of science. That is the telos, or goal of science. The future is always part and parcel of the scientific endeavor. The philosophers may debate as to whether or not you should include this in the definition of science, but I’m willing to admit it there.

    Joel @6: Lane posted my review himself. He probably was just including the Dr. as my professional name, since that was the context.

    Joel @7: Mature Creation would likely argue more for a Flood explanation of fossils and complex geological formations, as can be observed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1980. I am no expert, however.

    Joel @8: Sure. If there isn’t a better theory, why change?

    Joel @9: It may be idiosyncratic, but so were a number of other scientific theories when they were first proposed. Science is not exactly a democratic process. Answers in Genesis would, I think, be entirely sympathetic to my views, not that that has much to do with the truth or falsity of said views.

    I was not able to parse your sentence, “Yet it is unclear to me why you think the current scientific view on the age of the universe is not observation ally based, nor why you think experimentation is required to address the issue.” In particular, the word “ally” seems misplaced. What did you mean there? [EDIT] I think you meant not to have a space there: “observationally”, right?

    Going on that assumption, I would say that the crucial scientific test of historical views of origins would be to generate a whole bunch of origins. As this is not available to us, I would say that the statements are not observationally based. This is no different from string theory – a scientific theory in trouble. The trouble with string theory is that it makes statements about things on the scale of the Planck length: 10^(-34) meters – it’s cheating not to call that infinitesimal. As we have no equipment available that’s even close to being able to observe things on that scale, there is no experimental side to string theory. As a result, string theory is in trouble. It’s nearly impossible to get an academic position as a string theorist.

    I also would say that if a statement is thought to be scientific, then, subject to budgets and other constraints as per usual, the statement should be tested by observations and experiments. So, to claim that a statement is scientific, and is part of science, when you cannot even theoretically run the right experiments, is misleading, even if it’s not intentional. So I would say that if you’re going to claim that the statement “The universe is billions of years old” is scientific, then you must produce convincing evidence from the right experiments to corroborate the statement.

    I, on the other hand, do not claim that either “The universe is billions of years old” or “God created the universe about 6000 years ago” is a scientific statement. Hence, I am not requiring scientific evidence. I look to the Bible for its historical record.

    Joel @10: I do not drive a huge wedge amongst history, philosophy, and theology. My theology, at least, is absolutely dependent on biblical history, and would fall to pieces without it. Ditto philosophy.

    I don’t believe we were created yesterday, and the reason is that that would contradict the Bible. The Bible has an enormous amount of history that could not have happened if we were created yesterday. Now, I totally get that science could not disprove the statement that we were created yesterday with a memory. I just finished arguing a similar position, but with the creation of the world as the starting point instead of yesterday! Some, perhaps, would level a reductio ad absurdam at Mature Creation here and say that you might as well believe we were created yesterday. It does not stick, though. The reason it does not stick is not in science, though. How could it be? The reason is in the Bible.

    I am very leery of imputing any motives to God, unless God has revealed His mind to us directly. I believe He wants us to believe what He has told us in His Word. That seems clear enough from the biblical record itself. As for other motives, or assumptions God wants us to make, it’s not clear one way or the other, unless such assumptions go against the biblical record.

    So you can see, I hope, how utterly dependent on the Bible I am. It’s the only source of certainty. It’s the starting point for the Christian – it’s our epistemology. The Holy Spirit convinces me that the Bible is true. Thus we avoid the finite reference point that Sartre says is absurd. We start with the infinite-personal God who has revealed Himself to us.

  12. Don said,

    May 11, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Adrian 11,

    Can you give examples of where Mature Creation explicitly overrules empirical observations? In what sense are you using the term “overrule”?

    The point of the Mature Creation Assertion is that the enormous amount of scientific evidence that the universe is 14 billion years old does not matter, simply because of the way you choose to interpret certain passages of Scripture.

    To follow on your example of 5.4 versus 7.8, this is what I mean by overrule: “Observations and theory have converged in recent years to consistently give an answer of x=13840000000. But the real answer is x=6000. There is no empirical evidence for which x appears to be 6000, and using a value of x=6000 doesn’t explain anything better than x=13840000000, but all that doesn’t matter.” If overrule isn’t the right word for this, maybe veto, nullify, or ignore would work.

  13. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    Now for some general comments. Adrian seems to have an interpretation of Genesis that God created the universe only some thousands of years ago, though with the appearance of maturity, which I think arguably would be required so that it would be a livable place for Adam. Adrian seems to realize that the appearance of age implies that scientific observations would indicate the universe was older than it actually was, so he adopts his own personal definition of science to exclude that by definition. So we end up with the contradictory result that a modern scientist can look at tree rings to infer the history of drought over several centuries but Adam could not. Or perhaps Adrian thinks a modern scientist looking at tree rings is not science either, which few other people agree with.

