Lord Spanky has once again punished his keyboard with an enormous response to my post on Richard Dawkins. I offer it to you in its unedited form and eagerly await your comments.
Begin Commentary:
This post will outline not evidence against evolution, but in favor of creation. I’m a firm believer that this whole debate between theism and atheism rests completely on evolution vs. creation (be it a literal six day creation or not). Think about it…it deals with our origins. If evolution (in its purest form) is true, then God is not, and if creation is true, then atheistic evolution falls by the wayside, at the very least.
Now, beginning, if creation is true then there are certain things that would inherently be true and we must see if they are. Now please don’t misunderstand some of this evidence as simply against evolution. I will present nothing that does not support creation, and I will demonstrate how it does. If creation is true, then the earth should be much younger than 4 billion years. There should also be clearly defined gaps between major taxonomic groups, due to the belief that everything would have been created completely formed. You following me? Also, there should be a virtually instantaneous appearance of organisms in the fossil record, NOT a gradual progression of any sort. This, to me, is a huge requirement, for if we were created, then life would have just appeared. Agreed? On to evidence.
We’ll begin with the age of the earth.
“It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico’s Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth’s history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years.”
“Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 60,000,000,000 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1E+17 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years.
“The atmospheric content of helium-4 (the most abundant isotope of helium) has accumulated from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust and oceans, from nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays, and from the sun. If the present rate of accumulation has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth’s history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there.”
“One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. If this rate has been constant throughout five billion years of geologic history, one might expect over fifty feet of meteorite dust to have settled all over the surface of the earth. … The average meteorite contains about three hundred times more nickel than the average earth rock.”
“It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Colombian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past.”
“If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2×10 to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power.”
“It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of C14 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/C12 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. … Creationists argue that since C14 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old.”
THE FOSSIL RECORD
The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It’s as though you “turned the light on” in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat’s principle and Abbe’s Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness… Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682
Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, “Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike….This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known.” Science, Aug.27, 1982
RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, “The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. …This moment, right at the start of the Earth’s Cambrian Period…marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures. …‘This is Genesis material,’ gushed one researcher. …demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today…a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver.” Discover, p.40, 4/93
Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, “And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. …the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation…”, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
THE MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS
SEPARATE LIVING KINDS” Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, “Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).”, Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990
similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, “It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless.” Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises… when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet… Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish –> Amphibian –> Reptile –> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.”
I apologize for the references to evolution, but as you all must admit, proving creation and disproving evolution have become very much the same thing, no matter how flawed that thinking may be. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. All I would ask is that you read this objectively. I’ve pulled this from many sources in an attempt to remain as non-biased as possible, and thereby increase credibility, so please don’t accuse me of being biased. Science should look at all evidence objectively. Unfortunately, in our world today this is indeed a rare thing, no matter what circle you travel in. I can only say that I did my best with regard to this.
Related posts:
- Lord Spanky Speaketh The Truthiness
- Creation Fairy Tale Museum To Open In Kentucky
- The Evolution Of Summer Camp
- Evolution Vs Creationism - Simpsons Style
- Creation Science Cartoon


October 18th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Let me start of by saying that if I were to turn this in to my professor, he’d litterally tear it up. SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES! and don’t forget to name some sources to.
“â€If creation is true, then the earth should be much younger than 4 billion years. There should also be clearly defined gaps between major taxonomic groups, due to the belief that everything would have been created completely formed.—
Actaully, i’ve got another reason for there to be major gaps between the groups. Inbetween forms aren’t nearly as effective as the end results. Every major group has found it’s own niche. An inbetween form would have to compete with two more specialised forms.
Example, when a race eats both A and B, and evolves into two forms, one that eats A more efficiently, and one that eats B more efficiently. There is no conflict betwee these new groups, but both compete with the old race, which is unspecialised in eating anythind. This old race will die out in favor of the new races.
Suddenly, there is a major gap in the main species groups.
.
.
“â€â€œOne estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. “â€
that would be an approximate 351 kg/km2, even over only 5000 years, that would be a layer of 1.8million kg/km2….I Think there’s something wrong with your estimate…
.
“â€â€œIf humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years)—
This is a rediculous estimation, it’s wrong on so many levels…Do you truly think a caveman community grows as fast as a modern society? I can do the exact same thing, watch: “Lets take The Netherlands, if humanity is 2.5 million years old, the population would have been several thousand pentillion people at the start, (the Dutch population is shrinking)
.
“â€â€œIt now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of C14 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present.—
ok, first, C14 decay in living creatures is moot, as they ingest more C14 as well, they decay starts when they stop (die). also, 30% less per what? per day? per year? per million years? it makes a huge difference.
.
“â€This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.—
nope, it’s like entering the highway with an entrance ramp that dissolves. When you’re on the highway everyone goes “But there’s no ramp!†(soft parts do not fossilise, and primitive lifeforms contain no bones or similar)
.
Also, let me point out that RICHARD Monastersky, Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner and STEPHEN J. GOULD….
say nothing to prove creationism. All they say is that in the cambrian explosion was sudden….of course you may make your own conclusions.
.
“â€here is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians.—
what the hell are you talking about? look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
.
“â€Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#Origins
.
“â€Also consider the enigma of flight—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds#Evolution
.
“â€Science should look at all evidence objectively. “â€
indeed, so please tell me where you’ve got it from, so we can judge wether it’s worth anything, as it will be a bit hard to check it all myself (lacking large scale labs and lots of time/knowledge)
.
You make some
October 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Hello Lord Spanky,
As your post is long, I’ll address it in pieces, like I have for some of your previous posts. Since my time is short right now, I’ll only deal with your first paragraph.
In the first paragraph you set up a false dichotomy. Accepting the truth of evolution is not equivalent to a denial of God. Why could God not create the physical and chemical laws that govern the universe and lead to evolution? Couldn’t an all knowing, all powerful deity set things in motion during the big bang is such a way that humans were an inevitable result?
Also, it is possible, though extraordinarily unlikely, that God could have created everything in 7 days about 6000 years ago, but included a false history. Why a deity would lie to its own creations is beyond me, but it is a possibility.
I’ll address more that others do not as time permits.
Cheers.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
for now, i will repost sidfaiwu’s response to the supposed Dawkins quote. i find this one particularly bad, not only since its so blatant, but also because creationist circles have never been very shy about using flat out lies to try and sway people’s opinion. thanks for researching this sidfaiwu.
“Ah, nothing like taking the world’s foremost critic of Creationism out of context in support of Creationism.
Actually, looking across the net, I find this quote use by Creationists all over the place! Let me go get my copy of “The Blind Watchmaker†and turn to page 229 and 230…
“And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you might think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of ‘punctualists’ and ‘gradualists’. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought would agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.â€
There was quite a lot contained in those three dots (…) in Spanky’s version of the quote, wasn’t there? “
October 18th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Also, just to point out a few hidden assumptions in the opening list of examples… Using H4, uranium salt buildup, and C14 rates as examples of why the earth has to be young doesn’t work because the earth is not a closed system. Helium is lost to our atmosphere pretty regularly, water is consistently added (through cometary impact; the experts don’t agree on exact how much is added, but it’s pretty obvious that the amount of water on earth changes from time to time), and C14 creation rates change drastically depending on radiation sources (nuclear weapons testing will increase the C14 production drastically, for instance). None of these processes is stable enough over geologic timeframes to use as a marker of long-term effects.
Using volcanic activity (and how much rock is spewed up) as a marker doesn’t work either because, well, the rock that comes up in a volcano comes from somewhere… The continental plates are constantly subsuming each other and coming back up as volcanos. That’s why we;ve got about the same amount of land as we did 4 billion years ago; volcanos aren’t creating new rock, they’re just recycling old rock.
I need to work on other things, so I’ll leave the rest for now. I just thought I’d let you know that unstaded assumption are usually the problem with arguments like this; you assume something is true when it’s not, the rest of your reasoning can be solid and the argument is garbage.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
“If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2×10 to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power.â€
Allow me to counter if I may with the Tobo Catastophy Theory. Around 70,000-50,000 years ago, the Toba Caldera in Indonesia underwent a massive eruption equal to a Gigaton explosion. The resultant ash created massive global temperature drops and many genetic bottlenecks in the world’s species and even reduced the human population to a few thousand
I have sources, the wikipedia link makes for an easier read, second for legitimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/evolution/
October 18th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
My area of expertise falls within the biological arguments Spanky made, so I’ll just give a couple of my replies to it:
- Gaps in the fossil record do not mean nothing is there, only that something could be found to bridge it
- Entire species could go extinct without leaving traces of themselves
- Just recently, a very complete intermediate “fishopod” was discovered: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-first-fossil-of-fish-that-crawled-onto-land-discovered.html
- Compared to drugs research, archaology is a relatively small funded scientific endevour. If as many billions of dollars were poured into it as pharmaceuticals, we would probably have new fossils popping up everywhere.
- The widespread nature of human civilisation means that many locations for fossils are all but off-limits, or they themselves have been destroyed.
Finally, it was stated that “In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion”. This is a complete lie, and certainly doesn’t sound like a scientifically based assumption/assertion. Fish with lungs (mudskippers) and birds with teeth (archaeopteryx) have certainly been well documented.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I’m not a biologist, so I won’t deal with the bad cience. Many here are much more qualified to do that than I. No, I’ll deal with the bad theology.
“I’m a firm believer that this whole debate between theism and atheism rests completely on evolution vs. creation (be it a literal six day creation or not). Think about it… it deals with our origins. If evolution (in its purest form) is true, then God is not, and if creation is true, then atheistic evolution falls by the wayside, at the very least.”
This is a false dichotomy, as others have said.
1. There is no “debate” between theism and atheism. There’s a lot of name calling from some theists who take an oddly literal view of a piece of poetry from the Bible. There’s a lot of patient (and sometimes impatient) explanation from biologists. And there’s a bunch of invective from people like Richard Dawkins. None of this can reasonably be called a “debate”. Even if it were, no matter what IDers or Dawkins would have you believe, it’s not about atheism and thesim.
2. There is a reasonable discussion between atheism and theism, or between science and religion, but it tends to rest more in the field of moral philosophy. Science, for the most part, has very little to say about morals. This falls under the purview of philosophers, be they religious, humanistic or whatever. Science talk about what we could do and moral philosophers talk about what we _should_ do.
3. The existence or otherwise of God is completely independent of the question of how humans came to be. This should be obvious to even the most disinterested observer.
