The bold statement “Richard Dawkins opens minds” leaped out at me from the newsletter sitting on the University of Auckland’s Law Library counter. The article went on to sing the praises of Richard Dawkins and mentioned his book The God Delusion. On reading the piece one could be forgiven for concluding that Dawkins’ works are a paragon of the open minded assessment of ideas.
Now Dawkins is a Zoologist and I, not being a Zoologist, would not presume to assess his work on Zoology. What is interesting, however, is that much of Dawkins’ most famous work is not on Zoology; it is on Theology and specifically Philosophy of Religion. That field of Philosophy which critically analyses religious questions, such as, the veracity of arguments for and against God’s existence. Having some background in these fields I find it a little surprising that an Auckland University publication would contend that his work is open minded because it is evidently not.
In The God Delusion Dawkins’ main argument against the existence of God alludes to Fred Hoyle’s famous claim that the probability of something as complex as life evolving by blind chance was less likely than a fully-functional Boeing 747 being created by a hurricane blowing parts around in a junk yard. Dawkins writes, “However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.” Dawkins has made the same line of argument elsewhere “God, or any intelligent, decision-making calculating agent, is complex, which is another way of saying improbable.” In The Blind Watchmaker he argues,
Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating machine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity”. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself.
This argument contains three premises. First, that theism (belief in God) is justified by “postulating” God to explain the existence of organised complexity. Second that the God appealed to by theists is complex. Third, that the existence of complex beings are highly improbable. These lead to the conclusion that “God is the Ultimate Boeing 747” and hence “almost certainly does not exist”. The problem with this argument is that all three premises rest on caricatures and misunderstandings of contemporary theology and ignorance of contemporary philosophy of religion. I will explain.
Dawkins contends that God is postulated to explain organised complexity. There are two problems with this contention. First, Dawkins assumes that God is rationally believed only if his existence is inferred by some kind of argument for the best explanation of a given phenomenon. However, not all beliefs are justified on the basis of some kind of argument of this sort. Our belief in the existence of the past, our belief that it is wrong to rape, our belief that other people exist or that basic axioms of logic are true are not based on inferences to the best explanation. It is not that they are rationally believed because they explain some phenomena better than all alternatives, it is rather that these beliefs are part of the background data that we use to assess proposed explanations against. These things are true because we immediately experience them as true. I have the experience of remembering the existence of a past event. I intuitively perceive that rape is wrong. I experience the basic axioms of logic as self-evident and so on. Such beliefs are called properly-basic beliefs.
Since the late 1970’s an extremely important movement within Philosophy of Religion, known as the reformed epistemology movement, has offered detailed and rigorous defences of the contention that, for theists, belief in God can be properly-basic. This position has been defended by leading philosophers of religion such Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Peter Van Inwagen and others. Now, of course, it is possible that this movement is mistaken but Dawkins surely owes us an argument to this end as opposed to his simply assuming it and ignoring the counter evidence.
Second, among those theists who do defend God’s existence on the basis of some argument for the best explanation, very few do so on the basis that God explains “organized complexity”. Richard Swinburne, the leading proponent of such arguments, argues that God explains the existence of laws of nature, religious experience, the origin of the universe and the continued existence of the universe. Swinburne does not postulate God to explain “organised complexity”. Similarly, William Lane Craig, a leading defender of theism, suggests that God explains the origin of the universe, the existence of morality and the fine tuning of the laws of nature. Again, Craig makes no appeal to “organized complexity”. In 2009 The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology was published which contains the most up to date versions of the 11 most definitive arguments used to defend the existence of God in the literature today. Not one of them involves an appeal to “organised complexity”. While the cogency of arguments for the existence of God that do not involve “organized complexity” remains open to substantive debate, it is undisputed that these arguments exist. Dawkins’ picture of God as a postulate to explain organised complexity is a crude caricature of theistic scholarship.
To be fair Dawkins attempts to address some of these other arguments elsewhere in the book. However, here again much of his writing consists of caricature. He attacks five arguments proposed 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas as being representative of the current case for theism and completely ignores the vastly more sophisticated and vigorous versions being defended in the literature today. Ironically, Dawkins quite severely misunderstands Aquinas’ arguments and attributes to him a position no Aquinas scholar would accept as accurate. However, even if his account were accurate, critiquing theism by attacking the arguments of one 12th century theologian is a bit like me attacking evolution on the basis of the evidence for it gathered in the 12th century and ignoring any of the scientific developments of the last 800 years. Such ineptitude would not be tolerated in the scientific world and should not be seen as de rigueur just because the topic is religion.
Dawkins’ second contention fares little better. Dawkins states that “A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple” this seems to be because,
The corners of God’s giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being—and whatever intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100 billion other galaxies.
There are several problems here. First, as Craig has noted, this confuses whether what God thinks about is complex with whether God himself is complex. Second, as Plantinga has noted, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins states that something is complex if it has parts that are “arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.” However, the concept of God employed by most theists is of an immaterial being that does not have material parts so by Dawkins’ own definition God is not complex (unless one assumes that God is a material being but theists almost unanimously maintain that God is an immaterial being).
This misrepresentation is made all the more pertinent by the fact that for centuries theists have been offering rigorous and sophisticated arguments that God is not in fact complex but is simple. While these arguments may not be successful, Dawkins still needs to actually provide reasons for rejecting them. To simply assert that God is to be conceived in a way that no one conceives Him and to ignore the numerous arguments to the contrary seem more like a child who asserts his position and then puts his hands over his ears and repeats “I am not listening” than it does a serious critical evaluation of another’s position.
Dawkins’ final contention, that the existence of complex beings is improbable, is similarly confused. Suppose one grants that God is “the Ultimate Boeing 747” and that God’s existence is as statically improbable as the complexity it is invoked to explain. Little in fact follows from this. This is because what is improbable in the Boeing 747 analogy is that the plane came into existence by chance. If God is “the Ultimate Boeing 747” then the conclusion to be drawn is only that it is improbable that God came into existence by chance. This, however, provides us with no reason for thinking that God does not exist. No theist holds that God came into existence by chance, theists hold that God is eternal. Here, again, Dawkins attacks a concept of God nobody holds to and hence is caught jousting with a straw-man.
On examining Dawkins’ central argument what one discovers is not an open-minded, informed, careful examination of the contemporary debate over the existence of God. Nor does one find a carefully researched assessment of theism. Instead one finds Dawkins simply ignoring what theists mean by God. He ignores how they conceptualise God and ignores the arguments and discussions they have actually made. The theism Dawkins dismisses apparently assumes that God is a material being with parts, that He came into existence by chance and is postulated merely to explain organized complexity. The actual arguments proposed in defence of theism that have been put forward in the literature are not addressed at all.
Some Auckland University academics might consider such tactics to count as open-minded but I do not. In my view an open-minded honest assessment of religion requires accurately representing what theologians say and teach. It means endeavouring to read and understand their position and offer informed and critical responses to these positions. Ignorance and caricature is not open-minded scholarship.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled Contra Mundum. This blog post was published in the May 10 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to: ed*******@in*****************.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Alvin Plantinga · Atheism · Contra Mundum · Faith and Reason · Investigate Magazine · Nicholas Wolterstorff · Peter Van Inwagen · Richard Dawkins · Richard Swinburne · Science and Religion · The God Delusion · William Alston · William Lane Craig146 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Dawkins “opens minds”? That actually made me laugh out loud. It is made even funnier because those who uttered it are apparently sincere!
For those who haven’t read his polemic, it would only take reading a review or two to get the flavour of the book. There is nothing about the book geared towards opening minds. E.g., http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502watson.htm
Thanks for taking the time to respond to Dawkins.
That was a good read Matt. Thanks.
By keeping out of ‘Zoology’ you focused on the main point and proved the man is a Blind Leader of the blind…yet I would like to see you applying your reason to his very suspect Zoology!!!!
As I have commented elsewhere I think as soon as you say organised complexity can evolve via natural forces Dawkins wins!
I don’t care if even William Craig Lanes can argue that evolution and Christianity are compatible (Not logically contradictory).
If mindless Nature can make Man out of dust…God is dead.
If Survival of the fittest raised Man from the beasts then Christian Morality is bunk.
Dawkins knows this is his trump card!
Don’t concede to it!
God made Adam and Eve!
I say you and Lane Both loose the high ground when you concede to Evolution at all! you do it because you both have too much respect for ‘Scholarship’ and specialisation.
Don’t accept scholarship that contradicts the Bible…esp scholars that teach you not to trust the Bible!
Dawkins is not a man of intelligence but a Bum!
He’s a the poster child of our age!…an age of stupidity in high places.
A Fool who says in his heart there is no God.
If I may be so humble to suggest!
Attack his home base!
Attack Evolution!
Auckland University is a Socialist State Indoctrination Camp!
Of course they endorse Dawkins!
Get the State out of Education I say, then at least we wont be funding Anti Christ Socialist atheism!
Cheers!
Hi there Tim Wikiriwhi,
While I’m sure, if Matt were to address matters in zoology, he would do it in a fair and open-minded manner, unlike Dawkin’s does religious claims. Buy why would Matt address matters in zoology when that is not his field of expertise? It would be akin to asking Dawkin’s to speak on theology and philosophy of religion – which is a mistake all around.
Also, in the article above Matt did not concede evolutionary theory in the slightest. It is true that he didn’t dispute it. But choosing not to address something and conceding something, are two very different things.
There is also cause to complain about the strong rhetoric you use for what the Bible says regarding evolutionary theory. Now I myself would want to promote what the Bible teaches and uphold that above all else. But there are genuine questions, even from a purely hermeneutics stand-point, regarding an interpretation of the Genesis creation account that would rule out completely a lengthier, evolutionary-type process was what actually happened.
Agreed, Stuart. Also, I think the fact that Christian morales are indeed not “bunk”, as in, the fact that there are objective morale values and that everyone is expected to “treat thy neighbor as thyself” is great evidence that the GTE (Grand theory of everything) version of evolution fails on many levels, but that the EBP (Evolutionary Biological Processes) may be the only significant part of the theory.
How is it that atheists can’t get their head around God being outside the universe?
I’m not saying that they have to agree with the concept, just understand it and it’s implications.
Questioning “who made God” (which is effectively what he’s doing here) is akin to a simulated person in a computer simulation, upon being told he is programmed, asking “so who programmed the programmer”.
Answer to both is of course, that the creator (or programmer) exists outside the creative sphere. We can’t understand how God came into being by using the rules of our world.
Great article as always Matt. A few things:
1. Just for clarity sake, it’s the Blackwell “Companion” to Natural Theology.
2. For some, Dawkins can serve as an iconoclast of pedantic concepts of God. Hardly any adults hold to these concepts, but such attacks are effective among the collegiate masses (who were either already non-religious or were raised in an anti-intellectual subculture within evangelicalism). Dawkins struggles to realize that nobody with any amount of theological/philosophical knowledge actually believes in these gods he is attacking. They continue to tell us that we believe in the god they attack, but we still don’t and neither does the common man in the pews who has read his Bible, understands creation ex nihilo, etc.
3. In our rapidly changing world, new atheism is becoming more and more a fad from 2007-2008, akin to MySpace where you know it’s still there, but you’d rather go to Facebook. It’s largely dead outside of small, internet subcultures in America and larger (percentage wise) pockets in Western Europe, the UK and Australia. Most in these Western cultures have moved on to a much trendier neo-paganism or Avatar-type pantheism. I think some of us in evangelicalism want to keep new atheism alive though and keep up the debate, because it’s an easier target and has made a lot of money for some of our philosophically minded…it’s also given us an excuse to focus on theological/philosophical training in our churches that neo-paganism doesn’t as easily afford us with. Despite the claims of a surge or atheism or a “global movement,” percentages of unbelief remain the same in the polls…sure there are more non-religious theists in the West (with the East becoming rapidly more religious in every regard)…but this wasn’t a “make people less religiously affiliated movement,” but a movement for atheism.
Studies continue to show that the nonreligious are extremely more open to “magical” things like ghosts, the evil eye, etc. than the more religious (especially compared with evangelicals), so I would expect the atheist movement to continue to lose out on the non-religious to generic spiritualism. In this regard I would think that despite the mass organization and marketing frenzy from atheists over the last five years, it has failed miserably. Sure, more atheists are more vocal about their atheism, but was that the goal or was it as Dawkins states at the beginning of the God Delusion that people lose their faith?
4. Dawkins truly can only conceive of a god that amounts to nothing more than an explanatory hypothesis. I think this is why he often seemingly refers to god as complex or even material. He simply cannot conceive of a Creator/Creation distinction. He cannot think in terms that transcend the physical. Fortunately though, Dawkins realizes the moral bankruptcy in his worldview and continues to live and state that he lives as a “cultural Christian.” You would think such a move would cause a serious amount of cognitive dissonance since he lives by principles that no more exist on his account than the god he vehemently rejects…but I guess not. I’m afraid many of his followers will pick up on the illusion of objective morality in atheism though and fall into the ills of moral relativism.
I read Dawkins’ God Delusion and thought it terrible. If every error he made was refuted it would take an encyclopaedia. I thought that some pages could have contained 10 errors per page.
I do think that the argument from design is a powerful (one of the 2 most powerful) arguments for God, and many have made it, even if less so in the philosophy literature. By design I mean specified complexity, and this is frequently discussed in the ID and creationist literature.
It is not so much a best explanation, rather an only explanation from first principles, from maths and from experience/ experiment. Essentially the argument is that complexity can only come from the more complex, it never arises from the less complex.
Now I am not as certain Dawkins was as wrong here by not understanding the simplicity of God, I think the ancient theologians were mistaken in their description of God’s simplicity. Yes they were correct in that God is simple not being made of moving parts, but they were incorrect in their understanding of complexity being associated with moving parts. Complexity has to do with information content. So in the material world high information is frequently associated with many parts. God is much more complex, but being spiritual is not made of many parts.
I am not sure that God’s substance and God’s thoughts can be considered so separately as per Craig.
So I think that Dawkins did get God’s complexity partly correct, God is far more complex (in informational terms) than everything in the universe combined.
Where he goes wrong is as you have identified; his assumption God is contingent. God always has been, there was never a time he did not exist. He is so real it would be impossible for God not to exist.
I understand that Dawkins became an atheist in his teens when he decided that if all religions taught different things then they must all be wrong.
Whilst it does follow that if two positions have contradictory conclusions then one of them must be wrong, it doesn’t follow that both of them have to be wrong.
Dawkins enjoys preaching to the choir, ie. followers of his forum or PZ Myers’. He readily admits that he refuses to engage with actual theologians, claiming that mockery is his favoured approach. Meanwhile crowds of atheists find his work invigorating and “open minded” because it expresses all the pent up vitriol, resentment, and large grudges against God that a lot of them carry about. I’ve had friends offer me the book to read because they thought it would ‘open my eyes’ to the falsity of religion. But having been constantly exposed to bad attitudes to religion for most of my life it is just more of the same old arrogant garbage you find from posturing intellectuals who have lost their sense of proportion.
All this new atheist crap has no bearing on most believers actual experience of living faith.
Just fuck off, I don’t even like you anymore.
You have no x-factor, nothing.
You aren’t built for relationships, or female/male communications. You are a child.
