Christendom is divided into a multitude of warring sects and denominations. It seems that Christians have a hard time agreeing on much of anything. It is also true, sad to say, that down through the ages these denominational differences have sometimes spilled over into outright violence. Critics have pointed to these undeniable facts as evidence that God is unknowable and religion is a farce.
There is a sense, however, in which all of this is beside the point. The real question is, what did Jesus Himself teach and say? And what relevance does His teaching have for us today in the Twenty First century.
One of the earliest summaries we have of Jesus' teaching, based at least in part in the apostle Peter's personal recollection, is found in the Gospel According to Mark. In Mark 1:14,15 we are told that Jesus came to Galilee, a district in northern Palestine, "preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.'" (NKJV).
Jesus' listeners would have understood what He was saying. For centuries Israelite prophets had been predicting a time when a supernatural figure, the "Messiah," or anointed One, would reign over the earth in an era of universal justice and peace. As early as 735 B.C. the prophet Isaiah foretold a time in which nations "shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isa. 2:4).
Human life, as we experience it now, is filled with pain and sorrow. We know sickness, injury and death. We also know the cruelty and injustice that human beings inflict on each other. This raises a nagging question: is this all there is? Are we doomed to an endless cycle of evil and death?
The problem becomes ever more acute if we view it from the standpoint of monotheism. If the world was created by a single, all-powerful intelligent Being, then why is there evil in the world? How could God allow such a thing to happen? The Bible partly answers this question by tying our physical suffering to our moral condition – we die ultimately because we sin. Death is God's just judgment on a fallen and sinful human race. And sin is a decision that we make; we can blame no one but ourselves for our predicament.
But does that mean that creation is in a permanent state of ruin? Did evil achieve the final victory over good?
The biblical answer is the kingdom of God – the Messianic age in the future. History is headed toward a final showdown in which good finally triumphs over evil and the earth is restored to its original state of peace and righteousness. God is sovereign and His will will ultimately prevail.
But how will this perfect state be brought about? The answer is shattering. The prophets described an apocalyptic event called "the Day of the Lord" – a moment in history in which God Himself will come to judge the world. "The Lord gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong is the One who executes His word. For the day of the Lord is great and terrible; Who can endure it?" (Joel 2:11).
All of which brings us to our present situation. What does all of this mean for us today? The answer is, we need to repent. Joel goes on to say, "'Now therefore,' says the Lord, 'Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping and with mourning.' So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the Lord your God, For He is gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He relents from doing harm" (vv. 12,13). We cannot "enter" or "inherit" the kingdom of God in our present state of sin and degradation. We must repent of our sin and experience an inward moral renovation before we can enter the kingdom.
Jesus announced that "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (lit. "has come near" – Mk. 1:15). The time to repent is now.
It is noteworthy that Jesus did not come preaching toleration and multiculturalism. He did not preach "the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." What He preached, quite bluntly, was repentance. We must change, or we are doomed.
You do know that Adam and Eve are metaphorical, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of metaphors, I do like Dan Barker's minute and half video take on christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d-fjUMbSiHg
No. I do not in fact know that Adam and Eve are metaphorical.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does not give us a technical, scientific description of nature, but it does purport to give us real history. And as you once pointed out in another context, you cannot build a realistic philosophy of life on a metaphor.
The biblical account of human origins helps explain the uniqueness of the human species and its essential unity. It also explains the paradoxical nature of human psychology -- we we posit the existence of certain ideals and values and then fail to live up to them.
If, on the other hand, the literal truth about who we are and how we got here is the way Darwin describe it, then the whole Christian theology falls to the ground. But part of the reason why so many have found a rigorously materialistic philosophy so unsatisfying is because it doesn't do justice to the intuitive sense we have of ourselves.
If a scientist's conclusions are all determined by his own biological makeup, are the conclusions still valid?
Sorry I didn't see you response sooner, Bob.
DeletePeter Enns (previously of BioLogos) writes If evolution is right about how humans came to be, then the biblical story of Adam and Eve isn’t. And there's your problem: how do we tell which part of the bible is literally true and which part is metaphorical? Answer: there isn't.
But Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says.
When Adam sinned, he sinned for us and it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.
Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam’s original sin.
Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul’s description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament,” Mohler says.
Well, isn't this a fine pickle? The science must be wrong.
From Jerry Coyne, professor of genetics at the University of Chicago:
Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.
The problem this presents is to you and your beliefs. The onus thus falls to you to show how this genetic information can be explained otherwise. To do this, remember that genetic profiling works for everyone everywhere all time (so far), that pharmaceuticals are convinced to spend billions and billions of dollars on creating products based on this understanding, that products and technologies so far developed do in fact work reliably and consistently well based on this current understanding, and that it fits seamlessly with our understanding of evolution... and it fits when it didn't have to be this way. Yet... it does. And it works.
So the question for the Christian is... what now? You know the historical account of a literal Adam and Eve is wrong.
This comment at first ran afoul of the spam filter -- sorry about that! I certainly agree with Albert Mohler. I will try to reply to Jerry Coyne's argument a little later.
DeleteAnd please feel free to delete the edited version.
DeleteMaybe the spam kicked in because I included a link. That sometimes happens on my Wordpress.
I guess what I find a little confusing about Jerry Coyne's argument is that he seems to be contradicting himself virtually within the same breath. First he says that the smallest "bottleneck" had anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 individuals, and that are genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. But then he says that our mitochondrial DNA points back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140.000 years ago, an ancestor who certainly looks like "Eve." So, did Eve exist or didn't she?
DeleteOne thing that I do appreciate about Prof. Coyne is that he has enough integrity as a scientist that he will lay out the evidence, even when it seems to support the opposing viewpoint. Sections of the chapter "What About Us?" in "Why Evolution Is True" sound like they could have been written by an Intelligent Design advocate.