4. There is no such thing as “atheistic evolution”, in the sense you mean it. Evolution is merely the fact that species evolved into other species. Most theories are of various natural processes that could have caused that. Evolution doesn’t require God any more than gravity requires God, yet we don’t call gravity “atheistic”.
As an aside, evolution actually satisfactorily answers a few thorny questions that theologians used to have. One, for example, is the question about what it means to be “made in God’s image”, given that God doesn’t have a physical body. If you understand that our bodies are animal in nature, everything makes sense.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:03 am
To Boris,
“Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.”
Are you serious? Evolutionists believe is not even close to an argument of any validity. Are you telling me that all of these vertibrates that appeared in the Cambrian explosion just happened to have ancestors that had NO solid parts to fossilize? I’m pretty sure something going to have to have bones before it has a spine. Evolution has got no answer for the Cambrian explosion. It is the biggest hole.
To Humanistic Jones,
That is nothing more than a theory. The only proof they offered was a layer to ash, but how they attributed it to that specific volcanoe they did not say. If that can’t be proven, then all you’ve done is offer more evidence for creation by pointed out the relatively small group of ancestors that current humans generations would have come from. It all hinges on whether the volcanoe theory is true or not.
To Agnostic,
Gaps in the fossil record don’t mean that there is nothing there. Indeed it does mean that something could be found to bridge it. It also means that nothing has been found to bridge it, which brings to question why high-school taught evolution tells students that bridges have been found. Also, agreed, entire species could go extinct without leaving any trace of themselves, but that many supposed different species? Come on, that’s reaching a bit, don’t you think? As for Archaeopteryx and your land fish, Archaeopteryx is shrouded in controversy, and is far from proof. Your land fish needs more study. You’ve got it from one source saying that it MAY have breathed air and that it APPEARS to have a wrist like structure. There are a lot of animals in the animal kingdom, as you should well know, that are completely unrelated, yet have practically identical organs, and that just don’t seem to make sense.
To Pseudonym,
1. I used debate, admittedly, for lack of a better term at the time. I agree that word is not really accurate and I apologize. “Issue” would be more appropriate.
2. Are you trying to tell me that atheism and science are synonymous, and theism has no place in science? As a Christian, I firmly believe that religion and science should work together.
3. The question of God is completely independent of the question of our origins. However, if it someday turned out that creation was true and it was proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, then it would imply God’s existence, be it the Christian God or not.
4. I was merely presenting a case for creation. Admittedly, due to my own biased I did throw in evidence of such things as a younger earth than is currently believed, but that issue is largely independent from creation itself. The issue of life spontaneously forming from a lightning bolt hitting some goo in a puddle is complete ludicrous, however, as I have stated in other posts.
Also, I don’t think I completely follow your last statement.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:13 am
I like thinking, reading, talking, about things like evolution. But please, creationists, understand this: If you don’t postulate the existence of a divine plan, the origins of life have nothing to do with theology. It’s biology–remember, that class we all took in high school and gave very few of us any insight into the human condition. Maybe we can glean some insight into why we think/act the way we do by examining our origins, but you’re probably get more useful information from history, sociology, psychology, hell even the arts.
It’s hard for me to want to argue with someone when I’m debating an intellectual hobby and they’re debating for the survival of their entire belief system. Pretty much all the ‘discussion’ between creationists/ID’ers/whatever and evolutionists is loaded and unbalanced, but most of all unproductive. Maybe we have to keep putting forth rational and scientifically sound views to keep the religious from taking over our schools and children, but it sickens me that a discussion that should be stimulating and enlightening is instead a frustrating duty.
And I have to wonder if you don’t justify the creationist when you put so much effort into refuting their claims. After all, it must be incredibly important, or else why would the non-creationists care so much?
October 19th, 2006 at 12:46 am
“2. Are you trying to tell me that atheism and science are synonymous, and theism has no place in science?”
No. You seemed to be saying that, though.
The overwhelming majority of Christians in the developed world (especially outside the US) these days accept the standard scientific account of the origin of species, and Christianity is still alive and well. I really don’t see what the issue is.
“However, if it someday turned out that creation was true and it was proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, then it would imply God’s existence, be it the Christian God or not.”
If God wanted to prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, there would be easier ways to do it than micro-managing the creation of a world to look like the diversity of the natural world came about in a different way than it really did.
If, as you seem to imply, it’s possible to buy the fact that “creation” didn’t necessarily take place over six literal days, then it’s not too much of a stretch to see that the first few chapters of Genesis might be even less literal than that. Even the plainest reading of Genesis 1 shows that it has a poetic structure, right down to a refrain: “There was evening, and there was morning…”
I’ll leave the best advice on this topic to the great theologian, John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis. Note that this was written three hundred years before Darwin.
“The issue of life spontaneously forming from a lightning bolt hitting some goo in a puddle is complete ludicrous, however, as I have stated in other posts.”
Evolution is merely the fact that species evolved into other species over a very long time period. The question of the origin of life is completely separate from the question of the origin of species, which is what evolution concerns itself with.
Unlike with evolution, there is no real consensus amongst biologists on what exactly happened when life appeared on Earth. There’s a bunch of basic ideas, but few specifics.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:27 am
yo spanky, pal, i’m a patient person willing to discuss but you’re stretching it. what i posted there was the REAL Dawkins quote, as researched by sidfaiwu. so, instead of responding to our accusation of a fraudulent quote, you make a shitty segway. real nice. are you a coward?
October 19th, 2006 at 3:04 am
Cmon boris that isn’t going to get anyone anywhere, it’s just flamebait.
Spanky:
“I’m pretty sure something going to have to have bones before it has a spine.”
Well actually the more primitive members of the animal phylum Chordata have only a flexible, rod-like structure called a notochord throughout life. Vertebrate embryos (including humans) are seen to develop this notochord during embryogenesis. Wikipedia: “In lower vertebrates, it persists throughout life as the main axial support of the body, while in higher vertebrates it is replaced by the vertebral column.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord)
“Archaeopteryx is shrouded in controversy”
I know not of any controversy surrounding it… please point me towards some. On the contrary, it is clearly not completely avian nor completely reptilian: it had the reptile characteristics of teeth, a bony tail and three clawed fingers, but also bird-like features such as wings and a wishbone.
“Also, agreed, entire species could go extinct without leaving any trace of themselves, but that many supposed different species? Come on, that’s reaching a bit, don’t you think?”
Your land fish needs more study
Indeed, I’ll be interesting in hearing the developments in it. For now though, it sounds like you haven’t even considered the possibility that it might be a “point for the evolutionists”. I am open to your ideas, I only ask that you remain open to mine - if we will talk science to help this debate along then we should argue scientifically, which means being open to the possibility that your arguments are incorrect or in need of modification. I am certainly keeping this in mind, and your input on the matter has been very interesting to read.
You’ve got it from one source saying that it MAY have breathed air and that it APPEARS to have a wrist like structure.
You say this as if it were a bad thing… we will never know if it did all these things unless we could observe it. Most of paleontology is conjecture and educated assumptions, but are the most likely explanations for the structures observed. In defence, I would use the same argument you have many times over for biblical issues, which is after all just once source which churches base all their teachings on.
There are a lot of animals in the animal kingdom, as you should well know, that are completely unrelated, yet have practically identical organs, and that just don’t seem to make sense.
It depends how you define “completely unrelated” and to what characteristics you are talking about. If, in the instance you look at yeasts and birds, you could be forgiven for colloquially stating that they are “completely unrelated”. While they superficially and anatomically have little in common, at the cellular level the similarities are apparent: both share an identical selections of cellular organs (golgi body, proteasomes, endoplasmic reticuli, ribosomes, mitochondria, centrioles, vacuoles etc.). They are both related in that they are eukaryotes.
If on the other hand you looked at analogous structures (which share similar function but are not thought to have evolved from the same ancestral structure), such as the wings of insects and birds, you will notice that they share almost nothing in common apart from a shared function. This is not in contradiction of evolutionary theory, and it doesn’t fail to make sense in light of it.
We could discuss this further should you be able to provide me with some examples of “completely unrelated” species which don’t seem to make sense. I will endevour to explain anything which has a scientifical explanation :)
As an endnote, I hope that the majority of people not sharing your viewpoint do not drive you away from this site. Your challenges to science/evolutionary theory can only serve to highlight the imperfections which need to be addressed, and will hopefully improve it. Some people I think forget that science stagnates without debate, so your input on the matter is appreciated even if it makes us think a bit!
October 19th, 2006 at 3:09 am
Opps left one undiscussed point:
“Also, agreed, entire species could go extinct without leaving any trace of themselves, but that many supposed different species? Come on, that’s reaching a bit, don’t you think?â€
I would not think of offering up that explanation as the sole reason, rather in conjunction with the other points I noted it helps to explain a proportion of the reasons. At the other end of the scale, it would be just as unreasonable for you to say that “no species could go extinct without leaving at least some trace”.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:26 am
@Agnöstic
i am starting to see patterns in spanky’s behaviour, and its avoidance of real arguments. instead both he and J have tried their best to just re-hash old crap like nothing ever happened, even though multiple people called them on it. so, my willingness to have any sort of discussion with spanky is completely dependant on his response to the Dawkins quote. i would not call that flaimbait.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:49 am
“Are you telling me that all of these vertibrates that appeared in the Cambrian explosion just happened to have ancestors that had NO solid parts to fossilize?”
Actually, vertebrate ancestors appear in the PreCambrian era regardless. But then, pretty much everything that creationists think about the Cambrian Explosion is wrong.
“I’m pretty sure something going to have to have bones before it has a spine.”
A lot of early life started forming hard exoshells, teeth, and skulls before anything else. There is every reason to believe that the development of hard parts was one big Cambrian event, in part because we are lucky enough to have a few cases of well preserved soft-part fossils that give us a sense of life before hard parts.
“Evolution has got no answer for the Cambrian explosion. It is the biggest hole.”
The idea that the Cambrian explosion contradicts evolution is basically just an empty creationist talking point. It’s nonsense. There are many many different elements of it that are hotly debated by biologists. But none of these debates have much to do with it being a huge problem for evolution in general, just various differnet specific ideas about how things proceeded.
“Gaps in the fossil record don’t mean that there is nothing there. Indeed it does mean that something could be found to bridge it. It also means that nothing has been found to bridge it, which brings to question why high-school taught evolution tells students that bridges have been found.”
But they have been found. I think most creationists misunderstand how fossil evidence is used. What the fossil record gets us is a somewhat random sampling of species alive at different times. However, it is the relation of all the various transitional features that allow us to bridge the connections between different species.