    The irony is that Adrian criticizes one apologetic attempt (and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with his criticisms) while being unable to engage in apologetics himself due to his idiosyncratic definition of science. If Adrian engaged with Dawkins, Dawkins would immediately call him an obscurantist and declare victory.

    Maybe Mature Creation Theory is true or maybe it isn’t, but I don’t think it really matters one way or the other since we can’t tell the difference. And what is the difference between God creating the universe immediately with age or over a long period of time before Adam was on the scene, aside from accommodating Adrian’s personal interpretation of Genesis, which I and others do not share? I say if God created the world recently but with the appearance of age, He intends us to use observations of apparent natural history to understand nature better.

  14. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Note that I posted my #13 before seeing Adrian’s #11.

    @Adrian – yes, observation ally should have been observationally. Tablet autocorrect

  15. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    I think it would be impossible to explain most fossils and complex geology through the Flood. The Mt. St. Helens observations may loom large in the eyes of AiG, but not elsewhere. This I have personal experience with. I had a class in field mapping and spent ten Saturdays tromping around observing rock outcroppings. Formation A was hard shale and so heavily folded that no organization was discernible. Formation B was made of hardened coarse sand and cobbles, including broken pieces of A. I found one cobble with shells in it. The layers of B had one fold and were not parallel to the layers of A. Formation C was a layer of loose sand on top of A and B and not parallel to the layers of A and B.

    Here’s the geological history that I surmise. Clay particles are deposited in a quiescent environment. This becomes Formation A. At least two episodes of geological forcing occur that fold the layers of A in different directions. Formation A is then lifted up above the surface and ravines are eroded. Later swift mountain streams fill the ravines with sand, bits of Formation A and cobbles from other formations higher in the mountains. One of the other formations has already had shells deposited into it when it was low that became fossilized before being lifted high. The filled up ravines become formation B. Geological forces fold Formation B and Formation A below it once. Then Formation B is lifted to the surface and the top is eroded. Finer sand brought down from more distant mountains covers Formation B in a layer. This becomes Formation C. Everything is lifted up again with the loose sand of Formation C at the top, and erosion creates ravines that expose all formations to view.

    I can’t see how a single Flood can account for so many distinct separate events. And consider all the other geological formations around the world.

  16. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    Adrian said: I also would say that if a statement is thought to be scientific, then, subject to budgets and other constraints as per usual, the statement should be tested by observations and experiments. So, to claim that a statement is scientific, and is part of science, when you cannot even theoretically run the right experiments, is misleading, even if it’s not intentional. So I would say that if you’re going to claim that the statement “The universe is billions of years old” is scientific, then you must produce convincing evidence from the right experiments to corroborate the statement.

    Joel says:
    I think we need to draw a distinction between origin and age. Through telescopes we can see galaxies that are very far away, and knowing the speed of light we can determine that they emitted light much longer ago than a few thousand years. And looking at varied geological formations we can determine that it took much longer than a few thousand years to create them. And it also appears that radioactive dating produces some consistency in results. How is this not using scientific observations to determine that the universe and earth look old and putting some provisional numbers on it? How can you say this is not science?

    Also, I’ll note that not all fields of science are experimental. Some fields are almost entirely observational, and they are still regarded as science. The ability to do an experiment is not required.

  17. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    Adrian said: It may be idiosyncratic, but so were a number of other scientific theories when they were first proposed. Science is not exactly a democratic process.

    Joel says: Yes, it may be the case that your idiosyncratic definition of science will become widely accepted in the future, but for every Galileo there are 999+ cranks who think they’re Galileo.

  18. Joel Norris said,

    May 11, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    I apologize if my comments are becoming tedious, but I am home in bed recovering from the flu, so I have time to comment on Greenbaggins which is usually not the case.

    Also for the record, my views on Genesis are closest to Analogical Days. Sometime back I engaged in a discussion of Genesis views on Greenbaggins and am not interested in a repeat discussion.

    One thing I have noticed about apologetics is that they are impressive within the church but of little account outside. I think one reason for this is that apologists are by and large not really intercepting the loop of unbelieving thinking. My initial goal in commenting was to offer insight into how the other side thinks since as a working scientist I am quite familiar with it. My intent is not to pick on Adrian but I see this conversation so far as yet another example of preaching to the choir and failing to apologetically engage the unbelievers.

    Looking at Google Scholar (and I would be happy to be corrected), the only publication I see for Adrian is his Ph.D. thesis, which is akin to an internship. So far as I can tell, Adrian has never been a practicing scientist. So for Adrian to claim authority to speak on the scientific method and then promote idiosyncratic views is akin to a man finishing a M.Div. program with internship and then claiming to be an authority on pastoral ministry, going on to promote idiosyncratic views. Sure, what the man says about pastoral ministry might be true even though he has never been a practicing pastor, and non-pastors can speak on pastoring just as non-scientists can speak on science, but one would think that some experience under the belt would be beneficial before declaring oneself an authority.

