大象传媒

Who will be asking him questions, just William Crawley or would they allow a couple of 6000-year-old-Earth-skeptical scientists to grill him? Or a few to question him on the SLOT. Mark, can we expect you to be part of the Spanish inquisition?

ding ding, round two...

Will - I would be better if you could get a vocal evolutionist involved in the interview, although I'm sure you'll do your own research. He needs to be challenged re the age of the earth and the length of time life has been in existence, which is obviously crucial for evolution.
Ask him why there are few, if any, non-believing scientists who advocate a young earth.
Speciation (species diverging to the extent that they cannot interbreed) has been observed but timescales are just that bit too long for us to easily see an obvious change to a totally different physical organism. But the fossil record and DNA markers strongly support real physical speciation.

Ask him; in the formation of DNA from inert matter as it would be in nature without life, in the formation of which chemical bond in the molecule would the second law of thermodynamics be violated?

It might be worth contacting some people who do know about thermodynamics, and asking them what they think of Mcintosh's comments previously.

William,

You could ask him has he ever thought it appropriate to mention the age of the earth during his lectures or in his journal publications.

If not, ask him how he responds to those questioning his position as a Professor at Leeds - purely due to his personal belief about the age of the earth e.g. Dawkins queried his position at Leeds long before the Second Law was mentioned.

alan watson #3
The way I read this blog entry, McIntosh agreed to be interviewed, not to engage in a debate with scientists. For someone who believes the universe is 6000 years old, the notion of a billion years is beyond his ability to grasp. Evolution from the first viable strand of DNA in a survivable environment to a biosphere which encompasses the entire earth did not come about in just 6000 years so it is pointless to talk to him about it. Discussions about vast stretches of time and distance and the number of possible chemical reactions and biological varients over eons will not register with him, he has already precluded that possiblity in his own mind. He is after all not a scientist, only a mechanical engineer. Having had considerable experience with many of that ilk, I have come not to expect too much from their kind?

Folks:

Why don't we all wait until the program airs? At this rate there will be a hundred posts on this blog before McIntosh has said a word.

Peace,
Maureen

Mark,

Perhaps it might be worth looking at what mechanical engineers have designed and built - particularly over the last 200 years - and you might wish to rethink your last sentence.

Go for it. Will did a good job on Andy in the previous programme in unmasking his "Young Earth" stuff, so I don't think folks need to be too worried.

Topics for the next interview might be the thermodynamic consequences of Noah's flood, and precisely how he thinks that "intelligence" allows one to skip round the outside of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

As it happens, it doesn't matter whether intelligence is involved or not - you can't violate the 2nd Law. Evolution most definitely does not violate that law (although creationism and ID actually *do*). Perhaps he should also be asked: what contains more information: a tomato seed or a tomato plant.

Cat got your tongue Maureen? You've been strangely quiet lately. You said that my entry into the contest "What I believe" was the worst of the bunch. Thank you, that's more than I dared hope for.

Maureen
Maybe we're all frustrated radio producers at heart!
But Will should offer to put the best 5 or so questions submitted by us to Mac as his main objectives are to increase blog readership hopefully resulting in a bigger prog audience.
Will is being unusualy open about the next prog contents - strange!

Small scientist-engineers joke, following up on posts 6, 8.

A small group of scientists and a small group of engineers are on a train to the same conference. The scientists have only one ticket. When the conductor approaches, the scientists all cram into the toilet. The conductor knocks on the door, a scientist pushed the ticket under the door, and the conductor moves on.
Next conference, the engineers plan to use this idea themselves, they only buy 1 ticket. The scientists don't buy any. When the conductor approaches, the engineers cram into the toilet. A scientist knocks on the door, takes the ticket that an engineer pushes under the door, then the scientists cram into another toilet with the ticket. They travel for free, the engineers incur fines.

The moral of this story: engineer may try to use the ideas that scientists come up with, but rarely do they really understand them.

Maureen- You're a malcontent.

Andy did not decline to be interviewed before. He is an incredibly busy man and time did not permit him. He is normally much more available than Dawkins to have his views critiqued. I hope he gets a fair opportunity. Dawkins got much more air time on the last occasion.

rubberduckie #9
I've known more mechanical engineers well than most people will meet in a lifetime. Some of my best friends are mechinical engineers, hahahaha. But if the truth were told, if I listed all of the technical people in the world I've had arguements, disputes, technical disagreements with and put them in categories, I think the mechanical engineers would outnumber all of the rest combined by far.

Once upon a time, my supervisor used to ask me to interview all applicants for jobs in my department and give him an opinion of them. What did I know about mechanical engineers, how could I tell the wheat from the chaff? As it turned out, I was working on a problem one day and I found a question I now pose to all of them I interview. It's not a trick question, it's surprisingly straightforward and it tells me all I need to know (don't bother to ask what it is, I'm not revealing it.) If they get the right answer, they know their onions, if they don't, well that's too bad.