“Also, agreed, entire species could go extinct without leaving any trace of themselves, but that many supposed different species? Come on, that’s reaching a bit, don’t you think?”
Er, no. Fossilization, as we know, is extremely rare, and its also very fickle: only certain areas and ecologies fossilize well. We have tons of fossils from silt beds, and almost none from acid-soil forests that generally destroy bones long before they can be fossilized.
“As for Archaeopteryx and your land fish, Archaeopteryx is shrouded in controversy, and is far from proof.”
Nonsense. The major issue in dispute with Archaeopteryx is whether it is a DIRECT descendant of modern birds or whether it is a cousin of that line. No matter how that debate comes out, it’s still a transitional fossil that demonstrates that birds are dinosaurs.
“Your land fish needs more study. You’ve got it from one source saying that it MAY have breathed air and that it APPEARS to have a wrist like structure.”
I don’t think there is any serious doubt that ole’ tiktik is a transitional tetrapod.
“2. Are you trying to tell me that atheism and science are synonymous, and theism has no place in science? As a Christian, I firmly believe that religion and science should work together.”
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are many religious scientists, of course, but science is a secular activity: like brushing your teeth. It’s pragmatic and proceedural, without theological commitments.
“The issue of life spontaneously forming from a lightning bolt hitting some goo in a puddle is complete ludicrous, however, as I have stated in other posts.”
Things often sound ludicrous when you reduce them to caricatures.
October 19th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Lordspanky,
As has been mentioned a number of times, could you quote some of the sources for the material you mention in the main article? This would go a long way towards validating your article, and has been done by most of the other folks arguing their points in response.
dave
October 19th, 2006 at 5:36 am
I must know how to use italics…..
indeed, in case you missed it in the last reply.
SOURCES
October 19th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Alcari:
Just incase that was a question on how to get italics in your posts, encase the sentence to be italisized in [i] [/i] tags, replacing the square brackets with
Boris:
I understand that sometimes it seems like you’re talking to a brick wall, but it was just the “coward” comment which was unneeded flamebait :)
October 19th, 2006 at 6:19 am
*Replacing the square brackets with > and <
October 19th, 2006 at 6:20 am
<i>Sentence to be italisized</i>
ARGH. Sorry people, that was an effort in itself…
October 19th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Based on his posts elsewhere, Lord Spanky seems to be getting a lot of his material from two authors, Michael Denton and Duane Gish. In particular, he uses Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” (1986), and Gish’s “Speculations and Experiments on the Origins of Life” (1972). Gish, in particular, is considered by the mainstream scientific community to have produced no scientific work since the 1960s. He has, instead, written ‘non-fiction’ books on creationism for a popular, non-scientific audience.
A detailed critique of Denton’s book can be found on Talk Origins
October 19th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Thanks Sidfaiwu, I know Gish but could not recall where the other material came from, Denton of course.
“It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end…”
That quote had been haunting me for not being able to recall who wrote it.
But to business at hand. The fossils are the thing that I get always when talking with creationists.
Why do creationists keep using fossils as evidence or the lack of them actually when it is well known that fossilization is rare occurence? Or do they not know it?
Why creationists always mix up origin of life and evolution as if those are the same?
Why creationists keep equating atheism with science? Do they think that religious scientists are lesser in their beliefs due science?
October 19th, 2006 at 8:21 am
(Emphasis mine.) What are you talking about? Evolution “in its purest form” is true. It has been observed and even duplicated experimentally. There is positively no question that organisms evolve. There is also the scientific theory (which does not mean “hypothesis”) that points to evolution as the origin of species. Naturally, the word “theory” does not imply untested or even unproven, much like the theory of relativity.
You also play the “transitional” card. This is a term that has been invented as a manner of attacking evolution. Evolution says nothing about so-called transitional species and does not predict that we will find fossils of any. Evolution only describes speciation, where a new species “branches” from one that already exists and both evolve independently.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:44 am
You know? those kinds of debate aren’T really interesting in my opinion… Why?
- ‘There is an unexplained hole in science!!!1!!’ enter God, creationism, or whatever, never ‘yet completely understood’? And still times and times againt, the holes fill and God finds new ones.
- ‘That has that particularity so science is wrong!’ Then what is right? Aliens? Little green mens or the orion belt of the Men in Black? Or the dimentionnal locker on MIB2? Obviously! Why i can’t think of anything else, it must be that and nothing else.
Bah.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:04 am
but but…html didn’t work the last time…
Thanks :)
Neary is right, it’s strange that relious people have accpeted that Ra isn’t the sun, that Thor doesn’t make lightning, that whoever doesn’t make the water come down from the mountain, while they’re still hanging on to creationism. It’s like the last straw, the final bastion of religion, which they simply refuse to surrender, despite all the evidence.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Ugh, the same old tired bits of “evidence” for creationism. All of which have long since been refuted. Why do any of you actually bother taking the time to write a lengthy response to this guy?
October 19th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Pseudo-Science is “LESS” beleivable than regular science because it is beleived by “STUPID” people. Seriously, grow some scepticism, things you blindly accept as logic should make “sense”.
“Everytime you see a rainbow, god is having gay sex”
October 20th, 2006 at 8:02 am
“I apologize for the references to evolution, but as you all must admit, proving creation and disproving evolution have become very much the same thing, no matter how flawed that thinking may be.”
The reason you cannot “prove” Creation without “disproving” evolution is because you are not providing any evidence for Creationism. What you are doing is using a perversion of logic to use infirmities (or percieved infirmities) in a contrary theory (ie evolution) as evidence for your own. (see also: intelligent design)
October 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pm
i don’t think spanky is coming back :-(
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:50 am
why does spanky trust science in everything he does?(like driving ,eaTING, watching tv) but will not trust it in his origin? i mean he had to trust science when they shocked therapy his crazy ass(atleast thats what i hope is wrong with him and hes not just a complete idoit)….
doulbe standard=doubt
October 24th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Lord Jethro: “Are you telling me that all of these vertibrates that appeared in the Cambrian explosion just happened to have ancestors that had NO solid parts to fossilize?”
Yep:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39483000/jpg/_39483947_natfossil2310270.jpg
Have you been asleep for 50 years? The Ediacaran Fauna has been known since the 1940’s. Learn about it here:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
It always amazes me that Christians can be so stupid as to make claims they don’t even bother to look into before they open their science-ignorant mouths.
Oh and by the way genius - the correct spelling is “vertebrates”
October 28th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Evolution is not science it is a fairy tale for people who do not wish to believe in God because then they would have to admit they are going to be held accountable for their actions. There is no god is an absolute statement, you must have absolute knowledge to know for sure that there is no god. The real issue is not creation vs evolution, it is whether or not the bible is true. If it is true you will be held accountable for your deeds done in this life. God cares about right and wrong, he requires everyone to be perfect to be able to go to heaven. Heaven is a perfect place and would not be heaven if imperfections existed. God requires righteousness. The ten commandments are what God will judge us by. #9 is do not lie. have you ever lied? 8 is dont steal, ever stole anything even if it was of very little value? 7 dont commit adultery jesus said if you look with lust you have commited adultery all ready in your heart. God judges actions, thoughts, and intentions. i have broken all of these and deserve to go to hell. have you broken these? if yes you would be guilty before God and he would have to punish you in hell. for eternity. all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. nobody can live up to the standards, we all deserve hell. its like you must go to court for breaking the law and you have a huge fine and you are broke. no good deeds will get you out you have to serve your time. but Jesus has offered to pay your fine. He led a sinless life never lusted or lied or stole, died, was buried and rose again. He defeated death and his blood washes away our sin. but you must receive his forgiveness by repenting and putting your trust in Him. Like you would a parachute when jumping out of a plane. well here is something about irreducible complexity. it can be said a lot better by this guy than by me. think about eternity instead of the few short years here on earth.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm
Michael J. Behe
Discovery Institute
July 31, 2000
Introduction
In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step,(1) with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design.
In order to communicate the concept to a general audience, I used a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system in everyday life. The mousetrap I pictured in my book had a number of parts that all had to work together to catch mice. The usefulness of the mousetrap example was that it captured the essence of the problem I saw for gradualistic evolution at a level that could be understood by people who were unfamiliar with the fine points of protein structure and function–that is, nearly everyone. For that same reason, defenders of Darwinism have assailed it. Although it may seem silly to argue over a mousetrap, it is actually critical to allowing people who are not professional scientists to understand the issues involved. In this article I defend the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity that can’t be put together by a series of small, undirected steps.
Mousetrap rebuttals have popped up in a variety of situations including national television, but most recently (June 2000) was at a conference I attended at Concordia University in Wisconsin where Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, spent several minutes during his presentation attacking the mousetrap. In doing so he used images of mousetraps that were drawn by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware and can be seen on his web site(2) (reproduced below with permission). In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including: (1) McDonald’s reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; (2) intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps; (3) if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell.
there is more on the website thanks for reading.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
not another one…
“Evolution is not science it is a fairy tale for people who do not wish to believe in God because then they would have to admit they are going to be held accountable for their actions.”
If I actually had a reason to believe in god then I would. To be honest, I (and I think most people) would much rather believe in god and an afterlife and be held to a set of (possibly strict and silly) rules. After all, whats a lifetime of misery compared to an eternity of pleasure or what have you. The thing is, there’s too many mutually exclusive versions, and they all claim extraordinary, unprovable, and frankly unbelievable things. I’m not going to throw away all reason and believe in something just because I want to.
“The real issue is not creation vs evolution, it is whether or not the bible is true. If it is true you will be held accountable for your deeds done in this life.”
It could also be said the real issue whether or not you want to throw away your ability to think freely. I would say that the real issue pertaining to this argument is creationism vs. evolution, since there are many versions of creationism and ID etc… and creation in general does not imply your version of a vengeful god who holds his own supposed creations to an unreasonable standard.
The rest of your first paragraph is just a bunch of empty “Believe of burn” bullshit we’ve seen a thousand times.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
“The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity†in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems.”
an “irreducible system” is just that, a term you coined to support your own belief system. You can’t prove that such biological systems cannot occur naturally. You can only speculate, and your reasoning is far from proof. The truth is that there is already a good deal of evidence and proof supporting evolution that a few supposedly unexplained things in the current theory is very very far from reason to not believe in evolution, and disproving evolution, does NOT prove creationism.
“There is no god is an absolute statement, you must have absolute knowledge to know for sure that there is no god.”