It's good to recognize confusion because it gives one cause to straighten it out, to learn. I'm not going to attempt to do that here, other than to point out a question I sometimes ask in my own confusion: Why does this person come to this conclusion rather than some other conclusion? The explanation for this usually reveals my own misunderstanding. Why does Coyne - a geneticist, don't forget - come to the conclusion he does? Well, in a nutshell, because that's where the evidence leads him. What is it that he understands about population bottlenecks that I don't, and why does that matter? (BTW, there's a better understanding now about a smaller bottleneck out of Africa and to the East down to about 1200 people.) He understands heritable genetics and the various markers like mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA, that the former dates back about 140K years but the latter only 60-90K across various global human populations. Right there you understand that there is very strong physical evidence against some Eve-like Mom waiting around for 50K years for Dad to show up when the biblical account says Dad was first and then Mom was created to keep him company. The DNA evidence could have the order this way, but it doesn't... and that's just the way it is.
DeleteIf the Adam and Eve story were historically possible then our DNA should show that it could be possible, that the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome were of a similar age. If this had turned out to be the case, then I suspect every christian would shout it from the rooftops that 'science' backs up this biblical claim.
But when the 'science' clearly shows this biblical claim to be false - when it didn't have to be this way but is - the silence from the 'people of the book' is almost deafening. This information is not compatible with but contrary to one of the central beliefs for the christian faith: that Adam and Eve have to be an historical founding couple. But as far that goes, it's simply a fiction.
Now - because the genetic evidence is what it is - those who explain the historical Jesus story in terms of a special blood sacrifice to rectify an historical sin leading to a sinful historical inheritance have a huge problem on their hands: because they were never a founding couple we have no inheritance from them as a couple. Jesus' historical sacrifice makes no historical sense.
This truth claim about an historical Adam and Eve is wrong. It is untrue, incorrect, in error. And we don;t know this from religious belief. We know it only from an honest inquiry into our genetic evidence - evidence that could have supported the biblical claim but simply did not in reality.
So here's the test: do believers respect reality enough to allow truth claims made about to be arbitrated by reality and make the necessary changes to their religious beliefs to align to it, or will they stick by their respect for their religiously-inspired belief about reality regardless of contrary evidence from reality?
You ask the question, "Why does Coyne -- a geneticist, don't forget -- come to the the conclusion he does"? which you then answer by saying, "because that's where the evidence leads him." However, could it be because he has questionable motives? I know that Prof. Coyne would like to think that he came to his conclusion because that is where the evidence led him, but I don't think that he was entirely successful.
ReplyDeleteAccording to him Homo sapiens is a unique species, significantly different from our presumed apelike ancestors and surviving cousins. "Humans are the one species that has diverged from the ape ground plan . . ." (Why Evolution Is True, Viking, 2009, p. 196). At the same time we are remarkably similar to each other: "At the genetic level, then, human beings are a remarkably similar lot" (p. 214). His discussion on amino acids (pp. 210-211) demonstrates the enormous complexity involved in the alleged evolution from ape to human, and he also notes that there is a 2 million year gap between Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Australopithecus anamensis, in which there are "no substantive hominin fossils" (p. 199). Yet his theory posits a slow, gradual process of evolution. "Over time, the population will gradually become more and more suited to its environment as helpful mutations arise and spread through the population, while deleterious ones are weeded out" (p.11). If that were actually the case, what one would expect to find in both the fossil record and in nature today is a vast continuum of transitional forms. But what you actually see are distinct, well-defined species.
How did Mom have children without Dad?
Coyne didn't do the research or write the paper but he did review it favourably, meaning that they followed very high standards and accounted for any associated problems and questions. So it's not Coyne's motives that matter; what matters is if this genetic study was good science. And the consensus seems to be it was because I know that more testing has been done, leading to the same results, which means independent verifications of its findings. So these results stand until someone can have grounds on which to refute them. So far, so good.
DeleteAs for transitional fossils between apes and humans, there are many. I recommend you bookmark Talkorigins and ask your questions there to see what answers are on file. Remember, evolutionary theory - so far - accounts for how life has developed into what we find today. Your questions have probably already been not only presented but considered before being adequately answered with good science by people who have dedicated their lives to doing just this. Their expertise representing the theory of evolution as it relates to evidence we have far exceeds my own and, I suspect, yours. We can both utilize this knowledge to help us inform our own understanding.
Mom and her direct offspring who each carried the mitochondrial DNA had many children who each had unrelated and therefore different dads. That's kind of the point. The oldest male ancestor we share (found on both of our DNA) is about 50K younger than the oldest female common ancestor we share.
The complexity that seems such a bugaboo to your accepting evolutionary biology needs to be better understood by you. After all, it's not the science that's the problem here. Evolution is a scaffolding process that is well documented. Again, Talkorigins offers some two dozen good examples of speciation. Accounting for these by creation claims is just silliness. And remember, creationism grants us NO new knowledge and fails completely to offer us any equivalently coherent explanation that can be applied, that produces knowledge, that yields practical applications that actually work. Evolution does. It is against this edifice of knowledge called biology you rail a feeble faith-encrusted fist to no avail. But belief in creationism does make it difficult for the public as a whole to gain entrance to this hall of knowledge when education is undermined at every step by pious fools.
To understand why complexity is such a "bugaboo," consider how Prof. Coyne himself describes the genetics involved. He writes ". . .recent work shows that our genetic resemblance to our evolutionary cousins is not quite as close as we thought." (Why Evolution Is True, p. 210). He then goes on to point out that genomes have 25,000 protein making genes, that each protein contains several hundred amino acids, and that the amino acids occur in a set sequence. He then concludes "We can no longer claim that 'humanness' rests on only one type of mutation, or changes in only a few key genes . . .Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change" (p. 211).