In real terms, the quality of many with technical educations has seemed to go down over the past few decades. The best and brightest are smarter than ever but..... I've spent half my career it seems fixing problems left in the wake of mechanical engineers...and the rest in fixing problems left in the wake of problems created by other electrical engineers. It's kept me busy.

Have a nice eternity ;>)

Re 14 John Wright wrote:

"Maureen- You're a malcontent".

One step above cockroach, I hope. Last time IT threatened me with having 'grown up in New York City' .... :-)

Funny how Andy McIntosh without a word from him yet generates so much deeeeeep thought.

But in the meantime there is more to follow from 'Moses' Mark - he of 'no meaning' but infinite sayings. This thread should be at least 50 sayings from the 'Blog of Mark' by Sunday.

Let me lie back and ....

Oh, better not let me sit down and .....

Back to Bermuda, Mark has been there 4 times and taken some lovely pictures from a leaking boat.

Maureen

Will,

As you can tell from the previous posts about McIntosh, there has been real concern that he has fundamentally misstated the connection between the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution. Both myself and other posting scientists have previously tried to explain in non-technical language why he is so wrong on multiple levels.

Unfortunately, I am painfully aware that to the lay audience our arguments can come across as too subtle and difficult and not ones that are easily condensed into a 鈥榮ound bite鈥� format. So although I think you will do a serious job with him, I remain concerned that he will try to bamboozle his audience and avoid the meat of the issue. It really is essential that he be seriously challenged on the technical aspects of his claim. So my first thoughts echo Alan Watson's (post 3) and Guthrie's (post 5). Even at this late stage, would it be possible to get a genuine expert in this field to explain why McIntosh is wrong? One possibility that comes to mind is Peter Atkins. His textbook on Physical Chemistry is a standard in the field and has taught generations of chemistry undergraduates. Atkins is also an excellent science populariser and as an added bonus he has actually written a good account of the second law for a non-specialised audience.

Alas, my more cynical side agrees with Mark (post 7). McIntosh probably wouldn't agree to such a format. At this point, he's probably beyond rational discourse.

Mark,

Sorry to hear you've had so many problems with engineers.

If we're trading experience...

I have worked in R&D within academia and industry, I have been an embedded systems design engineer and am currently a lecturer in electronics.

During my travels, I have encountered some very talented people working in science and in engineering and some surprisingly less talented ones in each discipline.

As you may know, one of the most advanced feats of multidisciplinary engineering is our current international telecoms bearer network which reliably transfers data through hair-like optical fibres at astounding speeds across the globe.

Certainly, the science had to be done to obtain the knowledge to create the system but hey - what an application of that science.

So less of the remarks about my mechanical engineering brethren please - otherwise you may find a spanner heading in your direction.

Mark,

Sorry to hear you've had so many problems with engineers.

If we're trading experience...

I have worked in R&D within academia and industry, I have been an embedded systems design engineer and am currently a lecturer in electronics.

During my travels, I have encountered some very talented people working in science and in engineering and some surprisingly less talented ones in each discipline.

As you may know, one of the most advanced feats of multidisciplinary engineering is our current international telecoms bearer network which reliably transfers data through hair-like optical fibres at astounding speeds across the globe.

Certainly, the science had to be done to obtain the knowledge to create the system but hey - what an application of that science.

So less of the remarks about my mechanical engineering brethren please - otherwise you may find a spanner heading in your direction.

Mark,

Sorry to hear you've had so many problems with engineers.

If we're trading experience...

I have worked in R&D within academia and industry, I have been an embedded systems design engineer and am currently a lecturer in electronics.

During my travels, I have encountered some very talented people working in science and in engineering and some surprisingly less talented ones in each discipline.

As you may know, one of the most advanced feats of multidisciplinary engineering is our current international telecoms bearer network which reliably transfers data through hair-like optical fibres (amongst other media) at astounding speeds across the globe.

Certainly, the science had to be done to obtain the knowledge to create the system but hey - what an application of that science.

So less of the remarks about my mechanical engineering brethren please - otherwise you may find a spanner heading in your direction.

Tony,

(click for a quick intro)

You really think that this would be productive?

Rubberduckie (post 21):

Well I dunno... Atkins does know his stuff and would easily be able to spot any BS. Can anybody else suggest a name? Maybe we could put together a 'fantasy science' team!

But as I said, I doubt if McIntosh would agree to that sort of format.

rubberduckie #19
Hahahahahahahahahaha, if I hadn't been right there myself, I probably wouldn't know the truth of it and you would have skated right through. Ever hear of "Concert?" It was a joint venture transcontinental network between British Telecom and AT&T during the mid to late 1990s. (C. Michael Armstrong CEO of AT&T was a good buddy of Lord whats his name, in fact he was the first phone call Armstrong made when he replaced John Walters.) Needless to say, Concert was a technical fiasco, it kept cutting out and nobody could figure out why. Eventually it was disolved and written off as a failure. THE WORLD STANDARD for telephone equipment and network performance was set by AT&T prior to divestiture in 1984. Nobody (outside of the US military) ever built anything to higher standards...even today. It was a zero failure network. In those days, you could drop a Bell telephone hand set off the roof of a building onto a concrete sidewalk and it would still work just fine. (BTW, you could never own one, all you could do was rent it and you couldn't hook your own equipment up to their network without their explicit permission.) They had over one million employees and were the largest company in America and richest private company in the world. There isn't much to say beyond that. BTW, for 12 years I worked for Bell Communications Research (also known as Bellcore) and for 4 years after that at AT&T. Ever heard of either of them? during the time I worked there, Bellcore was the largest research consorteum of any kind in the world.

