大象传媒

IMHO "intelligent design" is an account of origins that belongs in a religious education class, not a science class; and evolutionary theory is scientific theory that belong in science class, not in a religious education class. A simple nod in both classes to the ongoing discussion is a perfectly acceptable way of introducing both ideas to kids.

IMHO John Wright hit the nail on the head. And I'm a creationist.

John:

With reference to post #1. That's an agreeable solution to me and I am not a 'creationist'.

In the USA there are, however, no religious education classes. So what solution do you propose might suit both sides there?

My daughter brought home a leaflet from an outreach (last year, two years ago?) that was run in her (N.I., grammar) school, I think at lunchtime. Actually, I lie - it was several leaflets, but two of them I thought inappropriate.
One, from memory, was written by an Australian, explaining why carbon dating was wrong. [Hence the age of the earth accepted by science.] I've less than no idea how reliable carbon dating is, but I thought the leaflet one-sided, and pitched at a level inappropriate to her age. The other was creationist, again - from memory - a U.S. publication: can't remember any details except that it contained the assurance that Adam, before the fall, had a photographic memory, which was how he could name all the animals in a day.
I was really annoyed about the leaflets, because I think a child of eleven or twelve who is handed material in a school setting might read that material quite uncritically, especially when the writing is authoritative in tone. And a child that's been brought up in a church going family might have even less reason to question that interpretation of Genesis.
I contemplated complaining, and in the end didn't, principally because - and this a poor reason - I knew my church helped to fund the worker who distributed the leaflets. Wasn't quite annoyed enough to start that row. If the material had been handed out by a teacher, I would have pursued it further.

I'd ban creationism entirely from science classrooms across the UK. Yes, it should be discussed in RE classes (no one disputes that much), but only real science should be taught to children and young people by science teachers.

More worrying is that some science teachers in schools believe in creationism and intelligent design theory. How can someone graduate with a degree in a science subject and continue to believe that the world is only 6000 years old? It's astonishing.

Come on! Wise up! There should be no place in schools for the dangerous cult of creationism or ID.
We are already teaching our children two totally contradictory versions of our origins - We have moved on from the Dark Ages and given up on blood letting and leeches - the myths of religion should be restricted to Sunday Schools. I would contend - if pushed - that otherwise we're talking child abuse!

Alan- I agree with what you say about creationism, but it absolutely has a place in school. In the context of sociology (it's what some people believe) or religious education (it's an account in the bible) or literature (it's a mythical account saying whatever) or debating class (this house believes that the account is fictional)... of course it has a place in education.

You say that we're teaching our kids "two totally contradictory versions of our origins". You're missing the point: when I claim that the story of creation found in Genesis has a place in the classroom I'm not saying that it should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory. I wouldn't send my child to a school where the R.E. teacher got up and said, "Today we're going to learn about how God created the world in seven days. What they're teaching in science class is garbage." They would instead be teaching kids an account of creation found in the bible, and treating kids to a healthy observation of the various human belief and religious opinions surrounding it (which is, after all, what Religious Education is for). The teacher gets up and says, "Today we're going to learn about a story in the bible which people in the Christian religion disagree about strongly; the story of the creation of the world."

What's wrong with that?

Alan:

The flaw in your thinking is that you assume "teaching creationism" must mean "teaching creationism as true." In actual fact I agree that creationism has a place in a SCIENCE class room just as much as the theory that the earth is flat - not to teach these theories as TRUE, but for other purposes, as both theories represent historic beliefs about the world which are relevant to then discussing new scientific findings.

To ban a school of thought or an idea from a school is tyrannical and contrary to everything education is actually for. That, my friend, is child abuse.

SG

But Stephen the Theory of Evolution IS true! - just like the Theory of Gravity!
We are NOT talking here about 'a man in the stret type theory ' - like 'aliens are visiting the earth regularily' or 'the earth is flat'
A theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition.
These crieria do not apply to creationism nor the flat earth idea. As I have said before there are no respected scientists who support ID.
The only possible place for untested and untestable beliefs is in a religious setting which is totally divorced from education.
We have been for too long giving children two contradictory explanations of our origins but we can't stop it happening in Sunday schools - more's the pity!

Sorry Dad (Alan is my Father...)

I agree with John completely - Creationism/ID etc do have a place in school - but it is in the context of belief systems and faiths that kids should discuss these ideas - and they should explicitly not be presented as facts.

Banning the comparitive examination of other's ideas is anthema not only to democracy and free thought, but ultimately progress.

BUT - The only thing that belongs in a Science classroom is science.

The Creationsts among us may argue that alternative theories to Big Bang Evolution etc ought to be discussed in a science class. In response to that I would say that until (as if!!!) Evoloution for example, is supplanted by another theory as the accepted wisdom by a majority, it will and should remain the theory that is taught on the origin of species.

Alan:

You misunderstood my point entirely.

I can't be bothered explaining it further.

SG

Alan says that religious beliefs are untested and untestable...what on earth have philosophers of religion been doing for centuries, no, millenia?

George

NO - I said creationist and ID 'science' was untested and untestable - not religious beliefs - although on second thoughts it probably does also apply there as well.
These threads on creationism and ID are usually hijacked by religious nuts trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle. William should try to keep comments to the subject of his main post by not posting all comments willy-nilly.
And returning to that - not one post has given the tinniest fragment of any 'science' which backs up creationism. I don't expect any - all they can do is quote ancient books.

To have a true democracy, ALL beliefs must be taught [the good and the bad] so that the person could make an intelligent choice. Unfortunately in America, that choice does not exist in their public school systems [the same goes for the rest of the American Continent].

Alan- You need to look into Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis, in which he purports to propose science that agrees with the literal biblical account of creation. To consider his arguments and conclude that they're balderdash is one thing; to claim that nobody has attempted to cite real scientific theory that agrees with a 7-day creation is misleading and incorrect. Perhaps, in the interest of discussion, you could present some of the best creation science here for consideration? No, that's just not you.

Children cannot make 'intelligent' choices esp about 'beliefs' - so they should only be taught facts - such as physics, chemistry, history and Evolution. They should be taught about beliefs, but there should be encourgement to investigate the claims of these beliefs for themselves when they are mature. Do you really think that Evolution is ever mentioned in any religious class? Why then should creationism be mentioned in a science class?

Alan watson wrote:

鈥淭he Theory of Evolution IS true! - just like the Theory of Gravity! A theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition.鈥�

Alan: Theories by definition can not be spoken of as 鈥榯rue鈥�. They might be believed as probably 鈥榯rue鈥� since nothing has yet been discovered to prove them 鈥榝alse鈥�. They are called 鈥榯heories鈥� or 鈥榤odels鈥� because one is continuing to test them agnostically i.e. trying to find out if they can be proven to be 鈥榝alse鈥�.

You also stated 鈥淭hese crieria do not apply to the flat earth idea鈥�.

That is because the model of the flat earth was proven to be 鈥榝alse鈥� and a new model believed to be 鈥榯rue鈥� has now taken its place.

On the question of intelligent design it is acknowledged that if one takes a random system of entities and applies a 鈥渞ule鈥� or 鈥渞ules鈥� to the system then eventually the random system will develop a systematic pattern. For more on this see Conway鈥檚 Game of Life Simulations

So the question is not why carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms assemble themselves into a pattern which is 鈥渓iving鈥� the question is why in the world of science there exist the 鈥榣aws of science鈥� in the first place.

Many physicists are wrestling with this 鈥榮piritual鈥� question and as evidence for this I quote none other than Dawkins himself (author of The God Delusion) who in a March 16, 2003 interview on Sunday Sequence discussing the book 鈥淎 Devil鈥檚 Chaplain" said the following:

Dawkins: There are possible good reasons for believing in some sort of grand supernatural intelligence..(he opines that this is not the biblical God).... there are modern physicists who believe that the universe, if you actually look at the laws of the universe, they are to some physicists too good to be true. And this suggests a very interesting case for a possible very very deep reason why we might believe in some sort of grand fundamental intelligence underlying the universe ...(he again opines that this is not the biblical God who is watching over our sex lives etc) ... (that God) is nothing at all to do with what I am talking about which is a highly sophisticated physicists' theory.

Interviewer: The so-called fine tuning theory of the universe which suggests that the universe may have an intelligent designer behind it.

Dawkins: Yes, that's an interesting idea, an idea that is well worth discussing.

I rest the case. You have it from Dawkin's own mouth - the question of a supernatural intelligence is an 'interesting idea' and a question of concern to highly intelligent physicists.

The man to monkey theory, molecule to mammal to monkey to man relies on 鈥減ositive genetic mutations鈥� theory which is essential to the evolutionary scheme of thought, exactly the opposite is happening. Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information, meaning that a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene occurs, this basis of positive genetic mutations forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, but disorder, resulting in physical and mental handicap, this is hardly the foundation of a scientific evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous development. If 鈥淧OSITIVE鈥� mutations did occur how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence?

All reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes meaning that reproduction works on the biblical basis of 鈥榓fter his kind鈥� which is mentioned 79 times in 15 verses of the Bible, I ask for genetic science to disprove this Biblical fact, the fact is it can鈥檛. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalm 139:14

In the field of genetics it is clear that the scientific evidence does not support the assumptions of the theory of evolution. The Creation of Genesis does not contradict any established scientific fact, but what the Bible has to say is consistent with science.

There is no room in the science classroom for the theory of evolution, pure science fiction. But there is plenty of room in the R.E. class for the Genesis of creation, the evidence is in front of you, 鈥渟o that they are without excuse: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened鈥�. Romans 1:20-21

Billy- You say you agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis. In Genesis Chapter 3 there is a talking snake, a fruit that reveals the shame of nudity and the God that created the universe makes a sound as he walks through the garden in the cool of the day.

There are probably too many questions about this to ask a person who believes in a literal account of Genesis. But let me start with a few.

1) Have you ever seen a talking snake? With what vocal chords did it speak? Was it remote controlled, since its brain is certainly not large enough to permit it sufficient intelligence to form complex thoughts dealing with temptation, let alone to articulate it into speech?

2) Have you read any fairy tales that deal with fruit in the same manner that Genesis 3 does? Have you ever personally eaten a fruit that can reveal elaborate emotions to you? Was this fruit perhaps a drug of some kind? Since they did not smoke it but eat it, was it a normal fruit like an apple or peach, or was it a special fruit that God put in the garden only for that specific time?

3) Christian theology would seem to suggest that Jesus was the first time God became man, so how could God be walking through the garden that he just created in Genesis 3? Did he teleport himself into the garden to walk through it so he could catch Adam and Eve nude? With what legs did he walk?

Billy:
You view the bible as God's words to Mankind.

John:
You view the bible as Mankind's words about God.

A rhetorical question: Given this why do you each spend time talking 'at' one another?

And now back to the topic of this blog.

In post 17 I argued a position based on Dawkin's comments regarding

... Physicists, a "grand fundamental intelligence" (Dawkin's words), and the laws of science which are "too good to be true" ....

that 'a priori' Dawkins has allowed the origin of physical laws to be quite appropriate for discussion in a physics class.

What say ye as Creationists, Intelligent Designers, and Evolutionists?

(Before anyone places me in a box concerning my 'belief' on this matter, please note that I have not argued a 'personal' belief.)

John

That last posting of yours is dripping with sarcasm and disdain.

I wonder would you speak to a muslim in that manner???

Not at all tolerant or libertarian John - how many times have I pulled you up on this. This is acutally sectarian discrimination, you would never speak to anyone of another belief system in this manner. You are free to disagree but you are displaying hatred and bigory with it.

Is widely accepted that there was a cradle of civilisation which correlates to the geography of creationism and this is taken especially seriously in the middle east, by all Abrahamic believers.

Now if God really is God, I would say he could kick off creation with any crazy story he liked, Tom and Jerry if it pleases him, and because he is God I would not like to be writing in the complaint letter.

Scripture says Satan is a fallen angel who can take any appearance he likes. Now what is the big deal about a snake?

And your posting about God in the Garden is rubbish, scripture. Christ was the first time God was born of a woman but there were numerous appearances of Christ in scripture before this.

And I hate to repeat this point, but I have challenged all comers on this blog for coming up on two weeks now to find a "missing link" between man and ape that is not acutally one or the other.

Nobody has yet come up with the goods.
A few other challenging questions I have posted on the Creation Wars posting tonight also, for anyone who is feeling brave.

Let's be honest guys, science is the human discipline of scratching the surface of God's creation.

There are so many mysteries science has not begun to understand, and human science is so new (and tiny) in context of the history of the cosmos. I think it needs just a little more humility (like us!)

sincerely
PB

Michael asks: "Why do you each spend time talking 'at' one another?"

That's what conversation is, Michael. And I'm not talking 'at' Billy at all, I'm asking him to defend his literal reading of Genesis, which is just as much on topic, if you ask me. If there is a key part of this debate, it is the fact that creationists read Genesis literally. You don't think my questions are relevant? You don't think it's central to the origins debate?