DeleteGiven the complexity of the underlying genetics, it would have required multiple coordinated gene mutations to produce a single useful adaptation. And since organs are parts of systems, in order for an adaptation to be useful it would require compatible mutations throughout the system. The statistical probability of any such thing happening spontaneously in nature is near zero. This is why Michael Behe talks about "irreducible complexity," which means a system or systems whose function depends upon the interaction of many parts; and the removal of any part will effectively shut down the function of the entire system or systems.
It comes down to a philosophical question. We can look at the engine in your car and imagine two possible hypotheses. The Christian theist says it was obviously designed by an engineer. The evolutionist replies that, given enough time, the engine could have designed and built itself. Which hypothesis is more credible?
Science should not be a kind of secular alternative to religion. Christian theism gives the scientist the assurance that nature has a real, objective existence, and has a rational, structured order. Neither is creationism the "science stopper" that some evolutionists claim it to be. Since nature was created by a God Who is infinite, science will never be able to exhaust the treasures of His wisdom in creation. There will always be plenty for scientists to investigate and study.
The scientist, of all people, should be able to appreciate and admire the handiwork of God in creation, because he knows more about it.
We can look at the engine in your car and imagine two possible hypotheses. The Christian theist says it was obviously designed by an engineer. The evolutionist replies that, given enough time, the engine could have designed and built itself. Which hypothesis is more credible?
DeleteStrawman. Why do you misrepresent science?
Christian theism gives the scientist the assurance...
Religions of all shapes and sizes give assurances all the time. It's worthless babble.
The biblical account of human origins helps explain the uniqueness of the human species and its essential unity.
ReplyDeleteThere are many comforting stories about human origins.
They can be very beautiful and creative.
However, they are not supported by the science.
Nor do you seem to be very interested in them.
You are only concerned with your own [Brand Name].
If, on the other hand, the literal truth about who we are and how we got here is the way Darwin describe it...
No, forget Darwin.
He's dead.
Very dead.
We are talking about modern biology here. Stick to the science.
Darwin only got the ball rolling. Many other people have come along since and done hard work. It's been a 150 years now.
...then the whole Christian theology falls to the ground.
Again, you only seem to care about your [Brand Name].
Modern biology also put the kibosh on the Muslim story of origins and the Mayan story of origins too.
None of the creation myths from any of the religions of human history match up to reality.
None.
Their theology comes crashing to the ground or hides behind the fig-leaf of "allegory" or "context" too.
But part of the reason why so many have found a rigorously materialistic philosophy so unsatisfying is because it doesn't do justice to the intuitive sense we have of ourselves.
Or maybe it's because people don't like to give up their religious beliefs because they've been brought up that way?
How many religions do you know that quietly died without any fuss just because a scientific discovery came along that showed their beliefs did not match reality?
It didn't happen that way with the astrologers. Tonnes of them still around.
However, could it be because he has questionable motives?
Before you question the motives of others, you might want to do the honest thing and question your own.
If you can't honestly examine the science but instead have to start attacking someone's character then that betrays the weakness of your position.
There are no prophets in science.
Coyne or Darwin are not infallible. They do not give sermons and then the faithful nod their heads meekly.
That kind of demeaning crap is best found in church or at some cult compound.
In science, only the work matters. It's all about investigation and not revelation. There are no dusty books to read. There are no demands for faith. There is no need for mental gymnastics to justify magical thinking.
If that were actually the case, what one would expect to find in both the fossil record and in nature today is a vast continuum of transitional forms. But what you actually see are distinct, well-defined species.
How did Mom have children without Dad?
I can only say that tildeb is right. Talkorigins is the best, simplest resource for you to use. You will find that your objection is very old and shop-worn. It's been done.
There are also a host of other "objections" too that are carefully recorded and answered.
Please don't use any of them. Learn about why they are wrong. Read more on modern biology. Indeed, read more about any scientific field like geology or glaciology or basic physics.
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
The reason critics of evolution keep raising the same objections is because the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
DeleteEvolution is bogus science. It is a bigoted, anti-religious philosophical dogma. No one has actually observed macroevolution take p;ace in nature, and no one has been able to replicate it in a laboratory. Evolution violates the known laws of physics and heredity. It is based on circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning, and the evidence is sketchy at best. Evolution is a philosophical system masquerading as science to give it a thin veneer of respectability. Anyone who can think for himself can see through it.
The reason critics of evolution keep raising the same objections is because the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
DeleteNo, that's just an assertion. You can't back it up with science.
Evolution is bogus science.
Not according to the scientific community.
Not according to the medical establishment that gives you antibiotics.
No one has actually observed macroevolution take p;ace in nature, and no one has been able to replicate it in a laboratory.
You don't know how science is done.
We cannot observe electrons nor recreate them in a laboratory either.
Evolution violates the known laws of physics and heredity.
Not according to the physicists and geneticists across the planet. Why are you just making nonsense up? This is really easy to verify.
Anyone who can think for himself can see through it.
Then publish in a scientific journal. Do the science and claim that Nobel Prize.
Talk is cheap.
The reason critics of evolution keep raising the same objections is because the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteThis will be news to biologists. It will be news to pharmaceutical companies who invest billions based on it. It will be news to medical research that produces billion dollar technologies and procedures that work based on it. It will be news to plant sciences and agro-business that has spent billions on lucrative new seed technologies and capabilities that work based on it. It will be news to resource management companies that spend billions on producing renewable resources. And so on.