Will

If I may chip in 2 cents worth, my only request is that whatever questions are put to McIntosh and by whomever, please ensure this time around that he is given the time and space to answer them...

There were so many people and so little time last time around, I reckon

cheers
PB

Here are my questions for Professor McIntosh:

1) Why exactly does he reject the consensus view of the great age of the Earth? In Science, it鈥檚 not a sin to be out of step with your colleagues. However, to be taken seriously you鈥檝e got to have a better reason for your disagreement than 鈥渂ecause it says so in an ancient book鈥�.

2) Why does he settle for 6000 years as the true age? Presumably because if you add up the lifetimes of the biblical patriarchs, reigns of kings etc., and then work backwards, you more or less get this number. It would make interesting radio if he were to admit that this was indeed his thinking.

3) As noted above (post 18), I鈥檓 worried that if he gets talking about the SLOT, he鈥檒l just spew sciencey-sounding techno-mumble. I鈥檝e mentioned this before, but it鈥檚 worth repeating. I鈥檇 like to know why, if he genuinely believes on SCIENTIFIC grounds that evolution violates the SLOT, he鈥檚 not arguing his corner in the scientific literature or at scientific meetings? The scientific literature is by no means monolithic and it is possible to publish ideas that are not orthodox. Yet McIntosh just doesn鈥檛 seem to be interested in this accepted method of scientific discourse.

4) What would an 鈥業ntelligent Design鈥� research paradigm actually look like? As well as making testable predictions, a successful scientific theory explains a host of previously puzzling phenomena and uncovers hidden connections between superficially different phenomena that in turn open up whole new avenues of research. The theory of evolution has been remarkably successful in this regard. To replace it with 鈥淴 was designed, end of story鈥� is to permanently wall-off further advances in knowledge.

5) Who is this 鈥業ntelligent Designer鈥�? Well OK, we all know that McIntosh thinks it鈥檚 the traditional God of the Bible, but presumably he has to be a bit careful about saying this out loud otherwise he鈥檇 give the game away vis a vis his 鈥楾ruth in Science鈥� organisation (which is after all supposed to be strictly dedicated to 鈥榞ood Science鈥�). So how much leeway does he allow here? I mean, suppose someone claimed that there were actually two Intelligent Designers, a nice one who made pretty things like butterflies and peacock feathers and a nasty one who made the smallpox virus and the malaria parasite. Would that be OK with him? Would McIntosh be happy if another ID advocate started to claim that the Intelligent Designer was Zeus, or Odin, or a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey? Once you start down this faux-theology road, there鈥檚 no end to it. But you鈥檙e sure not doing Science anymore.

Mark,

OK some projects aren't successful - so what? It took man a long time to fly and there were many failures but we did it eventually.

My point is that engineers take some scientific discoveries and make practical use of them. I believe that both disciplines are of equal merit and there are brilliant minds working in each field.

If you don't hold engineering in high esteem then that's fine. However, I don't understand this particularly if you worked at Bell.

By the way, were you an engineer at Bell - if not, what was your role?

I was wondering if you could ask him-since he and "truth" in science have links to answers in genesis-If he actually does believe the world is 6000 odd years old was created on 6 days with 2 nudists who were made from dirt, who lived in a magic garden shared with vegetarian T. Rex's and who took advice from a talking snake? and if so could he provide just 1 piece of credible, verifiable peer-reviewed evidence that would back up these claims?

And finally could you ask why there are no athesist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto etc etc biblical creationists? Whereas the evidence for evolution is accepted by those of all faiths and none. Indeed Mr McIntosh does not represent Christianity only the fundamentalist extremes-intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution.

rubberduckie #27
my you seem awfully defensive about engineers, I wonder how you would feel if I said what I think about doctors. You must have either been most fortunate not to have run into any "weak" ones....or....hmmm...let me put it this way, have you ever met people who were so bad at doing something, they didn't even know how bad they were at it? Nothing personal, that's just my little joke.

My title at Bellcore was Facilities Engineer, at ATT&T is was Project Manager. But like most jobs, the title means little, your job is to do what needs to be done and I wore many hats in both companies, Design Engineer, Project Manager, Construction Manager, Floor sweeper, I did it all. Often that's not the kind of job you just go to, you sort of live it. I slept over night at the job site more times than I can remember because I had to. And despite them having had their moments, it was a lot of fun. I can honestly say I enjoyed spending every penny of theirs I could get my hands on, and with as much money as they had, that was a tidy sum. During my last three years at Bellcore, after my close friend was as Brits would say made redundant, I was the de-facto chief electrical engineer. (Then I became redundant.) Every electrical problem in over 2 million square feet of laboratories, data centers, offices, warehouses, and whatever else was ultimately mine. And happily for me, I didn't send one thing up in smoke...although I must admit, one day I came very close...boy did I ever come close.

