Putting Lipstick on a Corpse by Motte Brown on 02/28/2008 at 2:39 PM

Suzanne's blog referencing Timothy Keller's caution against "brashly" claiming the truths of Christianity to non-believers goes well with an interview I just read of him by First Things. In addition to humbly claiming the truths of Christianity, Keller warns against getting side tracked with non-salvific issues like evolution.

Here he talks about a section in his book, The Reason for God, where he goes into the various problems with different views on creation:

I do know that I say in the book, "This is an absolute red herring -- to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I'll call "theistic evolution," "young-Earth creationism," and let's call it "progressive creationism" or "semi-theistic evolution." There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well ...

How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don't know. But all I know is, didn't animals eat bugs? Didn't bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, "Oh wait, this is really complicated," then you realize, "I don't have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead."

So should we ever debate evolution vs. various forms of creationism with a non-believer? I think so. But we should do it being mindful of the gospel and make sure the non-believer knows they have a much greater problem than explaining how life came from dead chemicals.

Putting Lipstick on a Corpse by Motte Brown on 02/28/2008 at 2:39 PM

Suzanne's blog referencing Timothy Keller's caution against "brashly" claiming the truths of Christianity to non-believers goes well with an interview I just read of him by First Things. In addition to humbly claiming the truths of Christianity, Keller warns against getting side tracked with non-salvific issues like evolution.

Here he talks about a section in his book, The Reason for God, where he goes into the various problems with different views on creation:

I do know that I say in the book, "This is an absolute red herring -- to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I'll call "theistic evolution," "young-Earth creationism," and let's call it "progressive creationism" or "semi-theistic evolution." There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well ...

How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don't know. But all I know is, didn't animals eat bugs? Didn't bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, "Oh wait, this is really complicated," then you realize, "I don't have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead."

So should we ever debate evolution vs. various forms of creationism with a non-believer? I think so. But we should do it being mindful of the gospel and make sure the non-believer knows they have a much greater problem than explaining how life came from dead chemicals.

Comments

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 3:55 PM on Feb 28:]

1

I think this is a very good thing to keep in mine. As I said in one of the past conversations on evolution, it's usually not worth debating because for most parties involved, it's not about evidence, and this is in part because they disagree on what counts as evidence, etc. Once someone believes the claims of Christ, then we have some common point to work from. When I interact with non-Christians, I usually only bring up evolution when talking about morality with naturalists.

On the point of humility, I agree as well. I work with an apologetics ministry in the summer, and I have seem more arrogant Christians ready to go out and try to blow off anyone who disagrees with them. One of our lecturers makes the point that we can't treat our apologetics tools, questions and methods like a sledge hammer, but rather we should see them as pry bars.

Of course, the most successful apologist discerns what is appropriate in each interaction. There is no silver bullet argument or bit of evidence.

[2. Sarah said the following at 4:01 PM on Feb 28:]

2

I agree that we should not shy away from discussing these issues with non-believers, but we do need to keep it in perspective.

As your last sentence indicates and as I once heard, a non-believer's "greatest" sin is not whether they lie or cheat; their "greatest" sin is that they are rejecting God. Until they have been reconciled to the Father, we as believers cannot demand any sort of Biblical morality or belief system from them.

And regardless of who we get into debates with, humility, love, and grace should indeed be the seasoning of our conversation. (Col. 4:5-6)

Great post!

[3. Athena said the following at 4:27 PM on Feb 28:]

3

Btw, Tim Keller will be in California speaking at UC Berkeley next Tuesday on 3/4.

[4. Katie B said the following at 6:11 PM on Feb 28:]

4

I have visited Kellers church a few times, he is a phenomenal preacher and I was very impressed with his theology. I agree with him here, until recently I led a homeless outreach ministry in manhattan, and I was always fascinated by the way the people on my team would get into arguments with people to whom we were serving, about things like politics, abortion, abstinance, homosexuality. Those conversations never ended well, arguing makes us as christians look like we are only concerned about rules and being right. the message of christ crucified almost always gets lost and we wonder why people are unreceptive to our 'evangelism'

[5. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 28:]

5

This is not merely about evolution versus Creationism. In fact, the debates are necessary for a number of reasons:

(a) What constitutes good science?

Last time I checked, the practice of science requires (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) experimentation to test that hypothesis, and (4) observation of the results of that experimentation.

That means

(1) in order for something to be scientific, it must be testable via experimentation.

(2) mathematical models are not an acceptable substitute for empirical data.

On those grounds, macro-evolution, Biblical Creation, and anthropogenic global warming are each unscientific.

(b) There are movers and shakers in the scientific community who are cross-dressing totalitarian socio-political agendas as "science".

The Christian has every right to call these techno-commies for the frauds that they are. Kinsey slam-dunked a perverted agenda on the world under the guise of "science"; the eugenics movement of the early 1900s paved the way for a whole set of atrocities under the guise of "science".

We now have "scientists" using unscientific claims--by that I mean hypotheses for which the experimental data is nonexistent--to slam-dunk their social policies on the world.

That they--Harris, Dawkins, Dennett--are actively attacking the Christian requires a decisive answer from the Church.

Pointing out the folly and illogic of their case--which authors such as D'Souza and Vox Day have done quite well--is the responsibility of the Christian.

[6. Leah H said the following at 7:26 PM on Feb 28:]

6

I think that Jacob makes a good point (in post #1) when he says that he has seen "more arrogant Christians ready to go out and try to blow off anyone who disagrees with them". I think it is important to remember that the end result is that person being won to Christ, and not who is right or wrong about an issue, or who has the last word.

[7. farmer Tom said the following at 7:32 PM on Feb 28:]

7

Hebrews 11:6 says,

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I believe it is imperative that someone who does not know Jesus Christ as personal Savior, through logic and reason come to a point that they must admit God exists. Only then can they understand the significance of the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus Christ proved through the resurrection that He was God in the flesh. If one does not believe that Jesus Christ was God, indeed, if they reject the very idea of God, then it is not possible for them to understand the resurrection. I Corinthians 15 is nonsense unless there is a God,

"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

I understand the authors concern over arguing the creation vs evolution debate instead of preaching the gospel message, clearly we need to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. One would assume that you do not give a drivers license to a baby, and sharing the plan of salvation with someone who rejects the very idea of God is equally absurd. Until someone comes to the understand that there is a God, that we are sinners and He is Holy, there is no need for Salvation.

Keller warns against getting side tracked with non-salvific issues like evolution.

And therein lies my problem. Evolution at its core, contrary to what many of you want to believe, a theory and belief system which purposely excludes the very notion of a god or God from the equation. Evolutionary theory tries to explain all of history and all biological systems as simply products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes. And an honest evolutionist must admit that his belief system intentionally excludes the very idea of a god/God.

If you are trying to share the gospel with that evolutionist, he must come to the understanding that there is a God, according to Hebrews 11:6. If you accept his evolutionary theory, then you are attempting to make the Gospel fit into a world view which rejects the concept of God. If you ignore the fact that evolution excludes the necessity for a creator God, then you're talking past him, when you try to explain the need for salvation and the resurrection, using terms and ideas he does not accept.

[8. Peter K said the following at 8:54 PM on Feb 28:]

8

To Amir, number 5:

I would disagree with your definition of science, it's too narrow. There are 3 kinds:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid.

Also, you need to be careful about lumping those who hold to a certain scientific theory and those who are presenting a world view based on that theory. A Christian can hold to some form of evolution without accepting an evolutionist/aetheistic worldview.

I've recently been reading a great book from a Christian scientific perspective. It's called "Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution", by Deborah and Loren Haarsma. Check it out, it's really great and really talks just as much about the relationship between faith and science than any specific scientific point of view. The authors point out that God has given us truth through two sources: his Word, and his world. Just as theology is our interpretation of the Word, science is our interpretation of his world. Both of these can be done very poorly, leading to bad conclusions. Both can also be done well. If they are both done well, they both reveal truth that is in harmony with the other. If one is interpreted incorrectly, they will not be in harmony. So when there is perceived opposition - that is all it is, a perception. The truth of the world, discovered through science (done well), cannot be in conflict with the Word, and vice versa.

[9. andrew spivack said the following at 8:56 PM on Feb 28:]

9

Give it a rest, Amir. Leave science to the scientists. We don't care what Vox Day or Dinesh D'Souza have to say. Really, we don't. And we don't need non-scientists telling us what is and isn't science any more than you need an imam explaining to you what "true Christianity" is, or you need a car mechanic teaching dentists how to do root canals.

[10. Leah said the following at 9:09 PM on Feb 28:]

10

I've had that recommended to me many times. For sure, if someone asks you or gets you involved in a conversation about a peripheral issue (eg. evolution, the age of the earth, Christianity's views of other gods etc), then do get involved. But don't make it the main point. Wherever possible, bring it back to Christ. Preach the gospel, not all the peripheral issues. So I suppose our conversations could look something like Gospel, Christ, Gospel, Evolution, Christ, Gospel, Christ, Muslims, Gospel, Christ, Gospel... and so on.

[11. Brendan said the following at 9:32 PM on Feb 28:]

11

I feel that discussion or teaching rather than argument is better, but I do believe that discussing these issues are necessary.

For example, If I try to talk to an atheist about the truth of Christ's death and resurrection, it's likely he/she would stop me and try to divert the discussion towards the creation issue. After all, why should an atheist care that someone died to save them from slavery to sin, when they think that God doesn't even exist, and so sin isn't even defined. How can I tell them the good news about Jesus if they can't even accept the fallen state of humanity described in Genesis, because they don't believe Genesis is correct?

We also shouldn't try to simply say "I'm right because the scriptures say so, and the scriptures are from God." Such an argument is a logical fallacy when the divine origin of the text and it's accuracy and truth is what is disputed in the first place! Instead we should be trying to show people the interpretations of scripture that, when combined with the non-spiritual knowledge of today, actually show that those parts of scripture are trustworthy, while also pointing out the flaws in biological evolution arguments.

Anyway, I think Augustine said it better than I ever could, so I shall quote him here:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

[12. Leah said the following at 9:49 PM on Feb 28:]

12

farmer Tom-

through whose logic must an unbeliever come to believe God must exist? Your logic? Their logic? God's logic?

Logic is subjective. The logic of the Ancient Greeks is not the same logic we hold. What is logical to them would not be logical to us. Logic alone can never convince somebody of Jesus. Logic could convince someone that a god must exist, but it will do nothing towards convincing them of the God of the Christians. On the other hand, logic may have nothing to do with it. You cannot put the power of the gospel in the logic box and say that the gospel is powerless until someone comes to a belief of a god by their own logic. Sometimes it is the gospel which gives them the 'logic' required.

Also, not all aspects of evolution exclude the possibility of God. Some people think God created the Big Bang. Others think God created the world, but used evolution to create the different types of animals. While it is pretty apparent from the bible this is false, it still doesn't necessarily exclude God from the equation. However, you'd be quite right to say that many people do use it to exclude God. You say that Evolutionary theory tries to explain all of history and all biological systems as simply products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes.- a more accurate sentence would be "many evolutionary theories try to explain history... as products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes". Because there isn't just one evolutionary theory.

I am not saying that we should accept an evolutionist's theory- far from it. However, we shouldn't be out JUST to prove that there is a god. We should be out to demonstrate our God. This will sometimes include discussing that evolution is not compatible with God, but it should not be the main arguging point of all your evangelistic discussions. If we simply preach the gospel, who knows what powerful things the Holy Spirit may do?

We shouldn't be out to prove simply that logically, a god must exist.

[13. JB said the following at 11:06 PM on Feb 28:]

13

Farmer Tom,

I hold the opposite view. The theologian Karl Barth made the point that the God of the Bible is not some object in the world which we can come to know through research or reason, He is the ultimate Subject who allows Himself to be known through the revealed Word. The god that one derives from logical proofs or creationist research is not the God of the Bible at all, but rather an idol to human reason. The only way to know God is through revelation, so to say that you need to prove the existence of God before you share that revelation is getting things backward. Not only will it not work, but it's theologically dodgy.

In point of fact, there are plenty of people walking around who profess a belief in Christ and will happily recite the historical creeds of the Church while also believing in evolution. I'm one of them. You might think that this is a contradictory position, but it works well for some. In any case, I doubt that complete theological purity is a precondition for salvation. If it is, we're all in trouble.

[14. Jo said the following at 1:39 AM on Feb 29:]

14

I agree with the article completely. Topics like evolution, homosexuality etc can so easily become debates where the goal is to be right at all costs. We always need to remember that our aim is the other person's salvation, and speak accordingly. I also think we need to treat them as we want them to treat us: listen to their point of view and honestly assess the validity of what they're saying, rather than dismissing them out of hand. Who cares if they believe that Jesus was an alien or that science has disproved God - we may not respect their beliefs, but in listening respectfully to them we show we respect the person. Not only that, but we can often find nuggets of truth in their beliefs that we can use to point towards the real Truth. (See Paul's sermon on the 'unknown God' in Acts)

And we must try not to get frustrated. It isn't our job to convince anyone, it's God's. People often need to hear the Gospel lots and lots of times before accepting it. Even if you never see someone saved, your witness is still crucial.

[15. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:17 AM on Feb 29:]

15

Peter says: I would disagree with your definition of science, it's too narrow. There are 3 kinds:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Even with respect to those, you are formulating theories based on experimental results with respect to light, heat, and electromagnetics. You aren't getting perfect results that way, but there is at least some experimental basis here.

Peter continues: Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

With respect to historical matters, that is where things get thorny, as in many of these cases there are many ways to interpret the data, and without an experimental basis for backup.

Such historical fields of study are perfectly valid for higher criticism.

Peter continues: I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid.

On the other hand, not having a testable hypothesis puts you behind the 8-ball.

And no, mathematical models are not an acceptable substitute for empirical data.

Peter continues: Also, you need to be careful about lumping those who hold to a certain scientific theory and those who are presenting a world view based on that theory. A Christian can hold to some form of evolution without accepting an evolutionist/aetheistic worldview.

I never said they couldn't, nor did my post have anything to do with Christians who accept variations of evolution; on the other hand, I am addressing a couple of valid issues that need to be addressed:

(1) Political agendas wrapped in scientific veneer
This is nothing new, as the eugenics movement in the early 1900s stands as evidence. And it only got worse as the century unfolded.

(2) Scientists slam-dunking non-scientific claims while dismissing legitimate criticisms as non-scientific.
A good example, besides the macro-evolution debate, is the premise of anthropogenic global warming. Contrary to what you are hearing, (1) Consensus does not equal science and (2) the science is anything but settled on this matter.

As Mondale said to Hart in 1984: Where's the beef?

[16. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:30 AM on Feb 29:]

16

Andrew says: Give it a rest, Amir. Leave science to the scientists. We don't care what Vox Day or Dinesh D'Souza have to say. Really, we don't. And we don't need non-scientists telling us what is and isn't science any more than you need an imam explaining to you what "true Christianity" is, or you need a car mechanic teaching dentists how to do root canals.

Ya know, Andrew, if I didn't know any better, I would suspect that your real name is Ted Slater, and you are just posting under a different name in an attempt to make atheists look bad. ;)

You're right: I'm not a scientist; I'm just an aeronautical engineering graduate who knows a few things about control systems (including robotics), aerodynamics, thermodynamics, aircraft structures, stability and control, and even electrical engineering principles, both in concept as well as the mathematical analysis of such systems. I'm also a robotics engineer in addition to my day job as an IT professional.

Suffice it to say that I'm qualified enough to know the difference between science versus politics cross-dressed as science.

[17. kman said the following at 7:38 AM on Feb 29:]

17

Andrew spivak-

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

And you've made up your mind about the content of Mr D'nesh and Day's writings.
When you say you don't care, is it because you've read their materials and decided they are just wrong? Or have decided they are wrong and won't read what they've written?

[18. Katie said the following at 10:09 AM on Feb 29:]

18

Amir, one question. I agree that issues like evolution, as well as homosexuality, abortion ect. are of significance because they are matters of factual and moral truth. I am not personally interested in the science of evolution or creation, but what is the purpose of debating? I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I dont think these issues are important to evangelism. I havent met anybody who became a christian because it was factually acurate. People need God not because he created the world a certain way, but because he created them with a certain need for him.

[19. andrew spivack said the following at 10:28 AM on Feb 29:]

19

Good one, Amir. Meanwhile I have a master's degree in physics, and am a few months away from a PhD. What's your point? And considering that there are thousands (if not millions) of PhD scientists out there who are working, or have worked on fields like evolution, and other areas related to it, I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts.

kman -- have not read Vox Day, not sure why I should. Have listened to a couple of Dinesh debates. He may be one of the dimmest bulbs out there in the public eye. At least people like Ann Coulter are so over-the-top as to be funny. Dinesh is stuck in that no-man's land where he takes himself so seriously that it's not even amusing to laugh along with him. Needless to say he has no idea what he's talking about, and got wiped out in a debate with Daniel Dennett (and Dennett didn't seem to be trying particularly hard). I'm sorry, the man is just... what's the word? dumb.

[20. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:37 AM on Feb 29:]

20

Katie asks: Amir, one question. I agree that issues like evolution, as well as homosexuality, abortion ect. are of significance because they are matters of factual and moral truth. I am not personally interested in the science of evolution or creation, but what is the purpose of debating? I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I dont think these issues are important to evangelism. I havent met anybody who became a christian because it was factually acurate. People need God not because he created the world a certain way, but because he created them with a certain need for him.

That's an easy one. It's not simply about the Christian, nor is it solely about evangelism.

In the early 1900s, the Church was largely silent as the progressive movement--which involved scientists, educators, politicians, and sociologists--slam-dunked a very shady social agenda on the world, the price for which we are still paying today.

If you think this is merely about evolution or even homosexuality, you are mistaken. Evolution (and by that I mean macro-evolution) is the tip of the iceberg.

The larger issue is the extent to which the Church ought to confront a community of scientists who are taking non-scientific claims, presenting them as gospel, and then using those as pretexts to slam-dunk radical socio-political agendas down our throats.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:51 AM on Feb 29:]

21

Good one, Amir. Meanwhile I have a master's degree in physics, and am a few months away from a PhD. What's your point? And considering that there are thousands (if not millions) of PhD scientists out there who are working, or have worked on fields like evolution, and other areas related to it, I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts.

If that is the case, Andrew, then why do you resort to personal attacks rather than debate the merits of my statements?

I've raised perfectly legitimate questions, and you cannot--or simply have chosen not to--answer them. That sure does not sound like the reasoning of a soon-to-be PhD. Either that or you are proof that our academic standards are heading for the dunghill...

All you seem to do is tell people they know nothing about science, yet when they raise legitimate questions, you put them down for raising them.

To quote someone from a previous thread, put up or...

As for Vox Day and D'Souza, what are you afraid of? Are you really as smart as you claim to be? If you are, go ahead and read The Irrational Atheist. Feel free to take Vox on and show him the error of his ways.

If what have provided here is any indication of what kind of game you have, you're toast, buddy.

As for my work in IT, I simply went where the money was. Lots of physics and engineering majors have done the same thing. ;)

[22. JB said the following at 11:06 AM on Feb 29:]

22

Amir,

I don't understand your criticism of evolution as being non-scientific. Not only is it well within the tradition of non-experimental scientific fields (such as geology, astronomy, climatology, etc) but people do in fact perform relevant observations and experiments. For example, there are plenty of people doing experimental work on molecular mechanisms of mutation, which bears directly on evolutionary theory. And you can certainly make testable hypotheses - show me a new species and I'll hypothesize testable things about its biochemistry on the basis of evolution. The "historical" aspects of evolution are also well within the scientific tradition - all of science is about the parsimonious explanation of observations and many of those explanations involve a time frame. None of this is unique to evolutionary theory at all. I don't know what you mean, then, when you talk about "science."

As for your other critiques, I think your comments about political agendas being wrapped in science are non-unique. Political agendas always wrap themselves in the language of influential ideologies. The language of racism, for example, was scientific in the last century, but before that it was blatantly religious. That's not an indictment of either science or religion.

[23. Katie said the following at 11:12 AM on Feb 29:]

23

Thank you Amir, I understand better now. I read the post as refering to evangelism, and I assume many others here are talking from that perspective: how to present the Truth, that is, Christ, in order to meet peoples needs and bring them to belief. talking about what is accurate is a separate topic, an important one in circles of science, because science is about being accurate, I think... I failed high school chemistry. :)
One more question if you dont mind: How important are questions of evolution and similar issues of factual accuracy to your relationship and how you share your faith?
(thats not meant to sound accusing or anything, I was just wondering because you seem to be getting a lot of flak about it)

[24. Kassam said the following at 11:30 AM on Feb 29:]

24

Andrew at #9 said, "Leave science to the scientists."

Why? Sure, I wouldn't tell a chemist how to do chemistry, but if he is using that chemistry toward unethical or immoral goals, then I have every right to criticize him. More important, if he uses his expertise in chemistry to venture into fields he has expertise in, then even more so.

Why do we allow people like Christopher Hitchens or Carl Sagan spout off about things they know nothing about and (this constantly amazes me) be treated like learned fellows just because they know something about a different topic.

Why should we allow a Richard Dawkins to tell our children there is no God? That's what he wants to do, even though it's clear he's never studied theology a day in his life. (Or if he did, he slept through the classes.) The same is true of Harris and Hitchens.

[25. kman said the following at 11:33 AM on Feb 29:]

25

andrew spivak-

I'm sure you'll have a place in the public eye refuting Christianity. We need more people, such as yourself, refuting Christianity and theism. That any theist would try to attack atheism is just ridiculous and people like yourself need to step forward, I'm not suited to the task. There's a world full of deluded folks that need to know the truth.

:)

[26. Kassam said the following at 11:37 AM on Feb 29:]

26

Andrew (again) at #19 says, "I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts."

Do you not read carefully, Mr. Andrew? He listed all his expertise, and you seize on his "day job" to belittle him. It seems that someone who has the engineering background of Mr. Amir understands the world of design quite well, and apparently he see it in nature.

You come in here and try to be the expert but succeed only in missing the point, in addition to belittling and mocking anyone who disagrees with you.

As my grandmother used to say, "Don't try to make yourself so big by making others so small. You succeed only in the opposite."

[27. John said the following at 12:04 PM on Feb 29:]

27

Wow. Smart people are really dumb.

No, there was no death before the fall.

"The wages of sin are death"

Bible 101.

Please, people, stop feeding the troll (Andrew).

He has a physics degree. So he's an expert on evolution and science. We're horribly out-matched by his enourmous ego intellect.

[28. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:53 PM on Feb 29:]

28

JB Says:

Amir,

I don't understand your criticism of evolution as being non-scientific.

Micro-evolution is very scientific; macro-evolution is not. I say this based on the valid criticisms that scientists make of "Creation Science" (CS). The operative criticism is that CS is not testable via the scientific method, ergo it is not scientific.

I accept that criticism, and therefore it also applies to macro-evolution.

JB continues: Not only is it well within the tradition of non-experimental scientific fields (such as geology, astronomy, climatology, etc) but people do in fact perform relevant observations and experiments. For example, there are plenty of people doing experimental work on molecular mechanisms of mutation, which bears directly on evolutionary theory.

An empirical proof for micro-evolution--which I've never contested--does not constitute a proof for macro-evolution. You are conflating the two whereas I have been quite careful to differentiate between the two.

JB continues: And you can certainly make testable hypotheses - show me a new species and I'll hypothesize testable things about its biochemistry on the basis of evolution.

Well, then go ahead and make one. We're waiting for such a proof of macro-evolution. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful...

JB Continues: The "historical" aspects of evolution are also well within the scientific tradition - all of science is about the parsimonious explanation of observations and many of those explanations involve a time frame. None of this is unique to evolutionary theory at all. I don't know what you mean, then, when you talk about "science."

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. testable). That means you must be able to demonstrate empirical proof.

Not being able to do this does not mean your hypothesis is invalid; quite frankly, as technology gets better it may become possible to falsify hypotheses that are not falsifiable today.

On the other hand, if it's not falsifiable or testable, then wouldn't you agree that the "science" is not settled on the matter?