Bob, you really disappoint me on this issue. Although I understand and empathize with how evolution undermines the Genesis creation story with incontrovertible evidence that it is not historically true, this doesn't mean the theory has to be flawed. All - and I do mean ALL - evidence from reality shows us that this explanation works reliably and consistently well for everyone everywhere all the time. That you think it is flawed is not a reflection that there is a problem with the science but with your understanding of it. The arguments you raise in defense of your opinion are - to be blunt - silly and have been adequately dealt with time after time. That you hold to them even now shows that you are unwilling to understand why they are silly. And the ONLY reason why you - an otherwise articulate and intelligent person - stick to this silliness in spite of overwhelming evidence contrary to your opinion (and backed by critical investors everywhere who have gained wealth by investing in the products of the theory) shows a religious agenda unsupported by good reasons and good evidence. You can sometimes find religion without creationism but you will never find creationism without religion. Your religious beliefs - contrary to what is true in reality - are the only 'reason' why you deny to evolution its rightful place of esteem in human knowledge.
Here is why the theory of evolution is inherently flawed. True science is based on observation and experiment. It uses inductive logic to arrive at conclusions. It strives to be objective, avoids prejudging the outcome, and follows the truth wherever it may lead. That is its strength and its glory.
ReplyDeleteWith evolution, however, we are confronted with a problem. It purports to tell us what happened in the distant past. But science cannot directly observe the ancient past, and it cannot subject historic events to controlled experiments. In order to support the theory of evolution it has to rely on circumstantial evidence (fossils, comparative anatomy, genetics), and assume a relatively constant rate of change over time. The evidence, however, is far from complete, and the assumption is almost certainly false.
As an example of the kind of flawed reasoning behind evolution consider the following statement from the Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 99's article of the paleontology of lampshells (brachiopoda). Noting that Brachiopods were among the first animals to appear at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, and that their evolution was wide and rapid, the authors then make this astonishing statement: "Articulate and inarticulate brachiopods appeared at the same time in a relatively advanced state of development, indicating a long evolution from forms without shells, an evolution apparently lost or unrecorded in Precambrian times." They admit that there is no fossil evidence to indicate that brachiopods evolved from other species in Precambrian times, yet the are certain that it happened anyway. How can they possibly know such a thing? It is an attempt to draw a conclusion in the absence of evidence. But that is not empirical science; it is philosophical dogma. Nor is this a problem with just brachiopods. The whole "Cambrian Explosion" is hard to explain in evolutionary terms. And the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, remember?
How then can evolutionists insist that the evidence for evolution is "incontrovertible" and "overwhelming"? The apparent reason is this: evolution HAS to be true because the only alternative is, well, some form of special creation involving a supernatural agent. At this point a Christian might ask, so what? What is wrong with that? After all, wouldn't the appearance of design in nature normally indicate the reality of design? Why go to such great lengths to prove that what we think is see in nature is not really present in nature? An evolutionist would probably respond that science is based on methodological naturalism, and therefore cannot take into consideration a possible supernatural First Cause. But then science must either acknowledge that it cannot answer the question, or else it ceases to be empirical science in the strict sense of the term and becomes a philosophical dogma instead.
As you very ably pointed out, you will never find creationism without religion (and, we might add, you will never find atheism without evolution!). The evidence of design in nature points back to God, with the implication that "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" (Westminster Shorter Catechism). And that, to the secular mind, is just plain unacceptable. Evolution is the myth that modern Western society has constructed to justify its secularism!
Yes, yes, yes, Bill, I understand that you think you're right, that you understand what 96% of working biologists do not. How can you explain that, in spite of your brilliant and keenly perceptive reasons why evolution must be wrong, it continues to be the foundation for modern biology and is the bedrock upon which our applications and technologies work reliably and consistently well for everyone everywhere all the time? Add to that deep mystery how tens perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars of investment money find lucrative returns? How can this be when the theory is so obviously wrong?
ReplyDeleteHere is why the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteThink of it, Bill. You have found the secret, scientific reason why the Theory of Evolution is flawed.
No other branch of the sciences has discovered this flaw.
Not the geologists or the physicists or the glaciologists or the geneticists or the chemists etc.
No university.
No community of scientists.
Even NASA has been completely fooled.
You are the first.
You hold the fate of modern biology in your hands.
Get out there and whip up that scientific paper.
Explain to the scientific world how they have been so terribly wrong for the last 150 years.
Claim that Nobel Prize that is rightfully yours.
Think about how proud your family and friends will be to be associated with you. Imagine the publicity for your church!
(...awkward silence...)
Bill?
Bill? Who is Bill? Is someone else posting comments on my blog that I don't know about?
ReplyDeleteScience is about the pursuit of truth, not popularity. There was once a time when mainstream science recognized Aristotle as the last word in science. Then Galileo dared to think for himself, and the rest is history.
BOB
Ah, typo.
ReplyDeleteScience is about the pursuit of truth, not popularity.
Put up or shut up. Talk is cheap.
Then Galileo dared to think for himself...
And?
, and the rest is history.
No, don't stop there. He did some work. He did not just contemplate his navel and then go off and make some herbal tea.
He did work.
Where's your work?
Think of it, Bob. You have found the secret, scientific reason why the Theory of Evolution is flawed.
No other branch of the sciences has discovered this flaw.
Not the geologists or the physicists or the glaciologists or the geneticists or the chemists etc.
No university.
No community of scientists.
Even NASA has been completely fooled.
You are the first.
You hold the fate of modern biology in your hands.
Get out there and whip up that scientific paper.
Explain to the scientific world how they have been so terribly wrong for the last 150 years.
Claim that Nobel Prize that is rightfully yours.
Think about how proud your family and friends will be to be associated with you. Imagine the publicity for your church!
You could be the new Galileo of our times.