BTW, if you didn't read it in one of my postings elsewhere, I say again that one of the most common mistakes I've seen mechanical engineers make is in proposals for energy savings schemes. They seem to have a penchant for trying to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a higher temperature. In a complex system, it's apparantly an easy mistake to make. Fortunately, I had the help of close collegues who are very capable mechanical engineers. Not all of them are weak. "To err is human, to forgive is against company policy.

Tony, #26,
All fine questions of course.
Re question 5, yes indeed, who is the designer. A physics student in the US used this same question to start his own religion, The Church of the Flying Spagetti Moster. Its gospel states that the whole universe was created by a deity resembling pasta with some meatballs in between (hence the adherents are called Pastafrians). It's a wonderfull bit of sarcasm on ID. Those who need a break from it all, go to

Peter Klaver #30
In the US, starting your own religion and being it's minister has certain big tax advantates. It's said, at least here that the two things you can't avoid in life are death and taxes. But some people are undeterred. Religious organizations are tax exempt but you have to qualify to be a religion by complying with IRS rules.

One day when I lived in California, motherland of all scams, my neighbor called me into her apartment to meet an acquaintance. He had a big binder showing you how to qualify to be a minister in your own religion. The gist of it was that you had to legally create the religion, turn over title to everything you own to it, and if you worked, claim 99 deductions on your W-4 which determines your federal withholdings when they issue you a paycheck. She asked me what I thought and I told her that if she tried it, she might one day be prosecuted. I don't think she listened though. Last time I heard from her which was many years ago, her friend had already been indicted for tax evasion and she was scared. I told her she'd probably get off because even the IRS knows you can't get blood out of a turnip. Like many native born Californians, she lived right up to her last dime and beyond. She always managed to spend her paycheck before she got it. They do that a lot in California, live for today for tomorrow we may die in an earthquake.

Mark,

Thanks for the response.

I guess that I get irritated when engineering is compared unfavourably with science, particularly as I've experience in both fields (e.g. my PhD was in Computational Science).

Following on from your last sentence, you might enjoy

Will, I tried to post this yesterday but something went wrong. Here's another question you might consider asking McIntosh tomorrow. Ask him if he believes everything in Wilder Smith's lectures he's linked to on his web site. Then ask him if he believes that everyone should understand and be prepared to explain that the proof of god's existance is that biochemical reactions are reversible (Smith's contention) and that if you are not prepared to explain it to the unbelievers, you will not receive salvation and go to heaven because that is what the bible commands. (I couldn't make this stuff up, you might want to review it first. Listen to Wilder Smith's lecture #3 if you can stand it for 1 hour and 17 minutes.)

rubberduckie #32
I've been surrounded by scientists and engineers most of my life. I try to take a realistic view of them. Like any large group of people, it's impossible to generalize. Any rule you can think up will have exceptions which will make you look rediculous. It's just that I don't like seeing them put on pedistals. So far, every engineer I've ever met has eventually made a memorable mistake...including me. As for the scientists, I've been around and worked with a lot of them too. Some of them are very clever and practical. And some of them live in lala land. One thing I've noticed, once they are out of their area of specialization, some can quickly get way out beyond their depth but people around them don't realize it. I think that's what's happened to Andy McIntosh. He seems to me to know a lot more about mechanical engineering than he does about chemistry or biology. He should stick to what he knows or he will keep getting himself into trouble.

Mark, post#30,

I think the student from Arizona, Bobby Henderson, is a good deal smarter than your neighbour. The Flying Spagetti Moster (FSM) website says that it is a fully legit religion. There were (unverified) posts in the forum that people had actually seen serious believers of it. I don't know if it is fully legit according to IRS rules, but maybe. So Bobby may not be paying any tax on the merchandise that is sold through his online store. And his website has some 40000 hits a day, has had a total between a third and half a billion hits since it was put online. And traffic is still increasing exponentially. So even if a tiny percentage of visitors buy even a single t-shirt or Pastafarian bible, he should make a good amount out of it.

I haven't ordered a copy of the Pastafarian Bible yet, but what I've read about the Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster is absolutely hilarious. Henderson has created the most farcical parody story that you could think up about Intelligent Design. Like ID, he has made up an unsubstantiated creation story, more ludicrous than any drunken fundie in the Bible belt could ever have come up with. Then he sent an open letter to the Kansas school board (yep, the one that covers the Dover district), suggesting that Pastafarianism be taught in science classes in Kansas schools. He proposed an equal three-way split. One third for ID. One third for Pastafarianism. And one third for 'those accidental agreements between experimental observation and evolution theory, that have al been put in place there by Him'. You have to laugh, don't you.
The perfect mirror-situation is also reflected in the forum of the FSM website. Occasionally a poster points out that all of it is utter BS and that only little children and complete retards would believe such fairy tails. Take a guess what the forum response is. Pretty soon, many Pastafarians reply with things like 'The FSM loves you too, hate mailer X or Y. You may deny him as you do, but still he loves you!!' And that is usually followed up by the wish that hate mailer X or Y may one day see the Pastafarian light. Or as they put it: be touched by his noodly appendages. Sometimes some passages from the Gospel of the FSM are thrown in. It is really good fun.