JB continues: As for your other critiques, I think your comments about political agendas being wrapped in science are non-unique. Political agendas always wrap themselves in the language of influential ideologies. The language of racism, for example, was scientific in the last century, but before that it was blatantly religious. That's not an indictment of either science or religion.

On the other hand, it is perfectly valid to contest both the political agendas and the scientific veneer--which is well short of science--that is being used to market it.

[29. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:59 PM on Feb 29:]

29

Peter K says:
There are 3 kinds [of science]:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid

Something cannot be "less reliable" and still "equally valid". If it is "less reliable" then it is "less valid."

Ergo, observational branches related to science--that cannot pass empirical muster--are less valid than those which can.

In addition, by conceding that observations--from which we can derive mathematical models--can be construed as scientific certainly opens the door for Intelligent Design, as Dembski--who holds PhDs in mathematics and philosophy--has a very impressive mathematical model.

(On the other hand, I'm sticking to my guns and demanding the empirical method for the bar of proof.)

[30. andrew spivack said the following at 2:06 PM on Feb 29:]

30

Kassam -- first of all, I'm not big. I would never claim to have expertise in an area where I don't, unlike Amir. It's very simple -- if I don't know and am not an expert, I listen to them. Are they always right? Of course not. But they're far more likely to be right than me or Amir. Hence, if you want a useful opinion about aerodynamics, you go ask Amir, because my understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal. If you want an opinion on nanoscale physics, you are better off asking me than him. If you want an opinion on biological systems you ask a biologist. Not an aerodynamics engineer. Not a physicist. Not a Dinesh D'Souza, whose qualifications in any such field are non-existent. Why does everyone think that I'm implying that I'm great when I tell others they're not?? I know, somewhat thoroughly, several areas. But when I remind people "You know, you have no expertise in this area, and just about everyone who does, for the past century, disagrees with you" I turn out to be arrogant?

Second of all, the question isn't whether science is being used for good or evil. The question is whether we should let non-scientists tell us what science is. As I said, until you let an imam define for you what true Christianity is, you have no right to tell scientists what is correct science and what isn't. Just because nuclear technology has been used for evil does not mean fission is not true.

Sagan certainly was as qualified as anyone on this planet to talk what he talked about, as is Dawkins. Please tell me what makes Sagan unqualified to be considered an expert on this universe.

Dawkins is not "teaching your kids" that there is no god. He is writing books, explaining certain things. I'd be as opposed to having "The God Delusion" taught in science class as I am ID or creationism, or whatever it's called today. The thing is -- no one is trying to use that in a science curriculum.

kman - hilarious.

Amir -- frankly, I don't have much time to waste on same old. So I'm not going to read Vox Day any time soon. My reading list is long enough as is. And it's mostly scientific lit. The fact that you put him in the same category as D'souza is enough for me.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:18 PM on Feb 29:]

31

kman says of Andrew:
I'm sure you'll have a place in the public eye refuting Christianity. We need more people, such as yourself, refuting Christianity and theism. That any theist would try to attack atheism is just ridiculous and people like yourself need to step forward, I'm not suited to the task. There's a world full of deluded folks that need to know the truth.

That's why I am calling on him to put his proverbial A-game where his mouth is and take on Vox Day. He's written his book; he's put it out there for the whole world to see. Heck, I think he even lets you download it for free. And he has welcomed all atheists to review it and debate him.

Surely, as a soon-to-be PhD in physics, Andrew has a vast intellectual arsenal from which he is prepared to take on anyone (even if his performance on these pages hasn't been up to snuff). After all, Vox is just a game designer with degrees in economics and Asian studies. Andrew should be able to make quick work of Vox.

Heck, it would be a nice showdown on the Internet.

[32. JB said the following at 2:51 PM on Feb 29:]

32

Amir,

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a purely artificial one. Micro-evolution is the mechanism by which macro-evolution occurs. They are not separate processes, macro-evolution is just what happens when you let micro-evolution run long enough. We can make observations (such as the fossil record and genetic studies) to investigate macro-evolution and we can do experiments to verify the proposed mechanism, which you call micro-evolution. That's not a seamless proof, of course, but we don't demand those in science. We take experiments about gravity on Earth as evidence for theories about gravity in space. You need a reason why the smaller-scale experiments should not apply to the larger-scale natural phenomenon.

As for the testable components of evolution, I'll make one: complex animals on Earth, having evolved from common ancestors, have common molecular features. So a new species of bird should have genetic features similar to other birds. If it's molecular biology is completely wacko, that counts as evidence against evolution.

[33. andrew spivack said the following at 4:07 PM on Feb 29:]

33

While I have no doubt that if Vox Day attempts to prove that atheism is irrational I can destroy his arguments, I'm not sure what makes you think I have the time or desire to do that. Nor what makes you think he has either of those. I have more pressing needs. Plus, come on, I'm nowhere near famous enough for him to debate me. How would that help him sell his books or get TV show gigs? Now if Dawkins or Dennett was bored enough to grace him with a debate, he'd be all over it.

However, I'm now reading one chapter of this book -- "The Case Against Science" to see what this idol of yours is capable of.

[34. Beth said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 29:]

34

I don’t think we need to convince people that God exists before we share the gospel – the atheists I’ve talked to do understand that *I* believe in God, so while they may think I’m wrong, they can follow what I’m saying. While I will defend the church’s positions on issues, I don’t present “theological purity” as a prerequisite for meeting Jesus. We Christians are about having a relationship with God, not about signing a doctrinal statement, and I think we’d all agree on that. I think this gets to a larger issue about how to connect with people and speak intelligibly to those outside the Christian sub-culture. That’s probably another post.

But anyway, I don’t think the atheists I know (not to generalize here) are atheists because evolution told them God doesn’t exist. I think people have other, more personal reasons not to believe in God, and they just see evolution as evidence they are right. So, in my view, it would be far more effective to bypass the evolution debate and go straight to deeper issues. I admit it may be difficult to go deeper, and it may take more than one conversation. But I don’t think anybody is coming to Jesus because (eureka!) they see the holes in evolutionary theory. I think atheists, like the rest of us, come to Jesus because they realize they need forgiveness, because they learn they are loved, because they’ve had enough of despair.

[35. andrew spivack said the following at 4:26 PM on Feb 29:]

35

Let's see Vox Day:
1. Entirely, well, idiotic argument that religion has not produced means to destroy the world while science has. Of course religion has not produced a means to feed people, while food has, which means religion is useless. Wow... bad start, Voxy.
2. More arguments that knowledge is evil. Yawwwwn...
3. More refutations of Harris' argument that religion can cause evil. Argument entirely identical that it's not the man who commits murder who's at fault, it's the knife, whose existence is responsible. So far so bad...
4. A sort of an argument that not all current science is "good" science, as if that means something, or as if he's discovering something no one knew.
5. Argument that there are some things we're better off never knowing. Ridiculous for a variety of reasons, ranging from the fact that there will never be agreement as to who gets to decide which knowledge must never be pursued, to the fact that making a subject taboo is possibly the best way to ensure someone explores it. Do I have to keep reading that stuff?? OK, 1 more point of refutation before I give up and come back to the real world...
6. Oh lordy... "for the first two-thirds of the scientific era, life expectancy was comparable to that of ancient Rome." I think he thinks this is somehow meaningful, because apparently if the progress of medicine, as measured directly by life expectancy, does not exactly match progress in every other discipline of science, this invalidates all of science. Garn...

I'm done. I'll give you this much, Amir, he's not as bad as D'Souza. Then again, not every plant is as short as moss.

[36. kman said the following at 4:28 PM on Feb 29:]

36

andrew-

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, yet he speaks on matters of the existence/non-existence of God. Does that qualify him to speak with authority on that subject? Have you/would you read his book The God Delusion?

Christopher Hitchens, is an author and journalist, is he qualified to speak about the existence/non-existence of God? Have you read his books on atheism?

Carl Sagan, astronomer and astrochemist, is he qualified to speak about the existence/non-existence of God?

I want to know if you are consistent in applying the rules to what you read about this topic.

I don't know how you go from:

Chemists= talk of chemistry
Biologists = talk about biology

TO

Biologist = talk of theology,belief
Astronomers= talk of theology,belief

I will assume you are consistent in your application of where you receive information on this topic.

If you are not, why not?

[37. Lukas said the following at 5:15 PM on Feb 29:]

37

I have to agree with what JB said on the subject of "micro" and "macro" evolution. It really is just semantics, a word game used by the YEC and ID crowd to invalidate evolutionary mechanisms over longer time-scales. There are no known barriers (other than time) preventing "microevolution" (evolution of new proteins in cultured bacteria, or morphological changes in cichlids) from becoming "macroevolution".

As far as testibility goes, it is true you cannot place world history in a test tube and perform tests like one would in chemistry, but that does not mean you cannot hypothesize and later observe results that confirm or deny your hypothesis. A good example of this comes from the new NAS book on Evolution and Creation. Scientists predicted the existence of a "transitional" animal somewhere between fishes and tetrapods, and hypothesized they must have arisen around 375 million years ago in areas with shallow water. Knowing geologically where rock existed that dated to this period, they travelled to Ellesmere Island in the Canadian high-arctic and commenced digging. They finally uncovered a 4 foot long tetrapod-like fish, complete with leg-like fins, and lungs as well as gills. Paleontologists do in fact make testable hypotheses.

[38. Al said the following at 5:24 PM on Feb 29:]

38

Farmer Tom,

I think I understand where you come from, and that if evolution necessarily dictates the inexistance of God, then anything we share of God's nature, purpose, or relation to man becomes nonsensical. However, I would offer that evolution still does not necessarily preclude God-- because the elegant, perfect, natural laws that evolution supposedly operates upon still beg questions about their origin. It doesn't answer the biggest question of all: "Why is there something, instead of nothing?" And someone can believe in some brands of evolutionary thinking and still leave much room for God's intricacy and work in natural law. I would agree that at a certain point, evolution meshes poorly with literal Genesis, but there is room for God in mere evolution, or at least many seem to think so (C.S. Lewis for one, even as he hated materialistic evolutionism, which is quite a different thing). In this case, it would be counterproductive to argue young earth creationism over sharing Christ when someone is already open to the idea of a creator being operating through natural law.

Futhermore, apologetic issues are often a cover for spiritual, personal issues objections to God, and more specifically to Christ on the cross. There have been many instances where God's personal revelation and work have melted away logical skepticism and intellectual resistance to His existance-- and that His active grace and salvation forces a person to reorder their thinking after encountering Him, instead of waiting for them to get their logical assumptions in order.

It's sort of neat how God won't be held prisoner to our imperfect applications of logic and reason, even as He uses them all the same.

[39. farmer Tom said the following at 6:16 PM on Feb 29:]

39

there are plenty of people walking around who profess a belief in Christ and will happily recite the historical creeds of the Church while also believing in evolution. I'm one of them. You might think that this is a contradictory position, but it works well for some

Ok, I'll buy that, with one condition. Admit that you reject the Biblical account of Genesis 1-11 as inaccurate. Evolutionary theory does not allow for a catastrophic world wide flood. Because evolutionary theory relies of billions, billions of years of uniformitarian constants. Every "change" in geology, biology and human history, the past, is know by the present. Catastrophic floods interrupt the time/space continuum and therefore can not be part of an evolutionary past.

Futhermore, you can not explain the human soul, the man is created in the image of God, nor can you explain the need for the shed blood of Jesus Christ, because you have rejected the fall of man.

In other words, your belief system is schizophrenic. You want to claim God's free gift of Salvation, yet you reject the reason that Salvation is necessary. Does your head hurt, cause it makes mine hurt trying to even put the concepts you claim to believe into words. Which is it, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,"II Tim 3:16 or "hath God said,(really) "Gen 3:1 Whoops you don't believe that part of the Bible, do you?

In any case, I doubt that complete theological purity is a precondition for salvation. If it is, we're all in trouble.

That Sir, is a major league cop out. We are told repeatedly to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" II Timothy 2:15

and
II Timothy 1: 13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. NASB

and

Titus 1:9 9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

If you do not have sound doctrine, (theology) then you are in error and need to correct that error. Claiming that we all have theological errors does not render the argument moot, rather it requires us to change our ways.

[40. andrew spivack said the following at 6:17 PM on Feb 29:]

40

kman -- unlike in actual real pursuits, there is no such thing as "authority" in the matter of existence of God. There is simply nothing that qualifies a human being to judge that better than others. Your opinion, mine, Dawkins' are all about equal, we're all equally ignorant as to existence of God. People buy their books because they respect their approach to philosophy or their minds, not because they're authorities on the matter. No one is.

Theology is the "study of God". Its concept is based on the assumption that there is a god. One does not need to be a theologian to have an opinion on whether or not there is a God. My opinion that there is no god is just as valid as any theologian's opinion that there is. However, my opinion on, for instance, Christian doctrine, history, symbolism etc. is certainly not as valid as his.

Furthermore, it is possible to debate topics such as theology because they're not science, they're philosophy. There are experts in that, of course, but the thing is, there is no "correct answer". In science there is. You can't debate whether 4+5 is equal to 9 or to 11. You can't debate whether a ball falls down or sideways. There is a correct answer. In philosophy there isn't one. So I can't debate with a theologian what Augustine meant when he wrote whatever it was he wrote. I can't seriously debate with him whether transubstantiation really occurs during mass. But I can certainly debate whether the underlying assumption -- that there is a God, and his name is Jesus -- is true. And so can Sagan, and Hitchens, and Dawkins. We are interested in their opinions on the matter because we know that they are brilliant thinkers who are accomplished in their respective fields.

And no, I have not read The God Delusion. I certainly would, but it's not one of my priorities.

[41. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:43 PM on Feb 29:]

41

JB Says: Amir,

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a purely artificial one. Micro-evolution is the mechanism by which macro-evolution occurs. They are not separate processes, macro-evolution is just what happens when you let micro-evolution run long enough.

That's a gratuitous assertion. To prove the particular does not make the case for the general. The latter requires empirical proof just as the former.

JB continues: We can make observations (such as the fossil record and genetic studies) to investigate macro-evolution and we can do experiments to verify the proposed mechanism, which you call micro-evolution. That's not a seamless proof, of course, but we don't demand those in science.

Of course it's not a seamless proof: it proves micro-evolution, not macro.

We take experiments about gravity on Earth as evidence for theories about gravity in space. You need a reason why the smaller-scale experiments should not apply to the larger-scale natural phenomenon.

The difference is this: with gravity, you have a mountain of empirical proof, through which repeatable results are achieved.

Ditto for experiments with respect to light and electromagnetism.

With evolution, the best you have is micro-evolution, and--no, it is not the same thing as macro-evolution. Simply asserting, "if we have micro-evolution happening over millions of years, anything can happen" doesn't make for stare decisis with respect to science, nor does it explain why Dawkins and company get their knickers in a wad over the mention of Behe and Dembski.

JB continues: As for the testable components of evolution, I'll make one: complex animals on Earth, having evolved from common ancestors, have common molecular features. So a new species of bird should have genetic features similar to other birds. If it's molecular biology is completely wacko, that counts as evidence against evolution.

Experimentally demonstrate the very species evolution in birds that you claim. Like I said, a Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful.

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 29:]

42

Andrew says: While I have no doubt that if Vox Day attempts to prove that atheism is irrational I can destroy his arguments, I'm not sure what makes you think I have the time or desire to do that.

Oh come on, Andrew. Dude...buddy, now you're acting like a coward. You have enough time to come to these boards and call people idiots, proclaiming your intellect while failing to debate specific points.

Andrew continues: Nor what makes you think he has either of those. I have more pressing needs. Plus, come on, I'm nowhere near famous enough for him to debate me. How would that help him sell his books or get TV show gigs?

He'll take you on. Go to his blog. Put up or shut up, Andrew.

Andrew continues: Now if Dawkins or Dennett was bored enough to grace him with a debate, he'd be all over it.

Quite frankly, Dawkins responded--anonymously (Vox caught him red-handed)--and is effectively in hiding.

I'm sure that--given your vast intellect--you should be able to show him the error of his ways. So go ahead and put it in print, for the whole world to see on the Internet.

Andrew continues: However, I'm now reading one chapter of this book -- "The Case Against Science" to see what this idol of yours is capable of.

That's an interesting chapter, which he uses as a curveball. I'd say more, but I don't want to give away the larger point he is making.

After all, you're the one with the great intellect, so I'm sure you'll be up to the challenge of writing a review and debating him on his blog.

Come on, Ted. The gig is up!

[43. Chris said the following at 8:06 PM on Feb 29:]

43

Amir writes:

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. testable). That means you must be able to demonstrate empirical proof.

Actually, no. From our friends at Wikipedia:

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

This does not mean that a theory needs empirical proof. It means that the theory can be shown to be false.

Thus, one does not need "proof" for macro-evolution to make it falsifiable. It simply means that if you can show a situation where a new species did occur without macro-evolution, then you have disproven macro-evolution. Note that this is different from merely saying that macro-evolution lacks evidence. You must provide the counter-evidence (for lack of a better word) to disprove it. Merely claiming that one must show evidence (or claiming that lack of evidence is a problem) does not make it falsifiable.

In terms of evolutionary theory, you must be able to make an observation/conduct an experiment to show that new species came to be through some other method than evolution. Show us that aliens/God/a creator made them, and you've falsified evolutionary theory.

Not being able to do this does not mean your hypothesis is invalid; quite frankly, as technology gets better it may become possible to falsify hypotheses that are not falsifiable today.

Every good theory is falsifiable regardless of the technology available at any one time. Take, for example, the grand unified theory. If I can find two particles, not one, that account for the forces at superhigh energy levels, then I have disproven the theory. It's still falsifiable, even though we'll never, and I mean never, reach the necessary energy levels. What you're talking about is the ability to conduct experiments, not falsifiability.

[44. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:25 PM on Feb 29:]

44

Andrew: It is quite obvious that you have not engaged in any critical thought about the book, and your arguments are reflective of someone who either has not read it--but rather skimmed over it without thinking--or simply cannot reason, as you've clearly missed the points he was making.

(I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say you just skimmed it.)

In his "case against science", he is merely demonstrating that, for all the hysteria about the threat of religion against the world, a much larger case can be made--with raw historical data--against science.

He's pro-science, but he does make an excellent case for why scientists ought not be allowed to be masters of public policy, and in fact--given their less than stellar track record in the past century--they ought to be held to at least as much scrutiny in their motives as religious leaders seeking to implement public policy.

Further along in the book, he demonstrates--using history--that less than 10% of all wars have had anything to do with religion, thus defusing the hysteria of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

Comparing religious governments with atheist ones, the carnage during peacetime is orders of magnitude worse in the Atheist regimes than the Chrtistian ones during wartime.

And Vox absolutely destroyed Harris, with respect to "red state crime" claims, as Harris is either guilty of fraud or negligence.

As for Dennett, Vox was quite mild in his criticism, as Dennett is at least intellectually honest.

One of the most damning cases he makes--early on--is that the High Church Atheists (in particular Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris) are promoting not a scientific agenda but rather a religious one (the Enlightenment).

On a larger note, Andrew, why is it that you have such a hard time when I simply assert that scientists ought to be held to account for their promotion of socio-political agendas?

When, for example, Dawkins calls religious education "child abuse", he is appealing to governmental frameworks--national and international--that exist to combat child abuse.

When he speaks on such matters, he is not proclaiming science, but rather politics and social policy. In that regard, it is perfectly valid to attack that aspect of his agenda.

[45. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:39 PM on Feb 29:]

45

Chris says: This does not mean that a theory needs empirical proof. It means that the theory can be shown to be false.

Fair enough, as I merely got my wires crossed. It happens from time to time when I haven't had my coffee.

On the other hand, I make no apologies for demanding empirical proof for matters that scientists proclaim dogmatically (macro-evolution, anthropogenic global warming), especially given that the proponents of both are seeking to influence international policy while dismissing legitimate criticisms.

Chris continues: Thus, one does not need "proof" for macro-evolution to make it falsifiable. It simply means that if you can show a situation where a new species did occur without macro-evolution, then you have disproven macro-evolution. Note that this is different from merely saying that macro-evolution lacks evidence. You must provide the counter-evidence (for lack of a better word) to disprove it. Merely claiming that one must show evidence (or claiming that lack of evidence is a problem) does not make it falsifiable.

That is absolutely true; on the other hand, pointing out the lack of experimental data for it does not make on anti-science. Nor does it explain the hysterical, dismissive reactions by evolutionary dogmatists.

Chris continues: In terms of evolutionary theory, you must be able to make an observation/conduct an experiment to show that new species came to be through some other method than evolution.

True. And you must also be able to show that new species came through TENS. And no, micro does not equal macro.

Chris continues: Show us that aliens/God/a creator made them, and you've falsified evolutionary theory.

Show us that homeostatic controls appear--from base level chemicals-- without a designer.

Chris continues:
Every good theory is falsifiable regardless of the technology available at any one time.

On the other hand, every hypothesis is not empirically demonstrable. That being the case, what is up with the dogmatic fundamentalist reaction--and it is fundamentalism--that comes from your camp when one demands empirical proof?

Chris continues: Take, for example, the grand unified theory. If I can find two particles, not one, that account for the forces at superhigh energy levels, then I have disproven the theory. It's still falsifiable, even though we'll never, and I mean never, reach the necessary energy levels. What you're talking about is the ability to conduct experiments, not falsifiability.

See answer to first paragraph.

[46. Katie B said the following at 8:52 PM on Feb 29:]

46

Wow people, talk about putting lipstick on a corpse, a post about not getting sidetracked by non salvific issues turns into a debate about non salvific issues.

[47. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:04 PM on Feb 29:]

47

Katie asks:
One more question if you dont mind: How important are questions of evolution and similar issues of factual accuracy to your relationship and how you share your faith?
(thats not meant to sound accusing or anything, I was just wondering because you seem to be getting a lot of flak about it)

In all honesty, I don't have any serious dog in the fight. I have always cautioned Christians to beware that there are things that science cannot do. One of which is verify miracle accounts.

As for creation versus evolution, there is plenty of latitude in Genesis for some variation of evolution. Ergo, I'm hardly dogmatic about either, although I generally come down on the side of more literality than less.

I do find this much interesting: the reactions of militant Darwinians are compatible with the most ardent non-reasoned responses I get from KJV-only fundamentalists.

[48. andrew spivack said the following at 9:58 PM on Feb 29:]

48

Amir, you can whine elsewhere. Since you fail to address any of my points (and you always do, you're too afraid to) I have no reason to respond to your post. You sure do type a lot, though. Congrats.

[49. andrew spivack said the following at 10:15 PM on Feb 29:]

49

Amir -- this is my last post to you. Until you learn to stick to the subject at hand -- for instance whether evolution is scientific -- I'm not going to waste any more of my time debunking you or your idols. Any time I destroy an argument or a pet cause of yours you run off elsewhere. When you could not force me to defend Kinsey you ran away and now want me to defend Harris. Not once have you dared to actually debate me, you're just trying to force me to defend positions I never took and people I never brought up. This stems from either a) understanding that you can't hold your own; b) complete inability to debate; c) desperation; d) intellectual dishonesty. Since I don't care enough to try to figure out which one it is, until you demonstrate at least a rudimentary ability to engage in an honest, coherent debate I'm simply not going to respond to your infinite, irrelevant "challenges" and the like. I'm sorry, man, you're just really really bad at this.

P.S. I have no idea why you called me "Ted". I'm sure it makes sense to you, however...

[50. kman said the following at 10:40 PM on Feb 29:]

50

Andrew-
You classify the question of the existence of God as a philosophical one and say it has no correct answer. You're begging the question as you assume that there is no correct answer for the question "Does God exist?" because you've already decided that God doesn't exist. Either God exists or He doesn't. It does have a definite answer no matter how you may choose to classify the question.

And there is such a thing as the Philosophy of Science and , by your definition of philosophy, is open to discussion by anyone. Sorry can't have it both ways.

[51. kman said the following at 11:11 PM on Feb 29:]

51

andrew-

while we have your attention. ;)

And I hope you take the next question the right way. I have no intentions of arguing your answer, if you choose to give one.

What do you believe the benefits of atheism are vs Christianity specifically?