(...awkward silence...)
Bob?
Since my background is in history and theology, I will leave the scientific papers to Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski, Michael J. Behe, and their colleagues at the Discovery Institute.
DeleteAnd what is your background?
Since my background is in history and theology, I will leave the scientific papers...
DeletePride before a fall.
Here is why the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
Tough talk on the internet is very...unimpressive.
You don't know what you are talking about. Your position is one of ignorance.
You think that you can explain why the theory of evolution is inherently flawed.
Yet you can't back it up.
The Nobel Prize remains curiously out of reach.
Modern biology marches on, blissfully unaware that you know that it's "inherently flawed".
Antibiotic companies spend billions of dollars creating new antibiotics but you could save them all that money.
I will leave the scientific papers to Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski, Michael J. Behe, and their colleagues at the Discovery Institute.
What papers? They do no work. They are a bunch of frauds.
This is why tildeb and I told you about Talkorigins.
Get informed.
Claim CI001.4:
"Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books. As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles..."
This comment was snagged by the spam filter. We think its content speaks for itself and requires no further comment from us.
DeleteSorry, Bob. I have no idea where 'Bill' came from. Apologies.
ReplyDeleteIf by 'mainstream science' you mean natural philosophy and metaphysics, then yes, Aristotelian physics was predominant. But science as the method of inquiry into reality we use today came into being from Enlightenment. Galileo's contribution was to show that 'things' didn't have a nature as long promoted by Aristotelian physics and fully adopted en masse by the early Church - a physics that is still in heavy use to this day and that continues to confuse and befuddle many! Galileo showed in many different ways that impersonal forces acted upon 'things' equally and he had the bad manners to demonstrate it. In addition, he offered explanations for various hypotheses that contradicted scripture. So it wasn't that Galileo thought for himself (although he did) - he assuredly used much good work from others and sought out expert opinion on a range of things - but that he actually dared to question dogma with repeated experimentation and empirical exactness... and then had the audacity to write - and distribute these writings - without first gaining permission from the church overlords.
The scientific method is the best one we have for extracting information from reality about it. The metaphysics of natural philosophy simply don't work as well. Yet how often do we still hear the echos of these ancient assumptions as if they were true in reality when we hear words like 'soul' and mind/body dualism and first causes... and god.
The question is, what is reality? And how do we know it? The Christian position is that as finite human beings with a limited range of observation we are ultimately dependent on divine revelation for knowledge. We have sense perceptions of the physical world around us, and we have intuitions of such things as God, morality, and human freedom. Scripture adds its testimony to confirm that are sense perceptions and intuitions are true.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in the Enlightenment is that Western thinkers rejected the role of authority in human knowledge. But this created a problem. Which do we go by? Our sense perceptions, or our intuitions. Bacon and Hobbes, and empirical science generally took the former route, while Descartes and a succession of Idealist philosophers took the latter.
What has happened since then is that empiricism gradually won the ascendency. But it was precisely this that has led to the current crisis. The only "reality" empiricism can recognize is the physical one. Everything else is either purely imaginary (God, the immortality of the soul, etc.) or a man-made construct (morality). The result has been a loss of confidence in ideals and universal values of every kind. It is as though the whole higher aspect of our culture has been erased. Justice, human rights, and beauty have all vanished. The real victim of evolution is humanism.
What current crisis? Humanity is thriving like never before. We've never had so much health, peace, and prosperity. By any common metric you care to name, humanity is doing far better than before.
ReplyDeleteYou continue to get snagged on the notion of 'empiricism' as if respecting the tremendous benefits we gain from its coherent use means we must automatically reject aesthetics as meaningful! I don't reject a feeling I will call love because I can't weigh it and suggesting this is what empiricism means is just silly. But attributing the source of what we mean by love to a gift from Oogity Boogity is hardly a useful alternative to empiricism. It's a false dichotomy and stumble over it time and again.
If you are going to claim some causal effect, then it is up to you to show how the two are linked rather than pull out the old standby response of, "Look over there!" The most honest response to something unknown is "I don't know" rather than "Therefore Jesus." Rather than assume a causal effect MUST derive from Oogity Boogity, you are far better served to review why you have made a link for which you have no compelling reason to do so.
If you are going to claim that justice and beauty have 'vanished' then first you must show how reality informs this astute observation (which you have not done) and THEN show how empiricism has caused their demise (which you have not done). Without this framework in place, your causal claim is equivalent to just making stuff up. To then go one step farther and then claim evolution is somehow the real culprit borders opn delusional.
Have you ever listened to 20th Century Classical "music." Compare with Haydn and you'll get the point.
ReplyDeleteAs for reality, I had the experience of living in inner city Philadelphia for a number of years and saw it first hand. Much of the city is literally in ruins, and the streets are overrun with crime and drugs. The merchandise in most stores has to be either chained down to the racks or locked up in cages, and security guards are positioned outside of the dressing rooms.
In my current job I happen to work with a large number of younger people, the majority of them young women, many of them no older than 18 or 19. Many of them are already single parents; a few of them have police records or have been in therapy. Their lives are pretty well ruined before they even began. If this isn't a crisis, I don't know what is.
All of this can be traced back to a breakdown in public morality, which in turn is the result of the rejection of moral absolutes. And while the trend has been in motion since the 1830's, probably nothing gave it a stronger impetus than Darwinism. It is the difference between a worldview which says that there is a rational order in the universe because it was created by an intelligent Being, and a worldview that says that everything came about through a blind, purposeless process.
Have you ever listened to 20th Century Classical "music." Compare with Haydn and you'll get the point.