PB- If you can't answer the questions, feel free to admit that. "How many times" have you "pulled me up" on this? Who do you think you are?

John Wright asks:

That's what conversation is, Michael. And I'm not talking 'at' Billy at all, I'm asking him to defend his literal reading of Genesis, which is just as much on topic, if you ask me. If there is a key part of this debate, it is the fact that creationists read Genesis literally. You don't think my questions are relevant? You don't think it's central to the origins debate?

John:
Billy, you, PB and I know pretty much what each of us believe. And you probably know that I am in agreement with your overall comments on this particular question.

I would also venture to say that Billy, you, PB and I share something in common with the Eiffel Tower - it is highly unlikely that our present position will change in the forseeable future.

So my point is that if we pick at each other's beliefs it only leads to a polemical exchange (polemics being the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to promote factual awareness).

So the question is can we approach any question from our different positions and come to some form of agreement.

Given that we have the following points in common between us:

1) A Creationist campaign group called Truth in Science has been mailing a Creationist starter pack to every secondary school head of science in the UK.

2) Richard Dawkins as the leading proponent against religion will be interviewed by William Crawley in early December.

3) Dawkins has made a statement that raises the question about the view of theoretical physicists and supernatural phenomena.

I raised a question in posts 17 and 20 as to how we as a society should approach the question how the laws of physics came into being. I asked if this would be an appropriate discussion for a physics class and if not why not?

I think a discussion of this question can be conducted in the absence of polemics.

John

Easy up there boy, this is not about me it is about the intolerant attitude you are displaying here.

Even Michael has pulled you up on it and he is an evolutionist. You can have a conversation where you listen to what people say, think about it and respond rather than responding with your pre-thought out answers.

Just think back to the live and let live approach you have to civil partnerships, remember?

ie a Christian may not agree with civil partnerships, but they should not object to same-sex couples entering them, you say.

Transfer that to this debate and it would mean that you, John, may not agree with creation science, but you should not object to it being freely taught in science class and you should respect it being discussed here.

SG is an evolutionist and he has no problem with it being taught as a theory that exists in science, without teaching it as true. I think that is fair enough.

You are very quick to say it should not be taught in science classes but as far as I see you have no scientific credectials to make such a call. Am I wrong?

And on the point about my reaction to your questions, I contend I have substantially addressed them all, even if you dont like the answers.

In contrast, I have asked my question about evolution around a dozen times now and you refuse to address it. Know any acutal missing links between man and ape John???

You prefer to throw prejudicial sectarian labels/abuse instead of discussing this.

Come on, John you have plenty of good points to make on behalf of a lot of people without stooping to all this fluster and bluster in place of a serious discussion.

sincerely
PB

PB- Perhaps someday you'll be mature enough to understand that disagreement is not the same as intolerance. Until then, thanks for the tip.

John

The elephant in the room here is the missing link that is still missing...

I did put a post in yesterday but it got lost, about our ages, which you raised.

What incident prompted you to leave your old Christian viewpoint?

You know, CS Lewis left atheism at a mature age to become a Christian.

It does not follow that young people grow out of Christianity.

PB

PB asks "What incident prompted you to leave your old Christian viewpoint?"

I am a Christian. Again you're confusing Christianity with conservative evangelical Christianity - not the same thing. I've thought longer and harder on theological issues than most of the people I know, PB, and in that time my opinion has changed dramatically, but it's still a Christian viewpoint.

John I apologise for mixing my adjectives, I do believe you still hold a Christian viewpoint but I was deliberate in choosing my words,

what made you leave "your old Christian viewpoint" ie when you said you used to see things as I did.

Also, I apologise, I feel I have been overly harsh in confronting you these past few days.

PB

John I apologise for mixing my adjectives, I do believe you still hold a Christian viewpoint but I was deliberate in choosing my words,

what made you leave "your old Christian viewpoint" ie when you said you used to see things as I did.

Also, I apologise, I feel I have been overly harsh in confronting you these past few days.

PB

PB- No problem. I have a suggestion: Let's return to Michael's question and deal with it, as I think he's right that it represents the easiest way to proceed.

Michael wrote in post 20: "On the question of intelligent design it is acknowledged that if one takes a random system of entities and applies a 鈥渞ule鈥� or 鈥渞ules鈥� to the system then eventually the random system will develop a systematic pattern. For more on this see Conway鈥檚 Game of Life Simulations
-
So the question is not why carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms assemble themselves into a pattern which is 鈥渓iving鈥� the question is why in the world of science there exist the 鈥榣aws of science鈥� in the first place."

In other words, you PB are not convinced that evolution occurred. I, on the other hand, am fairly sure that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that that is the case. But if we move the debate to what occurred before evolution; ie. before a singularity exploded, the question of intelligent design (ID) is still relevant to evolutionists:

Where did the laws of our physical universe come from in the first place? What decided that the universe would be governed by 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants? How did they come into being, the laws of gravity and the nature of reality, three dimensions, etc.? Regardless of whether evolution occurred or not, these questions remain to be answered... and the question of whether or not an intelligence beyond the realm of our understanding (God?) made it so.

John:

I like the way you have added to the forumulation of my Dawkins/physics/Truth in Science question when you ask:

"What decided that the universe would be governed by 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants? How did they come into being, the laws of gravity and the nature of reality, three dimensions, etc.? Regardless of whether evolution occurred or not, these questions remain to be answered... and the question of whether or not an intelligence beyond the realm of our understanding (God?) made it so."

Let's also keep in mind for the group to discuss why these questions would not be a proper topic for discussion in any physics class?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- What do you think?

These questions will be answered by science before you can prove there are any gods! - want a bet?

John

I have said before I believe science is man scratching he surface of God's creation, that would include the origin of these laws.

I'm not at all certain this question is very revelvant to this blog entry though. its a concilatory approach but I thought we were exploring creationism vs evolution.

I would say an important question you did raise was about the origin of life. Do you belive science is capable of producing it?

Having said that, you fairly represented my views in your entry without exagerating them and I much appreciate that.

PB

PS John, I'm still dying to know what changed your spiritual direction.

...ctd from Creation Wars, attn JW

John

welll, any thoughts on post 88 from creation wars then?

I have to say I am curious about how you seem so strong in using empirical conclusions as a rule in what is acceptable in discussion, yet I really dont think your belief in God or your belief in evolution can measure up to that, am I wrong?

Interested to hear from you on this JW.

PB

fyiGuys

I have just been looking at the answers in genesis website, and it has a list of over phd or above scientists who volunteered to put their name to creationism.

See;-

I should also confess that the website pulls me up on a some of my ideas which it says are wrong. I never did study this area very closely but looks like I need to.

Having said that, I see nothing yet which states the missing link is not still the missing link.

sincerely
PB

John

This post did not seem to go in last time I tried.

My response to your questions was that I see science as being man['s attempt to scratch the surface of God's creation. I am no scientist and catn go much further.

I was asking John how your requirement for empirical evidence allows you to beliebe in the Christian God and evolution, the latter, I understand, which can fairly be described as unsubstantiated conjecture.

I am happy for Michaels points to be debated, though I think it is fair to say this thread is really about creationism vs evolution.

sincerely
PB

John: You ask what I think:

Well let鈥檚 take what Dawkins said:

鈥淒awkins: There are possible good reasons for believing in some sort of grand supernatural intelligence..(he opines that this is not the biblical God).... there are modern physicists who believe that the universe, if you actually look at the laws of the universe, they are to some physicists too good to be true. And this suggests a very interesting case for a possible very very deep reason why we might believe in some sort of grand fundamental intelligence underlying the universe ...(he again opines that this is not the biblical God who is watching over our sex lives etc) ... (that God) is nothing at all to do with what I am talking about which is a highly sophisticated physicists' theory.鈥�

I would say that if theoretical physicists think this is a 鈥榪uestion鈥� then I think it is obviously legitimate for discussion in a physics class but in the absence of dogma concerning any particular religion, belief, worldview of 鈥淕od鈥� etc.

For example if you as me as a 鈥楽cientist鈥� could I set up a biological model for Dawkins (since that is his field) that might lead one to conceptualize there could be a 鈥済rand supernatural intelligence鈥� (to use Dawkin鈥檚 terminology) then I would set up a biological model as follows:

Human beings are entities with about 80 thousands genes (don鈥檛 argue the exact number I could be wrong on the exact figure) which gives humans a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment. Humans are both spiritual and material, i.e. there is a mind and a body. Bacteria have fewer genes than humans, viruses even less, and prions (which cause mad cow disease) have even less if any. As we approach zero for the number of genes that an entity possesses one approaches the idea of 鈥榥on鈥� life. For example, is a virus 鈥榣iving鈥�, is it 鈥榮piritual鈥� or is it simply a material 鈥榯hing鈥�? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non -spiritual, completely material world and one can postulate from this particular model that such a world does indeed exist. Thus as a scientist I can say that I have an 鈥榓gnostic belief鈥� from this model in the existence of a material world. I am agnostic because I am open to my model later being proved 鈥榝alse鈥�. (Remember scientists can never prove anything to be true, but if they find one instance that it is false, then it can never be true)

Now if we conceptualize going to the other end of the gene spectrum I remain an agnostic scientist as to whether there exists an entity with 8 million genes, or 8 billion genes or, to take the concept to its extreme, an entity with an infinite number of genes. If there is such a 鈥榖eing鈥� then 鈥榠t鈥� may be completely spiritual and non material and it may have a greater intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over my environment than I have 鈥� in other words it is a 鈥楪rand Supernatural Intellligence or Being鈥�.

Thus as an agnostic Christian (for which a definition I am comfortable with can be found on wikipedia.org) and as an agnostic scientist I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of Grand Supernatural Intelligence as allowed by Dawkins. Dawkins says that there is no need for 鈥榠ntelligence鈥� in evolution and I agree with him on that as I think I indicated in my reference earlier to Conway鈥檚 Game of Life simulations where one can take any starting state, add rules, let the system run for long enough, and bingo you get a beautiful pattern. Humans are indeed beautiful 鈥榩atterns鈥� to both me and Dawkins. However, what Dawkins must allow is the question: Why are there rules for the interaction of physical things including carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen atoms etc that assemble themselves under these 鈥淒arwinian鈥� rules into 鈥榣ife鈥�.

So in the physics class one should be permitted to ask the question: Why are there rules? In the social sciences or RE class one should be allowed to ask the question: What created the rules? The first is a question of model and the second a question of myth which means I now have to explain what I mean by model and myth.

I believe that we function as humans in two realities: an outer reality and an inner reality.

The outer reality is 鈥榦bjective鈥� while the inner reality is 鈥榮ubjective鈥�. In the outer reality I am the agnostic scientist and in the inner reality the agnostic Christian.

Examples of outer reality are physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, astronomy, pain, reason, linear time, gravity, scientific writings etc.

Examples of inner reality are suffering, intuition, eternal time, love, art, poetry, literature (which includes religious writings), music.

From the human symbol making ability we developed language. With language and symbols we began to think about the outer and inner realities. We developed 鈥榤odels鈥� to describe the outer reality and 鈥榤yths/metaphors鈥� to describe the inner reality.

An example of a model in the outer reality is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle鈥檚 circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model鈥檚 utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons 鈥榙o鈥�. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a 鈥榟ydrogen atom鈥� manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom 鈥榠s鈥�.

Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.

Myths refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. In the inner reality we create myths. An example of a myth is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call 鈥榳olf鈥� to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called 鈥榳olf鈥�, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried 鈥榳olf鈥� but the villagers didn鈥檛 come. Why? They no longer had 鈥榯rust鈥� in what he said. We don鈥檛 know the historical 鈥榯ruth鈥� of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how 鈥榯rust鈥� can be lost by acting dishonestly.

Myths are descriptions of the way things never were, but always are.

Both models and myths have both real and imaginary components. In mathematics, real and imaginary numbers are essential for describing outer world reality using models. Imaginary numbers have essential applications in areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics. Without imaginary numbers modern science would be paralyzed.

Likewise real and imaginary situations and persons are essential for describing inner world reality using myths. In common usage the word "myth" may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), yet "myth" does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions.

In my view in the inner reality we have free will and in the outer reality we do not. In the outer reality the only option is to state 鈥淚 accept鈥� - what is, 鈥榠s鈥�. In the inner reality, however, we have the option 鈥淚 choose鈥�.

For example, in the outer world we experience the sun鈥檚 heat on our face or hear the wind rustling the trees or suffer the consequences of an earthquake - we have no control over these observations 鈥� we can simply experience them through our perception. The physical experience regardless of how painful or how joyous can only be 鈥榓ccepted鈥�.

In the inner world we might experience anger at something or someone. In this case we are not trapped with the single option of 鈥榓cceptance鈥� for we can 鈥榗hoose鈥� to let the anger go. Pain, an outer reality, is not what makes us suffer. It is how we choose to deal with pain in the inner world that causes us to suffer.

What I am opining (and I apologise for the length) is that we must be agnostic about both our models and our myths. Both both have a place in the school system under properly considered circumstances.

