Thursday, April 19, 2012

You Won’t Believe What Evolutionists Are Celebrating Now

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne’s new paper was just accepted where he complains about America’s “extreme religiosity,” which he defines as a religious feeling or belief. He further complains that religion is based on dogma. So, feelings or beliefs based on dogma are bad? And just where would we find such “extreme religiosity”? How about with people like Coyne who proclaim religious dogma from one side of their mouth while hypocritically accusing those who don’t accept their lunacy out the other. You see evolutionists insist that everything just happened to arise spontaneously, and further that this is beyond any reasonable doubt. They prove this with all kinds of religious arguments, and then blame us for being religious. Nice work if you can get it.

Here’s an example. It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. But does it really look like a divine plan? Darwin argued it most certainly did not:

The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification.

This argument about divine patterns did not begin with Darwin. It has complex theological roots, and today it continues as one of evolution’s many metaphysical axioms. Fifty years ago evolutionist George Carter explained that “If species are separately created there is no reason why they should be created in large groups of fundamentally similar structure.”

Niles Eldredge agrees that the pattern defies creationism and design:

Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?

Likewise Jerry Coyne explains that the appearance of species through time is “far from random” and “no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [29] And why are species so similar? “There is no reason,” explains Coyne, “why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.” [54]

Of course this claim about how the species would be designed does not come from science. Nor do the many other metaphysical claims that, over and over, prove evolution.

For instance, another common metaphysical mandate is that god or a designer would never draw up inefficient designs. A favorite example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve which, Coyne explains,

makes no sense under the idea of special creation ... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections …

In fact evolution is drenched in metaphysics. From its early formulations in the Enlightenment years, to Darwin, to today’s refinements, evolution relies on non scientific assumptions. The “fact” of evolution has never been demonstrated without appeal to ultimate truths which are far beyond the halls of science.

Is this enough for us to convict evolution? Actually no, metaphysics is no sin. There’s certainly nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs. And is there anything wrong with viewing the world through the spectacles of one’s beliefs?

Indeed, who says there is anything wrong with allowing one’s beliefs to influence science? Well, in fact evolutionists say this, and herein lies the rub. The problem is not that evolution is a metaphysical theory or that evolutionists promote their metaphysical views. The problem is that evolutionists criticize others for precisely what they do. They even deny what they do. As Jerry Coyne explains, our metaphysics are really not metaphysics at all:

the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved. No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”

Should we laugh or cry? According to Coyne the design “makes no sense under the idea of special creation" and this "is not a theological argument, but a scientific one.” Coyne’s misrepresentations and sophistry are astonishing. The problem is not that evolutionists are metaphysicians—the problem is that they are in denial, and in the process make a mockery of science. Religion drives science and it matters.

49 comments:

  1. note:

    Medical Considerations for the Intelligent Design of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve - Casey Luskin - October, 2010
    Conclusion
    Clearly, the RLN is performing many jobs, not just one. Its "intended function" is much more than simply innervating the larynx; and the larynx is in fact innervated directly, exactly as ID-critics say it should be.
    All of this this would seem to satisfy what Kelly Smith called evidence of a "global" function, which Smith admits makes "an instance of local imperfection" (i.e. the circuitous route of the RLN) more acceptable in an argument for design ("Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics," p. 725). The argument against intelligent design of the RLN has collapsed.
    If anything is clear here, it's that we don't know enough to presume that the RLN is "[o]ne of nature's worst designs" (Coyne's words), but that we do know enough to see that it's definitely not "a very poor design for its intended purpose" (Smith's words).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/medical_considerations_for_the039221.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one.

    This clearly shows where the evolutionists's obsession is. They are arguing against the all-knowing, all-powerful God of fundamentalist Christians. Their enemy is fundamentalist Christianity.

    The truth is that the fundamentalist Christian conception of God is at odds with scriptural records. The book of Genesis depicts many imperfect gods who had regrets and saw that their creation was good, not perfect.