I have a friend who is an atheist (I've had all these same type of discussions with him) and he says life is meaningless. (I need to ask him this same question some time)

As atheism has no ethical or moral system which it dictates,no absolutes for behavior or even meaning of right and wrong, I've wondered how an atheist decides what has meaning in life. Why chose to go to work vs commit suicide etc. As ultimately the two choices equal the same outcome, one just delays the inevitable and why delay it at all? I would think experiencing pleasure as the only thing left as reason to continue living etc.

Even if one, say allows you to produce offspring and therefore carry on your genetics, ultimately that's meaningless as well in the end as the Universe burns out into a cold dark void (or collapses into itself again destroying all information contained within, take your pick).

BTW: Congrats on being nearly done with your Ph.D. I know that's got to be a lot of work. I hope you do well in your field. Who knows you may get a particle or new force named after you.

[52. Leah said the following at 7:12 AM on Mar 1:]

52

Katie B- had to laugh at your comment.

However, keep in mind, conversation between Christian & Christian as opposed to Christian & NonChristian will look a little different when it comes to peripheral issues.

[53. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:11 AM on Mar 1:]

53

Andrew says: Amir -- this is my last post to you. Until you learn to stick to the subject at hand -- for instance whether evolution is scientific -- I'm not going to waste any more of my time debunking you or your idols.

Debunk me? I like your sense of humor. Vox is an ally--with whom I often disagree on theological matters--but far from an idol. I do, however, provide credit where credit is due.

Take the folks here at Boundless, for example. They have been in my doghouse quite often over the past 6 months. I rip them (severely in some cases) when they get it wrong, and credit them when they get it right. They are generally allies, but idols? Bah.

As for matters of science, I've addressed every issue provided along those lines. Whenever JB or Chris have raised them--you have not--I have answered. I've provided reasons for my disagreements when I disagree, and, in Chris's case, credited him with catching an error I made.

Quite frankly, I merely question the scientific merits of macro-evolution, given that it has not been established empirically. As I told Katie, I don't have a serious dog in the fight, as you would find that--while my views are conservative--I am anything but a fundamentalist on the matter.

Andrew continues: Any time I destroy an argument or a pet cause of yours you run off elsewhere. When you could not force me to defend Kinsey you ran away and now want me to defend Harris.

You? Destroy any of my arguments? Please, Andrew. I just laughed so hard I had coffee coming out of my nose..

I blew your entire line of reasoning--green light for eugenics, green light for forced sterilizations, green light for genocide, green light for anything in search of a positive evolutionary advantage--out of the water. You provided no substantive answer.

In fact, you conceded that you knew nothing about logic or philosophy. If you did, you would have thought things through a little better instead of cling to a line of reasoning that is indefensible.

Andrew continues: Not once have you dared to actually debate me, you're just trying to force me to defend positions I never took and people I never brought up. This stems from either a) understanding that you can't hold your own; b) complete inability to debate; c) desperation; d) intellectual dishonesty.

I demonstrated the telos of your line of reasoning, which you cannot defend.

(1) No one said you were a eugenicist; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

(2) No one said that you supported genocide; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

(3) No one said you favored cruel experiments or active euthanasia; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

You cannot defend your position, and that is the cause for your angst.

Andrew continues: Since I don't care enough to try to figure out which one it is, until you demonstrate at least a rudimentary ability to engage in an honest, coherent debate I'm simply not going to respond to your infinite, irrelevant "challenges" and the like. I'm sorry, man, you're just really really bad at this.

When you are ready to show how your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--does not allow for eugenics, genocide, active euthanasia, or cruel experimentation, I'll be waiting...

As that great philosopher, Robert Conrad, once said, "C'mon...I dare you!" ;)

Andrew continues: P.S. I have no idea why you called me "Ted". I'm sure it makes sense to you, however...

Your argumentation was so pitiful that I figured you cannot possibly be an Atheist, but rather someone from the Boundless crew--like Ted Slater-- acting like an atheist just to make Atheists look bad.

I guess I was wrong to give you that much credit. ;)

[54. andrew spivack said the following at 11:20 AM on Mar 1:]

54

kman -- whether god exists does indeed have a definitive answer. We simply cannot know what it is, nor can we ever prove it one way or the other.

Philosophy of science is certainly open for debate. This is not, however, what people are engaging in here. They're not debating the philosophy of science, they're picking one single theory they dislike, and are trying to destroy it. However, since this theory is clearly in line with the accepted scientific method, this is doomed to fail on its merits.

I will not discuss morality and evolution, just refer you to the discussion thread for "Darwin Day Part 2" on here. I spent a lot of time discussing it there. As for meaning, our meaning is the same as yours. We create our own, and follow it. You create your meaning to be "I must follow this book" and that gets you through the day. However, there is no reason to think this is the only purpose that does not result in suicide. I have my reasons to live, and as an atheist there are far better reasons to continue than as a Christian. I know this is the only life I'll ever have. It would make far more sense, in fact, for me to ask you why you don't commit suicide. After all, you think you get to go to heaven, which is far better than here. I have no doubt in my mind that I won't. You, on the other hand, have every incentive in the world to expedite your own demise, if you actually believed what you say you believe.

kman -- I know the universe is ultimately meaningless. I'm ok with it. Look at it this way: why do you watch sports? Why do you care if your team wins or loses when you do? Let's face it, they're meaningless, right? They don't get you to heaven, they don't affect your life, really. Yet millions of people feverently care. Why? Because even though in the grand scheme of things we know something is meaningless, grand scheme of things does not matter. You don't live in this "grand scheme", and neither do I. I live in my own, small, insignificant life. But to ME it matters. I don't need to think that my existence affects the universe, or will somehow delay its inevitable heat death. I can't comprehend that scale. But to me my life matters. And, let's face it, unless I kill a few million people, no one will know who I was a thousand years from now. And that's OK by me too.

Thank you for your congratulations. I doubt I'll get a particle named after me, however. Not smart enough, and we don't tend to name them after the discoverers anyways.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:45 PM on Mar 1:]

55

Oh, and one more thng, Andrew. Vox is calling you on the carpet. This is your big opportunity.

Good luck...

[56. Lukas said the following at 5:36 PM on Mar 1:]

56

Amir, just a couple points to ponder:

You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof. The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go.

Also, for being so concerned about the definitions of science, you seem to invoke a "designer" from time to time, a decidedly unscientific concept. Most philosophers of science would say science needs to follow methodogical naturalism, meaning we cant invoke the supernatural when we see something unexplained. It does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that it cannot be considered scientifically.

So speaking of design, I dont want to presume, but it appears as though you are influenced by Intelligent Design theorists such as Behe, Demski, and Johnson. The problem I see with this (aside from it being a "God of the Gaps" theory) is that for the most part, they do agree with an old earth and "macro-evolution". Behe in fact thinks that we are descended from the same common ancestor as modern great apes (see his debate with Kenneth Miller). The difference being he does not think "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved through Darwinian natural selection. In fact, while other ID theorists are notoriously cagey about the specifics of their theory (the who, what, when, and how) Behe posits that the earth was "seeded" with one complete cell containing all the genetic information for every living thing throughout history. This must mean that our first ancesteral cell contained about 1000 times the genetic material that a modern bacterial cell, not to mention the damage such non-expressed DNA must have suffered due to mutation over billions of years.

The point is this: we dont do God a service by trying to disprove biological evolution on the grounds that His creation is incapable of bringing forth new forms of creatures.

[57. Leah said the following at 9:22 PM on Mar 1:]

57

Amir and Andrew- oh my goodness, grow UP would you? Put a bit of civility into your debates instead of sounding every bit the godless evolutionists I debate with elsewhere. When it comes to the essentials, you're on the same side.

[58. JB said the following at 10:39 PM on Mar 1:]

58

Farmer Tom,

I think there are at least two ways around your problem. First, one could say that evolution is a good tool for getting scientific work done, but that the Genesis account is the way things "really" happened. There's no contradiction there - it would be like an engineer using Newtonian mechanics for convenience while acknowledging that it isn't an accurate depiction of the world.

Second, and this is the way I go, one could say that the Genesis account is true and accurate without being a literal historical account. That is, the creation story points out, say, the relation of God to the world and the story of the Fall tells us about sinful human nature. The meaning of the Genesis account is what is important, not its historicity. We need salvation because of our separation from God. Do you really think that the fact that some guy ate an apple four thousand years ago has a necessary and direct bearing on your life? We are all fallen Adams and Eves, so what does it matter if they "really" existed?

It's not a question of rejecting scripture or (and I hate it when people say this) thinking that God is a liar, it's a question of how one believes, in what sense scripture is true. At the end of the day, everyone engages in this kind of thinking. We all contemplate what the Genesis story says about God, the world, and humanity, and we all come more or less to the same conclusions. It's just that you add on to this kind of thinking the additional belief that the Genesis story is a literal historical account. I think that's an unnecessary addition, but if it makes you happy, go with it. I just ask that you don't insist that your variety of faith is the only possible one.

[59. JB said the following at 11:04 PM on Mar 1:]

59

Amir,

What I'm saying is that you need to have some warrant for your belief that there is some barrier between micro- and macro-evolution such that the former can't lead to the latter. It is perfectly valid in science to say that a small-scale process accounts for large-scale phenomena if the observations seem to bear that out. It isn't valid to say that the two processes are distinct unless you have some evidence which outweighs the apparent similarity.

Michael Behe tried to come up with the kind of argument you need with his idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed papers which support his idea, plenty which argue against it, and irreducible complexity is now regarded as no better than an argument from ignorance. What is your argument in its place?

My point about falsifiability clears this up. If it is the case that micro-evolution leads to the evolution of distinct species, then phenotypically similar species should be genetically similar. That observation has been made about the organisms we're aware of, and this counts as evidence which indicates that micro-evolutionary processes lead to speciation events.

What makes this hypothesis falsifiable is that if you can find an organism phenotypically similar to known organisms that has a completely different biochemistry, that is evidence against evolution. A new frog that doesn't have cytochrome c, or a new rodent that doesn't have histones associated with its DNA would be strong evidence against the idea that micro-evolution doesn't cause macro-evolution. I don't think you'll find such an organism, but you're welcome to look.

You don't need to reproduce speciation events in a lab in order to scientifically investigate their cause, any more than you need to make a solar system in order to investigate the gravitational pull between planets.

[60. andrew spivack said the following at 12:11 AM on Mar 2:]

60

Ummm, Leah, you piqued my curiosity: which side would that be?

Cripes, Vox really does have nothing better to do. Someone, quick, toss the man a career!!

Voxy, I guess you're reading this obscure blog in desperate hope that someone will mention your name. Ummmmm -- sorry homes. I have way too much grading to do to waste my time destroying your arguments. Maybe when I catch up on doing science I'll spare some time debating you. But, honestly, speaking of sticking to what you know, shouldn't you stick to selling crummy books to uneducated fundamentalists? I mean, as long as we're just restricting ourselves to our areas of expertise, and all...

[61. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:14 AM on Mar 2:]

61

Leah opines: Amir, just a couple points to ponder:

You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof.

Oh yes they do. Are there aspects of those fields where empirical evidence is elusive? Absolutely. That is why we refer to theoretical physics.

On the other hand, why is it that Darwinians get all bent out of shape over Behe, who--while being an evolutionist himself--provided a testable hypothesis that would blow gaping holes into existing models?

Leah continues: The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go.

Not true at all. In the sciences, experimentation is the gold standard. When experimentation is not possible, then mathematical models help, although they are less reliable and therefore less valid than empirical proof because the represent unproven hypotheses.

This is especially true when you are dealing with mathematical models involving variables the behavior of which are more certain than other variables. This is true for both econometric models and for climate models.

How many scientists, for example, predicted that we would have the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded last year?

How many economists predicted the financial meltdowns we are witnessing now? (And trust me on this: they have VERY impressive mathematical models, and they are wrong most of the time.)

Leah continues: Also, for being so concerned about the definitions of science, you seem to invoke a "designer" from time to time, a decidedly unscientific concept.

I never suggested that a Designer was "scientific", and in fact--in several posts--stated flat-out that ID did not pass scientific muster.

That being the case, what is the issue? I like Dembski, but no, ID is not scientific and I never suggested otherwise.

Leah continues: Most philosophers of science would say science needs to follow methodogical naturalism, meaning we cant invoke the supernatural when we see something unexplained. It does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that it cannot be considered scientifically.

I agree completely, and in fact have said that here. I have stated on these very pages that my position that neither ID nor macro-evolution are not empirical does not mean they did not happen, but rather that they have not been established scientifically. To what part of the following quote of mine do you take exception?

It does no good to try to win an argument about science by challenging an unscientific proposition (macro-evolution) with an equally unscientific one (Creation).

Each is unscientific because neither is verifiable via experimentation. Intelligent Design (ID), for all its mathematical strengths--and those strengths are very substantial--fails for the same reason: it is not empirical.

Mathematical models are no substitute for experimental results.

This does not suggest that Creation didn't happen, or even that evolution didn't happen. I'm just saying that--to date--verification of either is beyond the scope of the scientific method.

Leah continues: So speaking of design, I dont want to presume, but it appears as though you are influenced by Intelligent Design theorists such as Behe, Demski, and Johnson. The problem I see with this (aside from it being a "God of the Gaps" theory) is that for the most part, they do agree with an old earth and "macro-evolution". Behe in fact thinks that we are descended from the same common ancestor as modern great apes (see his debate with Kenneth Miller). The difference being he does not think "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved through Darwinian natural selection. In fact, while other ID theorists are notoriously cagey about the specifics of their theory (the who, what, when, and how) Behe posits that the earth was "seeded" with one complete cell containing all the genetic information for every living thing throughout history. This must mean that our first ancesteral cell contained about 1000 times the genetic material that a modern bacterial cell, not to mention the damage such non-expressed DNA must have suffered due to mutation over billions of years.

And all I ever said about Behe was (a) his IC hypothesis is testable and (b) his hypothesis would upset many existing evolutionary models. I neither defended nor castigated his larger views on evolution.

As for ID (Dembski), all I said was he has a very impressive mathematical model, but it does not count for empirical proof. So I really wish you would quit misrepresenting me as suggesting that ID is scientific. It is not.

Leah continues: The point is this: we dont do God a service by trying to disprove biological evolution on the grounds that His creation is incapable of bringing forth new forms of creatures.

I haven't set out to disprove any of that. As I told Katie, I don't have a big dog in that fight.

On the other hand, I am simply pointing out the difference between what is "settled" and what is not.

When scientists take empirically-unproven theories as a pretext to slam-dunk political agendas on the world, would you not agree that it is fair to call them to account?

As for my responses to Andrew, I'm simply calling him to account. I've answered every issue preented to me. Others--such as Chris, Sara, JB, Katie, and even yourself--have raised points and I have answered them.

All I have done with Andrew is (a) show him the ramifications of his line of thinking (read the Darwin Day Part 2 thread), and make the case against scientists using less-reliable (empirically unproven) theories as pretexts for the promotion of political agendas.

Andrew has responded to this by questioning my qualifications to be raising the question, insulting my intelligence, and insisting that I never answered his questions.

As for my responses to Andrew: I'm just trying to egg him on so he will bring hs A-game.

[62. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:15 AM on Mar 2:]

62

BTW: Correction is in order. In my last post, the ending is addressed to Leah, while the bulk was to Lukas.

[63. kman said the following at 10:02 AM on Mar 2:]

63

Andrew-

Thanks for the reply!

P.S. re: particles. Spivak sounds very "physic-ish" to me. LOL Like Fermi,Tesla, Roentgen,Curie etc.

[64. John said the following at 5:22 AM on Mar 3:]

64

"You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof. The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go."

You mean logical proof. Empirical proof is observable. That's not mathematics. Empirical proof is EXACTLY what those hard sciences are about.

[65. John said the following at 8:33 AM on Mar 3:]

65

Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

Science is not limited to only the natural.

Letting the evidence speak for itself and lead to the logical conclusions, THAT is science!

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:57 AM on Mar 3:]

66

JB says: What I'm saying is that you need to have some warrant for your belief that there is some barrier between micro- and macro-evolution such that the former can't lead to the latter.

I didn't say that the former can't lead to the latter, but rather that a proof of the former does not constitute proof for the latter. It's logic, JB: a proof for the particular does not equal proof for the general let alone the universal.

JB continues: It is perfectly valid in science to say that a small-scale process accounts for large-scale phenomena if the observations seem to bear that out.

It's perfectly valid to assert that there is a prima facie case for it, and even to say that a case for micro could very well indicate a case for macro. But the lack of empirical evidence means that your hypotheses remains as yet unproven.

JB continues: It isn't valid to say that the two processes are distinct unless you have some evidence which outweighs the apparent similarity.

Sure it does. When you haven't demonstrated macroevolutionary processes empirically using microevolutionary changes, then you have yet to show that a proof for one constitutes proof for the other.

JB continues: Michael Behe tried to come up with the kind of argument you need with his idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed papers which support his idea, plenty which argue against it, and irreducible complexity is now regarded as no better than an argument from ignorance. What is your argument in its place?

Yep. For one thing, Behe's argument is hardly about argument from ignorance, but instead he has provided both a falsifiable and a testable hypothesis.

Just take a biological system, and remove a component from that system. If the removal of that component results in a complete loss of functionality of that system, then the system is irreducibly complex.

Now keep in mind that--in spite of what many Creationists are saying--Behe is neither debunking macroevolution (he even believes in it himself) nor making a concrete case for a Designer.

His hypothesis, however, would upset many existing evolutionary models and send many evolutionists back to the drawing board to refine their hypotheses or come up with new ones.

That scientists aren't jumping on board with him means nothing in this case, as consensus does not equal science whereas empirical proof is the gold standard.

In fact, that many biologists are attacking it in journals rather than testing the hypothesis is quite understandable: if you were one of them, would you want to be set back in your life's work? It's a lot easier to dismiss him as a closet creationist or "one who argues from ignorance"--which he has not--than deal with the case he has given you to test.

JB continues: You don't need to reproduce speciation events in a lab in order to scientifically investigate their cause, any more than you need to make a solar system in order to investigate the gravitational pull between planets.

That's not a good analogy, and--being very familiar with orbital mechanics--I can say that we have empirical proof for gravity every time we launch a spacecraft. With planets, our mathematical models jibe with the observation, just as our orbital determination for spacecraft--using mathematical models--jibe with the expected results.

We have observational means--developed by engineers and scientists alike--to determine masses for planets, to determine velocities, and to determine positions at points in time. Ergo, we can use mathematical models to predict behavior, and--at the same time--observe whether those mathematical models jibe.

And using those methodologies, we can test our models in our analysis of the motions of a number of things: from man-made spacecraft to planets and stars or moons and planets.

I'd say that being able to land a rover on Mars is evidentiary proof that we understand not only the gravitational interactions among planets and stars and satellites; we have designed systems and missions utilizing them.

And this is where Behe is such a threat: his hypothesis upsets existing models.

And it is falsifiable. How so, you ask? Just show an evolutionary pathway--verifiable in the fossil record--of such a system.

From an engineering/IT standpoint, I think in terms of systems. From a systems perspective, Behe makes very good sense and I hardly understand why evolutionists are in a snit over what he has provided.

On the other hand, as I have said before: Behe does not refute macro-evolution per se, but he does threaten existing models. To an evolutionary biologist, this would be quite frustrating.

And don't get me wrong, JB. As I told Katie, I have no huge dog in this creationist-evolution foodfight. You would find that I am neither a dogmatic fundamentalist nor a cheerleader for Darwin or even Dembski for that matter.

On the other hand, speaking as an engineer, here is my gripe. Let's talk about airplanes...

If I'm the CEO for Boeing, I would not even THINK about attempting to sell an airliner that has not been flight-tested.

I say that even though--in the design process--the mathematical models are very good. Those mathematical models, for instance, are the culmination of decades of testing for aerodynamic properties of designs in various flight regimes, structural stability of configurations under myriads of loading conditions (including cyclical loading and vibration analysis and even fracture mechanics), and simulator-based flight testing.

No, I wouldn't stop there. I'd build a prototype. I'd test-fly the heck out of it to establish the flight envelope, comparing the actual performance with the expected performance. Through this process, I may have to modify my design to achieve the desired results, and--in a worst-case scenario--ditch the design altogether and start all over.

Why do I say all of this? If I wouldn't sell an airplane to the public without testing it--even though my mathematical models and simulations are excellent--then why should I allow politicians to foist empirically-untested scientific theories (anthropogenic global warming), based solely on mathematical models, on the public under the guise of "science"?

That is what this discussion is all about: subjecting scientists to accountability about what they say they have established versus what has actually been established, and then calling them to account when they promote social policies using unproven hypotheses as their pretext.

[67. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:08 AM on Mar 3:]

67

John says: Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

I disagree. Science is about the application of the scientific method. Understanding of the supernatural is outside the scope of the scientific method.

John continues: Science is not limited to only the natural.

Yep. It is.

The larger issue, however, is whether one is going to stake his or her entire faith on what can be demonstrated empirically. Remember: even in a court room, scientific evidence is only one type of admissible evidence. Even then, it's not always gold.

Now if you are suggesting that there are observational bases in the natural world from which a reasonable person can infer the Supernatural, then I would agree.

But that is not the same thing as saying that the Supernatural is scientific.

John continues: Letting the evidence speak for itself and lead to the logical conclusions, THAT is science!

Nope. It's not science. I would agree that your inference of God has a reasonable observational basis from your studies of science--just as my experience as a designer of systems rationally underscores my belief in God--but that is not the same thing as saying that I can scientifically establish that there is a God.

After all, I cannot design experiments that cause God to appear in the data every time.

If that were so, then God would be natural and potentially subjectible to the whims of Man. In such a case, God wouldn't really be God.

[68. Ted Slater said the following at 11:13 AM on Mar 3:]

68

John wrote, "Science is not limited to only the natural."

I'm afraid it is, by very definition. As such, science has limitations for those of us who seek Truth.

There is much in this world that is meaningful and true which can't be adequately explored via mere science.

[69. andrew spivack said the following at 11:48 AM on Mar 3:]

69

Just one quick thing about Behe: he did indeed present a falsifiable hypothesis. And it was falsified. It'll take him some time to get over the spanking he received at the Dover trial. I just wonder if he'll ever use the flagellum example again, or if he's going to at least pretend to be honest and avoid his debunked pet project.

[70. JB said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 3:]

70

Amir,

I think the problem is your insistence on proof. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers. It's simply never possible in science. Science, instead, is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena. For us to hold a theory provisionally true, we just need to show that there is a prima facia case for it, that it explains the relevant phenomena, and that there is no better explanation. It is a scientific theory if it yields testable hypotheses.

It is always possible to show that scientific evidence falls short of formal proof. For example, you claim that sending robot probes to Mars proves our theories about planetary gravitation. I disagree - you can prove something about gravity on Mars, perhaps, but that does not constitute evidence about gravity on Jupiter or Alpha Centauri. And yet, if we're talking science, this kind of argument holds no weight because in the absence of any positive evidence that Jupiter or Alpha Centauri is unique we are willing to generalize our theory of gravitation pending a reason not to. I grant you that there is no proof for evolution, but as a theory it's the best thing going and so far the evidence supports it. That's a sufficiently good reason to keep using it. We're not building airplanes here, just the best explanations of the natural world.

We make just these kinds of logical leaps when we say that drug X can help cure your disease even though it's never been tested in your precise situation. We may be wrong, but science provides strong reasons to believe that certain things are true even the absence of formal proof.

As for Behe, he provides nothing testable at all. He doesn't seem to understand that evolution can not only add but also subtract. How about this thought experiment: Structures X, XY, XYZ, and YZ are functional but structures Y and Z are not. Here's an evolutionary path:
X->XY->XYZ->YZ

According to Behe, YZ is irreducibly complex because just Y or just Z is nonfunctional. But clearly, you can evolve the structure with no problems. So what if I do take away a protein from a flagellum and it becomes nonfunctional? That proves precisely nothing. That's why Behe is universally regarded as irrelevant in the scientific community. His testimony in the Dover evolution trail was pretty damning on the point.

