While it is true that many people are too busy today to take time to engage in a friendly debate, there are many signs that prominent atheists, who stand as spokespeople for the atheist worldview, will go out of their way to make excuses, both rational and irrational ones, in order to avoid a simple test of their beliefs through debate.
It is quite easy for popular authorities on atheism and evolution to write a plethora of articles and books and to preach to the choir of their religiously devoted fans. But when knowledge is actually tested through discourse, the weaknesses of the evidence and logic become apparent.
When I offered a friendly challenge to prominent atheist bloggers, two of the top bloggers gave illogical responses to my challenge. Though atheists love to include words like "reason" in their blog banners, not one of the 20 top bloggers seemed interested in using reason practically in an online debate. Is this situation an isolated case? Hardly. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He shuns debates with the top theist debaters and then tries to browbeat low-profile defenders of Christian values. As shown in YouTube video, "Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright," Dawkins can underestimate his opponents:
When I offered a friendly challenge to prominent atheist bloggers, two of the top bloggers gave illogical responses to my challenge. Though atheists love to include words like "reason" in their blog banners, not one of the 20 top bloggers seemed interested in using reason practically in an online debate. Is this situation an isolated case? Hardly. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He shuns debates with the top theist debaters and then tries to browbeat low-profile defenders of Christian values. As shown in YouTube video, "Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright," Dawkins can underestimate his opponents:
False Statements by Dawkins in his Interview with Wendy Wright:
1. “The Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud but that was never used as evidence for evolution.”
Contrary to Dawkins' assertion, both Professor Cole and Professor Newman mentioned the fraudulent Piltdown Man in their affidavits in the famous Scopes Trial, which had far reaching effects on education.[1]
2. Haeckel's "mistakes" are "no longer" published in science textbooks.
The easiest way to demonstrate that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are in Raven & Johnson's 2002 edition of Biology is simply to show drawings straight out of the textbook. In Figure 1 below, Haeckel's original drawings are shown on the left, while Raven & Johnson's actual drawings are on the right:.
Contrary to Dawkins' assertion, both Professor Cole and Professor Newman mentioned the fraudulent Piltdown Man in their affidavits in the famous Scopes Trial, which had far reaching effects on education.[1]
2. Haeckel's "mistakes" are "no longer" published in science textbooks.
The easiest way to demonstrate that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are in Raven & Johnson's 2002 edition of Biology is simply to show drawings straight out of the textbook. In Figure 1 below, Haeckel's original drawings are shown on the left, while Raven & Johnson's actual drawings are on the right:.
Haekel's over-simplified drawings were related to his theory, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP), also known as "Biogenetic Law." His theory and drawings were proven to be erroneous in the 1800’s but are still used in textbooks in a misleading manner. As Evolution News and Views points out, the text not only discusses the failed theory "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" but also affirms it in a slightly different form. In the same article it is noted how PZ Myers affirms the use of Haekel's imagery in modern-day science teaching. [2]
3. There is "massive evidence" for human evolution in archaeological examples, such as Australopithecus.
In order to establish Australopithecus is a key link, there must be evidence of bipedal movement. But how has this been established? It hasn’t. “Since no foot, leg, or hip bones were discovered, the evidence hinges on the placement of the foramen magnum, the hole at the base of the skull through which the nerves of the spinal cord pass as they go from the brain to the body. In humans, because we stand erect and are bipedal, the foramen magnum is near the center of the base of the skull. In quadrupeds, it is further to the rear of the skull.”[3] And what is this particular evidence based on?
“Two small fossil fragments from the base of the skull are all that Australopithecus ramidus has to offer by way of evidence. White et al. state that these fossils '…evidence a strikingly chimpanzee-like morphology…'[4]
The evolutionists propose the position of the foramen magnum as deduced from these skull fragments '…may correlate with bipedality although this remains to be demonstrated.' [25] Bipedality is essential if Australopithecus ramidus is to be considered a hominid and the 'missing link'. However, since White et al. admit that bipedality has not been demonstrated, a refutation is hardly necessary.”[5]
4.“The material evidence is there, go to the museum and look at it.”
In terms of evolution, museums mainly offer misleading caricatures. Interpretive statues and drawings based on minimal archaeological finds are quite dishonest when they are presented as factual history.
Reasons for Fear
In his article, Why I Won't Debate Creationists, Dawkins expresses a fear that he will give his opponents false credibility by debating them.[6] The fact is, however, Dawkins has a poor track record in debating qualified opponents and his refusal to debate many experts on Intelligent Design shows that his own credibility is based more on ethos based rhetoric than logic and facts.
In his article, Why I Won't Debate Creationists, Dawkins expresses a fear that he will give his opponents false credibility by debating them.[6] The fact is, however, Dawkins has a poor track record in debating qualified opponents and his refusal to debate many experts on Intelligent Design shows that his own credibility is based more on ethos based rhetoric than logic and facts.
Even though Dawkins screens out qualified scientists and seeks out unknown political advocates to interview, he still ends up losing this simple debate because Wright persistently requests tangible evidence and Dawkins makes a series of false statements in the process of attempting to justify himself as an scientific authority figure.
In general atheists tend to fear debates with creationists because they admit they tend to lose these debates. In 1994, the outspoken evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates: "Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between."[7]
In general atheists tend to fear debates with creationists because they admit they tend to lose these debates. In 1994, the outspoken evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates: "Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between."[7]
Philosophical Problems with Positivism
Based on the above interview with Wright, either Dawkins is lying, he's ignorant of some of the basic problems with evolutionary evidence, or he is so committed to his ideology that he is in a state of mental denial regarding the facts he is referring to. To give him the benefit of the doubt as a literate professional, it seems the third case is likely true. This ideological commitment likely stems from his erroneous understanding that science is the arbiter of all truth. This is the basic tenet of logical positivism. Though Dawkins may not outwardly confess adherence to any particular philosophy, an affinity for positivism is implied by his books and statements.[8] Nonetheless, atheists such as Dawkins seem to fear admitting their true philosophical position because positivism has been rejected by most secular philosophers as logically inconsistent and unsupportable:
"Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes, but it is still alive among many scientists and others who are not well-versed in, or knowledgeable about, what has occurred in technical philosophy since the 1950s. The demise of positivism came for many reasons, among them that no specification of the positivist verification principle could ever be found that would withstand critical investigation."[9]
Conclusion
Fear is a powerful motivator which can make us do irrational things and make illogical statements. For people who have based their entire livelihood and reputation on an unsupportable ideology or worldview, it can be quite devastating to face a debate situation wherein the opponent is likely to win. For this reason, atheists will continue to write articles and books preaching to their choir of believers while at the same time demanding censorship of any information that opposes these views. In the referenced interview, Wendy Wright correctly pointed out “Now, if evolutionists were so confident in their beliefs there wouldn’t be this effort to censor out information that shows that evolution is still lacking and is questionable.” One of the most cowardly forms of censorship is to try and pretend that no debate opponent is worthy of the challenge and to simply ignore those showing interest in such debates or to selectively choose opponents who seem to be easy debate wins.
