Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

monergism.com

This site contains some of the most valuable God-centered resources a Christian Skeptic could ever want. Whether you peruse the copious free items or purchase something from their excellent online store, your worldview will never be the same!

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of the
Christian Religion
- an excellent online resource for the development of the
well-considered Christian worldview.

Skeptical Insights

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

  • Colin Adams
  • Charlie Albright
  • Aletheuo
  • Scott Aniol
  • Tom Ascol
  • Derek Ashton (TheoParadox)
  • Zachary Bartels
  • Tim and David Bayly
  • Rick Beckman
  • Tyler Bennicke
  • Bible Geek
  • Big Orange Truck
  • Andy Bird
  • John Bird
  • Bob Bixby
  • Timmy Brister
  • Fred Butler
  • Calvin and Calvinism (Classic and moderate Calvinism)
  • Cal.vini.st
  • Bret Capranica
  • Nathan Casebolt
  • Lane Chaplin
  • Tim ("The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) Challies
  • The Conservative Intelligencer
  • The Contemporary Calvinist
  • The Conventicle
  • Craig's Blog
  • Deliver Detroit
  • Daniel (Doulogos)
  • William Dicks
  • The Doulos' Den
  • Martin Downes
  • Connie Dugas
  • Doug Eaton
  • Nicholas Edinger
  • Brother Eugene
  • Eusebeia
  • Stefan Ewing
  • Eddie Exposito
  • Expository Thoughts
  • Faces Like Flint
  • Reid Ferguson
  • Peter Farrell
  • Bill Fickett
  • Fide-o
  • Foolish Things
  • Chris Freeland
  • Travis Gilbert
  • Ron Gleason
  • Go Share Your Faith!
  • God is My Constant
  • Phil Gons
  • Joel Griffith (Solameanie)
  • Matt Gumm
  • Gregg Hanke
  • Jacob Hantla
  • Chris Harwood
  • J. D. Hatfield
  • Michael Haykin
  • Tony Hayling (Agonizomai)
  • Steve Hays and the amazing "Triablogue" team
  • Scott Head
  • Patrick Heaviside (Paths of Old)
  • Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio
  • Sean Higgins
  • Illumination (Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron)
  • Inverted Planet
  • Tim Jack
  • Jackhammer
  • Craig Johnson
  • Alex Jordan
  • The Journeymen
  • Justified
  • Lane Keister (Green Baggins)
  • John Killian
  • David Kjos
  • Ted Kluck
  • Patrick Lacson
  • A Little Leaven (Museum of Idolatry)
  • Janet Lee
  • Let My Lifesong Sing
  • Libbie, the English Muffin
  • Light and Heat
  • Greg Linscott
  • Bryan Maes
  • Brian McDaris
  • Doug McMasters
  • Allen Mickle
  • The incomparable Al Mohler
  • Jonathan Moorhead
  • Ryan Moran
  • Stephen Newell
  • Dean Olive
  • Dan Paden
  • Paleoevangelical
  • A Peculiar Pilgrim
  • Jim Pemberton
  • The Persecution Times
  • Bill Pershing
  • Kevin Pierpont
  • Matt Plett
  • Wes Porter
  • Postmortemism
  • The Red and Black Redneck
  • Reformata
  • Reformation 21
  • Reformation Theology (sponsored by Monergism.Com)
  • Reformed Evangelist
  • Remonstrans
  • Carla Rolfe
  • Tony Rose
  • Andrew Roycroft
  • Eric Rung
  • Said at Southern Seminary
  • Seeing Clearly
  • Sharper Iron
  • Kim Shay
  • Neil Shay
  • Brian Shealy
  • Ken Silva
  • Tom Slawson's "Tom in the Box"
  • Tom Slawson's other blog
  • Doug Smith
  • Richard Snoddy
  • Social Hazard
  • SolaFire
  • Rebecca Stark
  • Kevin Stilley
  • Cindy Swanson
  • Talking Out Of Turn
  • Justin Taylor's "Between Two Worlds"
  • Robert Tewart (StreetFishing)
  • TheoJunkie's Thoughts on Theology
  • Theology Bites
  • Through the Veil
  • Three Times a Mom
  • Voice of the Shepherd
  • Jared Wall
  • Adrian Warnock
  • David Wayne
  • Jeremy Weaver
  • Steve Weaver
  • Über-apologist James White's legendary "Pros Apologian" blog
  • Brad Williams
  • Doug Wilson
  • Writing and Living
  • Ryan Wood
  • Todd Young
  • Saturday, March 07, 2009

    A strategy to briefly engage and rebut Atheistic Naturalist teachers on evolutionary theory

    A scenario came up in a discussion board I frequent concerning a biology teacher that would challenge his students whenever the topic of evolution arose. He would challenge the students that if they objected to his veiws they should speak up and that their silence was basically an acceptance of evolutionary theory.