    Jerry Coyne may not like it but his stance is even more religious than that of fundamentalist Christians. At least Christians can change their minds about doctrine. Coyne is stuck with his doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH: And just where would we find such “extreme religiosity”? How about with people like Coyne who proclaim religious dogma from one side of their mouth while hypocritically accusing those who don’t accept their lunacy out the other. You see evolutionists insist that everything just happened to arise spontaneously, and further that this is beyond any reasonable doubt. They prove this with all kinds of religious arguments, and then blame us for being religious. Nice work if you can get it.

    Don't you mean getting paid 30K+ a year to continually push this misrepresentation is nice work, since you got it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
      Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
      Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher
      http://www.icr.org/article/455/

      Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

      Among the most blatant failed predictions of materialists is this one. For many years materialists insisted that much of human anatomy was vestigial (useless evolutionary baggage, And God would not make life with such useless organs). Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this 'religiously motivated' prediction.

      “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.”
      "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff

      Delete
  4. Examples?

    CH: … It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution.

    So science is held hostage by alternate religous interpretations?

    But this would represent confusion of, or attempting to misrepresent, the role of interpretations in scientific theories.

    Note that we never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interoperation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are the explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation.

    And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video
      http://vimeo.com/30932397

      Darwin vs. the Fossils
      Excerpt: “Over 30 million dinosaur bones and parts, some in excellent states of preservation, have been identified, and although much speculation exists, not a single documented plausible direct ancestor has yet been located,” “All known dinosaurs appear fully formed in the fossil record.” - Dr. Jerry Bergman
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091211a

      Delete
  5. For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. (Born appeals to this sort of interoperation of QM, yet I doubt he thinks dinosaurs are just an "interpretation" of fossils)

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. (Cornelius makes this sort of appeal when he implies some aspect of biology is so weird that is "beyond our comprehension")

    One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Which is an example of instrumentalism as found in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.)

    None of these other interpretations are empirically distinguishable from the rational theory of dinosaurs, in that their existence explains fossils. But we discard them because they all represent a general purpose means to deny absolutely anything.

    Specifically, your confusion (or misrepresentation) is that a scientific theory separately consists of formalism, predictions and interpretation. It's an appeal to a particular level of reductionism. (Just as you appeal to a particular level of reductionism in regards to conjectured genetic variation and natural selection.)

    Since, as noted above, interpretations are infinitely variable, while still accepting the same observations, assuming they are separate from predictions and formalisms makes it appear that interpretations cannot make predictions, cannot be tested and are not scientific. And one could say the same about any particular formalism as well.

    As such, you're left with the assumption that scientific theories are nothing more than predictions to be observed and tested, in isolation from any formalism or interpretation. However, this is equivalent to assuming that observations are irreducible, independent aspects of a theory. And this is inconsistent with the very idea of a developing a concept of measurement that is scientific.

    Rather, the purpose of formalism, predictions and interpretation in a scientific theory is to present a unified explanatory theory, which is an assertion about objective reality as a coherent whole, for the purpose of criticism. This is in contrast to merely being just about what human beings may or may not experience in the future.

    So, given the above, all interpretations of biological complexity are either variations of neo-darwinsm, in that they accept the same observations, but in heavy disguise or though the use of heavy equivocation (such as in ID), or they claim that no explanation for biological complexity exists. That is, there is no no single explanatory account of objective reality which both accounts for the observations and obeys any particular formalism (creationism).

    The latter is a denial of objective reality and the former represent convoluted elaborations of neo-darwinism.

    So, you're correct in that no one can "force" you to accept anything, including objective reality. But then you'd be appealing to a general purpose means to deny anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
      https://docs.google.com/document

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness - Dr. VJ Torley - April 2012
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/twenty-one-more-famous-nobel-prize-winners-who-rejected-darwinism-as-an-account-of-consciousness/

      Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)
      Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
      http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do

      Delete
    2. Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University
      Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
      And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/

      As Professor Henry pointed out, it has been known since the discovery of quantum mechanics itself, early last century, that the universe is indeed a 'Mental Universe', as is illustrated by this quote from Max Planck.