[71. Tom Neven said the following at 12:04 PM on Mar 3:]

71

Andrew

I haven't been following the whole thread here, but I will add one comment:

You really have to stop relying on the Dover trial to prove your point. First, since when is the definition of "science" decided in a courtroom? Two, more than 90 percent of Judge Jones’ dissertation on intelligent design as science was taken verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. He even repeated factual errors in the ACLU's paper, so lazy was his work.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover is a textbook case of a judge making up his mind before the trial was ever held. There was no deliberation, no examiniation of the evidence or testimony, no "findings."

I would think people like you would be embarrassed at having to "win" this way.

Oh, and Behe was "falsified" only if you accept certain assumptions which themselves are not scientifically testable or falsifiable.

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:10 PM on Mar 3:]

72

Andrew says: Just one quick thing about Behe: he did indeed present a falsifiable hypothesis. And it was falsified. It'll take him some time to get over the spanking he received at the Dover trial. I just wonder if he'll ever use the flagellum example again, or if he's going to at least pretend to be honest and avoid his debunked pet project.

Actually, it was the Dover folks who got spanked (at the voting booth as well as the court room), not Behe. And they deserved the spanking they received, as they (a) attempted to promote a political agenda as a scientific one (which is exactly my gripe with Dawkins) and (b) flagrantly lied about their agenda. Shame on them.

That said, Behe's hypothesis has yet to be tested empirically, even though it is indeed quite testable, as an organism has any number of homeostatic control systems.

Many such systems would probably satisfy the Behe criterion for IC, whereas it is quite possible that others do not. There is only one way to find out...

[73. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:32 PM on Mar 3:]

73

JB says: I think the problem is your insistence on proof. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers. It's simply never possible in science. Science, instead, is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena.

I disagree. Science is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena via the application of the scientific method.

That is not to say that an untested hypothesis is not scientific--we agree on that.

On the other hand, a hypothesis lacking the gold standard of empirical data is less reliable than, say, one which does. Would you not agree with that?

JB continues: For us to hold a theory provisionally true, we just need to show that there is a prima facia case for it, that it explains the relevant phenomena, and that there is no better explanation. It is a scientific theory if it yields testable hypotheses.

It is always possible to show that scientific evidence falls short of formal proof. For example, you claim that sending robot probes to Mars proves our theories about planetary gravitation. I disagree - you can prove something about gravity on Mars, perhaps, but that does not constitute evidence about gravity on Jupiter or Alpha Centauri. And yet, if we're talking science, this kind of argument holds no weight because in the absence of any positive evidence that Jupiter or Alpha Centauri is unique we are willing to generalize our theory of gravitation pending a reason not to.

Actually, that we can land a rover on mars not only demonstrates that we know a thing or two about the gravitational activity on Mars; we also understand how Mars interacts gravitationally with other planets, the sun, and even the spacecraft that we landed on its surface.

JB continues: I grant you that there is no proof for evolution, but as a theory it's the best thing going and so far the evidence supports it.

And if evolutionists put it in those terms, I have no quarrel with it.

JB continues: That's a sufficiently good reason to keep using it. We're not building airplanes here, just the best explanations of the natural world.

If all that mattered were explanations of the natural world, we would have no quarrel here.

On the other hand, when scientists--using their credentials as such--attempt to foist radical sociopolitical agendas using those less-than-empirical hypotheses as pretext--then that is where we have a quarrel.

JB continues: As for Behe, he provides nothing testable at all. He doesn't seem to understand that evolution can not only add but also subtract. How about this thought experiment: Structures X, XY, XYZ, and YZ are functional but structures Y and Z are not. Here's an evolutionary path:
X->XY->XYZ->YZ

According to Behe, YZ is irreducibly complex because just Y or just Z is nonfunctional. But clearly, you can evolve the structure with no problems. So what if I do take away a protein from a flagellum and it becomes nonfunctional? That proves precisely nothing.

Sure it does. If you can prove X->XY->XYZ->YZ, then you have demonstrated the case against IC for that system. After all, we have millions of years of fossil records, so this should not be hard to do...

With biochemical processes--or any homeostatic control system--why is that so hard to examine?

As I said, while Behe is impressive, I am under no illusion with respect to the implications of IC on evolution: IC does not refute evolution. (I repeat myself because others seem to have misconstrued me as suggesting that it does.)

It does, however, challenge existing models, and could force many a scientist to refine their hypotheses. (I repeat myself here for aforementioned reasons.)

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:44 PM on Mar 3:]

74

Tom:

I agree with your points: (a) the courtroom ought to be about deciding matters of law, not what constitutes science, given that we have entire fields of study devoted to fighting that issue; and (b) Jones was very lazy in his dissertation.

On the other hand, I don't accept the premise that ID is science. It is impressive. It is worth discussing in that it helps illustrate what science is and is not.

But ID is not scientific.

[75. Matthew said the following at 12:55 PM on Mar 3:]

75

I think that all these comments kinda prove the point of the original post-- that it's easy to get really, really distracted from the Gospel when we decide that we're going to focus on expounding young-earth Creationism as a way of evangelizing.

Most of the debates I've seen about YEC vs. evolutionary theory have ended with non-Christians less likely to believe in Jesus than before. Does anyone else have any counter-examples, especially if they involve people who had studied evolutionary theory and were convinced first that YEC is true and from that chose to become Christians?

[76. kman said the following at 4:45 PM on Mar 3:]

76

re:irreducible complexity

Thought experiment:

Take the smallest unit that is defined as life.

Remove any atom and/or molecule(s) of your choosing. Repeating until the thing no longer meets the definition of alive.

That is the limit of irreducible complexity.

Taken to it's ultimate end you remove the final atom which gives you nothing. And I doubt anyone will try to argue a single atom is alive or even a collection of a few hundred or thousands.

IMHO Behe picked the wrong level at which to set the irreducible complexity at. It exists and can be found scientifically (see experiment above) if not without great difficulty

[77. Leah said the following at 4:56 PM on Mar 3:]

77

Andrew, by 'same side' I meant that as Christians, we should all agree on the basics... that we are sinners who have rebelled against God and who have been saved by Jesus' sacrifice.

Then again, spose one of you may not be a Christian...

[78. andrew spivack said the following at 5:08 PM on Mar 3:]

78

Tom -- You're right, science is not decided in the courtroom. However, it was the only chance ID had -- it is ridiculed (and worse) in the laboratories. ID went to court because it could not hope to win elsewhere. Which is why the Dover verdict must sting so much.

I must have done something to Amir. He seems to be a fairly reasonable human being when he is not talking to me. He apparently loses it when debating morality, however.

[79. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:17 PM on Mar 3:]

79

Matthew says: Most of the debates I've seen about YEC vs. evolutionary theory have ended with non-Christians less likely to believe in Jesus than before.

Careful Matthew. Let's not conflate the debate over the strength of evolution with the case for (or against) YEC. That the empirical case is weak for macro-evolution does not make YEC any more scientific.

Matthew continues: Does anyone else have any counter-examples, especially if they involve people who had studied evolutionary theory and were convinced first that YEC is true and from that chose to become Christians?

Actually, I've seen someone who fit that criteria. In his case, he saw a substantial case against macro-evolution after looking at the evidences both ways, and that dynamic set off the light bulbs.

That, however, is neither an endorsement nor a dismissal of YEC.

[80. k. said the following at 5:22 PM on Mar 3:]

80

This poor corpse is wearing lipstick, foundation, blush, eyeliner, AND mascara!

Leah - If you read Andrew's comments, sounds like he's an atheist. Which would be a pretty major difference. :)

[81. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:38 PM on Mar 3:]

81

Andrew: In person, we'd probably be laughing over beers, as I am laughing right now. (I'm not a teetotaler.)

Seriously...in the morality debate, all I did was take your reaoning to its logical conclusion. And most of what you called "hypothetical" has plenty of "actual" historical precedence.

If the only moral absolute is that "the species must survive", then it logically follows that anything in pursuit of that end is morally permissible.

(Tom Neven: you're the philosophy major here. Please be charitable, help Andrew out here and show me where my logic is wrong.)

Again, no one ever said you supported eugenics or genocide or euthanasia. In fact I'm quite glad you oppose those things.

On the other hand, the moral framework you articulated allows for them in pursuit of a positive evolutionary advantage.

And, as I pointed out, their commission on those grounds has historical precedent.

[82. andrew spivack said the following at 6:41 PM on Mar 3:]

82

No, Amir, you did not. You refused to actually read what I wrote, tried to force me to defend people I don't need to, and never once actually showed where I was wrong. Is eugenics wrong? Depends. Is murder wrong? Depends. Are all these horrible buzzwords wrong? Depends. You're still assuming that a given action is either always wrong, or always right. This is simply false. I can come up with situations where eugenics, rape, etc etc etc can be actually morally right.

[83. Chris said the following at 7:18 PM on Mar 3:]

83

John writes:

Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

Science is not limited to only the natural.

I refer you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its proof that the FSM exists be he is there changing the results of all our experiments as we measure them.

Yours in Noodliness.....

[84. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on Mar 3:]

84

Tom Neven writes:

You really have to stop relying on the Dover trial to prove your point. First, since when is the definition of "science" decided in a courtroom?

When someone tries to dress up religion as science, that's when. Ever notice the similarities pointed out between the creationist book slapped down in the Georgia case (Of Pandas and People) and the book mentioned in Dover (Of Pandas and People, again, with "creationism" replaced with "ID")? Ever notice the mission of the Thomas Moore Law Center, one of the defendants in the Dover case? They ain't exactly out there protecting scientific freedom.

[85. Leah said the following at 10:18 PM on Mar 3:]

85

Amir, your last post was addressed to "Leah H", not "Leah" (who is me). Please try to keep the two unconfused ;) Thanks.

k- there were so many comments going back and forth between them that I only read about half of them, so it's quite possible I missed the obviously atheist ones :D *shrugs*

[86. JB said the following at 1:01 AM on Mar 4:]

86

Amir,

So I take it that we agree that evolution is just a theory and can only be provisionally accepted. Where do you see that evolution has been misrepresented for a "radical sociopolitical agenda?"

[87. Matthew said the following at 6:11 AM on Mar 4:]

87

Amir,

I'm not trying to say anything either way about YEC, just the fact that it doesn't seem like a useful evangelistic strategy lead-in.

[88. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:00 AM on Mar 4:]

88

JB says: So I take it that we agree that evolution is just a theory and can only be provisionally accepted. Where do you see that evolution has been misrepresented for a "radical sociopolitical agenda?

Darwinism has been used as a pretext for a variety of social policies: eugenics and racialist policies, "population control" strategies, and cruel scientific experimentation. This has been the case both here and also in Europe. As I pointed out to Andrew, this is not a mere hypothetical, but rather a matter with substantial historical precedence.

In the larger sense, I included anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as another example. In this case, we are dealing with a premise that is solely based on mathematical models that (a) have no empirical basis and (b) have not proven to be good predictive instruments. And yet, AGW doomsday scenarios are being used to market Draconian government policies--nationally and internationally--that will have very devastating impacts both on our liberties and our economies.

[89. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:56 AM on Mar 4:]

89

Andrew says (emphasis mine): No, Amir, you did not. You refused to actually read what I wrote, tried to force me to defend people I don't need to, and never once actually showed where I was wrong. Is eugenics wrong? Depends. Is murder wrong? Depends. Are all these horrible buzzwords wrong? Depends. You're still assuming that a given action is either always wrong, or always right. This is simply false. I can come up with situations where eugenics, rape, etc etc etc can be actually morally right.

You are finally admitting to what I said your framework allows. So what have I misrepresented?

[90. John said the following at 11:25 AM on Mar 4:]

90

If science is limited to only the natural, then somebody better tell mathematicians.

Also, if science is limited to only the natural, then Darwinist evolution is not scientific.

And if ID and creationism aren't science, then neither is archeology or forensics or paleontology.

Food for thought:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6032

[91. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:26 PM on Mar 4:]

91

John says: If science is limited to only the natural, then somebody better tell mathematicians.

In reality, mathematics is all about the natural world. It is a systematic method for describing relationships in quantifiable terms.

John continues: Also, if science is limited to only the natural, then Darwinist evolution is not scientific.

Actually, the hypothesis is scientific in that it is falsifiable. you would be correct, however, in that--at the macro level--empirical proof is elusive.

Empirically unproven hypotheses are less reliable than those that are proven.

John continues: And if ID and creationism aren't science, then neither is archeology or forensics or paleontology.

The fields themselves are not scientific; however, they provide data from which one can formulate scientific hypotheses.

ID is not falsifiable, nor is it empirical. Neither is Creationism.

On the other hand, that is not to say that ID does not have value; it certainly does. Creationism also has value in that Creationists have done a great job in pointing out the shortcomings of Darwinism.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a Creationist formulate a testable hypothesis that would constitute a scientific case for a Creator.

And remember: science is not the end-all, as--even in a courtroom--scientific evidence is only one type of admissible evidence.

:::putting tongue in cheek:::
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Andrew needs to keep reading the National Enquirer. I killed FSM with my sniper rifle and sent pictures to the NE.

The story should hit the papers next week...
:::removing tongue from cheek:::

[92. andrew spivack said the following at 1:20 PM on Mar 4:]

92

What you have failed to demonstrate, Amir, is that my statement is wrong. I can come up with situation where all those "wrong" things are right. That does not disprove my analysis. It merely means that while we're repulsed by certain actions in our current world, that does not mean these actions are always wrong. They become right when survival of the species is at stake.

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:49 PM on Mar 4:]

93

Andrew:

Minus an objective framework, anything is permissible, as anything is construable in terms of a "positive evolutionary advantage", and--that being the criteria--anything in pursuit of that is morally permissible. That has always been my point.

(You were the one who spent considerable effort making the evolutionary case against rape while I pointed out that your paradigm quite well allowed for it.)

For example, you were quite repulsed by my suggestion that wiping out entire populations--including the country of my heritage (Iran)--is logically possible in your framework.

Why were you so repulsed, Andrew? If entire populations are net consumers--rather than producers--of capital, then why does eradicating them repulse you so much, given that doing so provides a "positive evolutionary advantage"?

Heck, that makes even more sense than what Hitler did. (In fact, by targeting Jews, Hitler was committing national suicide, as he targeted the most intelligent--and best producers of wealth--in the country, thus destroying economic capital in addition to lives.) So tell me...why does that repulse you?

Moreover, you have failed to demonstrate that the premise that the species must survive is a moral absolute.

That people have the natural inclination to survive does not make the pursuit of survival a moral obligation any more than the natural inclination to tell lies--every bit as instinctive--makes dishonest gain a moral obligation.

Species die every day. That being the case, what moral difference does it make whether homo sapiens survives?

[94. JB said the following at 2:36 PM on Mar 4:]

94

Amir,

I think that when we apply science to policy, there are at least two things that need to happen. First, we need to assess whether the science is reliable enough to be a rational basis for action. Second, we need to apply our values to see which possible actions we should take, if any.

So, take global warming for example. We first need to determine if the science is good enough. What "good enough" means is going to be situational and depend partly on a risk analysis. However, rarely if ever does "good enough" mean "proven." We are always going to have to act on projections and models which are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

But even if we agreed that anthropogenic global warming was real and dangerous, that wouldn't be enough by itself to conclude that we should act. It is nonscientific value judgments that tell us things like, "Global starvation is bad, so we should take steps to avoid it." And beyond that, it is value judgments which allow us to decide what levels of cost we are willing to incur to avert certain levels of risk.

This second point is what separates evolutionary theory from practices like eugenics. Evolution tells us that less fit organisms are less likely to survive, but that does not imply that we should do something about those less fit organisms. You need a value judgment to make the leap from the *is* of science to the *ought* of policy.

I think that distinction is obscured in a lot of these discussions. If you really think that there's a better theory out there than evolution, by all means challenge the science. But if you just dislike eugenics (or Communism), then challenge the value judgments that lead people to support those policies instead.

[95. andrew spivack said the following at 4:09 PM on Mar 4:]

95

Amir, take a breath. Don't get so wound up.

Yes, everything deals with positive evolutionary advantage. Including eugenics. I have already said this, but you simply ignored it. So I'll say it again: the single greatest evolutionary advantage a species can have is a genetic diversity. Do you follow? That means that under ordinary circumstances removing anyone from the gene pool is a bad idea. In some circumstances this is outweighed by other considerations, of course, but in general evolution demands maximum genetic diversity in order for the species to survive. Eugenics try to take this idea and pervert it. The fact is, no one knows what future natural selection will wind up choosing. However, every species, including humans, practice small-scale eugenics on a constant basis. When you choose a mate you practice eugenics, by definition. You are finding someone whose genes you want to survive to the exclusion of those whose genes you don't.

And "species must survive" is NOT a moral absolute. It's a biological absolute from which we derive our morals. The biological absolute simply exists because, as I've explained before, species that lack it don't make it. It's like asking to prove that "people should have 2 legs" is a moral absolute. It's not, people who have the gene for only 1 leg didn't survive predators nearly as well as those with 2 legs. We made up the concept of "morals" to verbally codify common outcomes of applying "species must survive" to everyday life.

Again, as for lying, it's not a moral absolute either. After all, are you saying that one should never lie?

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:15 PM on Mar 4:]

96

JB says: Amir,

I think that when we apply science to policy, there are at least two things that need to happen. First, we need to assess whether the science is reliable enough to be a rational basis for action. Second, we need to apply our values to see which possible actions we should take, if any.

What values?

Even Andrew's stated moral absolute--the species must survive--has no objective foundation. He has not provided a basis for why that is a moral absolute.

JB: So, take global warming for example. We first need to determine if the science is good enough. What "good enough" means is going to be situational and depend partly on a risk analysis. However, rarely if ever does "good enough" mean "proven." We are always going to have to act on projections and models which are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

And that means testing the validity of the models themselves as predictors.

JB Continues: But even if we agreed that anthropogenic global warming was real and dangerous, that wouldn't be enough by itself to conclude that we should act. It is nonscientific value judgments that tell us things like, "Global starvation is bad, so we should take steps to avoid it." And beyond that, it is value judgments which allow us to decide what levels of cost we are willing to incur to avert certain levels of risk.

The issues are (a) what is the global warming (GW) trend, (b) how does it compare with what we know historically, (c) does GW have an anthropogenic component, (d) to what extent does the anthropogenic component--if it exists--contribute to the overall GW picture, (c) what impact the proposed solutions would have on the overall GW picture, and (d) what the impact--in terms of economics, socio-political factors, and lives--would constitute a marginal benefit that justifies the marginal costs.

Trouble is, as we are finding out, (a) hasn't been established as well as the hysteria justifies, as our warmest year on record was nearly 10 years ago and last year was our largest single-year temperature drop ever recorded.

That also underscores that our models are not proving effective as predictors of climate change trends.

JB continues: This second point is what separates evolutionary theory from practices like eugenics. Evolution tells us that less fit organisms are less likely to survive, but that does not imply that we should do something about those less fit organisms. You need a value judgment to make the leap from the *is* of science to the *ought* of policy.

On the other hand, if--as Andrew has stated--the only moral absolute is that the species must survive, then anything done in pursuit of that end is morally permissible.

Ergo, eugenics, sterilizations, and other "population control efforts" that eradicate populations that are net consumers of economic assets are each morally permissible and--in Andrew's stated paradigm--could easily be more moral than working to continue those races to survive. Especially if letting them survive provides a lower marginal benefit than eradicating them.

Remember: you said we need to apply "our values". Trouble is, what you and I value is not the same as what Peter Singer "values". Absent an objective framework, "values" are just a matter of who has the better artillery.

JB continues: I think that distinction is obscured in a lot of these discussions. If you really think that there's a better theory out there than evolution, by all means challenge the science.

Oh, I certainly have challenged the science, and even you concurred regarding the lack of empirical proof for macro-evolution (which we have agreed--I believe--that as an unproven hypothesis, it carries less reliability and therefore less validity and therefore less relevance in the contribution to moral discussion.)

JB continues: But if you just dislike eugenics (or Communism), then challenge the value judgments that lead people to support those policies instead.

Actually, neither eugenics nor communism nor any classically fascistic governmental initiatives of the 1900s would have been possible outside the Darwinian paradigm, as the latter was merely the fuel for the fire.

Those are merely policy instruments applied with the help of scientists, academicians, and policymakers who shared that mindset. In this country they were in both political parties; in Europe it was classical fascism in Spain, Italy, Germany (Nazism), and Russia (Bolshevism).

We look back at those with revulsion, but at the time, very few people questioned the ends or even the means. In fact, our taxpayer dollars continue to fund such efforts.

[97. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:39 PM on Mar 4:]

97

Andrew says: Yes, everything deals with positive evolutionary advantage. Including eugenics. I have already said this, but you simply ignored it. So I'll say it again: the single greatest evolutionary advantage a species can have is a genetic diversity. Do you follow? That means that under ordinary circumstances removing anyone from the gene pool is a bad idea. In some circumstances this is outweighed by other considerations, of course, but in general evolution demands maximum genetic diversity in order for the species to survive.

On the other hand, it is an empirical fact that wealth increases the capacity of a society to survive. (Compare survival probabilities for natural disasters and pandemics and other catastrophes among producing populations versus consuming populations and you will see what I am talking about.)

Ergo, eradicating those populations will yield a positive evolutionary advantage by freeing up the economic assets for portions of the species to produce wealth. In addition, implementing policies that hike the birth rates of net producers--which are more intelligent, resourceful, and more likely to be innovators--makes perfect evolutionary sense.

Andrew continues: Eugenics try to take this idea and pervert it. The fact is, no one knows what future natural selection will wind up choosing. However, every species, including humans, practice small-scale eugenics on a constant basis. When you choose a mate you practice eugenics, by definition. You are finding someone whose genes you want to survive to the exclusion of those whose genes you don't.

That was the funniest thing I've read all year! I'd buy you a beer for that one! ;)

Seriously, Andrew. When a person chooses a mate, it's almost never a genetic matter, but in fact involves a combination of (a) love, (b) common interests, (c) economics, (d) the desire for companionship, and (e) spiritual considerations. I've yet to meet anyone who got married on the basis of "I want my genes combining with her genes."

I have, however, heard many a guy say, "I want my genes in her JEANS", but that's a different matter! ;)

Andrew continues: And "species must survive" is NOT a moral absolute. It's a biological absolute from which we derive our morals.

You proclaimed it as a moral absolute, but--ok--from now on I will assume that you meant a "biological absolute", as this is a modification that clarifies what you meant.

Even then, on what basis is that an absolute truth?

It is a proven biological absolute--empirically demonstrable--that species die often. Ergo, it is not a biological absolute that the species must survive.

Andrew continues: The biological absolute simply exists because, as I've explained before, species that lack it don't make it. It's like asking to prove that "people should have 2 legs" is a moral absolute. It's not, people who have the gene for only 1 leg didn't survive predators nearly as well as those with 2 legs. We made up the concept of "morals" to verbally codify common outcomes of applying "species must survive" to everyday life.

It would be fair to say that the species must have the will to survive if the species expects to survive.

Andrew continues: Again, as for lying, it's not a moral absolute either. After all, are you saying that one should never lie?

I am suggesting that dishonest gain is always wrong.

But if all that matters is that the species must survive, then no, that statement wouldn't even be true.

[98. Leah H said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 4:]

98

This corpse doesn't just have lipstick, it has a face full of makeup and a nice outfit complete with accessories!

:)

[99. andrew spivack said the following at 12:55 AM on Mar 5:]

99

Suggesting that a wealthy society is more likely to survive, so we should eradicate the poor is you arguing that if you add 1 and subtract 16,987 you will wind up with a positive number. The loss to the species from losing the genetic diversity outweighs by a huge margin the positives from having a wealthier society survive. Not to mention that it's pretty stupid to suggest that poorer societies surviving is having a negative effect on the wealthier societies.

Love is eugenics. We love those who are compatible and all that, but what that means, on a biological level, is whose genes do we want to pass on. This is why we look for attractive mates -- attractiveness is an indication of health. Love is not this supernatural, dreamy thing. Practically speaking we're attracted and "fall in love with" those whose genetics we most want to survive. That can include intelligence, strength, talent, etc. Guess why weak, stupid, ugly people don't have a lot of suitors.

Define "dishonest gain". You first suggested that "lying" is always wrong. Obviously you're backtracking now, since even you realize this is not true. So once you define the term "dishonest gain" I will gladly provide several examples where this would be morally right. So you're better off not defining it.

