 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
 |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 5:39 pm |
|
Keep in mind that I really don't know what the probabilities are. I have a sense that one is higher than the other. For example, how can I unbiasedly suggest that the accuracies of my interpretations of the Scripture are 95% on issue X? Our judgments are largely based on intuition. Nevertheless, seeing that I'm a (self-proclaimed) expert in probabilities, I like to use the structures of probabilistic analysis in my intuitive thinking.
Soon, I won't have to say self-proclaimed, because I will have an actual professional designation (Associate of the Society of Actuaries), and I can put the letters ASA behind my name. In a couple years (hopefully) I can put the letters FSA (fellow of the society of actuaries) behind my name. Then I can legitimately call myself an actuary, and a grandmaster of probabilties. Okay, I'll stop my elitist rant now. 
I usually tell my wife that when we disagree, she is right 70% of the time.  |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 6:05 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | Now I do understand that your presuppositions don't include inerrancy. |
Correct. I don't rule out inerrancy, but I don't presuppose it.
| Quote: | | All this means, is that you are a little more open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong in some of its claims than I am, and you would accept strong archaeological evidence over weak Biblical evidence. I would also expect you to reject weak archaeological evidence in favor of strong Biblical evidence. |
Correct on both counts.
As an example of "weak biblical evidence", I could give Matthew 27:28's description of Jesus' robe as scarlet. That's weak because it's a fairly inconsequential detail, there's lots of colours close to scarlet that could be lumped in with scarlet, the Greek word may have more of a range than the English one, the eyewitness may have been colourblind, etc. If, by some stroke of luck, a purple robe was discovered that most definitely was the one worn by Jesus before his crucifixion, I would take this strong archaeological evidence (assuming there was proof the pigment hadn't shifted with age) over the weak biblical evidence. Of course, I selected this example because inerrantists also take this example as weak biblical evidence, since Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 both have the colour of this robe as purple (although there are a few that claim there were two different robes).
| Quote: | | As for your last question, if the Scriptures are indeed inerrant, archaeology done correctly would not contradict the Scriptures. It is still valuable to see and realize that archaeology does confirm the historical claims in the bible, and doesn't contradict it. |
Although I generally agree, I would clarify that the support of archaeology is only valid if we're willing to look at the findings that go against our view as well. If we only find support in minority opinions, then that is very weak support. Fortunately, in the field of archaeology, there is biblical support that is evident to most everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. The same is not true when it comes to support for a young earth or ex nihilo creation of kinds of animals.
| Quote: | | Just so you know, many archaeologists have not yet conceded on the issue. Some still think the evidence is clearly in favor of it being authentic. |
Are there non-religious archaeologists still claiming this? I am not implying that they are more trustworthy than Christian archaeologists, but in this case, there is a clear conflict of interest. While the perpetrators of the forgeries have not yet been found guilty in court, the verdict on many of their artifacts has already been delivered by the archaeological community.
In the case of the ivory pomegranate with the inscription tying it to Solomon's temple, it is the Israel Museum in Jerusalem that has come out and said it is a forgery (source). This is their most valuable artifact. I just don't see them taking this step unless they are absolutely convinced about it, after thinking through every reasonable alternative. This is like the Louvre claiming the Mona Lisa is a forgery.
| Quote: | | The ossuary is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does its inauthenticity falsify any Scriptural claims. |
Yes, exactly. So there should be no reason to hold onto it as evidence if it is generally accepted by the experts to be a fake.
| Quote: | | But, it could be that some archaeological claim could be so convincing, and the Scriptural interpretation also very clear (but contradictory to the archaeological claim), that the archaeological claim could bring serious doubt in terms of the inerrancy of Scripture. This is one reason why it is beneficial to study archaeology: to see whether or not the credibility of the Bible is indeed as high as we presuppose. |
Okay, but if this is your purpose, it is necessary to look at both positive and negative claims by archaeology, and to be equally skeptical about both. Maybe you are, so this is not a criticism but just a comment. Just because we have outside reasons for thinking a finding is true or not shouldn't change our scrutiny of the finding, although it may change how we weigh the evidence in the end.
| Quote: | | Also, the information is not just for ourselves. Someone may doubt the existence of God because the Bible seems unreliable, so it may be good for us to give a reason in defense, and to give others hope in Christ Jesus. |
Yes, but if our reasons consist of providing an alternate view of science that has virtually no support in the mainstream, why would anyone who doubts the existence of God find that compelling? It's more likely to be taken as proof that we're out of touch with reality. Many who come to faith in God later come to believe in YEC or ID. But, I've never heard of a scientist who becomes convinced of YEC/ID science and then comes to faith in God. Antony Flew is about the closest I can think of, but he's a philosopher, not a scientist, and even many Christians find his reasons for change to be bewildering. At 81, many are wondering if being confronted with his own mortality is perhaps more responsible.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I'm not sure where you stand on the biblical side of things. Do you think the Bible rules out an old age for the universe and the earth? |
It may or may not. I'm not sure. |
That may be a better starting point. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then common descent as described by science did not have enough time to occur. (It is true that some creationists believe in a more rapid form of "devolution" after the flood, but the observed mechanisms -- including mutation, sexual selection, recombination, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection -- do not work fast enough to support this.) I think you should try to answer the question of age more conclusively before evaluating natural selection or common descent. Otherwise, you're seeking an answer to a question that will cause a lot of other dominos to fall down too. Sometimes it's easier (and less scary) to knock them down one by one.
| Quote: | | I usually tell my wife that when we disagree, she is right 70% of the time. |
Hmm, then I need to find a way to get your wife on my side.  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 9:52 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | Now I do understand that your presuppositions don't include inerrancy. |
Correct. I don't rule out inerrancy, but I don't presuppose it.
| Quote: | | All this means, is that you are a little more open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong in some of its claims than I am, and you would accept strong archaeological evidence over weak Biblical evidence. I would also expect you to reject weak archaeological evidence in favor of strong Biblical evidence. |
Correct on both counts.