Regards
Michael

Michael- Thank you for your considered reply. I concur with a lot of what you say here, and consider myself to be within the same ballpark of thought, so to speak. I feel that the 'certainty' of evangelicalism, for example, is ill-considered and basically founded on erroneous approaches to religious texts. A more sensible approach is to admit that we are in the unfortunate position of being incapable of knowing a lot about the human situation, and that our various methods of explaining such are imperfect (you mention myths and models, the difference between them and the fact that neither present a 'certainty', which is helpful).

On the physics: what you're describing is, broadly, a 'fine-tuning of the universe' argument; the idea that the laws of physicals, the constants etc., are so perfect for life that they had to have been designed by a creator of some sort, even if that creator allowed evolutionary processes to take it from there.

I'd have no problem sending my child to a school that provoked thought in physics class along such lines.

If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, though, it would be to say that intelligent design is not the only means by which our universe could have become perfect for this kind of life. For example, it may have been suitable for a different kind of life if something were different. Or there could be a multiverse rather than a universe, perhaps an infinite number of universes in each of which the physical constants are different: in that scenario it is not at all unlikely that our kind of life would occur (the fact we are here to observe this universe means it did).

On the other hand, that merely shifts and amplifies the problem: now we don't have only one universe to deal with and explain but many. If there is a multiverse, and personally I am somewhat intrigued by the idea, especially some physicists recent postulations such as bubble theory and forms of string theory in quantum mechanics.

Believe it or not, my inability to refute the 'fine-tuning of the universe' argument is responsible in part for my continued belief in God.

John writes:

"If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, though, it would be to say that intelligent design is not the only means by which our universe could have become perfect for this kind of life. For example, it may have been suitable for a different kind of life if something were different. Or there could be a multiverse rather than a universe, perhaps an infinite number of universes in each of which the physical constants are different: in that scenario it is not at all unlikely that our kind of life would occur (the fact we are here to observe this universe means it did). On the other hand, that merely shifts and amplifies the problem: now we don't have only one universe to deal with and explain but many. If there is a multiverse, and personally I am somewhat intrigued by the idea, especially some physicists recent postulations such as bubble theory and forms of string theory in quantum mechanics."

John, I am again in agreement. As I see it you have proposed another 'model' which is again a perfectly suitable topic for a physics class.

I find the myth/model distinction quite useful in my own thinking when we use the word 'myth' in its non pejorative form as I defined it in Post #39. When we want to discuss a concept with the use of a 'model' then whatever the topic might be it is suitable for discussion in a science or mathematics class in my opinion. Additionally if we wish to discuss a concept with the use of a 'myth' then the topic would be suitable for discussion in an English Literature class, a social studies class, a philosophy/religion class etc.

As I see it, if one has a 'concept' and one wishes to exchange ideas about it with others having as a goal to test its validity, then we have only two methods that we can use - the method of the model or the method of the myth.

As an additional example, I would have no problem with the bible being studied in an English literature class, or a class on Hebrew, or one in Greek etc. I could see that a good English Literature teacher might for example ask a class to compare and contrast suffering as found in the story of Job and in the novel by Thomas Hardy, Jude The Obscure. I suspect the students could do a pretty good job on the question.

Notice that I deliberately used the word 'suffering' and did not use the word 'pain'. 'Suffering' can only be conceptualized with the use of 'myth' while 'pain' can be modeled in terms of neurons firing etc. and hence is amenable to study by the science of medicine.

Now I'm sure someone is going to ask me if I would accept that the bible story of creation could be taught in a science class.

I think the bible story in my opinion would fall more under 'myth' than 'model' and hence you have my answer.

And in a democratic society if the majority agreed with me then that's how the state funded school systems should be operated.

Regards,
Michael

Michael- We agree. You'll notice that, in all of my previous comments, I've referred to the school situation in a first person basis relating to my decisions only ("I would/would not send my child to a school that....") rather than refer to the state-funded school system. That's due to my emphatic libertarian political philosophy, which would not permit taxes to be used for education, thus repealing any state-funded school system. But it doesn't affect this discussion... I'm sure we can debate state coercion some other time!

What you (and I) conclude here, of course, relies upon the assertion that the Genesis creation story is not an actual account of what literally took place in the moments of creation - a historical account - but rather a mythical exploration of God's role in the origins of the universe (or multiverse?). On that, I'm sure that PB, for example, is not willing to concede.

So are we back to square one (and perhaps the reason there is a debate in the first place): hermeneutics?

(It seems to me that if hermeneutics is the issue -- and I believe that it almost always is in discussions of this sort -- then we should find out why people like PB believe that a literal reading of Genesis is right and necessary. Even St. Augustine, upon whom much of evangelical Christian theology relies for its source, postulated that the account of creation in Genesis was not to be taken literally; he did this in the 4th century, hundreds upon hundreds of years before anyone had suggested the theory of evolution. [His theory was that God's creation happened in an instant, rather than in the seven days a literal reading of Genesis would require.] The point is that he did not consider it necessary to read Genesis as though it were a literal - ie. factual, objective, precise - account of origins. Why do evangelicals today find it necessary to do so?)

John writes:

"It seems to me that if hermeneutics is the issue -- and I believe that it almost always is in discussions of this sort -- then we should find out why people like PB believe that a literal reading of Genesis is right and necessary."

Given that hermeneutics is the development and study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts, I would say that the topic of creationism considered in this light is in the realm of 'myth' and not in the realm of 'model'.

Thus as I have opined above this approach to creationism would again place it outside the science class.

A hermeneutical study of "Job" in association with "Jude the Obscure" on the topic of 'suffering' puts it in my opinion into the English Literature class.

Regards,
Michael

ps: Maybe the two of us should now stay quiet for a while and see if others can advance this discussion in the way that we have been formulating it? ;-)

"Maybe the two of us should now stay quiet for a while and see if others can advance this discussion in the way that we have been formulating it?"

I can live with that. :-)

Michael, John

Guys I welcome the fact we have taken the heat out of this debate, for now at least.

But you have ignored/missed most of the posts I set down yesterday and the day before.

Please allow me to restate;-

1) John you describe yourself as a Christian and a theistic evolutionist and say that empirical evidence is critical to you to consider an argument credible [ref Panin, soul weight and feeling when you are being watched]. But belief in God and evolution are not proveable by empirical evidence. So how do you decide which arguments you will accept John?

2) John you pressed me hard for a view of the ethiopian 'missing link' find in Creation Wars, which I put down in post 88 there and [fairly I would say] contesting it as a missing link. Can you respond to my comments please as you did as for them.

3)I say this politely and please accept it as such, but ref hermeneutics, I dont feel it necessary to interpret Genesis literally. My experience with God shows the bible to be true and I have not found a convincing arugment not to take genesis literally. See point 2 above, which Michael also declined to debate with me after I eliminated Lucy as a certain missing link.

The fact that over 200 phd and above scientists are creationists tells me I am not being unreasonable;-

4) On the other hand John, I know from talking to you that you are not familiar with many major themes in the bible so I am unsure how you can pass judgment on other people's method of interpretation?

5) If I may raise a case in point, the vast majority of Christians, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, would support the teaching that there is a trinue God, that the son was born of a virgin, was wholly man and wholly God, died on a cross for the world's sins, rose again on the third day and now sits on the right hand side of the father. Seeing as this is so widely accepted by Christians (and always has been)!, could you guys answer if you contest this and if so on what hermeneutical grounds? Have you a logical reason why you contest this, because I suspect most people who do so are really employing ideological presuppositions about Christ and the bible.

sincerely
PB

The creation account does not appear in a figurative part of the Bible, such as the prophetic or poetry books, but in one of the historical books, It is presented as factual, and endorsed as factual by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Why does the Earth's area of that ancient city of Sodom (MT. Usdom & Dead Sea)have a high concetration of sulphur. You will find the answer in the following, Genesis,19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; or is this just a poetical myth.

William

Thanks for the invite but I will not be free to attend this event but may I submit a few questions for Mr Dawkins for consideration please?

1) "I personally know people for whom their belief in God has literally saved them from paramilitarism, drug and alchohol addiction, divorce, cancer and lives of career criminality. What benefit do your teachings on athiestic evolution being to society?"

also;-

2) "What does science say will happen to you after you die and conversely, where did your life come from, how was it created?"

also;-

3) "why are you here?"

many thanks

PB

PB -

how blithely you "eliminate" inconvenient items.

The ethiopian fossil is the "daughter of Lucy" - accepted by Science as another specimen of A Afarensis - Lucy was pooh poohed by you as insufficiently complete (Lucy was certainly less than half the lady she used to be...).

This fossil is extremely important, but evoloutionary thought does not rest there alone.

In Creation Wars we started discussing the snakes vestigal legs - you put forward a flowery passage from the bible as evidence that this was consistent with the bible - and moved on.
What of the many homologous structures observable in biology?
I refer to finger bones extant in whales, dolphins, manatees, seals, sealions etc.
There are many more examples of this sort, but I wont labour the point.
If there has been no evoloution then these animals are "as created" - why are these structures visible?

Can I also draw thoughts on the age of the earth - I know Billy has some strange ideas about 12,00 year old earth...

PB Writes:

鈥淛ohn you describe yourself as a Christian and a theistic evolutionist and say that empirical evidence is critical to you to consider an argument credible [ref Panin, soul weight and feeling when you are being watched]. But belief in God and evolution are not proveable by empirical evidence. So how do you decide which arguments you will accept John? ref hermeneutics, I dont feel it necessary to interpret Genesis literally. My experience with God shows the bible to be true and I have not found a convincing arugment not to take genesis literally鈥�

I鈥檓 sure John will answer these points as they are directly asked of him but if I might chime in.......

I define something to be 鈥榯rue鈥� if it fits the following definition of 鈥榯ruth鈥�:

Truth 鈥� Something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.

Under this definition the literal interpretation of Genesis is not 鈥榯rue鈥� either as a 鈥榤odel鈥� or as a 鈥榤yth鈥�.

PB Writes:
鈥淚f I may raise a case in point, the vast majority of Christians, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, would support the teaching that there is a trinue God, that the son was born of a virgin, was wholly man and wholly God, died on a cross for the world's sins, rose again on the third day and now sits on the right hand side of the father. Seeing as this is so widely accepted by Christians (and always has been)!, could you guys answer if you contest this and if so on what hermeneutical grounds? Have you a logical reason why you contest this, because I suspect most people who do so are really employing ideological presuppositions about Christ and the bible.鈥�

PB: My definition of 鈥榖elief鈥� and 鈥榝aith鈥� would run as follows:

Belief 鈥� Something about which one is agnostic. For example, one can believe that some horses like music.

Faith 鈥� A belief about which one claims not to be agnostic and that one 鈥榢nows鈥� is 鈥榯rue鈥�. For example, in the discipline of mathematics one has faith that 2+2 equals 4 i.e. one claims to 鈥榢now鈥� that this is 鈥榯rue鈥�. Many people have faith that God exists or alternatively does not exist i.e. they claim to 鈥榢now鈥� that their belief is 鈥榯rue鈥�.

PB, you have faith in the virgin birth etc which I accept since you claim to know that it is 鈥榯rue鈥�. It would be easier for me to discuss the virgin birth with you if you said that it was a 鈥榖elief鈥� that you held. That would mean you are open to a possible change in that belief.

I think Borg put it fairly well on page 88 of his book 鈥楾he God We Never Knew鈥� when he wrote:

鈥淪tatements in which Jesus affirms an exalted status for himself are not found in the earliest layers (of the Christian traditions). What are sometimes called the exalted titles of Jesus 鈥� Jesus as Messiah, Son of God etc 鈥� disappear as do statements such as 鈥業 and the Father are One鈥�. These belong to later layers of tradition and express the community鈥檚 post-Easter perceptions of and convictions about Jesus. The historical Jesus did not speak about himself using these categories. Jesus did not speak of himself 鈥� and apparently did not think of himself 鈥� as divine 鈥�

PB: The earliest written texts of the NT were those by Paul, and the author of the Gospel of Mark. There is also the Q document. None of these early texts make any mention of a virgin birth for Jesus. These stories begin to appear with Matthew and Luke and there were similar such stories in the Greco-Roman society of that time i.e. virgin births, dying and rising Gods etc. So it is not surprising in a society where the Christian message was being spread that certain writers would place the story of Jesus into this type of a mythical framework. It was a framework that would be more easily understood by non-Christians (pagans i.e. polytheistic believers) of that time.

Interestingly, the Ebionites 鈥� a Christian sect who followed the teachings of James, the brother of Jesus 鈥� considered Jesus to be man only and not divine. They used a version of Matthew as their Gospel minus the virgin birth story. Of course they were later branded as 鈥榟eretics鈥� by what became the orthodox Christians even though their beliefs may have been closer to that of the original apostles.

But is it not ironic that a sect founded on the teachings of Jesus鈥� brother denied that Jesus was divine and believed that he was born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary being adopted to be God鈥檚 son at his baptism?