FUCK OFF FOR GOOD.
Rose,
Huh? I’m pretty sure that (1) you commented on the wrong post, or (2) you commented at the wrong website, because as it stands your comment doesn’t quite make any sense or fit with anything else going on.
Sorry Madeleine and Matt,
Well your wrong Ranger. There is a psychopath that writes on this site. And he has many guises, but predictably I can tell who he is- because he stinks. You can smell the rot a mile a way.
You see we are supposed to be soulmates, but this piece of shit starting doing (literally- in all seriousness I’M NOT LYING) a Travis Burell on me and I kept telling the docile twit, that if you threaten me I won’t communicate with you. So the idiot can’t make up his mind, he threatens me then he says he loves me, and he swaps and changes like a neurotic maniac.
I have decided I truly hate this creep (very different as I use to be so in love with him). No one loves him and I feel sorry for him. But the problem is if I don’t love him- no one will, no one can love him, he’s disgusting, so he has this loveless life and it has no meaning, and then I feel sympathy for him.
And the sad thing is he is supposed to be my soulmate and we spiritually have this yin/yang ability- for a good cause- (sent from God)- we are opposing forces – but he threatens to rape and kill me all the time in-between telling me he loves me.
I don’t communicate with directly him anymore because he’s a fruitcake but am worried about the future of our country as ‘we’ have been assigned to solve a problem.
It is very complicated.
But the threats have made me hate him SO MUCH that it is now irreparable.
I can’t love him anymore, because I just don’t feel any love there.
“rose” or whoever you are
personal insults mean nothing when they come from an anonymous coward
I love atheists who say “I became an atheist when I was 10 and I have not thought about it seriously since”… it shows!
David Hart’s comments on the New Atheists for those who haven’t seen it yet.
Matt is a great thinker Stuart. That is why I am goading him into not merely pushing back Dawkins bridgehead into theology, but into stepping over that imaginary sacred line and take the battle into Dawkins domain all the way!
I am a cheeky sod.
The idea that because reality is too vast for anyone to master, and that better progress can be made by compartmentalizing knowledge into separate fields of expertise does not negate the necessity for a unified general knowledge, or make it prudent to remain silent and effectively abandon vital fields to the schools of the children of darkness because they claim to be experts. One unsound pillar of Knowledge can destroy the whole edifice.To surrender zoology to such ‘experts’ as Dawkins is a gross error. It is absurd to think our system of divisional expertise is in the end anything more than a tool, and that we must always guard ourselves against misplaced acceptance of corrupted thinkers who claim expertise in any field. (Peer review is an attempt at minimalising the problem yet as we see in Biology and Law, when a vast majority of the peers of any field are corrupted, this system of checks fails and can even become a new power to further entrench error.)
When Peer review fails, then brave thinkers from other fields must rise to the challenge.
It appears to me that Biology has almost been completely abandoned by Theists. Atheist Biological evolutionary theory is currently dominating and infecting all the other fields of Knowledge from anthropology to ethics in the absence of defense of the Biology of the Book of genesis by Christian theists.
There are many basic premises the evolutionists impose upon their subject (Biology) that may be challenged by the logic of a theist such as Matt. eg their interpretations of the fossil record.
Of course ‘Evolution’ may be properly applied to describe the effects of the laws of physics within the process of Time, and may also be used to describe the changes in societies and cultures over time as well. Where it may not be applied with validity is to Genetics, to Heredity, To explain the origin of life, to account for human belief in ethical values.
Using the most basic knowledge of biology, and anthropology, etc Matt can show the difference between real and false evolution.
What my walk as a Christian has taught me is that The Bible can beat all the challenges it faces from such opposition without surrendering any ground at all.
This does not mean that Atheists and others don’t have valid arguments to hold against the Church and Christian tradition. Of course the church has always harbored false doctrines, and wolves in sheep’s clothing.
I have always gained by listening to the criticisms of Churchs ‘enemies.’…’heretics’ and unbelievers.
I no longer associate myself with main steam Christianity due to acknowledgment of the validity of many of my atheist friend’s accusations against much of what today passes for orthodoxy and piety. To be a Christian is not to be a closed minded bigot.
I think it the height of absurdity to surrender the biblical story of Adam and Eve, which is consistent with the latest discoveries in biology, to the Atheist Pseudo science of Evolution which clearly states we were not created in the image of God.
This is to sell the farm to Atheism.
It is buy into the doubt cast by Satan’s first words to man…”Yea hath God said?”
Matt is a true Christian soldier.
I only desire to prod him onward.
[…] One does not have to look very far to find examples of “Dawkins tantrums.” Matt, at MandM provides one in his article Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness. […]
“The corners of God’s giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being—and whatever intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100 billion other galaxies.”
This caught me. I’ve been thinking of this since I was a child. God is too powerful and great to be able to hear every single prayer, to be able to watch every single man.
Our concept of God and religion are different. Dawkins’ comment make no sense to those who believes in different direction, but good for those who think the same.
I have read it, and at some point do not agree and believe, but I still respect it.
Isn’t it amusing that when you employ reason to explain how Dawkins’ arguments fail, those who think that he is open minded, and who advocate open mindedness, immediately accuse you of having a “tantrum,” regardless of the fact that you have provided clearly expressed reasons for holding to the conclusions that you do about Dawkin’s argument.
I guess the message is: Dawkins just is open minded, and if you disagree, then you’re a baby. Now there’s open mindedness. 😉
Glenn… stop having a “Ken Tantrum”!
I love how Ken calls this article a “reflexive knee jerk reaction” with “charges [that] are straw men.”
How could you read this article and come away with such a reaction? I also love how he pens the vigorous rants against Dawkins with those who view him positively on blogs who are less-common, and more mild-mannered…what lunacy.
CVS, God possesses omniscience, that is that he is aware of everything at the same time (or rather non-time given his eternality). It would be impossible for a human being to do that, but God isn’t human. Also I would say that God is not preoccupied with any of those things, he is simply aware of them.
Oh, and the doctrine of the fall suggests that there are no aliens. How could aliens who have not sinned be subject to the curse on creation, and how could aliens who have sinned be redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus the human?
Jason
You raise another interesting point, when Dawkins’s states.
“The corners of God’s giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being— and whatever intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100 billion other galaxies.” He seems to suggest either that he believes in extra terrestrial life. Or considers it a serious possibility.
Michael Tooley, Plantinga, Van Inwagen and others have noted however this sits ill with the standard atheist line, that in the absence of compelling empirical argument for the existence of something the correct stance to take is denial of the being in question, it also sits badly with the “fairies in the garden” analogy they often use to illustrate this point.
If one should reject as superstitious nonsense the existence of any beings one cannot scientifically prove to exist then Dawkins’s owes us a proof of the existence of extra terrestrials. If he does not provide a proof then he needs to say that belief in extra terrestrials is like belief in Spaghetti monsters and rail against SETI research. The fact that he is willing to entertain as a serious possibility, the existence of beings which have not been proven shows that really something else is driving his atheism than the mere lack of proof.
There are several reasons why Dawkins clings to such outrageous fantasy as alien beings.
They are part of his confounded muddle to deny God.
Atheist evolutionists have little trouble harboring myths about other intelligent creatures ‘Out there’…albeit ‘Material’ soul-less creatures.
Belief in such Aliens is a product of the theory of evolution… the reasoning being If it is possible for Life to spontaneously generate here on earth and ‘evolve’ into Human intelligence, then it is reasoned that it is possible for Life to do the same thing out in the universe on other favorable habitats that are assumed to litter the cosmos by the billion
Indeed because life has never been shown to spontaneously generate here on earth, instead of abandoning evolution as impossible atheists break out their wish mats and sitting upon them postulate that life must have spontaneously generated somewhere ‘out there’ and seeded earth…’some how’.
That Aliens are now believed to drive flying saucers is what I call a techno Myth exactly the same as Pagan superstitions that used to say God drives a chariot across the sky…ie Just as the pagan God was credited with utilizing the ancient tech, now that Mankind has mechanized himself and dumped God in favour of evolution it follows that “Aliens drive machines”.
Thus atheist evolution is found to be just another false myth that generates more false myths just as pagan superstition did, and again Christianity is found to be the vanguard of truth and reason.
The theory of Evolution can have no place in the Christian world view. It properly stands in contrast to it.
Tim said,
Seriously? Is this the general feeling of other Christians here or does Tim represent a fringe minority?
Matt, with regard to Dawkins and aliens: As I understand it he doesn’t believe that there *are* aliens just that aliens are possible from the little we know of how life arises. The topic of aliens came up in the context of possible sources of intelligent design.
I personally see no issue with the possibility of alien species. But as far as I am aware there is absolutely zero evidence of them. The same could have been said 50 years ago about the possible existence of extra-solar planets; I would have said that it seemed entirely possible but that we currently had absolutely no evidence that there actually are any. I would have whole-heartedly supported the search for them as I do with SETI.
It may be that there are no other living beings other than on planet earth but we have evidence of life arising here and it’s not unreasonable to expect that the same might happen elsewhere.
I cannot speak for Tim or any other on this forum, but when someone speaks of the theory of evolution, my first though is “what is the scope or range of your understanding of the word ‘evolution’” and secondly, “which one?”
A highly simplified view:
There are to my mind three grand theories that sometimes get grouped together, simply because “creation” is a singular concept
• Biological Evolution
• The Theory of the Origin of Life (which is not evolution but a necessary precursor)
• The Theory of Origin of the Universe (which is not evolution but a necessary precursor to the theory of the Origin of Life.)
If you look at evolution, you will find that the evolutionary engine is something like mutation, (manufacture) and natural selection (quality assurance – the fittest survive). Evolution cannot occur in the absence of these two processes in unison.
We have plenty of evidence that these two processes working together result in stability “stasis” not “evolution”. We also have plenty of evidence that mutation generaly result in organisms that are unfit, rather than super fit.
To the question; do I believe that mutation can occur and that mutation do in fact occur; the answer is yes.
To the question; do I believe that organisms that are ill suited for their environment die and those that are better suited to their environment survives; the answer is yes.
To the question; do I believe the fossil record to be a real record of organisms that lived many years ago including species that have gone extinct; the answer is yes.
To the question do organisms living in isolation exhibit zoological features that are more similar with features of that community than with the zoological features of different communities; the answer is yes.
Having answered yes to all these questions; I do not believe in the Grand Theory of Evolution, my reasons for not believing in it are not dogmatic.
Re your question on evolution and Christianity.
Fundamental to Christianity is that life exists because God willed it, death entered the world through sin.
The Grand Theory of Evolution, by contrast suggests that death (natural selection) is the driving force for complex life.
Seems rather at odds, does it not?
Hi CJ and thanks for your reply. You’ve obviously put some thought into the issue.
It seems that you accept almost all of the scientific observations that belong to the theory of evolution by natural selection (spelt out in full to avoid confusion with abiogenesis and cosmic evolution as you point out) but that you disagree that mutations provide any ‘fitness’ benefits. Am I correct in my understanding of what you were saying?
And you are quite correct; if it is true that physical death came to all living things (humans included) via the sin of “one man” then the claims evolution makes would fly in the face of some of Christianity’s core beliefs (Romans 5:12) because evolution claims that organisms have been living and dying for perhaps three billion years — long before there could possibly have been an Adam or an Eve.
Because you explicitly say that you don’t reject the theory of evolution by natural selection due to any dogma, can I safely assume that you would accept evidence that demonstrates that some mutations can, in fact, make a lineage more suited to its environment?
Or do you actually believe that there can be the occasional beneficial mutation but that, on the whole, mutations are detrimental or inconsequential? If so, isn’t that exactly what we observe? That mutations are few and far between, mostly harmless, sometimes detrimental but when they are beneficial they are very likely to be passed on due to the simple fact that they’ve been of benefit to the host organism.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
Damian,
I represent only myself, but let me add that truth is not known by mere counting heads.
I’m an engineer. I know the laws of Physics and Chemistry do not have the capacity to ‘ratchet’…’lever’…’scaffold’, or perform any other ‘Dawk-ism’ that automatically turns simple compounds into complex, purposeful devices let alone self replicating organisms.
Look at the moon. Now that is what you get in this type of universe when physics and chemistry are left to themselves for eons.
You get a dead lump. a sterile Dusty inert nothing. No life, no complex matter whatsoever.
The Earth is a miracle.
The Earth stands in contrast to indifferent materialism.
It is unscientific superstition to believe this Wonder is the work of a blind watchmaker.
Evolution is as silly and superstitious as magic!
Dawkins may as well walk around wearing a wizards hat…he is that ridiculous!
Thanks Tim. Fascinating.
Richard Dawkins is a zoologist?
Well not exactly, to be accurate an Ethologist (field of animal behaviour) but his major field is in Biology – evolutionary biology to be exact.
To get this right Professor Dawkins is a Biologist & Ethologist.
He has long rallied against the Christian belief in Young earth creationism and latterly contributed one best-seller on the being or beings called Gods e.g. Zeus, Yahweh, Ra etc etc.
The publisher/editor of the magazine you contribute to happens to be one of those that believe Planet Earth is 10,000 years old (per a book called The Bible) – yet you have the audacity to label Dawkins misinformed and ignorant!
Out of the 10 odd books Dawkins has written, only one seems to spark the interest of theists – the other books in the field of evolutionary biology mostly go ignored.
I congratulate The Auckland Law Library for highlighting Dawkins works.
For the ‘open-minded’ reader they will provide great ‘mind fodder’.
Dawkins is first to admit he has been wrong and constantly re-evaluated his theories. The Selfish Gene for example has been re-published to bring the book into line with new studies and information that have come to hand since.
To say Dawkins is not open-minded is to de-base his total modus as a man looking for answers and his ground-breaking works.
To claim he is both misinformed, ignorant and not honest is an insult to one of the planets greatest intellects.
Have a great weekend.
Paul.
“evolution by natural selection”
This is an oxymoron. (at least in the context of single cell to complex organism)
Evolution BY natural selection can only improve the avarage to the point where a group is homogene. Thereafter natural selection is unable to add complexity/improvement.
A more honest statement would be something like extinction by natural selection. Poorly adapted orginisms will become extinct.
So we are dealing with semantics that create the impression of a singular position when in fact there is wide disagreement.
This “improvement” part of the theory
– Is it gradual or sudden?
– Is it caused by “defects”? (a copy error) which is the essence of mutation
– Is it caused by self orginization?
Also it is to easy to think in terms of “fittest” whilst organisms only need to be “fit enough” Thus mutation can be “benefial” by rendering an organism fit enough. In this context for instance the Naked Mole Rat, where the loss of pain sensors in the skin allow this organism to live where another that feels pain cannot.
This would surely classify as a fittness “benefit” if it now can survive where its natural predators cannot go.
If a bird losts its wings for example and it was lucky enough to not have preditors, it would survive quite nicely. The bird would be fit enough, but you would be hard pressed to explain a fittness benefit.
In other words change that renders the subsequint organism “fit enough” is observed all around us.
Would you call the Kiwi’s lack of wings a fittness benefit, the naked mole rat’s loss of pain sensors?
Fittness benefits; perhaps, but you would not call them improvements?