    I have tried to think up a brief, yet impactful rebuttal - this is was I have, thus far:

    I'd probably start with the fact that evolution is not intellectually satisfying on its face in that the theory relies on the unguided increase of information to accomplish what it theorizes, which is counter to the observation of natural processes.

    I'd also say that I object to the premise of evolution, that is, "from goo to you" as well as the implications - that is - social Darwinism (Nazi-ism, Communism, the French reign of Terror - more deaths in the last century - over 100 million or so - than the sum of all previous religious or political movements in human history).

    I'd summarize that while I may not be able to rebut the teacher on the level of detail into which they may try to dive and while evolutionary theory and the worldview it supports may be intellectually satisfying to some, I am satisfied that my worldview supports a spiritual and scientific framework with an ultimate purpose and goal for Creation and does not reduce Mankind to a morally deluded, purposeless gene-passing meatbag.

    I welcome your feedback and refinement of this short rebuttal :)

    22 comments:

    August said...

    I would simply ask him, since we have been able for the last 30 years so to see down to the most intricate workings of the cell, to take any of the proposed ancestor-descendant examples they love to quote, and demonstrate the exact biochemical pathways by which the descendant arose. It should be simple, it is just a matter of genes "telling" proteins how to act, so how and why did those genes and proteins act to go from ape-like to man, for example?

    Since the advent of microbiology, all the rest of the evolutionary "proof" is superfluous, the action is at the gene and cell level and we can see that. So that is what the science teacher needs to demonstrate.

    skeptimal said...

    "He would challenge the students that if they objected to his veiws they should speak up and that their silence was basically an acceptance of evolutionary theory."

    Is this a real teacher or just a hypothetical scenario? If he's a real teacher, I'd love to know more about him, because from what you've written here, he could only be described as an intellectual bully. He's the equivalent of a full-grown muscle-builder telling smaller teenagers that if they don't speak up, they've assented to give him their lunch money.

    As a non-theist (and acknowledger of evolution) in his class, I'd challenge him where it counts the most: he's made a faulty argument that silence = affirmation. I'd go after him for attempting to intimidate rather than educate, and I'd challenge him to explain how his "challenge" fits into the scientific method.

    If he's real, let me at this guy!

    Sean said...

    I'd simply tell the emperor he has no clothes. Darwinists are their own worst enemies. They give you the following:

    Our reasoning abilities are the results of Darwinian evolution which is geared towards survivability, not truth. You then have, in many cases, Darwinists giving examples of beliefs that they say came about due to Darwinian evolution, but which they say are false, and claim we only believe it because it was useful.

    They then claim to be rational beings capable of finding truth.

    "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe…All of our intuitive judgments of what is probable turn out to be wrong…because [they were] tuned—ironically, by evolution itself," R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton, 1986), xi-xii

    "The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass--a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck." (Richard Rorty, "Untruth and Consequences," The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.)

    "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."

    Is it cheating, in a sense, to go that far from the beginning?

    skeptimal said...

    "I am satisfied that my worldview supports a spiritual and scientific framework ..."

    I'm glad you're satisfied, but thinking it doesn't make it so. I think it's time that creationists quit trying to redefine science and start providing scientific evidence for your misguided theory.

    The teacher you've referenced can only be effectively answered by pointing out that his approach is *not* scientific. A creationist teacher could just as easily come in and bully students into silence and claim the silence is proof of creationism. That isn't how science works.

    Now, when I say provide evidence, I'm not talking about the usual obfuscation that comes from religionists. Ginning up every question that science can't yet answer is not the same thing as providing evidence for Christian mythology.

    The fact is you can provide *none.* Your whole strategy is to manufacture doubt about evolution, all the while avoiding the fact that you can't provide *any* evidence in favor of the mythology that all forms of life came into existence suddenly and at all levels of organization, whether 6,000 years ago or a billion years ago. You are incapable of providing any evidence *for* either of the two conflicting Genesis accounts of creation.