      "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
      Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God.
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

      Colossians 1:17
      "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

      ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw

      Delete
  6. As usually Born has failed to actually address the substance of the argument I presented. Instead, he has C/P a flurry of canned responses to some other comment I did not make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, to the extent your posts were even coherent of logic, I did make the proper responses. Not to mention your posts were devoid of citations to whatever point(s) you think you were trying to make.

      Delete
    2. Born,

      Please point out exactly which parts of what I wrote you disagree with, along with which parts of the links you referenced was a proper response to. Please be specific.

      Delete
  7. Cornelius Hunter: " It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan."

    Hey Neal, did ya hear that? By the way, how're those iPod nested hierarchies coming along?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Derick,

      You still don't get it. Life does tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern based on morphology. I've never argued against that.

      What I have argued against is that life is somehow unique in that it can be "objectively" classified. A look at the DNA completely blows that "objective" hogwash out. Like many lies, such silliness can be propagated with a straight face if you stay at the superficial level and don't look at things critically.

      If you have been reading the many examples that CH has given recently, the "objective" nested hierarchy has been refuted. Not the nested hierarchy as CH says, but the unique and objective hierarchy that evolutionists claim as support for evolution. Evolutionists are absolutely blind if they do not see the serious problems here.

      As I have said often, it ALL depends on the selection criteria that you use to build the nested hierarchy. Morphology? DNA? What? Because they don't agreed. Scientists have been looking at morphology for generations to base their classifications on. In the process we've inherited a certain way of looking at animals and classifying them based on morphology. We would never think to classify the racehorse Secretariat as a different species just because his healthy heart was probably twice as large as most horses. But a different engine or battery size becomes a huge deal for you in a man made device when its time to classify it. In other words, evolutionists are trying to rationalize their objective nested hierarchy based on sloppy analysis or plain outright lies. Figuratively they strain at a nat and shallow a horse.

      If morphology agreed with DNA in classification you'd have a stronger argument, but it doesn't and your argument is complete hogwash. Go ahead and put the sea squirt in an objective nested hierarchy based on its DNA.

      That life is built on common platforms with common technical standards and code is very similar to how man designs.

      The mixing and matching of traits from so called distant branches betrays your objective classification of life. Do you deny this?

      Delete
    2. Life does tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern based on morphology

      Key word is "tend." Like the planets "tend" to rotate around the Earth.

      Delete
    3. Of course you meant the Sun, physics basically understands the forces that cause that "tending. What are the corresponding natural forces that cause that "tending" towards a hierarchical pattern? Are they as much of fact as gravity?

      Delete
  8. CH: Niles Eldredge agrees that the pattern defies creationism and design:

    No, Eldredge points out that creationism has no explanation as to why a designer would design things the way we observe them, beyond "that's just what the designer must have wanted" As such, it's not true or false, but a mere possibility, which we discard.

    Furthermore, this argument is parochial in that it underestimates the effect that creation would have on knowledge.

    For example, given that it has no defined limitations, an abstract intelligent designer could have created the universe, and everything in it, 30 seconds ago, 30 days ago or even 30 years ago, with the appearance of age, implanted memories, etc.

    But, more importantly, if the universe was created by some abstract designer at the moment that when Einstein, Darwin or some other scientist (appeared) to have just completed any major discovery, the true creator of that discovery (and all earlier discoveries) would had not been that scientist, but this abstract designer that created the universe.

    This is because, in the process of creating everything in this universe, this abstract designer would ave created this theory as well, when it created knowledge in the form of notes, photographs, papers, books, etc.

    In other words Do you claim to have authored this blog post? How do you know an intelligent designer did't create it when it created the universe 30 second ago? Why wouldn't a claim that you did author this blog post be a religious argument about how God would or would not have created the universe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, you make these false Theistic claims:

      'For example, given that it has no defined limitations, an abstract intelligent designer could have created the universe, and everything in it, 30 seconds ago, 30 days ago or even 30 years ago, with the appearance of age, implanted memories, etc.'