As an example of "weak biblical evidence", I could give Matthew 27:28's description of Jesus' robe as scarlet. That's weak because it's a fairly inconsequential detail, there's lots of colours close to scarlet that could be lumped in with scarlet, the Greek word may have more of a range than the English one, the eyewitness may have been colourblind, etc. If, by some stroke of luck, a purple robe was discovered that most definitely was the one worn by Jesus before his crucifixion, I would take this strong archaeological evidence (assuming there was proof the pigment hadn't shifted with age) over the weak biblical evidence. Of course, I selected this example because inerrantists also take this example as weak biblical evidence, since Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 both have the colour of this robe as purple (although there are a few that claim there were two different robes).
| Quote: | | As for your last question, if the Scriptures are indeed inerrant, archaeology done correctly would not contradict the Scriptures. It is still valuable to see and realize that archaeology does confirm the historical claims in the bible, and doesn't contradict it. |
Although I generally agree, I would clarify that the support of archaeology is only valid if we're willing to look at the findings that go against our view as well. If we only find support in minority opinions, then that is very weak support. Fortunately, in the field of archaeology, there is biblical support that is evident to most everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. The same is not true when it comes to support for a young earth or ex nihilo creation of kinds of animals. |
One would think that any scientist who accepts a young earth or ex nihilo creation would not remain an atheist. That's part of the problem in the anlaysis, particularly when creationists tend to be Christians, and non-creationists tend to be atheists. When views of science and theology are intertwined, you tend to see this sort of separation. So, appealing to the views of "unbiased" non-Christians, isn't all that unbiased. Thus, I elect not to follow the majority, because I believe bias could very well be an issue for many researchers.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Just so you know, many archaeologists have not yet conceded on the issue. Some still think the evidence is clearly in favor of it being authentic. |
Are there non-religious archaeologists still claiming this? I am not implying that they are more trustworthy than Christian archaeologists, but in this case, there is a clear conflict of interest. While the perpetrators of the forgeries have not yet been found guilty in court, the verdict on many of their artifacts has already been delivered by the archaeological community. |
I think there are. Nevertheless, I would expect sociological forces to take effect and any non-Christian would be biased towards disbelieving the ossuary's authenticity. I would expect Christians to remain hopeful, until a conclusive examination was carried through.
| Quote: | | In the case of the ivory pomegranate with the inscription tying it to Solomon's temple, it is the Israel Museum in Jerusalem that has come out and said it is a forgery (source). This is their most valuable artifact. I just don't see them taking this step unless they are absolutely convinced about it, after thinking through every reasonable alternative. This is like the Louvre claiming the Mona Lisa is a forgery. |
That seems to add to their credibility. Do you think there are lurking variables considering that they do have an incentive in discrediting the person behind this particular inscription?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The ossuary is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does its inauthenticity falsify any Scriptural claims. |
Yes, exactly. So there should be no reason to hold onto it as evidence if it is generally accepted by the experts to be a fake. |
I'll await the results before judging. I have my doubts about the Israeli society that is behind the charges. They also could be right.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | But, it could be that some archaeological claim could be so convincing, and the Scriptural interpretation also very clear (but contradictory to the archaeological claim), that the archaeological claim could bring serious doubt in terms of the inerrancy of Scripture. This is one reason why it is beneficial to study archaeology: to see whether or not the credibility of the Bible is indeed as high as we presuppose. |
Okay, but if this is your purpose, it is necessary to look at both positive and negative claims by archaeology, and to be equally skeptical about both. |
I agree. I tend to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in most cases (as a result of its established credibility), but my belief system isn't bullet-proof. | Quote: | | Maybe you are, so this is not a criticism but just a comment. Just because we have outside reasons for thinking a finding is true or not shouldn't change our scrutiny of the finding, although it may change how we weigh the evidence in the end. |
That's something I've been learning over time.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Also, the information is not just for ourselves. Someone may doubt the existence of God because the Bible seems unreliable, so it may be good for us to give a reason in defense, and to give others hope in Christ Jesus. |
Yes, but if our reasons consist of providing an alternate view of science that has virtually no support in the mainstream, why would anyone who doubts the existence of God find that compelling? It's more likely to be taken as proof that we're out of touch with reality. Many who come to faith in God later come to believe in YEC or ID. But, I've never heard of a scientist who becomes convinced of YEC/ID science and then comes to faith in God. |
It is usually a combination of things. For myself, it was partially arguments for intelligent design (through William Lane Craig, and Kurt Durston), that converted me from a lapsed church attender, to a faithful follower of Christ. There were other factors involved as well, including the love of other Christians in the club, and some neat philosphical arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.
| Quote: | | Antony Flew is about the closest I can think of, but he's a philosopher, not a scientist, and even many Christians find his reasons for change to be bewildering. At 81, many are wondering if being confronted with his own mortality is perhaps more responsible. |
If he was concerned with his own mortality, he probably wouldn't have called the God of Christians and Muslims a cosmic Saddam Hussein.