CJ, I’m afraid you’re losing me a bit there. I’m not entirely sure where you are coming from. Are you saying that evolution as you understand it can only cause creatures to lose existing features (like the kiwi its wings or the whale its arms and legs)?
CJ,
As you say, it’s a good idea to define just what we mean by evolution when are talking about it. We even need to separate different ideas within your heading biological evolution.
People can use the term “evolution” for the proposal that all life on earth is descended from a single common ancestor, and that all modern lifeforms are connected to each other by a series of ancestor-descendant relationships. We often call this the “fact of evolution” because it is so well attested (molecules, fossils, behaviour, anataomy…). If I read you first comment correctly you’re on board with that idea.
On the other hand you have the theory of evoltution, using the scientific meaning of that word meaning meaning a explanatory frame work. This seems to be where you have the problem. From your first comment:
We have plenty of evidence that these two processes[mutation and selection] working together result in stability “stasis” not “evolution”. We also have plenty of evidence that mutation generally result in organisms that are unfit, rather than super fit.
Would it suprise you to learn that almost all evolutioanry biologists would agree with you that mutations are generally deleterious and selection usually acts to keep things the same. In fact, it would be a problem for evolutonairy theory if we observed frequent and rapid changes in wild populations because the fossil record has a lot of stasis that needs explaining too!
That observation gets to the heart of you other problem:
Would you call the Kiwi’s lack of wings a fittness benefit, the naked mole rat’s loss of pain sensors?
Of course, it helps them to make more offspring. It doesn’t follow that beause natural selection will sometime favour less complex forms that it will never favour more complexity.
Take the kiwis wings. As far as we know true flight has evolved in animals three times. The pterasaurs, the birds and the bats. We shouldn’t expect to see complex traits like that popping up all the time (but we should be able to see transitional forms in the rocks (tick) and analogous species in the wild (tick))
You should also realise that almost all life on earth are relatively simple prokrayotes. Evoluotion shouldn’t have an inbuilt drive towards complexity or, again, we have some explainging to do!
err, just for the record. I meant to say true flight has evolved three times in the vertebrates.
There are also, of course, the insects that evolved flight once.
This is where I am coming from
“That mutations are few and far between, mostly harmless, sometimes detrimental but when they are beneficial they are very likely to be passed on due to the simple fact that they’ve been of benefit to the host organism.”
If the change has not placed you at such a disadvantage that you die early or are unable to reproduce then “beneficial change” have no better chance of being passed on than “harmless change” or even “detrimental change”.
“beneficial change” have no better chance of being passed on than “harmless change” or even “detrimental change”
Then they aren’t beneficial changes surely?
Yes, sorry my bad.
A bigger beak on a finch where there is small seeds is not beneficial, but a bigger beak on a finch where there are only bigger seeds is.
I was thinking in terms of specific features and characteristics, rather that the obvious definition of beneficial. If a feature is passed on to descendants at a greater frequency than other features, that feature is obviously beneficial.
Paul, as far as I can tell you do not address a single point I made in my post. You note that Richard Dawkin’s is a good scientist, you also note that he has written several books in the field of science, I did not dispute any of this.
What I said was that his work in Theology and Philosophy of religion is poor and apparently misinformed and I gave arguments for this conclusion.
The fact that the editor of a magazine I publish an article in may mistaken about the age of the earth actually addresses none of these points.
Damian, your comments about extra terrestrials, I think, reinforces my point. You note that there is no evidence for the existence of aliens. Yet despite this you (a) think their existence is a reasonable possibility and (b) support putting vast amounts of money into seeking contact with aliens and attempting to communicate with them. This conflicts with the position many atheists hold to (including Dawkins). They affirm that because there is apparently no evidence for God’s existence (a) the rational position is not agnosticism but atheism (in Dawkins’ words “God almost certainly does not exist”) moreover (b) you should start living your life and stop worrying about it because religion is a harmful superstition.
The analogue to SETI research is to contend (a) God is a reasonable possibility and to spend significant resources towards seeking God and and praying to him in the hope that he does exist.
Matt, I presume that you would also have considered it un-atheistic to have supported a search for extra-solar planets 50 years ago because at that stage we had absolutely no evidence that they existed? Or, for that matter, to search for new species of bugs in the Amazon?
I think you misunderstand why an atheist rejects the notion of a God. With planets and lifeforms we have prior evidence that they can occur naturally and so a search for them elsewhere where originating conditions (as we understand them) might be similar is entirely reasonable. Not so with a God.
As an aside, do you side with Tim on the issue of human origins? A straight answer please.
Anonymous = CJ?
I’m still a little confused, it seemed to me that you were originally saying that evolution doesn’t work out in the real world because beneficial mutations don’t prevail and then it seems you point to bigger beaks on finches as an example of a beneficial mutation.
Damian,
If an athiest contends ( as many do) that in the absence of any evidence for the existence of something one should deny its existence, then I do consider there epistemic stance inconsistent with “a search for extra-solar planets 50 years ago” or with a“search for new species of bugs in the Amazon?” In both these cases people adopt at worst an agnostic stance towards something for which there is no evidence, and in practical terms they act in faith and hope that despite the lack of evidence what they search for does exist and they will find it. People certainly did not say, “there is absolutely no evidence for it therefore searching for extra solar planets and new species of bug is like searching for the great spaghetti monster”
“I think you misunderstand why an atheist rejects the notion of a God. “
With respect, I suspect I have studied the arguments of atheist philosophers more than most people have.
“With planets and lifeforms we have prior evidence that they can occur naturally and so a search for them elsewhere where originating conditions (as we understand them) might be similar is entirely reasonable. Not so with a God.”
Actually, this answer further underscores my point, the issue is that God is a supernatural being, hence in the absence of evidence one should reject his existence. Galaxies and bugs are natural beings which fit certain scientific naturalistc understandings of the world, hence when there is no evidence for them we should act in hope and faith that we will find them. The issue then is not as many atheists claim an issue of lack of evidence, its actually a prior commitment to naturalism.
The variations within the finches are within the scope of the species pre-existent gene pool, just as humans vary from Pigmy to Viking. Thus reality is the finches support the Genesis record of Kind after its kind (as does the fossil record) as such variations that occur within kinds has zero to do with any imaginary transmutation from one kind into another. The truth is the opposite ie Genes are about maintaining kinds… Birds stay birds, fish stay fish etc.
The Book of Genesis is confirmed by modern genetics, the fossil record and common sense/ experience. It is evolution that is being maintained in the face of science/experience being propped up by the sheer fanatical blindness…Dawkins ‘open minded’? Joke!/Lies!
Evolution is a Pox on biology, science, ethics!
Matt. You miss the point. We KNOW life exists. We KNOW planets exist… so looking for other planets, and other life is a very different situation from looking for God.
There was never a “lack of evidence” that other species of insect existed! The analogy is just plain wrong.
“With respect, I suspect I have studied the arguments of atheist philosophers more than most people have.”
With respect, you are judged on your words written here – not on claims of how well read you are 😉
“The issue then is not as many atheists claim an issue of lack of evidence, its actually a prior commitment to naturalism.”
I have to laugh at this. It does not require a prior commitment to naturalism to think there might be an insect crawling around which has never been classified before. This claim is so odd! When exactly was there “no evidence” for unknown species as a matter of interest?
Tim:
Do you seriously think that when the writers of Genesis used the word “kind” they were taking into account genetics which would not be discovered for thousands of years. This is laughable! Hence I laugh!
Tim,
You should tell creationists how easy it is to draw the line between created kinds. Because they don’t seem to have worked it out.
CJ,
I’m not quite sure I understand your objections. Natural selection favours what works, sometimes that means complexity increases in a lineage over time. More often that means complexity decreases. That’s about what we observe in the fossils and in the wild.
Matt,
I don’t know about atheist philosophers, but Dawkins never argues that we shouldn’t seek evidence. Only that we shouldn’t go on believing in things when we’ve sought evidence and found it lacking.
There is lots of evidence that life might exist outside of earth (I think Dawkins is far too optimistic about it and absolute bonkers when he starts talking about convergent evolution on other planets, but that’s an aside) so it’s reasonable to look for evidence of it but not to have fait that aliens exist.
(And FWIW, SETI doesn’t have a massive budget and has been privately funded for years now)
Max
You write With respect, you are judged on your words written here – not on claims of how well read you are 😉
Thanks for the respect, I have in mind this line of argument which is fairly typical.
The central claim in the first argument is that atheism is the default position, and what that means is that, if there is no evidence in support of the existence of God, then it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist. The essential line of thought which I would hope to develop later on is that if you consider other things like fairies, leprechauns, golden teacups orbiting around Venus, and so on, I would suggest that we have no evidence against the existence of those sorts of things, but if I asked you whether you were agnostic I think the answer would be “no.” You would believe there are no fairies, no leprechauns, no golden teacups orbiting around Venus. That illustrates the general principle in regard to God’s existence that the burden of proof must fall upon the person who is arguing in support of God’s existence. If there’s no positive support for it, then the other side wins by default. Michael Tooley
Here Tooley states that if there is no evidence for something then the rational position is not agnosticism towards it but to rather deny its existence. I could show Damian several other leading athiests who have said the same thing.
You miss the point. We KNOW life exists. We KNOW planets exist… so looking for other planets, and other life is a very different situation from looking for God
We know intelligent life exists on earth, we don’t have any evidence that life exists anywhere else. That is my point, and hence by the epistemic principle mentioned above, one should deny that extra terrestials exist. The fact that athiests do not adopt this stance shows they do not really accept this epistemic principle.
I have to laugh at this. It does not require a prior commitment to naturalism to think there might be an insect crawling around which has never been classified before. This claim is so odd..
I agree, I am happy to accept this might be the case and I am not a naturalist. But that is not what I was saying. My claim is not that naturalists adopt an agnostic or seeker stance towards ET’s ( or insects) because they are naturalists. Its that naturalism seems to be the reason they do not adopt the same stance towards thiesm. Note what Damian said
“With planets and lifeforms we have prior evidence that they can occur naturally and so a search for them elsewhere where originating conditions (as we understand them) might be similar is entirely reasonable. Not so with a God.”
Note what Damian says here, he says that when there is no evidence for somethings existence one should not deny its existence if we think it can occur naturally. If it however is something that cannot occur naturally, we should deny its existence in these situations. It’s clear that what makes the difference is not lack of evidence for the being in question, thats the same in both cases, its whether something can occur naturally.
“We know intelligent life exists on earth, we don’t have any evidence that life exists anywhere else. That is my point, and hence by the epistemic principle mentioned above, one should deny that extra terrestials exist. The fact that athiests do not adopt this stance shows they do not really accept this epistemic principle.”
I am afraid you are still not getting it. Lets make it even broader. We know physical objects exist… so it makes sense to look for other physical objects which exist elsewhere. I have *much* less reason to be skeptical of a claim that there is a new sort of bug in the amazon than that there is a God… do you seriously think there two are equivalent? Now I think there is a God, but it is not the same sort of question as “is there another sort of bug” or “is there another Earth like planet.” We know that at least one bug exists, and that at least one Earth like planet exists… to suspect there may be another one seems very reasonable, and something most people would be open too… there is no equivalent situation w.r.to God.
Matthew. To illustrate that there might be a problem with the consistency of your argument allow me to reverse the conditions.
Imagine that I have claimed that I have an invisible dragon in my carport. You say that you conclude that, “there is almost certainly no dragon in Damian’s carport” and then head off on a bug-hunting expedition in the Amazon.
Would you agree that this scenario fulfils the key criteria of the original scenario where Christians say that God exists, a person concludes that, “there is almost certainly no God” (thus defining her as an ‘a-theist’) and yet supports the search for other life in the universe?
If you can see that these two scenarios are — for all practical purposes — identical, then you will see that it would seem entirely reasonable for you to reject my claim about the dragon (i.e. an a-dragonist) and yet explore the possibility of new species of bugs in the Amazon, new planets around stars or even the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. (As an aside I’m with David on this one; I suspect that if life has arisen elsewhere the vast majority of it will be micro-organisms without broadcasting TVs).
If you can’t see this then I’m at a loss as to whether it is a failing on my behalf to clearly explain or that Max, David and I are mistaken and we are not understanding your argument or whether it might be, perhaps, that you lack the ability to back down once you’ve committed to an argument beyond a certain point. Which wouldn’t be a particularly beneficial trait in one who professes to be a “lover of wisdom”.
Max,
I certainly do believe the Bible record in Genesis is proven scientific fact. Yes. The Bible accurately states the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the laws of genetics which keep species in strict kinds.
This is just one of the articles of Christian faith that now enjoys the vindication of modern science, and upon which the Man of reason may have confidence in the truth of the scriptures.
It is an Atheist delusion that faith and reason are opposites. Faith is the product of reason.
It is an atheist delusion that creationism has nothing to offer in understanding scientific evidence.
The Bible is pregnant with verifiable truth. It challenges you to search it out…to test it…to prove it.
Get out your spade and your Petri dishes…but most importantly…pull off your blinders…open your eyes and mind…you may be shocked at what you discover was there all along but you were too consumed in delusion to notice.
Tim, I don’t expect you to accept what I’m going to say but I hope to catch the attention of others who might be hovering between your stance and mine.
When you take the position that there are ‘kinds’ in which there can be variation but that there can be no transition from one ‘kind’ into another you are able to back this up with both evidence and faith in your scriptures. I know this because I’ve been in this position.
The problem is that there is a *lot* of evidence that points to transitions between ‘kinds’ and when you have tied your position to a particular interpretation of holy scriptures you inevitably have to deny evidence in order to maintain the former.
If I point you to the overwhelming genetic, fossil and morphological evidence for the evolution of a creature somewhat like a hippo into what we now know as whales you are forced to reject it. The same with retroviruses and broken genes for the production of vitamin c in humans and our closest relatives, the apes.
Where you accept the evidence of the loss of a wing in a kiwi as a confirmation of non-transitionable ‘kinds’ you are forced to reject the same evidence of the loss of legs in a whale. This is not because you are weighing evidence but because you are merely comparing the evidence to your particular interpretation of a series of documents.
It’s not science and it’s not honest. In fact, a lot of Christians would even say it’s appalling theology too. And it’s about as far from ‘open mindedness’ as one can get.
Like I said, I don’t expect you to accept what I’ve said (because I, also, have rejected the same in the past) but I hope that someone hovering between (as I, also, have been in the past) will see the sense in this and challenge their own beliefs (like I, also, have in the not-so-distant past!). 🙂
David Winter,
Thanks for the link.
Yes disagreement is the state of the art…certainly not as is being foisted upon the youth of the world ie that Darwinism is now established fact! That is the height of dishonesty.
In that link we see a collection of bone fragments (probably a lot of more plastercene than bone) that is all. It is a fraud to impose the evolutionary interpretation upon these articles, arbitrarily deeming the differences are due to transmutation…and then call this the science of evolution!
What atheists have done is let their preconceptions cloud their scientific objectivity. It has literally blinded their minds.
That the proper interpretation of the fossil record is genetic integrity not flux is because all of the oldest genera still exist as such ie Trees are still trees, fish are still fish, mollusks are still mollusks, and Bacteria are still bacteria, etc This is incontrovertible. Genes hold good over the greatest timescales…evolution is patently false. All The classic evolutionary pictures in the minds of the sheeple are Artistic frauds…the whimsical notions of faithful atheists.