So, in summary I accept the bible as mostly 鈥榤etaphorical鈥� truth as opposed to 鈥榝actual鈥� truth. As in the story of the boy who cried wolf while watching the sheep, whether the boy existed or not as a 鈥榝actual鈥� truth is not a matter to debate. The 鈥榤etaphorical鈥� truth persists that if you mislead others they will come to distrust you.

鈥楳etaphorical鈥� truth is as equally valid as 鈥榝actual鈥� truth.

Unfortunately, the fundamental atheists and the fundamental religionists seem stuck with 鈥榝actual鈥� truth as the only goal of their science or spiritual journeys.

PB- I'll respond, but you've brought back a few topics at once and I'd like to keep it simple, so I'll ignore some of it - for example where you say I'm not familiar with many major themes in the bible, which I don't understand - and focus on the big stuff.... hermeneutics.

You say you don't have any reason not to interpret Genesis literally. I would argue that you have been conditioned by your church tradition to interpret the bible (a) as though it is written by God to you, (b) as though it is one book in the same genre of literature, and (c) as though there are no issues of context. Your question to me on the homosexuality debate, for example, which asked, "Does the bible support slavery?" The question is the problem. I replied, "I'm not sure that the bible is intended to be read as an endorsement or rejection of any particular thing - it certainly documents slavery, though I'm not sure you could say that 66 separate ancient texts could somehow be strung together to "support" OR condemn anything as a singular instrument in and of itself. It takes an interpretative hermeneutical approach combined with contemporary belief and teaching to do that." And that is what divides us on Genesis.

So to further the discussion, I'd like to ask you a question, to which a simple, single, thoughtful answer would suffice (please don't take us on another tangent!): Why is your default position to read an ancient text literally? In other words: why is it your automatic approach, other than which you must be persuaded, to read a text literally, when there are so many other ways of reading it?

PB- Allow me to rephrase the question again, for the sake of clarity...

You said that you have "not found a convincing argument not to take Genesis literally," ergo you are saying that you need to be persuaded that Genesis should be read other than literallly. Why is it not the case that you read Genesis as a poetic myth of creation, and you need to be persuaded to read it literally? My question involves the reason for your default position; ie. it has to do with how reasonable it is to assume that Genesis should be read literally.

My question is: Why do you need to be persuaded that there are other potentially valid ways of reading the creation story in Genesis? Why should one of those other ways not be your automatic perspective instead?

Michael

You have written at length before on your views of truth.

The reason I outline this view of Christ's life is because any group that dissents from this view is very much a marginal group and always has been.

So I would understand that would put the onus on you to explain why you are promoting views which are widely accepted as heretical, and always have been througout history.

Michael it was you that complained Christianity was so fragmented, but on this, the most key issue, I would argue it is pretty much unified.

CS Lewis said that Christ did not offer us the option of considering that he was a good man and did not intend to.

The gospels are eye witness accounts of the life of Christ, where he said he was "the way the truth and the life" ;- rather a bold claim for a mere man, no?

The "I am" phrase Christ used so often was considered blasphemy by the Jews because it was the hebrew name of God. Even in English, you might look twice if one of your friends said they were the way the truth and the life or the water of life etc.

When they came to capture him they asked if was he Jesus. He said "I am" and everybody fell to the ground, including the soldiers. Why was that?
God spoke!

KEY QUESTION: If you are so certain that you cannot be certain of anything then why attack beliefs of people who believe they have certainty? You have no moral or intellectual authority to suggest they are wrong, by your own admission?

sincerely
PB

PS
Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: 鈥淚n its favor as a livingtruth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circum-stantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrec-tion story is true.鈥�

John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772鈥�1863) is recognized as one of the great-est legal minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attor-ney General of Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected HighSteward of the University of Cambridge. He challenges, 鈥淚 know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.鈥�

PB:

You wrote that you would suggest the following questions for Dawkins:

1) What benefit do your teachings on atheistic evolution bring to society?"

2) What does science say will happen to you after you die and conversely, where did your life come from, how was it created?

3) Why are you here?

I think most of these question are already answered on the record by Dawkins so I think we will get the same response if Crawley asks them.

For example in answer to your question 3 he answered that our purpose was to propagate our DNA and make our own purpose for ourselves.

See:

Also take a look at the question and answer session entitled 'Dawkins in Lynchburg Part 2' on the same website.

My questions for Dawkins would run something like this:

He said in a 大象传媒 interview on Newsnight book club that he 鈥渃ared passionately about the truth as a scientist鈥�.

1) Does he grant that 鈥榤etaphorical鈥� truth is equally as valid as 鈥榝actual鈥� truth?

2) Would he agree that truths exist outside of that which can be modelled scientifically?

3) Given that in the scientific world we develop concepts for gravity, evolution etc as 鈥榤odels鈥� and reason to the discovery of 鈥榝actual鈥� truths from such models, does he agree that it is equally valid for one to develop concepts for love, suffering, betrayal, purpose, etc as myths/metaphors and reason to the discovery of intrinsic truths from such myths?

Regards,
Michael

John

Sorry I dont accept your reasons for ignoring the main points in my entry 46.

The answers to these issues, would very helpful inform our discussion on these newer points you are raising.

I am more than happy to discuss hermeneutics but I think it is only fair that the older outstanding issues are addressed first?

Fair deal?

PB

Gee Dubyah

It was not me that eliminated Lucy as a definite missing link but several very well qualified experts. You yourself say she is less than half there.

I also asked you a question about the whale "finger" as part of our discussion and am still awaiting your response.

I am no scientist and cant begin to date the earth. But with so many scientists going full tilt on the theory that they evolved from apes, without having the empirical evidence [no missing link!], I would say I am not unreasonable to be sceptical in light of this ideological rush to judgement.

Add to this over 200 creationist scientists listed above, and I would say there must be scientific credibility to creationism and a young earth.

Secular history of civilisation and human geography seem to tally well with the biblical account of the creation and distribution of man. This is assumed by most in the middle-east, I understand.

KEY QUESTION: May I ask you to give a brief account of how you think life as we know it formed itself from inert molecules? **** Michael and John, feel free to contribute ****.

sincerely
PB

If you lot can't agree which fairy tale you believe - what is it exactly that you would be teaching in a science class?

Your beliefs don't stand up to scientific method - and you appear to be manouvering to a position where the whole frothy lot is true because it's metaphorical - or something.

Will someone please defend this young earth nonsense - silence will be taken as acceptance of it's falsehood.

Here's a starter - if the universe was created 12,000 years ago - why can we see objects more than 12,000 light years away....A good question for a Science class.

Come on Billy - a straight answer with no supernatural mumbo jumbo please - this doesnt challenge the potential existence of a deity - it's a harmless question - why can we see light signals that have taken more than 12, 000 years to reach us?

Michael

That was a pretty quick rush to Dawkins defence but you have not begun to address the first 2 questions.

Stating the obvious, but as he has confessed a religious position on his subject he has a serious conflict of interest should he come across information which challenges his views.

Should religion come into our science lessons? Dawkins has already answered that question and his answer is yes!

Any one who disagrees, then take it up with Dawkins.

PB

PB- Ok. Post 46.

(1) You misunderstand me if you think that I require empirical evidence in matters of faith. I only require empirical evidence in matters of science, which the debate of origins address. That's my final word on this matter.

(2) I don't care about the Ethiopian fossil find; I never have. I was merely interested in the reasons you were keen to reject it before seeing it. That's my final word on the Ethiopian fossil find.

(3) is what I want to deal with: hermeneutics of Genesis.

(4) You are incorrect. I am familiar with all of the themes of the bible and your assertion that I'm notwas not validated (please don't consider this an invitation to talk about it!.... I just want to stay on topic).

(5) Michael has given his reasons for rejecting a traditional evangelical understanding of the doctrines you mention... my views are not unsimilar. I'll leave that discussion between you and him since, otherwise, it would be redundant.

Now PB! Let's get back on topic... these tangents are getting tedious. I've answered your questions to the level I'm willing to; if you wish to continue talking let's now deal with my question as carefully scripted in posts 51 and 52.

PB

Re whale's finger - dig up a picture of a whale's skeleton - it looks like a hand to me - right down to the fiddly little bones in the wrist and the jointed fingers - hmmmm. Chuck in the seals fingernails for good measure - now take a look at the dolphin... Now Google Ambulocetus Natans - a transitional species characteristic of the evolutionary process. A missing link thats not err, missing, one might say.

Now, there are numerous transitional species recorded in the fossil record - the fact that you are compelled to believe the primate family tree is not complete does not mean there is no primate family tree. The same lack (and I dispute there is a lack) of empirical evidence is a charge laid more accurately at creationism's door - scripture is not empirical evidence.
200 scientists out of the worlds population isnt really quorate, is it - there are still some flat earthers out there too. How would you express this gallant 200 in terms of a percentage of the worlds scientists?

Now, on to the young earth. This one really interests me. I have asked a question (57) about the speed of light. There are others too - Geology shows an ancient earth, Physics (carbon dating) shows an ancient earth etc etc.

Show me evidence (not more scripture please) for a young earth.

Re your key question - what is the difference between an "inert" molecule , lets say water and an organic one - lets say cellulose?
Answer - no significant difference in the way you mean it.
"Life" is a series of chemical reactions - well documented - not one mystery there. Organisms are collections of molecules - pure and simple - the principle one of interest being DNA - or do we refute that exists too?

PB writes:

"The gospels are eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ, where he said he was "the way the truth and the life" ;- rather a bold claim for a mere man, no? KEY QUESTION: If you are so certain that you cannot be certain of anything then why attack beliefs of people who believe they have certainty? You have no moral or intellectual authority to suggest they are wrong, by your own admission?"

PB:
I am not attacking your beliefs and the question of 'right' or 'wrong' does not pertain to 'beliefs' or 'opinions' only to 'facts'.

In my opinion based on reading of biblical scholarship, we do not 鈥渒now鈥� who wrote the 4 canonical gospels. They were written anonymously and later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of the Pauline epistles seven are believed to have been written by Paul, three are doubtful, and three are considered forgeries in Paul鈥檚 name.

The gospels, because of when they were written, are historically not first hand eyewitness accounts according to present day biblical research. Paul is the earliest written text and he mentions nothing of these matters as I pointed out before.

The gospels are ancient biographies which in Greco-Roman times were not the same as biographies today.

Today if one writes a biography one concentrates on the facts of a person鈥檚 life - every detail must be completely accurate or your credibility will soon be destroyed by a quick search of Google.

In ancient times, however, biographers where not so concerned about the facts of the person's life they were more concerned about the person鈥檚 character and how they could develop descriptions of it.

The gospels were written 30 鈥� 60 years after Jesus died by anonymous authors who did not know him. They took oral traditions, shaped their stories about Jesus and his character to fit the community in which they lived and the audience for whom they were writing.

The writer of Luke鈥檚 Gospel, for example, indicates that his sources were written and oral i.e. not his own eyewitness account. The writer of this gospel wrote a document designed to move the salvation message from Jews to non-Jews

The writer of Mark鈥檚 Gospel was attempting to establish Jesus as the messiah fulfilling Jewish scripture.

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew edited Mark omitting, adding, and changing Mark with a view to showing that Jesus wanted everyone to adhere to Jewish Law.

The writer of the Gospel of John wanted to move the story of Jesus from one of exalted man to divine God.

And so they each wrote their 'biographies' for these perspectives.

You raised the question of my 鈥榗ertainity鈥� on these matters 鈥� I am not 鈥榗ertain鈥� on any of this. I am simply reading and reflecting on the understanding of modern-day historical biblical research i.e. research that is looking at the bible and its sources as is done with any other ancient manuscript, and which is not looking at it from a particular religious perspective.

Incidentally, getting back to the original question for this forum of what should or not be taught about the bible in a school setting, I would now add to my previous statements that the above questions are just as suitable a topic for study in a history class which is looking at the authorship and authenticity of historical documents whether these documents come to us from the Greco-Roman period, the Middle Ages, or indeed the government archives concerning the Second World War.

PB: Let me believe what I believe as I will let you believe what you believe. But the question of this forum relates to what can or can not be taught in a school setting where religious opinions might come into play.

I鈥檓 still waiting to hear some cogent argumentation on this point from others. You have been very gracious in sharing your thoughts and I feel I understand your perspective. But where do others stand on the question at hand?

Regards,
Michael

Rhetorical Question

If you had a medical complaint, and you asked 100 doctors for an opinion and 99 of them told you one thing and 1 said something else - you'd have to have a good reason to take his pill wouldn't you?

Unless of course you wanted to believe in his snake oil.

There Sir, are the 200 in all their glory. Snake Oil peddlars, false prophets (whoops!), incompetents - maybe even the odd plain liar.

Guys

I have just scanned your latest posts and before I get down to answering them I just want to say, I know we disagree in a major way but I just want to say I love y'all.

PB

The current issue of the magazine "What is Enlightenment" is based totally on the topic of "The Mystery of Evolution". It can be bought at any good bookstore, such as Barnes and Noble.

In addition to the articles there are a series of pages explaining the various theories concerning evolution.

Which of these might be suitable for disussion in a school?