Some make it foolishly, but most, like me, simply say that we have NO reason to believe there is a god, no proof, and evidence against the specifics of many self-contradicting believe systems. I don’t believe there is no god, I just don’t believe in god and find the possibility of god existing extremely unlikely.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“I don’t believe there is no god, I just don’t believe in god and find the possibility of god existing extremely unlikely.”
How is the possiblity of God unlikely??? Nothing but his “invisibilty to the human eye” is unlikely. The basis of your argument is that you cannot see or understand god so you have come to the conclusion that he does not exist. This is what you want and it is at the back of your mind when you make your claims, as well as your desire for their to be no God. The possbility of god is the most likely thing given the universe we occupy.
(1) The origin of the universe. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe must have a cause.
(2)The complex order of the universe.
William Craig-
“During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?
The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.{5} P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.{6} John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimate that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.{7} There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.
There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do.
1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to either law or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.”
(3) Objective moral values in the world
(4)The historical facts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
[Most of the ideas here from William Craig]
Evolution is so much more unlikely than God. You can see this from the constant changing of theories. From Darwin to punctual equilibrium. All it is, is the naturalistic world-view trying to account for things presently seen by people without admitting to a god.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
After having read or at least scanned through many of the comments I feel slightly out of place leaving this entry, as it will not include any quotes, statistics, or anything like elements to help carry my point. I’m not really trying to make a point this writing is really just what were personal musings, now here for other people to read and maybe leave an opinion on (though with such a bland beginning that may be unlikely). I’d firstly like to mention that I personally don’t believe in God or at least not THE God we are taught about. Obviously I have this opinion because I find it unlikely but that’s not to say it is unlikely-both creation and evolution are theories, no-one has proved to the world that either unquestionably exists and there is no completely accurate way of testing both to find a figure either in the form of a fraction or percentage etc. that can represent the likelihood of either happening. So how without being biassed is it possible to state that one is more likely or unlikely that the other? Anyway going back to my comment about not believing in THE God… Last year sometime our religious studies teacher was talking to us about hell and read out some accounts from people who had had ‘near death experiences.’ For me there was one story that really stuck out, it was about a man who had had an N.D.E (until which point we’d only been told ones of people going towards a light and feeling a great ease). But this person was different he said, in contrast to the white light, that he had been surrounded by a translucent reddish haze and that he could hear voices beckoning him forward and he kept moving forward and the haze dragually got more dense until he saw the bodies of those voices he said they were all little demons. They then began to pinch him and bite him until he found that he had re-entered his body. Having been an atheist he quickly converted into christianity. That night I too almost converted for fear of going to hell. (another little story) A few days ago I was in the bus when a woman, with her carer, came on the bus and neither had to pay. The woman seemeed distressed and asked shakily if it had been free. The carer answered yes. Immediately the woman began rocking and crying that she didn’t like it free because she didn’t want to go to hell. The fear I saw in that woman’s eyes and the terror in her voice remains undescribabe. It is for those reasons (amongst others) that I do not believe in the God we tend to automatically think of for anything so great as to create us and give us this planet and then wanting to be cosidered as just and kind would not use fear as the method for making us believe in Him. Unless of course He based more than just the way we look on himself and is He is actually very sadistic, but then thats not the God we know supposedly is it and even if it were would it be one we would chose to believe through free will or through fear? (remember if you reply to this judge not lest ye be judged)
October 30th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
“Evolution is so much more unlikely than God. You can see this from the constant changing of theories.”
That whats we in the scientific field call the “Scientific Method.” You know, theres one theory that is presented and other people work to disprove it. If it is disproved or proved faulty, then it’s changed. In case you were wondering, thats a good thing and separates it from that crap you call “Intelligent Design”
October 30th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
all i got from that last comment is that because a bunch of scientists are all out to out-smart each other by dissproving theories it means that the creation theory (i use the the term theory very losely) is crap. surely if we all have the common sense to see exactly what’s infont of our eyes which is God’s creation and so agree with each while you in the “scientific field” are running around, quite amusingly, like headless chickens utterly uncertain of…everything.
and to Raconteur i’m pressuming that woman had a mental illness well you don’t know she hasn’t done something to deserve it and so maybe she should be scarred of hell.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
sorry lee hope you don’t mind that I’m going to ignore that comment and rather just put it down to ignorance and stupidity. However I am going to mention that according to the thesaurus a synonym for agnostic is free thinking so what does that say about religion?
October 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
“bunch of scientists are all out to out-smart each other by dissproving theories”
Have you ever taken a science class? Do you know anything about proving scientific theories? If someone publishes a study or evidence promoting an idea or hypothesis it gives anyone in the world total rights to go out and carry out a study to either support or disprove the original hypothesis.
“while you in the “scientific field†are running around, quite amusingly, like headless chickens utterly uncertain of…everything.”
Good point, who needs science? It’s never done anything good for us. Truth is most of the progress of humanity is thanks to science, so be careful what you make fun of, you may jusy look foolish.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
ranconeur,
I’m not judging you or anything but I am just wondering how the reality of a hell and a few examples of people supposedly “seeing” it means that God is forcing people to believe in Him. If he wanted to do this, wouldn’t he have just not given us free will in the first place?
Matt,
As lee said…so your basically saying that evolution is more viable than creationism because nobody knows how it works and everybody disagrees on how it works?
“That whats we in the scientific field call the “Scientific Method.†You know, theres one theory that is presented and other people work to disprove it. If it is disproved or proved faulty, then it’s changed.”
This is a perfect example of “science of the gaps.” You can’t prove it and there’s not much evidence for it so people go around trying to find different theories to account for lack of evdidence. So how can all these people in the “scientific field” accuse creationists of “God of the gaps” if they are doing the same thing? And by the look of what you just said, it would seem that evolution is not nearly as effective in filling the gap.
October 30th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Hello J,
I’m going to come to Matt’s defense here. He is not saying that “evolution is more viable than creationism because nobody knows how it works and everybody disagrees on how it works”. He is pointing out that it is a theory which has survived decades of serious scientists criticizing it and pointing out flaws (which are swiftly corrected by said, or other scientists). The difference between the scientists who disagree about some detail of evolutionary theory and most ID people is that either scientist will change there mind if the evidence supports the opposing opinion.
Oh, and there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Genetic similarity between physiologically similar species is the most obvious. Fossil records of (sometime dramatic) change overtime within a single species is another.
ID folks are more commonly guilty of what you are accusing evolutionists of doing. It’s called ‘God of the gaps’. They first claimed that all species were designed ‘as-is’ by God. When micro-evolution was clearly demonstrated by the scientific community, suddenly God created every species, but they changed through time. Now many of the scientifically minded ID people are now even accepting the evidence supporting macro-evolution, but claim that God created the first living organisms. In short, as evolutionary theory is refined by the scientific method that Matt described, it explains more and more and ID can explain less and less.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
hello sidfaiwu,
“He is pointing out that it is a theory which has survived decades of serious scientists criticizing it and pointing out flaws (which are swiftly corrected by said, or other scientists).”
A couple of things here. ID has historically been around ALOT longer than evolutionary theory and modern scientists have yet to prove it wrong. Also, if you look at history, people have gone along with the beliefs of the cultures they live in. One person, Darwin, started the trend towards actually have “proof” of naturalistic theory (which attempts to explain things without a God). It’s entirely likely that everybody has gone from here with this viewpoint as the basis to their science and have strived so hard to make evolutionary theory true because they don’t want to give credit to a god and want to rebel.
“Oh, and there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Genetic similarity between physiologically similar species is the most obvious. Fossil records of (sometime dramatic) change overtime within a single species is another.”
-But you see, you are making assumptions based on what you see now without giving any real evidence. Right now i am not trying to prove ID, I am just trying to show how evolutionary theory is based on scientific faith. It is just as easy for me to say that the reason they are similiar is because it would make sense for God to use the same basic design for living beings. Whose to say you or I are right?
-Also, there is no comparison to the mind of a human or his “non-physical” attributes (emotions, real choice, etc) and evolution cannot account for this because it is so different from all other species.
“ID folks are more commonly guilty of what you are accusing evolutionists of doing. It’s called ‘God of the gaps’.”
-Oh no doubt. The point I am trying to make is that evolution is also “Blank of the gaps”. The question is, which theory fills in the gaps the best.
“They first claimed that all species were designed ‘as-is’ by God. When micro-evolution was clearly demonstrated by the scientific community, suddenly God created every species, but they changed through time.”
-I am IDist and can easily answer this by saying that your definition of “species” is wrong. I would say that there are kinds (general terms such as dog or cat) and they can change to different breeds in those terms (We call a dog a dog whether it is a cocker spaniel or beagel). Considering a lack of evidence for macro-evolution, I would say this is a viable option.
“Now many of the scientifically minded ID people are now even accepting the evidence supporting macro-evolution, but claim that God created the first living organisms.”
-Many do, but does that mean they are right?
“In short, as evolutionary theory is refined by the scientific method that Matt described, it explains more and more and ID can explain less and less.”
-I think it is entirely possible that people overlook ID far too much in their quest to justify a theory that doesn’t even have an explanable begginning.
(I give evidence for a God on post 35, which definately helps ID)
October 31st, 2006 at 2:09 am
“you may jusy look foolish” thanks for that warning matt i certainly wouldn’t want to end up jusy lookin fulish. lol. but enough with the cheap shots. firslty in answer to your question yes i have taken a science class and my physics teacher said to me that what he was teaching me and the rest of the class was wrong, not because he’d forgotten this different types of energy an dso was making them up but because he’s is a pretty smart guy and he knows what he’s saying is going to be wrong shortly. it seemed to me then that it would be easier and more appropriate for us not to learn science until it’s (for want of a better word) right, until no one contradicts each other and they know for a fact what it is they’re preaching. i was wondering if you think science is clearly the answer to everything if you’ve ever had an R.S lesson and you’ve sat there and wondered if there’s was anything beyond this life, and your tanacity maybe a greater purpose?
October 31st, 2006 at 9:45 am
Good Morning J (at least it’s morning where I’m at),
I read your post (#43) and you have some good responses. In particular, you answered my ‘evidence’ of genetic similarity quite aptly: “…it would make sense for God to use the same basic design for living beings…” I actually thought of this very flaw in my reasoning after I posted. Perhaps I can provide better evidence after a little research (I am not an evolutionary expert).