ReplyDeleteAs for reality, I had the experience of living in inner city Philadelphia for a number of years and saw it first hand. Much of the city is literally in ruins, and the streets are overrun with crime and drugs. The merchandise in most stores has to be either chained down to the racks or locked up in cages, and security guards are positioned outside of the dressing rooms.
In my current job I happen to work with a large number of younger people, the majority of them young women, many of them no older than 18 or 19. Many of them are already single parents; a few of them have police records or have been in therapy. Their lives are pretty well ruined before they even began. If this isn't a crisis, I don't know what is.
All of this can be traced back to a breakdown in public morality, which in turn is the result of the rejection of moral absolutes. And while the trend has been in motion since the 1830's, probably nothing gave it a stronger impetus than Darwinism. It is the difference between a worldview which says that there is a rational order in the universe because it was created by an intelligent Being, and a worldview that says that everything came about through a blind, purposeless process.
Have you ever listened to 20th Century Classical "music." Compare with Haydn and you'll get the point.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever listened to "Christian" music?
Nobody else has either.
I think you get the point.
Musical tastes vary. It's a fact of life but hardly evidence of any sort of crisis or need for pearl clutching.
Much of the city is literally in ruins, and the streets are overrun with crime and drugs. The merchandise in most stores has to be either chained down to the racks or locked up in cages, and security guards are positioned outside of the dressing rooms.
This has nothing to do with Evolution or science.
Claim CA001.1:
"Since evolution began to be taught in public schools, crime rates and other social ills have increased."
Next.
All of this can be traced back to a breakdown in public morality, which in turn is the result of the rejection of moral absolutes.
Easy to say. Can you back up such a statement?
And while the trend has been in motion since the 1830's, probably nothing gave it a stronger impetus than Darwinism.
Darwin is dead.
Modern biology is not your enemy.
It is the difference between a worldview which says that there is a rational order in the universe because it was created by an intelligent Being, and a worldview...
Idle claptrap.
There is no "worldview".
You are just creating strawmen based upon ignorance. You cannot back any of this up.
Again, read talkorigins.
Claim CA001:
"Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview."
Do go on.
...that says that everything came about through a blind, purposeless process.
Again, Talkorigins.
Read it. It was set up for people like you.
Think about why you said the phrase "blind, purposeless process".
Where did it come from?
You didn't make it up yourself. You copied it from someone.
It's not what the science says.
If you have to create a strawman because reality is too reasonable and too well supported by evidence then that displays the weakness of your own position.
Even if modern biology and all the sciences vanished tomorrow, your [Brand Name] would not magically poof into existence.
False dichotomy, remember?
"The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time."
ReplyDelete"And although evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way, that doesn't mean that our lives have no purpose. Whether through religious or secular thought, we make our won purposes, meaning, and morality"
Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp.224,231.
"Doubtless the greatest dissolvent in contemporary thought of old questions, the greatest precipitant of new methods, new intentions, new problems, is the one effected by the scientific revolution that found its climax in the 'Origin of Species.'"
John Dewey, "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy" , in The Philosophy of John Dewey" (McDermott, ed.) p.41.
Think about why you said the phrase "blind, purposeless process"...
ReplyDeleteAh, my mistake. I misread the phrase.
So far, you have been bouncing along from one cliche to another so I cut ahead and assumed you were going for the classic "random accident/tornado in a junkyard" phrase.
Nuts.
I'll try to slow down in future.
Yep, "blind, purposeless process" does indeed cover it.
Bob, you make claims but, like most who cherry pick their data, you fail to account for evidence that stands contrary to your hypothesis. Although you see urban decay in action, you attribute it to a specific cause called a lack of belief in a 'rational order', which is code for Intelligent Design, which is code for 'creationism', which is code for POOF!ism.
ReplyDeleteNow look to Japan. No synonymous urban decay. Look at Sweden. No synonymous urban decay. Both of these countries have the highest levels of non belief - what you call a 'worldview' centered on a universe subject to agency-less, purpose-less materialistic forces. For your hypothesis to be true, you have to show causal effect. These examples stand contrary to your claim.
After 3/11, there was no looting in Japan. After hurricane Katrina, there was widespread looting. If religious belief is a necessary condition to modify the worldview that you think causes selfishness and self-survival at the expense of others, then how to account for this startling difference?
You see the problem? You're quick to assign blame to social problems on Darwin and his hypothesis but fail repeatedly to show how this supposed cause brings about the effects you see.
This is problem in your thinking.
What I am trying to look at are the broad cultural changes that have taken place throughout Western culture during the past couple of centuries. If we look at philosophy there has been a decided shift in the direction of irrationalism. This, then, is reflected in changes in art, music and literature. It could be argued that it can be traced back to Immanuel Kant, who concluded that "things in themslves" (Dingen an sich) are unknowable, and that the rationality that we think we perceive in the universe is essentially subjective -- something that the human mind projects on to reality. This was already evident in early 19th Century thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Marx.
ReplyDeleteBut the decisive development came with the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Before then it was merely philosophy, and people can ignore that. What Darwin did was to claim that it was science, and therefore a proven fact. Marx and Freud made their contributions as well. But in every case what cause their ideas acceptable was the claim that they were science, and that made the claims harder to deny.
Obviously in a racially homogenous society such as Sweden or Japan, it is possible to maintain some sort of social cohesiveness even in the absence of universal ideals. Unfortunately America, the land of "rugged individualism," enjoys no such luxury.
The cultural changes can be as easily attributed to religious belief: where it is strong is where you will find the greatest economic inequities, the highest levels of social dysfunction.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at practical philosophy, we find a trend towards the benefits of the scientific method.
I don't follow your subjective rationality point. The universe doesn't seem to care what we think about it.