The theories are:

1) The Neo-Darwinists: evolution and biological complexity are the products of random mutation and natural selection at the level of genes.

2) The Progressive Darwinists: genetic mechanisms are far more complex than previously thought; moreover, we now know there are several non genetic systems of heredity that also influence the evolutionary process.

3) The Collectivists: evolution is driven not only by competition between genes but also by symbiogenesis, cooperation, and altruism between organisms.

4) The Complexity Theorists: evolution occurs not simply through natural selection or random tinkering but through the capacity of dynamic complex systems to spontaneously produce higher forms of order.

5) The Directionalists: the process of the evolution is progressing toward broader and deeper cooperation and complexity - evidence, if not exactly proof, that it may even be shaped by some form of purpose or design.

6) The Transhumanists: human beings must take control of their continued evolution - primarily through bioengineering, cybernetics, nanorobotics, and other technological means.

7) The Intelligent Designers: certain features of the universe and Earth's biological complexity are best explained by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, not an undirected hit the East process such as natural selection.

8) The Theistic Evolutionists: the evolutionary process these of natural selection and random mutation are not contradictory with faith in a God who gives order to all existence. In fact, science and religion deal with different aspects of reality that complement each other.

9) The Esoteric Evolutionists: evolution is both a physical and metaphysical process that proceeds according to hidden esoteric blueprints working themselves out in consciousness and matter.

10) The Process Philosophers: God is not a static creator outside time and space but the dynamic, creative dimension of the evolutionary process in time and space.

11) The Conscious Evolutionists: we live in an unfinished cosmos, and its further development depends on us and our willingness to actively participate in the evolution of consciousness.

12) The Integralists: evolution is a holistic process that includes both objective and subjective dimensions of reality as it moves toward greater exterior complexity of form and greater interior depth of consciousness.

Happy reading!
Michael

Michael

I say this with respect, but I would argue that I caused serious damage your querying of the evidence of the gospels [ie their account of the resurrection] in the PS of post 53.
Any comment?

ref Creationism in the science classroom, please dont brush off my views as not being cogent - if the evolutionry hero of Dawkins is free to bring religion into his science do you condemn that? If not then who can object to creationism in the science classroom, as it is merely unproven conjecture. And dont 200plus Phds and above supporting creationism allow it to be taken seriously by your one Phd?

And if you are not claiming certainty over evolution or creationism then how can you suggest what should or should not be in a scinece class?

Also why ignore questions 1 and 2 from post 54?

PB

Gee Dubyah

That is totally reckless by any standards, dismissing 200 phds as frauds.

I would like to discuss further issues with you (young earth) but I am compelled to stop until you reconsider your attitude.

PB

Michael.

Well brought to heel!!

For me the debate about the Bible and it's interpretation is pretty academic, but I'd be happy to see it discussed in History/English/Literature in the context you describe - re authorship and authenticity. The wider issues are fitting for a comparitive thought/religion/philosophy type syllabus. But not for science.

John

Why do I believe Gensis literally and not in any other way?

I came to faith in Christ because I found he was the only truly trustworthy person alive. Since then I have found Him and his word to be faultless guides to life.

I have found Christ to be real and personal and his word to be equally trustworthy.

It is primarily a matter of faith to trust in his word. But I find that more I go in his direction the more my life works.

However, I only ever find the people who question the literal truth of the bible to be people who do not believe in this same Christ and oppose his morality and scorn the idea of his word being divinely inspired. What a coincidence, but they dont believe Genesis either!

So if i want to build a quality library why go to a comic shop?

I note that creationism is supported by many scientists (this 200 is only a small sample).

I note secular human geography dovetails with creationism, I note secular history of civilisation dovetails with creationism, I note that all the early written documents about creation dovetail with creationism and remarkably, dovetail very closely with one another, despite huge gaps in time, distance, language and culture between the authors.

There are no credible missing links between man and ape; evolution is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Perhaps my biggest point is that it is not a huge hang up for me. Believing in Christ is what I consider to be the most important thing in life, not creationism or evolution. Therefore I have not bothered to explore the minutiae of detail on either point of view. I therefore remain primarily a sceptic of evolution, and only secondly a believer in creationism as perfectly plausible.

That is the best I can do John and I hope you are happy with it. I will be returning to the other earlier points but as I agreed I will not object if you ingore me on them.

PB

John

1) You reject out of hand my statements about Panin's bible numerics showing the bible is divinely inspired. You rejected the ideal of souls having measurable weight. And you rejcted the idea that it is sometimes possible to feel when someone is watching you. And you recjted them all because the evidence was not "empirical". Yet you feel free to believe in God and evolution even though there is no empirical evidence for them either.
I am not picking at you here, but my whole point here is that I think it is hugely presumptous to assume that science has the answers for everything; it is researching new fields all the time and theories are being updated and changed all the time.
So my only point is, I argue it is perfectly reasonable to consider that the scientific establishment may not have got everything correct at any given time (ie evolution). And as you believe in evolition and God without empirical evidence, I would argue that logically you have to grant me that one as a fair point.

2) I am not so sure I rejected the ethiopian fossil find before seeing it. I thought I was rejecting the foundation fossil on which it stood, ie Lucy. In any case, nobody on this blog is maintaining either are valid missing links.

3) I have answered you questions on Genesis already.

4) In discussions you have demonstrated no understanding of the Old Testament Old Covenant and Law and the New Testament New Covenent and Grace. In the NT these are the key themes of Romans, Galations, Hebrews. You were also unaware of the only book in the bible focussing on slavery, Philemon.
You were also unable to discuss the New Testament teaching on sexuality with me. None of that is meant as personal criticism, just observation; I fail to see how you can be so definitive about what biblical interpretations are correct unless you have a good grasp of the bible.

5) Michael and you continually try to present my views as that of a marginal 20th century sect. But if you read through the early church fathers and councils and creeds you will see that my basic beliefs are right in there ie the basic beliefs of Christ and that the bible was considered the word of God. Does it need to be said that nobody believed in evolution in those days?
I dont know if I am getting you wrong, but it appears you guys would have us believe that the church down through the ages laid down its lives for Christ because they werent sure what they believed.
Are you guys really trying to convince me that agnosticism has always been the core belief of the church and it is me that is out of step with reality?

sincerely
PB

PS John, I appreciate it is personal, but I cant help feel the answers to these questions could become more plain if you explained why you left behind believing the bible as the word of God.

REF: POST 57

All of God鈥檚 creation was created mature, Adam & Eve were created fully mature and fully functioning as adults being of a mature age even though they were only seconds old when created, and on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars and set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. To give light means instant light mature light, the speed of light at creation was infinite not 186,282 miles per second as we know it to day, which can be explained by VSL. Light on the day of its creation appeared to be billions of light years old when in fact it was just seconds old, just as Adam & Eve were mature though being only seconds old so was all that filled the firmament of heaven. God created a mature Universe. If you read the Bible it explains this GENESIS 1:14 Let there be lights (instant) in the firmament of the heaven. The simple answer is 鈥淏ORN MATURE INSTANTLY鈥� So the same applies to the Earth though you perceive it to be old it is young. YOUNG EARTH

You wont side track me with scripture Billy - I dont recognise its validity.

Old Earth.

PB

Okay so there's a bit of the showman in me. Sue me...

Re the 200 - they may have Phd's but they can be wrong - Newton was wrong, and he was a Giant.

If it's a straight stat fight now, how many Phd's support evoloution and Old Earth?

Innumerable.

So let's have no more of the 200 thanks. It would be a statistical miracle if there werent a few cranks. (Hey, a rhyme!!) - :)

I have shown you boys Transitional Species, Physical evidence of Old Earth - even an ability to rhyme.

Is Bible verse all you have?

You'll need a few more loaves and fishes to persuade this sinner lads.

A good night to you all.

PB- In response to post 68.

I think you're confusing hemeneutics with faith. Before you tell me I'm wrong, let's look at the difference. Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting the bible, which can be a complex process - the analysis of ancient texts is not best conducted as a bedtime story. Faith (in this context) is the belief in God and the truthfulness of the Christian message.

You say that "It is primarily a matter of faith to trust in [God's] word." I agree. But good hermeneutics consults the kind of literature, era, context, authorship and many other considerations of the text, without which one has not adequately established how to read it properly.

Your approach assumes that a text is to be read literally before any critical scholarship, and that's a mistake. Michael explained in post 61 why it is a mistake to do that: ancient texts of this kind were often not written literally, so it is a mistake to attempt to read them that way. I'm sure your biblical literalism does not apply to Song of Songs or Revelation in the same way that it does for Genesis. Why not? Surely you recongise that some texts are not supposed to be factual, eyewitness-style accounts of actual events? Why not Genesis?

(By the way, you still seem convinced that I don't know anything about the bible. I can't understand this, since I've been talking to you for months about it, but feel free to test me. Also, you suggest that we've been presenting your views as marginal. That is not the case - you hold the majority view in the evangelical Christian church. Does that somehow validate it more for you or make it less likely to be erroneous? I'm just wondering why its popularity is relevant.)

Which of the following seems more likely to you?

(1) God created the earth 12,000 years ago in less than a week but intentionally made it SEEM like it was billions of years old for some reason; we know that creation occurred like this because someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago and we should just trust it.

(2) God created the universe - or multiverse? - longer ago than any of us can think or even imagine. The reason it seems old is that it IS old; extremely old. We are slowly working out some of how this amazing universe works... but have only scratched the surface. We know little more than that, but we're tenaciously curious.

John

I am not debating hermenetics with you. The worldview that specialises in your approach rejects Christ as a real person, his morality and the bible as divinely inspired. Hermeneuitcs is not a dead end in itself but it is with you right now. I have given you my full understanding of why I believe Genesis and I cant do more.

If you pick through my post 68 you will find me quoting geography, history, science, and ancient literature in support of view that creationism is credible and evolution is suspect - my interpretation rests on all these in my own mind.

If you pick through that post there is a heck of a lot of evidence that definitely hangs together.

I appreciate there is a logic to evolutionary worldview
but I have now exhausted my understanding on genesis.

I'm not at all saying you know nothing about the bible, just highlighting your many weaknesses as you seem to be so certain you can speak with authority on interpreting it.

And again you are making a mistake in classifying me as evangelical here. the key central issue of christ's life and the divine inspiration of scripture has been the lynchpin of all christianity from the start right up until now. so i am identifying myself with this broader group of the early church, roman catholics, protestants, orthodox, all of them of all ages right up until today; not just evangelicals. the issue of creationism and evolution is in a sense irrelevant to this point, please note.

That is why i repeatedly say i am very uncomfortalistble with labelling myself as evangelical/fundamentalist. christianity is not as simple as that though the key issues that bind it are ie christ himself and his word.

PB

john ref 75

as you are declaring a position on evolution, have you read any works by creation scientists on carbon dating and similar methods? in point 1 of yours this would suggest there is no need to assume the appears like an old earth, unless your prejudices require you to.

and if havent read any i would suggest it is not very thorough of you to dismiss them witouht having done so.

pb

yes Gee Dubyah (John Wright too, please see key question below toom if you dont mind, intersted in your view)

save your showmansip for the pub talent contest please GW.

200 phds can easily be wrong but i just want to make the point that there are many serious scientists who believe creationism, contrary to what many have said here.

of course this is not an exhuastive global list by any means.

and i personally know there more who cannot "come out" for fear of their careers, and these are not all people of faith, at least in their scepticism against evolution.

i dont see why whales' "fingers" cannot be exactly as created or how your views on this oppose creationism? do you?

KEY QUESTION: (John interested in your thoughts here too) Now GW, if you are serious in defending evolution and are really looking for a challenge to get your teeth into I would go back to post 60 and reexamine that sorry explanation you gave for how life as we know it created itself out of disparate molecules. It is just ridiculous by any standards.

Will be very interested in your answer, it appears you nearly went under on this one first time around!
;-)

thanks for the chat guys, sleep well, g'night

PB

I regret to say that in my post 64 items 5, 7 and 8 were not quite intelligible as extra words were in the text. (I use speech to writing software 鈥� IBM ViaVoice 鈥� and sometimes forget to speak plainly enough for the software to translate properly!).

So this is the corrected list 鈥� At the same time I might as well offer my own answers to the question I posed .......

Which of these might be suitable for disussion in a school?

The theories are:
1) The Neo-Darwinists: evolution and biological complexity are the products of random mutation and natural selection at the level of genes. Science class.

2) The Progressive Darwinists: genetic mechanisms are far more complex than previously thought; moreover, we now know there are several non genetic systems of heredity that also influence the evolutionary process. Science class.

3) The Collectivists: evolution is driven not only by competition between genes but also by symbiogenesis, cooperation, and altruism between organisms. Science class.

4) The Complexity Theorists: evolution occurs not simply through natural selection or random tinkering but through the capacity of dynamic complex systems to spontaneously produce higher forms of order. Science/mathematics class.

5) The Directionalists: the process of evolution is progressing toward broader and deeper cooperation and complexity - evidence, if not exactly proof, that it may even be shaped by some form of purpose or design. Science class.