Again you are right, ID has been around much longer than evolution, but I think you misunderstood that portion of my post. I wasn’t saying that evolution is true because it has been around longer but because it has stood up to the scientific method for such a long time. ID has always existed as a philosophical argument. Philosophical arguments are only falsifiable via strictly logical arguments if they are falsifiable at all. Thus the scientific method has not been applied to ID. It is only in very recent times that its proponents are touting it as a science. It has, therefore, not survived decades of scientific critique.
The rest of my post that you responded to piece by piece was meant to be taken as a whole. I was demonstrating an inverse relationship between the explanatory power of evolution vs. that of ID. Evolutionary theory been refined via the scientific method over the years and its explanatory power has increased causing ID’s power to decrease.
The rest of this post will be dedicated to addressing your comments in post #35, which is a very interesting post.
“(1) The origin of the universe. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe must have a cause.†This is a fundamental version of the cosmological argument. I am not particularly swayed by this version of the argument because it is entirely possible that the universe has no beginning in time. Picture, if you will, a proto-universe that existed before the big bang. This universe had it’s own big bang, expanded, and then collapsed into a kind of ‘big crunch’. It was this ‘big crunch’ that caused our big bang, hypothetically speaking. Now picture a proto-proto-universe that caused the proto-universe. This chain of universes could extend infinitely back in time. Thus the universe would have no cause and the cosmological argument fails.
There is another version of the cosmological argument that I do accept and that forms the basis of my Deism. It is the modal cosmological argument or the argument from contingency. A fundamental why to look at this version is to slightly restate the question. Instead of asking, “What started everything†I ask “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?†Similar to what you wrote in your post, I can think of two possibilities, random chance or God*. I leave out ‘law’ or ‘nature’ as possibilities, because they only beg the question. “Why are there laws or nature instead of nothing at all?†I see no evidence of true random events in the universe so I am forced to accept the existence of God*.
* Based on this revelation (through nature) of God, what can we know about him/her/it? The only thing that the cosmological argument guarantees about the nature of God is that God exists necessarily and that the universe’s existence is contingent upon God’s existence. In other words, God is that which is contingent on nothing for its existence. So to answer the inevitable question “Why does a God exist instead of no God at all?†The answer is that existence is the defining attribute of God.
What does the modal cosmological argument not tell us about God? Well, the argument cannot tell us anything more about the nature of God. It does not tell us that God is male (which I doubt anyway), it does not tell us that God is all powerful (though powerful enough to self-exist and have all reality’s existence contingent upon him/her/it). It does not tell us that God is all knowing. It does not tell us that good loves humans. It certainly does not tell us what, if any, behaviors God disapproves of. In short, the cosmological argument, even if accept, does not come close to proving that God is what Christianity, or any other religion, claims he/she/it is.
So yes, God exists. I’ve accepted that for almost ten years now, based on the modal cosmological argument. Now tell me why I should be a Christian.
This post is already far too long. I’m looking forward to your response.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Thats what makes me an atheist. I don’t need a “greater purpose” because the one before me is great enough. I believe as human beings our purpose is to further mankind as a whole, and hopefully not blow ourselves up in the process. As far as something “beyond this life,” I have wondered that, I simply reached a different conclusion then you. I don’t need some reward in the afterlife to be a good person now.
“it seemed to me then that it would be easier and more appropriate for us not to learn science until it’s (for want of a better word) right”
Thats one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. I suppose the bible should be taught to everyone because everything in it is “right.”
October 31st, 2006 at 5:13 pm
(to matt) i was just wondering about your word choice-ridiculous- is it just that you can’t empathise with what i’m saying because science has restricted you to a very 2D point of view in which case what i’m saying is not ridiculous but rather a concept that you can not grasp; or if you really do mean ridiculous i would firstly like to ask you for proof (beyond just it being your opinion) and secondly i wish to inform you that you have clearly listened to very little.
i was also wondering then do you find your life obsolete? you could be a great and very intellectual person but even so you may not be able to futher mankind but pressuming you have will does that mean for the next ten years we should set about finding the ultimate way of testing the possible intelligence of a foetus so we can terminate the ones deemed unable to futher mankind. and when will it be that someone finally says “ok we’ve done it the human race is getting more stupid and our species has peaked” then will there no longer be reason to live or do we carry on striving for the unreachable?
October 31st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
Yes, when dealing in only direct evidence, ID can only be explained through philosophy. But when you throw inferential or cirumstantial evidence in, it becomes totally different. Much of evolution is based on iferential evidence, so i think ID should be held to the same standard. Being that there is no concrete evidence at all for evolutionary change besides fossils (or lack there of) and what we see presently, which by no means gives a lot to justifying evolution, it would seem logical and philosophical arguments (As well as science) are important to ID vs. evolution. I am not an expert by any means on this either so tell if that made any sense.
Also, the fact of the matter could be that many people are over-simplifying. They see the complexity in the natural world and assume it must have some complex, scientific answer, when the answer could be as simple as ID. ID seems to explain things much better, (Please explain if and why you disagree).
All that being said, if i am not mistaken you you believe in an intelligent designer but also evolution if I am not mistaken. Is this is case?
I am running a bit low on time so i will be back later to respond to your critique of post 35.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:10 pm
lee,
The reason I used the word “ridiculous” is because the very thought that we shouldn’t learn a subject or a theory on the chance that it may be changed one day is just that, ridiculous, or stupid, ignorant, whatever word you chose. When i was in elementary school I learned that there were nine planets circling the sun, but because of the changing of the definition of a planet, Pluto was downgraded. Does that mean we should never teach our children the planets in our solar system? I really find it funny and a little sad that you think that appreciating science can restrict someone’s point of view. If it weren’t for science I might have ended up like…you. I definitely don’t think of my life as being obsolete, I’m 20 years old and I have plenty of things to look forward too.
“or we carry on striving for the unreachable?”
I’m sure we’ll keeping reaching for things out of our grasp, and when we reach that goal, there will always be something else to go for.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
“(to matt) i was just wondering about your word choice-ridiculous- is it just that you can’t empathise with what i’m saying because science has restricted you to a very 2D point of view in which case what i’m saying is not ridiculous but rather a concept that you can not grasp;”
By its very definition, ID is a concept no human can grasp, ‘cuz god is just that super complicated. Chalking something up to “god did it” doesn’t mean you understand a thing, and it sure as hell doesn’t explain anything.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Hello J,
We seem to be on different time schedules. But that’s the beauty of the internet; we can still hold a conversation. In this post, I’ll only answer the question you directed toward me so that you can catch up with my last post.
Do I believe in both evolution and an intelligent designer? Hmm… That’s not an easy question to answer. Mostly it is because I view religion and spirituality as an intensely private matter. It is not something I like to share the details of on a public forum. However, I think I’m comfortable enough with the people who participate on this blog to share a little bit of my belief system.
I have a strong hope that the universe and all of its natural laws (including evolution) were designed by an intelligent creator. You might even call it a faith that the creator is intelligent. I don’t like to use the term ‘faith’ very much because I think it has been misused by religious people. They seem to think that to believe in something despite contrary evidence or affronts to their reason is faith. To me, faith is a belief in anything that we have no or scant evidence for but does not contradict existing evidence and/or reason. So the answer is yes, I believe in evolution and an intelligent designer, but my definition of ‘intelligent designer’ is quite different than the common one used by ID proponents. I don’t believe that God created every species that exists today ‘as-is’ so to speak. I do believe in a God that created a deterministic universe knowing that intelligent creatures would eventually be the result. Unlike a religious person, I do not claim that what I believe is truth because I cannot prove it logically nor can I provide evidence for it. Also, unlike a religious person, I would abandon my belief if convincing evidence to the contrary were to come to light.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
hello sidfaiwu,
Thank you very much for sharing some of your belief system. It was quite fascinating and very informative.
I’m sincerely sorry if I am prying but i am very curious. You say:
“I have a strong hope that the universe and all of its natural laws (including evolution) were designed by an intelligent creator.”
Why do you hope evolution is true? Does it add something to the human experience or is it for some other reason?
“To me, faith is a belief in anything that we have no or scant evidence for but does not contradict existing evidence and/or reason.”
Yes! I really like this statement. I think your assesment of faith is very accurate. But at the same time I believe there can be a reasonable faith, meaning that one can believe in something unseen and/or does not have conclusive proof based on logical reasoning and evidence.
I think that we both agree that based on inferential evidence and logical conclusions, that some intelligent being or Prime Mover, if you will, must exist. Just for an example of inferential evidence here is this one post on another forum i visited and thought was interesting:
“Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence.
Some science isn’t even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven’t been verified by experiment, string theory, for example.”
I’m sure we will talk about this more as the discussion moves on.
But if you have anything more to add to this, go ahead before we move on to cosmological arguments, revelation, and God.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:55 am
Hello J,
I only hope that the Creator exists. I don’t hope evolution has occurred (and continues to occur), I know it to be our best explanation for the origin of our (and every other) species.
Here is where I could research and provide evidence for evolution, but our conversation has taken a much more interesting turn. I’d much rather talk about philosophy than debate evolution vs. ID. Let’s return to that debate after we’ve discussed philosophy. How’s that sound?
November 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
to your father says
as far as i am aware ID is intelligent design-er which isn’t an ungraspable concept as it means, not created by chance which i personally can grasp quite easily.
to J
ok he’s not neccesarily forcing people to believe in him but for those brought up with religion he makes sure it’s a pretty damn scary concept not believing in him. also no i didn’t go through every example as i thought that would be tedious but if you would like quite a big example look at christianity (sorry to pick on that one but my knowledge of different religions is most extensive in that one) there are so many threats in the bible and not just about going to hell there are occasions when God himself will destroy you: 1 corinthians 3 v. 16-17
however you do raise a good point about free will “wouldn’t he have just not given us free will in the first place?” to answer i’m going to have to shift the analogy; imagine a child draws a ring of water around some ants and places a twig across it as a bridge, so in theory the smart ants should survive. however if God does exist the smart ants would be the religious, yet the ants knew of the bridge where as religion essentially relies on blind faith and for the other ants that were unaware of the bridge they were punished, not due to any fault of their own just because of a lack of knowledge. so basically He gaves free will beause He was curious and wanted to see what would happen- and no one can argue He isn’t curious or else He wouldn’t have made us, He would have carried on twiddling His thumbs for eternity.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
I think that sounds excellent. i like philosophy much better anyway. So, the cosmological argument…
I agree with the model cosmological arguemnt based on contingency. But there is another cosmological argument that I was mentioning first, namely, the temporal cosmological argument. I’m pretty sure you already know what this this so i will not rehash. There are a couple of reasons I can surmise why caused events cannot go back into infinity. (1) Mathematically, infinity is impossible. It leads to self-contradiction such as infinity minus infinity or infinity plus infinity. SO the universe must be finite, and thus, someone must have been there to start it. We have already ruled out random chance, so it would be reasonable to assume a designer.