Billy, if you're reading this, do you recognise it?

The FSM!

Bless His Noddly Appendages!

The FSM entered my life awhile ago and completely changed it! How could anyone believe the FSM (BHNA!) to be "rubbish" as there is my personal testimony and those of many others about how the FSM(BHNA!) has changed their lives!
(well personal testimonies are enough for other religions-and for other posters).

Pastafarianism is on the rise!

Well indeed Dylan Dog. Apart from personal testimonies of those to whom He has so often spoken in times of Great Need, there is so much directly observeable hard evidence. For example, from the Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster, people have learned that pirates are FSMs chosen people. Did the Jews at any time think they were? Proposterous blasphemy! Nope, pirates are the chosen ones. And the decline in the number of pirates has angered Him. So he is punishing us by global warming. To the FSM skeptics, I would point out that there is overwhelming evidence for this. Evidence that can be directly observed by anyone. For example: during Halloween, people dress up. Some as pirates. The temporary appearance of pirates pleases Him. In his Great Mercy, for He is merciful indeed, the FSM then blesses the world with several months of colder weather. This has worked without fail for ages. Surely, noone would suggest that the appearance of colder weather at such a regular interval over centuries can be a mere coincidence?! No, clearly there is a design to that pattern. His design. His Noodlyness. Anyone can see this! If only all those false believers like Chritians would feel the warm embrace of his noodly appendages. Those who open themselves up to Him get so much in return. Not just in this life, but also in Pastafarian Heaven. Where btw, there is a beer volcano and there are stripper angles. How can Christians ever hope to appeal to people when Pastafarianism offer these wonders? They can't of course. Ye, reflect in humility feeble people, the dawn of the Kingdom of the Flying Spagetti Monster is upon us. RAMEN.

FSM changed my life!

I love dressing up as a pirate, wenches and being sarcastic at theists.

I have felt the noodly appendage and it was warm, but furm to the touch!

I will keep my post short.
The FSM, has touched me too! I was once lost in the Roman Catholic Church, and the hypocrisy and foolishness of the Christian system. Since being touched by the FSM. My happiness in life has increased tenfold! I no longer worry about burning in hell for all eternity.
If I should forget to worship, in the morning. Or if, FSM forbid, I should have an ill feeling towards my neighbor. The FSM knows that deep down, I am a good person, and he loves me!
Ramen

BLESS HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

It is indeed thrilling to meet two other fellow believers!

We are on the rise! thanks to the FSM(BHNA)!

As for the unbelievers...as someoene once said there are none so blind as those who will not listen...

DD

Ahh....My Noodley Lord, the FSM. :)
The creator of unintelligent design.
All Hail His Noodley Appendage.
RAmen

I believe we are still working on religious staus and the tax breaks which accompany this status.
RAmen

Dylan Dog wrote (Post 28)
"And finally could you ask why there are no athesist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto etc etc biblical creationists? Whereas the evidence for evolution is accepted by those of all faiths and none. Indeed Mr McIntosh does not represent Christianity only the fundamentalist extremes-intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution."

I will try to answer the question, but let me say first of all that I reject the use of the term 鈥渇undamentalist extremists鈥� in reference to Biblical creationists, not to mention the slandering of creationists by implying that they are not intelligent.

Those who hold to Biblical creationism do so because they believe that the Bible is God鈥檚 revelation to mankind and, as such, it is authoritative, infallibly and inerrant.

Science is incapable of answering the question, 鈥淗ow did life, the universe and everything begin?鈥� It is beyond the scope of science, for science only deals with what may be observed in the present and studied in the laboratory or test-tube.

Evolution is, at best, only a theory put forward by men and women seeking to find the answers to life, the universe and everything within the confines of naturalistic explanations. Its ideas can only be tested on the basis of assumption, since there is no evidence anywhere in the universe to suggest that evolution has ever taken place or ever could take place, no matter how many billions of years were afforded it. The study of evolution is, at best, a groping in the dark.

Biblical creationism, on the other hand, begins with the confidence that the Almighty God has spoken and revealed certain facts concerning the origin and history of the human race, the nature of mankind, and God鈥檚 grand purpose of redemption through Jesus Christ. The Christian believer takes God at his word, accepting the Genesis record of origins as an incontrovertible matter of fact. Naturally, if God鈥檚 Word is trustworthy, a creationist scientist would expect that belief in the literal Genesis account would inform his or her study of science. There is no need for idle speculation and theorizing when God has revealed truths that are beyond our capacity to investigate with the instruments of scientific inquiry. What we will find, however, is that if God鈥檚 revealed word is true, it follows that our scientific investigations will be consistent with the truths revealed in his word and we will be amazed at how the truth of God鈥檚 Word is confirmed again and again.