    And so the church’s apologetic is weak.

  19. May 12, 2015 at 9:23 am

    It comes down to one’s belief system. Dawkins has a belief system informed by so called evidences. And so do Christians. Dawkins can tell us dna links species, but he can’t tell us the why the smallest living thing, a cell, can sustain itself, fix itself, and reproduce itself. She should have asked him, do you know of a car that can fix itself, multiply itself, and sustain itself. Its like walking out one morning and your broken down car fixes itself, multiplies itself to 5 cars, and fills all the tanks with gas. Dawkins can’t explain that. They can get down to the dna, but they can’t tell you how and what the dna got there. K

  20. Ron said,

    May 12, 2015 at 9:58 am

    “They can get down to the dna, but they can’t tell you how and what the dna got there. K”

    It’s actually worse than that. Not only can’t they account for origins, they cannot account for the intelligibility of what they do acknowledge. For instance, why should our minds provide any fruitful connection to the external stuff out there? If the mind provides the truth-connection (Kant’s answer to Hume), we’ve merely psychologized science and been reduced to another form of skepticism.

  21. May 12, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Ron, good point!

  22. greenbaggins said,

    May 12, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Joel, I am no scientist, but rather a theologian. I can see your criticisms of Adrian, and I think that you are correct in terms of how the unbelieving scientist would answer. However, you haven’t addressed the most important point, which Adrian DID address, which is the starting point. When you get to the starting point, you are dealing with the single most important issue in apologetics, and here Adrian has nailed it.

    Usually the unbelieving atheist will point to human reason as his starting point (and usually accuse the Christian of avoiding rationality). Adrian points to God’s Word as his starting point. The atheist will respond by saying that it is irrational to believe in God’s Word. We can respond by saying that it is irrational to have absolute faith in human reason, which can be fallible, when God’s Word is infallible.

    The atheist will claim that we are arguing in a circle. We can respond by saying that everyone has a circle of reasoning, for how can the atheist prove that reason is the right starting point without using reason to do so? The question is this: which is the better circle? Human reason can err, and frequently does. The building that the atheist builds on top of human reason leads to nihilism and despair. for there is no meaning in life for the atheist. Suicide is the logical end of the road for the atheist as soon as he is no longer “of the fittest.”

    The building that the Christian raises on top of the foundation of God’s Word is a life full of hope and eschatology. The Christian is rational, but only because he builds his building on top of God’s Word by the use of reason. His faith is not in man’s word, but in God’s word, which is infallible. The atheist will counter by saying that this is mere assertion and hand-waving. We respond by saying that the proof is in the pudding, in the living out of that building that the Christian lives. You can only see it from the inside. To the atheist, I say these words: come within the circle and seek to see it from the inside, and see how the foundation and the building match.

  23. Ron said,

    May 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    “The atheist will respond by saying that it is irrational to believe in God’s Word.”

    To which we might reply, how does the athest begin to account for standards of rationality? Isn’t it so that to argue for or against x presupposes an ethic, metaphysic and laws of inference that don’t comport with the tenets of atheism? Yet we have an answer to skepticism – a common creator who made both our minds and the mind-independent world in which it operates so nicely. :)

  24. Don said,

    May 12, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Greenbaggins 22,
    If I may, I would suggest that none of Joel’s criticisms depend on an atheistic point of view (unless one considers science to be an inherently atheistic enterprise). Joel is criticizing Adrian’s understanding of science and the consequences of his allegedly idiosyncratic definition.

    But if you feel that Joel (or I!) are making any atheistic-based critiques then feel free to specifically point them out. Hopefully I don’t need to point out that a criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism interpretation of Scripture is not the same as a criticism of Scripture.

  25. Joel Norris said,

    May 12, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    Thanks for your response, Greenbaggins. I am in agreement, with the addition that a biblical foundation is the only way to make sense of the world along with the blessings of Christian life. In a debate, though, I think the practical goal must be to first undermine confidence in human philosophy and demonstrate it is a foundation of sand.

  26. Joel Norris said,

    May 12, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Practically speaking, for a debate to occur there must be some common ground between the participants, in the sense that two armies at war must meet in the same field to fight. Adrian’s Mature Creation Theory and special definition of science, in effect, allow to dig an impassable chasm around himself. Thus he can easily declare victory since no one can effectively attack him. But by the same token, he is unable to cross the chasm to carry war to the enemy.