The only place you find an orderly progression of change in the shape of biped skulls is on the easel of fanatical atheist dreamers…certainly not out there in empirical reality!
Evolution one of the greatest delusions of our times.
Tim,
I’m not sure you got the point of that link. It’s a survey of the creationist literature. If, as you’ve claimed, the fossil record shows animals reproducing after their kind then surely it should be easy to place fossils in their kind. But ever creationist authors can’t choose where to draw the line!
Just thought it might create a little cognitive dissonance nect time you start raving about empirical reality.
David,
I know it was a creationist link, I did not think it necessary to argue that such disagreement is irrelevant.
Creationists argue about everything. So what?
My points hold good…you have never witnessed evolution, but have personally witnessed “kind after its kind every time! Ie experienced reality backs up the book of Genesis.
A contemptuous spirit closes their eyes to apparent reality and superimpose their own mythical ideas that fish can become birds, and that possums can become humans and build hot rods!
Evolution is a figment of warped imagination…of the children of darkness.
Just how strong the genetic boundary is to retain kinds can be seen when looking at genetic mutations.
When fly eggs are bombarded with radiation, you still end up with flies!
Very sad flies…sterile… with no wings etc…but flies none the less…grotesque flies.
If any of these sad creatures are still capable of reproduction the result is never an improvement on the originals! They are but a deformed sub set of the flies now degenerated gene pool.
That sterility is common means these will die out in one generation and not pass on their diseased traits. Hence no evolution.
Darwin, though ignorant of Mendel, still knew about mutations and understood them to be detrimental flaws, and hence rejected mutation as the engine of evolution.
To think mutation has turned protozoa into people is a wild myth that flies in the face of everything we truly know about mutations…ie that they suck! They are faults.
Evolution has no engine, no Law, but a lot of empty atheist prayers and wishes.
Damian asked:
“Seriously? Is this the general feeling of other Christians here or does Tim represent a fringe minority?”
He was referring to Tim’s rejection of scientific knowledge -specifically on biological evolution.
Now – why is everyone else so afraid to commit themselves? Why can’t they answer a simple question like this?
It seems to be a very basic and important point. Do you accept science or not? Most people can answer yes easily. Tim had no trouble answering no.
Why does almost everyone else go so quiet?
Strange – and in complete contrast to the immediate Pavlovian reflexive reaction certain words like “Dawkins” seem to cause here.
Is this a case of peer pressure? Are people afraid they may say something out of line?
I took it as a rhetorical question Ken!
But since you ask:
For myself? The evolution question is a non-issue – fun to pontificate about, but theologically not a problem. I believe there is a God, and a creating God, but I have no problem with evolution as the mechanism which eventually produced us. This still leaves many questions to be answered, and leaves open many possible answers. I think the idea that evolution leads automatically to atheism (which is used both by fundamentalist Christians and anti-religious zealots) is false.
Here I stand personally. I believe that Tim represents a fringe minority out in the word, but perhaps not on here…
Tim:
“I certainly do believe the Bible record in Genesis is proven scientific fact. Yes. The Bible accurately states the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the laws of genetics which keep species in strict kinds.”
It says nothing of the sort!How can you draw a whole “scientific” (and I use the term loosely) theory from one line about reproducing after their kind? Even if you take the huge bizarre leap of accepting that a bit of poetry about the Majesty of God is a science text book there are multiple ways to interpret this statement, many of which are perfectly in line with evolution.
“This is just one of the articles of Christian faith that now enjoys the vindication of modern science, and upon which the Man of reason may have confidence in the truth of the scriptures.”
Yes – but it clearly DOESN’T enjoy the vindication of modern science now does it? It is obvious that rightly or wrongly modern science does not support your claims. You may say modern science is wrong… but it DOES NOT support your claims!
“It is an Atheist delusion that faith and reason are opposites. Faith is the product of reason.”
I agree! So why not use your God given gift of reason and stop holding onto undefendable archaic beliefs. I realize you are scared, but have faith. God will not be destroyed by any science, evolutionary theory or otherwise.
“It is an atheist delusion that creationism has nothing to offer in understanding scientific evidence.”
You are confusing atheism with evolution, which I find mildly offensive. You are confusing a literal reading of genesis with faith… which I find a little more disturbing. There is no conflict here.
“The Bible is pregnant with verifiable truth. It challenges you to search it out…to test it…to prove it.”
Absolutely. But you need to understand the difference between poetry, worship, and science. Genesis gives a true account of creation. God is the creator of all life, and Lord over all creation. Genesis does not lie. But it is not a scientific description of what happened. It is a poetic description to inspire worship of our creator. Oddly, your stance seems to ignore the Majesty of God for a much smaller and less valuable goal of trying to explain away some aspect of science…. now don’t get me wrong, science is wonderful and indispensable, but worship is another treasure which we should not taint by confusing it with pseudo-science.
“you were too consumed in delusion to notice.”
I will just let you meditate upon that last sentence from your own mouth.
Thanks for answering Max.
I agree that evolution doesn’t lead automatically to atheism. Empirical facts surely show that.
However, there does seem to be some reason why a reasonably high proportion of Christians (about 40% in New Zealand I think) do reject evolutionary science.
I am just wondering what that proportion of Christians here is.
Damian, wether the position of the a-dragonist is consistent will depend on why he rejects the existence of the dragon in your carport. If he rejects the dragon merely because there is no evidence for it, then the reasons he gives for rejecting the dragon commit him to rejecting the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, as there is no evidence for this either.
On the other hand if he rejects the existence of dragons for other reasons, over and above mere lack of evidence, and the reasons he gives do not apply to extra terrestials then his position is consistent.
The problem is that a good number of atheists have stated that the reason they claim God does not exist is because of lack of evidence for Gods existence. I provided one example above.
I think that your example nicely illustrates that the reason we deny the existence of dragons cannot be simply because there is no evidence for their existence, if that was all that was involved we should treat dragons the same way we do ET’s or bugs in the amazon because we lack evidence for these beings as well. Something over and above the mere lack of evidence is behind our different judgments .
I suspect we do not believe in dragons because, we have a prior beliefs about what sorts of things can and cannot exist and its these beliefs which are different in the two cases.
As far as I can tell your and Max’s responses simply reinforce my point here. Max and you keep pointing out that there are differences between belief in ET’s and God, that may be the case, but its beside the point, because whatever other differences there are both beings are beings , according to the athiest, we lack evidence for believing in. And according to the athiest that is the sole reason they claim belief in God does exist.
If you start pointing to other differences between the two cases, then you are conceeding that other factors apart from lack of evidence are in play and that essentially conceeds my point.
Odd. It seems to completely contradict your point from where I am standing.
OK: Try this.
I think it is sensible to search for X because I know Y exists.
Example One: X= new sort of bug; Y= old sort of bug
Example Two: X=another Earth like planet; Y=Earth
Example Three: X=God; Y=????
There is no Y in the third example and so your analogy completely fails.
“Example Three: X=God; Y=????”
Y = Everything
Because everything we see exist and some of us believe that there is a cause for everything to exist.
Max
Odd. It seems to completely contradict your point from where I am standing.
I suspect that’s because you have misunderstood my point. I am not saying belief in God is analogous to belief in extra terrestials. I am suggesting that a particular argument against Gods existence, that athiests frequently use entails that belief in ET is irrational.
The standard atheological argument goes like this,
[1] If there is no evidence for the existence of X then its reasonable to claim X does not exist
[2] There is no evidence for Gods existence
Therefore
[3] The reasonable stance that God does not exist.
I am suggesting this argument is an analogous to the following line of argument.
[1]’ If there is no evidence for the existence of X then its reasonable to claim X does not exist
[2]’ There is no evidence for the existence of extra terrestial life
Therefore
[3]’ The reasonable stance that God does not exist.
These arguments are clearly analogous.
I think however your comments do raise some other interesting issues you argue,
OK: Try this.
I think it is sensible to search for X because I know Y exists.
Example One: X= new sort of bug; Y= old sort of bug
Example Two: X=another Earth like planet; Y=Earth
Example Three: X=God; Y=????
There is no Y in the third example and so your analogy completely fails.
Well I disagree, in each case X is the same sort of thing as Y, but not identical in all respects. So for example in the ET case we have. Y is human intelligent life and X is non human intelligent extra terrestial life.
The theist can however offer the same type of argument
.Y = human judge X=superhuman judge,Y =human creator X= superhuman creator Y=human legislator X=superhuman legislator, and so on.
Now of course in experience we only know of human legislators created and judges, but in our experience we also only know of terrestrial intelligent life.
Unfortunately it’s not that simple. There *is* evidence for the existence of a god. Many gods for that matter. The mere fact that you claim a god exists constitutes evidence albeit of a rather weak kind. If I say that I have an invisible dragon then that also counts as a form of evidence.
When I, as an atheist, might say that there is ‘no evidence for a god’ (which I’m careful not to do but have possibly done at times) it is generally a shortened way of saying that I’ve found, on balance, no sufficient evidence to believe in a god. If you tell me that there is ‘no evidence for the invisible dragon’ you probably mean the same.
The fact that Dawkins is careful to say that “it is almost certain that there is no God” indicates an accounting for the balance of evidence. And a willingness to be persuaded by further evidence should it come to light. How often do you hear that from a Christian?
When I said that there is absolutely no evidence for alien life I was, of course, referring to direct evidence. However we have evidence of life arising here on earth and we understand some aspects of how life arises here in the first place. This is a form of evidence for the *possibility* of other life forms which drives us to search for them. It is blatantly obvious that looking for alien life forms, extra-solar planets or new species of bugs in the Amazon are all supported by a lot more evidence that is experientially available to all of us. But it would seem that only some people in the world feel they have overwhelming (or even vaguely sufficient) evidence available to them for the existence of their particular god (which, coincidentally will always be one of many on offer and usually in direct contradiction to all of the others).
This kind of shared experiential evidence is very different from the farcical “Y=human comedian X=superhuman comedian” argument you put forward.
If I point you to the overwhelming genetic, fossil and morphological evidence for the evolution of a creature somewhat like a hippo into what we now know as whales…
I’ve read lots of articles on evolution (including some on whale evolution) but I always struggle to find out what the actual evidence is.
What was the actual evidence that convinced you that hippo-like animals evolved into whales?
[Note for the webmaster: This site would be a lot easier to read if the comments were wider ]
Matthew:
Of course one bug is not IDENTICAL in all respects to another sort of bug… or it would not be a different sort of bug. Um.. duh!
Similarly ANOTHER Earth like planet is not actually identical with Earth well done.
But light hearted sarcasm aside, basically your argument relies upon the claim that:
One sort of bug and another sort of bug are as dissimilar as God and man.
Blasphemy! What sort of puny little god do you have in mind?
Damian,
If I understand you correctly, your stating that (a)although there is insufficient evidence for the existence of intelligent extra terrestrial life, there is sufficient evidence for thing such beings are possible and (b) With God on the other hand there is no even evidence his existence is possible.
Unless one assumes some kind of naturalism, I think (b) is evidentally false. Your arguments for it certainly are mistaken.
1. you writeIt is blatantly obvious that looking for alien life forms, extra-solar planets or new species of bugs in the Amazon are all supported by a lot more evidence that is experientially available to all of us. Here you simply assert that its obvious that the existence of intelligent life is vastly more probable than the evidence for theism. But simply stating its obvious is not an argument. I doubt very much an atheist would accept the argument of a theist who simply stated “its obvious God exists”
You then state But it would seem that only some people in the world feel they have overwhelming (or even vaguely sufficient) evidence available to them for the existence of their particular god (which, coincidentally will always be one of many on offer and usually in direct contradiction to all of the others).This however is simply a caricature. You assert by insinuation that that there is insufficent evidence for God’s existence. But assertion is not an argument. You then go on to bolster this by claiming that theists who offer evidence argue for the existence of “their particular god” which “will always be one of many on offer and usually in direct contradiction to all of the others” The problem is that this is false an examination of the arguments theist actually offer, as opposed to what you say they offer, does not support what you say. The arguments that dominate the literature, the telelogical, ontological, moral, cosmological, conceptualism arguments, all defend the existence of the same God, and have been endorsed by Muslims, Jews, deists and Christians alike. Again, following Dawkins strategy of ignoring what theists have actually written is not really a “accounting for the balance of evidence.” any more than a creationist who ignores the evidence put forward by evolutionists has “balanced the evidence”.
You go on to state “This kind of shared experiential evidence is very different from the farcical “Y=human comedian X=superhuman comedian” argument you put forward.” I agree, the problem is no theist ever offered farcial arguments of this sort for God’s existence. So again this point is mute. My use of it certainly was not an argument for God’s existence but simply a response to an argument Max made. Again caricature is not really an argument especially when its bolstered by quoting out of context. Similarly its a caricature to suggest ( as you appear to) that the arguments theists have offered are no more than a person who asserts there is an invisible dragon in their garage. Only someone who has never examined the arguments could make a claim like this. The fact its made so often only shows some athiests are willfully ignorant of the positions they attack.
Moreover, if you are going to maintain that the case for extra terrestial life is somehow so much more plausible ( without assuming naturalism) than the case for theism, then I ask you where in the literature are there arguments anywhere near as rigorous as say Swinburne’s arguments for Theism, or Craigs Kalam argument, or the fine tuning argument, or the moral arguments by Hare, Adam,s layman and others, or the various modal ontological arguments, or the contigency arguments by Pruss. Can you find me arguments in the peer reviewed literature for the existence of intelligent ET’s by people which have comparative status. Do you open cosmology journals and find arguments for ET’s being as seriously debated, in mainstream cosmology as these arguments are? Can you find me of books by Cambridge or Oxford offering such arguments? Regardless of wether these arguments are sufficent to establish God exists, it seems clear to me they certainly provide evidence that God’s existence is “possible”. It certainly more evidence than merely the claim “there is life on earth” which was enough to establish the possibility of ET’s.
Max,
One sort of bug and another sort of bug are as dissimilar as God and man.
No, my claim is that both man and God are, persons, legislators, intelligent, creators, judges etc. Moreover the bug example was Damian’s my example was intelligent ET’s. How similar are intelligent ET’s to humans? We don’t actually know, all we know is that they are intelligent and carbon based life.
“How similar are intelligent ET’s to humans? We don’t actually know, all we know is that they are intelligent and carbon based life.”
Well actually I would not even say they are carbon based, and may not be “intelligent” in the way we think of it. But one thing I *can* tell you for sure… whatever ET you can think of, make it as fantastic as you like, it will always be infinity closer to man than man (or the ET) is to God. Why? Any ET is also a creature. God is Creator. Any comparison between the two is ludicrous. For this reason your ET example is to all intents and purposes the same as the two bugs example. In fact an amoeba and the most fantastic sci-fi super alien are as close to each other as two bugs when compared to the creator of the universe.
Seen in this perspective your comparison is ridiculous.
“Any ET is also a creature. God is Creator. ”
How do you know ET is a creature and not creator? Some people believe ET created humans.
Max
True, there will still be infinity closer to man than God. But I don’t see why this means “any” comparision between the two is ridiculous.