[100. John said the following at 5:19 AM on Mar 5:]

100

Amir,

You're definition of science is very limited.

Math deals with the abstract as well as the natural. So, no, according to your definition, it isn't science. Only problem is, it is science.

I did notice that you conveniently over looked my point about archeology, paleontology and forensics. Are they science to you? If they are, then so are ID and Creationism.

Lastly, according to your definition of science, than Darwinistic evolution is NOT science, because it has never been observed, CANNOT be falsified and relies heavily on paleontology for evidence (of which there is none).

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 3:55 PM on Feb 28:]

1

I think this is a very good thing to keep in mine. As I said in one of the past conversations on evolution, it's usually not worth debating because for most parties involved, it's not about evidence, and this is in part because they disagree on what counts as evidence, etc. Once someone believes the claims of Christ, then we have some common point to work from. When I interact with non-Christians, I usually only bring up evolution when talking about morality with naturalists.

On the point of humility, I agree as well. I work with an apologetics ministry in the summer, and I have seem more arrogant Christians ready to go out and try to blow off anyone who disagrees with them. One of our lecturers makes the point that we can't treat our apologetics tools, questions and methods like a sledge hammer, but rather we should see them as pry bars.

Of course, the most successful apologist discerns what is appropriate in each interaction. There is no silver bullet argument or bit of evidence.

[2. Sarah said the following at 4:01 PM on Feb 28:]

2

I agree that we should not shy away from discussing these issues with non-believers, but we do need to keep it in perspective.

As your last sentence indicates and as I once heard, a non-believer's "greatest" sin is not whether they lie or cheat; their "greatest" sin is that they are rejecting God. Until they have been reconciled to the Father, we as believers cannot demand any sort of Biblical morality or belief system from them.

And regardless of who we get into debates with, humility, love, and grace should indeed be the seasoning of our conversation. (Col. 4:5-6)

Great post!

[3. Athena said the following at 4:27 PM on Feb 28:]

3

Btw, Tim Keller will be in California speaking at UC Berkeley next Tuesday on 3/4.

[4. Katie B said the following at 6:11 PM on Feb 28:]

4

I have visited Kellers church a few times, he is a phenomenal preacher and I was very impressed with his theology. I agree with him here, until recently I led a homeless outreach ministry in manhattan, and I was always fascinated by the way the people on my team would get into arguments with people to whom we were serving, about things like politics, abortion, abstinance, homosexuality. Those conversations never ended well, arguing makes us as christians look like we are only concerned about rules and being right. the message of christ crucified almost always gets lost and we wonder why people are unreceptive to our 'evangelism'

[5. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 28:]

5

This is not merely about evolution versus Creationism. In fact, the debates are necessary for a number of reasons:

(a) What constitutes good science?

Last time I checked, the practice of science requires (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) experimentation to test that hypothesis, and (4) observation of the results of that experimentation.

That means

(1) in order for something to be scientific, it must be testable via experimentation.

(2) mathematical models are not an acceptable substitute for empirical data.

On those grounds, macro-evolution, Biblical Creation, and anthropogenic global warming are each unscientific.

(b) There are movers and shakers in the scientific community who are cross-dressing totalitarian socio-political agendas as "science".

The Christian has every right to call these techno-commies for the frauds that they are. Kinsey slam-dunked a perverted agenda on the world under the guise of "science"; the eugenics movement of the early 1900s paved the way for a whole set of atrocities under the guise of "science".

We now have "scientists" using unscientific claims--by that I mean hypotheses for which the experimental data is nonexistent--to slam-dunk their social policies on the world.

That they--Harris, Dawkins, Dennett--are actively attacking the Christian requires a decisive answer from the Church.

Pointing out the folly and illogic of their case--which authors such as D'Souza and Vox Day have done quite well--is the responsibility of the Christian.

[6. Leah H said the following at 7:26 PM on Feb 28:]

6

I think that Jacob makes a good point (in post #1) when he says that he has seen "more arrogant Christians ready to go out and try to blow off anyone who disagrees with them". I think it is important to remember that the end result is that person being won to Christ, and not who is right or wrong about an issue, or who has the last word.

[7. farmer Tom said the following at 7:32 PM on Feb 28:]

7

Hebrews 11:6 says,

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I believe it is imperative that someone who does not know Jesus Christ as personal Savior, through logic and reason come to a point that they must admit God exists. Only then can they understand the significance of the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus Christ proved through the resurrection that He was God in the flesh. If one does not believe that Jesus Christ was God, indeed, if they reject the very idea of God, then it is not possible for them to understand the resurrection. I Corinthians 15 is nonsense unless there is a God,

"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

I understand the authors concern over arguing the creation vs evolution debate instead of preaching the gospel message, clearly we need to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. One would assume that you do not give a drivers license to a baby, and sharing the plan of salvation with someone who rejects the very idea of God is equally absurd. Until someone comes to the understand that there is a God, that we are sinners and He is Holy, there is no need for Salvation.

Keller warns against getting side tracked with non-salvific issues like evolution.

And therein lies my problem. Evolution at its core, contrary to what many of you want to believe, a theory and belief system which purposely excludes the very notion of a god or God from the equation. Evolutionary theory tries to explain all of history and all biological systems as simply products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes. And an honest evolutionist must admit that his belief system intentionally excludes the very idea of a god/God.

If you are trying to share the gospel with that evolutionist, he must come to the understanding that there is a God, according to Hebrews 11:6. If you accept his evolutionary theory, then you are attempting to make the Gospel fit into a world view which rejects the concept of God. If you ignore the fact that evolution excludes the necessity for a creator God, then you're talking past him, when you try to explain the need for salvation and the resurrection, using terms and ideas he does not accept.

[8. Peter K said the following at 8:54 PM on Feb 28:]

8

To Amir, number 5:

I would disagree with your definition of science, it's too narrow. There are 3 kinds:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid.

Also, you need to be careful about lumping those who hold to a certain scientific theory and those who are presenting a world view based on that theory. A Christian can hold to some form of evolution without accepting an evolutionist/aetheistic worldview.

I've recently been reading a great book from a Christian scientific perspective. It's called "Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution", by Deborah and Loren Haarsma. Check it out, it's really great and really talks just as much about the relationship between faith and science than any specific scientific point of view. The authors point out that God has given us truth through two sources: his Word, and his world. Just as theology is our interpretation of the Word, science is our interpretation of his world. Both of these can be done very poorly, leading to bad conclusions. Both can also be done well. If they are both done well, they both reveal truth that is in harmony with the other. If one is interpreted incorrectly, they will not be in harmony. So when there is perceived opposition - that is all it is, a perception. The truth of the world, discovered through science (done well), cannot be in conflict with the Word, and vice versa.

[9. andrew spivack said the following at 8:56 PM on Feb 28:]

9

Give it a rest, Amir. Leave science to the scientists. We don't care what Vox Day or Dinesh D'Souza have to say. Really, we don't. And we don't need non-scientists telling us what is and isn't science any more than you need an imam explaining to you what "true Christianity" is, or you need a car mechanic teaching dentists how to do root canals.

[10. Leah said the following at 9:09 PM on Feb 28:]

10

I've had that recommended to me many times. For sure, if someone asks you or gets you involved in a conversation about a peripheral issue (eg. evolution, the age of the earth, Christianity's views of other gods etc), then do get involved. But don't make it the main point. Wherever possible, bring it back to Christ. Preach the gospel, not all the peripheral issues. So I suppose our conversations could look something like Gospel, Christ, Gospel, Evolution, Christ, Gospel, Christ, Muslims, Gospel, Christ, Gospel... and so on.

[11. Brendan said the following at 9:32 PM on Feb 28:]

11

I feel that discussion or teaching rather than argument is better, but I do believe that discussing these issues are necessary.

For example, If I try to talk to an atheist about the truth of Christ's death and resurrection, it's likely he/she would stop me and try to divert the discussion towards the creation issue. After all, why should an atheist care that someone died to save them from slavery to sin, when they think that God doesn't even exist, and so sin isn't even defined. How can I tell them the good news about Jesus if they can't even accept the fallen state of humanity described in Genesis, because they don't believe Genesis is correct?

We also shouldn't try to simply say "I'm right because the scriptures say so, and the scriptures are from God." Such an argument is a logical fallacy when the divine origin of the text and it's accuracy and truth is what is disputed in the first place! Instead we should be trying to show people the interpretations of scripture that, when combined with the non-spiritual knowledge of today, actually show that those parts of scripture are trustworthy, while also pointing out the flaws in biological evolution arguments.

Anyway, I think Augustine said it better than I ever could, so I shall quote him here:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

[12. Leah said the following at 9:49 PM on Feb 28:]

12

farmer Tom-

through whose logic must an unbeliever come to believe God must exist? Your logic? Their logic? God's logic?

Logic is subjective. The logic of the Ancient Greeks is not the same logic we hold. What is logical to them would not be logical to us. Logic alone can never convince somebody of Jesus. Logic could convince someone that a god must exist, but it will do nothing towards convincing them of the God of the Christians. On the other hand, logic may have nothing to do with it. You cannot put the power of the gospel in the logic box and say that the gospel is powerless until someone comes to a belief of a god by their own logic. Sometimes it is the gospel which gives them the 'logic' required.

Also, not all aspects of evolution exclude the possibility of God. Some people think God created the Big Bang. Others think God created the world, but used evolution to create the different types of animals. While it is pretty apparent from the bible this is false, it still doesn't necessarily exclude God from the equation. However, you'd be quite right to say that many people do use it to exclude God. You say that Evolutionary theory tries to explain all of history and all biological systems as simply products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes.- a more accurate sentence would be "many evolutionary theories try to explain history... as products of time/chance and uniformitarian processes". Because there isn't just one evolutionary theory.

I am not saying that we should accept an evolutionist's theory- far from it. However, we shouldn't be out JUST to prove that there is a god. We should be out to demonstrate our God. This will sometimes include discussing that evolution is not compatible with God, but it should not be the main arguging point of all your evangelistic discussions. If we simply preach the gospel, who knows what powerful things the Holy Spirit may do?

We shouldn't be out to prove simply that logically, a god must exist.

[13. JB said the following at 11:06 PM on Feb 28:]

13

Farmer Tom,

I hold the opposite view. The theologian Karl Barth made the point that the God of the Bible is not some object in the world which we can come to know through research or reason, He is the ultimate Subject who allows Himself to be known through the revealed Word. The god that one derives from logical proofs or creationist research is not the God of the Bible at all, but rather an idol to human reason. The only way to know God is through revelation, so to say that you need to prove the existence of God before you share that revelation is getting things backward. Not only will it not work, but it's theologically dodgy.

In point of fact, there are plenty of people walking around who profess a belief in Christ and will happily recite the historical creeds of the Church while also believing in evolution. I'm one of them. You might think that this is a contradictory position, but it works well for some. In any case, I doubt that complete theological purity is a precondition for salvation. If it is, we're all in trouble.

[14. Jo said the following at 1:39 AM on Feb 29:]

14

I agree with the article completely. Topics like evolution, homosexuality etc can so easily become debates where the goal is to be right at all costs. We always need to remember that our aim is the other person's salvation, and speak accordingly. I also think we need to treat them as we want them to treat us: listen to their point of view and honestly assess the validity of what they're saying, rather than dismissing them out of hand. Who cares if they believe that Jesus was an alien or that science has disproved God - we may not respect their beliefs, but in listening respectfully to them we show we respect the person. Not only that, but we can often find nuggets of truth in their beliefs that we can use to point towards the real Truth. (See Paul's sermon on the 'unknown God' in Acts)

And we must try not to get frustrated. It isn't our job to convince anyone, it's God's. People often need to hear the Gospel lots and lots of times before accepting it. Even if you never see someone saved, your witness is still crucial.

[15. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:17 AM on Feb 29:]

15

Peter says: I would disagree with your definition of science, it's too narrow. There are 3 kinds:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Even with respect to those, you are formulating theories based on experimental results with respect to light, heat, and electromagnetics. You aren't getting perfect results that way, but there is at least some experimental basis here.

Peter continues: Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

With respect to historical matters, that is where things get thorny, as in many of these cases there are many ways to interpret the data, and without an experimental basis for backup.

Such historical fields of study are perfectly valid for higher criticism.

Peter continues: I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid.

On the other hand, not having a testable hypothesis puts you behind the 8-ball.

And no, mathematical models are not an acceptable substitute for empirical data.

Peter continues: Also, you need to be careful about lumping those who hold to a certain scientific theory and those who are presenting a world view based on that theory. A Christian can hold to some form of evolution without accepting an evolutionist/aetheistic worldview.

I never said they couldn't, nor did my post have anything to do with Christians who accept variations of evolution; on the other hand, I am addressing a couple of valid issues that need to be addressed:

(1) Political agendas wrapped in scientific veneer
This is nothing new, as the eugenics movement in the early 1900s stands as evidence. And it only got worse as the century unfolded.

(2) Scientists slam-dunking non-scientific claims while dismissing legitimate criticisms as non-scientific.
A good example, besides the macro-evolution debate, is the premise of anthropogenic global warming. Contrary to what you are hearing, (1) Consensus does not equal science and (2) the science is anything but settled on this matter.

As Mondale said to Hart in 1984: Where's the beef?

[16. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:30 AM on Feb 29:]

16

Andrew says: Give it a rest, Amir. Leave science to the scientists. We don't care what Vox Day or Dinesh D'Souza have to say. Really, we don't. And we don't need non-scientists telling us what is and isn't science any more than you need an imam explaining to you what "true Christianity" is, or you need a car mechanic teaching dentists how to do root canals.

Ya know, Andrew, if I didn't know any better, I would suspect that your real name is Ted Slater, and you are just posting under a different name in an attempt to make atheists look bad. ;)

You're right: I'm not a scientist; I'm just an aeronautical engineering graduate who knows a few things about control systems (including robotics), aerodynamics, thermodynamics, aircraft structures, stability and control, and even electrical engineering principles, both in concept as well as the mathematical analysis of such systems. I'm also a robotics engineer in addition to my day job as an IT professional.

Suffice it to say that I'm qualified enough to know the difference between science versus politics cross-dressed as science.

[17. kman said the following at 7:38 AM on Feb 29:]

17

Andrew spivak-

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

And you've made up your mind about the content of Mr D'nesh and Day's writings.
When you say you don't care, is it because you've read their materials and decided they are just wrong? Or have decided they are wrong and won't read what they've written?

[18. Katie said the following at 10:09 AM on Feb 29:]

18

Amir, one question. I agree that issues like evolution, as well as homosexuality, abortion ect. are of significance because they are matters of factual and moral truth. I am not personally interested in the science of evolution or creation, but what is the purpose of debating? I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I dont think these issues are important to evangelism. I havent met anybody who became a christian because it was factually acurate. People need God not because he created the world a certain way, but because he created them with a certain need for him.

[19. andrew spivack said the following at 10:28 AM on Feb 29:]

19

Good one, Amir. Meanwhile I have a master's degree in physics, and am a few months away from a PhD. What's your point? And considering that there are thousands (if not millions) of PhD scientists out there who are working, or have worked on fields like evolution, and other areas related to it, I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts.

kman -- have not read Vox Day, not sure why I should. Have listened to a couple of Dinesh debates. He may be one of the dimmest bulbs out there in the public eye. At least people like Ann Coulter are so over-the-top as to be funny. Dinesh is stuck in that no-man's land where he takes himself so seriously that it's not even amusing to laugh along with him. Needless to say he has no idea what he's talking about, and got wiped out in a debate with Daniel Dennett (and Dennett didn't seem to be trying particularly hard). I'm sorry, the man is just... what's the word? dumb.

[20. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:37 AM on Feb 29:]

20

Katie asks: Amir, one question. I agree that issues like evolution, as well as homosexuality, abortion ect. are of significance because they are matters of factual and moral truth. I am not personally interested in the science of evolution or creation, but what is the purpose of debating? I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I dont think these issues are important to evangelism. I havent met anybody who became a christian because it was factually acurate. People need God not because he created the world a certain way, but because he created them with a certain need for him.

That's an easy one. It's not simply about the Christian, nor is it solely about evangelism.

In the early 1900s, the Church was largely silent as the progressive movement--which involved scientists, educators, politicians, and sociologists--slam-dunked a very shady social agenda on the world, the price for which we are still paying today.

If you think this is merely about evolution or even homosexuality, you are mistaken. Evolution (and by that I mean macro-evolution) is the tip of the iceberg.

The larger issue is the extent to which the Church ought to confront a community of scientists who are taking non-scientific claims, presenting them as gospel, and then using those as pretexts to slam-dunk radical socio-political agendas down our throats.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:51 AM on Feb 29:]

21

Good one, Amir. Meanwhile I have a master's degree in physics, and am a few months away from a PhD. What's your point? And considering that there are thousands (if not millions) of PhD scientists out there who are working, or have worked on fields like evolution, and other areas related to it, I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts.

If that is the case, Andrew, then why do you resort to personal attacks rather than debate the merits of my statements?

I've raised perfectly legitimate questions, and you cannot--or simply have chosen not to--answer them. That sure does not sound like the reasoning of a soon-to-be PhD. Either that or you are proof that our academic standards are heading for the dunghill...

All you seem to do is tell people they know nothing about science, yet when they raise legitimate questions, you put them down for raising them.

To quote someone from a previous thread, put up or...

As for Vox Day and D'Souza, what are you afraid of? Are you really as smart as you claim to be? If you are, go ahead and read The Irrational Atheist. Feel free to take Vox on and show him the error of his ways.

If what have provided here is any indication of what kind of game you have, you're toast, buddy.

As for my work in IT, I simply went where the money was. Lots of physics and engineering majors have done the same thing. ;)

[22. JB said the following at 11:06 AM on Feb 29:]

22

Amir,

I don't understand your criticism of evolution as being non-scientific. Not only is it well within the tradition of non-experimental scientific fields (such as geology, astronomy, climatology, etc) but people do in fact perform relevant observations and experiments. For example, there are plenty of people doing experimental work on molecular mechanisms of mutation, which bears directly on evolutionary theory. And you can certainly make testable hypotheses - show me a new species and I'll hypothesize testable things about its biochemistry on the basis of evolution. The "historical" aspects of evolution are also well within the scientific tradition - all of science is about the parsimonious explanation of observations and many of those explanations involve a time frame. None of this is unique to evolutionary theory at all. I don't know what you mean, then, when you talk about "science."

As for your other critiques, I think your comments about political agendas being wrapped in science are non-unique. Political agendas always wrap themselves in the language of influential ideologies. The language of racism, for example, was scientific in the last century, but before that it was blatantly religious. That's not an indictment of either science or religion.

[23. Katie said the following at 11:12 AM on Feb 29:]

23

Thank you Amir, I understand better now. I read the post as refering to evangelism, and I assume many others here are talking from that perspective: how to present the Truth, that is, Christ, in order to meet peoples needs and bring them to belief. talking about what is accurate is a separate topic, an important one in circles of science, because science is about being accurate, I think... I failed high school chemistry. :)
One more question if you dont mind: How important are questions of evolution and similar issues of factual accuracy to your relationship and how you share your faith?
(thats not meant to sound accusing or anything, I was just wondering because you seem to be getting a lot of flak about it)

[24. Kassam said the following at 11:30 AM on Feb 29:]

24

Andrew at #9 said, "Leave science to the scientists."

Why? Sure, I wouldn't tell a chemist how to do chemistry, but if he is using that chemistry toward unethical or immoral goals, then I have every right to criticize him. More important, if he uses his expertise in chemistry to venture into fields he has expertise in, then even more so.

Why do we allow people like Christopher Hitchens or Carl Sagan spout off about things they know nothing about and (this constantly amazes me) be treated like learned fellows just because they know something about a different topic.

Why should we allow a Richard Dawkins to tell our children there is no God? That's what he wants to do, even though it's clear he's never studied theology a day in his life. (Or if he did, he slept through the classes.) The same is true of Harris and Hitchens.

[25. kman said the following at 11:33 AM on Feb 29:]

25

andrew spivak-

I'm sure you'll have a place in the public eye refuting Christianity. We need more people, such as yourself, refuting Christianity and theism. That any theist would try to attack atheism is just ridiculous and people like yourself need to step forward, I'm not suited to the task. There's a world full of deluded folks that need to know the truth.

:)

[26. Kassam said the following at 11:37 AM on Feb 29:]

26

Andrew (again) at #19 says, "I'm struggling to see why we should take the word of an IT guy. But that's just me, I kinda prefer experts."

Do you not read carefully, Mr. Andrew? He listed all his expertise, and you seize on his "day job" to belittle him. It seems that someone who has the engineering background of Mr. Amir understands the world of design quite well, and apparently he see it in nature.

You come in here and try to be the expert but succeed only in missing the point, in addition to belittling and mocking anyone who disagrees with you.

As my grandmother used to say, "Don't try to make yourself so big by making others so small. You succeed only in the opposite."

[27. John said the following at 12:04 PM on Feb 29:]

27

Wow. Smart people are really dumb.

No, there was no death before the fall.

"The wages of sin are death"

Bible 101.

Please, people, stop feeding the troll (Andrew).

He has a physics degree. So he's an expert on evolution and science. We're horribly out-matched by his enourmous ego intellect.

[28. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:53 PM on Feb 29:]

28

JB Says:

Amir,

I don't understand your criticism of evolution as being non-scientific.

Micro-evolution is very scientific; macro-evolution is not. I say this based on the valid criticisms that scientists make of "Creation Science" (CS). The operative criticism is that CS is not testable via the scientific method, ergo it is not scientific.

I accept that criticism, and therefore it also applies to macro-evolution.

JB continues: Not only is it well within the tradition of non-experimental scientific fields (such as geology, astronomy, climatology, etc) but people do in fact perform relevant observations and experiments. For example, there are plenty of people doing experimental work on molecular mechanisms of mutation, which bears directly on evolutionary theory.

An empirical proof for micro-evolution--which I've never contested--does not constitute a proof for macro-evolution. You are conflating the two whereas I have been quite careful to differentiate between the two.

JB continues: And you can certainly make testable hypotheses - show me a new species and I'll hypothesize testable things about its biochemistry on the basis of evolution.

Well, then go ahead and make one. We're waiting for such a proof of macro-evolution. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful...

JB Continues: The "historical" aspects of evolution are also well within the scientific tradition - all of science is about the parsimonious explanation of observations and many of those explanations involve a time frame. None of this is unique to evolutionary theory at all. I don't know what you mean, then, when you talk about "science."

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. testable). That means you must be able to demonstrate empirical proof.

Not being able to do this does not mean your hypothesis is invalid; quite frankly, as technology gets better it may become possible to falsify hypotheses that are not falsifiable today.

On the other hand, if it's not falsifiable or testable, then wouldn't you agree that the "science" is not settled on the matter?

JB continues: As for your other critiques, I think your comments about political agendas being wrapped in science are non-unique. Political agendas always wrap themselves in the language of influential ideologies. The language of racism, for example, was scientific in the last century, but before that it was blatantly religious. That's not an indictment of either science or religion.

On the other hand, it is perfectly valid to contest both the political agendas and the scientific veneer--which is well short of science--that is being used to market it.

[29. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:59 PM on Feb 29:]

29

Peter K says:
There are 3 kinds [of science]:

Experimental - which you mentioned

Observational - For example, you can't recreate experiments involving things such as comets and planets and orbits

Historical - applying and modifying scientific theories based on evidence left by past events.

I'm not saying they are all equally reliable, but they are all valid

Something cannot be "less reliable" and still "equally valid". If it is "less reliable" then it is "less valid."

Ergo, observational branches related to science--that cannot pass empirical muster--are less valid than those which can.

In addition, by conceding that observations--from which we can derive mathematical models--can be construed as scientific certainly opens the door for Intelligent Design, as Dembski--who holds PhDs in mathematics and philosophy--has a very impressive mathematical model.

(On the other hand, I'm sticking to my guns and demanding the empirical method for the bar of proof.)