6) The Transhumanists: human beings must take control of their continued evolution - primarily through bioengineering, cybernetics, nanorobotics, and other technological means. Science/Medical/biology/Computer Science class.

7) The Intelligent Designers: certain features of the universe and Earth's biological complexity are best explained by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Philosophy class.

8) The Theistic Evolutionists: the evolutionary processes of natural selection and random mutation are not contradictory with faith in a God who gives order to all existence. In fact, science and religion deal with different aspects of reality that complement each other. Religious Education class

9) The Esoteric Evolutionists: evolution is both a physical and metaphysical process that proceeds according to hidden esoteric blueprints working themselves out in consciousness and matter. Philosophy class.

10) The Process Philosophers: God is not a static creator outside time and space but the dynamic, creative dimension of the evolutionary process in time and space. Religious Education Class.

11) The Conscious Evolutionists: we live in an unfinished cosmos, and its further development depends on us and our willingness to actively participate in the evolution of consciousness. Philosophy class.

12) The Integralists: evolution is a holistic process that includes both objective and subjective dimensions of reality as it moves toward greater exterior complexity of form and greater interior depth of consciousness. Philosophy class.

Regards,
Michael

PS:
PB you write: 鈥淢ichael and you continually try to present my views as that of a marginal 20th century sect.鈥�

PB: You keep reading into my comments a personal approach to your beliefs which I don鈥檛 hold. My views would be closer to this description than yours!

PB- I appreciate your calmness and the lack of hostility in your reply.

Ref. post 76. You are most certainly an evangelical! I know you want to associate yourself with a large, accepted, orthodox, ageless Christianity. Unfortunately history doesn't agree with you. The reason the Reformation happened is because there were major disagreements on some fundamental doctrines. Take a look at the wide divergence of belief throughout the history of the Christian church; you may be surprised. What else do you think accounts for the hundreds of different expressions of the Christian faith that exist today?

If you still disagree, please tell me one major doctrine on which you and evangelicalism disagree. If you cannot, you are therefore an evangelical. Simple as that. (By the way, there is no negative stigma on that word, as you seem to think - the word 'evangelical' a simple classification of Christian belief. It describes a category of Christians whose belief in certain doctrines is in common. Your church is probably a member of the Evangelical Alliance, for example. Don't be afraid of saying what you are.)

Despite what you say PB, the main reason people believe in creation is because they believe the bible says so, and they hold the bible as the ultimate authority in their lives. Creationists tow 'science' behind them to 'prove' creation, but the main reason, for example, that they cite a 12,000 year young earth is because they use biblical genealogies to do it. The reason they believe it took six days is because Genesis says it took six days. Hermeneutics is, therefore, central to this debate. If there were no 'sacred' creation stories in religion, there would be no creationism!

On point 77. You ask if I've read any creation scientists' work. Yes; many years ago I studied Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, disagreeing with huge chunks of it, I also read and listened to lectures by Ken Ham and several other creationists whose names I can't remember.

PB

I'll showboat when I want OK? I'm here to enjoy the conversation and the banter - lets not kid ourselves we are doing anything other than indulging in Polemics here - you have no intention of changing your opinion and I have seen nothing to change mine. I am minded of Tom Cruise, clinging to scientology after Hubbard admitted it was bunkum - sadly the Hubbards that wrote your book are all dead.

Post 60 requires no addition. I COULD add - 'and then the magic "LIFE" fairy fluttered by and waved her wand in the primeval soup'. Or that 'at that point the rules of physics were subverted and light from stars that hadnt been created yet flashed throught the atomosphere at an infinite speed, smiting the building blocks of life'. But that would be nonsense...

Post 60 was shorthand for:

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This has been demonstrated in Laboratory conditions. No mystery, no requirement for the supernatural, admittedly no certainty - but thats science - Rome(and the world) wasnt built in a day...

Note - the use of the word plausible (Im sure you need little encouragement).This is plausible rather than certainty because I don't have access to eyewitness testimony. Creationism doesnt either so please dont quote scripture at me.

Now Billy - the speed of light at creation was infinite eh?

Therefore light arriving from stars at approx 12,000 light years distant and observable today is not the light generated at "C" - (lets call the time at the point of creation of the light - C) as the light created at C was travelling infinitely fast (you say)and lit creation instantly. - that is a correct summary of your contention? So when was the light that arrived on earth from these stars over the last 12, 000 years created - presumably after creation the speed of light was reduced to it's normal (CONSTANT) value?

You should listen to John.
Otherwise we are talking about a deceitful deity maintaing an elaborate ruse - and I'm pretty sure you don't subscribe to that view - so which is it? Non-literal Genesis or Deceitful God?

Michael,

succinct and on subject as ever - post 79.

I agree completely with the subject area you believe these issues fit into.

Since Michael kicked off this thread with an enquiry about schools - I wonder if some (not all) of these issues are not simply to complex for school students and more appropriate for perhaps an undergraduate student - thoughts anyone?

I don't think William would like to be thought of as intolerant - even to the intolerant!
'Fundamentalists' are more to pitied than condemned and are just a product of slow evolution but there is no doubt that irationality and belief in the supernatural is slowly and surely declining.
Sunday Sequence in the last few years has undoubtably contributed to this ternd with a much more critical look at religion and ethics - it's much less like an alternative to attendance at church on a Sunday morning.

Busybee- 'Silencing' isn't William's objective. I find that those with unreasonable views usually entrap themselves without any help but some objective questions from a good broadcaster.

John,

I don't think that William's questions are always objective - why should they be? He merely throws some of his own ideas into the mix and knows from his own background which buttons to push. This makes his broadcasting different from others...

REF POST: 81

Gee Dubyah:

Amino acids, I think you have fallen into Stanley L. Miller鈥檚, trap of the second spark; the second spark wipes out the amino acid that the first spark created. There are no traps in nature. Yes demonstrated in the lab under false conditions.

Let there be light: You assume that theory of general relativity and the speed of light being constant are right, Joao Magueijo challenged Einstein just as Einstein had challenged Newton. Magueijo says 鈥� When the temperature dropped below a critical transition value, light 鈥渇roze鈥� at the lower speed we now observe鈥� Magueijo鈥檚 new theory became known as the varying speed-of-light theory, V.S.L.

This challenge of Magueijo is nothing new. This excerpt is taken from an article in Journal of the Optical Society of America, in August 1953, titled, 鈥淏inary Stars and the Velocity of Light.鈥�

鈥楾he acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einstein鈥檚 relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few light years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In this way the time required for light to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years鈥�

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. PSALM 53:1

Busybee- Okay..

Amino acids, I think you have fallen into Stanley L. Miller鈥檚, trap of the second spark; the second spark wipes out the amino acid that the first spark created. There are no traps in nature. Yes demonstrated in the lab under false conditions.

Let there be light: You assume that theory of general relativity and the speed of light being constant are right, Joao Magueijo challenged Einstein just as Einstein had challenged Newton. Magueijo says 鈥� When the temperature dropped below a critical transition value, light 鈥渇roze鈥� at the lower speed we now observe鈥� Magueijo鈥檚 new theory became known as the varying speed-of-light theory, V.S.L.

This challenge of Magueijo is nothing new. This excerpt is taken from an article in Journal of the Optical Society of America, in August 1953, titled, 鈥淏inary Stars and the Velocity of Light.鈥�

鈥楾he acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einstein鈥檚 relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few light years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In this way the time required for light to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years鈥�

Billy,

you have been quote mining havnt you?

Tut tut tut.

Firstly - Jo茫o Magueijo titled his book "Faster Than The Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation".

So straight away the title tells you something.

I am not aware that VSL allows for an infinite speed of light as you claim.

Furthermore VSL as first proposed by John Moffat posits that the speed of light may have been much faster in early moments of the Big Bang.

Are you a Big Bang theorist Billy?

RE: Miller - you claim to have proof that Life cannot have started from chemistry (in short).

Lets see it.

While youre at it - explain to me how the next logical thing to posit is divine creation (please do this without recourse to scripture Bill..)

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump.

A comparison of Post 70 and post 86/88.

In post 70 light from the newly created star instantly lit the earth.

In Posts 86/88 - light from some stars could (allegedly) reach the earth in 15 years.

I think you are making up your position as you go along. A typical creationist tactic - to use Scientific Discourse to undermine arguments, and to wander along the Buffet table looking for pieces of info to back up your crumbling position.

Why the discrepancy between Post 70 and your new position Bill, over a few days?

Even accepting the 15 years, then "deity" was manipulating this light for the first 15 years until VSL (if you accept it) brought the rays to earth.

So once again, Deceitful God or Non-Literal Genesis?

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" - Apocalypse Now. (titter)

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump.

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" - Apocalypse Now. (titter)

Not helpful to the discussion in my humble opinion.

Regards,
Michael

Glad you raised this Michael.
These comments are no more spurious than bible verse, that is my point.

viz: The fool hath said in his heart there is no god

etc

Thanks

Very interesting case for not worrying about a few nutty ideas in schools.

The lessons learned
Religious education in schools is the cornerstone of a secular society, because it puts children off religion for life

Post 93.

Nice one Dad,

there's life in the old fox yet...

Marvelous point anout astrology at least proving 12 provable/falsifiable predictions every day.

Creationism does however have predictable outcomes:

the drivel that Billy types - if it wasn't so funny it'd be a waste of electrons (if you beileve they exist).

We havnt even started on the flood yet. Come on Billy - lets the rains come.

Tell us the one about the ark.

John

I honestly never call myself an evangelical though obviously I hold some views in common with them.

Christian does me, none of the other labels are strictly speaking biblical. Jesus just asked people to follow him.

Do I believe there will be Christians from the earliest church, the RC church, the orthodox churches and the protestants churches in heaven? absolutely. Therefore I am loathe to jump to the conclusion that only an "evangelical" outlook has God's blessing.

Regarding the reformation, will you please note that the three main teachings I have been holding as pretty absolute, to the best of my knowledge were not contested at this time;- the biblical life of Christ, man and God, died for our sins, rose the third day; the inspiration of scripture; Christ's summary of the bible as loving God and your neighbour.

My rationale is that I try to look at it from God's perspective and see what really matters to him - but I am not saying I have got it 100% right; Christ himself will decide at the judgement.

But I want to be clear, I dont see that either belief in creationism or evolution will keep anyone out or get anyone into heaven. It is belief in the risen Christ who died to get us in that counts.

Evangelical is such a modern term. By my understanding the founders of many now liberal denominations and the early church fathers would probably have a lot in common with what you define as evangelical.

So what are you defining as evangelical, if it is so important to you?

By the way, I was asking if you had read any scientific texts on a young earth only because you challenged me as to whether God was deceitful in creating a young earth but making it look old.

If there are hundreds/1000s/10,000s of scientists out there who can give a rational explanation for a young earth in scientific terms then there is no need to say God made a young earth look old and was being deceitful.

As far as I am aware, secular academic disciplines all agree that the civilisation of humans only appeared very recently, which dovetails well with creationism.
And this happened also happened in the geography of "the cradle of civilisation", which again dovetails with biblical creationism.
This also includes all the early documented recorded accounts of creation.

All moot points anyway I believe, the important question is whether we accept or reject the risen Christ.

sincerely
PB

Gee Dubyah

I dont agree for a second that you can talk what you know to be rubbish and still consider yourself to be engaged in polemics.

And if you are happy with likening your loyalty to truth as akin to Tom Cruise, even when his leader described scientology as rubbish, well I can assure you I am most certainly not in the same category as you.

A case in point is a very long discussion on slavery on William's blog that I had. It challenged my beliefs but by the time I had dug through it all it had challeneged everyone else's here too.
I didnt 100 % like what I found but I was honest enough to accept it for what it was. I am not sure my opponents did though.

I dont believe I will change the views of anyone debating with me here. But there are many other people reading who are in the valley of decision and their eternities' are at stake.

So, you are telling me that amino acids can be created in a lab and therefore life forming itself from nothing is plausible.

That is much much more faith than I will ever have. But at least you are honest enough to say it is only "plausible".

And it is certainly a shot across the bows of anyone here who contests that evolution is a scientific fact.

ANYONE HERE A BETTER ARGUMENT THAT THAT COS THAT ONE WAS RUBBISH?

Now if you want eye witness testimony, I would suggest you read up on the numerous very similar original accounts of creation, which are not from the bible but are remarkably similar;- no evolution mentioned. These accounts are from many different nations, tongues and cultures.

Now I accept that only Adam and Eve would have been eye witnesses to early creation, but if you were a near grandchild of them I would imagine they might just have passed the story on one or two generations perhaps.

It will never convince a sceptic, but if you are serious, perhaps you could explain how else they might have recorded creation for their ancestors if it had been true? And why would they have written lies if it wasn't?

For any other purposes I would say such handed down accounts could reasonably be considered worth considering, if it was not evolution we were discussing.

As I said to JW in my last post, secualr history agrees that civilisation appeared in the right area, "the cradle of civilisation" in and around the time that a young earth woould have it appear.