Endnotes
[1] Bradbury, The Scopes Monkey Trial, http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html
[2] Evolution News, The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002) (Part 2),
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1003664.html
[3] Creation Answers, Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html
[4] White, T.D., Suwa, G. and Asfaw, B., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia: Nature, 371:306-312, p. 310. (Cited by Lubenow in Creation Answers)
[5] Creation Answers, et al.
[6] Richard Dawkins Foundation, Why I Won't Debate Creationists, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists
[7] Conservapedia, Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates, http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._evolution_debates
[8] Richard Dawkins Foundation,, A J Ayer on Logical Positivism, http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/539333-a-j-ayer-on-logical-positivism
[9] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
(Revised August 5, 2011)
Tags: Haeckel's Lie: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Why Atheists Fear Debate, propaganda in education, Richard Dawkins' false statements on video, Dawkins' as atheist apologist, Why Richard Dawkins fears debate, examples of evolution fraud, Piltdown Man affidavits in Scopes Trial effect on education, no human evolution in archaeological examples, Dawkins shuns debate
Related:
7 Reasons why Dawkins' Excuses for not Debating Craig are Illogical
Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague
Rick: and make irrational statements in order to avoid a simple test of their beliefs through debate.
ReplyDeleteDebate is a terrible way to establish truth, Rick, as has been pointed out to you again and again. It's entertainment, where the best speaker usually wins (rather than the person on the side of "truth"). In learning to debate, people often are required to debate both sides, and a skilled debater can win either side of a discussion.
Why people like yourself seem to be focussed on debates, rather than on scholarly interaction, is because it seems to give your "side" at least level pegging with reality. There are a number of very skilled theistic debaters (William Lane Craig being a prominant one). He usually "wins" the debate, even though there are detailed rebuttals of all of his standard debate points. Not only that, but he continues to use the same debate points even after the rebuttals have been made known to him.
I think a more pertinent question would be why do theists like yourself fear scientific investigation and scholarly interaction?
Rick: The easiest way to demonstrate that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are in Raven & Johnson's 2002 edition of Biology is simply to show drawings straight out of the textbook. In Figure 1 below, Haeckel's original drawings are shown on the left, while Raven & Johnson's actual drawings are on the right:.[2]
ReplyDeleteAre the drawings which appear in the biology text book incorrect, or are you complaining because they resemble those from Haekel?
Perhaps you could dig up some actual photographs of the various stages of the embryo's to really teach those foolish scientists a lesson :-)
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: "Debate is a terrible way to establish truth, Rick, as has been pointed out to you again and again."
R: This is the opinion of a group of people who tend to hold science as the final word on truth. I, and many others, don't share this arrogant position.
Historically, philosophical truth has been examined and tested by interaction. People who elevate science as a supreme arbiter of truth deny the value of philosophy and debate precisely because this position cannot hold up to such criticism and questioning. Stephen Hawking declared that philosophy is dead when in fact it is his philosophy (positivism)that is dead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
Since arrogant scientists cannot justify their preconceptions philosophically they feel the need to diminish logic. Under such circumstances, they should probably drop the moniker of reason form all of their pretentious slogans. Are you a positivist, Havok? If not, what is your philosophical creed?
By the way, I'm still waiting for specific answers to the questions I've you several times regarding censorship and atheist hegemony.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteI simply showed four examples of false statements that Dawkins made (of which there are more) in the noted interview with Wendy.
Dawkins stated that Ernst Haekel's “mistakes” were a "Victorian thing" and these images are "no longer" used in textbooks.
However, “Raven & Johnson's textbook merely took Haeckel's original drawings, slightly reworked them, and added some color. For all intents and purposes, these are Haeckel's drawings.
“The drawings are presented as valid evidence for the modern theory of evolution, and are not used merely to provide historical context. They come from a section entitled "Embryonic Development and Vertebrate Evolution." The caption reads: "Embryonic development of vertebrates.”
There is no indication whatsoever that Haeckel's drawings are used to merely give some kind of "historical context." Rather, the drawings are used to represent facts about development in the present day, based upon the fraudulent obfuscation of differences between early embryo stages.”
…it would seem that PZ Myers does not consider it "inaccurate" to use drawings which are known to fraudulently obscure the differences between embryos to promote a version of the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1003664.html
Haekel's over-simplified drawings were related to his theory, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP), also known as "Biogenetic Law." His theory and drawings were proven to be off in the 1800’s but are still used in textbooks in a misleading manner, to the liking of prominent evolutionists.
Dawkins use of the word “mistakes” is erroneous in this context. A mistake is typically something that happens by accident and is corrected when recognized and acknowledged. Fraud, however, occurs when “mistakes” are not clearly identified and repudiated, but, rather, intentionally blended into the contextual material as a means of deceiving people.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml
Do you really expect these prominent atheists to debate just anybody? They can afford to be selective. Besides, many of them have had public debates, some of them many times.
ReplyDeleteJust because YOU were turned down doesn't mean they are shying away from debate.
Rick: This is the opinion of a group of people who tend to hold science as the final word on truth. I, and many others, don't share this arrogant position.
ReplyDeleteThen you and many other people are simply mistaken.
Rick: Historically, philosophical truth has been examined and tested by interaction.
And since the process of academic research, including scientific research and philosophy is done through a process of interaction, then I don't see the problem here.
You're simply arguing for a time limited, research limited, venue to decide "truth", which doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The only reason you seem to be advocating this position is because people who hold similar beliefs to you are more able to defend these mistaken beliefs in such a venue. ID, creationism and other silly beliefs do not hold up well when there is ample time to rebut each claim (written debates tend not to favour your beliefs, for example).
Rick: People who elevate science as a supreme arbiter of truth deny the value of philosophy and debate precisely because this position cannot hold up to such criticism and questioning.
Again you're putting words in my mouth, Rick.
Philosophy is not done through live debate. Science is not done through live debate. Theology is not done through live debate. You're entire point, that live debate is a great venue for finding truth is completely without merit.
Rick: Stephen Hawking declared that philosophy is dead when in fact it is his philosophy (positivism)that is dead.
Hawking isn't a naive positivist. It's rather foolish of you, in your original post, to imply that everyone who isn't in agreement with your failed claims must be a logical positivist.
Rick: Since arrogant scientists cannot justify their preconceptions philosophically they feel the need to diminish logic.
No, they seem to diminish the armchair philosophising which doesn't take into account any empirical evidence.
Rick: Are you a positivist, Havok? If not, what is your philosophical creed?
I'd be something of a materialist, Rick. I'm of the opinion that we need justified reasons to claim knowledge, and the only things we can justify is the material world. Subjective claims are not reliable enough to warrant beliefs (which counts out basically all religious experience, and therefore religions themselves).
Of course I expect you to completely misinterpret my claims above, make a straw man of what you think my position must mean, and then set about knocking it down - it's what you seem to do with relish :-)
Atheist Exile,
ReplyDelete"Just because YOU were turned down doesn't mean they are shying away from debate."