[30. andrew spivack said the following at 2:06 PM on Feb 29:]

30

Kassam -- first of all, I'm not big. I would never claim to have expertise in an area where I don't, unlike Amir. It's very simple -- if I don't know and am not an expert, I listen to them. Are they always right? Of course not. But they're far more likely to be right than me or Amir. Hence, if you want a useful opinion about aerodynamics, you go ask Amir, because my understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal. If you want an opinion on nanoscale physics, you are better off asking me than him. If you want an opinion on biological systems you ask a biologist. Not an aerodynamics engineer. Not a physicist. Not a Dinesh D'Souza, whose qualifications in any such field are non-existent. Why does everyone think that I'm implying that I'm great when I tell others they're not?? I know, somewhat thoroughly, several areas. But when I remind people "You know, you have no expertise in this area, and just about everyone who does, for the past century, disagrees with you" I turn out to be arrogant?

Second of all, the question isn't whether science is being used for good or evil. The question is whether we should let non-scientists tell us what science is. As I said, until you let an imam define for you what true Christianity is, you have no right to tell scientists what is correct science and what isn't. Just because nuclear technology has been used for evil does not mean fission is not true.

Sagan certainly was as qualified as anyone on this planet to talk what he talked about, as is Dawkins. Please tell me what makes Sagan unqualified to be considered an expert on this universe.

Dawkins is not "teaching your kids" that there is no god. He is writing books, explaining certain things. I'd be as opposed to having "The God Delusion" taught in science class as I am ID or creationism, or whatever it's called today. The thing is -- no one is trying to use that in a science curriculum.

kman - hilarious.

Amir -- frankly, I don't have much time to waste on same old. So I'm not going to read Vox Day any time soon. My reading list is long enough as is. And it's mostly scientific lit. The fact that you put him in the same category as D'souza is enough for me.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:18 PM on Feb 29:]

31

kman says of Andrew:
I'm sure you'll have a place in the public eye refuting Christianity. We need more people, such as yourself, refuting Christianity and theism. That any theist would try to attack atheism is just ridiculous and people like yourself need to step forward, I'm not suited to the task. There's a world full of deluded folks that need to know the truth.

That's why I am calling on him to put his proverbial A-game where his mouth is and take on Vox Day. He's written his book; he's put it out there for the whole world to see. Heck, I think he even lets you download it for free. And he has welcomed all atheists to review it and debate him.

Surely, as a soon-to-be PhD in physics, Andrew has a vast intellectual arsenal from which he is prepared to take on anyone (even if his performance on these pages hasn't been up to snuff). After all, Vox is just a game designer with degrees in economics and Asian studies. Andrew should be able to make quick work of Vox.

Heck, it would be a nice showdown on the Internet.

[32. JB said the following at 2:51 PM on Feb 29:]

32

Amir,

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a purely artificial one. Micro-evolution is the mechanism by which macro-evolution occurs. They are not separate processes, macro-evolution is just what happens when you let micro-evolution run long enough. We can make observations (such as the fossil record and genetic studies) to investigate macro-evolution and we can do experiments to verify the proposed mechanism, which you call micro-evolution. That's not a seamless proof, of course, but we don't demand those in science. We take experiments about gravity on Earth as evidence for theories about gravity in space. You need a reason why the smaller-scale experiments should not apply to the larger-scale natural phenomenon.

As for the testable components of evolution, I'll make one: complex animals on Earth, having evolved from common ancestors, have common molecular features. So a new species of bird should have genetic features similar to other birds. If it's molecular biology is completely wacko, that counts as evidence against evolution.

[33. andrew spivack said the following at 4:07 PM on Feb 29:]

33

While I have no doubt that if Vox Day attempts to prove that atheism is irrational I can destroy his arguments, I'm not sure what makes you think I have the time or desire to do that. Nor what makes you think he has either of those. I have more pressing needs. Plus, come on, I'm nowhere near famous enough for him to debate me. How would that help him sell his books or get TV show gigs? Now if Dawkins or Dennett was bored enough to grace him with a debate, he'd be all over it.

However, I'm now reading one chapter of this book -- "The Case Against Science" to see what this idol of yours is capable of.

[34. Beth said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 29:]

34

I don’t think we need to convince people that God exists before we share the gospel – the atheists I’ve talked to do understand that *I* believe in God, so while they may think I’m wrong, they can follow what I’m saying. While I will defend the church’s positions on issues, I don’t present “theological purity” as a prerequisite for meeting Jesus. We Christians are about having a relationship with God, not about signing a doctrinal statement, and I think we’d all agree on that. I think this gets to a larger issue about how to connect with people and speak intelligibly to those outside the Christian sub-culture. That’s probably another post.

But anyway, I don’t think the atheists I know (not to generalize here) are atheists because evolution told them God doesn’t exist. I think people have other, more personal reasons not to believe in God, and they just see evolution as evidence they are right. So, in my view, it would be far more effective to bypass the evolution debate and go straight to deeper issues. I admit it may be difficult to go deeper, and it may take more than one conversation. But I don’t think anybody is coming to Jesus because (eureka!) they see the holes in evolutionary theory. I think atheists, like the rest of us, come to Jesus because they realize they need forgiveness, because they learn they are loved, because they’ve had enough of despair.

[35. andrew spivack said the following at 4:26 PM on Feb 29:]

35

Let's see Vox Day:
1. Entirely, well, idiotic argument that religion has not produced means to destroy the world while science has. Of course religion has not produced a means to feed people, while food has, which means religion is useless. Wow... bad start, Voxy.
2. More arguments that knowledge is evil. Yawwwwn...
3. More refutations of Harris' argument that religion can cause evil. Argument entirely identical that it's not the man who commits murder who's at fault, it's the knife, whose existence is responsible. So far so bad...
4. A sort of an argument that not all current science is "good" science, as if that means something, or as if he's discovering something no one knew.
5. Argument that there are some things we're better off never knowing. Ridiculous for a variety of reasons, ranging from the fact that there will never be agreement as to who gets to decide which knowledge must never be pursued, to the fact that making a subject taboo is possibly the best way to ensure someone explores it. Do I have to keep reading that stuff?? OK, 1 more point of refutation before I give up and come back to the real world...
6. Oh lordy... "for the first two-thirds of the scientific era, life expectancy was comparable to that of ancient Rome." I think he thinks this is somehow meaningful, because apparently if the progress of medicine, as measured directly by life expectancy, does not exactly match progress in every other discipline of science, this invalidates all of science. Garn...

I'm done. I'll give you this much, Amir, he's not as bad as D'Souza. Then again, not every plant is as short as moss.

[36. kman said the following at 4:28 PM on Feb 29:]

36

andrew-

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, yet he speaks on matters of the existence/non-existence of God. Does that qualify him to speak with authority on that subject? Have you/would you read his book The God Delusion?

Christopher Hitchens, is an author and journalist, is he qualified to speak about the existence/non-existence of God? Have you read his books on atheism?

Carl Sagan, astronomer and astrochemist, is he qualified to speak about the existence/non-existence of God?

I want to know if you are consistent in applying the rules to what you read about this topic.

I don't know how you go from:

Chemists= talk of chemistry
Biologists = talk about biology

TO

Biologist = talk of theology,belief
Astronomers= talk of theology,belief

I will assume you are consistent in your application of where you receive information on this topic.

If you are not, why not?

[37. Lukas said the following at 5:15 PM on Feb 29:]

37

I have to agree with what JB said on the subject of "micro" and "macro" evolution. It really is just semantics, a word game used by the YEC and ID crowd to invalidate evolutionary mechanisms over longer time-scales. There are no known barriers (other than time) preventing "microevolution" (evolution of new proteins in cultured bacteria, or morphological changes in cichlids) from becoming "macroevolution".

As far as testibility goes, it is true you cannot place world history in a test tube and perform tests like one would in chemistry, but that does not mean you cannot hypothesize and later observe results that confirm or deny your hypothesis. A good example of this comes from the new NAS book on Evolution and Creation. Scientists predicted the existence of a "transitional" animal somewhere between fishes and tetrapods, and hypothesized they must have arisen around 375 million years ago in areas with shallow water. Knowing geologically where rock existed that dated to this period, they travelled to Ellesmere Island in the Canadian high-arctic and commenced digging. They finally uncovered a 4 foot long tetrapod-like fish, complete with leg-like fins, and lungs as well as gills. Paleontologists do in fact make testable hypotheses.

[38. Al said the following at 5:24 PM on Feb 29:]

38

Farmer Tom,

I think I understand where you come from, and that if evolution necessarily dictates the inexistance of God, then anything we share of God's nature, purpose, or relation to man becomes nonsensical. However, I would offer that evolution still does not necessarily preclude God-- because the elegant, perfect, natural laws that evolution supposedly operates upon still beg questions about their origin. It doesn't answer the biggest question of all: "Why is there something, instead of nothing?" And someone can believe in some brands of evolutionary thinking and still leave much room for God's intricacy and work in natural law. I would agree that at a certain point, evolution meshes poorly with literal Genesis, but there is room for God in mere evolution, or at least many seem to think so (C.S. Lewis for one, even as he hated materialistic evolutionism, which is quite a different thing). In this case, it would be counterproductive to argue young earth creationism over sharing Christ when someone is already open to the idea of a creator being operating through natural law.

Futhermore, apologetic issues are often a cover for spiritual, personal issues objections to God, and more specifically to Christ on the cross. There have been many instances where God's personal revelation and work have melted away logical skepticism and intellectual resistance to His existance-- and that His active grace and salvation forces a person to reorder their thinking after encountering Him, instead of waiting for them to get their logical assumptions in order.

It's sort of neat how God won't be held prisoner to our imperfect applications of logic and reason, even as He uses them all the same.

[39. farmer Tom said the following at 6:16 PM on Feb 29:]

39

there are plenty of people walking around who profess a belief in Christ and will happily recite the historical creeds of the Church while also believing in evolution. I'm one of them. You might think that this is a contradictory position, but it works well for some

Ok, I'll buy that, with one condition. Admit that you reject the Biblical account of Genesis 1-11 as inaccurate. Evolutionary theory does not allow for a catastrophic world wide flood. Because evolutionary theory relies of billions, billions of years of uniformitarian constants. Every "change" in geology, biology and human history, the past, is know by the present. Catastrophic floods interrupt the time/space continuum and therefore can not be part of an evolutionary past.

Futhermore, you can not explain the human soul, the man is created in the image of God, nor can you explain the need for the shed blood of Jesus Christ, because you have rejected the fall of man.

In other words, your belief system is schizophrenic. You want to claim God's free gift of Salvation, yet you reject the reason that Salvation is necessary. Does your head hurt, cause it makes mine hurt trying to even put the concepts you claim to believe into words. Which is it, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,"II Tim 3:16 or "hath God said,(really) "Gen 3:1 Whoops you don't believe that part of the Bible, do you?

In any case, I doubt that complete theological purity is a precondition for salvation. If it is, we're all in trouble.

That Sir, is a major league cop out. We are told repeatedly to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" II Timothy 2:15

and
II Timothy 1: 13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. NASB

and

Titus 1:9 9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

If you do not have sound doctrine, (theology) then you are in error and need to correct that error. Claiming that we all have theological errors does not render the argument moot, rather it requires us to change our ways.

[40. andrew spivack said the following at 6:17 PM on Feb 29:]

40

kman -- unlike in actual real pursuits, there is no such thing as "authority" in the matter of existence of God. There is simply nothing that qualifies a human being to judge that better than others. Your opinion, mine, Dawkins' are all about equal, we're all equally ignorant as to existence of God. People buy their books because they respect their approach to philosophy or their minds, not because they're authorities on the matter. No one is.

Theology is the "study of God". Its concept is based on the assumption that there is a god. One does not need to be a theologian to have an opinion on whether or not there is a God. My opinion that there is no god is just as valid as any theologian's opinion that there is. However, my opinion on, for instance, Christian doctrine, history, symbolism etc. is certainly not as valid as his.

Furthermore, it is possible to debate topics such as theology because they're not science, they're philosophy. There are experts in that, of course, but the thing is, there is no "correct answer". In science there is. You can't debate whether 4+5 is equal to 9 or to 11. You can't debate whether a ball falls down or sideways. There is a correct answer. In philosophy there isn't one. So I can't debate with a theologian what Augustine meant when he wrote whatever it was he wrote. I can't seriously debate with him whether transubstantiation really occurs during mass. But I can certainly debate whether the underlying assumption -- that there is a God, and his name is Jesus -- is true. And so can Sagan, and Hitchens, and Dawkins. We are interested in their opinions on the matter because we know that they are brilliant thinkers who are accomplished in their respective fields.

And no, I have not read The God Delusion. I certainly would, but it's not one of my priorities.

[41. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:43 PM on Feb 29:]

41

JB Says: Amir,

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a purely artificial one. Micro-evolution is the mechanism by which macro-evolution occurs. They are not separate processes, macro-evolution is just what happens when you let micro-evolution run long enough.

That's a gratuitous assertion. To prove the particular does not make the case for the general. The latter requires empirical proof just as the former.

JB continues: We can make observations (such as the fossil record and genetic studies) to investigate macro-evolution and we can do experiments to verify the proposed mechanism, which you call micro-evolution. That's not a seamless proof, of course, but we don't demand those in science.

Of course it's not a seamless proof: it proves micro-evolution, not macro.

We take experiments about gravity on Earth as evidence for theories about gravity in space. You need a reason why the smaller-scale experiments should not apply to the larger-scale natural phenomenon.

The difference is this: with gravity, you have a mountain of empirical proof, through which repeatable results are achieved.

Ditto for experiments with respect to light and electromagnetism.

With evolution, the best you have is micro-evolution, and--no, it is not the same thing as macro-evolution. Simply asserting, "if we have micro-evolution happening over millions of years, anything can happen" doesn't make for stare decisis with respect to science, nor does it explain why Dawkins and company get their knickers in a wad over the mention of Behe and Dembski.

JB continues: As for the testable components of evolution, I'll make one: complex animals on Earth, having evolved from common ancestors, have common molecular features. So a new species of bird should have genetic features similar to other birds. If it's molecular biology is completely wacko, that counts as evidence against evolution.

Experimentally demonstrate the very species evolution in birds that you claim. Like I said, a Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful.

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 29:]

42

Andrew says: While I have no doubt that if Vox Day attempts to prove that atheism is irrational I can destroy his arguments, I'm not sure what makes you think I have the time or desire to do that.

Oh come on, Andrew. Dude...buddy, now you're acting like a coward. You have enough time to come to these boards and call people idiots, proclaiming your intellect while failing to debate specific points.

Andrew continues: Nor what makes you think he has either of those. I have more pressing needs. Plus, come on, I'm nowhere near famous enough for him to debate me. How would that help him sell his books or get TV show gigs?

He'll take you on. Go to his blog. Put up or shut up, Andrew.

Andrew continues: Now if Dawkins or Dennett was bored enough to grace him with a debate, he'd be all over it.

Quite frankly, Dawkins responded--anonymously (Vox caught him red-handed)--and is effectively in hiding.

I'm sure that--given your vast intellect--you should be able to show him the error of his ways. So go ahead and put it in print, for the whole world to see on the Internet.

Andrew continues: However, I'm now reading one chapter of this book -- "The Case Against Science" to see what this idol of yours is capable of.

That's an interesting chapter, which he uses as a curveball. I'd say more, but I don't want to give away the larger point he is making.

After all, you're the one with the great intellect, so I'm sure you'll be up to the challenge of writing a review and debating him on his blog.

Come on, Ted. The gig is up!

[43. Chris said the following at 8:06 PM on Feb 29:]

43

Amir writes:

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. testable). That means you must be able to demonstrate empirical proof.

Actually, no. From our friends at Wikipedia:

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

This does not mean that a theory needs empirical proof. It means that the theory can be shown to be false.

Thus, one does not need "proof" for macro-evolution to make it falsifiable. It simply means that if you can show a situation where a new species did occur without macro-evolution, then you have disproven macro-evolution. Note that this is different from merely saying that macro-evolution lacks evidence. You must provide the counter-evidence (for lack of a better word) to disprove it. Merely claiming that one must show evidence (or claiming that lack of evidence is a problem) does not make it falsifiable.

In terms of evolutionary theory, you must be able to make an observation/conduct an experiment to show that new species came to be through some other method than evolution. Show us that aliens/God/a creator made them, and you've falsified evolutionary theory.

Not being able to do this does not mean your hypothesis is invalid; quite frankly, as technology gets better it may become possible to falsify hypotheses that are not falsifiable today.

Every good theory is falsifiable regardless of the technology available at any one time. Take, for example, the grand unified theory. If I can find two particles, not one, that account for the forces at superhigh energy levels, then I have disproven the theory. It's still falsifiable, even though we'll never, and I mean never, reach the necessary energy levels. What you're talking about is the ability to conduct experiments, not falsifiability.

[44. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:25 PM on Feb 29:]

44

Andrew: It is quite obvious that you have not engaged in any critical thought about the book, and your arguments are reflective of someone who either has not read it--but rather skimmed over it without thinking--or simply cannot reason, as you've clearly missed the points he was making.

(I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say you just skimmed it.)

In his "case against science", he is merely demonstrating that, for all the hysteria about the threat of religion against the world, a much larger case can be made--with raw historical data--against science.

He's pro-science, but he does make an excellent case for why scientists ought not be allowed to be masters of public policy, and in fact--given their less than stellar track record in the past century--they ought to be held to at least as much scrutiny in their motives as religious leaders seeking to implement public policy.

Further along in the book, he demonstrates--using history--that less than 10% of all wars have had anything to do with religion, thus defusing the hysteria of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

Comparing religious governments with atheist ones, the carnage during peacetime is orders of magnitude worse in the Atheist regimes than the Chrtistian ones during wartime.

And Vox absolutely destroyed Harris, with respect to "red state crime" claims, as Harris is either guilty of fraud or negligence.

As for Dennett, Vox was quite mild in his criticism, as Dennett is at least intellectually honest.

One of the most damning cases he makes--early on--is that the High Church Atheists (in particular Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris) are promoting not a scientific agenda but rather a religious one (the Enlightenment).

On a larger note, Andrew, why is it that you have such a hard time when I simply assert that scientists ought to be held to account for their promotion of socio-political agendas?

When, for example, Dawkins calls religious education "child abuse", he is appealing to governmental frameworks--national and international--that exist to combat child abuse.

When he speaks on such matters, he is not proclaiming science, but rather politics and social policy. In that regard, it is perfectly valid to attack that aspect of his agenda.

[45. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:39 PM on Feb 29:]

45

Chris says: This does not mean that a theory needs empirical proof. It means that the theory can be shown to be false.

Fair enough, as I merely got my wires crossed. It happens from time to time when I haven't had my coffee.

On the other hand, I make no apologies for demanding empirical proof for matters that scientists proclaim dogmatically (macro-evolution, anthropogenic global warming), especially given that the proponents of both are seeking to influence international policy while dismissing legitimate criticisms.

Chris continues: Thus, one does not need "proof" for macro-evolution to make it falsifiable. It simply means that if you can show a situation where a new species did occur without macro-evolution, then you have disproven macro-evolution. Note that this is different from merely saying that macro-evolution lacks evidence. You must provide the counter-evidence (for lack of a better word) to disprove it. Merely claiming that one must show evidence (or claiming that lack of evidence is a problem) does not make it falsifiable.

That is absolutely true; on the other hand, pointing out the lack of experimental data for it does not make on anti-science. Nor does it explain the hysterical, dismissive reactions by evolutionary dogmatists.

Chris continues: In terms of evolutionary theory, you must be able to make an observation/conduct an experiment to show that new species came to be through some other method than evolution.

True. And you must also be able to show that new species came through TENS. And no, micro does not equal macro.

Chris continues: Show us that aliens/God/a creator made them, and you've falsified evolutionary theory.

Show us that homeostatic controls appear--from base level chemicals-- without a designer.

Chris continues:
Every good theory is falsifiable regardless of the technology available at any one time.

On the other hand, every hypothesis is not empirically demonstrable. That being the case, what is up with the dogmatic fundamentalist reaction--and it is fundamentalism--that comes from your camp when one demands empirical proof?

Chris continues: Take, for example, the grand unified theory. If I can find two particles, not one, that account for the forces at superhigh energy levels, then I have disproven the theory. It's still falsifiable, even though we'll never, and I mean never, reach the necessary energy levels. What you're talking about is the ability to conduct experiments, not falsifiability.

See answer to first paragraph.

[46. Katie B said the following at 8:52 PM on Feb 29:]

46

Wow people, talk about putting lipstick on a corpse, a post about not getting sidetracked by non salvific issues turns into a debate about non salvific issues.

[47. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:04 PM on Feb 29:]

47

Katie asks:
One more question if you dont mind: How important are questions of evolution and similar issues of factual accuracy to your relationship and how you share your faith?
(thats not meant to sound accusing or anything, I was just wondering because you seem to be getting a lot of flak about it)

In all honesty, I don't have any serious dog in the fight. I have always cautioned Christians to beware that there are things that science cannot do. One of which is verify miracle accounts.

As for creation versus evolution, there is plenty of latitude in Genesis for some variation of evolution. Ergo, I'm hardly dogmatic about either, although I generally come down on the side of more literality than less.

I do find this much interesting: the reactions of militant Darwinians are compatible with the most ardent non-reasoned responses I get from KJV-only fundamentalists.

[48. andrew spivack said the following at 9:58 PM on Feb 29:]

48

Amir, you can whine elsewhere. Since you fail to address any of my points (and you always do, you're too afraid to) I have no reason to respond to your post. You sure do type a lot, though. Congrats.

[49. andrew spivack said the following at 10:15 PM on Feb 29:]

49

Amir -- this is my last post to you. Until you learn to stick to the subject at hand -- for instance whether evolution is scientific -- I'm not going to waste any more of my time debunking you or your idols. Any time I destroy an argument or a pet cause of yours you run off elsewhere. When you could not force me to defend Kinsey you ran away and now want me to defend Harris. Not once have you dared to actually debate me, you're just trying to force me to defend positions I never took and people I never brought up. This stems from either a) understanding that you can't hold your own; b) complete inability to debate; c) desperation; d) intellectual dishonesty. Since I don't care enough to try to figure out which one it is, until you demonstrate at least a rudimentary ability to engage in an honest, coherent debate I'm simply not going to respond to your infinite, irrelevant "challenges" and the like. I'm sorry, man, you're just really really bad at this.

P.S. I have no idea why you called me "Ted". I'm sure it makes sense to you, however...

[50. kman said the following at 10:40 PM on Feb 29:]

50

Andrew-
You classify the question of the existence of God as a philosophical one and say it has no correct answer. You're begging the question as you assume that there is no correct answer for the question "Does God exist?" because you've already decided that God doesn't exist. Either God exists or He doesn't. It does have a definite answer no matter how you may choose to classify the question.

And there is such a thing as the Philosophy of Science and , by your definition of philosophy, is open to discussion by anyone. Sorry can't have it both ways.

[51. kman said the following at 11:11 PM on Feb 29:]

51

andrew-

while we have your attention. ;)

And I hope you take the next question the right way. I have no intentions of arguing your answer, if you choose to give one.

What do you believe the benefits of atheism are vs Christianity specifically?

I have a friend who is an atheist (I've had all these same type of discussions with him) and he says life is meaningless. (I need to ask him this same question some time)

As atheism has no ethical or moral system which it dictates,no absolutes for behavior or even meaning of right and wrong, I've wondered how an atheist decides what has meaning in life. Why chose to go to work vs commit suicide etc. As ultimately the two choices equal the same outcome, one just delays the inevitable and why delay it at all? I would think experiencing pleasure as the only thing left as reason to continue living etc.

Even if one, say allows you to produce offspring and therefore carry on your genetics, ultimately that's meaningless as well in the end as the Universe burns out into a cold dark void (or collapses into itself again destroying all information contained within, take your pick).

BTW: Congrats on being nearly done with your Ph.D. I know that's got to be a lot of work. I hope you do well in your field. Who knows you may get a particle or new force named after you.

[52. Leah said the following at 7:12 AM on Mar 1:]

52

Katie B- had to laugh at your comment.

However, keep in mind, conversation between Christian & Christian as opposed to Christian & NonChristian will look a little different when it comes to peripheral issues.