You still have difficulty understanding that science isn't about any particular conclusions (it's science, so therefore it's a proven fact) but a method of inquiry that is self-correcting. So yes, inquiries made under the title of 'science' carry more weight than those based on belief. This is not a step backwards. Their ideas gained traction not because they were 'science' but because they contained compelling reasons for their supporting their hypotheses. Over time, these hypotheses have undergone rigorous challenges and only evolution by natural selection remains fully justified by all avenues of mutually supportive inquiries. Deny evolution today is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat and that the universe travels around us in a perfect circle. Some people might like these ideas but the evidence against them undermines any compelling reasons to continue to believe they are true.
Your notion of 'universal ideals' seems particularly susceptible to being submerged by some level of social homogeneity, which you call 'radical'. If you want, compare and contrast the levels of social dysfunction between the US and Canada where there are very high rates of heterogeneity and try to account for the astounding differences. Once again, 'universal ideals' seem to be rather fickle.
On the impact of Darwinism on modern culture you may want to take a second look at "How Science Committed Suicide" (Archives, Dec. 21, 2012).
DeleteOn the impact of Darwinism on modern culture you may want to take a second look at "How Science Committed Suicide" (Archives, Dec. 21, 2012).
DeleteWhat I am trying to look at are the broad cultural changes that have taken place throughout Western culture during the past couple of centuries.
ReplyDeleteThat may be what you want to do but it just comes across to others as making "just so" stories that are not based on research or science. Otherwise known as preaching.
What Darwin did was to claim that it was science, and therefore a proven fact.
Go on. Don't stop there.
Talk about how scientists tested his theories.
Talk about how useful they are to scientists.
Talk about how the foundation of modern biology is the Theory of Evolution and gives you (yes, you!) effective medical treatments and cheap food.
Darwin didn't get to make an assertion.
No scientist just meekly went along with what he said.
There are no prophets in science.
It's been tested again and again and put to good use.
So many scientists over the last 150 years have made valuable contributions that it's no longer Darwin's theory. He would not recognize most of it.
...the claim that they were science, and that made the claims harder to deny.
Sadly. it does not stop your denial. Claiming to be scientific is worthless without the work to back it up. That's why the claims made by the Discovery Institute are pure puffery. There's no work. No practical application. They play-act at being scientists.
What has Intelligent Design done for you lately?
Nothing.
Lots of money, lots of cheerleaders, lots of publicity, lots of coffee-table books...but no science.
Obviously in a racially homogenous society such as Sweden or Japan, it is possible to maintain some sort of social cohesiveness...
Hark, if you listen very carefully, you can hear the dog whistle!
The Discovery Institute is, in fact, engaged in research, but as they themselves point out, it is a new field. You can see a list of peer-reviewed articles at their website.
ReplyDeleteAs for the alleged blessings of evolution to modern society, it is how to see how idle speculation about prehistoric genealogy contributes to human well-being. Interestingly J.D. Bernal, the historian of science and hardly a Fundamentalist Christian or a Creationist, said that evolution was largely a distraction. "However, the effect of Darwinism on science was not an altogether happy one. It certainly did raise a great interest in biology and drew many people into it. But at the same time the emphasis that Darwin's theory gave to the simple tracing of evolutionary relationships between organisms and the building of elaborate family trees distracted naturalists from the study of the actual lives and of the inner workings of animals and plants." (Science in History, Vol. II, pp.644-645).
The Discovery Institute is, in fact, engaged in research, but as they themselves point out, it is a new field.
ReplyDeleteThis is not true.
This is a claim that is easily dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Don't just blindly believe what people tell you. Demand evidence.
You can see a list of peer-reviewed articles at their website.
You really should read Talkorigins. It would save a lot of time.
Claim CI001.4
The list is fraudulent. Go through it by yourself, "paper" by dodgy "paper". It's an exercise in deception. The idea is to give the appearance that Intelligent Design is science without having to do the actual work. It's effective on people who don't have a very good idea what peer-review means in the real world and how real scientists do their job.
Link.
As for the alleged blessings of evolution to modern society, it is how to see how idle speculation about prehistoric genealogy contributes to human well-being.
This kind of appeal will only work with the gullible.
Idle speculation does not work in science.
Scientists do not get paid for idle speculation.
Further, "prehistoric genealogy" is neither here nor there. All the fossils in the world could vanish in a heartbeat and the Theory of Evolution would remain as solid and as useful as ever. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that support the Theory of Evolution.
The food on your table does not vanish just because you choose to deny good science.
The forensic evidence that locks up rapists and murderers does not magically vanish just because you deny good science.
The antibiotics that keep you safe when you undergo surgery do not vanish just because you deny good science.
Interestingly J.D. Bernal...
Not very interesting.
Argument from Authority.
(shrug)
Denying the Theory of Evolution does not magically poof your invisible friend in the ceiling into existence.
ID has just 'celebrated' its 25th anniversary. The results from this science? Zero knowledge produced.
ReplyDeleteThe Institute relies on private funding to hire creationists to 'peer-review' papers submitted by Discovery Institute Fellows to create a false list of 'scientific papers'. No other peer review periodicals have supported any of these pseudo-scientific papers as adding one iota of knowledge to the biological sciences. It's creationism plain and simple.
Thank you, Cedric, for providing good links for people to find this out for themselves... if they care about what's true. For those too busy seeking out only data that looks like it supports creationism while ignoring all contrary data, then only the battle to support belief matters to them and all the rest has to be some giant anti-religious conspiracy.
Here is a very recent example of how to quickly and elegantly explain evolution.
ReplyDeleteScience is ultimately much more interesting and useful than magic.
Enjoy.
Brilliant!
DeleteI'm sorry I didn't get to respond earlier. This past week I was beset with both car problems and computer problems as the same time.