      Yet the fact of the matter is that, with the extreme fine-tuning of the universe now established by science, it is materialism, not Theism, that is forced into this extremely absurd position that you have outlined:

      Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? - January 2008
      Excerpt: it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space.,, Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,,, pointed out that some calculations result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it “infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.” Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us.,,
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&8dpc

      BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010
      Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

      Delete
    2. continued:

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Moreover, in appealing to 'random miracles', as the materialists does in the multiverse in order to 'explain away' fine-tuning, the materialist ends up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument for God's existence:

      God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4
      The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

      1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
      2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
      3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
      4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
      5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
      6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
      7. Therefore, God exists.

      Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

      I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:

      "God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit."

      Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ

      Delete
  9. Born: You make these false Theistic claims:

    So, God couldn't have created the universe 30 seconds ago, so it only appeared that you just C/P a bunch of links as usual?

    But wouldn't you be criticizing how God created the universe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One problem with your thinking Scott is that the absurd scenarios which you try to foist off on God, (universes created 30 seconds ago, brains in a vat etc.. etc..) are merely you imposing your false personal prejudices against God onto your false Theistic premises in order for you to make your argument, whereas, on the other hand, the same absurdities, that you would wish to foist off on God, contrary to imaginary personal prejudices, are found in your preferred atheistic-materialistic belief. Direct logical consequences derived from randomness as the ultimate cause for why the universe came into being! Thus, materialism fails 'necessarily', whereas Theism fails, in your imagination, only because of your severe a-priori prejudice.

      Delete
    2. notes: Godel has shown;

      Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
      Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
      “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”
      http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

      And please note 'the circle' formed by the Cosmic Background Radiation:

      Picture of CMBR
      https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg

      Proverbs 8:26-27
      While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

      Moreover, atheists assume that 'randomness' is true (outside the circle) for the ultimate explanation for the origination of the universe, whereas Christian Theists presuppose God is true (outside the circle) for the origination of the universe. Yet insisting on randomness as the ultimate explanation for why the universe came into being leads to epistemological failure:

      The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Moreover, presupposing 'infinite randomness', as atheists do with the multiverse, actually concedes the necessary premise to make the ontological argument, for God's existence, complete;

      Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds/Multiverse Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

      Moreover, the success of modern science itself, since it was born out of the presupposed (outside the circle) truthfulness of Christian Theism, and no other (outside the circle) presupposition, is what further, and dramatically, testifies that the Christian presupposition is true;

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011
      Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html

      Delete
    3. Moreover, many modern physicists seem to have forgotten the lesson that was clearly born out by Godel, that you can't have a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything without assuming God as true, for they are vainly trying to unify Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR), into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. Yet when one allows God into the picture, then a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between QM and GR emerges:

      The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
      Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)
      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Delete
    4. Scott, one more reflection on your false belief that God is capricious, i.e. acts on whims so as to create the universe 30 seconds ago, or perhaps to whimsically create a brain in a vat that is fed false sensory inputs so as to believe it lives on a planet in a universe with a 13.7 billion year history. The reflection is that all virtues that man finds exceedingly noble find there origination, and maximal greatness, in God. Thus truthfulness and faithfulness, two virtues which are noble and are completely antagonistic to the capricious nature you would wish to visit upon God, and indeed are completely absent in the random chaos you wish for your creator, could not truly exist in reality unless God possessed those qualities. Moreover, what the repentant sinner understands, but the sinner who does not think he is 'really' a sinner but thinks he is 'controlling' his sin does not understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full authority of all of heaven to relieve himself of the horrid torment of the cross but chose to endure the torment of the cross, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome sin, and death, in their entirety, for our behalf! Solely out of His love for us. Love is truly the only proper response from us. God acting on a whim, or acting capriciously are two words that definitely do not come to my mind in that selfless act I see of His on the cross, whereas, on the other hand, faithful and true are two words that definitely do came to mind. Indeed I would even say the definition of the word faithful is most aptly conveyed by the selfless act of almighty God on the cross.

      "In Christ Alone" / scenes from "The Passion of the Christ"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPKdylIxVM

      Revelation 19:11
      And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.

