Prefatory Note
This is taken from a dialog with a man on a forum/blog where he was talking about his attempt to commission artwork for an anti-creation website. I discussed some points with him. I have extracted my points here, for the reader’s edification:
Furthermore, I am not of the mind that you need to know all sides to know the truth. That is an American idea, and is not (necessarily) philosophically sound. I have not offered both sides here, and do not encourage you to know both sides, but know the truth, “buy truth and sell it not” as Solomon says (Proverbs 23.23). He also says, “12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12.12,13).” That said, I hope you enjoy what follows.
Entry 20 - 20061117
Science is knowledge, etymologically speaking. Contrariwise, any system of thought that purports dogmatically something that is not provable is called faith. Atheism, Christianity, Evolution, and Creationism are all forms or parts of faith. The single biggest difference between Atheism and Evolution, and Christianity and Creation is that Christianity and Creation are admittedly faith, while Atheism tries to call itself a simple scientific understanding. It flies in the face of a simple realization that logically speaking, thought not at all imperically, there must be an immaterial first cause. It is easy enough to see in light of energy conservation and entropy that there must be something external to all of this that is responsible for bringing it all about.
Darwin said himself in his acclaimed work on the subject that the evidence lay necessarily in transitional forms and their fossil evidence (Origins, Chapter 10 [end]). However that has been given up on, in light of a lack of fossil evidence. What we have now is not his graduated equilibrium, but the punctuated equilibrium. The idea that life-forms would give birth to far evolved species that would then go on to breed their newfound traits with another like life. However, that requires a male and female of the new species be present at each genetic turn. It is not reasonable to think that such a thing is so. It is necessary to stretch the imagination and to allow for millions (1,000,000) of years (roughly 4.5 billion [1,000,000,000] by modern estimates) to have passed in order to allow for such an incredible story to be so. I do not mean to be antagonistic when I say that allowing for evolution to happen is tantamount to saying that the moon must be made of green cheese because there is no proof to the contrary.
Here is my hypothesis: Evolution, Romanism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, atheism, and agnosticism, etc. are all forms of faith. Agnosticism is the most internally consistent of those that do not rely on Scriptures. An agnosticism that allows that there is a God and seeks him is a well-reasoned one. One that says that he is unknowable is nearly as absurd as Atheism, because it again is a statement borne out of ignorance not proof (another faith in scholarly clothes). For my part, I am a Christian and I believe in a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. Why? Because the Bible says so. How foolish is that? This foolish: If I believe it because some other silly Christian says that science and history say it is so, then I am subjecting God’s word to the words of men. That is silly. And if I believe it because that day some scientist makes a finding that is in support of the Bible, then I am again subjecting the Word of God to fallible men. I believe the Bible because it is God’s Word and says that it is. (Circuitous reasoning - much like atheism.) And while it may seem absurd, it is not more absurd than atheism, rather it is far less, because I don’t have to fight against nature to believe there is a God, and I readily admit that there is not enough proof for what I believe, it is faith, but the atheist cannot prove his hypothesis and still says he is in accordance with science (knowledge) which it is not and he is not.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14.1a
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
Entry 21 – 20061118
I suppose that it is late to add this, but in keeping with Mr. Child’s previous post, I mean to explain a couple of definitons definitions: fool - biblically speaking is anyone who is void of the knowledge of God, so its meaning could almost be equivalent to the word atheist in the ending verses. Though in context I think I only used it of myself, in the more contemporary way. Ignorance above is not meant in its current, derogatory sense, but in the sense of lacking knowledge, from the same root as agnostic, simply meaning without ‘gnosis’ or knowledge. Science is synonymous with gnosis, both meaning knowledge though generally in different contexts. I included the meaning of million and billion to avoid the UK/US difference between the two. I have here used the US meaning, but expounded in context. I am sorry for the verbose explanation of my verbiage.
Entry 23 – 20061118
If it were the position of every semantically careful atheist to say that they do not believe there is a god, I suppose that could be fair. Suppose. It is a presupposition based in a lack of evidence, however, that there is no God.