- In my case, only one of the 20 stated business was the reason for declining my challenge. :)
In the case of Dawkins and some of the more prominent defenders, they recommend categorically rejecting debates with YECs (Younf Earth Creationists).
From the horses mouth:
"Why I Won't Debate Creationists"
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists
Dawkins says he avoids debates because it gives his opponets false credibility. However, the opposite is true. Ducking debates with qualified experts reveals a lack of confidence and authentic credibility on his part. The truth is, he has a pretty bad track record with debating qualified opponents.
As I pointed out, Dawkins actually sought out an "interview" with a creationist in an apparent attempt to bolster his standing and image but apparently his plan backfired when the interview turned into a debate which he lost. :)
I do find it ironic that Dawkins loves to bash people he is afraid of debating publicly, such as Behe, Myer and others.
Rick: In the case of Dawkins and some of the more prominent defenders, they recommend categorically rejecting debates with YECs (Younf Earth Creationists).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of young earth creationists, their arguments are so ridiculous that calling any of them experts is to strip the term of any legitimate meaning. Offering to debate people these people certainly does give a false sense of credibility to both them and their arguments.
From the way in which you've referenced YEC's here and elsewhere on your blog, it seems as if you might actually accept some of their arguments, which is rather hilarious in itself :-)
Iate again. Guys let me join in your mostly unproductive, but funny debate 8)
ReplyDeleteRick, the reason why most prominent atheists refused to debate you is because you are just not famous enough. There is just no merit in debating someone like that. Furthemore, there is always a chance to lose a debate which could harm their image.
The funny thing is that, like Dawkins has pointed out, no matter the evidence, religious people will never accept an idea which goes "against" god or human "dignity". Many of them take the bible literally, so they reject anything which could contradict it even hypothetically. Most of them believe in a atheist "plot" and they do not even think that ID just lacks the neccessary evidence to be taken seriously. Furethemore, their suppoters lack academia credential or are just specialized in philosophy and have little understanding of science.
P.S. I still would like to debate Rick in his Quantum jabba proof of God post 8)
I would also like to tell you a funny anecdot from the beginning of the 20th century about debates. A famous Russian lawyer Koni had accepted a completely hopeless case. The accused person was obviously guilty and the prosecution had almost irrefutable proof. The trial itself was a complete one-sided jam against the defendant while the lawyer only gazed at his watch. However, at the end of the trial, when the lawyer started his closing speach, he knew he would win. Koni spend an exhausting hour rambling about nothing. At last, when the jury coud not take it anymore, he said: "If this man is innocent, than God will surely give us a sign". At that moment, the church started to ring its bells...Surely that was a sign from God himself? The jury decided that defendant was not guilty. The smart lawyer knew that he had no way counting the plain evidence of facts from the prosecution and that his only chance at winning would be to impress somehow the highly religious jury. So he calculated the time of the evening mass at the local church wich would be followed with the ringing of bells.
ReplyDeleteDebates are the same. It is not about truth, but about impressing the audience.
Oh! This video depicts how religious debate is seen by ateists 8)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6edqRgDYg0&feature=related
Havok,
ReplyDelete“Then you and many other people are simply mistaken (for not believing in science as the arbiter truth).”
No, Havok, I have a logical, cohesive basis for my beliefs. However, you, Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and all others who believe science is the arbiter of truth (i.e. positivists), are philosophically belly up according to secular standards:
“Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes…”
You can all be as pompous as you want to be, but that doesn’t make you right or logical. :)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
H: "Philosophy is not done through live debate... You're entire point, that live debate is a great venue for finding truth is completely without merit."
R: Because this is a common myth today and involves a lot of history, I'll answer this error in a future article.
H: Hawking isn't a naive positivist. It's rather foolish of you, in your original post, to imply that everyone who isn't in agreement with your failed claims must be a logical positivist.
ReplyDeleteR: On the contrary, Hawking is a positivist. He has stated such in his own writings:
“Any sound scientific theory… should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others.”
"If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.” (The Universe In a Nutshell, p. 31)
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/03/03/stephen-hawkings-defense-of-positivism/
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/12/23/computability-and-comprehension-is-science-about-prediction/
In earlier writings Hawking declares himself a positivist, then later declares "philosophy is dead" because perhaps he realizes his own philosophy is illogical and unsupportable.
Dawkins supports aspects of positivism but calls philosophy in general boring because he seems reluctant to actually commit to betting on a dead horse:
"I confess that I sometimes find philosophy a bit dull, but this conversation with Freddie Ayer really gripped me. I learned a lot that I didn't know about the history of a movement, and I learned which aspects of it have become unfashionable today, and which aspects still have some merit."
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/539333-a-j-ayer-on-logical-positivism
You, Havok, claim you are just a materialist and that's it. But your zealous faith in science seems to place you in the positivist camp, whether you want to admit it or not.
H: "No, they seem to diminish the armchair philosophising which doesn't take into account any empirical evidence."
R: No Havok, we take into account all evidence. We acknowledge that there is material, empirical, mathematical and logical evidence and these cannot all be evaluated by the scientific method.
H: I'd be something of a materialist, Rick. I'm of the opinion that we need justified reasons to claim knowledge, and the only things we can justify is the material world. Subjective claims are not reliable enough to warrant beliefs (which counts out basically all religious experience, and therefore religions themselves).
R: You want to talk about subjectivity? This is one of many problems for you, Havok
1) The conventions of scientific knowledge are subjective. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of the scientific method, including all its tenets, therefore there is no agreement on what can be defined as truth for you and your comrads. There is likewise no absolute, agreed upon definition of knowledge. Your own definition is as subjective as anyone's.
2) The principles of logic are more foundational considerations than scientific questions, i.e., there could be no scientific method without the underlying laws of logic.
3) Logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world. The principles of logic are primarily objective and unchanging, not subjective as you may wish them to be. This is not merely "armchair philosophising" but is a basic aspect of reality.
4) There are attributes that cannot be accounted for in terms of materialism alone. Selfhood, freedom, personal autonomy, and the phenomenal quality of the lived experience are a few related to humans, as noted in the linked article.
http://www.processpsychology.com/new-articles/Materialism2.htm
H: Of course I expect you to completely misinterpret my claims above, make a straw man of what you think my position must mean, and then set about knocking it down - it's what you seem to do with relish :-)
R: No, Havok, just the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. :)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteA: "Iate again. Guys let me join in your mostly unproductive, but funny debate."
R: If you bring what seem to be intelligent arguments to the table you will be taken seriously and you may become involved in a dialogue. If, however, you offer what seem to be mainly hyperbole and anecdotal distractions, you probably won't get much in the way of responses.
Rick, I am kind of sad, that you think my post lacks intelligent arguments.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I beg to differ.
1) At first, I only explained to you why most of your challenges have gone
unanswered. Imagine if the situation was reversed. A nameless atheist
would challenge the Pope to a theological debate. How probable, that his
challenge will be ignored?