If your creation of life is by your own admission only plausible, then mine is no less so.

sincerely
PB

PS regarding star light, I cant discuss, I am no physicist - have you tried answers in genesis website?

PPS Have you forgotten to answer me how the whale's "hand" contradicts creationism?

a throw away one for Alan Watson..

after 911 all of America was asking how God could allow this to happen.

But Amercia had already asked God to leave all its public institutions, was the reply from Billy Graham.

Also, we note that Dawkins is quite happy to bring religion/athiesm into his science...why not creationism in science too? He is hardly qualified to teach RE is he?

As you are so adamant evolution is fact, have you any better explanation than Gee Dubyah as to how life created itself out of inert molecules? GW has failed badly so far.

And have you found any missing link yet Alan?

sincerely

PB

Amino acids produced in the lab controlled conditions produce a mixture of 50/50 left hand and right hand amino acids, L & D amino acids, amino acids mirror each other, left clings to right , they cannot be used to form proteins as it takes 100% (L) left-hand amino acids to make proteins that work in cells. And it will not make all the amino acids required only about half, things get worse the switching starts to occur pure left hand amino acids become 鈥淩ACEMIC鈥� spontaneously changing back to there original state of 50/50 left and right hand amino acids. This is 100% scientific proven fact that no complex proteins similar to nature are ever produced in the lab except by already living cells.

PB- The main test of whether or not you are an evangelical is whether or not you ever disagree with evangelical statements or faith, for example, this one: . If you do not disagree with any of it, you are therefore, essentially, an evangelical.

The point I (and GD) made about God creating the young earth to intentionally look old isn't even contested by 'creation scientists'! How else do you explain the carvings of the Grand Canyon (not far from me) which took millions upon millions of years to be carved naturally by the Colorado River? The alternative theory presents the Grand Canyon as 12,000 years young, but made to LOOK millions upon millions of years old. Not a great theory, PB. Same goes for the speed of light, contested by Billy who says that when God created the stars he sped up the speed of light to make it LOOK as though light could instantaneously arrive from other stars.... even though, in reality, it could never have done so. Almost EVERY OTHER geological fact of nature contrasts sharply with a young earth.........

........EXCEPT if God 'made it LOOK' like it was millions of years old.

Convenient, wouldn't you say?

Was Adam and Eve created as babies

PB/Mr Cruise,

your arrogance is astounding (and probably a sin!!!).

If science models evidentially viable explanations, you decry it as rubbish.

Yet you expect us to believe something for which there can be no scientific evidence. And the two are DIFFERENT. And that was my point.

Eye witness testimony - my definition of this is an account of an event by someone who saw it.
Yours appears to be different.

Answers in Genesis or (disingenuous as I like to call it) is full of lies, half truths, pseudoscience, and selected titbits from the "buffet" of science I referred to.

RE The whales hand - it was offered as one of the many things that supported evolution to one who contends there is no evidence for it.

State it clearly - are you a literalist on Genesis? - do you believe in a young earth? And why, because the good book says so?

What stringent criteria you stipulate for evidence you don't welcome, yet how low the bar is for welcome tidings.

You hypocrite.

Billy,

a classic "straw man" rejection of abiogenesis - you ought to get a better search engine buddy (or read more).

All lab generated "life" chemicals decay:

While this claim is accurate, strictly speaking, it is far from clear why Creationists think it represents a problem for abiogenesis. The reason is that virtually every type of molecule decays, given sufficient time. Which begs the question, how much time is "sufficient"? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to that question; some molecules resist the forces of decay much more strongly than do others. Since we do not yet know what molecules were generated in the first biogenesis event, it follows that we do not know how long those molecules could have survived in their environment.
Few scientists claim that RNA was spontaneously generated in abiogenesis. It is far more reasonable to believe that simple, self-propagating reactions formed the first type of "life."

Lots of maybes in there pb (why dont you count em for us?).

Not one "maybe" in your biblical dogma - your beliefs are stacked full of sacred cows - and you dont come out and fight for 'em because you dont know which ones will stand up (longest).

Apply your own criteria for evidence to the bibles claims - or admit hypocrisy and cowardice.

My apologies - an oversight

Post 102 was mine.

"ABIOGENESIS" comes from three Greek roots "NOT" "LIFE" "GENERATE" which simply means there is no spontaneous generation of life, is this what you "anonymous" mean by using this word.

Billy,

Post 102 was mine.

if we are moving too fast for you - just say so..

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).

Answers in Genesis.

I was surfing the execrable Answers in Genesis earleir and by following the AiG Q&A on the Ark, i came across this exquisite piece of writing

It's fantastic - on the animals in the ark and their ability to "hibernate", stop eating each other or drowning in excrement the ANSWER states:

"Since science has no better explanation for its origin, this supposition, which fits all the facts, should be given due consideration"

Superb, what a load of rubbish. You couldn't make it up! Oh, no hang on a minute, maybe someone did...

Alan Watson ( that's Dubyah Snr),

posted a cheeky notion that creationists were less evolved than straight thinking folk.

Imagine my surprise when Answers in Genesis corroborated!!

AiG says "We view the Neandertals as the fully human ancestors of some modern humans, probably some Europeans and western Asians, where the Neandertals lived. Hence, we creationists would refer to them as Homo sapiens sapiens, or as a sub-species of modern humans: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Either way, we believe that they would be fully capable of reproducing with modern humans if they were living today."

Marvellous - so pb - ever wonder about your heavy jawline? Billy, - eyebrows hang over a bit? As for the bit about mating... I don't fancy yours much boys -I'll stick to my own species thanks.

Nighty night campers - happy surfing.

For all the old agers out there:

According to old earth theory the dust on the moon should be 137 feet deep according to their theory of the age of the earth, but when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, July 21, 1969 his foot print was only 1/8 of an inch deep, explain this, that鈥檚 easy 鈥淭hat's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind鈥� YOUNG MOON

Everyone:

This blog has now got too long and a bit too personal. I am signing off.

I think we can pick up some of the themes in Two Books, A Play, And A Goat.

In my opinion Holloway is very much in the Borg tradition which I subscribe to and I think his comments on the bible as 'myth' might give us an opportunity to pick up on some of the 'myth' and 'model', intrinsic truth and factual truth themes that I have forwarded in this blog and in the Creation War's blog.

See you all later!

Regards,
Michael

Billy- You're in real trouble now! I heard the moon dust argument many years ago, and it didn't stand up then. Even young earth creationists have refuted the moon dust theory; it's just a bad theory, because the infall of dust is one hundred times less than those who propose this argument say it is. This fact has been known since about 1963. The argument has been kept alive by refusing to acknowledge scientific articles on the topic from after 1963.

Check out the reason you are wrong here:

And here:

And here:

Even Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis no longer uses this argument and discourages other creationists from attempted to use it:

Still planning to stick to this argument?

Next!

John

Point 4 in the EA statement of faith contains an unbiblical high priority for environmentalism which to me smacks of neo-paganism. Jesus never taught this nor is it anywhere in the New Testament; not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

Point 8 is pretty unbiblical not in what it says but what it doesn'nt. The book of James makes it very clear that exposition must have application ie discipleship, so I just dont buy this simplistic approach to salvation. Its not that I dont believe justification by faith, its just that without clarification the whole thing becomes a mess.

If you also notice the statement of faith makes no mention of Christ's commands to love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself, which I consider paramount.

I quite like this statement by Bono, c/o Adam Harbinson's website;-

'I am still amazed at how big, how enormous a love and a mystery God is and how small are the minds that attempt to corral this life force into rules and taboos, cults and sects.'

Now I have made it very clear how the vast majority of early Christians and modern denominations of all hues regard(ed) the bible as divinely inspired and believed in the biblical risen Christ. That is good enough for me.

I cant help but feel that many people need to marginalise people like me into a "sect" because it may allow them to feel that we do not represent normal Christianity; therefore denying the risen Christ, the bible and Christ's love commands may seem morally and intellectually acceptable/ normal.

So on that basis I refuse the label Evangelical. Christ never asked anyone to take it, teaching against sects, as did Paul.

So sorry, I just dont feel I have anything more to contribute on this one JW.

Having said that, you certainly make me think, cheers and respect,

What label do you choose, if any, by the way?

PB

JW

I have had a glance at answers in gensis website and there is a wealth of scientific material arguing for a young earth.

I'm not an expert, I have no intention to become one, but the webiste has over 200 phd and above scientists endorsing it; it must have some scientific credibility.

I also note you appear to have totally ignored my points about secular history supporting the idea of a very young human civilisation from the cradle of civilisation (eden?), and the numerous very similar creation accounts from different cultures.

respect
PB

GW, Alan

I have to say guys it appears once you are pressed you both appear to get quite nasty. I dont think that speaks well of your confidence in what you are arguing. Even Michael noticed how personal you are getting and he is on your side.

GW, I have never dismissed any evolutionary science as rubbish, I am not qualified to do so. I am only saying it has inconsistencies, and that creation science appears as credible.

And I have to say, I am dissapointed in Michael tittering about silly quotes when he folded the minute he was challenged about missing links.

We are still waiting for you to address several points GW, AW;-

1) How can life create itself out of mud?

2) Why have we never found a credible missing link between primates and men?

3) Why do you accept evolution as fact in spite of the above problems?

4) Why does the structure of a whale's "hand" undermine creationism?

5) Why does secular history agree with the young earth theory in that human civilisation only began in the last approx 10,000 years and in the area of the earth that would also support the biblical account of creation?

6) Why do all ancient accounts of creation from various cultures in this period cultures sound so similar?
(check it out GW, I *never* called them eye witness accounts).

I will respect an honest "havnt a clue" but not silence or sarcasm.

sincerely

PB

Answers in Genesis has no scientific credibility. It's supporters are not experts in human evolutionary biology. Those PhDs are not in relevant disciplines. Creationism is not science. They publish in Chriistian presses because no solid academic press would take their work seriously.

GW, Alan

OK so I have followed you back to your humanist association homepage.

It says the bible is rubbish because the OT says an eye for an eye whereas the NT teaches turn the other cheek.

But these are very basic errors.

The OT was a blueprint for state and a state judicial system. an eye for an eye means that punishment should fit the crime.

The NT is a blueprint for a community of believers within any state, not a state. It still supports state justice, an eye for an eye, but it rightly leaves that to the state. The believers were personally called to turn the other cheek [and let the state uphold law and order].

The rest of your objections have equally simple explanations.

Another complaint is that the gospels are contradictory. I can tell you if the police pulled in 4 people about a murder and they all wrote the same witness statement there would be questions asked. The contrasts of the gospels suppport their authenticity.

Your website also questions whether Christ existed at all.

Here are a few people used to dealing with evidence who have examined the gospels, resurrection of Christ and secular historians of the time;-

Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: 鈥淚n its favor as a livingtruth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circum-stantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrec-tion story is true.鈥�

John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772鈥�1863) is recognized as one of the great-est legal minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attor-ney General of Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected HighSteward of the University of Cambridge. He challenges, 鈥淚 know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.鈥�

Remember, how could a mere joiner split history down the middle, we're in 2006, remember?

And how could his words become the best selling book in history?

Now is Christianty or humanism more credible?

I personally know someone whose faith in God has magically removed a brain tumour. The surgeon said: "Miracles do happen". A man saved from paramilitarism, another from drug addicition, another from alcholism.
Uncountable numbers of people around the world regulalry say their lives were turned around by faith in Christ.

I never hear anyone claiming how atheism benefits them though.

The nations that have been traditionally 'Christian' are generally those of the highest standards amongst nations [relatively speaking] in terms of human rights, care for the poor, freedom and prosperity.

The nations that have historically denied God are exactly the opposite, with comparatively terrible standards of corruption, repression, injustice, poverty and misery.

So where is the track record of athiesm?

So, with respect, I am just quite puzzled as to how you can have so little tolerance or respect for followers of Christ, guys.

It all seems so pointless and negative and intolerant, but I would be glad to hear your reactions.

PB

Gareth Endo

1) Did you really check out the bios for all 200 plus scientists? I doubt it.

2) While it would be a fair point to highlight where those phds are not in a directly related field I think you have shown your hand in the telling phrase answers in genesis "has no scientific credibility".

A science phd has got scientific credibility and 200 more so. It is fair to debate the level of credibility depending on how related the phds are. But I notice that evolution is being debated here on so many levels. Consider all the possible branches of;-

astronomy
archeology
geology
physics
chemistry
biology
palentology
etc etc

If all these phds can say from their own fields that creationism makes sense you are way off beam in saying they have no scientific credibility.

And if you still think you can step up to the mark it would be very interesting to see your answers to the questions in post 113.

sincerely
PB

Gareth

had another look at the Answers in Genesis 200 phds;-

There are quite a few of them geneticists and I noted one paleontologist. That has got credibility in my eyes.

It seems a large majority are coming from biology fields.

I note GW above has been going on at lenght about how star light can be hitting earth if the earth is so young; a number of those phds are astro physics related etc and would be well qualified to understand these things and speak from their fields, also on big bang etc.