The reason that Biblical creation is not accepted across the board is that it requires faith 鈥� an obedient submission to the authority of God鈥檚 word 鈥� in order to believe that which God has revealed. Evolution, as an account of origins, equally requires faith 鈥� though faith of a very different kind. Evolutionary belief has been compared to Alice in Wonderland; the Queen said to her, 鈥淲hy, sometimes I鈥檝e believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.鈥� For men and women of intellect to believe that something as marvellously complex as the human brain came into being by a mindless process of chance mutations simply beggars belief! Where is the intelligence in the universe to produce highly complex organisms if we rule out the Almighty Creator? We all know that even a relatively simple robot requires the combined intelligence and hundreds of man-hours of a team of experts to achieve an acceptable standard of functionality, and it is utterly inconceivable that it could ever be produced by random processes 鈥� no matter how much time was allocated.

No, the true reason that evolutionary dogma is so widely accepted within the scientific community is because of a faith commitment that removes God from the picture and puts the Goddess of Evolution on the throne. In both cases, faith is required, since none of us was present when life began on earth.

Re 8 Maureen McNeill wrote: "Folks: Why don't we all wait until the program airs? At this rate there will be a hundred posts on this blog before McIntosh has said a word."

Nearly half way there!

The amazing thing is that some of you think Billy is the 'crazy' one!

Peace,
Maureen

Creationist apologist (post 42):

鈥淭hose who hold to Biblical creationism do so because they believe that the Bible is God鈥檚 revelation to mankind and, as such, it is authoritative, infallibly and inerrant.鈥�

Here are some moral instructions from the 鈥榓uthorative鈥�, 鈥榠nfallable鈥� and inerrant鈥� Bible:

Leviticus 20:10: "The man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, [he] who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 31:15: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh [is] the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 21:17: "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The proscribed methods of execution include stoning, burning, or using a sword, spear or arrow (Leviticus 20:27, 21:9, Exodus 19:13, 32:27, Numbers 25:7-8).

Do you support capital punishment for adultery, working on Sundays and being a bit sarky to Mum and Dad? If not, why not?

I too have felt the touch of His Noodly Appendage and have been saved!
Pass the parmesan!
RAmen.

My thanks to William Crawley for allowing me to speak on his programme today. Despite diversions on to age of earth issues (It is well known that I hold a young earth position and have done for years. My book Genesis for Today has been freely available for 10 years where I expound that view both Biblically and scientifically), we managed to get to the point in the short time I had available -

Thermodynamics as I have explained before, does lie at the heart of the debate. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory unless the machinery is available to do so. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming such will not happen, even with natural selective forces at work. All natural selection will do is select from what is there already. It will not create a new machine which was not there before (either as a sub-machine or coded in embryonic form). An open thermodynamic system is not the answer either since simply adding energy to existing machinery will not change what is there already to a new machine. To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."

My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.

With a high volume of correspondence, I will not be able to enter extended discussions here, but may contribute as I am able.

Ceationist Aplogist,

Exactly my point! it is all to do with faith! hence the reason why there are no Hindu, Atheist, agnostic, Buddist etc etc Biblical creationists.

1. Of course evolution is a theory(do you know what scientific theory actually means?)

2. Yes biblical creationists start off with an assumption that a primitive bronze age creation myth is true and reject any evidence that goes against their faith-hence the reason why creationists are reduced to logical fallacies(your post is a perfect eg), lies, fabrications etc etc.

3. You are aware that creationists do NOT represent Christianity, that many Christians have no problem with evolution and are embarassed by the fundamentalists extremists who are making a joke of Christianity.

4. Evolution is not based on faith it is based on evidence that is why it is accepted by those of all faiths and none and biblical creationism is only accepted by fundamentalists.

5.For men and women of intellect to believe that something as marvellously complex as the human brain came into being by a primitive bronze age creation myth about the world being created in 6 days, 6000 years ago with 2 nudists, who were made from dirt, who live in a magic garden, with veggetarian T. Rex's and who take advice is beyond me! and 99.99999% of the worlds scientific community and intelligent Christians.

Regards

DD

Post 44 (Tony Jackson):
The Bible obviously has to be read intelligently. If you so do, you will realise that those moral instructions were given to the Israelites as a theocratical nation-state until the coming of Messiah. They are not in force today, though there are underlying moral principles which are unchanging.

There is no need for me to reply to Post 46. I simply stand by what I said in Post 42. It is a sad reflection on some evolutionists that they cannot disagree in a courteous, respectful and honest manner.

Re: post 48

So your Bible is wrong then? so pick and choose the parts that you want to use?

Strange that an all-powerful, omnipetent god could have made such a mistake with these laws...why not make it clear from the start which laws to follow. Plus the bible does state on several occasions that your god does not change his mind-thank you for pointing out an eg of when he did!