2) Then I pointed out that creationism lacks fundamentals to be considered
trustworthy from the point of view of science. Maybe science is wrong, but
it is still considered the best approach to life by current educational
centers with a distinguished reputation. Is it really some plot against
religion?
3) It is also true that most religious people refuse to accept the possibility
of a godless world. It is nothing new, many declare that openly. People like
Dostoevski said they would still stand by the side of Jesus even if Jesus is
proven wrong.Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Personnaly I have no idea, but
debating with such closed-minded people is somehow useless.
4) As for the "anecdotal distraction", I just wanted to illustrate why debate
ReplyDeleteis not the best way to search for truth and how easy it is to manipulate
highly religious people.
5) And I would also like to repeat that I have posted a more complexe
answer to your "proof" of God in the post "How identity, Logic and Physics
Prove God s Existence". I do not think I am being a troll here, at least
that was never my intention.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAugust 4th you wrote: "Rick, the reason why most prominent atheists refused to debate you is because you are just not famous enough. There is just no merit in debating someone like that."
Personally, I believe that ideas and arguments should be considered in and of themselves to see if they are worthy of a debate. I find your argument lacking in this respect.
Nevertheless, since you believe people were justified in declining my debate challenge because I'm "not famous enough" I would like to return the favor of your insight and test your theory using you as an object lesson.
As an anonymous person, by definition, you are not "famous enough" to debate anywhere. So, based on your own rationale, I should just ignore you. :)
Well, you are free to refuse to debate anyone. Since it seems you have so
ReplyDeletemuch to lose from it, I can only applaud your wisdom. 8)
Too bad though, I thought we could have some fun.
P.S. I doubt that such policy will make your blog famous
Rick: No, Havok, I have a logical, cohesive basis for my beliefs.
ReplyDeleteRick, you might try responding to what I actually said. You claimed that debate was a great (perhaps the best) way to get to truth, and that reasoned discourse as happens in academia was not. In this you're rather plainly mistaken, and instead of actually addressing my point you're once again putting words in my mouth, words which I didn't endorse at all.
Of course, since your beliefs aren't actually cohesive (the traditional theistic definition of their God is incoherent, for example), then your claim here is also simply untrue.
Rick: However, you, Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and all others who believe science is the arbiter of truth (i.e. positivists), are philosophically belly up according to secular standards:
Again you're putting words in peoples mouths, mine and others.
Logic and reason are tools which help us separate fact from fiction. Science and the scientific method, broadly construed, are simply the result of applying logic and reason to external reality - intersubjective empiricism is the result.
That you continue to apply philosophical positions to people who don't hold them is disingenuous on your part.
Rick: R: Because this is a common myth today and involves a lot of history, I'll answer this error in a future article.
And still you seem to be defending the indefensible, simply because it makes your beliefs look more favourable.
Debate, due to time and resource constraints, is not a great way of arriving at the truth. An opponent may simply bring up an argument you're not familiar with and are unable to answer. This argument may have been thoroughly discredited by others outside of the debate, but because, at that moment you're unable to counter it, your opponent could be seen to win the debate.
This sort of thing happens (and with the "Gish Gallop" tactic of many Christian apologists, similar situations are very common), but it is rather obvious to see that the winner of such a debate would not necessarily be closer to the truth.
It is ridiculous to claim this is the case.
Rick: R: On the contrary, Hawking is a positivist. He has stated such in his own writings:
I said "Naive Positivism".
Rick (quoting Hawking): “Any sound scientific theory… should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others.”
Notice the initial 4 words there, Rick?
Notice how, when those 4 words are taken into account, your claims fall down?
Regarding scientific hypothesis, Hawking advocates something akin to the falsification of Popper, etc. That doesn't mean he is akin to the logical positivists, who claimed that everything was either an empirical claim or simply nonsensical (which is, nowadays, something of a naive claim, I think, though interesting in it's own right).
Rick: In earlier writings Hawking declares himself a positivist,
But unlikely a logical positivist in the sense you're attributing to him.
Rick: then later declares "philosophy is dead" because perhaps he realizes his own philosophy is illogical and unsupportable.
Or perhaps because armchair philosophers make pronouncements on empirical questions without regard to empirical evidence to support such pronouncements.
Rick: You, Havok, claim you are just a materialist and that's it. But your zealous faith in science seems to place you in the positivist camp, whether you want to admit it or not.
ReplyDeleteNo, it places me in the empiricist camp, at least as regards reality.
Please, stop attributing positions to me with such callous disregard to what I've actually written.
Rick: R: No Havok, we take into account all evidence. We acknowledge that there is material, empirical, mathematical and logical evidence and these cannot all be evaluated by the scientific method.
material and empirical evidence can ALL be evaluated in an objective methodological manner - the scientific method.
Math and logic are great within the confines of their formal systems, and any logical or mathematical evidence seems only valid within those systems.
Rick: R: You want to talk about subjectivity? This is one of many problems for you, Havok
Not at all Rick.
The methods of science are intended to reduce subjectivity. If people regardless of beliefs or location, can reproduce and/or come to the same/similar conclusions, then we have reduced subjectivity - it's broadly called intersubjective empiricism.
Rick: 3) Logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world. The principles of logic are primarily objective and unchanging, not subjective as you may wish them to be. This is not merely "armchair philosophising" but is a basic aspect of reality.
As long as you accept the various axioms of a system of logic, the truths will follow. There is no need to invoke some mystical realm in which these things exist, such as you seem to be doing here.
Rick: 4) There are attributes that cannot be accounted for in terms of materialism alone. Selfhood, freedom, personal autonomy, and the phenomenal quality of the lived experience are a few related to humans, as noted in the linked article.
An argument from ignorance, Rick.
An absence of an answer currently (assuming you're correct above, some of which I'd contest) doesn't mean an answer is impossible.
Rick: R: No, Havok, just the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. :)
You have indeed lived down to my expectations, Rick. Congratulations :-)
@ Rick: Please note that NASA officials do not publicly debate with people who have been abducted by aliens, zoologists do not publicly debate with people who have seen leprechauns, and Boeing engineers do not publicly debate with people who can move teapots by their sole mental power.
ReplyDeleteI think it's for the same exact reasons that scientists are reluctant to debate with Creationists, especially the YEC type.
Rick, here is a video of one of your ID heroes, Stephen Meyer.
ReplyDeleteIn it, Meyer claims to be sketching a positive case for ID. This seems to be based on his claim that "Whenever we see information, then it has an intelligent cause. We see information in DNA, therefore it had an intelligent cause".
This fails for 2 reasons.
Firstly, we have evidence of evolutionary algorithms (both evolution in nature, as well as simulations) introducing "creating" new information, so Meyer's claim is bogus from the outset.