One phd said she only felt qualified to speak in her own field and said there was no evidence for evolution in tree genetics.

There are also a number of articles addressing your concerns in detail about the standing of these scientists in mainstream press.

I think you need to think again Gareth.

PB

PB- I have come to use the term 'post-evangelical' to describe my position. I reject the certainty of evangelicalism and think this label describes it quite well. It isn't a perfect label, though... William Crawley told me he thought I was probably a "nervous liberal". He could be right!

PB- If you're interested, Dave Tomlinson wrote a book on what he called 'post-evangelicalism' a few years back that describes his particular use of the term and what he means by it.

Cheers for that John

My viewpoint is generally that if I have time to read a Christian book the best return on time is the bible.

This is the best way to ensure one's thinking is close to the bible and being steered by the hermeneutic thoughts of others as little as possible.

It is such a racket, book publishing and the thought of it wearies me. I no longer chase after the "latest" books.

Having said that, if you want to offer me a presse I would be interested to hear it.

PB

PB,

to the best of my knowledge - I am cannected with no websites, nor affiliated with any group that has a bearing on this debate. If you know better, do tell.

I'll deal with the rest of your ppoints in post 113 once I have cleared up some real life issues.

I expect you will return the courtesy when I summarise my questions/points you have yet to answer.

PB

You posted an number of issues in post 113 鈥� you deserve a response. Forgive any typos please - this is a long one..

Your points answered in order:

Point 1. Life from Mud.
I refer you to my latest post (105) on this subject 鈥� as yet unanswered.

Point 2. Missing link.
What is your definition of 鈥渕issing link鈥� 鈥� the evolution of the horse demonstrates very clearly transitional species which is my understanding of a missing link. I think you refer to human evolution though (please confirm) 鈥� in which case I concede there is still debate on whether A Afarensis is the missing link 鈥� although many more scientists say it is than say it isn鈥檛. In either event 鈥� there are plenty of transitional species on record to support evolution- ie in the horse鈥檚 evolution.

Point 3.
This is a rhetorical question given my stance on 1 & 2.

Point 4.
Ahh, the whale鈥檚 hand. Have you read post 101? While you are at it 鈥� offer an explanation for the whales vestigal back legs please.

Point 5.
Why should secular history not agree re the cradle of civilization being in the middle East ? (Tigris/Euphrates)鈥� it鈥檚 true 鈥� what鈥檚 your point?

Point 6.Why do all ancient accounts of creation agree etc.? Perhaps because they have all evolved from the same nonsensical roots 鈥� I don鈥檛 know, and I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 important.

Issues I鈥檇 like answered or commented on.

In Post 60 鈥� I added to the Whale debate with a request for a comment on Ambulocetus Natans 鈥� a 鈥渕issing link鈥� in the whale evolution that is no longer missing鈥�

In 106 鈥� at your suggestion I spent some time on Aig 鈥� fascinating 鈥� comments on the Ark Q&A I found?

In 107 鈥� Again the creationist stalwart Aig 鈥� with a lovely piece about modern humans mating with Neanderthals, and not being a separate species etc 鈥� your take on this?

You refuse to pick up on the starlight issue except to say that one or two phds on Aig are astrophysicists 鈥� please you can do better cant you?

Finally 鈥� you did make eye witness claims in Creation Wars blog 鈥� sadly deleted now, but I鈥檓 sure William could verify if he was pushed.

Yours,

Gee Dubyah

This thread is getting extremely long - though no less enjoyable. Would it be helpful if you continued the conversation over on the Dawkins you tube posting? It'll make it easier to follow things, I think. Just a suggestion.

I'm looking forward to meeting some of you in person next Sunday for the Creation Wars programme. You know who you are!

GW

I connected you to the humanist association website because you openly work as a double act with your dad and he hyperlinks to it.
Sorry if you are not happy with it, but are you a humanist or not?

1) I remain very far from convinced about your explanations for life 'happening' from mud. I believe you previously described it only as 'plausible'. A few obscure scientific terms only (deliberately?) obscure the subject. If you really understood it you could put it in plain English.

2) So again, we have agreed no missing link has been found between man and ape. I know we reached this point amicably before but I felt you and your dad had been getting a littel arrogant about how certain evolution was, so I just reminded you.
Horses I know nothing about and havet time to research.

3) I dont agree the belief in evolutionary theory despite 1 & 2 is a rhetorical issue, if you are the type to require empirical evidence.

4) The whale's 'hand'; so a whale has around five 'fingers' supporting its fins. What else would it have and why could it not have been created as is?
When you speak of vesitgal legs, do you again mean fins?

5) Cradle of civilisation; if you believe the earth and mankind to be billions of years old then why out of all the epochs and locales should human civilisation magically appear in the time and place creationism says it should appear? This proves nothing but it is strong supporting circumstantial evidence.

6) All ancient creation accounts tally, and you think it is not important. Again I argue it is strong supporting circumstantial evidence.

60 - whale missing link, sorry, dont have the time or knowledge to go into this at present. i dont know.

Neanderthals mating with humans;- I think I saw this and i as I recall AIG said they were humans, so whats the big deal?

Starlight - look sorry, I cant magic up a BSC hons just for you, I am no scientist. If you are really interested there are quite a few physicists with their testimonies on AIG, hyperlink listed above.

When I said I did not call creation accounts eye-witness I was thinking of this entry above. I conceed I may well have called them such elsehwere, so apologies.
I think in my mind I was meaning people who would have been near grandchildren of adam and eve and who would have had fairly credible hand-down stories.

I have to remind you, I wouldnt stand over everything aig says, and neither do they! they acknowledge creation science, like all science, is developing and correcting itself all the time.

And I would like to point out my faith does not depend on the veracity of evolution or creationism, but yours does.

If you come across evidence for creationism your avowed position as an atheist means you have a vested intellectual/spiritual interest in dismissing it.

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond on these points but may I trouble you to give a considered response to 115?

You have poured so much scorn on my faith and the bible, I think it would only be fair.

sincerely
PB

PB

A whale has no rear fins where the leg bones appear. So what are they for? Spare stuff on creations workbench?

If you havn't time to research info you are offered, you surrender the right to voice an opinion it.

Nothing to say on cradle of civ - it is where it is - not far from sites of archaeological interest - again does this prove something?

Have you seen a Neanderthal skeleton? - I'd look twice at one of those walking down qn Vic St (much less jump into bed with one). But if Aig said they are human, then you go right ahead and swallow it - I'm sure you are "too busy to read anything contrary".

In fact you said the same about starlight - too busy/not enough info.

A neat caveat. did you get that on AiG?

Hey, if you are on the ropes buddy, just say so - this blog IS too long - and the big bad atheists are being awkward about evidence...
I think I used the the word Hypocrite earlier - I'm sorry I didnt do it sooner.

Lame PB really lame, and a bit embarrassing.

yes he's my dad - but thats that - I made no secret - I am not a humanist. i dont feel the need to belong to anything (except the Triumph owners club!) - so go talk to him abut it - I have finished with you.

PB

REMORSE (even an Atheist...)

Okay - maybe we arent done - we've vented our spleens - lets talk.

I dont adhere to evolution as an article of faith, but at present I am compelled by force of argument to accept it. If that changes, my stance will change. But I tell you this - I honestly believe (not a big "B"!) that evolution forms the backbone of the origin of species.
I run my life by what i can see and touch. If something new comes along I will listen ( I assiduously checked out offerings from you and Billy etc in this debate). Admittedly I have been a bit spiteful, but I am frustrated by what appears to be double standards on evidence.

I'm please you know someone who was spared a brain tumour. My father in law died slowly from the same thing, and he was a lovely man - a better human than a lot of Christians I know. And I wouldn't wish it on a dog.

Let's move on.

GW

I'm glad we can converse AND disagree and I would always prefer to maintain respect.

I agree I fully I have no right to comment on any point I dont know about. This is always the position I have taken in practise.

It doesn't mean I cant question on aspects of evolution, which I do.

However, after offering so much abuse on Christianity, I know you read my response post 115 and it would appear you took it seriously, but you are very tight lipped about it.

Maybe a little ordinary respect in future could oil the wheels of the discussion better, surely I have earned the Christians that much?

respect!
PB

PB

I'm not sure I understand the question I'm being asked re 115.

I'm not a Humanist - and I dont know what they say about OT/NT, I have trouble with the Bible on authenticity grounds - but I am not into telling people how to live - which I percieve rightly or wrongly to one of the key differentiators between what I think and some kind of Faith.

The two gentlemen you quote wrote a long time ago - and interms of the resurrection I can't imagine anything outside the scriptures that could remotely be constituted as evidence - so i assume they had a theistic stance.

Atheism to me doesnt need to do anything for society - it's not a Faith.

I will say this - but only as a talking point - the United States is a very strongly Christian community where the Churches (of varying shades) hold a lot of sway - yet nonetheless one might argue there are still the spectres of corruption, repression, injustice, poverty and misery.

This could be a good time to abandon this blog and pick up on some of Williams more recent topics - the matter of the US Presidency might be a logical and more quickly loaded place to talk.

GW

PB (115): you say that you never hear of how atheism benefits anyone. But you are using a pejorative label in order to prove your point. It is our common humanity that benefits us all, not our belief in the supernatural.
Also, you are misusing the word 'tolerance'. This seems a common trend among believers nowadays You seem to imagine that strong disagreement indicates intolerance, though it does nothing of the sort. it is irrational to accuse people of being intolerant simply because their opinion is radically different from your own. Tolerance means allowing people to express views of which we disapprove or disagree ("I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"). I am sure that under this definition the Christian and the atheist could reasonably both claim to be tolerant, though I would say that it is more often Christians who, given the opportunity, suppress or marginalise atheism and atheist views, and are therefore more intolerant in the real meaning of the term.
As for respect, I think we should respect individuals as individuals. Their opinions and beliefs should be treated impersonally as quite separate from them. These opinions/beliefs do not deserve anything other than questioning, acceptance or rejection. Respect is irrelevant to an opinion,
Brian

PB (115): you say that you never hear of how atheism benefits anyone. But you are using a pejorative label in order to prove your point. It is our common humanity that benefits us all, not our belief in the supernatural.
Also, you are misusing the word 'tolerance'. This seems a common trend among believers nowadays You seem to imagine that strong disagreement indicates intolerance, though it does nothing of the sort. it is irrational to accuse people of being intolerant simply because their opinion is radically different from your own. Tolerance means allowing people to express views of which we disapprove or disagree ("I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"). I am sure that under this definition the Christian and the atheist could reasonably both claim to be tolerant, though I would say that it is more often Christians who, given the opportunity, suppress or marginalise atheism and atheist views, and are therefore more intolerant in the real meaning of the term.
As for respect, I think we should respect individuals as individuals. Their opinions and beliefs should be treated impersonally as quite separate from them. These opinions/beliefs do not deserve anything other than questioning, acceptance or rejection. Respect is irrelevant to an opinion,
Brian

Brian

Your entry appears to try to deflect the true nature of my argument.

After incessant abuse from GW and his dad Alan above, on grounds of our faith, I merely put forward an argument of why Christianity was more credible than athiesm.

Is there really such a thing as a humanist who would not like to clamp down on Christianity in one form or another?

PB

PS GW the US has had a Christian heritage but most people in it are not Christian; witness the extent of abortion and pornography for example. I made a point about the relative strengths of cultures rooted in athiestic or Christian thinking, which is plainly valid.

I am not a religious person but the bible and indeed most religious texts contain a whole wealth of knowledge which we have only begun to understand, we are dealing with texts which have shaped our world and the billions of people who have inhabited it over the years, these texts are the remnant knowledge of some of the most intelligent people who have lived through the ages (remember reading writing was once the preserve of the best educated/most wealthy).

More time and money should be made available in schools for teaching what these texts contain, what they say about our past and what they say about people.

But... Science is not a subject it is a method of discovery, a critical, experimental method which builds on our collective database of malleable knowledge about the observable universe.

What we teach at secondary school level science is well established, repetedley supported information of a very basic level.

They few scientific arguments that have been made in favour of creationism are widely rejected by the scientific community and far too complicated to be properly comprehended by a secondary school audience.

Therefore lets keep creationism in RE/RS classes and let the scientific community decide what is taught in science classes.

In closing lets end the brainwashing that is faith schools, there is a difference between encouraging the reading of religious texts and forcing children to obsess about them.

Students are in class to learn. We as teachers are not there to tell them what to think but to show them how to think. The real problem here is truth. With all the demands about tolerating everything we have no ability to know which way North is--our compass is broken. Look, teach the kids the 'truth' about God, Evolution, I.D. and age of the earth...as best it is known, and then as more and more learn about all the 'theories' one will eventually be seen as the ultimate truth. Pride is a big problem and feeding it only makes us go further of the track of truth. You'll get to the place where you'll be teaching the kids evolution and no creation while the Church in their Sunday schools will teach creation and no evolution. We'll scramle the kids brains...they won't know what to believe then. And we call ourselfves adults? What kind of message do the children get when they see us so scared to let all the 'theories' out in the freash air of investigation?