    The teacher, who I increasingly suspect is hypothetical, is a scumbag, and there's no two ways about it. But it's time for creationists to grow up and either submit credible scientific papers for peer review or admit that all of the evidence is against creationism.

    If a credible theory is submitted, it *will* be taken seriously.

    August said...

    Skeptimal, why don't you give us your definition of science. Also, why don't you tell us what he precise criteria are that demarcates science from non-science.

    panta dokimazete said...

    JD: "I am satisfied that my worldview supports a spiritual and scientific framework ..."

    Skeptimal: I'm glad you're satisfied, but thinking it doesn't make it so. I think it's time that creationists quit trying to redefine science and start providing scientific evidence for your misguided theory.

    JD: Nobody is redefining science - we're just challenging the prevailing presupposition.

    ...............

    skeptimal: The teacher you've referenced can only be effectively answered by pointing out that his approach is *not* scientific. A creationist teacher could just as easily come in and bully students into silence and claim the silence is proof of creationism. That isn't how science works.

    JD: We can agree on that, at least.

    ...............

    skeptimal: Now, when I say provide evidence, I'm not talking about the usual obfuscation that comes from religionists. Ginning up every question that science can't yet answer is not the same thing as providing evidence for Christian mythology.

    JD: The framework for interpretation only diverges at the presupposition - "science" neither proves or disproves God. It only confirms or refines the presupposition and predisposition of the observer. No evidence you would provide could disprove God to me, no evidence I can provide will convince you if you are not of the same predisposition.

    ...............

    Skeptimal: The fact is you can provide *none.* Your whole strategy is to manufacture doubt about evolution, all the while avoiding the fact that you can't provide *any* evidence in favor of the mythology that all forms of life came into existence suddenly and at all levels of organization, whether 6,000 years ago or a billion years ago. You are incapable of providing any evidence *for* either of the two conflicting Genesis accounts of creation.

    JD: LOL - you really make my point - btw - by my measure, I have a credible interpretation of the evolutionary problem - that is - "Cambrean explosion" - which I would intepret as fossil evidence of the mass extinction caused by the Flood - without having to resort to the atheistic god-of-the-gaps theory such as "punctuated equilibrium" or panspermia or other such nonsense theory that proposes any solution other than the influence of God on Creation.

    Also - what "conflicting accounts"?

    ...............

    skeptimal: The teacher, who I increasingly suspect is hypothetical, is a scumbag, and there's no two ways about it.

    JD: the source is credible - think what you may.

    ...............

    skeptimal: But it's time for creationists to grow up and either submit credible scientific papers for peer review or admit that all of the evidence is against creationism.

    JD: Too bad that how you and the prevailing scientific community define "credible" excludes a Creator, so Biblical Christians in the scientific community have no "peers" - although I think that is changing - see here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-papers

    ...............

    skeptimal: If a credible theory is submitted, it *will* be taken seriously.

    JD: well, gosh, thanks! - again, your definition of credible does not match mine.

    skeptimal said...

    "why don't you give us your definition of science."

    After observing and collecting data, you form a hypothesis that fits the available facts. (Creationism does this part.)

    Then you come up with experiments, or you propose other ways of confirming the hypothesis with data currently not available. For instance, if the world is only 6,000 years old, then there should be nothing in the universe that we can see that is more than 6,000 light-years away from earth. Or if you're an old-earth creationist, then there should be no gap in the timeline between the first rise of life and the appearance of man.

    Once the hypothesis has been shown to predict outcomes or new evidence, it becomes a theory. Then you write a scientific paper documenting the evidence and making your best argument according to the scientific method.

    Then you submit the paper for publication and peer review. Skeptics will pick it apart, but if there is real substance, some legitimate scientists (not just religious ones) will adopt the theory.

    "Also, why don't you tell us what he precise criteria are that demarcates science from non-science."

    Evidence and theories that stand up to testing. Theories that predict evidence we don't yet have. Not just feel-good, we-have-to-believe-or-our-lives-will-have-no-meaning fantasies.

    skeptimal said...

    "Nobody is redefining science - we're just challenging the prevailing presupposition."