Note that whats important in this context, Damian thinks that one should not just be agnostic about his claim that there is an invisible dragons in his garage one should deny it and this is because there is insufficent evidence for the existence of such Dragons. He also grants that there is insufficent evidence for the existence of intelligent life ( particularly if its not carbon based) but thinks that in this case some form of agnosticism is the correct stance.
Now I guess I want to know two things (a) what is the epistemic difference between Dragons and ET’s that justifies this stance. And (b) why assume that theism falls in the same category as dragons and not in the category of ET’s.
Now you have highlight some important metaphysical differences between ET’s and God, but these differences do not appear to be relevant epistemological differences. In fact, everything you say about the difference between ET’s and God can also be said about invisible dragons and God. While both will be invisible, God will be infinitely greater than the dragon, the dragon will be a creature God is a creator. So if anything the reasons you cite provide as much reason for keeping God in a different category to dragons as it does to ET’s. Moreover I am inclined to think that God would metaphysically be closer to intelligent beings ( who presumably would be made in Gods image) than invisible dragons. So I fail to see why the features you cite justifies putting God in the dragon category as opposed to the ET category.
“Now I guess I want to know two things (a) what is the epistemic difference between Dragons and ET’s that justifies this stance. And (b) why assume that theism falls in the same category as dragons and not in the category of ET’s. ”
I think we are talking past each other here… I would not place God in a category with dragons OR ET’s… in fact I would place Dragons (even invisible ones) and ETs into the same category… created creatures which may or may not exist.
Reed, a good starting point for fundamental questions on evolution is always the talkorigins website.
Whale evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
An overview of other evidences:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There is a lot of information there but it’s a complex topic with many aspects to it and well worth the investment of your time if you are genuinely interested.
Max, I agree we are talking past each other ( I think we probably agree more often than we realise). My argument is really designed to call into question the whole “invisible dragon” type argument.
But it would seem that only some people in the world feel they have overwhelming (or even vaguely sufficient) evidence available to them for the existence of their particular god (which, coincidentally will always be one of many on offer and usually in direct contradiction to all of the others).
Even if this were an accurate description of theistic argument it proves too to much, the same thing could be said about almost any philosophical position, only some people believe that we can defensibly be said to have knowledge, and those who defend the existence of knowledge do offer radically different conceptions of what knowledge is.
So by your reasoning we should dismiss the position that knowledge exists as on par with fairy tales, like belief in dragon. Of course that would mean that claims to "know" evolution occured would be a fairy tale.
I could say the same thing about other minds, few people believe that we can evidentially prove that other minds exist, and people defend different conceptions of what mind is.
Matt,
Now I guess I want to know two things (a) what is the epistemic difference between Dragons and ET’s that justifies this stance. And (b) why assume that theism falls in the same category as dragons and not in the category of ET’s.
a) people have spent a long time observing the earth, although we still find new species (18 000 last year) they are never as giant and conspicuous as dragons. From this evidence we place a strong prior against dragons. As much as I respect Damian, him telling me he has a dragon in his shed is not enough evidence to overturn that prior. (I’d also peak into his shed’s window and see what he was on about…) ET’s are all together different, since we haven’t been gathering evidence on their existence it’s hard to know how probable they are. We need more evidence.
b) When atheist say that in the absence of evidence belief in god is unjustified they mean the absence of convincing evidence. You listed some arguments for a god. I think some of those are very weak, some of them are reasonable (but ultimately unconvincing) and I haven’t read some of the others. If I took your interpretation of the atheist position I’d react to this situation by refusing to read the arguments I haven’t encountered before. Most atheists don’t refuse to seek evidence for god, they just find the evidence presented lacking.
Reed,
A couple of things. Whales didn’t really evolve from a “hippo-like” ancestor. Rather, they share a common ancestor with modern hippos. It’s a fine distinction, but and important one because the ancestral species didn’t look like a hippo or a whale! (they’ve both “evolved away” from the original form)
The evidence that the hippo and the whale are cousins is pretty convincing, and I’m sure it’s detailed in the links above. The most important pieces of evidence are that both hippos and whales share a set of genetic elements called SINEs in the sample bits of their genome. SINEs insert themselves more or less at random, and SINE insertions are relatively rare. So it’s very unlikely the both hippos and whales would have the same SINEs in the same positions without having inherited them from the same ancestor. The other key is the ankle bone. Even toed ungulates (like the hippo) have a special “double spooled” ankle that isn’t seen in other mammals or whales (for obvious reasons!) but when you look at whale fossils like Rodhocetus it’s there.
Now “other minds” I would accept as a possible candidate for “Y”
David and Reed. My mistake on the ‘hippo-like’ thing. I must have been recalling the closest relative titbit as opposed to the actual ancestor (which seems to me to be more wolf-like with that long snout and pointy teeth).
Max…We must worship God not only in spirit but also in truth.
His *precepts* are righteous and true. Its not just poetry.
We both know this is of pivotal importance and that obvious reasons exist as to why atheists champion Darwinism….Is the book of Genesis reliable or not? This is the real battle line against atheism.
It is not I who would have God stoop down, but modern Bible doubters who stoop to Darwinism.
You cannot tell me Jesus or the Bible teaches Man came from apes. No way did St Paul believe or teach Man came from Beasts, but from God!
And though I must spend my life wandering through a valley full of scorners I know that my science is good and that I am doing my Christian best to witness to the truth for the sake of the lost.
Dawkins is himself the very evil he professes to fight ie a religious fraudster, a propagator of mass social delusion.
He is a deceiver of millions. Blind leader of the blind.
It is tragic many Christians fail to avoid the profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so-called…Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1Tim 6vs20)
David, regarding (a) I think your comment underscores the point I was making. The reason we do not believe in dragons is not that we lack evidence for there existence, but we also have prior reasons against there existence. When ( as in the case of ET’s) we simply lack evidence and have none against we adopt a more tentative agnostic stance.
Re (b) The position of the atheist I was criticizing was not that if there is no evidence for God’s existence then belief in God is unjustified, that position is compatible with agnosticism.
Its rather the view that if there is no evidence for God’s existence one should claim he does not exist. Moreover, my point in the post above is that Dawkins does refuse to examine the arguments in question. To the best I can tell no one has shown any reason for disputing my interpretation here, apart from Ken whose only response is to call my argument a tantrum.
Its actually really simply, perhaps you can show me where Dawkins offers an accurate picture of any of the arguments I mentioned and actually provides an argument against them.
“Is the book of Genesis reliable or not? This is the real battle line against atheism.”
Yes – it is reliable, But it is not a science text. I have no problem with this.
“You cannot tell me Jesus or the Bible teaches Man came from apes.”
No – from my memory Jesus does not discuss the mechanisms of the origin of life. He had bigger things to worry about, and much more important things to achieve. I try to take the same attitude.
“No way did St Paul believe or teach Man came from Beasts, but from God!”
These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Here is a clue… where did the Beasts come from? 😉 That is a big clue.
“And though I must spend my life wandering through a valley full of scorners I know that my science is good and that I am doing my Christian best to witness to the truth for the sake of the lost.”
I appreciate your intentions, but I think you are wrong, and your approach is doomed to failure. God is mightier than the one you create from a simplistic reading of Genesis. Much mightier.
Matt, you misrepresent me.
I have not discussed your article at all. I have said several times that engaging in debates about the existence of gods is a mugs game. I will wait untill there is a structured hypothesis before indulging. Currently it’s like engaging with a child with her hands behind her back asking you to guess what’s in them!
My post at Open Parachute was a comment on the knee jerk reaction you and others have to the word Dawkins. It also dealt with the invention of gods and demons as repositories of imageied goods and evils.
I see no point in engaging in theological discussions which end up to be unreasoned circular exercises in jelly wrestling.
However, I did ask for people to clarify where they stood on acceptance or otherwise of evolutionary science. The response was almost null.
Makes me think of how long the Church took to apologise for their treatment of Galileo.
And to apologise for their sexual and other abuse if children and it’s cover up.
Dawkins effects your knees and evolution freezes your tongues.
Ken you grossly exaggerate the importance of Dawkins. I have read numerous atheist writers many like Michael Tooley or William Rowe offer sophisticated careful informed arguments I respect (though disagree with). Dawkins hardly cuts it at all and his contribution to the question in my view adds nothing at all. I only respond to him because he has such a popular following among the uninformed.
Once again however your comments consist of caricature you state I have said several times that engaging in debates about the existence of gods is a mugs game. I will wait untill there is a structured hypothesis before indulging. Currently it’s like engaging with a child with her hands behind her back asking you to guess what’s in them! Perhaps you can provide some actual evidence that the discussions of people like Tooley, Plantinga, Draper, Craig, Swinburne, van Ingwagen and other lack “ a structured hypothesis” ( they actually go into some detail defining what they mean and spelling it out. Or that their discussions which end up to be unreasoned circular exercises in jelly wrestling. Perhaps you can cite an actual example where these writers engage in circular reasoning or do not reason out their conclusions. A cursory reading of say the debate between Plantinga and Tooley would show that in fact a high level of logical rigour is involved.
As to the issue of evolution, I did not comment not because I am scared to ( once again we see you attributing motives to people without evidence) but because its not the topic. In the above article I noted that I was no critcising Dawkin’s views on evolution. I could of course spell out what I think, but to explain the nuances of my position would be difficult in a short com box and most of what I think is pretty tentative anyway, given I am aware that I am not a biologist. ( you can see the forum I had at Auckland Uni where I spoke a bit about them). Unlike some scientists who think they can talk authoratively on theology and philosophy without actually reading anything on the topic. I tend to avoid getting into debate on topics which I don’t really have much knowledge of.
Damian –
The talk origins page says Sinonyx is the wolf-like ancestor of whales, however wikipedia says…
… some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [whales and dolphins]
And, it’s not clear from the text but the evidence for the second link in the chain appears to be a few skull fragments. Déjà vu…
The reason I asked you was that you sounded like you were convinced by overwhelming evidence. I was wanting you to summarize what the evidence was that convinced you Whales evolved from some other animal.
Matt, it is not me who responds to the word “Dawkins” as Pavlov’s dogs responded to his bells.
And no, I won’t get into a theological debate as already explained. Itsos pointless.
You claim there is a structured god hypothesis. I say bring it on . The investigation will be fascinating. Bur unfortunately it sounds just like that little girl with her hands behind her back.
The question Damian asked really just required a yes or no answer. Do you go along with Tim’s anti-science rant or do you accept the current scientific assessment? One does not have to be a biologist to answer that. 80% of NZers are able to answer yes to simple polls on this question. They aren’t all biologists
Your unwillingness to make such a simple decision does suggest that peer presure is restricting you. After all, your knee twitching on hearing the word “Dawkins” seems to be completely intuitive.
And what about you mates? They are unusually silent. Peer pressure?
Matt, it is not me who responds to the word “Dawkins” as Pavlov’s dogs responded to his bells.
Nor did I, I have been posting on MandM for over three and a half years and there is one post on Dawkins.
Of course I could with equal plausibility say you respond to creationism and ID like Pavlovs dogs and suggest you are throwing a tantrum over the issue.
And no, I won’t get into a theological debate as already explained. Itsos pointless.
Yes and I asked for you to provide evidence that the discussions you refer to actually fit the description you raise, and what we see is simply a repitition of the original claim.
Ironic of course, you rant and rave about theologains and philosophers misrepresenting science and not knowing the topic and then turn around and do the same thing at every opportunity you get.
You claim there is a structured god hypothesis. I say bring it on . The investigation will be fascinating. Bur unfortunately it sounds just like that little girl with her hands behind her back.
Actually the discussion has been going on for some time, I mentioned some of the writings in my posts. You know the ones I noted that Dawkins ignored. I see you continue to as well.
The question Damian asked really just required a yes or no answer. Do you go along with Tim’s anti-science rant or do you accept the current scientific assessment?
Thats a false dicotomy it assumes that either one is a 6 creationist, or one accepts contemporary evolutionary theory as a true account of origins. The problem is these are not the only two positions.
One does not have to be a biologist to answer that. 80% of NZers are able to answer yes to simple polls on this question. They aren’t all biologists
Thats why polls are often unreliable they ask for simple yes or no answers to questions which admit of numerous different shades of answers. The same happens with abortion when people are asked if they are pro choice or pro life, the problem is when more specific questions are asked the answers are quite different.
Your unwillingness to make such a simple decision does suggest that peer presure is restricting you.
No it doesn’t, there are actually numerous hypothesis compatible with silence, you simply choose to accept the most uncharitable one.
I did not answer because the question was vague, I was asked if I agreed with Tim on human origins. The reality is I agree with some of what he says and don’t accept other things he says, the same is true with Max. I don’t affirm either position put forward.
Matt, allow me to ‘un-vague’ the question then.
Do you believe that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees?
Reed, there is almost always disagreement between scientists; that’s how science works. It wasn’t just a skull fragment that convinced me; it was the combination of all the other evidences, especially the more recent genetic studies. We have a predictive theory and we have many lines of evidence that confirm that whales are no exception.
I used to be a YEC, and then, briefly, an IDer. But the more you learn about the evidence the more obvious it is that the fundamentals of the theory of evolution by natural selection are sound and that trying to preserve a particular interpretation of a holy book by ignoring this evidence is dishonest. I came to the conclusion that if God does exist and if God did create us then he’s made it very clear that he used the process evolution to do so.
As I expected, Matt, you will continue to hold your hands behind you back. No matter – it’s not important.
Matt I don’t know how many articles you have written on what. My specific comment on your Pavlovian reflex relates to the fact the word “Dawkins” precipitates this reflexive action in comments, etc. And as you can see your post, because it included the word “Dawkins”, got a similar reflexive action from several if your mates.
I find it rather funny, and no doubt Dawkins’ publishers laugh all the way to the bank as these reflexes have certainly helped build an attractive brand.
However, my article was really a comment on human nature and how we are prone to invent gods and demons as repositories for our ideals of good and bad.
My comments relate purely to these phenomena – I am not at all interested on the content of your article.
Damian
You ask
I accept that the best current scientific theory asserts this, wether the theory is true I remain an agnostic on I neither affirm or deny it. This is because of unresolved philosophical questions about how science currently functions and the role methodological naturalism plays in some scientific theories.
Like Max I also do not think scripture teaches anything on this topic.
But seeing you asked me a question, I’ll ask you a couple,
1. You stated
The evidence that the hippo and the whale are cousins is pretty convincing, and I’m sure it’s detailed in the links above. The most important pieces of evidence are that both hippos and whales share a set of genetic elements called SINEs in the sample bits of their genome. SINEs insert themselves more or less at random, and SINE insertions are relatively rare. So it’s very unlikely the both hippos and whales would have the same SINEs in the same positions without having inherited them from the same ancestor.
In this paragraph you state, as fact that “SINE’s insert themselves more or less at random” and use this as evidence for your conclusion. The probabilities favour your conclusion because of its unlikely that a SINE would be inserted elsewhere “at random.”
What do you mean by “random” here?
2. Earlier you criticised theistic arguments by saying
But it would seem that only some people in the world feel they have overwhelming (or even vaguely sufficient) evidence available to them for the existence of their particular god (which, coincidentally will always be one of many on offer and usually in direct contradiction to all of the others).