But honestly, saying that you don’t believe there is a god, with such a careful distinction, sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion, positively that there is not a god. Etymologically, “a-” means “no”. That is then a positive assertion, so the onus is on the atheist to prove that no god exists.
You may want to check that [punctuated equilibrium], because it shows your points to be either willfully ignorant or just plain deceptive.
That is a large assertion, it would be worth it to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium .
That would be a different theory to evolution, and one that would be unsupported by the evidence. I’ve not heard of any scientists claiming something as ridiculous as this ever took place.
While I agree with you that it is unsupported by evidence, I am afraid the same is true of Phyletic Gradualism. I did not dream either up. And while Darwin’s theory fails, in light of his ignorance of cellular and molecular biology, and lack of fossil evidence that has so far followed his death, punctuated equilibrium has come alongside to fill the void. The old stance (Phyletic Gradualism) can be found on Wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism
It is not willful deception; rather the contrary is true. Those institutions that suggest that the idea of transitional forms is alive and well are leaving up old straw men. While Darwin’s finches and the Pepper Moth are examples of survival of the fittest, they are not examples of beneficial genetic mutation. I will be happy to agree that “survival of the fittest” is not only a viable model but active. However, I don’t see any positive changes in the animal kingdom’s gene pool, only negative: sickle cell anemia, Down’s syndrome, cancers, etc.
About the Bible: You said let’s focus on one issue. But you listed out many (unless you meant that the Bible is one issue). I suppose we could try to argue many, point by point, but that is going to be a while in coming. I will argue that the Bible and the Calvinism that logically results are both internally consistent, and without flaw. However, if either has a fault, it would be my understanding first, and Calvinism second, the Bible remains true. My willingness to maintain that this is so, in light of the seeming contradictions may seem irrational, (and maybe it is). But I would argue that it is faith, which the Bible lauds. However, to hold fast to atheism despite the transcendent nature of the order of our creation, etc. is also based on a lack of evidence, but is never called faith, rather is strangely and gleefully termed “infidelity”, and while it is, it is still a form of presupposition. There is still a lack of evidence.
By the way, while I know this is not the forum for it, I really dig your cheat sheets for CSS, HTML, PHP, etc. Thanks for the hard work.
Very Sincerely, David
Entry 29 - 20061120
Before I go far let me say I understand that atheism and evolution are not inextricably intertwined, only often and deeply-affectionate bedfellows. So while I go back and forth between the two I understand that they are not necessarily “symbiotic” or mutually dependent. However, if creation is shown to be untrue, the Bible fails, as it presents the account as an historic not a metaphorical account. So, while dispelling evolution does not keep an atheist from being an atheist, undermining creation ought to undermine a Christian’s faith. If they say it does not, then it is an insubstantial faith, not based on the Bible but on their mere ascription to a title “Christian”. And their Christ is not the Christ of the Bible but of their own imagination. More than that, if I, God forbid, ever cast off my profession, I am of the mind that evolution is such a thready line of reasoning that I could not commend my frail mind to believe it, though I be the most ardent agnostic.
A common misconception, that one. “a-” means “without”. Atheism = without belief. Strictly speaking almost
eveyrevery atheist is an agnostic to some degree. I am - it is impossible to disprove the existence of gods, by their nature. I am also agnostic in the same way about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
That common misconception is held by some dictionary writers, like my favorite, UK-native Oxford. Atheism: a - without, theos - god; no god. agnosticism: (again) a - without, gnosis - knowledge; without (complete) knowledge. Infidel (or infidelity) seems to be the best fit for what you describe. There is no moral or Bible dig when I say that: Infidel: in - no; fide[l] - belief. I don’t say that to be pedantic, but these distinctions are clearly important, which is clear by the fact that we keep coming back to them.
I think the spaghetti monster is a poor representation of the God “hypothesis”. However, I do not think God can be proven (nor can creation). If He could then the Bible is untrue, for it says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (cf. Hebrews 11.1-ff). While I rely on the Bible and not science as the only (not primary) pillar of my understanding (and faith more specifically), I know that others do not. Even so, your own so-called science, bears witness against the idea that we are of a composition that has spiritual (immaterial) beginnings. I don’t mean to say that this proves that there is a God in a way that is Biblical, is necessary to please God, or is substantive, but that science in all of its inadequacy bears witness to an immaterial first cause. I don’t need anyone to call that God, but there was something that is beyond tangibility and scientific/empirical understanding.