[53. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:11 AM on Mar 1:]

53

Andrew says: Amir -- this is my last post to you. Until you learn to stick to the subject at hand -- for instance whether evolution is scientific -- I'm not going to waste any more of my time debunking you or your idols.

Debunk me? I like your sense of humor. Vox is an ally--with whom I often disagree on theological matters--but far from an idol. I do, however, provide credit where credit is due.

Take the folks here at Boundless, for example. They have been in my doghouse quite often over the past 6 months. I rip them (severely in some cases) when they get it wrong, and credit them when they get it right. They are generally allies, but idols? Bah.

As for matters of science, I've addressed every issue provided along those lines. Whenever JB or Chris have raised them--you have not--I have answered. I've provided reasons for my disagreements when I disagree, and, in Chris's case, credited him with catching an error I made.

Quite frankly, I merely question the scientific merits of macro-evolution, given that it has not been established empirically. As I told Katie, I don't have a serious dog in the fight, as you would find that--while my views are conservative--I am anything but a fundamentalist on the matter.

Andrew continues: Any time I destroy an argument or a pet cause of yours you run off elsewhere. When you could not force me to defend Kinsey you ran away and now want me to defend Harris.

You? Destroy any of my arguments? Please, Andrew. I just laughed so hard I had coffee coming out of my nose..

I blew your entire line of reasoning--green light for eugenics, green light for forced sterilizations, green light for genocide, green light for anything in search of a positive evolutionary advantage--out of the water. You provided no substantive answer.

In fact, you conceded that you knew nothing about logic or philosophy. If you did, you would have thought things through a little better instead of cling to a line of reasoning that is indefensible.

Andrew continues: Not once have you dared to actually debate me, you're just trying to force me to defend positions I never took and people I never brought up. This stems from either a) understanding that you can't hold your own; b) complete inability to debate; c) desperation; d) intellectual dishonesty.

I demonstrated the telos of your line of reasoning, which you cannot defend.

(1) No one said you were a eugenicist; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

(2) No one said that you supported genocide; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

(3) No one said you favored cruel experiments or active euthanasia; I did, however, say that your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--allowed for it (which it does).

You cannot defend your position, and that is the cause for your angst.

Andrew continues: Since I don't care enough to try to figure out which one it is, until you demonstrate at least a rudimentary ability to engage in an honest, coherent debate I'm simply not going to respond to your infinite, irrelevant "challenges" and the like. I'm sorry, man, you're just really really bad at this.

When you are ready to show how your declared moral absolute--the species must survive--does not allow for eugenics, genocide, active euthanasia, or cruel experimentation, I'll be waiting...

As that great philosopher, Robert Conrad, once said, "C'mon...I dare you!" ;)

Andrew continues: P.S. I have no idea why you called me "Ted". I'm sure it makes sense to you, however...

Your argumentation was so pitiful that I figured you cannot possibly be an Atheist, but rather someone from the Boundless crew--like Ted Slater-- acting like an atheist just to make Atheists look bad.

I guess I was wrong to give you that much credit. ;)

[54. andrew spivack said the following at 11:20 AM on Mar 1:]

54

kman -- whether god exists does indeed have a definitive answer. We simply cannot know what it is, nor can we ever prove it one way or the other.

Philosophy of science is certainly open for debate. This is not, however, what people are engaging in here. They're not debating the philosophy of science, they're picking one single theory they dislike, and are trying to destroy it. However, since this theory is clearly in line with the accepted scientific method, this is doomed to fail on its merits.

I will not discuss morality and evolution, just refer you to the discussion thread for "Darwin Day Part 2" on here. I spent a lot of time discussing it there. As for meaning, our meaning is the same as yours. We create our own, and follow it. You create your meaning to be "I must follow this book" and that gets you through the day. However, there is no reason to think this is the only purpose that does not result in suicide. I have my reasons to live, and as an atheist there are far better reasons to continue than as a Christian. I know this is the only life I'll ever have. It would make far more sense, in fact, for me to ask you why you don't commit suicide. After all, you think you get to go to heaven, which is far better than here. I have no doubt in my mind that I won't. You, on the other hand, have every incentive in the world to expedite your own demise, if you actually believed what you say you believe.

kman -- I know the universe is ultimately meaningless. I'm ok with it. Look at it this way: why do you watch sports? Why do you care if your team wins or loses when you do? Let's face it, they're meaningless, right? They don't get you to heaven, they don't affect your life, really. Yet millions of people feverently care. Why? Because even though in the grand scheme of things we know something is meaningless, grand scheme of things does not matter. You don't live in this "grand scheme", and neither do I. I live in my own, small, insignificant life. But to ME it matters. I don't need to think that my existence affects the universe, or will somehow delay its inevitable heat death. I can't comprehend that scale. But to me my life matters. And, let's face it, unless I kill a few million people, no one will know who I was a thousand years from now. And that's OK by me too.

Thank you for your congratulations. I doubt I'll get a particle named after me, however. Not smart enough, and we don't tend to name them after the discoverers anyways.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:45 PM on Mar 1:]

55

Oh, and one more thng, Andrew. Vox is calling you on the carpet. This is your big opportunity.

Good luck...

[56. Lukas said the following at 5:36 PM on Mar 1:]

56

Amir, just a couple points to ponder:

You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof. The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go.

Also, for being so concerned about the definitions of science, you seem to invoke a "designer" from time to time, a decidedly unscientific concept. Most philosophers of science would say science needs to follow methodogical naturalism, meaning we cant invoke the supernatural when we see something unexplained. It does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that it cannot be considered scientifically.

So speaking of design, I dont want to presume, but it appears as though you are influenced by Intelligent Design theorists such as Behe, Demski, and Johnson. The problem I see with this (aside from it being a "God of the Gaps" theory) is that for the most part, they do agree with an old earth and "macro-evolution". Behe in fact thinks that we are descended from the same common ancestor as modern great apes (see his debate with Kenneth Miller). The difference being he does not think "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved through Darwinian natural selection. In fact, while other ID theorists are notoriously cagey about the specifics of their theory (the who, what, when, and how) Behe posits that the earth was "seeded" with one complete cell containing all the genetic information for every living thing throughout history. This must mean that our first ancesteral cell contained about 1000 times the genetic material that a modern bacterial cell, not to mention the damage such non-expressed DNA must have suffered due to mutation over billions of years.

The point is this: we dont do God a service by trying to disprove biological evolution on the grounds that His creation is incapable of bringing forth new forms of creatures.

[57. Leah said the following at 9:22 PM on Mar 1:]

57

Amir and Andrew- oh my goodness, grow UP would you? Put a bit of civility into your debates instead of sounding every bit the godless evolutionists I debate with elsewhere. When it comes to the essentials, you're on the same side.

[58. JB said the following at 10:39 PM on Mar 1:]

58

Farmer Tom,

I think there are at least two ways around your problem. First, one could say that evolution is a good tool for getting scientific work done, but that the Genesis account is the way things "really" happened. There's no contradiction there - it would be like an engineer using Newtonian mechanics for convenience while acknowledging that it isn't an accurate depiction of the world.

Second, and this is the way I go, one could say that the Genesis account is true and accurate without being a literal historical account. That is, the creation story points out, say, the relation of God to the world and the story of the Fall tells us about sinful human nature. The meaning of the Genesis account is what is important, not its historicity. We need salvation because of our separation from God. Do you really think that the fact that some guy ate an apple four thousand years ago has a necessary and direct bearing on your life? We are all fallen Adams and Eves, so what does it matter if they "really" existed?

It's not a question of rejecting scripture or (and I hate it when people say this) thinking that God is a liar, it's a question of how one believes, in what sense scripture is true. At the end of the day, everyone engages in this kind of thinking. We all contemplate what the Genesis story says about God, the world, and humanity, and we all come more or less to the same conclusions. It's just that you add on to this kind of thinking the additional belief that the Genesis story is a literal historical account. I think that's an unnecessary addition, but if it makes you happy, go with it. I just ask that you don't insist that your variety of faith is the only possible one.

[59. JB said the following at 11:04 PM on Mar 1:]

59

Amir,

What I'm saying is that you need to have some warrant for your belief that there is some barrier between micro- and macro-evolution such that the former can't lead to the latter. It is perfectly valid in science to say that a small-scale process accounts for large-scale phenomena if the observations seem to bear that out. It isn't valid to say that the two processes are distinct unless you have some evidence which outweighs the apparent similarity.

Michael Behe tried to come up with the kind of argument you need with his idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed papers which support his idea, plenty which argue against it, and irreducible complexity is now regarded as no better than an argument from ignorance. What is your argument in its place?

My point about falsifiability clears this up. If it is the case that micro-evolution leads to the evolution of distinct species, then phenotypically similar species should be genetically similar. That observation has been made about the organisms we're aware of, and this counts as evidence which indicates that micro-evolutionary processes lead to speciation events.

What makes this hypothesis falsifiable is that if you can find an organism phenotypically similar to known organisms that has a completely different biochemistry, that is evidence against evolution. A new frog that doesn't have cytochrome c, or a new rodent that doesn't have histones associated with its DNA would be strong evidence against the idea that micro-evolution doesn't cause macro-evolution. I don't think you'll find such an organism, but you're welcome to look.

You don't need to reproduce speciation events in a lab in order to scientifically investigate their cause, any more than you need to make a solar system in order to investigate the gravitational pull between planets.

[60. andrew spivack said the following at 12:11 AM on Mar 2:]

60

Ummm, Leah, you piqued my curiosity: which side would that be?

Cripes, Vox really does have nothing better to do. Someone, quick, toss the man a career!!

Voxy, I guess you're reading this obscure blog in desperate hope that someone will mention your name. Ummmmm -- sorry homes. I have way too much grading to do to waste my time destroying your arguments. Maybe when I catch up on doing science I'll spare some time debating you. But, honestly, speaking of sticking to what you know, shouldn't you stick to selling crummy books to uneducated fundamentalists? I mean, as long as we're just restricting ourselves to our areas of expertise, and all...

[61. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:14 AM on Mar 2:]

61

Leah opines: Amir, just a couple points to ponder:

You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof.

Oh yes they do. Are there aspects of those fields where empirical evidence is elusive? Absolutely. That is why we refer to theoretical physics.

On the other hand, why is it that Darwinians get all bent out of shape over Behe, who--while being an evolutionist himself--provided a testable hypothesis that would blow gaping holes into existing models?

Leah continues: The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go.

Not true at all. In the sciences, experimentation is the gold standard. When experimentation is not possible, then mathematical models help, although they are less reliable and therefore less valid than empirical proof because the represent unproven hypotheses.

This is especially true when you are dealing with mathematical models involving variables the behavior of which are more certain than other variables. This is true for both econometric models and for climate models.

How many scientists, for example, predicted that we would have the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded last year?

How many economists predicted the financial meltdowns we are witnessing now? (And trust me on this: they have VERY impressive mathematical models, and they are wrong most of the time.)

Leah continues: Also, for being so concerned about the definitions of science, you seem to invoke a "designer" from time to time, a decidedly unscientific concept.

I never suggested that a Designer was "scientific", and in fact--in several posts--stated flat-out that ID did not pass scientific muster.

That being the case, what is the issue? I like Dembski, but no, ID is not scientific and I never suggested otherwise.

Leah continues: Most philosophers of science would say science needs to follow methodogical naturalism, meaning we cant invoke the supernatural when we see something unexplained. It does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that it cannot be considered scientifically.

I agree completely, and in fact have said that here. I have stated on these very pages that my position that neither ID nor macro-evolution are not empirical does not mean they did not happen, but rather that they have not been established scientifically. To what part of the following quote of mine do you take exception?

It does no good to try to win an argument about science by challenging an unscientific proposition (macro-evolution) with an equally unscientific one (Creation).

Each is unscientific because neither is verifiable via experimentation. Intelligent Design (ID), for all its mathematical strengths--and those strengths are very substantial--fails for the same reason: it is not empirical.

Mathematical models are no substitute for experimental results.

This does not suggest that Creation didn't happen, or even that evolution didn't happen. I'm just saying that--to date--verification of either is beyond the scope of the scientific method.

Leah continues: So speaking of design, I dont want to presume, but it appears as though you are influenced by Intelligent Design theorists such as Behe, Demski, and Johnson. The problem I see with this (aside from it being a "God of the Gaps" theory) is that for the most part, they do agree with an old earth and "macro-evolution". Behe in fact thinks that we are descended from the same common ancestor as modern great apes (see his debate with Kenneth Miller). The difference being he does not think "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved through Darwinian natural selection. In fact, while other ID theorists are notoriously cagey about the specifics of their theory (the who, what, when, and how) Behe posits that the earth was "seeded" with one complete cell containing all the genetic information for every living thing throughout history. This must mean that our first ancesteral cell contained about 1000 times the genetic material that a modern bacterial cell, not to mention the damage such non-expressed DNA must have suffered due to mutation over billions of years.

And all I ever said about Behe was (a) his IC hypothesis is testable and (b) his hypothesis would upset many existing evolutionary models. I neither defended nor castigated his larger views on evolution.

As for ID (Dembski), all I said was he has a very impressive mathematical model, but it does not count for empirical proof. So I really wish you would quit misrepresenting me as suggesting that ID is scientific. It is not.

Leah continues: The point is this: we dont do God a service by trying to disprove biological evolution on the grounds that His creation is incapable of bringing forth new forms of creatures.

I haven't set out to disprove any of that. As I told Katie, I don't have a big dog in that fight.

On the other hand, I am simply pointing out the difference between what is "settled" and what is not.

When scientists take empirically-unproven theories as a pretext to slam-dunk political agendas on the world, would you not agree that it is fair to call them to account?

As for my responses to Andrew, I'm simply calling him to account. I've answered every issue preented to me. Others--such as Chris, Sara, JB, Katie, and even yourself--have raised points and I have answered them.

All I have done with Andrew is (a) show him the ramifications of his line of thinking (read the Darwin Day Part 2 thread), and make the case against scientists using less-reliable (empirically unproven) theories as pretexts for the promotion of political agendas.

Andrew has responded to this by questioning my qualifications to be raising the question, insulting my intelligence, and insisting that I never answered his questions.

As for my responses to Andrew: I'm just trying to egg him on so he will bring hs A-game.

[62. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:15 AM on Mar 2:]

62

BTW: Correction is in order. In my last post, the ending is addressed to Leah, while the bulk was to Lukas.

[63. kman said the following at 10:02 AM on Mar 2:]

63

Andrew-

Thanks for the reply!

P.S. re: particles. Spivak sounds very "physic-ish" to me. LOL Like Fermi,Tesla, Roentgen,Curie etc.

[64. John said the following at 5:22 AM on Mar 3:]

64

"You're pretty cavalier about tossing around the phrase "empirical proof". The problem is, the hard sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics along with their subdisciplines) dont deal in empirical proof. The best one can come up with is a theory that has explanatory power for the evidence (ie. theory of gravitation, germ theory, atomic theory, evolutionary theory). If you want empirical proof, mathematics is about the only way to go."

You mean logical proof. Empirical proof is observable. That's not mathematics. Empirical proof is EXACTLY what those hard sciences are about.

[65. John said the following at 8:33 AM on Mar 3:]

65

Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

Science is not limited to only the natural.

Letting the evidence speak for itself and lead to the logical conclusions, THAT is science!

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:57 AM on Mar 3:]

66

JB says: What I'm saying is that you need to have some warrant for your belief that there is some barrier between micro- and macro-evolution such that the former can't lead to the latter.

I didn't say that the former can't lead to the latter, but rather that a proof of the former does not constitute proof for the latter. It's logic, JB: a proof for the particular does not equal proof for the general let alone the universal.

JB continues: It is perfectly valid in science to say that a small-scale process accounts for large-scale phenomena if the observations seem to bear that out.

It's perfectly valid to assert that there is a prima facie case for it, and even to say that a case for micro could very well indicate a case for macro. But the lack of empirical evidence means that your hypotheses remains as yet unproven.

JB continues: It isn't valid to say that the two processes are distinct unless you have some evidence which outweighs the apparent similarity.

Sure it does. When you haven't demonstrated macroevolutionary processes empirically using microevolutionary changes, then you have yet to show that a proof for one constitutes proof for the other.

JB continues: Michael Behe tried to come up with the kind of argument you need with his idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed papers which support his idea, plenty which argue against it, and irreducible complexity is now regarded as no better than an argument from ignorance. What is your argument in its place?

Yep. For one thing, Behe's argument is hardly about argument from ignorance, but instead he has provided both a falsifiable and a testable hypothesis.

Just take a biological system, and remove a component from that system. If the removal of that component results in a complete loss of functionality of that system, then the system is irreducibly complex.

Now keep in mind that--in spite of what many Creationists are saying--Behe is neither debunking macroevolution (he even believes in it himself) nor making a concrete case for a Designer.

His hypothesis, however, would upset many existing evolutionary models and send many evolutionists back to the drawing board to refine their hypotheses or come up with new ones.

That scientists aren't jumping on board with him means nothing in this case, as consensus does not equal science whereas empirical proof is the gold standard.

In fact, that many biologists are attacking it in journals rather than testing the hypothesis is quite understandable: if you were one of them, would you want to be set back in your life's work? It's a lot easier to dismiss him as a closet creationist or "one who argues from ignorance"--which he has not--than deal with the case he has given you to test.

JB continues: You don't need to reproduce speciation events in a lab in order to scientifically investigate their cause, any more than you need to make a solar system in order to investigate the gravitational pull between planets.

That's not a good analogy, and--being very familiar with orbital mechanics--I can say that we have empirical proof for gravity every time we launch a spacecraft. With planets, our mathematical models jibe with the observation, just as our orbital determination for spacecraft--using mathematical models--jibe with the expected results.

We have observational means--developed by engineers and scientists alike--to determine masses for planets, to determine velocities, and to determine positions at points in time. Ergo, we can use mathematical models to predict behavior, and--at the same time--observe whether those mathematical models jibe.

And using those methodologies, we can test our models in our analysis of the motions of a number of things: from man-made spacecraft to planets and stars or moons and planets.

I'd say that being able to land a rover on Mars is evidentiary proof that we understand not only the gravitational interactions among planets and stars and satellites; we have designed systems and missions utilizing them.

And this is where Behe is such a threat: his hypothesis upsets existing models.

And it is falsifiable. How so, you ask? Just show an evolutionary pathway--verifiable in the fossil record--of such a system.

From an engineering/IT standpoint, I think in terms of systems. From a systems perspective, Behe makes very good sense and I hardly understand why evolutionists are in a snit over what he has provided.

On the other hand, as I have said before: Behe does not refute macro-evolution per se, but he does threaten existing models. To an evolutionary biologist, this would be quite frustrating.

And don't get me wrong, JB. As I told Katie, I have no huge dog in this creationist-evolution foodfight. You would find that I am neither a dogmatic fundamentalist nor a cheerleader for Darwin or even Dembski for that matter.

On the other hand, speaking as an engineer, here is my gripe. Let's talk about airplanes...

If I'm the CEO for Boeing, I would not even THINK about attempting to sell an airliner that has not been flight-tested.

I say that even though--in the design process--the mathematical models are very good. Those mathematical models, for instance, are the culmination of decades of testing for aerodynamic properties of designs in various flight regimes, structural stability of configurations under myriads of loading conditions (including cyclical loading and vibration analysis and even fracture mechanics), and simulator-based flight testing.

No, I wouldn't stop there. I'd build a prototype. I'd test-fly the heck out of it to establish the flight envelope, comparing the actual performance with the expected performance. Through this process, I may have to modify my design to achieve the desired results, and--in a worst-case scenario--ditch the design altogether and start all over.

Why do I say all of this? If I wouldn't sell an airplane to the public without testing it--even though my mathematical models and simulations are excellent--then why should I allow politicians to foist empirically-untested scientific theories (anthropogenic global warming), based solely on mathematical models, on the public under the guise of "science"?

That is what this discussion is all about: subjecting scientists to accountability about what they say they have established versus what has actually been established, and then calling them to account when they promote social policies using unproven hypotheses as their pretext.

[67. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:08 AM on Mar 3:]

67

John says: Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

I disagree. Science is about the application of the scientific method. Understanding of the supernatural is outside the scope of the scientific method.

John continues: Science is not limited to only the natural.

Yep. It is.

The larger issue, however, is whether one is going to stake his or her entire faith on what can be demonstrated empirically. Remember: even in a court room, scientific evidence is only one type of admissible evidence. Even then, it's not always gold.

Now if you are suggesting that there are observational bases in the natural world from which a reasonable person can infer the Supernatural, then I would agree.

But that is not the same thing as saying that the Supernatural is scientific.

John continues: Letting the evidence speak for itself and lead to the logical conclusions, THAT is science!

Nope. It's not science. I would agree that your inference of God has a reasonable observational basis from your studies of science--just as my experience as a designer of systems rationally underscores my belief in God--but that is not the same thing as saying that I can scientifically establish that there is a God.

After all, I cannot design experiments that cause God to appear in the data every time.

If that were so, then God would be natural and potentially subjectible to the whims of Man. In such a case, God wouldn't really be God.

[68. Ted Slater said the following at 11:13 AM on Mar 3:]

68

John wrote, "Science is not limited to only the natural."

I'm afraid it is, by very definition. As such, science has limitations for those of us who seek Truth.

There is much in this world that is meaningful and true which can't be adequately explored via mere science.

[69. andrew spivack said the following at 11:48 AM on Mar 3:]

69

Just one quick thing about Behe: he did indeed present a falsifiable hypothesis. And it was falsified. It'll take him some time to get over the spanking he received at the Dover trial. I just wonder if he'll ever use the flagellum example again, or if he's going to at least pretend to be honest and avoid his debunked pet project.

[70. JB said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 3:]

70

Amir,

I think the problem is your insistence on proof. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers. It's simply never possible in science. Science, instead, is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena. For us to hold a theory provisionally true, we just need to show that there is a prima facia case for it, that it explains the relevant phenomena, and that there is no better explanation. It is a scientific theory if it yields testable hypotheses.

It is always possible to show that scientific evidence falls short of formal proof. For example, you claim that sending robot probes to Mars proves our theories about planetary gravitation. I disagree - you can prove something about gravity on Mars, perhaps, but that does not constitute evidence about gravity on Jupiter or Alpha Centauri. And yet, if we're talking science, this kind of argument holds no weight because in the absence of any positive evidence that Jupiter or Alpha Centauri is unique we are willing to generalize our theory of gravitation pending a reason not to. I grant you that there is no proof for evolution, but as a theory it's the best thing going and so far the evidence supports it. That's a sufficiently good reason to keep using it. We're not building airplanes here, just the best explanations of the natural world.

We make just these kinds of logical leaps when we say that drug X can help cure your disease even though it's never been tested in your precise situation. We may be wrong, but science provides strong reasons to believe that certain things are true even the absence of formal proof.

As for Behe, he provides nothing testable at all. He doesn't seem to understand that evolution can not only add but also subtract. How about this thought experiment: Structures X, XY, XYZ, and YZ are functional but structures Y and Z are not. Here's an evolutionary path:
X->XY->XYZ->YZ

According to Behe, YZ is irreducibly complex because just Y or just Z is nonfunctional. But clearly, you can evolve the structure with no problems. So what if I do take away a protein from a flagellum and it becomes nonfunctional? That proves precisely nothing. That's why Behe is universally regarded as irrelevant in the scientific community. His testimony in the Dover evolution trail was pretty damning on the point.

[71. Tom Neven said the following at 12:04 PM on Mar 3:]

71

Andrew

I haven't been following the whole thread here, but I will add one comment:

You really have to stop relying on the Dover trial to prove your point. First, since when is the definition of "science" decided in a courtroom? Two, more than 90 percent of Judge Jones’ dissertation on intelligent design as science was taken verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. He even repeated factual errors in the ACLU's paper, so lazy was his work.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover is a textbook case of a judge making up his mind before the trial was ever held. There was no deliberation, no examiniation of the evidence or testimony, no "findings."

I would think people like you would be embarrassed at having to "win" this way.

Oh, and Behe was "falsified" only if you accept certain assumptions which themselves are not scientifically testable or falsifiable.