Well if creationists did not tell lies, use logiacal fallacies, straw man arguments, use mis-quotes then perhaps they would be treated in a better manner.

(A computer mutation seems to have taken place somewhere, so I am posting the following again with correction.)

Post 44 (Tony Jackson):
The Bible obviously has to be read intelligently. If you so do, you will realise that those moral instructions were given to the Israelites as a theocratical nation-state until the coming of Messiah. They are not in force today, though there are underlying moral principles which are unchanging.

There is no need for me to reply to Post 47. I simply stand by what I said in Post 42. It is a sad reflection on some evolutionists that they cannot disagree in a courteous, respectful and honest manner.

Tony Jackson

The theological college of any mainstream denomincation today will verify what CA is saying.

Read the book of Galations if you have an open mind, dont if you havent.

The Old Testament is the law of the state of ancient Israel.

The New Testament is the guidebook for the church, which is not a state and does not have authority to hold courts and issue sentences.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but that did not mean he expected any state to close down its judicial system.

Tony Jackson, ref capital punishment f
for adultery and cursing (not cheek to) your parents.

I can imagine a lot less grannies getting mugged and raped and murdered in their own homes if the culprits were brought up by two parents and learnt from any early age that respect for authority (parents/state) is non-negotaible in civil society.

It is an undeniable fact that most juveinlle offenders do not come from stable marriage families. And if your wife ever has an affair with your best friend you may also feel the hurt that destroys many people emotionally.

No it would not seem fair if everyone everyone guilty of these were executed tomorrow. But if you held a high profile one year amnesty before the laws came in and made an example of the first 10 offenders you would see the deterent value and few more deaths would be necessary.

A liberal Catholic friend of mine sang the praise of how safe the streets were in Saudia Arabia late at night recently, in comparison to his native Ireland. Ok, there is significant human rights abuse in SA, but you cant deny that the law gives general order in society as a deterrent.

And before you go off on one about the principle, by what standard or authority do you say your preferred legal system is superior to theirs?

Isnt your response to this subjective opinion?

PB

PB (post 51):

"No it would not seem fair if everyone guilty of these were executed tomorrow. But if you held a high profile one year amnesty before the laws came in and made an example of the first 10 offenders you would see the deterent value and few more deaths would be necessary",

Bloody Hell, PB! Are you being serious?

why Tony!!!

Your tone suggests you secretly thought I was sane, intelligent and logical up until this point, but that would be a violent betrayal of just about everything you have said to me up until now! Well?

Now, if you want to talk about serious, what are your serious proposals for a better legal system?

I think it is plain to most people the current one is creaking badly.

(Do I sense an ad hominem attack coming on or will you try to address the question?)

PB

Respopnse to 44:

Do you support capital punishment for adultery, working on Sundays and being a bit sarky to Mum and Dad? If not, why not?

I have to give you credit friend, this is a good summary of the questions you clearly know from the Bible! The issues you raise are important, they tell us that we must at least take God's Law very seriously - but why?

It is because we are all capable of sin - none of us are innocent of sin, we are all guilty before God. We know we are sinners because our conscience tells us when we commit wrong, unless of course we ignore it and continue on our foolish ways. The wonderful thing about the Bible is that it will tell you exactly what you need to know about yourself, most essentially to avoid being punished by God in the end (see John 3:16).

When the end comes for each one of us, and if we have not taken these things seriously, unfortunately we will have no excuse - it will be too late!

We may scoff at those who commit serious offences, they are constantly in the news these days, but if it were not for the restraining grace of God, we too might commit something so serious also.

There are many scoffers on these bloggs and they may laugh and joke around about God, getting some kind of kick or satisfaction - the problem is they are also storing up for themselves a sad end!

It is only fair to warn folk about these things as well as discuss creation v evolution!

Kind regards.

Creationist apologist, post 50 (and 48):

So鈥r 鈥� there is some wriggle room in this Biblical literacy thing after all? On yesterday鈥檚 programme Will interviewed two (to my mind) equally eminent theologians who disagreed about whether the Bible sanctioned capital punishment. In other words, there鈥檚 plenty of room for different opinions and it isn鈥檛 clear at all which is the 鈥榯rue鈥� one. Your particular interpretation is just that 鈥� an interpretation. I do agree with you about one think though. You should indeed read the Bible intelligently. But the least intelligent way to read the Bible is to use it as a Science textbook. That鈥檚 like trying to find your way around Belfast using a map of Dublin.

Reply to Post 55 (Tony Jackson):

Hi Tony,

No Christian or theologian pretends it is easy to understand God's Word. That is why, as Christians, we must come to the Bible humbly, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom God has promised to guide us into all truth.

The primary barrier to understand God's Word is not an intellectual one, it is the age-old problem of unbelief. This is why Jesus said that no-one could enter the kingdom of heaven unless they came as a little child.

Regarding the question of literacy - I think you mean literality. The Bible is to be understood in its plainest sense, for the Bible is its own interpreter. That means that we should take it literally where the grammatical construction (the sense) so requires. Where figures of speech are used, it is generally obvvious from the sense and context and we must understand it in the sense in which it was intended to be understood.