    Creationists claim creationism is science, and to do so, they have to redefine science so that evidence is not required but faith is. Creationists repeatedly make the false claim that the only thing standing between yourselves and the universal acceptance of creationism as science is bias among legitimate scientists.

    And by the way, the Cambrian explosion does not indicate that life came into existence all at once but over millions of years. Man did not arise during the Cambrian period, but hundreds of millions of years later.

    August said...

    "After observing and collecting data, you form a hypothesis that fits the available facts."

    How do you decide what is relevant or not relevant to observe? How do you collect data about non-observable objects, like electrons, for example? What are the criteria for forming a hypothesis?

    "Then you come up with experiments, or you propose other ways of confirming the hypothesis with data currently not available."

    How do you determine the boundaries and control limits for experiments? How do you confirm or disprove hypothesis if the data is not available?

    "Once the hypothesis has been shown to predict outcomes or new evidence, it becomes a theory. "

    How do you arrive at a general theory from a finite data set?

    "Then you write a scientific paper documenting the evidence and making your best argument according to the scientific method."

    What scientific method? Is there only one? What determines the validity of the scientific method? What assumptions are made before you can apply the method?

    "Then you submit the paper for publication and peer review. Skeptics will pick it apart, but if there is real substance, some legitimate scientists (not just religious ones) will adopt the theory."

    What is "real substance"? What is the threshold for acceptance and who determines that?

    "Evidence and theories that stand up to testing. Theories that predict evidence we don't yet have."

    How is that demarcating science from non-science? Are those the only factors? How do you know that? How do you test objects that are unobservable?

    In general, your answer is pretty incomplete. You also attempt to poison the well throughout.

    Also, how do you, from what you said, determine that your definition of science is valid? Can you use your methodology to determine that, without being circular?

    August said...

    "Creationists claim creationism is science, and to do so, they have to redefine science so that evidence is not required but faith is."

    Nice try, but secular scientists hold to a whole bunch of things by faith as well. You just cannot look at issues objectively, or at least from both sides, can you?

    Why don't you justify the reliability of the senses to start with. Also, how do you know that nature will act in the same way tomorrow as it did today? Since we are talking about science, why don't you account for the validity of the scientific method. Also, why don't you explain how you get to know true or false propositions.

    August said...

    "And by the way, the Cambrian explosion does not indicate that life came into existence all at once but over millions of years. Man did not arise during the Cambrian period, but hundreds of millions of years later."

    That is not the point. The point is that the majority of phyla arose without any demonstrable ancestors over a relatively short time in the Cambrian. The 10-15 million years is a drop in the bucket over the 4.6 billion year age of the earth.

    skeptimal said...

    "In general, your answer is pretty incomplete. You also attempt to poison the well throughout."

    My answer is pretty clear, and I'm not going to write a doctoral thesis detailing how science works. This is a website that has "skepticism" in the title, and you claim that creationism is science, yet when it comes to science, the only thing I've seen here is an attempt to manufacture flaws in legitimate scientific theories.

    I stand by my point that there is no evidence for creationism, and ginning up questions as yet unanswered by science does not make science invalid.

    skeptimal said...

    "The point is that the majority of phyla arose without any demonstrable ancestors over a relatively short time in the Cambrian. The 10-15 million years is a drop in the bucket over the 4.6 billion year age of the earth."

    Before the Cambrian period, most life forms were of insufficient size or solidity to leave fossils. The life forms developed through evolution, they didn't just appear overnight fully made. And the Cambrian explosion does not fit either of the Genesis stories of creation.

    skeptimal said...

    "Why don't you justify the reliability of the senses to start with. Also, how do you know that nature will act in the same way tomorrow as it did today? Since we are talking about science, why don't you account for the validity of the scientific method. Also, why don't you explain how you get to know true or false propositions."

    This entire post essentially amounts to changing the subject. Creationism does not fit the definition of science, and instead of putting forward a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and putting forward papers for peer review, creationists engage in obfuscation. If you want creationism to be taken seriously as science, then conform to established scientific processes. Don't just attack the scientific community for failing to treat flat-earth mythology as science.

    August said...

    "My answer is pretty clear"

    No it isn't, as I pointed out. There are many unresolved issues in your answer.

    "and I'm not going to write a doctoral thesis detailing how science works."

    You don't have to, just answer the questions.

    "This is a website that has "skepticism" in the title, and you claim that creationism is science, yet when it comes to science, the only thing I've seen here is an attempt to manufacture flaws in legitimate scientific theories."