Secondly, even if this were not true, all of Meyers examples of information with a known intelligent cause are human artifacts, with human intelligence as the cause, hence his claim should have "human intelligence" where he says "intelligence". This immediately points out a further problem with his claim - humans were not around when his first "digital information" came about, and therefore his argument fails. Meyer would need independent scientific evidence for an intelligence which was capable and motivated to introduce the digital information for his claim to have further merit.
It's little wonder that these people are not taken seriously in academic circles when they make such foolish claims.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteSeeing as your objections mainly relate to the validity of debate, I wrote a separate article on this subject, as I said I would:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-debate-is-valid-and-necessary.html
Yogi,
You wrote, "Rick: Please note that NASA officials do not publicly debate with people who have been abducted by aliens..."
Good point. Why then do scientists such as Dawkins and Hawking feel the need to write books and make statements addressing deep philosophical and theological questions?
By the way, it may be interesting for you to note that Hawking is warning us to beware of the little green men :)
Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
Though he offers no actual evidence for aliens he's already giving advice on cross-cultural communication.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteAgain, you love to make statements with no references or links:
"Firstly, we have evidence of evolutionary algorithms (both evolution in nature, as well as simulations) introducing "creating" new information."
Where's the link? You always seem to have a missing link. :)
Rick, since the second point I made, that Meyer has produced no evidence of human intelligence in producing his initial "digital information", nor independent scientific evidence of an alternative capable and motivated intelligence able to do so, his claim is bunk regardless.
ReplyDeleteBut for your edification, some quick links. You could use google to find more and/or look into the scientific literature :-)
The Origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old - a review paper, cited in the Dover trial IIRC. You might be able to find a place to download it. Here is another paper by the lead author of the previous, which looks to be pertinent (though I've not read it through).
Talk origins on the claim that mutations don't produce anything new.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Why then do scientists such as Dawkins and Hawking feel the need to write books and make statements addressing deep philosophical and theological questions?"
Because believers and theologists make claims about the real world, which is the territory of knowledge and science. Debunking those claims then has philosophical and theological implications because believers have tried to found their superstitions on erroneous pseudo-scientific attempts.
When believers and theologists will just say the truth which is: "I believe in God because my Dad said it, and he said so because his own Dad said it", then "hard" scientists will leave the religious field and leave it to "soft" scientists only. Sociologists, psychologists, already have much to say about the origin and propagation of myths, superstitions and religions.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Rick, since the second point I made, that Meyer has produced no evidence of human intelligence in producing his initial "digital information", nor independent scientific evidence of an alternative capable and motivated intelligence able to do so, his claim is bunk regardless.
R: You've created a straw man argument in your sentence, Havok. You haven't touched Signature in the Cell but you clip one sentence from a live debate and then use that as a supposed argument to say Meyer has produced no evidence? Pretty weak, havok. You don't even know what he is arguing...
Just a brief Internet search will at least show abasic outline of his argument:
The book SITC elaborates on the following point:
Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” (pg. 347)
If you took the time to look into it you would see the scientific method is used in Meyer's deductions. This is just one of many points related to DNA intelligence, which is a basis of life. Meyer is not referring to human intelligence in the respect you wrote, which relates to the mind, but, rather, to encoded intelligence in DNA, as relates to all life.
http://www.truths.ca/evidence-of-God.htm
As for your link, a sentence reads,
"Genome data have revealed great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms, which indicates that there is a fundamental process of genome evolution: the origin of new genes." - The Logic here seems a bit off - a "great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms" seems like a good argument for God, not evolution.
Yogi,
ReplyDelete"Because believers and theologists make claims about the real world, which is the territory of knowledge and science."
Your sentence is not quite complete, Yogi, and is a bit misleading. Let me finish it for you:
Believers, theologists and scientists make claims about the real world which points to an Intelligent Designer.
Yes, scientists like Dawkins do write uninformed books on theological issues and then, ironically, they run and hide when scientists want to debate them on the subject on purely scientific terms. Dawkins and others like them are hypocrites, pure and simple.
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Presuppositions will determine your evaluation of the evidence. The question is, which scientists have the stronger argument based on facts. A fear of debate is a good indicator of that answer. :)
Rick: You've created a straw man argument in your sentence, Havok
ReplyDeleteLets see if that's the case, shall we:
Rick: The book SITC elaborates on the following point:
As I understand it SITC is a book length elaboration. I wonder, though, does he ever bother to justify his assertions or produce evidence for them?
Meyer: "Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”
A few problems straight away:
- Meyer asserts that there are no instances of non-intelligent processes producing "specified information", which ignores evidence as found in the links I produced.
- "specified information" is ill defined. Information theory uses rigorously defined definitions of information, either Shannon information or Kolmogorov complexity.
- Meyer's examples are of specifically human intelligence.
- Meyer's examples assume a dualist conception of mind, which is neither scientifically supported, nor particularly philosophically popular and quite possibly incoherent.
Rick: This is just one of many points related to DNA intelligence, which is a basis of life. Meyer is not referring to human intelligence in the respect you wrote, which relates to the mind, but, rather, to encoded intelligence in DNA, as relates to all life.
You seem confused Rick. Meyer is referring to encoded information in DNA and claims that it must be the result of an intelligence. He is not arguing that intelligence is somehow encoded in DNA.
Rick: The Logic here seems a bit off - a "great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms" seems like a good argument for God, not evolution.
Perhaps you ought to read the entire paper, rather than simply cherry pick the first sentence and then make believe it supports your position. The paper goes into the mechanisms which are behind this great diversity of genes.
I also see you didn't provide any independant scientific evidence to support Meyer's contention that there was intelligence with the capability and motivation to inject his "specified information" to generate the first DNA. As such, I see no reason to take your or Meyer's assertions seriously, and as far as I can tell, experts in the related fields feel the same way.
As far as I can tell, I didn't address a straw man argument at all.
Rick,
ReplyDelete"Believers, theologists and scientists make claims about the real world which points to an Intelligent Designer": As has been discussed at length on this very blog, in the academia since science exists, and stated in the multiple "creationism in school" debates, not one single scientific fact so far points to an Intelligent Designer.
Secondly, debating theological issues using reason and logic is a pure waste of time since, as we've seen in a previous thread on this blog, Christianity itself is self-contradictory and deeply logically flawed. No sound reasoning can be established based on a Christian hypothesis.
By the way, there is a wide wide difference between the (pertinent) question you mentioned "why is there something instead of nothing?" (and you can as well call "God" the spatio-temporal break or whatever that launched it all), and that childish manmade myth of a "God" who has such a deep interest in our sexual activities, as proposed by Christianity.
And lastly, if "fear of debate" is a good indicator of truth, then you have me convinced that people do have been abducted by aliens and that teapots can indeed be moved by sheer mind power. Elvis is not dead either, since scientists constantly refuse to debate that issue in spite of recurrent sightings.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to get it.
Here is the main thesis from Meyer's argument:
"In Signature in the Cell, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer shows how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life."
http://www.signatureinthecell.com/about-the-book.php
- Do you see any argument for or about human intelligence here? No.