(2) The argument fron singularity. I came about a fascinating debate the other day recorded online between William Lane Criag and Quentin Smith. If you’re interested here is the link:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard00.html
Half of the debate is about the cosmological argument. Smith, who is an atheist, took the stand that the universe does not necessarily need a first cause because all the events could go back infinitly.
Craig’s answer:
“I assume that he’s talking about a simultaneity class of events, quantum events, perhaps, that are simultaneously related. But I think that we can avert this question by simply considering what is the cause of the initial cosmological singularity that spawned the universe. For the initial singularity is part of the universe. The universe is comprised of all its space-time points and its boundary points. The initial singularity is the beginning of the universe, the first state of physical reality. As Stephen Hawking explains, “All the matter and energy [were] compressed into a single point, or singularity . . . . the entire observable universe . . . started out compressed into such a point.â€{1} And since that point is not governed by quantum laws of physics, there cannot be this infinite regress of simultaneous causes at the singular state….
Moreover, there’s no reason to think it exists a se either. Quite the opposite is true: the singularity is the boundary of the space-time manifold; so if the manifold didn’t exist, neither would its boundary points. Quentin, in his written work{3}, admits that the space-time universe did not have to exist; but he imagines that its singular boundary point, like the smile of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, would still continue to exist even in the absence of the reality it bounds! But there is no physical reason to believe such a remarkable assertion.
Now, if this is correct, then not only is there no inconsistency in the theist’s view that God created the singularity, but Quentin’s supposed argument for atheism actually turns out to be an argument for God’s existence. We can formulate such a contingency argument as follows:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause.
2. The universe (including any singular state) exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that the universe has an explanation of its existence. Premiss (3) states:
3. The universe (including any singular state) does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.
4. Therefore, the universe has an external cause.”
All that being said, i think both the kalam and model cosmological events assist and compliment each other, as well as show why there must be a Prime Mover.
I will stop here before moving on and wait for your response before going on with post 45.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Hello J,
My guess would be that the universe does have a beginning and does not extend infinitely back in time. Thus my guess is that the Kalam cosmological argument holds. Your objection to the possibility of actual infinites actually touches on my area of expertise, mathematics! I actually hold a master’s degree in applied mathematics and can assure you that math does not preclude the possibility of actual infinites. The problem is that most people conceive ‘infinity’ as just another number. It actually does not represent a number at all, but a state.
I would bring to your attention the stereographic projection. It creates a one-to-one and onto mapping for every point on a plane with every point on a sphere. Click the link for a picture. The picture helps greatly. Geometrically, it creates this mapping by placing a sphere on a plane and drawing a straight line from the North Pole to any point on the plane. The line must pass through exactly one point on the sphere. You can now represent an entire infinite plane on a finite sphere! Notice that on this sphere, infinity in all directions are represented by the North Pole itself, a single point.
Also, because of only arithmetic and analytic geometry being taught to most students, a vast majority of people are only accustom to working with field like the real number line or maybe the complex numbers. There are other mathematical structures; such as a topologies. One such topology is the affinely extended real numbers which includes infinity as an element along with the rest of the numbers.
Enough about math. I have another possibility that would render the ‘first mover’ version of the cosmological argument invalid. That is the possibility of circular time. That is, the end state of the universe is identical to its beginning state. Put another way, the universe could be its own temporal cause.
I’m sorry if this post was a little dense.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Greetings Sidfaiwu
That was a very informative post. I am definately no expert in math, so i wanted to ask you a question. Yes, of course infinity is used as a number in theory, but can it be applied to the physical universe? You might have already answered that, but again, i am certainly not expert in mathematics. I read a quote from David Hilbert that goes “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”
I also wanted to know what you thought of the issue of singularity.
Now, on the circular causation…
Yes, you can argue circular causation. But if you picture it like a round circular-causing universe you can use the model cosmological arguement to say, why is the universe here in the first place. So, as i said, i think they both compliment each other.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Hi J,
I used the math to demonstrate that mathematics does not preclude the possibility of actual infinites. As you so rightly point out, math theory is fine, but that does not demonstrate the reality of an actual infinite in nature. The only actual infinite that I can think of observed in nature is a black hole. In a black hole, gravity has stretched space-time infinitely at a point, aka a singularity. This leads me into the next point.
I actually had the privilege of going to a huge philosophy conference in Washington DC (I think it was 1998). The highlight for our philosophy of religion class was a debate very similar to the one you linked. I cannot remember who the two philosophers were because I have a terrible memory for names, but I still have their papers somewhere around here. The result was that the theist won the debate, but more due to his speaking ability (the other guy was terrible at public speaking) than his position.
I agree that saying the universe spontaneously erupted from a singularity only begs the question. What, then, caused the singularity? Note, though, that the acknowledgment of a singularity admits the existence of actual infinites and opens the door for reality to stretch back in time infinitely. For we can answer the question that the collapse of a previous universe into a singularity is what caused the singularity in the first place. Since no information can survive a singularity, there is no way for us to prove or disprove the existence of a proto-universe that existed before ours.
And last of all, I agree with you that the two versions of the cosmological argument compliment one another. The Kalam version stands if there is a beginning to time; the modal version is successful if there was no beginning.
I’d be interested in your response to the end of post #45, where I point out the limits of what the cosmological argument can tell us about the nature of God.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Hello again Sidfaiwu,
You are indeed correct when saying that the cosmological argument (And revelation through nature in general) can tell us very little about the nature of this obviously very powerful supernatural being we agree would seem to exist. Here is where things get tricky. Once you establish that there is a god, one is led to ask, does this god intervene in human affairs or did he just “wind the clock” so to say; what is he like, etc. You have already mentioned you are a deist, i imagine because it would seem god is not visible or the fact that we do not always see him act in our daily live. we very rarely, if ever, see him act. There are also a great many religions, which one is right, if any? Since we have determined that natural arguments cannot go any further into revealing god, we must see if god has revealed himself in other ways to man.
I believe the Christian God makes sense and has revealed himself in the form of special revelation.
(1)There are objective moral values in the world. If God did not exist, there would be no objective moral values. We can recognize objective moral values without believing in a God. If God did not interact with the universe, I don’t know how objective moral values would exist.
(2)The historical evidence surrounding Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. This is really key, because no other religion makes a claim like this. That God actually came in the form of man to live, die, and show he was God by resurrection. Maybe a few other religions claim something similiar but none have the historical evidence to back it up. I would to wait before you respond before i go on with this point.
(3)Although this is not “proof” since many other religions claim to have a holy book like this, it does compliment the other point above. It matches with the objective moral values we know and the uniqueness of the Bible compared to any other hisorical book is extordinary. Written by 40 historical authors, no inconsistentcies except in interpretation, still copied down accurately through the years, translated into every known language. It is also one of the most historically accurate books written in regards especially to the events having to do with jesus.
i would like to stop here to see you respond.
I know all this sounds pretty cliche and very unscientific. Partly because that is what must be done in regards to special revelation (more emphasis on history, etc.) instead of natural revelation and partly because i was just giving a broad outline. Another part is that i am certainly no expert in anything.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 am
@J
This point,
“(1)There are objective moral values in the world. If God did not exist, there would be no objective moral values. We can recognize objective moral values without believing in a God. If God did not interact with the universe, I don’t know how objective moral values would exist.”
Chafes my collar. To me, morality, subjective or objective is a matter which is under constant flux. What we perceive as moral today has been formed during the existence of societies and it will change still. Either in silence without notice or suddenly.
If you take a simple act of killing as example. It has not been considered immoral very long and even now it is seen acceptable or even commendable in certain areas or world and political world.
Killing was a mark of honour, the number of killed marked the proves of a man. Today politicians even use the number of people they have arranged to death-row as badge of merit.
Killing someone today is immoral, I would say. But killing someone belonging to such and such group is acceptable because of X, say world leaders.
Society and incidents in the world alter morality. After each atrocity people find the concept of killing the guilty to be just and right. The society is reformed by these acts and thus morality changes when act of killing is no longer seen as immoral as before.
Morality is in my view the most unstable of aspects in humanity or as one teacher of mine said, “Morality is like a wrap-around skirt. Now you have it but on moments notice you can take it off.”
Humanity does have moral codes and try to follow those but what those really amount is codes which allow co-existence where like minded people can live without constant fear of being subject of some one else’s morality.
My take on the point 1.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 am
Hello Jagannath,
I am very tired currently but with try to respond accordingly. You bring up an interesting argument with some good point. But there is a flaw. You often use, “In my view” to justify your claims. For example “To me, morality, subjective or objective is a matter which is under constant flux.” or “Killing someone today is immoral, I would say.” Now, I am struggling to find the logic in your arguments. You have no basis for your arguments but the your own view. Well this creats a dilema. If everybody could create their own arbitrary standards based on their own view of morality, then, Nazis are justified for the Holocaust.
Also, the very fact that you call these things “atrocities” you show that there are moral objectives. Let’s say you take the usual atheist/naturalistic viewpoint that man evolved from animals, which I am assuming you do. Well, when an animal kills another one, it doesn’t murder it, it kills, not murders. Also, when a great white shark forces a female into submission it copulates, but does not rape.Animals are not moral agents with moral duties.
All that being said, actions like rape, child abuse, mass murder/torture, cruely aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior (or survival of the fittest to take it a step further) but they are abomination. You said so yourself. “Atrocity”. Good and evil do exist.
This probably has a lot of mistakes in it..oh well
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Good Morning J,
It was nice that we found common ground on the topic of natural revelation, but special revelation is where we will likely disagree. I’ll start by discussing your point (1):
“(1)There are objective moral values in the world. If God did not exist, there would be no objective moral values. We can recognize objective moral values without believing in a God. If God did not interact with the universe, I don’t know how objective moral values would exist.â€
There seems to be two separate arguments in this statement. The first is another argument for the existence of God.
1a)
i: Objective moral values exist.
ii: The only possible source of objective moral values is God.
thus
iii: God exists.
and
iv: God has a set of moral values in mind for his/her/its creation.
The second is an argument that God interacts with his/her/its creation.
1b)
iv: (From 1a) God has a set of moral values in mind for his/her/its creation.
v: We are aware of the existence of objective moral values.
vi: We can only be aware of God’s objective moral values through interaction with creation.
thus
vii: God interacts with his/her/its creation.