ReplyDeleteI thought the film was very well done and enjoyed watching it. Something very similar to the line illustration, in fact, actually occurs in New Testament textual criticism. For centuries copies of the New Testament were copied by hand, and over time, as you might expect, "variant readings" crept into the text. Scholars will try to trace the genealogy of various manuscripts to reconstruct the original text.
The analogy with evolution, however, is imperfect. It is easy to see how mutations in a chromosome would create variations within a species, and how natural selection would then work to cause the species to adapt to its environment. It is even possible for a limited amount of speciation to occur -- a species can subdivide into two separate species. But as Prof. Coyne points out, there are over 1,400 genes found in humans that are not present in chimpanzees, presumably our nearest relatives in the evolutionary tree. Where did the extra genes come from?
To complicate matters further, Prof. Coyne points out that there are genetic barriers that separate one species from another, creating "discontinuities of nature" as he calls them. Under the circumstances, then, it is hard to see how macroevolution could occur at all.
But as Prof. Coyne points out, there are over 1,400 genes found in humans that are not present in chimpanzees, presumably our nearest relatives in the evolutionary tree. Where did the extra genes come from?
ReplyDeleteGive that Prof. Coyne does accept Evolution, then this clearly is not a problem for him.
Does that give you pause for thought?
It should.
It's possible that you don't care about the question.
Maybe you are just shopping around for an excuse to avoid facing reality. Creationists often do it.
Have you read Coyne's book? Have you actually tried to find out the answer for yourself from a biology text book?
Or is this just a "stumper" question?
Any Museum of Natural History or biology faculty in any university or (if you are short of time) Talkorigins can help you out.
If you really want to learn about modern science then read up on it. If you find a flaw that science has not yet discovered then whip up a paper and claim your Nobel Prize.
There is no "controversy" about modern biology.
It's been mainstream now for many, many decades and it produces fruitful research that saves lives and improves the quality of life. Honest.
Under the circumstances, then, it is hard to see how macroevolution could occur at all.
Why? I don't understand what you are talking about. Nor am I convinced that you know what you are talking about.
Your personal ignorance is not proof that science is wrong.
Reality does not work like that.
Learn.
Not only did I read Prof. Coyne's book, but I wrote a review of it (Why Evolution Is False -- Oct. 5, 2011).
ReplyDeleteLike many other great thinkers before him, Prof. Coyne is sometimes inconsistent. His problem is that the theory doesn't always fit the facts. When he is being the dogmatic evolutionist he would lead you to believe that there is absolutely no question about any of this at all -- no sane person in possession of his faculties would ever doubt it. But when he is being the careful scientist he sometimes brings out interesting facts and details that don't always support his theory. That suggests that the theory may not be as airtight as he maintains.
Have you read his book? It is very well written and readable, and an excellent basis for discussion.
Have you read his book? It is very well written and readable, and an excellent basis for discussion.
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not. I am currently reading Massimo Pigliucci's
"Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk".
His problem is that the theory doesn't always fit the facts.
Says who? You?
So far, all you have done is just trot ritual objections.
We're talking about mainstream science here.
There's no dogma.
The theory is indeed airtight. It's useful.
If you feel you've discovered a fatal flaw then whip up a paper and claim the fame and fortune of a Nobel Prize.
That's what it's there for.
Aristotle was once "mainstream science" too, but that didn't make him right. True science is based on observation and experiment, not popularity polls. In the case of evolution, we are dealing with prehistoric events. It has never been directly observed, it has never been tested under controlled conditions, and it violates the laws of heredity that have been proven scientifically. At the bottom it is a speculative hypothesis that can never be tested and verified.
ReplyDeleteProf. Coyne would argue that each new discovery is consistent with the theory, and therefore validates the theory. But if the new evidence is of the same kind as the old evidence, and the same a priori assumptions (naturalistic materialism) are use to interpret the evidence, it is no wonder that he arrives at the same conclusion. It is, at the bottom, a circular argument.
Aristotle was once "mainstream science" too, but that didn't make him right.
ReplyDeleteAh, but they laughed at Galileo.
(shrug)
True science is based on observation and experiment, not popularity polls.
Nor is it based on chocolate.
(shrug)
In the case of evolution, we are dealing with prehistoric events.
No.
This is a lie.
It has never been directly observed....
Umm, lie.
...it has never been tested under controlled conditions, and it violates the laws of heredity that have been proven scientifically.<
More lies.
At the bottom it is a speculative hypothesis that can never be tested and verified.
Says who? You?
If you feel you've discovered a fatal flaw then whip up a paper and claim the fame and fortune of a Nobel Prize.
That's what it's there for.
Prof. Coyne would argue...
Modern biology is not an argument. It's science. Science is the study of reality. Your objections are not scientific. They are based on ignorance and it's probably self-induced.
We live in the age of the Internet. You can't lie about a branch of science and get away with it.
There is this thing called "Google". Any person curious about the truth of what you say can find out for themselves very, very quickly.
It's counter-productive to just do a ritual dance of deceit.
The only people you will fool are the gullible.
Those who are even just a little bit smarter can spend five minutes on their keyboard and see through your nonsense.
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
We are NOT dealing with prehistoric events? Did I imagine something? Are we still living in the Jurassic period, and I didn't realize it? Exactly how old are you, anyway, Cedric?
ReplyDeleteNo, we are not.
ReplyDeleteModern biology is...modern.
Even if scientists never studied or knew anything about the Jurassic period, it would not collapse the Theory of Evolution.
The theory is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
Zap every single fossil out of existence and it would not make any difference.
Google it.
Embrace the 21st century.
GOOGLE IT!
(Besides, you are still trapped in a false dichotomy. Shaking your fist in the air at science will not provide evidence for magic, invisible people in the sky.)