Here you seem to be criticising thiesm because not all people accept the arguments for it and moreover different theists offer arguments for contradictory positions.
But in your last response to Reed you write “Reed, there is almost always disagreement between scientists; that’s how science works.” . So you appear to admit that not all people accept the arguments for evolution you have provided and different evolutionists give argumenst for contradictory positions. I note also one line David gives of creationism above is that creationists don’t agree on where to categorise kinds.
So which is it? It appears to me that what counts as a good argument or a bad argument depends on wether it advances evolution or not, and that is clearly a mistaken criteria.
3.You noted that It wasn’t just a skull fragment that convinced me; it was the combination of all the other evidences, especially the more recent genetic studies. here you note that one line of evidence in isolation can be weak but taken collectively they can be strong. I agree,
Would you then accept the same point with regards to theism, for example would you consider for example the kalam cosmological argument, the contingency argument, the moral argument, and so on as different lines of evidence taken together in combination?
I ask because I have seen few athiests ever do this.
Err no Ken I actually expressed my views. I told you what I thought on the matter. The fact that you continue to assume that those who speak to you are dishonest is really no my problem.
The argument you gave viz a viz Dawkins could be applied to you with equal weight regarding creationism and ID. It seems to create a pavolian reflex action on the part of scientists. ‘
The reason of course is that certain scientists get annoyed at what they take to be unqualified people using theology to make uniformed and deceptive comments about science.
The same reason applies to Dawkins, some people get equally annoyed when biologists in the name of science mke uniformed and deceptive comments about theology and philosophy.
If one response is a “tantrum” so is the other.
Whats funny is to see the members of the former group seem to support Dawkins, which suggests that there concern for accuracy, informed scholarship is really just lip service and what you have is partisianship.
Matt,
That was me talking about the SINEs. I meant random in the standard statistical sense, having no discernible deterministic pattern (but with results conforming to a probability distribution).
As for the creationists disagreements. That was a criticism of a particular creationist claim. YECs claim that there are no transitional forms and that fossils can be easily placed within their ‘created kind’. But a survey of the creationist literature makes it clear when it comes to the ‘gap’ between humans and apes different creationists disagree on which fossil belongs to which kind. Evidently the gaps between those kinds are not clear cut.
On the other hand no (sane) evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that it is easy to find ancestors in the fossil record (in fact, I’ve argued that the hunt for “missing links” is a hold over from a pre-Darwinian idea called the scala naturae that has not place in modern evolutionary thinking, but that really is an aside). When you view life as a branching tree it becomes obvious that, beautiful as it might be, Tiktaalik is more likely to be a cousin of the ancestor of all us tetrapods than the actual ancestor.
It’s not the presence of disagreements among creationists that are bad news for their theories, it’s the fact their theories predict there shouldn’t be disagreements.
I guess my queries are as follows you wrote
The most important pieces of evidence are that both hippos and whales share a set of genetic elements called SINEs in the sample bits of their genome. SINEs insert themselves more or less at random, and SINE insertions are relatively rare. So it’s very unlikely the both hippos and whales would have the same SINEs in the same positions without having inherited them from the same ancestor.
Now you seem to be saying here that unless hippos and whales have a common ancestor, it would be unlikely that SINE’s would occur in both in different types of beings in this way.
But I don’t see this, suppose a God created different kinds in a special way, why is it highly likely that he would have created them with a radically different genetic code. That appears to be a theological judgement for which I see no evidence either way.
I can understand why if one assumes that the genetic code is random in the strong sense of random that is it happens by chance and is not caused by God at all, it would be unlikely to occur. and I can understand why if one assumes methodological naturalism one could think this, but I can see why absent any of these philosophical assumptions the above probability claim is true.
Matt, thanks for you response regarding the question of common ancestry.
David has addressed the first question, I’ll attempt to answer your second and third questions:
2. My point here wasn’t so much that “people disagree therefore we can ignore it” as “we don’t have the same kind of shared experiential evidence therefore how can we every learn the truth, especially if similar claims directly contradict each other”. With a skull fragment we all have access to the same evidence even though we may draw different conclusions but with a life-transforming revelation we don’t. We are asked to simply accept the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin because a special class of document claimed it to be true.
3. I think that the cosmological argument (Kalam/contingency) is weak in that if you demand that everything must have a cause it is incoherent to posit an Uncaused Cause. Why not say that perhaps the Universe itself is an Uncaused Cause if you are willing to sidestep the first premise? Or that perhaps we don’t understand causation at the quantum level? And I think that the moral argument is easily overwhelmed by the problem of evil.
I accept that all of these argument form a kind of evidence for a God but I believe that it is a weak form of evidence. Similar to when I say that when you claim that God exists it is a weak form of evidence but evidence nonetheless. Even when 2 billion people claim that God exists it doesn’t, to me, combine to make a compelling argument. You may see the validity in this when you compare this to the ‘evidence’ that some of the Hindu Gods exist because Hindus claim it to be true. Even if there were 5 billion Hindus claiming it it will still be weak evidence.
The kind of shared experiential evidence available when investigating the origins of the various forms of life around us is quite different from cosmological, moral or personal revelation arguments. That said, if you start with the presupposition that there exists a God of some kind then I can see how these various arguments might seem compelling. But if you start (as we do as infants) with as few presuppositions as possible I think you’ll find that, in the absence of indoctrination, the specific claims of various religions are banal in comparison.
I am asked to accept the possibility that there is an Uncaused Cause because we don’t know where everything comes from (which *is* an interesting argument albeit one I don’t accept) and then immediately asked to accept that a donkey talked to Balam.
I hope that answers your questions.
I have a question in return regarding methodological naturalism: if we define the ‘Universe’ as “all that exists” (even allowing for the possibility of supernatural agents and Uncaused Causes — whatever that means — things possibly well beyond our current comprehension) what more accurate method of investigating our Universe would you propose in lieu of methodological naturalism?
Matt,
This could be a really long conversation but we probably both have better things to do.
SINEs actually form part of a particular problem for creator gods, they are part of the the ~95% of our genome that does nothing for the animal carrying them around (SINEs are sort of genomic parasites that copy themselves around *ahem* at random). Perhaps a creator made hippos and whales but quite why he would put a nonfunctional stretch of DNA in the same places in each genome is hard to fathom.
You’re right of course, that it’s not incompatible with a creator god (but what observation could be!). To make testable hypotheses (that is, to do science) you need to limit yourself to causes that make claims on the natural world. Of course, that doesn’t mean you are forced to be an ontological naturalist but there comes a point that the “natural” theory explains the phenomena so well that adding a supernatural actor isn’t necessary (or parsimonious).
Another what to look at it might be that the ontological (I’m not a philosopher, tell me if I’m using these words incorrectly) proposition “Live evolved” offers many more tests than the proposition “God made life”. If a statement offers many tests, and passes them, then surely it’s well supported by the evidence and it’s reasonable to prefer it over another statement.
Zoo: Mining threat to ‘Living fossil’ frog…Nz Herald 25-5-10, A6
Here is proof that Genesis Kind after its kind is scientific fact…not poetry.
Today’s paper has this article about the Archey’s frog that lives in the Coromandal.
This is a good example of how Bullshit evolution is propagated in the face of evidence to the contrary.
This frog is said to be ‘almost identical’ to frogs that lived with the Dinosaurs 150 million years ago. If that is not proof enough that Frogs stay frogs over the ages then nothing is.
Nothing will convince the fanatical evolutionist that the species do not morph one into another. (Man is said to have evolved from apes in 4 million years)
They cannot resist calling this frog “the most evolutionary distinct amphibian on the planet”
That is just bullshit for saying this frog does not evolve. It has stayed a frog!
What is even more telling is that frogs are called “the canaries in the goldmine” of environmental decline because their porous skin makes them sensitive to changes!
Thus if any species ought to be evolutionarily modified by environmental factors it is these because they are “sensitive to change”. No evolution here!
The Bible 1: Atheism nill!
Wow, you’re kinda worked up about it all eh? Amphibians have been around for ~400 million years.
To help you understand the kind of error of logic you’ve made, imagine me saying that I found an English person the other day and that I think it disproves the theory of immigration.
Yes, of course, Matt. My comments about your knee jerk reaction to the word “Dawkins” apply to other situations too. As a species we are not really rational. We all tend towards confirmation bias and we all have Pavlovian responses.
I am sensitive to the knee jerk reaction to “Dawkins” because I used to suffer from it myself. It meant I didn’t read any of his books for 30 years. Matt, I don’t know what you have read in the original but I would not be suprised if people like Tim and most other people demonstrating this knee jerk reaction here have not read any.
My own experience has made sensitive to the problem and the consequent ideological ghettoisation.
All this is very relevant to the question of open mindedness.
Which reminds me – on this topic I would have thought a more relevant work of Dawkins to comment on would have been “A Prayer for my Daughter” rather than “The God Delusion.”?
Damian,
Re 2. You claim “we” have “shared” experiential evidence for certain scientific claims which you contrast with accepting a claim because a “special class of document says its true.” This is actually false. There is no such thing as “shared experience” in the way you suggest. I can only experience the world through my senses, I do not experience it through the senses of others, the only way I can know if they have an experience is if they “tell me” or in the case of science we know because it is published in a journal a special class of document. If you were to bracket everything one knew on the basis of being told by some authority, there would be no shared experience at all, I would be limited to what I experience in my own space time position and nothing else.
Re 3, I myself don’t think theism stands or falls on the theistic arguments, but your critique confirms what I said earlier. Regarding the cosmological argument, no version either the Kalam or contigency argument contains the premise that “everything must have a cause” I have never seen any version of these arguments which contians this premise what the Kalam claims is that everything that begins to exist has a cause and the contigency argument simply asks for an explanation of the existence of contigent beings. ( and any such explanation would have to be non contigent and capable of causing contingent beings to exist) So your response shows that you simply do not understand these arguments or you have caricatured them. Moreover, your response also shows that you consider the arguments in isolation and not collectively despite the fact that when addressing evolution you reasonably requested people do the opposite. By itself a genetic code does not prove a common ancestry but when numerous other features of the world are all jointly explained by common ancestry it does. Similarly the fact that the origin of the universe by itself does not prove God exists ( the possibility causation does not apply at that level for example) when the existence of God explains this and a whole lot of other things like contigent beings, laws of nature, fine tuning and moral obligations, the situation is different. I’d be interested if you can think of any other naturalistic hypothesis that could explain jointly all these phenomena in a better way.
Moreover I find your suggestion that someone who reads say Swinburnes The Existence of God could conclude that the arguments he provides are no better than merely lots of people claiming God exists, is simply not plausibe, I know of absolutely no atheist philosopher of religion who has critqued Swinburne who would conceed this claim. I am sure its satisfying to think people who disagree with you are all lame gullible fools, but its simply not reality.
You go on to state But if you start (as we do as infants) with as few presuppositions as possible I think you’ll find that, in the absence of indoctrination, the specific claims of various religions are banal in comparison. I agree that if we start off like infants with as few presuppositions as possible we will discover this about religion, we also will discover it about almost everything else we believe including most scientific beliefs, moral beliefs philosophical beliefs and so on, try proving anything starting from next to no presuppositions or only those presuppositions accepted by infants. Descartes tried something like this it has been shown to be a collosal failure.
Finally you ask.
I have a question in return regarding methodological naturalism: if we define the ‘Universe’ as “all that exists” (even allowing for the possibility of supernatural agents and Uncaused Causes — whatever that means — things possibly well beyond our current comprehension) what more accurate method of investigating our Universe would you propose in lieu of methodological naturalism?
This seems muddle headed, first if the universe is all there is then you are not allowing the possibility of supernatural agents you are defining them out of existence.
Second, if science requires that one define reality this way prior to examining the evidence then scientific theories actually rest on controversial metaphysical and religious assumptions, which are adopted aprori
.
Third if, as you state you allow for the possibility of supernatural causes, then a method which methodologically rules such causes out would not always be an accurate way of investigating the universe. If something are caused supernaturally then a method which assumes that everything has a natural cause will get the wrong results in certain important cases. A method that assumes everything has a natural cause will get accurate results only if everything has a natural cause.
David
Your right responding to everything would be a long conversation so I’ll limit myself to the key issues as I see it.
1.You say science must make “testable” hypothesis. My understanding is that this claim is only plausible if you are talking about whole theories, whole theories are testable. Scientific statements in isolation from a theory need not be testable. The claim there is at least one electron is in isolation untestable, one needs a broader theory about electrons how they operate etc before one can test such a claim. The obvious problem however is that while its true that theological claims made in isolation such as God created X, are not testable. Theories of creation are, that’s why scientists can criticize the claim that God created all species fixed 6000 years ago.
2.You talk of needing to limit oneself to causes that make claims on the natural world. If by this you mean causes that effect the natural world then theological causes would do this. If by this you mean science must always postulate natural causes to explain phenomena, then science can only claim to make accurate claims if naturalism is true. If some things have supernatural causes then science by postulating natural causes for the phenomena will get the wrong result.
3.You talk about science making supernatural causes unnecessary. All I can do is refer you to the posts where I have addressed this claim.http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/04/science-and-religion-theism-and-explanatory-idleness.html and http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/09/darwinian-evolution-god-and-ockham%E2%80%99s-razor.html
4.I agree that evolution is the best scientific theory of the origin of life, that however does not mean its true for two reasons. First, the fact that something is the best of various alternatives does not mean it is more probable than not, it could be that a theory has a 40% probability and each of its three major alternatives has a 20% on the evidence. Second, because of methodological naturalism, to say evolution is the best scientific theory is to say its the best naturalistic theory, that is if you bracket theological claims its the best. That does not mean however its the best theory if you take theological claims into account. Third, there is the whole realism anti-realism debate in philosophy of science, I myself do not know enough about this debate to really feel confident that realism is true and anti realism false, which means I am unsure that successful scientific theories are approximately true theories as opposed to simply theories that solve various problems in an empirically adequate manner.
Essentially, talk about “naturalism” etc. in science is hiding behind a dogmatic philosophy. And it does indicate a general unwillingness to accept scientific method and give preference to a “revelationary” form of knowledge. To be consistent, Matt should express the same doubts about the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc.
Sure some philosophers of science will use words like “naturalism” “supernatural”, “materialism” “methodological materialism” etc. Other philosophers don’t. (And don’t forget the word “philosophy” covers a multitude of sins). Some scientific institutions will use the terms. (They were used this way in the Dover trial.) I believe when they do so it is for opportunist political reasons.
The real problem here is that people use these words to mean different things. I notice that Matt has not defined his terms ‘naturalism”, “supernatural”, materialism” or “matter”.
I am currently critiquing Pigluicci’s recent book. He is a philosopher who uses these terms and without definition. (It is the main criticism I have of his book and his philosophy in general).
I will leave to Matt his definitions (how about enlightening us Matt), but when Pigluicci and others with scientific experience use these words they have the questions of connectedness to reality, interaction, etc. in mind. To them “supernatural” implies a claim or story which is no better than completely fictional because, by their definition, it bears no interconnectedness with reality. That is there is no evidence and no validating against reality.