    Strawman. You want to claim creationism is not science yet you won't tell us what science is. Prove your claims.

    "I stand by my point that there is no evidence for creationism,"

    Have you examined all the evidence everywhere? Where did the universe come from? How did it come into existence?

    "and ginning up questions as yet unanswered by science does not make science invalid."

    So you have faith after all...in something that is unseen, undetermined, unknowable, invisible, and possibly not knowable in future.

    "Before the Cambrian period, most life forms were of insufficient size or solidity to leave fossils."

    I know that is the prevailing opinion, but where is the proof? Where is the data that was observed to make this true? Which life forms became which phyla from that?

    The theory of Ediacaran ancestors to the Cambrian is also less popular these days, and suffers from the same problems as the Cambrian, their sudden appearance with no apparent intermediaries from single-cell organisms.

    "The life forms developed through evolution, they didn't just appear overnight fully made."

    Uh, no, the phyla appeared fully made. That is why it is termed the Cambrian explosion. Through the Cambrian period 25-43 phyla appeared with no apparent ancestors. I can get into a lot more detail here if needed.

    "And the Cambrian explosion does not fit either of the Genesis stories of creation."

    Proof? There is only one creation account by the way.

    "This entire post essentially amounts to changing the subject."

    How so? You made a statement that creationists hold to their beliefs by faith. I pointed out that secular scientists hold to many areas by faith too, and ask you to justify your faith as you are asking us to justify ours.

    Also, the original post was about an atheist bully teacher and evolution, you are the one that continuously want to add creationism in here, and change the subject.

    "Creationism does not fit the definition of science"

    What definition would that be? You haven't defined science adequately yet. With your definition witchcraft and astrology can also be counted as science.

    "and instead of putting forward a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and putting forward papers for peer review, creationists engage in obfuscation"

    Poisoning the well again? I thought I offered you an opportunity to show this obfuscation, but you refuse, instead resorting to assertion, ad-hominem and trying to change the topic.

    "If you want creationism to be taken seriously as science, then conform to established scientific processes"

    Which processes would that be? The unclear ones you stated above?

    "Don't just attack the scientific community for failing to treat flat-earth mythology as science."

    What scientific community? Who are they? And this is just another ad-hominem attack, poisoning the well, argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum.

    If you can't or won't answer the questions then just say so. But stop trying to make brute assertions, that doesn't make you right.

    skeptimal said...

    "If you can't or won't answer the questions then just say so. But stop trying to make brute assertions, that doesn't make you right."

    Back at you. If I answer your questions, you change the question or you don't accept the answer. If I ask you questions, you parse the question instead of answering. If I point out your tactics, you accuse me of "poisoning the well."

    I've explained what science is and how it works. You can play these games on this site, because it's your blog, but if creationists want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't already anti-science, you're going to have to learn what science is and come up with a credible theory.

    August said...

    "Back at you. If I answer your questions, you change the question or you don't accept the answer."

    Neither. You refuse to clarify the answers you give, or to provide a logical basis for your statements. That is how discussions normally go, yet all you want to do is make assertions, which we are supposed to accept on your say-so. Sorry, but that is not going to happen.

    "If I ask you questions, you parse the question instead of answering."

    The questions I ask are based on your responses. I have responded to what you offered, except for your statements in which I have pointed out the logical fallacies.

    However, I've offered you plenty of opportunity to substantiate those statements, which you have steadfastly refused to do, preferring instead to try and derail the discussion by making false accusations. Please point out which direct questions of yours I have not answered?

    "If I point out your tactics, you accuse me of "poisoning the well.""

    What tactics would that be? Every question I asked was a follow-up to your statements. You were the one who chose to insert creationism into the discussion, and then offer no proof of how it is unscientific, rather just making rhetorical attacks on it, thus "poisoning the well".

    "I've explained what science is and how it works."

    Sigh. No, you have not. You have offered a limited instrumentalist definition of an inductive process which has severe shortcomings as a definition of science.

    You refuse to clarify or substantiate the basics of your statements while we have not even come to the more serious problems with your approach.

    "You can play these games on this site, because it's your blog"

    You are the one who wants to play games. I asked questions, you don't want to or cannot answer. Simple as that. If you want to end the discussion then say so.