Intelligent Design is not referring to "human" intelligence as a state of mind. It is not using human intelligence as proof of the argument either. The origin of "life" in general has this information, all things that have DNA, not just human life.
H: "He is not arguing that intelligence is somehow encoded in DNA."
On the contrary, Havok, that's the main argument for ID in DNA:
"We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message."
http://www.AllAboutScience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
H: "Perhaps you ought to read the entire paper, rather than simply cherry pick the first sentence and then make believe it supports your position."
R: If your article has such good information it should at least have one sentence in it that supports your point. If it doesn't, I won't waste my time. According to your own comment from August 8, you don't even read the articles you expect me to read:
"Here is another paper by the lead author of the previous, which looks to be pertinent (though I've not read it through)."
- No thanks, Havok. When you are ready to do your own homework and present viable sentences and arguments with links, then perhaps your points will carry more weight and will be interesting enough to look into.
Yogi,
ReplyDelete"not one single scientific fact so far points to an Intelligent Designer."
R: Intelligence in the design of life points to this fact, as noted in Stephen Meyer's book Signature ITC.
Another example: "Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) wrote "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle." Intelligent design is the most logical conclusion for people with objective, open minds.
Y: "Secondly, debating theological issues using reason and logic is a pure waste of time since, as we've seen in a previous thread on this blog, Christianity itself is self-contradictory and deeply logically flawed."
R: Yogi, you're making the same mistake Havok frequently makes - presenting claims unsupported by specific quotes and links. Please present one specific quote from one specific day supporting your claim. Thanks.
Y: And lastly, if "fear of debate" is a good indicator of truth, then you have me convinced that people do have been abducted by aliens and that teapots can indeed be moved by sheer mind power.
R: Yes, fear of debate does indicate an avoidance of truth.
As far as cross-cultural communication with aliens goes, I'll leave that to Stephen Hawking. As I pointed out, he seems to be an expert, though he's presented no actual evidence for aliens:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
Rick: - Do you see any argument for or about human intelligence here? No.
ReplyDeleteMeyer uses artefacts of human intelligence in his claims regarding the creation of information. As such his argument relies upon human intelligence.
Meyer tries to obscure his reliance here by claiming a general "intelligence", but without independent scientific evidence for said intelligence, his argument fails.
Rick: Intelligent Design is not referring to "human" intelligence as a state of mind. It is not using human intelligence as proof of the argument either. The origin of "life" in general has this information, all things that have DNA, not just human life.
No Rick. He argues that DNA has "specified information" (a vaguely defined term), and asserts that the only source of that information is "intelligence" (though all of his examples are of human intellect).
Rick: On the contrary, Havok, that's the main argument for ID in DNA:
No Rick. He's arguing that there is a special sort of information ("specified information") encoded in DNA, and that the only source of that sort of information is intelligence (which appears to be a bare assertion on his part).
Meyer: "We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system.
No we don't. A message system implies a sender and a received. Meyer seems to be assuming his conclusion here.
Meyer: To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces.
Exactly. The links I presented (as well as a vast body of other research) demonstrate exactly that.
Meyer: Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes.
Yes they do. They also present evidence FOR this explanation.
Meyer: However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message."
Meyer's analogy breaks down tragically here. The chemical building blocks ARE the message. Physics and chemistry are at work, with no intermediate "translation layer" as would be expected if Meyer's claim here was correct. And again Meyer is assuming a sender/author, when that is what he is arguing for.
Perhaps you could present Meyer's arguments and evidence to support his contentions. Perhaps start with "specified information" being impossible without intelligence (trying not to define it as "information that can only be created by intelligence", as Demski and Meyer seem to do), or perhaps his evidence that a capable and suitably motivated "intelligence" was actually present when this "specified information" was generated?
ReplyDeleteOr does Meyer simply assert these things repeatedly, in book length prose?
I suspect the latter given what I've read of ID arguments and evolutionary theory, but I'd be pleased to find I'm mistaken.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteR: "Intelligence in the design of life points to this fact [of an Intelligent Designer], as noted in Stephen Meyer's book Signature ITC".
Y: This is only your interpretation. Scientists see the same facts as pointing to the evolution theory. Intelligent Design is not scientifically grounded (as is regularly recalled in court), which means that no scientific fact so far requires an Intelligent Designer.
R: "Yogi, you're making the same mistake Havok frequently makes - presenting claims unsupported by specific quotes and links. Please present one specific quote from one specific day supporting your claim. Thanks."
Y: Sorry, I refered to the debate we had on your blog two weeks ago. Specifically, on your entry http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html , on July 30, 2011 1:48 AM, I pointed the logical incompatibility between man "free will" and the idea of an omniscient out-of-time Creator.
According to the Christian vision of God being an omniscient out-of-time Creator, then God knowingly and voluntarily made us sinners. This is because when He created Adam He created all together, crystal clear to His out-of-time view, Adam and the whole of mankind history, with all its sin and evil. God knew the play, God wrote the play, even before we acted it. God created Adam a sinner, and then pretented Adam had a choice. But omniscient God knew right from the start that Adam would sin, and He went on creating Adam that way, knowingly and voluntarily.
He then condemned mankind for being what He had made, and went on sacrificing His own Son (actually, Himself) to save His creature from His own wrath. An acted wrath caused by man being exactly what He made.
This blatantly shows that Christianity is self-contradictory and deeply logically flawed, and it ensues that debating (Christian) theological issues using reason and logic is a pure waste of time.
R: "Yes, fear of debate does indicate an avoidance of truth."
Y: Again, my neighbor thinks he is Abraham Lincoln. I fear debating that issue with him, but not because I fear that he might be right.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Meyer uses artefacts of human intelligence in his claims regarding the creation of information. As such his argument relies upon human intelligence.
Meyer tries to obscure his reliance here by claiming a general "intelligence", but without independent scientific evidence for said intelligence, his argument fails.
R: What are artifacts of human intelligence? Can you be specific? It seems you are implying that because Meyer uses his human mind to offer a premise the premise is disqualified because he is human. It seems to be a rather weak criticism.
Yogi,
ReplyDeleteY: Intelligent Design is not scientifically grounded (as is regularly recalled in court), which means that no scientific fact so far requires an Intelligent Designer.
R: Intelligent design is in fact scientifically grounded. However, the court system is biased. I pointed this out in article: Top 20 Atheist Bloggers Decline Challenge to Reason:
The Dover case disproved Intelligent Design – The Dover case focused on Michael Behe’s blood clotting cascade as an example for irreducible complexity. However, Since Behe made it clear in Darwin’s Black Box that his argument for irreducible complexity only applied to components after the fork (the red), In short, Kenneth Miller did not actually test or refute Behe's arguments and continues to decline proposals to debate the issue since the hearing.[9] Plus, Judge Jones, who decided the case, was misinformed, believing there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design. The case was a travesty of science and justice.[10]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/07/top-20-atheist-bloggers-decline.html
Y: "I pointed the logical incompatibility between man "free will" and the idea of an omniscient out-of-time Creator."