Of course modern science is all about evidence and validation against reality. So some philosophers summarise this by talking about excluding the “supernatural.” It think the ID proponents – who also see these words in similar way to Matt – actually acknowledge this scientific perspective. Their political activity can be shown to consciously try to interpret science as not requiring evidence and validation. their motives in this are obvious.
My perspective? Don’t use these words – or if you do define them. Because once you do get into that habit the next thing you do is start ring fencing parts of reality away from rational investigation.
The problem is that if we say science excludes the “supernatural” many will interpret this as meaning science excludes the non-intuitive. Which we certainly don’t want.
Science doesn’t exclude anything from consideration. It is open to many things people consider “supernatural”: “spooky action at a distance,” entanglement, non-determinism, special and general relativity, goblins, ghosts, fairies, gods, quantum mechanics, elves, Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity and laws of motion (last two would have seemed ‘supernatural” at the time), etc., etc.
Science is open to these – but it considers evidence and tests ideas against reality. It is this we should remember – not words like “natural”, “supernatural” “materialism”:, etc.
There is no rule book of the scientific method – but if there were it would surely not include these words. It would read more like Neil deGrasse Tyson’s little description (I quote loosely):
“the scientific methods means doing everything possible to avoid being fooled by reality.”
So, Matt, I suggest you try revising your criticisms of science by referring to what you really mean and avoid using words like “supernatural”, “naturalism”, “materialism”, etc.
At the moment I can only interpret what you say as meaning your concept of truth avoids evidence and validation against reality. But show me where I am wrong.
David,
SINEs or no SINEs, I would have assumed you believe that all life shares a common original ancestor? or do you say life spontaneously generated many times starting many “trees of life”???
How many times? This factor multiplies the improbability of your theory. Do you think it still happens today? If not why not?
I would be interested in hearing about instances when applying the same evolutionary logic SINEs have shown ‘anomalies’… for example that birds and flowers have genetic indicators for common ancestry ie any instances that are far more stark and controversial than the hippo/whale story you are pedaling. I bet there are plenty of ‘Fails’ using your methodology but these inconvenient truths don’t get a mention…they are written off as ‘anomalies’ because they don’t fit neatly into the picture of evolution they are painting. Thats how you guys work. For all their talk of the scientific method you simply cant trust the fanatical evolutionist data gathering nor inferences.
They are poor scientists.
Hippos and Whales are cousins! Yeah Right!
Next your enlightened and open minded visionaries will be telling me they can prove Pigs sprouted wings and flew!
Matt,
I don’t really think you can disentangle a “prior commitment to (super-)naturalism” and our posterior assessment of it.
A teleological argument based on biology could be strong argument for a creator-god, so a satisfying naturalistic explanation of the apparent design in biology necessarily undermines such and argument.
Tim,
You really chose the wrong week to ask that question. Universal common ancestry of all life on earth is 10 to the power of 2 860 times more likely than any competing theory according to molecular data.
Hi David,
I agree that a naturalist explanation for apparent design would undercut an telelogical argument for Gods existence provided (a) the naturalistic explanation had similar or greater explanatory power (b) It was more economical and (c) it was not significantly less probable.
But I am not sure what the relevance of this is for a couple of reason, first according to Methodological Naturalism no such explanation is acceptable as a scientific theory regardless of its explantory merits. Michael Ruse gives a good example he states ”
Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law.
Ruse’s specific target here are creationists who typically contend that the world was created around 6-10 thousand years ago, in 6×24 hour days and that the fossil record is the result of a world-wide flood. But what he says applies to any theistic explanation, he says explicitly that even if such an explanation were totally sucessful in making its case, it still could be accepted as a scientific theory because it does not involve laws of nature. I could cite numerous other philosophers of science who have said the same thing, to be a good scientific explanation the explanation must not be theistic.
Second, the issue is not just what one allows to count as a good explanation of the phenomena, but also what one allows as background data which one uses to asses theories and also what types of phenomena need explaining. And theological premises could enter in at any of these points but according to Methodological naturalism are excluded.
If one accepts methodological naturalism Its possible to have a situation where (i) if certain theological claims are among the background data a given theory T1 is probable. (ii) if one excludes theological claims from the back ground data T2 is probable. If a person believes the theological claim is true, then he will have to accept that T1 is the most probable claim over all but (ii) T2 is the most probable scientific theory. This will mean that what one thinks is a true theory and what one thinks is the best scientific theory will be different.
Ah Matt, you have completely avoided the requirement of objective evidence and validation against reality. That’s how we determine the reliability of our knowledge of the world.
Isn’t appeal to the “supernatural” and selectively quoting Ruse useful?
And you avoid defining such terms as well.
Ah Matt, you have completely avoided the requirement of objective evidence and validation against reality. That’s how we determine the reliability of our knowledge of the world.
Err No, of course if you think theological claims do not describe reality and are subjective, then that claim would be true. But then that simply shows that some scientists have a prori assumptions of athiesm.
As to the Ruse quote, its not selective at all, this is the position he defends as is clear from the article. I could also give you other quotes from other people affirming the same thing.
Finally you ask for definitions, I’ll refer you to Quentin Smith’s “”The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism
N (a thesis). Naturalism, i.e., the thesis that there exist inanimate or animate bodies, with animate bodies being either intelligent organisms or non-intelligent organisms, but there exists nothing supernatural. The example of something supernatural of most interest to contemporary analytic philosophers is an unembodied mind that is the original and/or continuous creator of the universe and has the omniattributes described in perfect being theology.[4] Other examples of hypothesized supernatural realities that govern or create in some sense the universe are the governing mind posited by the Stoics or the “Absolute I” posited by the early Fichte.
Or Paul Draper
“the hypothesis that the physical universe is a ‘closed system’ in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God.”
And so on
Matt, I wish you would define things in you own own words.
However, is it possible to find objective evidence for your “supernatural.”?
And is it possible to check a “supernatural” (your understanding) idea by mapping it against reality?
The statement that SINEs (short interspersed nuclear elements) are both non-functional and inserted randomly are assertions that may not be true. Not understanding their function differs from them not having a function. Claims of non-functional DNA are frequently overturned as evidence comes in. And their insertion now looks to be non-random, they may have a predilection to certain areas of DNA.
Bethyada, you are going off at a tangent there (besides making some wild assertions without providing any substantiation)
What you have said does nothing to undermine the genetic evidence for the common ancestor of different species like hippos and whales.
David, that writer is guilty of the fallacy known as begging the question. If only evolutionary scenarios are permitted then the probability of common descent is the given value against the probability of non-common descent.
It doesn’t engage with the probability of intelligent causation at all.
Also, I find it funny that evolutionists will invoke probabilistic arguments to support their pet hypothesis, but reject probabilistic arguments that would pose a problem for that hypothesis such as those relating to formation of proteins or the combination of those proteins into RNA or DNA.
Yes, it is a slight tangent, but it wasn’t my tangent. The evidence that SINEs provide for common ancestry is predicated on them being non-functional and random. This would seem more consistent with evolutionary theory and less consistent with design.
Of course if they are either functional or non random, then they cease to be evidence for evolution over design. They may be non discriminatory.
Bethyada – isn’t it a bit desperate to try to discredit the whole field of molecular biology on the basis of a “design” wish just so you can ignore the huge evidence for common ancestors?
Similarly Jason – how the hell can you talk about “probability of intelligent causation”? You don’t even have a mechanism. You have absolutely no way of working out a probability.
As for rejection of the creationist probability arguments against evolution. Here again its a matter of mechanism. The specific mechanism being attributed to evolution by creationists is false. Obviously they chose it to produce low probabilities. They aren’t interested in the truth.
Matt – I am still waiting for the replies to my questions. I think they are key to clarifying your attitudes to evolutionary and other science.
Does your definition of “supernatural” allow for there to be evidence for the “supernatural”?
Does your definition allow for an idea incorporating the “supernatural” to be validated against reality?
These are serious question on an area I am trying to clarify.
Validation against reality shows that the single largest consistent force known to man is coincidence.
Energy becomes matter in a massive “explosion”
Explosion => coincidentally matter are made up of a periodic table of elements
Explosion => coincidentally elements can bond to others to form complex structures
Explosion => coincidentally elements can capture, store and transfer energy
Explosion => coincidentally elements arrange themselves in energy sources (stars)
Explosion => coincidentally elements arrange themselves into terrestrial bodies
Explosion => coincidentally terrestrial bodies fall into orbit around energy sources
Dead Planet => coincidentally elements started to arrange themselves into a series of complex structures
Dead Planet => coincidentally complex structures formed in the same location
Dead Planet => coincidentally complex structures that needed to be “inside” other complex structures got inside
Dead Planet => coincidentally this arrangement of elements that occurred by chance started to live and solved the following problems: obtaining energy from its surrounding, maintaining homeostasis, developing an iheritable code and encoding its own complexity in an inheritable code, (in a single generation)
etc.
Coincidentally (or is it not), all this coincidence is too much for me to accept as mere coincidence.
Perhaps I am too easily impressed?
cj_nza perhaps you can answer my questions (I didn’t really see the point of your comment).
When people like Matt talk of supernatural phenomena and ideas:
Do they think their “supernatural” phenomena can have any supporting evidence?
Do they think they can validate their supernatural ideas/theories against reality?
Serious questions. Frustrating that I can’t get simple answers.
Do I have to make my own assumptions about their definitions of this word?
isn’t it a bit desperate to try to discredit the whole field of molecular biology on the basis of a “design” wish just so you can ignore the huge evidence for common ancestors?
isn’t it a bit desperate to misconstrue my comments to defend your accusations? Where did I say I think molecular biology is illegitimate?
However, is it possible to find objective evidence for your “supernatural.”?
Yes,
And is it possible to check a “supernatural” (your understanding) idea by mapping it against reality?
Absolutely, if a person for example proposed a concept of God which was logically incoherent one could discredit it by showing it entailed a contradiction, seeing reality follows the laws of logic one could discredit the idea. Similarly if someone claimed that God created 2000 metre high rabbits in Auckland CBD at 10am yesturday one could check wether rabbits existed there at this time.
But this all misses the point I made Ken, if you test an idea against reality, you already need to have some knowledge of reality in order to have something to test it against. Obviously this can’t be tested against reality because its what one uses to test ideas in the first place. So the idea that every idea or belief a scientist has must be tested against reality is a falsehood.
But Ken perhaps you can answer me a question, if theological claims cannot be “tested” against reality. Then why do scientists claim that creationism contradicts the facts of reality? You can’t have it both ways.
Many thanks for the answers, Matt. I really do appreciate your response because it does give a clear way of mopping up differences. At least with those who hold similar interpretations. (I would actually like to find out just how widespread that understanding is amongst theologians and philosophers in general).
Let me say – I agree with you. For “supernatural” to have any possibility of reality these have to be the answers. Otherwise we are in the realm of people making claims of knowledge for which they have no reason or evidence and not allowing any checking. That is the way of madness. We are quite right to tell such people to “piss off” and stop wasting our time.
It also means that so-called “supernatural” claims and ideas are open to investigation by science, and are not excluded by science. My point all along. While you might find quotes from people like Ruse to say otherwise I think if you interrogate them they would have answered these questions differently.
So – there is no rule book of the scientific method, there is no a dogmatic teaching of the scientific method or demand for exclusion of any evidence.
In fact scientists would reject any algorithmic description.
Science does not exclude the “supernatural” (as you have defined it.) One of the best descriptions of the scientific method I have seen is “do whatever it takes to avoid being fooled by reality.” (Tyson). No mention of “supernatural”.
So “creationism” “god hypotheses” fairies, goblins, etc., are all open to scientific investigation. Are not rejected beforehand. There are in the realm of scientific investigation.
That of course doesn’t make them, in themselves, “scientific.” The evidence may not in fact be there, may be misinterpreted and the resulting hypotheses may not be validated. We are used to that – it happens all the time in science and is how we make progress.
Having got that out of the way (and it is an achievement in my eyes), your question about reality.
Reality is that which exists objectively, whether we are there or not. Even if we had never existed. We know a little bit about reality but are ignorant of most of it. Science is responsible for the reliable knowledge we do have.
So if a hypothesis (including ideas which you may define as “natural” or “supernatural”) has been derived from evidence we accumulate we still don’t treat it as knowledge. It is still an idea. We have to test it, validate it.
We do so by using the hypotheses to make predictions about reality. New predictions, estimates, phenomena that we haven’t found before.
Clearly we don’t “need to have some knowledge of reality in order to have something to test it against.” It would be childishly silly to use the same evidence the hypothesis is based on to test the hypothesis. I don’t think any scientist would really propose that and it certainly wouldn’t get past any proper review. Clearly.
That is the second time I have heard that suggestion this week – there must be something in the water up there!
Second question. You suggest “if theological claims cannot be “tested” against reality.” – Is that what you really believe because it conflicts with the answer to my questions?
My position is that theological, paranormal, “supernatural” claims can be test against reality. They are the province of scientific investigation. And they are tested. There are scientific institutes which specialise in such investigations.
The key question is how do they perform in that testing? if their predictions are found to accord with reality we can accept them (provisionally as with all scientific knowledge) as reliable. If not we reject them.
The other point about this – of course we need a structured hypothesis to do this. There is no other way we can use a hypothesis to make truly relevant predictions. You can’t make prediction from wishy washy claims like “god is love” now, can you?
In evolutionary science we do get such hypotheses. We can test them – sometimes by experiment, sometimes by collection of information, fossils, molecular biology etc. Some of these hypotheses are then rejected (they fail). Some are accepted – their predictions conform to reality.
Now do that with “creationism.” To the extent that any structured hypothesis has been presented it has failed. (Tell me any that haven’t). Most creationist ideas are not presented as hypotheses. They therefore can’t be tested. (It’s go back to the drawing board and when you have something to look at bring it back). Let’s face it, what passes for “creationism” is usually a correction of lies, distortions and misrepresentations of evolutionary science. Nothing positive describing a creationist hypotheses. (Tell me again if I am wrong – and give me evidence).
So, – there is room for a large amount of agreement there if your answers are genuine. I think you see reality (or appear to) in a different way to the scientific understanding and I wonder if we have different definitions? After all we are coming from different professional backgrounds.
And, I think, you have some misunderstandings or have been misinformed about some aspects of scientific knowledge and attitude..
But there would be real progress if you stopped putting about the story that science excludes “the supernatural”. That just doesn’t concur with your answers to my questions. And sure you can quote Ruse, etc., But check it out. I don’t think they would have given the same answers.
If I am wrong on that – please give me a reference so I can check for myself. I have found these people impossible to pin down.
Creationist hypothesis?
1. Sedimentary rocks are not formed by thin layers laid down annually thru the seasons, but simultaneously by particle sorting (based on particle size) in flowing water which solidify due to cementing which occurs subsequently.
2. Magnetism in planets is a decay phenomenon (decaying dynamo) with no regeneration of the field. Reversals are rapid over days, not many years.
3. Diamonds have carbon-14.
4. Non-coding DNA is functional.
5. Information content does not increase, information is always sourced from higher quantities of information.
Yes, I know Bethyada, you have a creationist hobby horse to promote. But your little lost, besides being a strange jumble and not hypotheses, is a diversion.