      Delete
    5. Born: One problem with your thinking Scott is that the absurd scenarios which you try to foist off on God,

      So, God creating the universe 30 seconds ago is absurd? But this assumes it would be absurd for God to create this world in a particular way.

      How do you know what God would or would not do?

      Delete
  10. No Scott, you assume your false imaginary conception of God is equivalent to what God, as a 'maximally great' Being, actually is. This false, and forced, Theistic assumption of yours is what is bogus in the whole mix of your logic. Much like other lines of reasoning you take, you emotionally attach to a certain position and refuse the examine it logically in a detached manner and thus end up chasing your tail in a circle over and over. To free you from this vicious circle you are trapped in, may I introduce you to the Ontological Argument for God:

    The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJRQmsuEksc

    As weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:

    The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born: No Scott, you assume your false imaginary conception of God is equivalent to what God, as a 'maximally great' Being, actually is.

      Just so I have this straight, a maximally great being wouldn't create the world 30 seconds ago, with the appearance of age, implanted memories, etc?

      In other words, you're claiming that creating the universe incrementally, starting in the distance past, is more maximal. Therefore, God wouldn't have created the world 30 seconds ago?

      Is that what you're saying?

      (At least Cornelius knows better than to actually respond to my questions)

      Delete
    2. 'At least Cornelius knows better than to actually respond to my questions'

      Perhaps he is wiser than I to have hope for you and for your eternal soul.

      But Scott to turn your question around to let you see the insanity of your position,,

      In your worldview Scott, is it possible for God to lie? i.e. In your worldview is it possible that God is lying to you right now by creating you as a brain in a vat 30 seconds ago with the complete illusion that you live on a world in a universe with a 13.7 billion year history? And if you hold that it is possible, do you then hold lying to be a 'maximally great property' of a Maximally Great Being.

      notes:

      In conjunction with the mathematical, and logical, necessity of an 'Uncaused Cause' to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,,

      "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment."
      Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html

      I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a 'First Mover' accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. One line of evidence arises from the smallest indivisible unit of time; Planck time:

      Planck time
      Excerpt: One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10^−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval that was directly measured was on the order of 12 attoseconds (12 × 10^−18 seconds),[4] about 10^24 times larger than the Planck time.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

      The 'first mover' is further warranted to be necessary from quantum mechanics since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining 'closed loop' of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the 'hidden variable' argument, as first postulated by Einstein, in quantum entanglement experiments. As well, there also must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain quantum wave collapse for 'each moment' of the universe.

      God is the ultimate existence which grounds all of reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yHEwK2ZOlyiobVOJ9i-_FiFz37pVj0sQ-viPZu9V_dA/edit

      Delete
    3. That is an interesting question,can God lie? The Bible is considered by some to be the inerrant Word of God, Bishop Ussher used this Word of God to calculate 4004 BC as the creation of the universe. Does God have a obligation to correct this interpretation if it is off by 13.7 billion years? In In other words does God have some obligation to correct man's misunderstanding? If not,then God is certainly free to create according to His Plan. Man cannot limit God's actions,in my opinion. Or impose our morality upon him. Isn't that the explanation of why the innocent suffer and the wicked thrive?

      Delete
    4. Vel you state,

      'Does God have some obligation to correct man's misunderstanding?'

      I would say to the extent that man honestly seeks a direct answer from the Lord himself, and to the extent that the Lord is inclined to correct on the specific matter, then Yes, certainly, God is obligated to tell the truth, for in my worldview it is impossible for God to ever lie. EVER!

      You then state:

      'If not,then God is certainly free to create according to His Plan.'

      What in blue blazes does man's misunderstanding of scripture have to do with the 'great making properties' of a 'maximally great Being'?

      You then state;

      'Man cannot limit God's actions,in my opinion.

      Of course not, He is God! But we can discern what parameters God will use if he is to remain consistent with his 'maximally great characteristics'!

      You then state:

      'Or impose our morality upon him.'