Please let me know if I’ve decomposed your arguments incorrectly. It seems that Jagannath (hello Jagannath!) takes issue with premise i. I do not. I do think that objective moral values exist. Here is one that is universal: Do not needlessly kill innocent people. I also believe that relative moral values exist. For example, many moral values surrounding procreation are relative. Rules that promote reproduction are only moral if there is no local over population problem. Rules that limit reproduction are morally valid otherwise.
I take issue with premise ii. God is not the only possible source of objective moral values. Rationality and the observation of nature can also lead us to moral absolutes. Based on the observation of myself and others, I conclude that other people are very similar to me and, like myself, they display a desire to live. It is logical to conclude that they value their lives just as much as I value mine and it would be immoral to kill them needlessly if they are innocent. Notice that I arrive at the same objective moral value without God.
Here is another way to arrive at the same objective moral value. It is through evolutionary theory. Again, we’ve decided not discuss the validity of evolution, so let’s just treat this as a hypothetical. Suppose, for a moment, that evolutionary theory is real. Can we derive any moral values from evolution? The answer is yes. The driving purpose of every species under evolution is to survive as a species. Thus any action that promotes the overall survival of our species is a moral one. Needlessly killing an innocent member of our species is then immoral. Through evolution, we can arrive at the same objective moral value.
I also take issue with premise vi, but I’ll give you a chance to respond to my objections.
P.S. I am very much enjoying this conversation and hope that you (and any spectators) are enjoying it as well.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
Yes, I am very much enjoying this conversation. I love talking about these kind of things.
Hmmm…you bring up an interesting point in the paragraph directly after you put my arguments down. I’ll have to think about that for a while.
But on point number 2…The place that your argument leads is a kind of relative/postermodern area. First, we are not just talking about killing. If indeed the naturalistic view you hold to there in the area of morality is true, then why should people act morally if it conflicts with their self-interest? Also, people could come to a different conclusion than you. A society could believe that they are a more advanced race and should kill of all the others (Nazi-holocost), there is still no standard to say they are doing right or wrong based on the naturalistic view. Also, if you accept this point, basically anything could be legalized for any reason. Without a God, or standard of morality, we have no moral accountability and that is a scary thought. But we see this is not the case.
I also want to point out this : “to kill them needlessly if they are innocent”
Who is to define needlessly. Also, the bigger issue here is, how do you discrimate between innocent and guilty if there is no standard that is objective for all. You proclaimed them innocent, if the naturalistic view is true, why would they be guilty>
i have a little more to say but i will see what you think so far
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Hello J,
I only have a limited amount of time to post because I have guests over right now. I’ll give a quick clarification so that you don’t have to wait till tomorrow to get my response.
I included ‘needlessly’ because it may be necessary to kill someone. That person may be about to set off a bomb that would kill dozens of people, for example. I included ‘innocent’ because some many people feel that the death penalty is morally permissible. Thus it would be ok to kill someone if it was necessary to save the live of others, for example, or to punish a murderer (though that is not my view).
I hope that helps for the time being. I’ll give a more full and thoughtful response later.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
Hi again J,
I have more time to read and respond to your post. You are right; we are not talking just about murder when we are discussing ethics. The reason I picked killing is that it is the easiest to make the case that it is a moral absolute. If I were to use something like, say, pre-marital sex, there would be widespread disagreement as to whether that is an absolute or not. Also, to prove premise ii false, all that is required of me is to provide one counter example. In other words, all I have to do is demonstrate that any moral absolute can be discovered without God.
The wording ‘it is wrong to needlessly kill an innocent person’ was crafted to preserve the universality of the statement (so we can still call it an ‘absolute’). ‘Never kill another person’ is not a moral absolute. We are permitted to kill someone in self-defense, or in defense of other, innocent people (i.e., there is a ‘need’ to kill that person). Many people also claim that it is morally permissible to execute someone guilty of murder.
Also, you are correct that the way of deriving ethics through reason would lead to some relativistic morality. But what I demonstrated (and all I was required to demonstrate) is that it also leads to at least one moral absolute. Thus God is not the only possible source of moral absolutes and the rest of your argument falls apart.
I have a quick note on your counter example of a culture that decides that it is ok to kill others because the culture feels ‘superior’ or ‘more advanced’. They perpetrators of such a crime may be able to temporarily convince themselves that they are morally permitted to kill, but everyone else will see it for what it is, morally reprehensible. To use your specific example, Nazis are universally considered evil precisely because they needlessly killed innocent people. It seems that no matter how we derive that moral absolute, it is true in all cases (which is what makes it an absolute).
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I find the notion of premise 2 downright offensive. Look into secular humanism, and you’ll find very large organizations of people everywhere who disagree with you.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
You bring up a very interesting point. It’s something I have never thought of before. Hold tight if you could on the morality issue while i reconstruct a few things in my argument. Morality is not as big as an issue as the one I want to bring up next because God providing objective standard of morality only shows evidence of an interacting God, not necessarily a certain religion.
You asked the question, why should you should be a Christian. I answered special revelation. The main reason we can know that God has revealed himself would be the historical facts around the historical person of Jesus. Most religions come from a person who called themeselves “prophets” or something like that. Christianity makes the stronger claim that christ was God, so this means that God did reveal himself in the person of Christ. This is a very strong claim and nobody would take him seriously if he did not “rise from the dead” or do the miracles he said he did. Before we go into these things I wanted to know what you think about this and what your assumptions would be about the person of christ.
Your Father Says,
really not sure what you’re talking about or what point your trying to make. Could you be more specific on why ad the reasons behind your claim?
November 4th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Hello J,
Sorry that its taking me a while to respond. I want to respond thoughtfully and it is requiring some research.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Hello J,
I’ve had more time to think about your post. I’ll quote your point (2) for both of our conveniences and to make sure we are on the same page.
“(2)The historical evidence surrounding Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. This is really key, because no other religion makes a claim like this. That God actually came in the form of man to live, die, and show he was God by resurrection. Maybe a few other religions claim something similiar but none have the historical evidence to back it up. I would to wait before you respond before i go on with this point.â€
The idea of the death and resurrection of a god is not unique to Christianity. Apparently, the Egyptians had the idea first. But, as you said, there is no historical evidence to back the event up.
The main problem that I see is that while the historical documentation does confirm the existence of Jesus, it is much less reliable when it comes to his divinity/resurrection. Here, I’ll assume that you take the Gospels as your primary evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
There is debate as to when the Gospels where written. About 70 CE seems to be the pivotal date. That was the year that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple; something that the Jews of the day would certainly put great importance on. Also, if the Gospels were written after 70 CE, then they could not have been written by eye-witnesses, thus degrading their reliability. Please note that the authorship of the Gospels is in question. Even if they were written before 70 CE, there is no way for us to know if the author(s) where eye-witnesses or not.
Christians will often use the fact that no mention of the razing of the temple is in any of the Gospels, thus they must have been written before 70 CE. This is inaccurate. The razing of the temple is in the Gospel. It is one of the ‘prophecies’ of Jesus (see Mark 13:1-2 for one instance). This suggests that the writer(s) knew about the razing because they wrote after 70 CE and added it in as a prophecy to bolster their claim of the divinity of Jesus.
Another problem with the Gospels as history is that they contain inconsistencies between each other. I’ll copy a portion of a post I previously made elsewhere:
…the Bible is clearly not historically accurate about all things. In the four gospels alone, there are a multitude of contradictions when detailing the life of Jesus. Here are just a few:
1. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, Jesus was born during the ‘days of Herod the king’, who died in 4 BCE. But according to Luke 2:1, his birth took place while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, a post which he took in 6 CE, 8 years after Herod’s death.
2. Matthew 2:14 has Jesus, Mary, and Joseph traveling to Egypt after Jesus’ birth. Luke 2:39 has them going back to Nazareth.
3. Matthew 3:7-11 has John the Baptist baptizing the Pharisees, Luke 7:29-30 says the Pharisees rejecting the offer of his baptism.
4. In Matthew 8:5-8, Capernaum asked Jesus directly to help his servant, in Luke 7:1-7 he sent ‘Elders of the Jews’ to ask Jesus to help his servant.
There are many more examples of these sorts of contradictions. Which of each of these contradictions is historically accurate? If Matthew is accurate, wouldn’t that make Luke historically inaccurate? And, thus the Bible must have historically inaccuracies. It cannot be trusted to accurately depict history.
Based on these two factors, the question of who wrote the Gospels and when, and the contradictions, I cannot accept the Gospels as a trustworthy source of history. Thus, Christianities claims of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus is suspect at best.
You are correct though, the Christian historical documentation of the resurrection of Jesus is much better than other religions’ miracles, but it still falls short of being reliable.
November 5th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Hello sidfaiwu,
Thank you for putting up so much time into your response. But as a result, it will talk me some time to respond.
But from your post, a few things…
Could you post some of your sources, especially on the 4 historical inconsistencies. Also, im not sure if you looked a lot about the other source you cited, the site by Merle Herzler, but he is certainly not scholar. i would immediately question him because he is really no scholar, he really doesn’t site any sources for other articles, the sources he does use for that article are questionable as well and i didn’t really see that they refered to important points of his article. He is certainly suspect at this point, although i have not read the sit all the way through. I am just wondering if you think he is a reliable scholar and could you explain why he is?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Hello J,
All but the first of the four inconsistencies come directly from the Bible. I’ll give the passage links of from the New International Version of the Bible for the second example.
2) Matthew 2:14, “So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt”
Luke 2:39, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.”
I’ll leave it to you to look up examples three and four from above. Example one requires a little more research, and I simply cannot remember where I found the information (it’s been months since I originally posted this). I did, however, find a complete guide to all the potential problems with the Bible at The Skeptics Annotated Bible. It also has a similar annotated version of the Quran and Book of Mormon.
As for Merle Herzler, his information is correct. Here is another reference that has the exact same information in the first couple of paragraphs, but spins it differently. The rest of this new reference makes some bad assumptions, but I’ll only get into that if you ask about it.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
Finally I have found time to post a little bit. Just to let you know, your arguments are very good.
First, on when the gospels were written. There are two very important reasons that we can believe the Gospels were written before 70 AD.
We know that Acts and Luke were both written by luke and this is the main place we should look for the dating of the Gospels. We know the other gospels predate Luke and Acts. So when we look at the writtings of Luke, there are two reasons we can believe Luke and Acts were written before 70AD and possibly 60 AD. Thus if thiis is true, the other gospels were written earlier and give validity to the eye-witness accounts.