ReplyDeleteR: And I pointed out that the theory of compatibilism allows for both free will and an omniscient out-of-time Creator. So what?
http://withchrist.org/freedom.htm
Y: According to the Christian vision of God being an omniscient out-of-time Creator, then God knowingly and voluntarily made us sinners.
R: No, according to compatibilism, God gave humans free will and choice allowing us to obey or disobey God.
Y: He then condemned mankind for being what He had made, and went on sacrificing His own Son (actually, Himself) to save His creature from His own wrath.
R: Mankind suffered the consequences of disobedience from God, which is separation from God. We live in a world where there are consequences. Where there is no truth, there are no consequences. Where this is truth, there are consequences. This is quite logical.
Y: This blatantly shows that Christianity is self-contradictory and deeply logically flawed...
R: No, this shows you have a problem with the idea that truth and consequences exist. According to your worldview, there is no absolute truth and there is no basis for logic.
It is a bit hypocritical to try and judge Christianity for being illogical when you cannot even support the basis for the existence of the laws of logic. :)
You are like an art critic complaining about a painting's design when you don't even know how to obtain a canvass, a brush and paint. You should probably try and justify the first philosophically before criticizing the latter. :)
Y: Again, my neighbor thinks he is Abraham Lincoln. I fear debating that issue with him, but not because I fear that he might be right.
R: Yogi, thanks to atheist hegemony today, My neighbor at this moment could very well be someone like Ted Bundy, who said:
"I hope that those who I have caused so much grief, even if they don’t believe my expression of sorrow, will believe what I’m saying now; there are those loose in their towns and communities, like me, whose dangerous impulses are being fueled, day in and day out, by violence in the media in its various forms."
http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm
- Or, my neighbor could be someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who said:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"
http://www.quotesstar.com/people/occupations/jeffrey-dahmer-quotes.html
I would fear debating these people, not so much because I believe they have any strong arguments, but because their acute understanding of atheist moral vacuousness implies I could very possibly end up on their dinner menu.
Rick: What are artifacts of human intelligence? Can you be specific?
ReplyDeleteMeyer uses things like heiroglyphs, software code, information in a radio signal, all of which are human artifacts. Since all of these are human artifacts, then Meyer's base case is for human intelligence having "created" this first biological information.
As I've mentioned, Meyer provides no independent scientific evidence for the existence of human intelligence at the time this information was generated, nor does he provide independent scientific evidence for the existence of any other suitably capable and motivated intelligence existing at that time, his argument fails badly. His argument is buried even further by the evidence (which I've provided some links to) that biological systems can generate information, contrary to the basic assertion of Meyer that only intelligence can generate information (not to mention his assumption that the mind is not materialistic, which is against current scientific knowledge).
As anyone can surely see, Meyer's claim has such huge holes in it, it is little wonder he's not taken seriously by scholars generally. What is amazing is the fact that he's taken seriously by anyone.
Rick: It seems you are implying that because Meyer uses his human mind to offer a premise the premise is disqualified because he is human. It seems to be a rather weak criticism.
That's not the criticism at all, as I've pointed out (again) above.
Compatibilism does not solve the problem, it worsens it. It confirms the view that man eventually accomplishes God's plan. The fate of the world has always been known to God, and since He created it according to His will, He purposefully created it as it is, was, and will be.
ReplyDeleteHence, He designed and created Adam so that Adam would sin : this was God plan and vision. How could it be otherwise since God is out of time, all knowing and all powerful ?
This is the direct consequence of your truth. God created Adam and mankind as sinners, then went mad because Adam and mankind had accomplished His own plan, and then went to sacrifice Himself to Himself to save mankind from Himself.
If that's not illogical, then it is absurd and perverse. And it is all pure and direct consequence of your "truth".
Just one question for you, Rick : did God know that Adam would sin ?
ReplyDeleteIf no, how can He be all-knowing ?
If yes, did He have no other choice than to create a sinning and evil creature ? Why did He choose to do so ? And then why condemning Adam for accomplishing His own plan ?
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: "As I've mentioned, Meyer provides no independent scientific evidence for the existence of human intelligence at the time this information was generated..."
R: So, in your opinion, this information: heiroglyphs, software code, information in a radio signals, could have been created by non-humans? You need proof that these things have a human origin? Please show me animals that draw meaningful heiroglyphs.
Rick: So, in your opinion, this information: heiroglyphs, software code, information in a radio signals, could have been created by non-humans? You need proof that these things have a human origin? Please show me animals that draw meaningful heiroglyphs.
ReplyDeleteWell done. You completely missed the point, and instead of asking for clarification imputed something ridiculous as being my position. Bravo.
Rick, we have independant evidence for humans being around at those times. We have evidence that humans have the capability and the motivation to create these things.
Meyer relies completely on human artifacts for his claims concerning information, and yet he provides no evidence for the existence of humans during his instances of information creation. In fact, we have good reason to think that humans were not around during abiogenesis, so his basic analogy fails.
Meyer also fails to produce any scientific evidence that there is/was any other suitably capable or motivated agent around during his supposed design events, so he has given absolutely no reason to think that such being(s) exist.
And finally Meyer fails to reference the numerous instances of his "information" being produced by naturalistic processes (some of which I linked in an earlier comment), and so his claims of our "uniform experience" fail.
Meyers claims can only be convincing to someone who already shares his conclusion - that God exists and created life, the universe and everything. Meyer has certainly not made a scientific case but has indulged in an apologetic exercise.
Y: "God created Adam and mankind as sinners."
ReplyDeleteR: You seem to have a habit of starting off on the wrong foot.
I had already mentioned an example answering this point:
Suppose a boy's father tells him "don't leave the house for any reason while I'm gone". However, while the father is gone an ice cream truck comes by. The boy, who loves ice cream, leaves the house to go buy an ice cream cone. Now, this act does not necessarily mean the boy had a pre-existing urge to disobey his father; rather, it could simply be that his desire to obey and his desire for an ice cream cone came into conflict, and he chose to disobey rather than to deny himself. Similarly, there is no need to presume an existing "urge to disobey" in Adam and Eve. They presumably had a desire to become like God, since this - theosis - is what they were created for. When the serpent tempted Eve, his deception made the desire to become like God seem to be in competition with obedience to God. So, it is possible that her desire was to obey rather than disobey, but that she gave precedence to the desire for theosis and so chose disobedience. Yogi, your statement "...God chose to create a sinner Adam and an evil-oriented mankind" is similar to the above premise: "The fact that Eve and Adam ate the apple was because they already had the urge to disobey (be independent from) the Father." But, as was shown, this is not a necessary conclusion."
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6982-Why-did-God-create-us-with-an-evil-inclination
H: "we have good reason to think that humans were not around during abiogenesis, so his basic analogy fails."
ReplyDeleteR: Bravo, you've just done to Meyer what you claim I've done to you, "imputed something ridiculous."
Meyer doesn't claim that humans existed during abiogenesis (if such a thing could ever possibly be shown to be other than a complete fantasy). The implication is that there has been a necessary higher intelligence at work since the beginning.