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:10 PM on Mar 3:]

72

Andrew says: Just one quick thing about Behe: he did indeed present a falsifiable hypothesis. And it was falsified. It'll take him some time to get over the spanking he received at the Dover trial. I just wonder if he'll ever use the flagellum example again, or if he's going to at least pretend to be honest and avoid his debunked pet project.

Actually, it was the Dover folks who got spanked (at the voting booth as well as the court room), not Behe. And they deserved the spanking they received, as they (a) attempted to promote a political agenda as a scientific one (which is exactly my gripe with Dawkins) and (b) flagrantly lied about their agenda. Shame on them.

That said, Behe's hypothesis has yet to be tested empirically, even though it is indeed quite testable, as an organism has any number of homeostatic control systems.

Many such systems would probably satisfy the Behe criterion for IC, whereas it is quite possible that others do not. There is only one way to find out...

[73. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:32 PM on Mar 3:]

73

JB says: I think the problem is your insistence on proof. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers. It's simply never possible in science. Science, instead, is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena.

I disagree. Science is about parsimonious explanations of natural phenomena via the application of the scientific method.

That is not to say that an untested hypothesis is not scientific--we agree on that.

On the other hand, a hypothesis lacking the gold standard of empirical data is less reliable than, say, one which does. Would you not agree with that?

JB continues: For us to hold a theory provisionally true, we just need to show that there is a prima facia case for it, that it explains the relevant phenomena, and that there is no better explanation. It is a scientific theory if it yields testable hypotheses.

It is always possible to show that scientific evidence falls short of formal proof. For example, you claim that sending robot probes to Mars proves our theories about planetary gravitation. I disagree - you can prove something about gravity on Mars, perhaps, but that does not constitute evidence about gravity on Jupiter or Alpha Centauri. And yet, if we're talking science, this kind of argument holds no weight because in the absence of any positive evidence that Jupiter or Alpha Centauri is unique we are willing to generalize our theory of gravitation pending a reason not to.

Actually, that we can land a rover on mars not only demonstrates that we know a thing or two about the gravitational activity on Mars; we also understand how Mars interacts gravitationally with other planets, the sun, and even the spacecraft that we landed on its surface.

JB continues: I grant you that there is no proof for evolution, but as a theory it's the best thing going and so far the evidence supports it.

And if evolutionists put it in those terms, I have no quarrel with it.

JB continues: That's a sufficiently good reason to keep using it. We're not building airplanes here, just the best explanations of the natural world.

If all that mattered were explanations of the natural world, we would have no quarrel here.

On the other hand, when scientists--using their credentials as such--attempt to foist radical sociopolitical agendas using those less-than-empirical hypotheses as pretext--then that is where we have a quarrel.

JB continues: As for Behe, he provides nothing testable at all. He doesn't seem to understand that evolution can not only add but also subtract. How about this thought experiment: Structures X, XY, XYZ, and YZ are functional but structures Y and Z are not. Here's an evolutionary path:
X->XY->XYZ->YZ

According to Behe, YZ is irreducibly complex because just Y or just Z is nonfunctional. But clearly, you can evolve the structure with no problems. So what if I do take away a protein from a flagellum and it becomes nonfunctional? That proves precisely nothing.

Sure it does. If you can prove X->XY->XYZ->YZ, then you have demonstrated the case against IC for that system. After all, we have millions of years of fossil records, so this should not be hard to do...

With biochemical processes--or any homeostatic control system--why is that so hard to examine?

As I said, while Behe is impressive, I am under no illusion with respect to the implications of IC on evolution: IC does not refute evolution. (I repeat myself because others seem to have misconstrued me as suggesting that it does.)

It does, however, challenge existing models, and could force many a scientist to refine their hypotheses. (I repeat myself here for aforementioned reasons.)

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:44 PM on Mar 3:]

74

Tom:

I agree with your points: (a) the courtroom ought to be about deciding matters of law, not what constitutes science, given that we have entire fields of study devoted to fighting that issue; and (b) Jones was very lazy in his dissertation.

On the other hand, I don't accept the premise that ID is science. It is impressive. It is worth discussing in that it helps illustrate what science is and is not.

But ID is not scientific.

[75. Matthew said the following at 12:55 PM on Mar 3:]

75

I think that all these comments kinda prove the point of the original post-- that it's easy to get really, really distracted from the Gospel when we decide that we're going to focus on expounding young-earth Creationism as a way of evangelizing.

Most of the debates I've seen about YEC vs. evolutionary theory have ended with non-Christians less likely to believe in Jesus than before. Does anyone else have any counter-examples, especially if they involve people who had studied evolutionary theory and were convinced first that YEC is true and from that chose to become Christians?

[76. kman said the following at 4:45 PM on Mar 3:]

76

re:irreducible complexity

Thought experiment:

Take the smallest unit that is defined as life.

Remove any atom and/or molecule(s) of your choosing. Repeating until the thing no longer meets the definition of alive.

That is the limit of irreducible complexity.

Taken to it's ultimate end you remove the final atom which gives you nothing. And I doubt anyone will try to argue a single atom is alive or even a collection of a few hundred or thousands.

IMHO Behe picked the wrong level at which to set the irreducible complexity at. It exists and can be found scientifically (see experiment above) if not without great difficulty

[77. Leah said the following at 4:56 PM on Mar 3:]

77

Andrew, by 'same side' I meant that as Christians, we should all agree on the basics... that we are sinners who have rebelled against God and who have been saved by Jesus' sacrifice.

Then again, spose one of you may not be a Christian...

[78. andrew spivack said the following at 5:08 PM on Mar 3:]

78

Tom -- You're right, science is not decided in the courtroom. However, it was the only chance ID had -- it is ridiculed (and worse) in the laboratories. ID went to court because it could not hope to win elsewhere. Which is why the Dover verdict must sting so much.

I must have done something to Amir. He seems to be a fairly reasonable human being when he is not talking to me. He apparently loses it when debating morality, however.

[79. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:17 PM on Mar 3:]

79

Matthew says: Most of the debates I've seen about YEC vs. evolutionary theory have ended with non-Christians less likely to believe in Jesus than before.

Careful Matthew. Let's not conflate the debate over the strength of evolution with the case for (or against) YEC. That the empirical case is weak for macro-evolution does not make YEC any more scientific.

Matthew continues: Does anyone else have any counter-examples, especially if they involve people who had studied evolutionary theory and were convinced first that YEC is true and from that chose to become Christians?

Actually, I've seen someone who fit that criteria. In his case, he saw a substantial case against macro-evolution after looking at the evidences both ways, and that dynamic set off the light bulbs.

That, however, is neither an endorsement nor a dismissal of YEC.

[80. k. said the following at 5:22 PM on Mar 3:]

80

This poor corpse is wearing lipstick, foundation, blush, eyeliner, AND mascara!

Leah - If you read Andrew's comments, sounds like he's an atheist. Which would be a pretty major difference. :)

[81. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:38 PM on Mar 3:]

81

Andrew: In person, we'd probably be laughing over beers, as I am laughing right now. (I'm not a teetotaler.)

Seriously...in the morality debate, all I did was take your reaoning to its logical conclusion. And most of what you called "hypothetical" has plenty of "actual" historical precedence.

If the only moral absolute is that "the species must survive", then it logically follows that anything in pursuit of that end is morally permissible.

(Tom Neven: you're the philosophy major here. Please be charitable, help Andrew out here and show me where my logic is wrong.)

Again, no one ever said you supported eugenics or genocide or euthanasia. In fact I'm quite glad you oppose those things.

On the other hand, the moral framework you articulated allows for them in pursuit of a positive evolutionary advantage.

And, as I pointed out, their commission on those grounds has historical precedent.

[82. andrew spivack said the following at 6:41 PM on Mar 3:]

82

No, Amir, you did not. You refused to actually read what I wrote, tried to force me to defend people I don't need to, and never once actually showed where I was wrong. Is eugenics wrong? Depends. Is murder wrong? Depends. Are all these horrible buzzwords wrong? Depends. You're still assuming that a given action is either always wrong, or always right. This is simply false. I can come up with situations where eugenics, rape, etc etc etc can be actually morally right.

[83. Chris said the following at 7:18 PM on Mar 3:]

83

John writes:

Excluding the supernatural from science, is NOT scientific.

Science is not limited to only the natural.

I refer you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its proof that the FSM exists be he is there changing the results of all our experiments as we measure them.

Yours in Noodliness.....

[84. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on Mar 3:]

84

Tom Neven writes:

You really have to stop relying on the Dover trial to prove your point. First, since when is the definition of "science" decided in a courtroom?

When someone tries to dress up religion as science, that's when. Ever notice the similarities pointed out between the creationist book slapped down in the Georgia case (Of Pandas and People) and the book mentioned in Dover (Of Pandas and People, again, with "creationism" replaced with "ID")? Ever notice the mission of the Thomas Moore Law Center, one of the defendants in the Dover case? They ain't exactly out there protecting scientific freedom.

[85. Leah said the following at 10:18 PM on Mar 3:]

85

Amir, your last post was addressed to "Leah H", not "Leah" (who is me). Please try to keep the two unconfused ;) Thanks.

k- there were so many comments going back and forth between them that I only read about half of them, so it's quite possible I missed the obviously atheist ones :D *shrugs*

[86. JB said the following at 1:01 AM on Mar 4:]

86

Amir,

So I take it that we agree that evolution is just a theory and can only be provisionally accepted. Where do you see that evolution has been misrepresented for a "radical sociopolitical agenda?"

[87. Matthew said the following at 6:11 AM on Mar 4:]

87

Amir,

I'm not trying to say anything either way about YEC, just the fact that it doesn't seem like a useful evangelistic strategy lead-in.

[88. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:00 AM on Mar 4:]

88

JB says: So I take it that we agree that evolution is just a theory and can only be provisionally accepted. Where do you see that evolution has been misrepresented for a "radical sociopolitical agenda?

Darwinism has been used as a pretext for a variety of social policies: eugenics and racialist policies, "population control" strategies, and cruel scientific experimentation. This has been the case both here and also in Europe. As I pointed out to Andrew, this is not a mere hypothetical, but rather a matter with substantial historical precedence.

In the larger sense, I included anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as another example. In this case, we are dealing with a premise that is solely based on mathematical models that (a) have no empirical basis and (b) have not proven to be good predictive instruments. And yet, AGW doomsday scenarios are being used to market Draconian government policies--nationally and internationally--that will have very devastating impacts both on our liberties and our economies.

[89. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:56 AM on Mar 4:]

89

Andrew says (emphasis mine): No, Amir, you did not. You refused to actually read what I wrote, tried to force me to defend people I don't need to, and never once actually showed where I was wrong. Is eugenics wrong? Depends. Is murder wrong? Depends. Are all these horrible buzzwords wrong? Depends. You're still assuming that a given action is either always wrong, or always right. This is simply false. I can come up with situations where eugenics, rape, etc etc etc can be actually morally right.

You are finally admitting to what I said your framework allows. So what have I misrepresented?

[90. John said the following at 11:25 AM on Mar 4:]

90

If science is limited to only the natural, then somebody better tell mathematicians.

Also, if science is limited to only the natural, then Darwinist evolution is not scientific.

And if ID and creationism aren't science, then neither is archeology or forensics or paleontology.

Food for thought:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6032

[91. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:26 PM on Mar 4:]

91

John says: If science is limited to only the natural, then somebody better tell mathematicians.

In reality, mathematics is all about the natural world. It is a systematic method for describing relationships in quantifiable terms.

John continues: Also, if science is limited to only the natural, then Darwinist evolution is not scientific.

Actually, the hypothesis is scientific in that it is falsifiable. you would be correct, however, in that--at the macro level--empirical proof is elusive.

Empirically unproven hypotheses are less reliable than those that are proven.

John continues: And if ID and creationism aren't science, then neither is archeology or forensics or paleontology.

The fields themselves are not scientific; however, they provide data from which one can formulate scientific hypotheses.

ID is not falsifiable, nor is it empirical. Neither is Creationism.

On the other hand, that is not to say that ID does not have value; it certainly does. Creationism also has value in that Creationists have done a great job in pointing out the shortcomings of Darwinism.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a Creationist formulate a testable hypothesis that would constitute a scientific case for a Creator.

And remember: science is not the end-all, as--even in a courtroom--scientific evidence is only one type of admissible evidence.

:::putting tongue in cheek:::
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Andrew needs to keep reading the National Enquirer. I killed FSM with my sniper rifle and sent pictures to the NE.

The story should hit the papers next week...
:::removing tongue from cheek:::

[92. andrew spivack said the following at 1:20 PM on Mar 4:]

92

What you have failed to demonstrate, Amir, is that my statement is wrong. I can come up with situation where all those "wrong" things are right. That does not disprove my analysis. It merely means that while we're repulsed by certain actions in our current world, that does not mean these actions are always wrong. They become right when survival of the species is at stake.

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:49 PM on Mar 4:]

93

Andrew:

Minus an objective framework, anything is permissible, as anything is construable in terms of a "positive evolutionary advantage", and--that being the criteria--anything in pursuit of that is morally permissible. That has always been my point.

(You were the one who spent considerable effort making the evolutionary case against rape while I pointed out that your paradigm quite well allowed for it.)

For example, you were quite repulsed by my suggestion that wiping out entire populations--including the country of my heritage (Iran)--is logically possible in your framework.

Why were you so repulsed, Andrew? If entire populations are net consumers--rather than producers--of capital, then why does eradicating them repulse you so much, given that doing so provides a "positive evolutionary advantage"?

Heck, that makes even more sense than what Hitler did. (In fact, by targeting Jews, Hitler was committing national suicide, as he targeted the most intelligent--and best producers of wealth--in the country, thus destroying economic capital in addition to lives.) So tell me...why does that repulse you?

Moreover, you have failed to demonstrate that the premise that the species must survive is a moral absolute.

That people have the natural inclination to survive does not make the pursuit of survival a moral obligation any more than the natural inclination to tell lies--every bit as instinctive--makes dishonest gain a moral obligation.

Species die every day. That being the case, what moral difference does it make whether homo sapiens survives?

[94. JB said the following at 2:36 PM on Mar 4:]

94

Amir,

I think that when we apply science to policy, there are at least two things that need to happen. First, we need to assess whether the science is reliable enough to be a rational basis for action. Second, we need to apply our values to see which possible actions we should take, if any.

So, take global warming for example. We first need to determine if the science is good enough. What "good enough" means is going to be situational and depend partly on a risk analysis. However, rarely if ever does "good enough" mean "proven." We are always going to have to act on projections and models which are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

But even if we agreed that anthropogenic global warming was real and dangerous, that wouldn't be enough by itself to conclude that we should act. It is nonscientific value judgments that tell us things like, "Global starvation is bad, so we should take steps to avoid it." And beyond that, it is value judgments which allow us to decide what levels of cost we are willing to incur to avert certain levels of risk.

This second point is what separates evolutionary theory from practices like eugenics. Evolution tells us that less fit organisms are less likely to survive, but that does not imply that we should do something about those less fit organisms. You need a value judgment to make the leap from the *is* of science to the *ought* of policy.

I think that distinction is obscured in a lot of these discussions. If you really think that there's a better theory out there than evolution, by all means challenge the science. But if you just dislike eugenics (or Communism), then challenge the value judgments that lead people to support those policies instead.

[95. andrew spivack said the following at 4:09 PM on Mar 4:]

95

Amir, take a breath. Don't get so wound up.

Yes, everything deals with positive evolutionary advantage. Including eugenics. I have already said this, but you simply ignored it. So I'll say it again: the single greatest evolutionary advantage a species can have is a genetic diversity. Do you follow? That means that under ordinary circumstances removing anyone from the gene pool is a bad idea. In some circumstances this is outweighed by other considerations, of course, but in general evolution demands maximum genetic diversity in order for the species to survive. Eugenics try to take this idea and pervert it. The fact is, no one knows what future natural selection will wind up choosing. However, every species, including humans, practice small-scale eugenics on a constant basis. When you choose a mate you practice eugenics, by definition. You are finding someone whose genes you want to survive to the exclusion of those whose genes you don't.

And "species must survive" is NOT a moral absolute. It's a biological absolute from which we derive our morals. The biological absolute simply exists because, as I've explained before, species that lack it don't make it. It's like asking to prove that "people should have 2 legs" is a moral absolute. It's not, people who have the gene for only 1 leg didn't survive predators nearly as well as those with 2 legs. We made up the concept of "morals" to verbally codify common outcomes of applying "species must survive" to everyday life.

Again, as for lying, it's not a moral absolute either. After all, are you saying that one should never lie?

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:15 PM on Mar 4:]

96

JB says: Amir,

I think that when we apply science to policy, there are at least two things that need to happen. First, we need to assess whether the science is reliable enough to be a rational basis for action. Second, we need to apply our values to see which possible actions we should take, if any.

What values?

Even Andrew's stated moral absolute--the species must survive--has no objective foundation. He has not provided a basis for why that is a moral absolute.

JB: So, take global warming for example. We first need to determine if the science is good enough. What "good enough" means is going to be situational and depend partly on a risk analysis. However, rarely if ever does "good enough" mean "proven." We are always going to have to act on projections and models which are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

And that means testing the validity of the models themselves as predictors.

JB Continues: But even if we agreed that anthropogenic global warming was real and dangerous, that wouldn't be enough by itself to conclude that we should act. It is nonscientific value judgments that tell us things like, "Global starvation is bad, so we should take steps to avoid it." And beyond that, it is value judgments which allow us to decide what levels of cost we are willing to incur to avert certain levels of risk.

The issues are (a) what is the global warming (GW) trend, (b) how does it compare with what we know historically, (c) does GW have an anthropogenic component, (d) to what extent does the anthropogenic component--if it exists--contribute to the overall GW picture, (c) what impact the proposed solutions would have on the overall GW picture, and (d) what the impact--in terms of economics, socio-political factors, and lives--would constitute a marginal benefit that justifies the marginal costs.

Trouble is, as we are finding out, (a) hasn't been established as well as the hysteria justifies, as our warmest year on record was nearly 10 years ago and last year was our largest single-year temperature drop ever recorded.

That also underscores that our models are not proving effective as predictors of climate change trends.

JB continues: This second point is what separates evolutionary theory from practices like eugenics. Evolution tells us that less fit organisms are less likely to survive, but that does not imply that we should do something about those less fit organisms. You need a value judgment to make the leap from the *is* of science to the *ought* of policy.

On the other hand, if--as Andrew has stated--the only moral absolute is that the species must survive, then anything done in pursuit of that end is morally permissible.

Ergo, eugenics, sterilizations, and other "population control efforts" that eradicate populations that are net consumers of economic assets are each morally permissible and--in Andrew's stated paradigm--could easily be more moral than working to continue those races to survive. Especially if letting them survive provides a lower marginal benefit than eradicating them.

Remember: you said we need to apply "our values". Trouble is, what you and I value is not the same as what Peter Singer "values". Absent an objective framework, "values" are just a matter of who has the better artillery.

JB continues: I think that distinction is obscured in a lot of these discussions. If you really think that there's a better theory out there than evolution, by all means challenge the science.

Oh, I certainly have challenged the science, and even you concurred regarding the lack of empirical proof for macro-evolution (which we have agreed--I believe--that as an unproven hypothesis, it carries less reliability and therefore less validity and therefore less relevance in the contribution to moral discussion.)

JB continues: But if you just dislike eugenics (or Communism), then challenge the value judgments that lead people to support those policies instead.

Actually, neither eugenics nor communism nor any classically fascistic governmental initiatives of the 1900s would have been possible outside the Darwinian paradigm, as the latter was merely the fuel for the fire.

Those are merely policy instruments applied with the help of scientists, academicians, and policymakers who shared that mindset. In this country they were in both political parties; in Europe it was classical fascism in Spain, Italy, Germany (Nazism), and Russia (Bolshevism).

We look back at those with revulsion, but at the time, very few people questioned the ends or even the means. In fact, our taxpayer dollars continue to fund such efforts.

[97. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:39 PM on Mar 4:]

97

Andrew says: Yes, everything deals with positive evolutionary advantage. Including eugenics. I have already said this, but you simply ignored it. So I'll say it again: the single greatest evolutionary advantage a species can have is a genetic diversity. Do you follow? That means that under ordinary circumstances removing anyone from the gene pool is a bad idea. In some circumstances this is outweighed by other considerations, of course, but in general evolution demands maximum genetic diversity in order for the species to survive.

On the other hand, it is an empirical fact that wealth increases the capacity of a society to survive. (Compare survival probabilities for natural disasters and pandemics and other catastrophes among producing populations versus consuming populations and you will see what I am talking about.)

Ergo, eradicating those populations will yield a positive evolutionary advantage by freeing up the economic assets for portions of the species to produce wealth. In addition, implementing policies that hike the birth rates of net producers--which are more intelligent, resourceful, and more likely to be innovators--makes perfect evolutionary sense.

Andrew continues: Eugenics try to take this idea and pervert it. The fact is, no one knows what future natural selection will wind up choosing. However, every species, including humans, practice small-scale eugenics on a constant basis. When you choose a mate you practice eugenics, by definition. You are finding someone whose genes you want to survive to the exclusion of those whose genes you don't.

That was the funniest thing I've read all year! I'd buy you a beer for that one! ;)

Seriously, Andrew. When a person chooses a mate, it's almost never a genetic matter, but in fact involves a combination of (a) love, (b) common interests, (c) economics, (d) the desire for companionship, and (e) spiritual considerations. I've yet to meet anyone who got married on the basis of "I want my genes combining with her genes."

I have, however, heard many a guy say, "I want my genes in her JEANS", but that's a different matter! ;)

Andrew continues: And "species must survive" is NOT a moral absolute. It's a biological absolute from which we derive our morals.

You proclaimed it as a moral absolute, but--ok--from now on I will assume that you meant a "biological absolute", as this is a modification that clarifies what you meant.

Even then, on what basis is that an absolute truth?

It is a proven biological absolute--empirically demonstrable--that species die often. Ergo, it is not a biological absolute that the species must survive.

Andrew continues: The biological absolute simply exists because, as I've explained before, species that lack it don't make it. It's like asking to prove that "people should have 2 legs" is a moral absolute. It's not, people who have the gene for only 1 leg didn't survive predators nearly as well as those with 2 legs. We made up the concept of "morals" to verbally codify common outcomes of applying "species must survive" to everyday life.

It would be fair to say that the species must have the will to survive if the species expects to survive.

Andrew continues: Again, as for lying, it's not a moral absolute either. After all, are you saying that one should never lie?

I am suggesting that dishonest gain is always wrong.

But if all that matters is that the species must survive, then no, that statement wouldn't even be true.

[98. Leah H said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 4:]

98

This corpse doesn't just have lipstick, it has a face full of makeup and a nice outfit complete with accessories!

:)

[99. andrew spivack said the following at 12:55 AM on Mar 5:]

99

Suggesting that a wealthy society is more likely to survive, so we should eradicate the poor is you arguing that if you add 1 and subtract 16,987 you will wind up with a positive number. The loss to the species from losing the genetic diversity outweighs by a huge margin the positives from having a wealthier society survive. Not to mention that it's pretty stupid to suggest that poorer societies surviving is having a negative effect on the wealthier societies.

Love is eugenics. We love those who are compatible and all that, but what that means, on a biological level, is whose genes do we want to pass on. This is why we look for attractive mates -- attractiveness is an indication of health. Love is not this supernatural, dreamy thing. Practically speaking we're attracted and "fall in love with" those whose genetics we most want to survive. That can include intelligence, strength, talent, etc. Guess why weak, stupid, ugly people don't have a lot of suitors.

Define "dishonest gain". You first suggested that "lying" is always wrong. Obviously you're backtracking now, since even you realize this is not true. So once you define the term "dishonest gain" I will gladly provide several examples where this would be morally right. So you're better off not defining it.

[100. John said the following at 5:19 AM on Mar 5:]

100

Amir,

You're definition of science is very limited.

Math deals with the abstract as well as the natural. So, no, according to your definition, it isn't science. Only problem is, it is science.

I did notice that you conveniently over looked my point about archeology, paleontology and forensics. Are they science to you? If they are, then so are ID and Creationism.

Lastly, according to your definition of science, than Darwinistic evolution is NOT science, because it has never been observed, CANNOT be falsified and relies heavily on paleontology for evidence (of which there is none).