(1) There is no mention of the sacking of Jerusalem, which is in 70 AD. Luke would certainly have mentioned this in Acts when you look at all the historical information he gave in Acts.
(2)More importantly, Luke mentions no mentions of Paul’s death, which occured in 64 Ad. Luke would certainly have mentioned this because he tells basically everything else of Paul’s life and the other apostles deaths.
–On the razing of the temple-
You commit a mistake here. You have a presupposition that a prophesy is untrue so you write if off. This is not a good arguments when stricly talking about the historical accuracy of the gospels. Your point actually assists mine. The reason: I just demonstrated that we can have good reason to believe that that Acts was written before 70 AD, thus Mark was certainly before this. So this means that Christ REALLY DID prophesy about the temple and he was right.
I will write a short statement on biblical inconsistencies a little later.
But here is quite a good article on historical evidence for jesus and gospels.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
November 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Hello J,
I haven’t heard about (2), it’s a good point and I’ll address it last. Your other two defenses, however, a have fundamental logical flaw. They are circular arguments: you assume what you are trying to prove.
Your first assumption is that Luke wrote the book of Luke. Obviously, if we knew that Luke wrote that book, it would have been written before 70 CE. Since scholars largely agree thatLuke was not the author, we cannot assume what you are trying to prove.
Your second assumption is that Jesus could prophesize, presumable because of his divinity, which is ultimately what you are trying to prove. Again, it is much more likely that the ‘prophecy’ was added by the author after the sacking of the temple with the conscious purpose of adding ‘evidence’ for the divinity of Jesus. Furthermore, there is evidence that Jesus was not divine. If Jesus were God, all of his prophecies would come to pass. Yet, the one he made in Matthew 12:28, and Mark 9:1 that did not come to pass. In those verses, Jesus predicts his return and the end of the world to happen within some of his listeners’ lifetimes. 2000 years later, they’re all dead and the world is still here.
Indeed, the very fact that Luke doesn’t mention this prophecy suggests that the author knew it did not come true. This would mean it was written after the deaths of Jesus’ contemporaries, including Paul. Furthermore, the author probably did not even know Paul personally. If he did, why would Paul be ignorant of many of the central aspects of Jesus’ life that Luke was, somehow privy to? Not knowing Paul personally would explain why Paul’s death was not mentioned.
Anyway, the dates of the Gospels’ authorship are the least of their problems. Even if we can establish that one of them was definitely penned before 70 CE, there is still no guarantee that they were written by an eye-witness or that it presents a historical account as opposed to a biased account. Indeed, the internal contradictions are more damning evidence. The ones I listed are only a small sample of all the contradictions that give us reason do doubt their historical accuracy.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Sidfaiwu,
I am very apologetic that i have not been able to respond much, i have been very busy. I can’t post too much right not but hopefully, perhaps tomorrow, i can say more.
I’ll talk about Luke first. I’m not exacly sure where you get the idea that Luke did not write Luke. Some positive evidence for why Luke did not write Luke would be appreciated. I’m really not sure where you are getting these sources from. Joseph Alward? Who is this? I tried to look him up to find some kind of credentials or something about him but could not find anything. Most of his articles are just posts or blogs or something. There is no indication of his information being correct that i can see.
There are many things that he assumes and does not think all the way through. For example, vague things like this “However, the evidence below suggests that the Lukan author was not the follower of Paul, who died around 67 AD. ” I don’t really see where he gets this notion from or what the “evidence” is.
Further, “The author of Luke addresses the “most excellent” Theophilus. The earliest record of a “Theophilus” is Theophilus of Antioch who was an early Christian patriarch who wrote around 180-185 AD2.”
This is absolutely proposterous. Even you admit the gospels were written at about 70 AD. There is no evdience whatseover of it being written THAT late. Christianity was becoming a world religious at that time. That part about Theophilus is absolutely a crazy piece. It’s like saying my friend named bob in this book i read is the only bob in the world.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Here is a very good piece from a reliable and well-known source William Lane Craig on a little bit from the luke problem.
“Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life. But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: “we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” “we remained in Philippi some days,” “as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. Sceptical critics have done back-flips to try to avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally; it’s just a literary device which is common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy.{4} There just was no literary device of sea voyages in the first person plural–the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses? Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna, and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.
Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. {5}Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”{6} The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”{7} Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.”
November 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Hello J!
I actually found a day to catch my breath at work, so I can finally reply. I am going to have to cede the point to you. My knowledge on the subject is from actually discussions I had with a relative who was reading “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard E. Friedman, who definitely is an expert on the subject. I accept it because I consider this particular relative a trustworthy source. But, since the knowledge is second hand and you don’t know my relative, I don’t expect you, or anyone else to accept it. I tried to gain first-hand knowledge via the web, but I couldn’t locate any trustworthy sources, as you pointed out. I’ll have to read the book myself if I am to speak on this topic with any authority. It seems that you have more first-hand exposure to the subject and will thus cede the point to you; at least until I can further educate myself.
To move the discussion forward, I ask you to respond to what I wrote in my last post:
“…the dates of the Gospels’ authorship are the least of their problems. Even if we can establish that one of them was definitely penned before 70 CE, there is still no guarantee that they were written by an eye-witness or that it presents a historical account as opposed to a biased account. Indeed, the internal contradictions are more damning evidence. The ones I listed are only a small sample of all the contradictions that give us reason do doubt their historical accuracy.â€
I’ll also list the contradictions again here for your convenience:
1. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, Jesus was born during the ‘days of Herod the king’, who died in 4 BCE. But according to Luke 2:1, his birth took place while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, a post which he took in 6 CE, 8 years after Herod’s death.
2. Matthew 2:14 has Jesus, Mary, and Joseph traveling to Egypt after Jesus’ birth. Luke 2:39 has them going back to Nazareth.
3. Matthew 3:7-11 has John the Baptist baptizing the Pharisees, Luke 7:29-30 says the Pharisees rejecting the offer of his baptism.
4. In Matthew 8:5-8, Capernaum asked Jesus directly to help his servant, in Luke 7:1-7 he sent ‘Elders of the Jews’ to ask Jesus to help his servant.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
I love you sidfaiwu, so patient and logical; remind me to send you a gift basket of beer and cookies for making the world a better place.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:37 am
hey sidfaiwu,
i’ve been waiting for your response for quite a while now. Thanks for not leaving the discussion because i think it has been really fruitful. I am a little busy at the moment and will have to do a bit more research before giving a (hopefully) good response.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Thanks Shaze! Though sitting here at work this morning, I feel like I had a little too much beer last night. I’m sure I’ll recover by tonight ;).
Hello J,
Please take your time. I’m going to be very busy for a while (I’m buying a house / moving this holiday month), so my responses may take a while. If work remains slow, I’ll be able to, but I can’t count on that.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:07 am
i may get kicked out here, cause i don’t know nothing really about sources and stuff, but I am really philosophical, and evolution and creation is all about philosophy isn’t it (for now); some just more successful than others. I think it is great how our society has grown so much through the application of science and the scientific method, and I strongly believe that evolution through natural selection and random variation or mutation is a part of life in the past and present—just look at all the new flu strains and the “common cold’s” adaptability–all the different breeds and species of dogs, bears, cats, and squirrels and the like —plants too all the different marijuana variations now. Anyway,it seems creation focuses on beginnings only and the young earth; why do so many scientists like the discovery guys who have big degrees and credentials study and do so many experiments and stuff if they are STUPID or IDIOTS; that is ridiculous and exactly the reason proponents of “pure evolution” who have commmented here have to fight the creationists so much (they are just trying seem to be showing that their theory is plausible)…that attitude is hostile and completely a philosophical and ethical debate—not science. Science, as some “sane people” have stated encourages debate and “holes” in its portrayal of reality; I have read some of the “theories” of the creationists and see that they are scientific and have a point that the data obtained especially geologic data can have many other explanations that are plausible scientifically, but the creationists view as a theory may be plausible but has so much less evidence as does evolution’s theories on beginnings and ancient history it is one sided i guess. So, that may be because most scientists are atheist or agnostic? or that science and the scientific method “require” that the researcher only use observable and proven laws and facts for their research….I don’t know, but their research couldn’t be a conspiracy for atheism and the overthrow of all “dogma” and “religious assumption” could it?…i don’t think so…I just think it all could work in harmony and maybe we just all need to accept that our beginnings can’t be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt whether it was billion, millions, or several thousand years…”disproving the evolutionists” (which I believe is a pseudo-science while sticking with the “traditional” scientific method and way of thinking to prove their religion [i think that makes it a philosophy])is a viable and “UNSTUPID” endeavor that has some good points from a philosophical standpoint but i don’t think it discredits evolutionary theory but helps define it– and refine it—maybe some of the old earth stuff is wrong it is possible but unlikely according to modern scientific histories…. the proof for an old earth just isn’t there either it just seems to point to that with our limited knowledge now so maybe someday we will know for sure and the ID people won’t argue for a young earth and they will accept that we aren’t so special after but that doesn’t mean that God isn’t real just that he didn’t care as much as we thought—–a hard reality but the STUPID ones will adapt and “evolve” to accept it.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Hello ben,
No, it’s really tough to get kicked out of here. I think spamming is the only bootable offense. If you would like a good response, I would humbly suggest a multiple-paragraph format for future comments. It’s a bit tedious to keep one’s place while reading one large, monolithic paragraph.
Creationism, in some forms, is ontology, a branch of philosophy. But in the form used by most modern creationists, it is theology. Evolution, on the other hand, is science. Then again, all of science is really natural philosophy. So in some sense, they are both philosophies, but they are from separate areas of philosophy. Note though ‘creationism’ as understood by modern practitioners, is theology, and thus religious. Also, as you point out, some areas of philosophy are more useful then others.
Answer: $$$. Okay, that may not be completely fair. Some of them are afraid that ‘pure’ evolution is incompatible with their highly cherished religious beliefs. Thus promoting creationism is an intellectual defense mechanism. A another possibility is ignorance: they simply don’t know all the information. This doesn’t make them stupid or idiots, just ill-informed.
Evolutionary biologists are only hostile to creationism if people insist that it is science. It is not, it is theology (or ontology if treated correctly). If the proponents of intelligent design wanted to introduce ID (sans all religious and anti-evolution elements) as part of a high school philosophy class, scientists wouldn’t be nearly as upset if at all. In fact, I first heard of creationism outside of church in a college philosophy course in the form of the Teleological Argument.