    "but if creationists want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't already anti-science,"

    See, once again you want to create a false dichotomy. You have not even defined and demarcated what science is, yet you want to put creationism and science in conflict. There are numerous creationist works that use similar methods to what you described, yet you dismiss these a-priori. All that shows is that you are not interested in true discussion, nor intellectually honest, you just want to propagandize your atheist views here.

    "you're going to have to learn what science is and come up with a credible theory"

    That's quite funny. I've asked you how many times now to explain what science is to us, yet you refuse to do so. Once again, there are many works, for example Hugh Ross's "Creation as Science", that uses scientific methods.

    But all you have told us what demarcates science from non-science is "testing". Of course, you have yet to prove that testability is a necessary condition of scientific study. Or else you may just want to declare large parts of cosmology, quantum-physics, geology and archeology as unscientific.

    Look, you've been posting your snide little attacks on Christianity here for a long time. Now it is time for you to start putting some substance behind your atheism, or we will just let it stand that your attacks are baseless bigotry.

    Puritan Lad said...

    Skeptimal,

    August is correct here, and we have discussed this many times. Your worldview assumes, without any foundation whatsoever, that science can be a useful and functional tool outside of the Creative Power and Providence of God. We reject that idea as absurd, and have repeatedly asked you to prove this, or at least provide some sort of evidence. It is quite convenient for you to define "science" in terms of an atheistic worldview, and turn right around and call creationism "anti-science". We need to know several things from your standpoint before we can go any further. We need to know how you can justify the uniformity of nature, which is the basis for all induction and thus "science". As Christians, we have justification for this. How do you justify or account for the ability of the human brain to obtain any sort of knowledge, scientific or otherwise? How do you account for the ability of one brain to relate that knowledge to another brain?

    We could go on and on, but the problem is quite clear. Your worldview is based, by your own defintion, on unscientific principles. You haven't scientifically proven that creationism is unscientific. You haven't provided the least bit of scientific evidence for your atheistic/pluralistic worldview (they are one and the same, for the only way logical way that all religions can be equal is if none of them are objectively true.) You merely want to assert your worldview as the default, and then argue everything from that standpoint. When we reject your presuppositions, you resort to ad hominems.

    Consider this quote from Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31.

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    Hmm... That's convenient. We'll define science as that which "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", and then call creationism "anti-science". Hopefully, even you can see the circularity in that reasoning.

    Sean said...

    *Sits back, grabs popcorn*

    Fun stuff.

    And I have that quotation by Richard Lewontin in my word document of quotations. Do you keep a file on handy quotations?

    Puritan Lad said...

    Yes. Some people have a gift for words that can express my views better than I can.

    skeptimal said...

    "That's convenient. We'll define science as that which "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", and then call creationism "anti-science". Hopefully, even you can see the circularity in that reasoning."

    I'm not familiar with the author you quote, so I can't be sure what he was getting at. Nevertheless, your comment here gets to the heart of the disagreement over whether creationism is science.

    As I have said here many times before, science does not rule out the existence of gods. Nor does it rule out the possibility that the original cause of life was divine in origin.

    What it *does* do is acknowledge that if the world was created supernaturally, then that question is beyond the realm of science. If one god or another exists and has chosen to play hide-and-go-seek by supernaturally re-setting the half-lives of the elements every 6,000 years, then science is never going to be able to approach that question. The gods are just going to keep changing the shape of the puzzle pieces so the puzzle can't be solved.

    For that reason, creationism can't be disproven, because it is based on a presupposition that evidence can't be trusted. Good for you that it can't be disproven, but that rules it out from being science.

    Evolution can be disproven if it is not the truth, and that is what religious people have been trying unsuccessfully to do since the theory first arose. But that doesn't make the Bible true, and pointing out evolution's unanswered questions will never make creationism science.

    And let's be candid here. Your goal is not to debunk evolution. You *have* to debunk evolution to accomplish your real goal: that of pretending that creationism *is* science. Your real problem with evolution is that it disagrees with the Bible.

    August said...

    Still not answering any questions skeptimal? All you are doing is repeating your arbitrary assumptions.

    You have offered no arguments to prove what you have repeated multiple times now. You keep asserting the same things over and over. We heard you the first time. We also answered you the first time...offer some proof for your statements.

    We will just let it stand that you are unwilling or unable to move the discussion forward by clarifying your statements.