Conservative evangelical theologians (those who take the Bible seriously as God's Word) are agreed that the Law of Moses, with all its ceremonial and civil requirements, was given under the dispensation in which the nation-state of Israel then lived, until the Law was to be fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the stern requirements of the Law - which no man or woman could keep perfectly - were perfectly fulfilled in the sinless life of Jesus who then was "made sin" (took upon Himself the sin of the world) for our transgressions. The New Testament books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews explain how the Law is fulfilled in Christ so that the Christian believer is no longer under the Law but under Grace.

When you have read these books of the New Testament (which may be accessed freely online in case you don't have a Bible), please come back with your verdict as to whether those Old Testament laws apply to believers today.

Kind regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

Further comment on post 55 (Tony Jackson)

Tony wrote:
"But the least intelligent way to read the Bible is to use it as a Science textbook. That鈥檚 like trying to find your way around Belfast using a map of Dublin."

Tony,
The Bible is obviously not intended as a science textbook, since its purpose is not to teach science. Its purpose is to provide us with all that we need to know about God as our Maker and rightful Ruler, His Son Jesus Christ, the fact that we are lost, guilty and need to be rescued from our pitiful condition; and that we can find pardon through Jesus Christ.

In terms of science, the Bible may be considered as primary source material, just as an archaeologist might unearth an artefact, or decipher hieroglyphics, and use these as primary source material to learn about the civilisation responsible for these materials; or an historian might use an ancient Latin volume as primary source material in research and compilation of an historical account.

Your analogy that using the Bible as a science textbook is "like trying to find your way around Belfast using a map of Dublin" is mistaken, for Belfast and Dublin are two entirely different places so that there is no correspondence between a map of Dublin and the roads of Belfast. Science strictly means "knowledge" in its original usage, but as I understand it it is now generally used to mean what used to be called natural science - "dealing with material phenomena and based mainly on observation, experiment and induction" (Oxford English Dictionary), as distinct from the other sciences known as applied science (studied for practical purposes) and pure science
("one depending on deductions from self-evident truths, as mathematics, logic", etc.). So, in the former more limited scope of natural science, we may learn a great deal about material phenomena from observation, experiment and induction. What we cannot learn from these processes is how it all began. Origins demands a source of knowledge outside of the realm of observation, experiment and induction; and, it may be, outside of the realm of the material universe. It is in this field especially that we may turn to the Bible for answers.

Back to your analogy - driving around Belfast with a map of Dublin. My suggestion is that you put away your map of Dublin, stop the car and ask someone who knows the way, or you could end up driving around for hours in the dark without ever reaching your destination. So, I am groping around in the universe for answers. Why not stop for a moment and ask Someone who was there in the beginning? Why not consult the Maker's Instruction Book and see if you can learn something about how it all began? Perhaps He could put you on the right road! Wouldn't that be a help rather than a hindrance to your science classes? It seems to me that it could mean the difference between groping around in the dark and walking in the full brightness of the Son.

"In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
SOURCE: first century document (primary source material; translated from the Greek by authorisation of James, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith)

"Creationist Apologist"

Creationist apologist (post 56):

"regarding the question of literacy - I think you mean literality".

You're right of course!

I acknowledge my mistakes. When will you acknowledge yours?

Re- Post 58 (Tony Jackson)

Thanks, Tony.

I am happy to acknowledge my mistakes. I am sorry if I sounded rude or disrespectful - this was not intended. I was simply trying to explain the deepest held convictions of Bible believers. We can all be mistaken on certain points, of course, and hence the need to learn from one another. But I think you will agree that we are all entitled to our personal beliefs, whether Christian or atheist.

Perhaps I could also comment on your post 26, Tony. You wrote in point 2,
"Why does he settle for 6000 years as the true age? Presumably because if you add up the lifetimes of the biblical patriarchs, reigns of kings etc., and then work backwards, you more or less get this number."

Yes, it is true to say that young-earth creationists tend to settle for 6000 years on the basis that you suggest. A Biblical chronology was famously calculated by Archbishop Usher in the 17th century, dating the year of creation at 4004 BC, drawing his conclusions from Biblical data. However, some young-earth creationists are prepared to allow up to 10,000 years as the age of the earth based on differing Biblical interpretation.

From the point of view of scientific investigation, the Institute for Creation Research has an article offering scientific proof for a young earth/moon, from which I quote as follows: "There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit. The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth."
href="https://www.icr.org/article/204/"

This simply shows that, although we are so accustomed to the "millions of years" scenario - without which evolution could not possibly be considered - yet there are plausible scientific grounds to debate the possibility of a young universe. For this to be achieved fairly, there needs to be mutual respect and consideration between scientists, and a willingness to test ideas that they are unaccustomed to.

"Creationist Apologist"

By the way, could someone kindly tell me how to insert a live link to an external website using HTML coding? I tried and failed!

Thanks.

When you finally accept that we have all been created by His Noodlyness, we will all have peace. BHNA!
RAmen!