      But God has every right to correct us with His morality since His morality is objective, whereas 'man's morality', to the extent it deviates from God's good and perfect morality, is subjective and imaginary! Indeed destructive!

      Delete
    5. bornagain77: "Yes, certainly, God is obligated to tell the truth, for in my worldview it is impossible for God to ever lie. EVER!"

      1 Kings 22:23
      Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

      Ezekiel 14:9
      And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

      2 Thessalonians 2:11
      For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

      Well bornagain77, at least we've established that your worldview isn't based on the Bible.

      Delete
    6. Born,

      Again, creationism is misleadingly named, in that it's one of many general purpose means of denying that creation actually took place.

      Now, one cannot choose what their ideas imply or the extent of their reach, including the idea of creationism as an explanation for complexity of the biosphere. As such, creationism can be used to deny that you actually wrote the previous comment, since some supernatural being could have chosen to create the world all at once, five minutes ago.

      Specifically, claims about the origin of knowledge being true or false is an implicit claim about how God would or would not have created the world we observe.

      It's really that simple. To deny this is to deny the idea of creationism itself or to render it incoherent.

      That God wouldn't create the world we observe in this manner is a religious argument, is it not?

      Delete
    7. So we agree again, the Christain God cannot lie,but if He is disinclined to correct misinterpretations ,He can do so without lying. So if it is His Plan for some reason known only to Himself,He could create a world with the appearance of lesser or greater age. Which is Scott's point.

      Of course you assume that Bishop Ussher was mistaken based on science's best guess of the age of the universe. Couldn't Cosmologists be as delusional as evolutionists.

      So what are the parameters of God as a maximally great being,in your view,designwise?

      And finally we agree again, as the source morality all He does or can do is objectively moral, no matter how evil it seems to men.

      Delete
    8. Derick so what?,, false prophets have a lying spirit put in them by God so as to tickle itching ears of rebellious hearts! I never disagreed that God has control over ALL of the spiritual realm including lying spirits! He can do whatever he wishes with lying spirits, whether cast them out of people or put them in false prophets. But as to the words that God Himself speaks, they are 100% truth! Indeed his words God speak become the very being of truth for whatever God speaks comes to pass and cannot be resisted.

      John 17:17
      Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

      John 14:6
      Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      Hebrews 6:18
      God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

      Numbers 23:19
      God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

      Psalm 119:89
      Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

      notes:

      It would also like to point out that the hardest, most solid, indestructible 'thing' in a material object, such as a rock, are not any of the wave/particles in any of the atoms of a rock, but are the unchanging, transcendent, universal, constants which exercise overriding 'non-chaotic' dominion of all the wave/particle quantum events in the atoms of the rock. i.e. It is the unchanging stability of the universal 'transcendent information' constants, which have not varied one iota from the universe's creation as far as scientists can tell, that allows a rock to be 'rock solid' in the first place.

      What is Truth?
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc8z67wz_3g3vnsmcn

      Stability of Coulomb Systems in a Magnetic Field - Charles Fefferman
      Excerpt of Abstract: I study N electrons and M protons in a magnetic field. It is shown that the total energy per particle is bounded below by a constant independent of M and N, provided the fine structure constant is small. Here, the total energy includes the energy of the magnetic field.
      http://www.jstor.org/pss/2367659?cookieSet=1

      Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio
      Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,,
      http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio

      Romans 1:20
      For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

      Delete
    9. Vel, you do fine then go off the rails here:

      'He could create a world with the appearance of lesser or greater age.'

      No! Moreover you're more than welcome to join the 10^500 Scotts if you want in his infidelity of properly weighing empirical evidence, if that's where you truly want to hitch your wagon.

      As to discerning 'great making properties' of a Maximally Great Being, I re-list this video for you:

      The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

      Delete
    10. bornagain77: "Derick so what?,, false prophets have a lying spirit put in them by God so as to tickle itching ears of rebellious hearts!"

      So what you're saying is that it's not lying to directly cause someone to be deceived, as long as you're not technically lying yourself. For example, if someone asked you a question, and in response you directed them to an answer that you knew to be incorrect, that wouldn't be lying? That it wouldn't be 'lying' to feed false information to someone, as long as you technically didn't directly create the false information?