However, perhaps you can answer the same questions Matt did. Do you think we can derive the existence of “supernatural” things from evidence? Do you think that “supernatural” ideas and things can be validated by testing against reality?
If you answer yes to these, as Matt and I do, do you accept that it is wrong to claim science excludes the “supernatural”?
Ken, your comments are all over the place. You mention I divert when I respond to someone else’s diversion, one that I think is false. You imply I don’t agree with a major area of science just because I don’t buy into added philosophical baggage. And you mention that I am raising creationism when I am responding to your accusation that creationists don’t have scientific hypotheses.
I mentioned 5 things that creations think are likely but are not, or were not thought to be the case by evolutionists. How are they not hypotheses?
Do you think we can derive the existence of “supernatural” things from evidence?
Yes. But I don’t think that evidence is confined to scientific. And while I think the supernatural is consistent with the various form of evidence, including scientific, it is not like one can do an experiment on God.
Do you think that “supernatural” ideas and things can be validated by testing against reality?
Yes. Why else would one believe in God unless he has reason to and thinks God is real.
If you answer yes to these, as Matt and I do, do you accept that it is wrong to claim science excludes the “supernatural”?
I don’t think science excludes the existence of the supernatural, I think science is dependant on the supernatural and that science was invented by men of deep Christian faith.
But if one wishes to define science within Philosophical Naturalism then the supernatural is excluded by definition.
Ken is correct “diamonds contain Carbon 14” is not a hypothesis.
I think Ken is looking for something like “Life can be created”
You can then design an experiment that test this hypothesis say by building an apparatus that contains trace elements in a reducing atmosphere. You then plan on adding energy to your closed system to create life and prove your hypothesis.
In order to make sure you don’t change your premise to suit your observation you define further alternative hypothesis that is then used test your observations against and the outcome is to either confirm or reject your original hypothesis.
Say alternatives
H0 -> Adding energy to some dead stuff results in a living organism
H1 -> Adding energy to some dead stuff results in different dead stuff
You then run your experiment and fail to observe H0, since H0 is rejected you deal with H1 and conclude that life can not be created.
So out the windows goes the theory of creation since we know that life cannot be created.
So the onus is on the believers of creation to show how life can be created.
In the absence of such proof, we have to fall back on the more reasonable position that life came into existence through coincidence.
CJ:
Your Ho – as the null hypothesis should be reversed with your H1:
H0 -> Adding energy to some dead stuff results in different dead stuff
H1 -> Adding energy to some dead stuff results in a living organism
You then run your experiment and fail to observe H1, then all you can say is that you no not have enough evidence to reject the H0. Ie. You do not have evidence that life can be created, but you cannot say you can now conclude that this is impossible to create life from non-life.
bethyada – I think you are not answering these questions honestly.
Maybe there is therefore no point in pursuing this but perhaps you could clarify.
To me evidence is evidence. You seem to want to include “evidence” you define as “unscientific”.
What the hell do you mean by that?
Is it evidence from objective reality or is it just wishful thinking?
You say “I don’t think science excludes the existence of the supernatural”. Well I don’t either providing the “supernatural” is something for which there is evidence and the resulting hypotheses can be test by validation against reality.
Science must exclude wishful thinking. – of course. As I said if you want to include that then that is the way of madness and I am quite entitled to tell you to “piss off.”
So what about a clear definition of the difference between “natural” and “supernatural”? Does the later include wishful thinking?
Your comment “science was invented by men of deep Christian faith” is stupid. And highly insulting to Islam, the Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, etc.
The modern scientific revolution was possible because science at last broke away from domination by philosophy and religion.
To throw a spaniard in the works for cj_nza and Anonymous.
Hasn’t Craig Venter’s team just created synthetic life.
They took aq synthetic chromosome ( synthesised from scratch). and a cell which was dead having had its own DNA removed.
They then added the synthetic DNA and managed to boot up the cell. The synthetic DNA then took over, producing its own proteins and effectively changed the species of the host cell.
Yes, I know that the ID nutters will claim that this proves intelligence is necessary to create life. Which is rather desperate on their part.
But it does illustrate there is nothing magical about life.
@ Anonymous
thanks
“To throw a spaniard in the works for cj_nza and Anonymous.
Hasn’t Craig Venter’s team just created synthetic life.”
First, let me say “well done Craig Venter and team, some fantastic work.”
Ken; I am not sure about the point of your comment though.
Craig’s work is proof of:
• the fact that life is not “magic”??
• spontaneous self organisation of non living elements??
• something else I should have deduced from your post that warrant a ‘spaniard; in the works comment??
Some hints please, I can’t work it out on my own.
As I said – not magical!
Ken is correct “diamonds contain Carbon 14” is not a hypothesis.
2 assertions do not make a proof. This is perhaps the simplest of my 5 examples.
Naturally occurring uncontaminated diamonds contain measurable amounts of carbon-14 is a claim that can be tested.
Now you may wish to flesh it out within a larger theory such as
If diamonds are millions of years old, and at formation contained some carbon-14, and the decay rate for carbon-14 is unchanged from current estimates, then there will be no carbon-14 left
versus
If diamonds are thousands of years old, and at formation… then there will be measurable carbon-14.
Then crush diamonds, burn and run the CO2 thru a mass spectrometer. If there is carbon-14 it will show up, if there isn’t it won’t.
“To throw a spaniard in the works for cj_nza and Anonymous.”
It does not throw anything in my works… I was merely showing a better way to formulate the situation, and what a result of each kind would tell us. But having said that, I am not sure what it would even mean to “create life” now… life permeates the whole surface of the planet. Anything we do is surely a manipulation of life, not a creation of it?
Ken I think you are not answering these questions honestly.
Maybe there is therefore no point in pursuing this but perhaps you could clarify.
To me evidence is evidence. You seem to want to include “evidence” you define as “unscientific”.
What the hell do you mean by that?
That is now the 4th incorrect accusation you have made about me on this thread. Your comment implies you do not understand what I am saying. Is it your usual method of dealing with people who you do not comprehend? To assume they are being dishonest and tell them so? I prefer to understand people first.
Is it evidence from objective reality or is it just wishful thinking?
I do not appeal to unscientific evidence, rather non-scientific evidence. Evidence can be mathematical (which is a form of logical evidence). Evidence can be documentary. And there are other examples.
You say “I don’t think science excludes the existence of the supernatural”. Well I don’t either providing the “supernatural” is something for which there is evidence and the resulting hypotheses can be test by validation against reality.
While I think there are several evidences for God. I think that there is scientific evidence that is consistent with the existence of God
Science must exclude wishful thinking. – of course. As I said if you want to include that then that is the way of madness and I am quite entitled to tell you to “piss off.”
I never mentioned wishful thinking. Another false accusation?
So what about a clear definition of the difference between “natural” and “supernatural”? Does the later include wishful thinking?
Consciousness that does not reside within the material would be a reasonable start.
Your comment “science was invented by men of deep Christian faith” is stupid. And highly insulting to Islam, the Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, etc.
If I state the truth factually and without animosity and others are offended the problem is theirs.
The modern scientific revolution was possible because science at last broke away from domination by philosophy and religion.
You may need to brush up on your history here.
Why go on about diamonds? What the hell relevance do they have?
Their age will depend on their mode of formation, geological mechanisms etc. It’s likely that really old diamonds would be dated using methods other than carbon isotopes (although being mainly C would mean the method could probably be pushed a bit beyond 50,000 yrs which is the normal limit.
C isotopes and other methods could be used with younger ones.
But what the hell relevance is this? Maybe gives some idea of time and mode of formation – which is going to vary widely from sample to sample.
It is silly to see this as a creationist hypothesis. It just isn’t. Has nothing to do with it.
But that’s not going to stop you weaving a story, is it? Christians invented science!! Bloody hell.
If bethyada is using the diamond measurement to determine the age of the earth, why bother? This has already been done with minerals like zircon.
Or is he going to reject that evidence because the results don’t fit on with his wishful thinking, his non-scientific evidence?
Ken, you claim creationists do not have testable hypotheses.
Most creationist ideas are not presented as hypotheses. They therefore can’t be tested.
I listed 5 off the top of my head, not to have a detailed discussion about each one, but to show you that creationists do in fact have testable hypotheses.
I used examples that creationists have used and that evolutionists disagree with them over currently (bar one). This shows they are predicting before the fact, and that these examples can be tested.
Those are claims – not hypotheses. You didn’t present any structured hypothesis describing creationism.
Those claims themselves are of course testable and, I think, have been shown false in most cases.
The diamond claim was really only a proxy for “proving” the earth is only a few thousand years old. That claim has been well refuted from many converging sources if evidence.
It’s safe to say that any creationist hypothesis including these claI’ms as a component has been well tested and found to be false.
You have accepted, in words anyway, the essential role of evidence and validation.
Time to move on!
Funnily enough the RATE group devoted rather a lot of experimentation to showing that whilst billions of years of decay had turned uranium into lead in zircons, the helium that that decay produced was still in the zircons.
Using experimentation to determine the rate at which the zircons would lose that helium they determined that only a few thousand years worth had actually been lost despite helium’s “slipperiness”.
Critics of their studies have been answered on a couple of occasions.
Jason – I am aware of this creationist claim and think it is rather desperate.
What we need to realise in historical science like this is there is usually an “asymmetry of overestimation.” In effect there are usually many streams of converging evidence.
I think you have to be out of your tree to still believe in a young earth creation only a few thousand years ago. There is just so much evidence invalidating that hypothesis.
Of course both the theories of Universal origin and SINEs are simply that…mere theory/pure conjecture. They certainly aren’t scientific facts!
That evolutionists struggle to make this distinction is telling indeed.
Time will tell that they are both absurdities.
This SINEs issue is a good one as it gives us a concrete example of how the non-expert must deal with the wild claims of so-called anti-religious experts that run counter to what you believe.
In deed it shows how there can be no desertion of the field. That every claim must be faced and challenged. It also shows how the Christians dissenting world views is an aid to real science in that it seeks to test the wild claims and assumptions made by evolutionary biology. This can only lead to better biology yet Christianity is not a humanist philosophy.
Christianity is Theistic. This means we preach Special Revelation as above human reason, not the other way around. Our world veiw underpins science and We applaud reason yet Christians know human wisdom has serious short commings and therefore submit to the ultimate authority of the scriptures.
We are not Deists who rely on reason only, and it is false doctrine to profess Christianity yet practice only Deism. I admit we are free from the Law, yet we can never be free of our dependence on the scriptures as essential for our communion with God and knowlegde about reality. Christ came to fulfill the scriptures. We receive the gospel that Christ Died for our sins…according to the scriptures.
Christianity has No links to human philosophy.
Christianity is linked to Judaic theism.
It is also essential for the faithful to be patient, and to hold fast to ‘the faith’ during times when strange theories are put forward that contradict Christian theism. This is the man who builds his house upon the Rock…Gods infallible words. My life’s testimony is that no matter what challenge is held against the scriptures I say…’Let God be true, and every man a Liar’.
“Where is the wisdom of this world?”…”Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.
Piltdown man was accepted as scientific fact by fools, yet not one Bible believer ought to have been deceived. Bye and Bye the deception was found out and yet another Atheist attack against the scriptures falls by the wayside…The truth stands with the man of faith and integrity to Christian Ideals. Likewise I say regarding SINEs.
Bethyada made some very good points challenging the assumptions behind SINEs as being indicators of common ancestry which the Patient Man whom has built his house upon the rock may have confidence that this doctrine will be overturned in due course. My point regarding Universal origin and SINEs was that obviously those whose believe in a Universal origin, must be able to make that assumption without the support of the sines evidence…because by admission that evidence is very rare.
It is probable that The SINEs argument refutes itself in the following way…
If as David’s theory says that all life has a Universal origin, and also that SINEs are indications of common ancestry, then you would expect such SINEs (or some other genetic proof) to be very common not rare as is said to be the case. Rare SINEs therefore are evidence that the species more probably Don’t share common ancestry.
The Universal origin theory hangs upon some very big whims, esp the notion that Life spontaneously generated one time only and that this extremely rare event was successful in self replication and in evolving into every living thing we know.
That is a ridiculously impossible probability!
Yet all this aside, by keeping myself informed of developments, it will be but a matter of a few years. Peer review will probably deal with and I will have my evidence that this SINEs theory stuff is consigned to the waste basket. I am confident of it because I have built my house upon the rock that has held me fast through 100 such storms already!
The Word of God stands sure, and when the storms hit and the wave’s pound, My house is still left standing!
Today Satan’s Priests wear white overcoats. The Christian is called to do battle for the truth. Thus It behooves the Christian not only to be competent in science proper, but also to boldly exercise their faith in times of intellectual obstacle, not spinelessly conceding ground to infidelity, Diluting your Christianity, favoring human wisdom instead of trusting the Bible. That’s a fail! And time will show you sold out to a lie!
Tim: I find your definitive “I know the truth” statements to be very arrogant, and lacking in any appreciation of the diversity within Christianity. You would be better to say “I place special revelation etc…” or “my brand of Christianity thinks ….etc.”
Your post is full of extreme claims bout what ALL Christians think, and it demonstrates a lack of humility, and a lack of any knowledge about other strands of Christian thought. What worries me is that people will read your post and think that all Christians hold such simplistic and extreme views. They don’t!
Ken,
I’m not surprised you don’t like hearing the IDers claim that Venter’s achievement conclusively proves their case.
If he actually managed to string the DNA chain….an awesome feat…It shows conclusively how intelligence and power to manipulate matter are essential to make earthlings whether you like it or not.
I’m not surprised you don’t like it when it is so clearly demonstrated how preposterous it is to imagine that this same chain could by any collection of non-purpose directed natural forces come into being.
Id hazard a guess that there were more components in the DNA chains than parts in a Porsche! I bet the degree of complexity of the DNA far surpasses the mechanics of a car.
To believe that what Venter with all his Art and Genius created could by any naturally means just simply ‘occur’ is equivalent to believing jumbled piles of car parts could assemble themselves with only the aid of the wind and rain…and Grandfather Time.
That is the kind of magic fantasy land atheist evolutionists believe this world to be.
Venter did not create life.
He used a living cell in the process, thus he made a very important component of a cell, not a cell. This is still miraculous and mud in the eye to atheist materialism.
Venter is not a God, but a little image of one.
[…] RELATED POSTS: Fairies Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups and Spaghetti Monsters Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness […]
what a boring load of drivle. once again an example of religous people quoting material without substance. these so called theologans are not reputable, they are instead fantasits who have chosen to base their world view on a shakey old book….. the intellectual equivalent of using a modern supercomputer but with an operating system writen by a delluded, simple minded mormon, sorry moron
Hi Alex, thanks for showing once again the deep level of intellectual rigor so many of Dawkin’s supporters engage in when they come across a critique of his work.
Your open mindness, attention to argument, and careful analysis is evident to all
Evolution is just an anomalous blemish on the face of entropy. The big picture is entropic doom.
[…] Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s […]
[…] Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s […]
Нmm it appеars liκe уοur sіte ate my first comment (it was super long)
so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say, I’m thοroughly
enjoуing yοur blog. I aѕ well аm аn aspirіng blog ωгitеr but I’m still new to everything. Do you have any points for rookie blog writers? I’ԁ genuinelу apprеciаte іt.