| Quote: | | That may be a better starting point. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then common descent as described by science did not have enough time to occur. (It is true that some creationists believe in a more rapid form of "devolution" after the flood, but the observed mechanisms -- including mutation, sexual selection, recombination, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection -- do not work fast enough to support this.) |
They don't? Given ex nihilo origins, you wouldn't think much change is necessary. | Quote: | | I think you should try to answer the question of age more conclusively before evaluating natural selection or common descent. |
I could try, but I haven't been able to rule out 6000 years. | Quote: | | Otherwise, you're seeking an answer to a question that will cause a lot of other dominos to fall down too. |
That much is true. | Quote: | | Sometimes it's easier (and less scary) to knock them down one by one. |
You're presupposing I'm scared. There is no pressure on me to believe in a young earth or take a stand against evolution. I know of no family members or friends here in Regina who have encouraged me to take such a stand (well, except one couple I could tell you in person). Most of them are neo-Darwinian evolutionists.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I usually tell my wife that when we disagree, she is right 70% of the time. |
Hmm, then I need to find a way to get your wife on my side. |
She tends to believe the issue doesn't matter that much. YEC seems to be her default position. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 10:55 pm |
|
| Quote: | | One would think that any scientist who accepts a young earth or ex nihilo creation would not remain an atheist. |
One might also think that, in the days when the steady-state view of the universe was the norm, that any scientist who accepted the big bang theory with its idea of a finite universe with a beginning would also not remain an atheist. But, atheists found ways to accommodate the new view the same as everyone else. When a finding is near-inescapable, scientists of all stripes tend to do that.
| Quote: | | That's part of the problem in the anlaysis, particularly when creationists tend to be Christians, and non-creationists tend to be atheists. |
What do you mean by creationists? If you mean believing God created, in which case I am a creationist, then your statement is correct. But, by the context it seems that you mean creationist as opposed to evolutionist, and if so the second half of your statement is incorrect. Well over half of scientists who accept evolution are not atheists. Of the 1-2% who don't accept evolution, it is true that most are religious. However, there's still far more Christian scientists who accept evolution than ones who reject it.
| Quote: | | When views of science and theology are intertwined, you tend to see this sort of separation. |
No, only at the fringes of science. When something really has a lot of evidence to support it, then the majority of scientists seem to get onside, regardless of how it meshes with their personal beliefs. But, their personal beliefs do influence how they interpret the finding. For instance, both Arthur Peacocke's and Richard Dawkins' views on evolution are highly coloured by their Christianity and atheism, respectively.
| Quote: | | Do you think there are lurking variables considering that they do have an incentive in discrediting the person behind this particular inscription? |
No. I don't think they would forge dating results in order to be vindictive. They dated the artifact itself to the Bronze age, 1,400 BC, which is much older than it should be if it was part of Solomon's temple built in 800 BC. Also, "the pomegranate was re-examined with a new type of microscope that detected synthetic material in the inscription, between the ivory and the patina" (source).
| Quote: | | For myself, it was partially arguments for intelligent design (through William Lane Craig, and Kurt Durston), that converted me from a lapsed church attender, to a faithful follower of Christ. |
I wasn't aware that ID was influential in your spiritual walk. I'll try to keep that in mind as we discuss this.
| Quote: | | I could try, but I haven't been able to rule out 6000 years. |
What do you think is the best evidence, both biblical and scientific, for that age? I'm guessing the genealogies will be part of this, but I'd like to know what else.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sometimes it's easier (and less scary) to knock them down one by one. |
You're presupposing I'm scared. |
No, that parenthetical remark was based on my own experience.
| Quote: | | She tends to believe the issue doesn't matter that much. |
I somewhat agree that it doesn't matter much. But, the issue can do much harm, and since it severely tested my own faith while I struggled with it, I've become fairly vocal about it. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 21, 2005; 9:25 am |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Quote: | | One would think that any scientist who accepts a young earth or ex nihilo creation would not remain an atheist. |
One might also think that, in the days when the steady-state view of the universe was the norm, that any scientist who accepted the big bang theory with its idea of a finite universe with a beginning would also not remain an atheist. But, atheists found ways to accommodate the new view the same as everyone else. When a finding is near-inescapable, scientists of all stripes tend to do that. |
Let's say that scientific evidence points towards ex nihilo creation. Imagine how an atheist would side-step the implications of a Creator. Also, considering some of the absurd means that atheists have side-stepped big bang implications of a Creator, what credibility do they have in our minds? From many of the atheists I have chatted with, science is incapable of detecting the existence of God. Science presupposes natural causation. Given this presupposition, isn't it rational that they would develop evolutionary theory? It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is, the fact is that evolutionary theory is necessary to uphold naturalistic principles in biology. It's lurking variables such as this that make me skeptical of the claims that evolutionists make.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | That's part of the problem in the anlaysis, particularly when creationists tend to be Christians, and non-creationists tend to be atheists. |
What do you mean by creationists? |
Generally I mean those who believe that God created the universe. | Quote: | | If you mean believing God created, in which case I am a creationist, then your statement is correct. But, by the context it seems that you mean creationist as opposed to evolutionist, and if so the second half of your statement is incorrect. Well over half of scientists who accept evolution are not atheists. Of the 1-2% who don't accept evolution, it is true that most are religious. However, there's still far more Christian scientists who accept evolution than ones who reject it. |
This brings back the issue of politics in the scientific community. Given the radical means that some evolutionists take to silence YECers, PCers, and IDers, why do we find it surprising that the majority of biological scientists are evolutionists? What values is throwing around a number like 1-2%? It's like asking why there aren't more Christian government officials in China.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | When views of science and theology are intertwined, you tend to see this sort of separation. |
No, only at the fringes of science. When something really has a lot of evidence to support it, |
This seems to presuppose your conclusion | Quote: | then the majority of scientists seem to get onside, regardless of how it meshes with their personal beliefs.