Lord Kelvin understood the three laws of thermodynamics, of which we “know” that all things in a closed system (a system which has no external energy source) tend toward chaos - which is generally called entropy. This shows a necessary beginning to this system, because a system that is left without energy will slip into a diffuse, cold, gray, mess of atoms or sub-quarkish material. If you say that there is something larger than the universe that is piping energy into it, then that becomes a part of the closed system, like our sun, and there is still an end to that energy source. The fact that we are not in a state of utter disorder shows that we have not been around for an infinite period.
Which leads in part another of those laws, energy conservation, which says that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted to energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, only diffused. This shows that there had to be something outside of matter that created all of it, because (at least in our western cause-and-effect understanding) all things have come about as a result of something else. However, if matter cannot be created, whence did it come?
It is possible to say that Kelvin was a crack or a loon and his laws should not have been understood to be laws, like the “fool” that decided the world is flat. However, two problems lie in that: Darwin’s theory is still a theory, and even our current laws in science will be subject to the same scrutiny in the future, and nothing is really able to be known. So none of it is worth knowing. I am getting a post-modern headache.
For me, I don’t care about science. It is fallible, it gives us medicine that often kills us, theories that sometimes lead to further godlessness, and computers (and we know what a mess they have become). And it is built on minds as incapable as mine, so I know it cannot be trusted. People become tired and are bought by money, etc. I don’t rely on this argumentation, because the Bible in all of its seeming fallibility is a much more sure law or word of truth than any silly, scientific hypothesis or law will ever be.
On the subject of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE):
You misquoted me above.
I am sorry if I did, please forgive me.
While PE is more gradual than my hyperbolic, spaghetti-monster-style analogy may have alluded to, it does not take long to realize that if all of the “gradual changes” take place in PE that are asserted, they lead to a new lifeform that is no longer of the same species and no longer able to mate with others within its species. It is then necessarily imperative that at any time there is a substantial ‘upgrade’ which in software terms would merit a new version number but in biological terms would merit a new species, that there is member of the complementary gender born in the same generation, so that all of that great new genetic information is not lost. That makes it amazingly difficult to continue these new species since the “odds” of these substantive and positive mutations appearing not only in one specimen, but in two contemporaneous and sexually complementary specimens is impossibly ridiculous. There is an understanding within the scientific title species that you cannot cross-breed unto viable offspring outside of a species, i.e. the mule (horse and donkey), etc.
I think it is valuable to note that mutation is a word with a negative connotation. While mutation only alludes to the fact that something has changed, it usually assumes that it is for the worse. We have not yet documented beneficial mutation in the animal kingdom through our own experience. We only assume that it is possible, in order to offer a crutch to the ailing evolution. So then, mutations are not so far able to produce anything helpful, rather our records have only proven that these changes are harmful (as before, cancers, Down’s syndrome and other genetic/chromosomal disorders, etc.), while I understand that there remain exceptions to that rule outside of the animal kingdom, namely among bacteria and viruses. My point: mutations always work out for the worse in our records, it is only in the minds of hopeful evolutionary priests (and their unfortunate parishioners) that it holds hopes of new species more capable than their ancestors.
Dave, I am a full-time student with a lot of webs to build, an internship (co-op sort of), and another part-time job, to boot. I am sure we will both benefit if I leave off here, because I cannot afford to put so much time into this dialog. But I really appreciate your prompt and thoughtful responses.
Sincerely, David Eldridge
200702180132 – In closing, I think a statement I made about Phyletic Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium and which is which and which Darwin supported is incorrect. I intend to clarify that later. I have also heard that Michael Behe has recanted some of his points about the argument of irreducible complexity which I alluded to above. I don’t believe it is so, but even if it is, insofar as I made reference to them above, I think that the reasoning is sound. However, as I said in my argument, I do not use the creationist arguments to bolster my faith, only to show the ridiculousness of the infidel’s argument.
Recent Comments