      (and you tell us we don't have a coherent moral system)

      bornagain77: "But as to the words that God Himself speaks, they are 100% truth!"

      You must not have read past the first one:

      Ezekiel 14:9
      And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I THE LORD have deceived that prophet.

      2 Thessalonians 2:11
      For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

      Ezekiel is clear. If a prophet is deceived, it is God who deceived him. In 2 Thessalonians as in 1 Kings, we have a scenario where God intends for someone to be deceived, and intentionally orchestrates events so that they are deceived.
      How in the world is that not lying?

      I understand the predicament you're in. I too once believed it was against the character of Yahweh to lie. Then I read the Bible...

      You can quote as many verses saying God doesn't lie as you want. They don't cancel out the ones that say he does. Contradictions aren't resolved simply by tallying up the number of verses that support each side.

      Delete
    11. Derick Childress, please feel free to find the specific verse where it says that a lie came forth from God's lips. Please cite the exact verse where God audibly spoke a lie to people. Since you can't quote one such verse, thus there are no contradictions to God putting lying spirits whereever he wants to put them, being sovereign as He is, and to the undeniable truth that it is impossible for God to lie! I understand the predicament you are in, you are deceived.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. bornagain77, I can't decide if it's humorous or sad to watch you struggle with the definition of 'lying'. Now, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just pointing out what your holy book says.

      ba77: "Derick Childress, please feel free to find the specific verse where it says that a lie came forth from God's lips. Please cite the exact verse where God audibly spoke a lie to people." (emphasis mine)

      Case in point. you're both anthropomorphizing God to get him off the hook for lying (I've been told that God does not have lips and that he rarely if ever speaks to people 'audibly') and redefining what lying means to get him off the hook. Does someone have to audibly speak an untruth to be lying? If my boss texts me asking me if I completed a task, and I text back "yes" when the real answer is "no", am I off the hook because it didn't "come forth from my lips" and wasn't "audible"?

      Now, in whatever way God is said to communicate in the Bible, he is said in more than one occasion to communicate a lie. You seem to be blatantly ignoring the verses I did feel free to specify:

      Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I THE LORD have deceived that prophet.

      That is unambiguous. As unambiguous as it gets.

      As for the other examples that you're trying to skirt around, let me ask you the following questions:

      1. It is the middle of the month and my wife asks me If I've paid the mortgage yet, which was due on the 1st. I haven't, because I spent the money on a new gadget, yet I reply "Yes," because I did pay the mortgage last month, and while I know what she meant, she technically didn't specify which month she was asking about.
      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      2. I am the manager of a car dealership and I am with one of my salesmen talking to a prospective customer about a large SUV that I know gets around 10 mile per gallon. The salesperson tells the customer that the SUV gets 40 miles per gallon. I do not know if the salesperson is lying or misinformed but the cutsomer turns to me and says "That's fantastic! I was on the fence about this but the great gas mileage clinches it. Let's finish the paperwork." "Super," I say, as I proceed to sell her the car and watch her drive off the lot.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. You did not answer my hypothetical questions. I am not convinced you know what lying is, and until that is settled, there is no point in discussing whether or not God is portrayed as doing so in the Bible.

      1. It is the middle of the month and my wife asks me If I've paid the mortgage yet, which was due on the 1st. I haven't, because I spent the money on a new gadget, yet I reply "Yes," because I did pay the mortgage last month, and while I know what she meant, she technically didn't specify which month she was asking about.
      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      2. I am the manager of a car dealership and I am with one of my salesmen talking to a prospective customer about a large SUV that I know gets around 10 mile per gallon. The salesperson tells the customer that the SUV gets 40 miles per gallon. I do not know if the salesperson is lying or misinformed but the cutsomer turns to me and says "That's fantastic! I was on the fence about this but the great gas mileage clinches it. Let's finish the paperwork." "Super," I say, as I proceed to sell her the car and watch her drive off the lot.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      Delete
    16. The entire scripture, which you did not quote, is relevant so as to establish God's purpose:

      Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

      One aspect of God's judgment is allowing people to believe falsehood, or even *leading* them to false belief. It's important to understand that it is judgment, and the verse never says that God spoke falsely. Scripture also confirms the responsibility of people for their own decisions to sin.