| Quote: | | Do you think there are lurking variables considering that they do have an incentive in discrediting the person behind this particular inscription? |
No. I don't think they would forge dating results in order to be vindictive. They dated the artifact itself to the Bronze age, 1,400 BC, which is much older than it should be if it was part of Solomon's temple built in 800 BC. Also, "the pomegranate was re-examined with a new type of microscope that detected synthetic material in the inscription, between the ivory and the patina" (source) |
I guess we will have to wait and see.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I could try, but I haven't been able to rule out 6000 years. |
What do you think is the best evidence, both biblical and scientific, for that age? I'm guessing the genealogies will be part of this, but I'd like to know what else. |
It's not really my current ambition to defend young earth. However, take the starlight issue as an example. You may be aware that YECers have largely adopted a model by Russell Humphreys, that suggests that due to the general theory of relativity, white holes, event horizons,and given a closed universe, it's possible that a few thousand years on earth could equate to several billion years towards the edge of the universe. Now, I really won't say this is evidence for YEC myself, because I don't know if the theory is consistent with all of the data available. But, look at it from God's perspective. He decided to create the world and the universe in 6 days, and he wanted to make stars that are billions of light years away appear on Earth on day 4 (or whatever day it was). So, theoretically Adam and Eve would have seen the light by day 6. Now, we would both agree that God is highly resourceful. Could he not find a way for starlight to travel thousands of light years in an earth day (stars in other galaxies would not have been visible to A&E)? Given a well-designed event horizon, it is possible, even with our current understanding of physics. From a naturalistic perspective, such a concept is absurd. It isn't so absurd from a designed perspective. Stuff like this keeps the door open in my mind. I can't prove conclusively that it did happen this way, but I also cannot eliminate the possibility.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sometimes it's easier (and less scary) to knock them down one by one. |
You're presupposing I'm scared. |
No, that parenthetical remark was based on my own experience.[/quote]Okay. I probably would have to rethink a number of things if I were to accept evolution.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | She tends to believe the issue doesn't matter that much. |
I somewhat agree that it doesn't matter much. But, the issue can do much harm, and since it severely tested my own faith while I struggled with it, I've become fairly vocal about it. |
Honestly, I try not to let the issue be a stumbling block for others. I'm learning over time, what is effective and what isn't. I normally don't defend a young earth cosmology (in recent past at least) to those who are questioning. If asked or confronted, I will usually say I don't know how old the earth/universe are. Intelligent Design isn't an issue I have shied away from, however. Perhaps, I will be more discerning. Part of the reason why I'm asking you questions about the evidence of the existence of God from your perspective, is so that I can witness to people who start off with presuppositions that are dissimilar to mine, but similar to yours. I think we share some philosphical arguments for the existence of God (perhaps the Kalaam(sp?) cosmological argument might be an example).
Question for you. In Romans 1, Paul talks about the characteristics of God being evident in creation. What do you see in creation that reveals the nature of God? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 21, 2005; 5:40 pm |
|
| Quote: | | From many of the atheists I have chatted with, science is incapable of detecting the existence of God. |
I would agree with them. Science studies how the natural world naturally works. We can't put God into a test tube. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, science is not the only means we have of discovering truth.
| Quote: | | Science presupposes natural causation. Given this presupposition, isn't it rational that they would develop evolutionary theory? |
Speculation is fine when there's no way of knowing the truth of the matter (such as in speculating how a transition happened). In this case, the matter is one of historical record. Evolutionary theory was developed primarily by theists and deists, not atheists. Darwin believed in a Creator. Some atheists were instrumental in popularizing the theory, though, as were some Christians.
| Quote: | | You may be aware that YECers have largely adopted a model by Russell Humphreys |
Have you looked at what outside groups have said about his work? Don't just assume that they're all biased and the YEC groups aren't (and actually, even some YEC groups have distanced themselves from Humphreys). Read why most of the ID guys don't support Humphreys. Look at what all sides are saying and see who's making the most sense. Compare the claims and supposed problems side-by-side. Don't just examine the big picture but check the details. With stuff like this, that's the only way to get to the truth. It's impossible to do this for all theories that are out there, but if this one is what keeps you on the fence, then search it out.
| Quote: | | Question for you. In Romans 1, Paul talks about the characteristics of God being evident in creation. What do you see in creation that reveals the nature of God? |
I think creation points to a Creator -- a divine being with eternal power -- but I'd stop short of saying the attributes of creation are also the attributes of God. I do think the universe looks designed, but unfortunately that term has taken on connotations that I don't agree with due to the ID movement. I'm not sure where exactly God's initial design ends and the natural outgrowth of that design starts, or if it's even meaningful to ask such a question. Was the first living cell designed, or did God design the processes of our universe in such a way that they would bring forth life? Either way, God started with nothing and made everything we see. If some of the things made by God had the inherent ability to make other things, this just makes the overall design more impressive.
By analogy, just because we can clone sheep doesn't mean that we create life; we're using processes we've come to understand that were made and are sustained by God. If we ever manage to make a living cell in a test tube, we'll still be using the material and processes that God has provided.
That reminds me of an old joke:
| Quote: | A group of scientists, including a physicist, biologist, biochemist, etc., approached God and said, "Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can extract stem cells, clone people, transplant hearts, build very large sources of energy, manufacture talking robots with eyes, build sensors of all types, and make biological changes that were once considered miraculous."
God patiently heard them out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not I am needed, why don't we have a little man-making contest!"
"Okay," the scientists said.
"Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said.
"That's fine," replied the scientists and they bent down to scoop up some dirt.
"Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast! You get your own dirt!" |
|
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 22, 2005; 3:15 am |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Quote: | | From many of the atheists I have chatted with, science is incapable of detecting the existence of God. |
I would agree with them. Science studies how the natural world naturally works. We can't put God into a test tube. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, science is not the only means we have of discovering truth.
|
I'd have to disagree to some extent. Science often intertwines with philosphy, and the combination of the two are capable of making positive arguments for the existence of God.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Science presupposes natural causation. Given this presupposition, isn't it rational that they would develop evolutionary theory? |
Speculation is fine when there's no way of knowing the truth of the matter (such as in speculating how a transition happened). In this case, the matter is one of historical record. Evolutionary theory was developed primarily by theists and deists, not atheists. Darwin believed in a Creator. Some atheists were instrumental in popularizing the theory, though, as were some Christians. |
I think that avoided the question to some degree. For a person who only considers natural causes, is not evolutionary theory a necessity? Whether or not theists believe in evolution is, in my mind, not relevant to the question.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You may be aware that YECers have largely adopted a model by Russell Humphreys |
Have you looked at what outside groups have said about his work? Don't just assume that they're all biased and the YEC groups aren't (and actually, even some YEC groups have distanced themselves from Humphreys). Read why most of the ID guys don't support Humphreys. Look at what all sides are saying and see who's making the most sense. Compare the claims and supposed problems side-by-side. Don't just examine the big picture but check the details. With stuff like this, that's the only way to get to the truth. It's impossible to do this for all theories that are out there, but if this one is what keeps you on the fence, then search it out. |
You missed my point. I wasn't saying that Humphreys is right. I have no opinion on the matter, and don't have a sufficient background in physics to understand all the variables contained within his model. I was hoping you would see how the existence of God can radically change the number of possibilities. If we only grant naturalistic presuppositions, the number of possibilities are quite limited, in fact null in my opinion.
Marshall, please consider that I'm perceiving that you think you must win this debate. I say this partly because, you don't see the legitimacy of many of my points, and you haven't appeared to give some of my points a lot of thought. I perceive that it is very important to you that I adopt your view of evolution, and you seem to be trying very hard. I honestly don't care about winning the debate. I'm a little more skeptical than you might like me to be. I'm interested in this discussion. And you have given me a lot of food for thought. Many of my points are about what we should be considering in this debate. In fact, I have made very few arguments in defense of my position. I have given reasons for having doubts in the scientific community. And there are many more arguments I could make. Having expressed these issues of consideration, were not meant to be an attack on the theory of evolution itself. It could be that the issues are legitimate, and the theory still hold true.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Question for you. In Romans 1, Paul talks about the characteristics of God being evident in creation. What do you see in creation that reveals the nature of God? |
I think creation points to a Creator -- a divine being with eternal power -- but I'd stop short of saying the attributes of creation are also the attributes of God. I do think the universe looks designed, but unfortunately that term has taken on connotations that I don't agree with due to the ID movement. |
Your answer would have been a whole lot better without this. In my perception, you spend a whole lot more time criticizing arguments for the existence of God than you do promoting arguments for his existence. It is for this reason that I asked you the question, because you don't often talk about them, and I find your opinions on this matter valuable. | Quote: | I'm not sure where exactly God's initial design ends and the natural outgrowth of that design starts, or if it's even meaningful to ask such a question. Was the first living cell designed, or did God design the processes of our universe in such a way that they would bring forth life? Either way, God started with nothing and made everything we see. If some of the things made by God had the inherent ability to make other things, this just makes the overall design more impressive.
By analogy, just because we can clone sheep doesn't mean that we create life; we're using processes we've come to understand that were made and are sustained by God. If we ever manage to make a living cell in a test tube, we'll still be using the material and processes that God has provided.
That reminds me of an old joke:
| Quote: | A group of scientists, including a physicist, biologist, biochemist, etc., approached God and said, "Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can extract stem cells, clone people, transplant hearts, build very large sources of energy, manufacture talking robots with eyes, build sensors of all types, and make biological changes that were once considered miraculous."
God patiently heard them out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not I am needed, why don't we have a little man-making contest!"
"Okay," the scientists said.
"Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said.
"That's fine," replied the scientists and they bent down to scoop up some dirt.
"Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast! You get your own dirt!" |
|
I like that joke too.
Marshall, we agree that it is impressive that God could make something out of nothing. But, for the atheist who doesn't believe in God, how would you word what you just said (excluding the joke) without presupposing the existence of God, or presupposing that there was nothing at some point prior to the past (I finally found a way to word it without stating that nothing would be existing within time!).
Peace. |
|
|
|
| vanislandwoman |
| |
Posted Jan 22, 2005; 10:56 am |
|
for another light touch on a discussion that has been interesting to observe.
| Quote: | How many decision theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
PROBABLY two.
How many fallibilists does it take to change a light bulb?
Three, but I COULD be wrong about that.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/comic.html
|
|
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Yelp! |
Posted Jan 22, 2005; 3:11 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | I'd have to disagree to some extent. Science often intertwines with philosphy, and the combination of the two are capable of making positive arguments for the existence of God. |
Yes, and at that point we're dealing with philosophy, not plain science. I think we're both saying the same thing on this point, but with a different emphasis.
| Quote: | | I think that avoided the question to some degree. For a person who only considers natural causes, is not evolutionary theory a necessity? Whether or not theists believe in evolution is, in my mind, not relevant to the question. |
I think I answered your first question quite directly (maybe too directly), but now you're asking a different one. The question I was answering was whether atheists who only consider natural causes would need to develop the theory of evolution. I pointed out that the theory was not developed by atheists.
As to your new question, yes, a naturalistic explanation is wanted by one who believes there are naturalistic explanations for everything. Evolution is not the only naturalistic explanation for the variety of life we see, but it's the one that seems to fit best with the evidence. The reason I don't see the atheist's need for a theory like evolution as a compelling argument against evolution is because this applies to most other areas of science too. Atheists need an explanation for lightning that doesn't invoke deity, to bring back an earlier example. Just because they need that doesn't mean electromagnetic theory is atheistic or false.
| Quote: | | Marshall, please consider that I'm perceiving that you think you must win this debate. I say this partly because, you don't see the legitimacy of many of my points, and you haven't appeared to give some of my points a lot of thought. |
No, that's not my intent. I am very opinionated about this issue, but as I've said earlier, I am mainly passionate about the theology side of it. I don't interpret the Bible as having concrete things to say about evolution any more than Genesis 30:31-43 gives us concrete facts about genetics. So, on the science side, I am fairly open to anything, and tend to trust the consensus of experts on areas I can't fully understand myself. I have no reason to want to believe that a minority view is correct, and so without strong evidence that this is the case, I won't assume they are.
Maybe that leads me to dismiss some of the scientific points you've made without properly considering them. When you brought up Humphreys' theory, I just said to study all sides of the issue carefully and see where it points, but looking back I see I worded that in a way that was too inflammatory. I don't think the validity of Humphreys' claims can be decided by debate, but only by study.
| Quote: | | I perceive that it is very important to you that I adopt your view of evolution, and you seem to be trying very hard. |
I would like it if you considered my view a possibility, even a likely one, but my main focus has been to see why you believe what you believe. In many cases, obviously we are weighing the same evidence quite differently. Earlier, I thought that was because you had biblical reasons that overwhelm any scientific evidence, but we discussed that and you've stated that in many of these areas, that is not the case. And so, I've been even more curious about why you believe what you believe.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I do think the universe looks designed, but unfortunately that term has taken on connotations that I don't agree with due to the ID movement. |
Your answer would have been a whole lot better without this. In my perception, you spend a whole lot more time criticizing arguments for the existence of God than you do promoting arguments for his existence. |
The reality is that nowadays, if you use the word "design" in relation to the creation debate, people think of Intelligent Design. Similarly, many Christians are hesitant to use the word "evolve" to talk about gradual change of any kind because of the connotation the word has in science. That's why I clarified my meaning.
You see, one facet of ID is that there's certain stages that must be intelligently designed and so should be able to be detected. But I believe that all of creation is intelligently designed without being able to put my finger on certain instances where the Designer left specific traces. I don't see a lot of value in searching for those instances, because I expect that God's creation is totally cohesive without any seams showing. That doesn't make creation any less amazing -- I would argue that it makes it more amazing!
Does that explain why I clarified my idea of "design" from ID? ID is looking for design in impossible transitions and the impossibility of a cell forming by chance and things like that. My kind of design still exists and is only enhanced if those things are shown to have inherent natural pathways.
---
I have the start of an answer to your last questions written, but I want to give it some more thought, and I think those issues deserve a post of their own instead of getting tacked on the bottom of this one (this one's long enough). I'll probably post that later today. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Arguments for God's existence from creation |
Posted Jan 23, 2005; 12:52 am |
|
| Todd wrote: | | In my perception, you spend a whole lot more time criticizing arguments for the existence of God than you do promoting arguments for his existence. |
In this discussion, yes, you're right. I think we'd agree that God's existence can't be proved in ways that are satisfactory to outsiders. He can be proved to individuals or even groups through personal and shared experiences, but those are unlikely to convince someone who does not share those experiences. And so, arguments for God are, at their best, only pointers toward God. I'll give some very brief descriptions of the arguments I've found convincing. Of course, each of them would require pages to really flesh them out.
I think the existence of beings who can reason and feel pleasure and pain in a world that contains far more than just necessities is evidence of a benevolent Creator. To me, the anthropic principle is not a convincing counter-argument (it states that of course those things would have to exist, because they're necessary to get to us, and so without them we wouldn't be around to make the observation).
I think the laws of nature are finely tuned in a way that suggests a Creator who had creatures like us in mind. And, the counter-argument that there may be near-infinite universes with alternate laws, and we of course ended up in the one suitable for humans to develop, again doesn't seem convincing to me. Believing in this kind of multiverse takes as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but at least God is not a new hypothesis we've just recently come up with.
Narrowing the focus to the God of the Bible, I find it compelling that the big bang starts with photons being the first discernable result. Photons, of course, are light, and the Bible starts with God saying, "Let there be light."
In an argument that goes two ways and is a bit touchy-feely, I think nature seems extremely well suited for describing God and other "things invisible" to fallen man. The Bible overflows with metaphors and symbolism from nature. Either the religion was just a natural result of studying nature, or maybe God made nature to supply much of his vocabulary in dealing with us. This argument would not be easy to use as proof of God to an atheist, but it's one that I've found to be more and more convincing over time.
And now, here's one that just hit me yesterday and I still haven't thought through enough to be able to explain it that well. As you know, I don't take the days of Genesis 1 as corresponding to the historical order of creation. I think Genesis 1:1 is historical and the remainder of the chapter describes that event in an order selected for literary value and not historical accuracy. The days are grouped into two sets of three, with the first three being the creation of realms and the second three being the filling of those realms with characters. Day 1 (light) corresponds to day 4 (luminaries to "rule" the light), day 2 (firmament between sea and sky) to day 5 (sea filled with fish, sky filled with birds), and day 3 (dry land appears and is covered with vegetation) to day 6 (land filled with animals and humans).
Based on the way the order clearly has meaning in and of itself, I don't think it's necessary for it to also be the historical order. And, there's one other sign that it isn't the historical order. There is an instance of temporal recapitulation (the return to an event previously described) between the first and fourth days. On day 1, God creates light (called Day) and separates it from darkness (called Night). On day 4, God creates luminaries to separate day from night. Since the same one-time event (the separation of day from night) is described on two non-consecutive days, this seems to be an indication that the account is returning to the same time. (For a less controversial example of temporal recapitulation, check out how Adam is placed in the garden in Genesis 2:8-15.)
So, I've established evidence (if not proof) for two things: first, that there's literary reasons for the divisions into days, and second, that day 4 recapitulates to day 1. Since days 1/4 are linked, what if we also link days 2/5 and 3/6? What if the temporal order (as opposed to narrative order) is Day 1,4; Day 2,5; Day 3,6?
The order of events in this arrangement corresponds to reality as closely as it could without separating items on the same day (such as fish and birds). You get this order: light, sun/moon/stars, firmament (or atmosphere), fish/birds, vegetation, land animals, humans. Now, aside from birds being early, this order is identical to the claims of science. And, birds and fish have to be on the same day based on the literary reasons for the division of days, so there's no getting around that.
Now, it's been very complicated to explain that, and I don't expect it to be convincing to anybody but me. The reason it's interesting to me is because, as I said, my reasons for coming to this interpretation of the days was not based on jibing them with science or history. Anyway, while not a proof by any sort, it's more food for thought.
That's a bit of rambling, but I wanted to get this posted before getting to sleep. All of this has been worded as directed to you, not an atheist, so I realize I still haven't answered your last question. That one's hard to do without really writing an essay.
Hopefully I'll talk to you in church tomorrow (er, later today). |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| A different perspective |
Posted Jan 23, 2005; 2:28 pm |
|
For a view somewhat between what I've been advocating and what YEC and ID advocates, you may want to check out what Glenn Morton has to say. He's a published young-earth creationist (he ghost-wrote the section on evolution in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity) who switched to theistic evolution due to the inability of his YEC peers to explain the data he saw in his geology work. However, he's maintained an outlook that is quite familiar to YECs: the early parts of Genesis must be historical for the Bible to be trustworthy and for the God it declares to be real. Recently I had a chance to discuss Genesis 1 with him, and although we came down on different sides of the issue, I do respect his position.
Anyway, here's two of his articles that explain his view:
Mr. Morton also has a lot of articles relating to various scientific evidences that lead him toward these views. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 24, 2005; 1:18 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: |
Yes, and at that point we're dealing with philosophy, not plain science. I think we're both saying the same thing on this point, but with a different emphasis. |
I think any scientific theory involves elements of philosophy. Evolutionary theory requires extensive deductive, extrapolative reasoning, for example, and is not based on science alone.
| Quote: | | As to your new question, yes, a naturalistic explanation is wanted by one who believes there are naturalistic explanations for everything. Evolution is not the only naturalistic explanation for the variety of life we see, |
It's not? I mean, I'm sure someone could dream up an alternative explanation, but is there a competing theory with more than a handful of followers? | Quote: | | but it's the one that seems to fit best with the evidence. |
That much seems true. | Quote: | | The reason I don't see the atheist's need for a theory like evolution as a compelling argument against evolution is because this applies to most other areas of science too. |
I wasn't offering an argument against evolution. | Quote: | | Atheists need an explanation for lightning that doesn't invoke deity, to bring back an earlier example. Just because they need that doesn't mean electromagnetic theory is atheistic or false. |
That's true.