In fact, Meyer and co flat out refuse to speculate on the nature of the designer, and yet to make any sort of inference we must at least have some understanding of what the designer is capable of and what the designers motivations are likely to be. This is standard practice in archaeology (a discipline which ID'ists seem to refer to), as well as in the SETI project (another favourite reference it seems).
ReplyDeleteID in general, in failing to postulate any attributes to the putative designer, fails to provide any sort of empirical content allowing the hypothesis to be tested, and therefore rules itself out of being a scientific endeavour.
Rick: Bravo, you've just done to Meyer what you claim I've done to you, "imputed something ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteMeyer doesn't claim that humans existed during abiogenesis (if such a thing could ever possibly be shown to be other than a complete fantasy). The implication is that there has been a necessary higher intelligence at work since the beginning.
I know he doesn't claim that. He does claim that our uniform experience indicates that intelligence is required for information. His only examples of this, to support his claim, are human artifacts resulting from human intelligence. Therefore his analogy claims that information is only the result of human intelligence, since that is the only suitably capable and motivated intelligence that we're familiar with.
Meyer produces no evidence for "information" being created by another intelligence (independant of what he is attempting to explain), and therefore fails to support his contention.
H: "Meyers claims can only be convincing to someone who already shares his conclusion."
ReplyDeleteR: excellent point, but let me reverse it for you and show you why the glories of Methodological Naturalism have been a failure in this regard:
Scientists who have already decided that a higher Intelligence does not exist cannot share his conclusion.
No matter what the facts may say, some will never agree with them because of their preconceptions about reality.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH "Meyer produces no evidence for "information" being created by another intelligence (independant of what he is attempting to explain), and therefore fails to support his contention."
R: If you had read his book, Signature in the Cell, you may have understood the well presented argument showing why intelligence in nature could not have occurred by chance and natural selection alone, and the positive evidence supporting Intelligent Design. Until you've actually read his work in totality, you are simply blowing hot air. You aren't aware of the extent of his argument.
Rick: Scientists who have already decided that a higher Intelligence does not exist cannot share his conclusion.
ReplyDeleteExcept of course that many of those who argue against ID do accept that a higher intelligtence does exist.
Rick:No matter what the facts may say, some will never agree with them because of their preconceptions about reality.
While this may be true it does not in any way remove the evidential burden from Meyer and others.
Rick: If you had read his book, Signature in the Cell, you may have understood the well presented argument showing why intelligence in nature could not have occurred by chance and natural selection alone, and the positive evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
ReplyDeleteMeyer does not produce evidence independant of the explanadum, for a non-human intelligence. He's blustering and not presenting a scientific case.
Rick: Until you've actually read his work in totality, you are simply blowing hot air. You aren't aware of the extent of his argument.
Until you can present a reason as to why I need to take his argument seriously, I can continue to believe, on the strength of the arguments from Meyer, yourself and others I'm aware of thus far that both you and Meyer are apologists who are uninterested in serious scientific investigation.
What is the evidence Rick?
Where is it?
How does Meyer come to the conlusion that a non-human intelligence intervened in abiogenesis when there is no scientific evidence for the existence of this non-human intelligence and copious evidence for naturalistic processes producing what Meyer calls "information"?
Why is it that all you are able to do is claim Meyer's argument is extensive without being able to actually present his argument, his supporting evidence or why it is or should be compelling?
Why has Meyer's work being uniformly panned within academia even by those who accept the existence of Meyer's God?
Why do ID'ists refuse to postulate on the attributes and abilities of the designer, and claim that those who infer incompetence or other attributes to the putative designer are not being scientific?
So many questions that need answering before the contention should even be seriously addressed. and there is still no reason within science to postulate a designer for the instances Meyer tries to explain.
It is ridiculous that you think one book written for a popular audience invalidates the reams of evidence supporting the theory of evolution and the capacity for information increase withing that theory.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous that you think this same book invalidates the supporting evidence for the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Meyer needs to write his work in a formal manner, for experts in the field(s), and have is ideas and claims vetted by them. His claims need to be supported by further evidence. His claims needs to be subject to falsification and testing. His claims need to provide further prediction which are unobvious. And it needs to do all of these things in a non-trivial fashion.
As far as I can tell Meyer's claims do none of these things - you've certainly not provided reason to think this is the case.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Except of course that many of those who argue against ID do accept that a higher intelligtence does exist.
R: Really? I'm not aware of any. Can you show some examples of this "many?"
H: He's blustering and not presenting a scientific case.
R: You haven't read his book and your points make it painfully aware you aren't really interested in honestly examining it.
H: What is the evidence Rick?
Where is it?
R: The science of DNA is not like a philosophical syllogism that can be summarized in a few lines.
Many philosophical arguments can be and should be summarized briefly in one article. This I am in complete agreement with. But scientific arguments require more text. That's just a fact of life. And saying "it's too long" is a poor excuse for not reading a scientific work.
If you were truly interested in understanding Meyer's argument, you'd go to a library and check out his book.
H: Meyer needs to write his work in a formal manner, for experts in the field(s), and have is ideas and claims vetted by them.
R: Meyer and other ID writers are peer reviewed, as I've pointed out:
PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d_1048711.html
Rick: Really? I'm not aware of any. Can you show some examples of this "many?"
ReplyDeleteReally? So Miller (catholic) and Francis Collins (Evangelical Christian) don't exist in your world? The large number of religious biologists don't exist either?
Rick: You haven't read his book and your points make it painfully aware you aren't really interested in honestly examining it.
Because everything I've read about it indicates that it is poorly argued and would be a waste of my time.
You're exposition here only adds to that.
Rick: The science of DNA is not like a philosophical syllogism that can be summarized in a few lines.
So no evidence then, just an excuse?
Rick: Meyer and other ID writers are peer reviewed, as I've pointed out:
And those papers don't hold up to the scrutiny of experts. Which again, only reinforces the fact that it would be a waste of my time to wade through Meyer's ridiculous book.
It's also rather hypocritical of you to chastise me for not reading an entire book when you dismiss far shorter papers because you have some unjustified notion of them being illogical prior to even reading an abstract.
hypocritical in the extreme! :-)
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: It's also rather hypocritical of you to chastise me for not reading an entire book when you dismiss far shorter papers because you have some unjustified notion of them being illogical prior to even reading an abstract.
hypocritical in the extreme! :-)
R: I think we both are reluctant to spend time reading material we don't believe is based on a true premise :)
I leave a response when I appreciate a post on a site or if I have
ReplyDeletesomething to valuable to contribute to the discussion.
It's a result of the sincerness communicated in the article I read. And after this post "Why Atheists Fear Debate". I was actually moved enough to drop a thought ;-) I do have a couple of questions for you if you tend not to mind. Is it just me or do a few of these responses look like written by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are posting at other places, I would like to keep up with everything new you have to post. Could you list every one of all your communal pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
Also visit my webpage ... next page