  27. greenbaggins said,

    May 12, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Don, I was not suggesting that Joel’s arguments were based on atheistic presuppositions. I was merely pointing out how I would argue against an atheist position.

    Joel, I can understand what you are claiming. However, what you have still not addressed is the point I raised about Adrian addressing the starting point. That is the most important point, is it not?

    What Ron said is especially important. Rationality is borrowed capital from the Christian world. It was OUR God who invented rational thinking humans. You can’t get there from survival of the fittest, especially when that is combined with the second law of thermodynamics.

  28. ackbeet said,

    May 12, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    Replying to a few things here. I should point out that my definitions are by no means as idiosyncratic as some on here think. My father definitely thinks along the same lines. There are many other scientists that think along the same lines. Answers in Genesis uses a different terminology. My “history” equals their “historical science”, and my “science” equals their “observational science”. I’m fine with either terminology. The AiG terms are probably more rhetorically sound, as certain things get to stay being “science”, in the broader category. I like my terms more, though, because of the way science developed historically, and the nature of inductive and statistical methods. There definitely seems to be a difference between studying non-repeatable events in history, versus repeatable events in the present. Here is an AiG article on the subject:

    https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/

    Karl Popper defined a scientific statement as one that could, in theory, be falsifiable by observation. I have observed a shift in philosophers of science away from Popperian falsification. But surely observations are part and parcel of the scientific method, as are repeatability and statistical methods. And right there we have a problem, because events in particular history are not repeatable.

    Also, it has been mentioned that I am not published. I am not published in the usual peer-reviewed journals, because my work has been more engineering. I have published a case study with National Instruments, and I have done a few presentations. I have also built things such as regenerative fuel cell systems for the Navy, as well as test stands for electrolyzers and fuel cells for NASA. All of these activities required an significant amount of experimental science, as well as some theoretical. Moreover, my educational training was mostly theoretical. Therefore, I actually have, I believe, a balanced and certainly experienced look at experimental and theoretical science. Surely we can let this issue rest!

  29. Joel Norris said,

    May 12, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    @Greenbaggins27

    I did not address that point because I took it for granted that it would be the starting point. Yes, I would argue that God is the starting point for objective morality and an atheist contradicts himself when he says someone is acting badly. I would argue God is the basis for reason whereas the materialist has no justification to trust that his brain impulses mean anything. Etc. Hopefully both Adrian and I would have the atheist questioning his presuppositions.

    But here is how it would differ. When the question of the age of the universe came up, I’d affirm that the universe looks old but creation over a period of time is still creation. I’d assert that God did this so we could look at stars and rocks and learn more about nature. And the only thing the atheist could argue with was the God of the Bible as my presupposition.

    For Adrian, he’d have to defend his reasoning that God created an old-looking universe recently with no way to know that aside from his personal interpretation of Genesis. He’d have to defend his view that it is not science to look at sediment layers, isotope ratios, and far away galaxies because all that stuff would have occurred before he thinks the universe was created, and even if scientists find consistency between independent methods, it can’t be real because he thinks the orderly God of the Bible was changing physical laws (AiG). And the atheist would go home feeling he was clearly the reasonable one.

  30. Joel Norris said,

    May 12, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    @Greenbaggins

    I affirm everything Adrian says in the last paragraph of his comment #4, aside from adherence to MCT. If it would help settle the issue I can copy it and put my name under it.

  31. Joel Norris said,

    May 12, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    @Adrian28

    The problem with the AiG definition is that 99.9+% of scientists, Christian and secular, are not going to agree with it, and you won’t have a common basis for communication.

    AiG states that scientists assume physical laws have not changed over time. That’s true, and although secular scientists have no reason for confidence, Christians can be confident that the orderly God of the Bible created an orderly universe where the physical laws always operate the same way, springtime and harvest (the one exception being temporary local suspension of physical law to accomplish a miracle recorded in the Bible). So if AiG thinks physical laws have changed, I say the burden is on them to demonstrate it.

  32. Steve Drake said,

    May 17, 2015 at 8:40 am

    re #29

    and even if scientists find consistency between independent methods, it can’t be real because he thinks the orderly God of the Bible was changing physical laws (AiG).

    As a counterclaim to the ‘consistency’ of independent methods as it relates to dating, see the series of articles by Dr. Vernon Cupps, which can be found at http://www.icr.org/article/8679.

    Dr. John K. Reed has this salient comment in his book, “Rocks Aren’t Clocks: A Critique of the Geologic Timescale”, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA 2013:

    Dating methods all have one thing in common. They begin by making scientific measurements or observations, but they then smuggle in the assumptions needed to convince the public that these measurements are directly related to the chronology of the past. All dating methods involve this sleight of hand. Mesmerized by the quality of the technology, it’s easy to miss the giant leap of faith from scientific validity to historical reality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: