Comment #30292

Posted by freelunch on May 15, 2005 11:23 PM (e) (s)

I wrote to the WaPo ombudsman, letting him know that I thought that WaPo has been suckered. The best I hope for, and the least I expect of real news organizations, is that they assign people who cannot be led by a good argument that has nothing to do with science. Johnson is a good lawyer, we need to keep that in mind. He is not a scientist, nor is he very conversant in science, we need journalists to keep that in mind.

Comment #30299

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 16, 2005 12:18 AM (e) (s)

GWW’s obscene comment was deleted and his IP banned.  Have a nice day.

Comment #30302

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 16, 2005 12:31 AM (e) (s)

I was going to add to the original post this excellent article that everyone should go read at TalkDesign.org:

Brian Spitzer (2002): The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth?  Why Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and the “Intelligent Design” movement are neither science — nor Christian. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html…

Darwin on Trial, the book by Phillip Johnson which founded the neocreationist movement of “intelligent design”, was written in 1991. I first encountered it in 1996. At the time I knew nothing at all about creationism. A friend-like me, a serious Christian as well as a scientist—suggested that I take a look at it, and I was curious enough to do so. There are certainly things about the book which I applauded, at the time. I’ve always been irritated by pop-science works which try to make statements about God (or the lack thereof) as though these statements are supported by scientific fact, and I was glad to see someone taking on Richard Dawkins. But even without much training (I had only a B.A. in biology), while reading through Johnson’s book I began to notice some puzzling things. At first, they were quite small: a claim in one place which contradicted a different claim in another. A strange lapse of logic-perhaps excusable on account of the author’s inexpertise? Statements which didn’t fit with what I knew firsthand about science and scientists.

I was naive. I assumed that a Christian writing to other Christians would provide a scrupulously fair and accurate account of the facts. But the deeper I got into Darwin on Trial, the less naive I became. And the clearer it became that the driving force behind Johnson’s book was neither fairness nor accuracy.

A few years passed with this troubling thought at the back of my mind. I entered graduate school and started doing real science myself. And, the more I learned, the less I trusted Darwin on Trial. I finally challenged myself to put my mistrust to the test. Perhaps Johnson was merely confused about some things. What I should do, I told myself, is look at the sources he actually used in writing Darwin on Trial, and see what they say. Perhaps part of what Johnson says is accurate; perhaps his sources misled him in places. So I went to the campus library and started checking his claims.

I was a lot less naive when I finished that task. I found that almost every scientific source cited by Johnson had been misused or distorted, in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction. The more closely I examined Darwin on Trial, the more inaccuracies I found, until it became almost impossible to catalogue all of the misleading statements in Johnson’s work. This book-upon which the “intelligent design” movement is trying to hang a program of social reform and public education-is perhaps the ugliest and most deceptive book I have ever seen.

It may seem irrelevant to critique a book over a decade since it was published. But Darwin on Trial was the work which founded the “intelligent design” movement, and Phillip Johnson is still regarded as the “godfather” of that entire school of thought. Later “intelligent design” creationists have adopted many of his exact arguments, as well as many of the questionable tactics and strategies used in Darwin on Trial. Perhaps most importantly, nobody in the “intelligent design” movement has, to my knowledge, ever criticized or disavowed any of the claims in Darwin on Trial. As I will show, this book is so full of questionable tactics that it would be hard for any informed reader not to notice any of the inaccuracy. All of the stars of the “intelligent design” movement, by their silent approval of these tactics, stand under a cloud of suspicion at the very least.

Many Christians have welcomed the “intelligent design” creationists in the belief that they are fighting for God and truth. But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980’s should remind us, there are some more unsavory reasons for seeking celebrity in the Christian community: money, fame, applause, or power, especially political power. In short, there are a wealth of reasons why Christians need to be careful about trusting the stars of the “intelligent design” movement. And even well-intentioned debaters, if they let their desire to win the argument outstrip their respect for the facts, will turn out a product which is grossly misleading. Integrity is important. If—as I will show in this essay—the claims of “intelligent design” are more a product of debating tactics and tricks than they are a fair and honest presentation, Christians need to seriously consider whether they can support this movement in good faith.

(Brian Spitzer, TalkDesign.org)

Comment #30303

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 12:32 AM (e) (s)

Is there any way we could get more science journalists to check in here periodically?

I’m thinking back to a suggestion that Ed Darrel passed to me about getting free membership in scientific societies to teachers, and wondering if the same thing might be of value to journalists as well?

Journalists always like comps, and a free membership in a scientific society gives them “street cred” to write about science too.

OT:

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started?  If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

Comment #30304

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 12:36 AM (e) (s)

er, shorten “science journalists” to just, “journalists”

Comment #30306

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 12:53 AM (e) (s)

in brian’s article:

“But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980’s should remind us…”

lol.  indeed; how short our collective memory is.

Jim Bakker is back on TV with his own ministry again.

*sigh*

Comment #30310

Posted by jay boilswater on May 16, 2005 03:35 AM (e) (s)

“If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.”

Yes, just so. Everyone should recognize this! Students of history should recognize that this sort of thing has happened before, repeatedly.

Comment #30311

Posted by Dave Cerutti on May 16, 2005 03:48 AM (e) (s)

How does the Discovery Institute “systematically harass journalists?” I’m very interested in this statement; I’m not trying to attack you with the question, I just want to know.  It sounds like something that should be backed up.  The Bush Administration has systematically harassed and intimidated journalists and even replaced them with frauds, but such a statement is most powerful when supported by specific examples (they abound) and contrasted to the Clinton administration (not so sure of that second part).  Please, if you can support this statement about the DI, do so!

Comment #30316

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 16, 2005 07:04 AM (e) (s)

Just keep talking, Phil!  The more the better.

As I’ve always said, if you jsut elt the fundies talk long enough, they will shoot themselves in the head every single time.

ID strategy has a single fata flaw —- it requires them to remain utterly silent, indefinitely, about the one topic they care about most in the world (their religious aims).  As Johnson shows so eloquently, it is an impossible task for them.

I thought the article was very very good at establishing that IDers are, at root, exactly what they say they are NOT —- religious nuts with an agenda.

Once the IDers find themselves in court (in Dover and/or Kansas), their incessant compulsion to preach at every opportunity, will bite them in the ass.

Comment #30319

Posted by Arun Gupta on May 16, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s)

Phillip Johnson said:

“I realized…that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.”

and Nick Matzke commented :

Just keep talking, Phil!  The more the better.  Consider branching out to explaining how other modern sciences such as meteorology, medicine, and geology (all of them thoroughly relying on natural processes) are also making “Christian metaphysics and religious belief” a “fantasy.” 

Meteorology, medicine and geology do not undermine Christian metaphysics; they can be accomodated in a reading of the Bible.  Even a theory of directed evolution can be compatible with Christianity.  These would simply be mechanisms in which God chose to operate within the world.  But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.  In this I think Phillip Johnson shows a greater understanding of Christianity than does Nick Matzke.  To be compatible with Darwinism, Christianity will have to change to be similar to Greek paganism, or Asian “religions” which do not talk of a purpose to the universe; Christians will have to abandon teleology.

BTW, even evolutionists do not easily abandon teleology, which seems to be an ingrained feature of Christian/post-Christian culture.  E.g. just read Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan in “Microcosmos - Four billion years of microbial evolution”, and the Microcosm is their replacement for God.

Comment #30322

Posted by not buyin it on May 16, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Does it make any more sense to challenge Darwin than to contest Newton’s theory of gravity? You haven’t seen Phillip Johnson floating into the stratosphere recently, have you?

I love it!  It was recently discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.  There are two proposed explanations:

1) our understanding of gravity is flawed
2) there’s an unknown form of energy that counteracts and overcomes the force of gravity at great distances

Anti-gravity.  Get used to it folks.  I have.

Once you get used to anti-gravity perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Comment #30323

Posted by GCT on May 16, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Arun Gupta wrote:

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

No, it does not.  It might undermine the idea that God has a Plan for Humans, or that we are some sort of special creation or the end result of a plan, but it does not say anything about God’s plan for the universe or any Purpose.

Comment #30324

Posted by Russell on May 16, 2005 07:29 AM (e) (s)

Speaking of journalism, Tom Tomorrow has something to say that might be of interest to Thumbsters. (Once again, I’m not sure whether you need a Salon subscription)

Comment #30325

Posted by GCT on May 16, 2005 07:33 AM (e) (s)

Phillip Johnson wrote:

Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you’re using naturalistic terms, I’ll agree with that.

Yeah, he agrees with us.  Can we all go home now?

Comment #30328

Posted by Russell on May 16, 2005 07:42 AM (e) (s)

Not Listening wrote:

perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Not to worry, Not. Darwin’s theory has been questioned, tweaked, probed, and continuously checked against reality pretty much since it was proposed. That’s because there was a theory there to start with. I keep hearing rumblings about a new theory, something called “intelligent design”. But no one can tell me what it is! Hard to probe such an elusive “theory”.

Comment #30330

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 08:03 AM (e) (s)

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started?  If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

Happens every few weeks. I find those comments by him uninteresting, but I personally find JAD and CW much more objectionable. GWW is insulting, but poor Charlie’s stubbornly deranged, and I find that to be way harder to read.

Comment #30332

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 08:09 AM (e) (s)

If Johnson had been asked about HIV, the Washington Post’s readers could have easily understood the situation. And Powell could have made his article a lot shorter.

Powell: What do you think of evolutionary biology?

Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal.

Powell: What about HIV/AIDS science?

Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal.

Powell: Thanks Phil. We’re done here.

Comment #30334

Posted by Steve F on May 16, 2005 08:26 AM (e) (s)

Big Phil’s position on the age of the earth is so jaw droppingly intellectually dishonest it never fails to amaze.  As if the age of the earth, and tied up with this the nature of the fossil record, isn’t relevant to discussions of evolution!

The man is a fraud.

Comment #30335

Posted by PaulP on May 16, 2005 08:37 AM (e) (s)

Meteorology, medicine and geology do not undermine Christian metaphysics; they can be accomodated in a reading of the Bible

So can evolution - ask the Pope.

On the other hand, the whole point of creationism is that there can be no adjustment of an existing interpretation of the Bible to accommodate any scientific finding or theory. That’s why creationists reject evolution. The rest - ID etc - is just rationalizing.

Comment #30336

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 08:42 AM (e) (s)

If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.

No, that doesn’t follow, your “must also” is indefensible from the standpoint of logic. I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

Comment #30338

Posted by frank schmidt on May 16, 2005 09:01 AM (e) (s)

Heddle gets himself into a bind:

but it[’s] obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

Please explain scientifically why the common ancestry of living beings promotes atheism, while the fact that a tornado touched down 100 ft from my children’s school does not. And quote-mining Dawkins doesn’t count unless you give Teilhard equal time.

In both cases we see things that appear to be designed (and one can posit God taking off the roof of a house where no one is home vs. the roof of a school with 700 kids inside as an act of Divine Will) but you regard one as being “agnostic” but the other as promoting atheism? Give us a break, David. Admit it; you take the Bible as your authority and your faith isn’t strong enough to admit the possibility that stories told to a tribe of sheepherders don’t encompass biological reality. (Actually, they don’t do too well with meteorological reality either; remember the 7 fat years and 7 lean years?)

You fear that the Universe is really purposeless, and until your faith either grows or disappears altogether, you will keep mouthing creationist talking points. Pitiful.

Comment #30340

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s)

Frank,

Can you follow an argument? Your fatuous comment, where you ask me to demonstrate something that I did not assert, suggests that you cannot. My point had nothing to do with the correctness of the assertion that evolution promotes atheism, it had only to do with Nick’s incorrect argument that it “must follow..”

If you had asked: please explain how one could, self-consistently, claim that the common ancestry of living beings promotes atheism, while the fact that a tornado touched down 100 ft from my children’s school does not—Then it would have demonstrated that you actually read my comment, and I would have been happy to respond.

Comment #30344

Posted by PaulP on May 16, 2005 09:40 AM (e) (s)

it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator…

Not at all correct.

Evolution is silent on the subject of how life started and therefore on the question of the existence of a creator. On the other hand, our observations of how life has changed over time on our planet does put restrictions on the actions of a creator, if one exists.

The quote is confusing two different actions, creating life and guiding life. One could have a creator who does not guide life.

Comment #30347

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 16, 2005 09:53 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Heddle said: 

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

How is that, David?  Can you tell us what philosophical difference there is in the science of meteorology and the science of biology?  What methodological differences occur due to that difference in philosophy?

And, since meteorology shows young Earth advocates to be prevaricators on the facts (helium in the atmosphere, e.g.), should you not take it out of the category of “agnostic?”  Or, better, should you not include biology in that category and get out of the textbook wars?

Comment #30349

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 16, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

Arun Gupta said: 

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

I think that’s a simple and common theological error.

There is nothing in scripture that insists God had to make humans in current human form.  God’s plan for the universe involves souls and spirits, and is divorced from the morphology of the mortal coil, to most thinking Christians (which is to say, those who have ever bothered to think about it).  “In God’s image” does not mean four limbs, blue/brown eyes, a navel, and twenty digits, to pick a few examples.  Evolution produced those.  How would God’s plan be upset if we had 16 digits, or 24 digits?  How would God’s plan be upset if we had eight eyes?

It wouldn’t.  The purpose of the universe, in Christian terms, is not dependent on the particular design of human bodies.

Comment #30350

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16, 2005 10:02 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for “storm” and “wind”, I found the following references:

Exodus 10:13
So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;

Numbers 11:31
Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them [ Or They flew ] down all around the camp to about three feet [ Hebrew two cubits (about 1 meter) ] above the ground, as far as a day’s walk in any direction.

Isaiah 11:15
The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. [ Hebrew the River ] He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals.

Jeremiah 4:12
a wind too strong for that comes from me. [ Or comes at my command ] Now I pronounce my judgments against them.”

Jeremiah 10:13
When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Ezekiel 13:13
” ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury.

Hosea 13:15
even though he thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures.

Amos 4:13
He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth— the LORD God Almighty is his name.

Jonah 1:4
Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.

Jonah 4:8
When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

Nahum 1:3
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

Zechariah 10:1
[ The LORD Will Care for Judah ] Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.

Mark 4:39
He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

Luke 8:25
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. “Where is your faith?” he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, “Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him.”

The only consistency I see is the usual antievolutionist tendency to overlook passages that are momentarily inconvenient to some argument.

Comment #30351

Posted by harold on May 16, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

GCT wrote -

“It might undermine the idea that God has a Plan for Humans, or that we are some sort of special creation or the end result of a plan, but it does not say anything about God’s plan for the universe or any Purpose.” (Referring to the theory of evolution.)

Actually, the theory of evolution does not in any way, shape, or form undermine that idea that God has a special plan for humans, either, nor that God intended the creation of humans, nor that humans are in God’s image.  It is utterly unrelated to this question.  So is every other scientific theory. 

Those who wish to believe in God, but cannot find true faith, demand miracles or “proof” of God’s existence.  They feel threatened by scientific explanations of anything, but especially of the cosmos or the evolution of the human physical body.  This is because once science explains something, it is harder for them to use that particular physical phenomenon as a crutch to “prove” the existence of God to themselves.  Because their own insecurities are irrationally exacerbated by science, they falsely claim that science is related to “secular humanism”, various dictatorial political systems (note that this a direct contradiction of saying that it is related to humanism), “materialism”, “atheism”, “cultural decline”, or whatever else they can come up with to express their own tormenting doubts and insecurities with regard to their own relationship to God.  All of this is nonsense.  Science is compatible with secular humanism, but equally so with Lutheranism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc.

Another motivation of the anti-science crowd is simply the sadistic desire to “force” other people to claim to “believe” something that they don’t believe, as was done in the inquistion, and yet another is the silly urge to prove to themselves that they are “even smarter than scientists” (a lot of that is seen on this board, and it, too, reflects insecurity).  However, it’s the doubt and torment that sell the books.

We are in a phase of American history in which open admission of spiritual seeking or questioning is severely criticized, and hypocritical religious show (coupled to a secret life of sexual misbehavior, substance abuse, and financial dishonesty, in many if not most cases) is the norm.

Comment #30352

Posted by Amiel Rossow on May 16, 2005 10:07 AM (e) (s)

Phillip Johnson’s MO wherein he systematically distorts the views of his opponents, misquotes, makes false statements, etc, has thoroughly been documented at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm by a writer who himself is a devout Christian.

Comment #30353

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 16, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

GCT:
Phillip Johnson wrote:
“Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you’re using naturalistic terms, I’ll agree with that.”
Yeah, he agrees with us.  Can we all go home now?

GCT,
you clearly have not mastered the True Art of Quotation.  For the record, the actual quote from Johnson should henceforth go like this:

Philip Johnson:
Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life […], I’ll agree with that.

Ask Dembski. ;-)

Comment #30354

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

Hey Dave Heddle, what’s your Second Denial¹? ID Creationists usually have a Second Denial². What’s yours?

---

1  Second Denial: Belief that along with biologists, another group of scientists or experts are similarly wrong about a topic fundamental to their expertise, and are covering it up. 

2  for instance,
Phil Johnson—HIV
Jay Richards—Relativity
Charlie Wagner—Cardiology
Marshall Hall—Heliocentrism
…

Comment #30355

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 16, 2005 10:18 AM (e) (s)

OK, wait, let’s think about the Johnson/Gupta position that (undirected) evolution leads inexorably to a purposeless humanity/universe and the destruction of Christianity’s facade.

I’ve heard variations on this argument for years, but I’ve never heard any Chrisitan apologist explain the consequences to faith itself if it can be objectively proven that the universe has a purpose. I thought the definition of faith was belief *in the absence of proof*. If God left fingerprints, then discovering them (finding such proof) would destroy the need for faith. Conversely, a God who wanted his chosen people to have faith would have hidden his agenda by making it appear random.

Comment #30356

Posted by harold on May 16, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

WRE -

“A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for “storm” and “wind”, I found the following references:”

I’m not sure what your point is.  It looks as if you’ve turned the usual tables, and presented a straw man version of Bible.  Your implication seems to be that the Bible compels Christians (and Jews, since your quotes are mainly Old Testament) to believe that ALL WEATHER IS ALWAYS MAGICALLY CREATED BY GOD’S DIRECT ACTION.  If that isn’t your point, could you clear it up?

A fair number of people who subscribe to philosophical views such as atheism spend inordinate amounts of time trying to argue that belief in God “compels” people to reject scientific reality.  This is no more true when they say it, than when ID/creationists say it.  Such arguments do nothing more than fulfill the fantasies of the ID crowd, reframing a debate on science into an endless battle between dueling philosophies.

Comment #30357

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 10:23 AM (e) (s)

“In God’s image” does not mean four limbs, blue/brown eyes, a navel, and twenty digits, to pick a few examples.

If anyone was made in a divine image, it was Emmanuelle Seigner.

Comment #30358

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)

PaulP,

You and Frank must have gone to school together. I did not assert that evolution <i>precludes</i> the possibility of a creator. I wrote: “it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism”

This statement is manifestly true, since at least Johnson proves that can indeed believe that evolution promotes atheism.

Geez Louise. Once again boys and girls: If one believes that evolution promotes atheism, the laws of logic do not require that one also believes that meteorology also promotes atheism, as Nick’s comment implied.

Ed Darrell:

This has nothing to do with your colleagues on the anti-cosmological ID front, the YECs. Why did you bring them up? It simply says that someone could believe that evolution (in its full glory, not theistic evolution) promotes atheism. They could even bring up a similar argument that I see on PT: you guys point out, and treat as significant, the obvious positive correlation between ID and theism, in spite of those IDers you characterize as “token” atheists. The flip side: there is a positive correlation between supporting evolution (in its full glory) and being an atheist, in spite of the fact that you guys have some token theists.

That’s not my argument, but it could be someone’s. That same person might argue there is no correlation between meteorology and atheism. Or better yet, physics, where in my experience there is a positive correlation with some sort of theism, and conclude that physics does not promote atheism.

That’s all I am saying. One could hold those positions, regardless of their correctness, in an obvious self-consistent way. Nick was wrong.

Wesley,

You are being silly, as usual. The bible references are irrelevant. Some are metaphors (you know what that means, I hope?) Even bible literalists know that the dust on God’s feet are not actual clouds. They have nothing to do with the weather. The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

Anyone who is a theist and a scientist must (and this really is a must, unlike Nick’s) acknowledge that God can act in a supernatural way—and that all we can do is study the science. For if you do not believe that God can act in a supernatural way, then you are not really a theist.

Steve,

My second denial is that you know anything about science and probability.

Comment #30360

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 16, 2005 10:39 AM (e) (s)

This statement is manifestly true, since at least Johnson proves that can indeed believe that evolution promotes atheism.

I suspect that you misread Nick’s comment.  Certainly one can believe that the theory of evolution promotes atheism.  But then failure to believe that meteorology or archaeology or any other scientific discipline also promotes atheism indicates a fundamental intellectual inconsistency on the part of Johnson.  And indeed, we see this inconsistency.  His war is not really with evolution - his war is with the Philosophical Naturalism that he erroneously believes drives the sciences.  Evolution is just his poster-child; for Johnson, this would appear to be a war on a non-existent dragon.

Comment #30361

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

Wesley,

You are being silly, as usual.

David is being obnoxious, as usual.

David Heddle wrote:

The bible references are irrelevant.

Nope, they are quite relevant.

David Heddle wrote:

Some are metaphors (you know what that means, I hope?) Even bible literalists know that the dust on God’s feet are not actual clouds. They have nothing to do with the weather.

Ooops, I included one metaphor in my list, allowing the weasel wiggle room. My bad. I excluded a lot of those pesky things, but one slipped through.

David Heddle wrote:

The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

Bingo. Neither does the postulated supernatural intervention of God in life’s history that is the basis of theistic evolution have any bearing upon evolution as a science.

But that wasn’t David’s argument, now, was it? David was arguing that one can consistently call evolutionary biology something that promotes atheism and meteorology as something that does not. It is inconsistent, though, to claim that because one science moves forward by explaining phenomena without reference to God it is “promoting atheism” while another science that does exactly the same thing does not. God is stated by scripture as having an active role in the phenomena in the ambit of each named science, so there is the same issue at stake in each. David may not want to admit his inconsistency, but hopefully it is now clear to the other readers.

Speaking of other readers, I hope Harold is now enlightened as well.

Comment #30363

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 10:46 AM (e) (s)

RGD, Wesley, and the gang

No, it doesn’t. If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science.

Guys, this is not a difficult point to grasp. At least it shouldn’t be.

Comment #30365

Posted by Flint on May 16, 2005 10:58 AM (e) (s)

Here’s the part of the critique of Johnson that I enjoyed the most, and which gives a pretty good insight on the utility of arguing with the likes of Heddle:

If evolutionists agree on something, it’s a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they’re squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory. If a piece of evidence seems to count against evolution, evolution has been disproven; if it seems to count for evolution, that merely shows that evolution is unfalsifiable. If scientists state that they are personally atheistic, they are clearly exposing the rotten metaphysical heart of evolution; if they state that they are religious, they are clearly trying to cover the rotten heart up. If we learn anything new, it’s evidence that our current theory is completely false; if what we learn is exactly what we expected, it’s only because we were precommitted to finding it in the first place. If we point out where creationists are wrong, we are persecuting the underdog; if we ignore them, we are refusing to face the fact that they’re right. If a piece of evidence supports one part of evolutionary theory, it doesn’t support that other part. If we find a strong piece of evidence for evolution, there ought to be more just like it. If an evolutionist speaks out in favor of Darwinism, it’s because they were strong-armed into it; if they say anything which can be taken out of context to suggest any skepticism about evolution, it’s resounding proof that nobody in science believes the theory.

And this, boys and girls, is why belief is impervious to facts and logic.

Comment #30366

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 10:59 AM (e) (s)

Comment #30358

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)

Steve,

My second denial is that you know anything about science and probability.

That certainly is as reasonable as Charlie’s, and Phil’s, and Jay’s, etc.

Comment #30367

Posted by Jim Harrison on May 16, 2005 11:01 AM (e) (s)

The ancient Hebrews surely believed that Yahweh literally controlled the weather. Indeed, the connection of the principal God with thunder and floods is a lot older than its Jewish version. And the folks from the Near East had a lot of compoany for a long time. For most of the last 3,000 years, most people in most cultures belived that not only God almighty but mere witches could raise storms. The notion that all the storm-god language of the Bible is metaphorical is merely convenient, another instance of the way in which religiosity promotes unethical philology.

Comment #30369

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 11:10 AM (e) (s)

I thought David had gotten embarrassed that he was in the camp of people like Dembski and Wagner, and Sancho P. Cordova, and was gone for good.

Maybe he just took some time off to write his book on ID Statistics. (subtitled: Distributions? We don’t need no stinkin Distributions)

Comment #30370

Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

The notion that all the storm-god language of the Bible is metaphorical is merely convenient, another instance of the way in which religiosity promotes unethical philology.

Indeed. When they should say, “that is wrong”, they prefer to say, “That’s not what we really meant”. To take the thing completely literally you’d have to be completely insane. Which Ken Ham is.

Comment #30372

Posted by 386sx on May 16, 2005 11:20 AM (e) (s)

The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

So in order to be, as you say, self-consistent, then just replace weather and meteorology with evolution. Big deal.

Guys, this is not a difficult point to grasp. At least it shouldn’t be.

If “self-consistent” can mean having inconsistent
and irrational viewpoints about things, then hey I for one can see your point very well.

Comment #30375

Posted by harold on May 16, 2005 11:33 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle -

“If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science.”

I don’t know what you mean by “promotes atheism”.  However, it’s utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn’t promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase.  The theory of evolution does not address atheism or theism.  It does not provide intellectual arguments for or against atheism.  It has nothing to do with atheism.  Those who say it does, whether self-proclaimed atheists or self-proclaimed religious figures, are either mistaken or lying.  Those who find their tenuous faith in God challenged by scientific explanations of physical reality have a spiritual problem, not a scientific problem.  Dishonest attacks on science will ultimately serve them nothing.

I disagree with your logic above.  It is true that someone might fear that the scientific investigation of some phenomenae somehow presents a greater challenge to their religion than the scientific investigation of other things.  A Voudon priest who accepts most science might argue that scientific investigation of Voudon claims should be banned, as it could “promote anti-Voudonism”.  But this is ultimately a cowardly and inconsistent stance.  Meteorology differs from biology only in subject matter.

Comment #30380

Posted by Ginger Yellow on May 16, 2005 11:55 AM (e) (s)

not buyin it wrote:

I love it!  It was recently discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.  There are two proposed explanations:

1) our understanding of gravity is flawed
2) there’s an unknown form of energy that counteracts and overcomes the force of gravity at great distances

I’m not sure what your point is, but your juxtaposition of ‘explanations’ os rather silly.
a) We know our understanding of gravity is flawed, because relativity’s equations don’t work at Planck scales.
b) We know what this form of energy is: dark energy

Comment #30394

Posted by frank schmidt on May 16, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

Heddle’s argument

If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science.

fails to consider science as process, and leads to a rehashing of the creationist meme

1. Evolution isn’t real science.

Heddle must therefore believe that there is some aspect of evolutionary science which is different from meteorological science - in other words, their processes must be different. Given that evolution uses the same processes of observation, calculation and prediction, as does predicting the weather, and that the objective of any science is to fit observations into a coherent whole, consistent with known observations in other fields (e.g., Physics, Chemistry, etc.), could David please tell us which aspect of modern evolutionary theory leads to atheism, and how that property is not present in meteorology?

David and the other creationists on this site seem to be hung up on the apparent “purposeless” of evolutionary succession. This is a religious view, (as opposed to one based on direct observation) and not a universal one, e.g., it is at odds with the theology of Teilhard de Chardin. 

The idea that evolution is “purposeless” or “random” refers simply to the observation that there are no emprical data that indicate purpose or non-randomness (and in fact, many observations are consistent with mathematical models of randomness). Similarly, the path of a tornado is apparently random on the scale that an individual is comfortable with (1-1000 meters or so). Does this mean that Meteorology is atheistic? If not, how does the fact that mutations fit the model for randomness differ from the fact that the tornado’s path fits these models as well?

Comment #30397

Posted by RPM on May 16, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

A few quotes to show how scientifically uninformed Michael Powell is:

Johnson and his followers, microbiologists and geologists and philosophers, debate in the language of science rather than Scripture. They point to the complexity of the human cell, with its natural motors and miles of coding.

What is “the human cell?”  Miles of coding??  Is he talking about DNA, and,if so, why not refer to it as DNA?

[Darwin’s theory of evolution] explains the proliferation of species and the interaction of DNA and RNA, not to mention the evolution of humankind.

What does speciation have to do with the interaction of DNA & RNA?  It’s as if he thinks throwing out terminology will make him appear knowledgeable.

One day while browsing in a bookstore, Johnson picked up a copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins … Johnson devoured dozens more evolutionary texts. He found extraordinary minds and polemics, but the evidence didn’t much impress him.

If everything he learned about evolution came from popular science books like The Blind Watchmaker, how much weight do Johnson’s arguments carry?  Don’t answer that.  A journalist writing about science should be able to ask if Johnson read any meaty scientific writing on the subject.

Then there’s the inconvenient fact that most species evolve little during the span of their existence, which leaves the mystery of how to account for evolutionary leaps.

What??  Where is the evidence for this?  What does he mean by “existence?”  What does he mean by “evolutionary leaps?”  A species only exists in a very short time frame.  We cannot say that a population that lived hundreds of generations ago is the same species as a modern population because evolution probably changed the gene pool over that time frame.  Our working definitions of “species” only refer to extant populations.

And scientists still puzzle at the great explosion of life known as the “Cambrian explosion,” when thousands of multicellular animals appeared over 10 or 20 million years (a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms).

Technically, 1000s of multicellular animals first appear in the FOSSIL RECORD during the Cambrian explosion.  We have no way of knowing when those lineages diverged, but we can approximate it using molecular clocks, and it appears the Cambrian explosion is a product of the fossilization process and not a problem for evolution.

Comment #30398

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 02:05 PM (e) (s)

386:

So in order to be, as you say, self-consistent, then just replace weather and meteorology with evolution. Big deal.

Do you really believe this? You deny that someone might conclude that evolution is too at-odds with scripture and at the same time conclude that other sciences create no insurmountable tension with the bible? That the fact that evolution deals with the nature of life itself might, just might, mean that one views its ramifications in a special light.

harold:

However, it’s utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn’t promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase.

That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of “how much.” Of course, you can arbitrarily dismiss those people as not counting for this or that reason.

Frank,

Evolution has to do with life, and meteorology with the weather. It is obvious (to the point of absurdity) how the one has a greater potential impact on one’s faith than the other. Or do you believe that someone is as likely to claim “I can predict whether it will rain tomorrow, therefore I see no need for God” as they are to say “I see how the diversity of life came about; I no longer see any reason to invoke God.”

Do you actually believe that both sciences have exactly the same potential impact on one’s faith? It boggles the mind.

Comment #30399

Posted by Flint on May 16, 2005 02:10 PM (e) (s)

Heddle must therefore believe that there is some aspect of evolutionary science which is different from meteorological science - in other words, their processes must be different.

This is a peculiar statement, since Heddle has just said it’s NOT the process at all, that the scientific method could have been followed in both cases. It is the set of specific facts that comprise evolutionary theory to which Heddle refers. And his observation seems quite generally the case. Where the findings of science are not in obvious or immediate conflict with either his ego or his scriptures, they are neutral.

But when Heddle’s ego and scriptures are threatened, there is no neutrality. You are either supportive or antagonistic to them whether or not you have ever heard of either Heddle or his scriptures!. If you ignore them, you are atheistic ipso facto.

I’m constantly reminded of the joke about the child told to stop pulling the cat’s tail, and responding “I’m not pulling it, I’m just *holding* it. The cat is doing all the pulling.” When it comes to agreeing with scripture and all that entails, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. As seen from the religious “worldview” there is no other possible position for you to take.

Comment #30401

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 16, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

harold:

However, it’s utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn’t promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase.

Heddle:

That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of “how much.” Of course, you can arbitrarily dismiss those people as not counting for this or that reason.

Mr. Heddle, instead of complaining that people are not addressing what you wrote, perhaps you should attend to what others are actually saying?  The theory of evolution does not promote atheism.  People can and do make use of the theory to promote atheism.  That’s what the man said.

If you believe I am wrong, please find me the quote from, say, Futuyma that states: “there is no God”.

In addition, you can’t simply wriggle out of your inconsistency by claiming that the facts are what differentiations evolution from meteorology - the facts were arrived at using precisely the same techniques.

You are in the position of a man in possession of a machine which manufactures pies.  It always does so, and does so flawlessly.  But if the flavor of the pie is one you don’t like, you blame the pie and the machine - never your own personal tastes.

Comment #30403

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 16, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)

I might also notice that Mr. Heddle is, as usual changing the goalposts when it becomes inconvenient to his position.  Note that his original claim was

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

  Nothing here about evolution having inconvenient facts, is there?  Just a claim that evolution promotes atheism because it carries an implication that there is no need for a creator.

Mr. Heddle, while I appreciate that your thinking on this subject is somewhat confused, perhaps you could stick to a single argument at a time?  It would make discussion more pleasant.

Comment #30405

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 16, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

Darn, I posted too fast.  Mr. Heddle’s point - that one could believe evolution promotes atheism because of it’s implied lack of a creator, is precisely the same issue that is possessed by meteorology.  Hence, the intellectual inconsistency of objecting to one rather than the other.

Comment #30406

Posted by 386sx on May 16, 2005 02:38 PM (e) (s)

You deny that someone might conclude that evolution is too at-odds with scripture and at the same time conclude that other sciences create no insurmountable tension with the bible? That the fact that evolution deals with the nature of life itself might, just might, mean that one views its ramifications in a special light.

I don’t deny any of that. (Obviously there are plenty of people who feel that way about things like evolution and crop circles and whatnot.) But the topic was “self-consistency” and it seems to me that viewing something in a special light would indicate an inconsistency in ones views. I mean, I suppose I could go around all day viewing ramifications in a special light and claim that I am self-consistently inconsistent, but that wouldn’t make very much sense, now would it…

Comment #30407

Posted by harold on May 16, 2005 02:40 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle -

“That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God?”

I can’t possibly know what every person has ‘decided’ for the last 200 years, nor can you, nor is that a sane standard for saying that something “promotes atheism”.  But anyone who “lost faith in God” because they heard of the theory of evolution was lacking in faith to begin with, and also misunderstood the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution, for now, explains how life achieved its present physical diversity on earth.  It has nothing to do with God or atheism, and that’s obvious.  If a billion people claim that it does, they’re all wrong.  Likewise, if the theory of evolution were “wrong”, what would that have to do with the existence of God?

I don’t understand your terminology “makes it unnecessary to believe in God”.  It is never “necessary” to believe in God, how could it be (putting aside deterministic Calvinism, whose adherents wouldn’t use the word “necessary” at any rate)?  Belief in God is a matter of faith.  If your faith in God is so frail and tenuous that you need to tell yourself that some physical phenomenon is “proof” of God’s existence, that’s your problem.  If your idea of spiritual faith is some kind of grudging admission that God must be “necessary” because there is “no other explanation for the bacterial flagellum”, then God help you is all I can say.

If you’re trying to say that you want to make it “necessary” for people to believe in God by lying to them about science, or keeping them ignorant of it, I don’t agree with that goal.  It would be as dishonest as it is illogical.  Nor is there any reason to believe that scientifically ignorant people find it “necessary” to believe in God.

I suspect that your underlying issue is that you want to force other people to say that they believe as you claim to believe.  I suspect this because of your use of the words “unnecessary to believe in God”.

Comment #30408

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 02:48 PM (e) (s)

“That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of “how much.” Of course, you can arbitrarily dismiss those people as not counting for this or that reason. “

are you saying that no OTHER branch of science has served the same unreasonable purpose for the delusional?

I think you need a history lesson, Hedley.

“Evolution has to do with life, and meteorology with the weather. It is obvious (to the point of absurdity) how the one has a greater potential impact on one’s faith than the other.”

that depends on how one’s “faith” manifests itself now, doesn’t it?  It IS obvious to those reading your missives exactly how YOUR faith manifests itself.  However, when you try to include the rest of the world in your interpretation of faith, you can only fail. 

That is kinda the point; ID creationists have simply decided that their faith cannot stand dissension of any kind; not scientific, not religious, not philosophical.

What would happen to you, Hedley, if you for one day, decided to broaden your faith a bit?  would you spontaneously combust?

why on earth do you feel the need to make these ridiculous arguments?

I think harold hit your “faith” right on the head:

“They feel threatened by scientific explanations of anything, but especially of the cosmos or the evolution of the human physical body.  This is because once science explains something, it is harder for them to use that particular physical phenomenon as a crutch to “prove” the existence of God to themselves.  Because their own insecurities are irrationally exacerbated by science, they falsely claim that science is related to “secular humanism”, various dictatorial political systems (note that this a direct contradiction of saying that it is related to humanism), “materialism”, “atheism”, “cultural decline”, or whatever else they can come up with to express their own tormenting doubts and insecurities with regard to their own relationship to God.  All of this is nonsense.  Science is compatible with secular humanism, but equally so with Lutheranism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc.”

Ask yourself why you feel your “faith” is threatened by evolutionary theory, when mainstream christianity does not.

Ever think that perhaps to us “It is obvious (to the point of absurdity) ” that you are the one who is not grasping simple concepts.

Comment #30409

Posted by Flint on May 16, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

RGD:

Are you reading the same stuff I am? If Mr. Heddle’s scripture says “there are NO elephants then meteorology is agnostic, since it says nothing about elephants either way, while zoology is antagonistic, because zoology claims there ARE elephants. The devil is in the details.

As I’m reading what he writes, he equates atheism with failure to believe in his scripture according to his interpretation of what that scripture means. Yes, of course one can be a meteorologist without believing in Heddles interpretations, because meteorology doesn’t speak to them in any way. There’s no way to tell if a meteorologist is a “Heddle atheist” until that meteorologist directly addresses materials overlapping Heddle’s scriptural interpretations, in which case the meteorologist either confirms or denies them. There are no other allowed postures in Heddle’s theology.

Dembski said something much more general: Any science without Jesus Christ at the center of it is fatally incomplete at best, hopelessly incorrect as the norm, and dangerously vicious at worst. At least Heddle’s interpretation of scripture is much more narrowly constrained. Heddle’s creator only created Heddle but not the weather. Dembski’s creator created both.

Comment #30410

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)

lol.

take note David:

5 different people who essentially posted the exact same conclusions about your comments, all at the same time.

If it were me, at this point i would be thinking to myself, “hmm, might be time to re-examine what i am saying.”

Comment #30411

Posted by DougT on May 16, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

David H
The only direct theological implication of evolution is against a literal interpretation of Genesis.  Statements like

That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of “how much.”

are of much the same form as saying that Chirsitianity “promotes” slavery, or racism, or anti-gay bigotry, or the subjugation of women.  Not even one person in the last 200 years has used Christianity to justify any of them?  Please.  And, please, do resist the urge to go the “no true Scotsman” route here.

Comment #30412

Posted by Steve U. on May 16, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

Not even one person in the last 200 years has used Christianity to justify any of them?  Please.

More like the last 200 seconds …

Comment #30414

Posted by frank schmidt on May 16, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

Heddle:

Do you actually believe that both sciences have exactly the same potential impact on one’s faith? It boggles the mind.

Yours, perhaps.

Given that one of my earliest religious memories is of praying for rain for the crops in Iowa, and that the earliest religous ceremonies include prayers for good crops and good hunting (weather-dependent), both sciences could have the same impact on one’s faith. They both use methodological naturalism, and neither resorts to a Deity to explain the phenomena on which they concentrate.

When Job’s crops failed, it was attributed to divine intervention. When a contemporary farmer gets hailed out, is that due to divine intervention or blind chance? I wouldn’t doubt that a farmer or two has lost his or her religion when hailed out. If you believe that evolution can lead to atheism, you have to allow for meteorology doing the same. Or the heliocentric solar system.

This is why creationism is properly seen as a threat to all science. If you admit supernatural explanations into any scientific area, you have to admit them into all, after which it isn’t science.

I will pray for your faith to be strengthened.

Comment #30415

Posted by Jon H on May 16, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

Arun Gupta writes: “But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose. “

No it doesn’t. God exists outside of time. We’re in time, like a person in a labyrinth, and unable to see the full extent of it, or where the paths lead. God, being outside, is not so limited, and can view the ends of all the paths at once.

If all moments in time are as one to Him, then he can know the outcome of billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, from the ‘start’, and doesn’t need to constantly fiddle with details.

It seems to me that many Christians have a concept of God which is too limited.

Comment #30417

Posted by Moses on May 16, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

Not Listening wrote:

perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Darwin’s a Saint?  Great.  Well-deserved.  Long time in coming.

David Heddle wrote:

If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism.

The problem is that you are leaving out the context of the critical thesitic definition of all science which includes the premise of secular materialism.  And that it is secular materialism (in this forum evolution, but in other forums Astrophysics, Geology, etc.) that is destroying faith, promoting atheism, yada, yada.  It is YOUR CROWD has that painted all science as secular materialism.  So don’t run away from it because you want to win an argument. 

Theists and atheists agree that science, by its nature and practice, seeks to explain the world through “materialism” and eschews theology as having explanitory power.  Geology.  Meteorology.  Biology.  Physics.  These are all, by YOUR SIDE’s accepted defintion of materialism, materialistic sciences.  Which gets us to what is meant by  materialism.  Materialism, itself, is the view that the natural world can be explained in terms of matter, energy and their interactions. It may be expressed as a methodological rule “science is restricted to explaining the natural world through natural means”, or as a broader, philosophical conclusion that, “therefore, there is no God.”

And let us be clear, it is your side that adds the philospohical conclusion as a certainty; not science.  Many scientists are religous, though not necessarily Christian.  And many are open to the possibility of the existence of God, even if they don’t personally believe.  That you, however, put these words and conclusions in the mouths of others does not make them true.  That you refuse to see what you are doing, doesn’t mean others cannot see.  Anyway, the logic train is simple:

1.  All sciences are secular materialism. (definition)
2.  Evolution is a science.  (definition)
3.  Therefore, evolution is secular materialism. (logic)
4.  Secular materialism, in and of itself, (i.e. in or out of science - see social issues regarding homosexuality, etc.) attacks faith and promotes atheism.  (Your assertion.)

Now, since all science is secular materialism (which has sort of a “duh” obviousness about it) and we know that you believe all secular materialism promotes atheism (because you side says so repeatedly).  Therefore, you must admit that your grounding philosophies, which you haven’t thought out that well, indicate that all science promotes atheism - even if they’re not currently doing it today.

And to back up my point about other sciences promting atheism:

Meteorology promotes atheism because there are RULES to weather which indicate THE FLOOD must be false.  There could not possibly be that kind of rainfall, that long, all over the world, simultaneously.  Further, since water is finite, and goes down hill, you’d just be filling the can by emptying the can, a zero sum game.  Geology provides there is absolutely no evidence for a world-wide flood.  Physics provides the means necessary to date many things far beyond the 10,000 years or so the Bible indicates.  Including the existence of mankind.

Just by these simple examples we can see these sciences are, in fact, promoting atheism.  i.e., the Bible is false, using the very tools, definitions and positions that your side is arguing.

Comment #30418

Posted by Jon H on May 16, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle writes: “That’s ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God?”

Er, the Reformation probably led people to think it was unnecessary to believe in God.

After all, if, instead of a concrete authority of Biblical interpretation, every church can have its own, idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity, and indeed every person can have his or her own, then who’s right? It becomes impossible to know what’s correct Christian belief, so why not cast off the details and adhere only to the general moral principles?

Comment #30419

Posted by Russell on May 16, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

Technically, hairsplittingly, I’d say the Heddle critics are correct in that the statement in question:

“If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.”

says that “just relying on natural processes” is what promotes atheism. But, though it pains me to do so, I feel the need to defend the spirit of his remarks, precisely because, as he said, evolution has to do directly with life itself. For the abstract religious sort, the sort that read scripture in a non-literal way, probably no science will present a conflict. But to the more literal minded - and I don’t think one can argue they don’t represent a sizable fraction of christians - it can present a direct contradiction. And this is the essence of Phil Johnson’s mission. He wants to drive a Wedge between the faithful who believe in a deity who performs magic tricks on a fairly regular basis, on the one hand, and atheists together with - worse in his mind - theists whose deity is more of non-physical entity.

So, can we get back to the subject now?

Comment #30420

Posted by Unban GWW on May 16, 2005 03:28 PM (e) (s)

Unban GWW!

BTW, the “obscenity” he used, that prompted banning, was ‘etallef’, backwards, or so he says at pharyngula.
On second thought, banning’s too good for him! To the stake! Get those bundles of sticks tied up together, you know, uh….oops, better not call them THAT!

Comment #30423

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

Back on topic, please?

I enjoy playing “whack a mole” with creationist trolls as much as anyone, but is there any chance we can get back on topic?  I think the topic Reed raises is an important one.

What about the issue of journalism giving IDers more cred than they deserve?

In another thread someone posted a note about how their professors were so surprised to see PR and marketing winning out over honest science.

Isn’t it about time we started playing the PR game more?

What will you say when the PR machine that is the current right wing rolls into your department?  Aren’t we all tired of seeing the decline in funding for the sciences from the right wing; especially in the biological sciences?

I threw out one idea about giving journalists who act intellingently free memberships in scientific societies to encourage them.

does that idea suck, or have merit?  any other ideas?

Comment #30424

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

ack! make that Nick instead of Reed.  sorry.

Comment #30425

Posted by Frank J on May 16, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

Russell wrote:

But, though it pains me to do so, I feel the need to defend the spirit of his remarks, precisely because, as he said, evolution has to do directly with life itself.

But biology in general deals directly with life itself. And how about “microevolution,” which IDers have no problem with, yet which is the source of all the “randomness” and “red in tooth and claw” stuff that is supposed to be the basis for all the wrongs of humanity? Also note that ID highlights the design of life, not just human life. Classic creationists are not happy with that, but as long as it targets their feared “Darwinism” I guess it’s better than nothing.

Comment #30426

Posted by Frank J on May 16, 2005 03:43 PM (e) (s)

Nick Matzke wrote:

It is true that the article contains inaccuracies (“[Johnson] agrees the world is billions of years old” — no, he doesn’t);

Not to take away from an excellent article, but with the above quote a casual reader could wrongly infer that Johnson is a YEC. As many of you know, I prefer to speak in terms of strategy, not belief, but if one must address beliefs, then the IDers’ core belief, if not their only belief, is that one can have it both ways. Not just with the age of the earth and common descent, which are especially necessary for the big tent, but with virtually everything surrounding evolution, science, religion, politics, etc.

The following examples are not necessarily all from the same individual, but IDers don’t debate these among themselves nearly as much as scientists debate even the slightest details:

Evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified.
We are not creationists but we are.
The designer is not necessarily God, but He is.
Our ideas are strictly scientific, but they are faith-based, just like “Darwinism.”
Abiogenesis is impossible but it occurred billion of times in lieu of speciation.
Our moral objection is with “microevolution” so we must discredit “macroevolution.”

Can you think of more?

Comment #30427

Posted by Frank J on May 16, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

PaulP wrote:

On the other hand, our observations of how life has changed over time on our planet does put restrictions on the actions of a creator, if one exists.

May I assume that you mean restrictions on how the creator did/does it, as opposed to how the creator could have done it?

If anything, it is ID that implies restrictions on how the creator could have done it.

Comment #30429

Posted by Joel Shurkin on May 16, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

I am a long-time science writer and i’ve taken the liberty of posting this site on my blog…Of Cabbages and Kings )http://cabbageskings.blogspot.com… mainly because I completely agree. Unfortunately, the media, piled under mountains of abuse from the radical right, no longer has the guts to take them on. The media has long been accused of having a liberal bias. In fact, it has become the most conservative institution in the country.

Comment #30431

Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 03:55 PM (e) (s)

Sir Toe_jam

5 different people who essentially posted the exact same conclusions about your comments, a