| Quote: | | I've been even more curious about why you believe what you believe. |
I'm not so sure what I believe. I'm giving the discussion some serious thought. From a theological persepctive, I think the days in Genesis 1 can only be defined as 24-hour days, and I'm not a fan of the day-age interpretation of it that suggests that the word "yom" in this context means "an indefinite period of time". Nevertheless, I don't know what literary devices are being used (if any) for the story as a whole. Having said that, I think the word, "yom" could be understood as a longer period of time, even though the correct translation of the word is a 24-hour day. Jonathan Sarfati claims that the vast majority of the most highly regarded Hebrew scholars, understand Genesis 1 as a literal framework, and is expressing how God created the Earth and Universe in 6 Earth days. He also says that many of these Hebrew scholars reject the existence of a young Earth (which thus adds to their credibility). I've heard other supposed Hebrew scholars argue for an old earth interpretation of Genesis, but I wonder if they do that out of necessity rather than letting the text speak for itself. To sum up, for myself, I don't think I'm expert enough to make a claim on this matter. But, I don't understand why many of these Hebrew scholars think the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is a literal 6-day creation, when they have no biased motive for suggesting such an interpretation.
| Quote: | | You see, one facet of ID is that there's certain stages that must be intelligently designed and so should be able to be detected. But I believe that all of creation is intelligently designed without being able to put my finger on certain instances where the Designer left specific traces. I don't see a lot of value in searching for those instances, because I expect that God's creation is totally cohesive without any seams showing. That doesn't make creation any less amazing -- I would argue that it makes it more amazing! |
I see your point.
I'll have to respond to your other posts at a later time. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Jan 24, 2005; 1:55 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | From a theological persepctive, I think the days in Genesis 1 can only be defined as 24-hour days, and I'm not a fan of the day-age interpretation of it that suggests that the word "yom" in this context means "an indefinite period of time". |
I'm not a fan of the day-age view either. The two verses about a day being like a thousand years to God are highly overused in both creation and escatology, in my opinion.
| Quote: | | Having said that, I think the word, "yom" could be understood as a longer period of time, even though the correct translation of the word is a 24-hour day. |
Yom can definitely mean more than a 24-hour day in other contexts (such as in Genesis 2:4), but in Genesis 1:1-2:3 I think it's talking about normal, solar days (even for the three days before the sun!).
I think the days of Genesis 1 are as literal as the sheep in Jesus' parable of the lost sheep. It's not a matter of finding a way to stretch the meaning for the word "sheep" so that it can include human beings, but rather understanding that the parable itself is using sheep to make a point about people. Similarly, I think Genesis 1 uses days to convey details about God's creative work that probably took place outside of time, and uses rest and refreshment (Exodus 31:17) to describe God's completion of this work. Both the days and the rest are just symbols for things that are much greater and probably beyond our comprehension.
| Quote: | | Jonathan Sarfati claims that the vast majority of the most highly regarded Hebrew scholars, understand Genesis 1 as a literal framework, and is expressing how God created the Earth and Universe in 6 Earth days. He also says that many of these Hebrew scholars reject the existence of a young Earth (which thus adds to their credibility). [...] But, I don't understand why many of these Hebrew scholars think the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is a literal 6-day creation, when they have no biased motive for suggesting such an interpretation. |
I think either Dr. Sarfati's statements are a bit misleading, or you've drawn a wrong conclusion from them. Those Hebrew scholars are probably saying the same thing I've outlined above (or more correctly, I'm saying the same thing as they are). The word yom itself is being used to mean a solar day in Genesis 1, but the entire narrative is using things like days and rest as understandable symbols of a greater reality. That's why they deny the day-age interpretation of yom while still not seeing a conflict between their view and an old earth.
(Oh, and to see Dr. Sarfati debate with Glenn Morton whom I mentioned previously, check out this thread. Mr. Morton goes by the name grmorton, and Dr. Sarfati goes by the name Socrates. His first post is #25 in the thread.)
| Quote: | | It's not? I mean, I'm sure someone could dream up an alternative explanation, but is there a competing theory with more than a handful of followers? |
Not any more, no. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 24, 2005; 3:00 pm |
|
Can you give me a brief background of Glenn Morton?
This is what I've gathered so far:
He was a YECer for 20 years I gather.
He helped McDowell write an apologetic book, that partly dealt with YEC.
He later contemplated atheism.
He currently upholds evolution and the infallibility of Scripture.
Other questions:
How long was he a YECer and a geologist?
What is McDowell's current view on creationism? He seems to have disappeared from the apologetics arena.
What year was this book he ghost wrote for McDowell written?
How long did he contemplate atheism? When did this happen to him?
How long has he held his current view on Genesis?
Is there anything else important to consider in his bio?
Thanks. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Jan 24, 2005; 3:34 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | Can you give me a brief background of Glenn Morton? |
I only know him through forum discussions and his web site. Here's his bio from his site.
| Quote: | | How long was he a YECer and a geologist? |
He was publishing YEC papers from 1979 to 1986, with a handful published later up until 1990. He's been working in the oil industry since 1966, and according to his bio, although he previously received a B.S. in Physics, he learned geology "on the job" during those years, specializing in interpreting seismic data.
| Quote: | | What is McDowell's current view on creationism? |
I'm not sure. I haven't even read McDowell's earlier books.
| Quote: | | What year was this book he ghost wrote for McDowell written? |
I'm not sure about the year it was written, but it was published in 1981.
| Quote: | | How long did he contemplate atheism? When did this happen to him? |
Presumably between 1986 and 1995, during which time he didn't write much. He's mentioned at TheologyWeb that he's had serious doubts at certain times since then as well.
| Quote: | | How long has he held his current view on Genesis? |
He first published it in 1995, and I don't think it's changed drastically since then, although it has been expanded.
| Quote: | | Is there anything else important to consider in his bio? |
Not sure. I think his theory is worth a look based on its own merits, so you shouldn't need to know too much about him first. |
|
|
|
|
|