      Derick you simply have no case to say God spoke a lie! Indeed, calling God a liar??? I can't believe your audacity. It's simply 'Garden of Eden 'Hast God really said?'' type deception you play with man! You can play such games if you want, but I'm done. The last deception, OH I mean word, is yours!~

      1 John 1:9-10
      If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
      If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

      Evanescence - lies - music
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. ba77: " When God says, “I have deceived that prophet” (Ezekiel 14:9), he means that he can and does govern a sinful prophet’s mind so that the prophet believes a lie; but God does it in such a way that he himself is not lying. God is able to superintend a thousand circumstances and influences so that a sinful prophet will think a lie, without God himself lying or in any way compromising his perfect truthfulness.

      Let's switch out some names and see if that sentence makes any sense.

      "Bob arranges circumstances and manipulates his friend Bills perceptions so that Bill believes a lie; but does it in such a way that he himself is not lying."

      Nope. You might just as well be saying Bob lies to Bill, but does in such a way that he himself is not lying. Incoherent.

      ba77: "One aspect of God's judgment is allowing people to believe falsehood, or even *leading* them to false belief." (emphasis mine)

      Do you know what we call intentionally 'leading someone to false belief' where I come from? LYING.

      (I presume that God, being omniscient, can't do something unintentionally)

      I'm not joking when I say that with every letter you write, I'm less and less convinced that you even know what lying is.

      See if you can answer my two questions and we'll find out.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. Bornagain77,

      My father taught me that a lie was "an attempt to deceive."

      Do you agree with that definition?

      Can you lie without 'attempting to deceive'? Can you 'attempt to deceive' without lying?

      Delete
    21. BA77, let me make a prediction: Eventually, perhaps even a matter of days or weeks, you'll change your tune from "God can't/doesn't lie," to: "Sure God can lie when it suits His purposes, but so what, He's God; he can do whatever he pleases. Who are we to question Him" or some other variant of the of William-Lane-Craig-ish "Whatever God does is o.k. by definition" Divine Command Theory.

      Delete
  11. corrected link:

    The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr. Hunter,

    You may appreciate this article from ENV that just came out on Coyne's paper:

    Jerry Coyne, a Holy Warrior for Darwin - James Barham April 20, 2012
    Excerpt: Darwinists deny the objective existence of purpose, value, and meaning. They claim that these things simply do not exist -- they are not, as philosophers sometimes put it, part of the "furniture of the world."4 Obviously, this is not an observable, reproducible scientific claim. It is a philosophical claim. Nevertheless, it is a crucial part of Darwinism, which is far closer to a metaphysical system than it is to a laboratory science. This claim is, at bottom, what the evolution debate is all about.
    But everyday human life as we experience it is saturated with purpose, value, and meaning. Therefore, to ordinary people -- as to most philosophers who have given the matter deep thought -- the reductionist claims of the Darwinists are absurd on their face.
    In fact, they are self-contradictory, and just plain silly. Every word that comes out of Jerry Coyne's mouth contradicts his official philosophy. Why? Because he presumably means something by what he says. Because he obviously values some things (Darwinism) and disvalues other things (religion). And because he manifestly has the purpose of convincing his readers that he is right and religious believers are wrong.
    If he took his own philosophy seriously, Coyne could not admit that he is doing any of these things in a literal sense. According to the official story, Jerry Coyne is just a wind-up toy -- a "vehicle for his "selfish genes." Officially speaking, his tendency to behave as though his words were meaningful, his judgments evaluative, and his actions purposeful is just an elaborate ruse foisted on the meat-machine, Coyne, by a long series of genetic accidents.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/jerry_coyne_a_h058811.html

    ReplyDelete