Question Evolution

Evolution is dancing on the Titanic.

The current evolution/creation controversy is based on two fundamental errors. First, the issue is cast as a conflict between the indisputable facts of science and the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalists. Second, two entirely different definitions of science are used interchangeably, obscuring the true nature of the discussion.

Facts vs. Faith

Douglas Futuyma opens Science on Trial, his compelling polemic against creationism, with these words: "Fifty-seven years after the Scopes trial, fundamentalist religion and evolutionary biology are again fiercely at odds, and science is still on trial." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 4.

Futuyma's words echo the sentiments of the academic rank and file: Creationists are obscurantist flat-earthers whose commitment to superstition keeps them in darkness. The verdict of science is clear. Darwinian evolution is an indisputable fact.

This characterization is simply false.

Following the complete failure of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley in the late 80's to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. ("Creation" here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to show that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin--and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries--still apply after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution. Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution than the past has been able to produce. Denton ends his analysis with this statement: "The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century," and then adds, "like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced."

You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can't be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.  James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.

Niles Eldridge, one of the world's leading experts in vertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation paleontologists face:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."  Niles Eldridge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 95.

This problem is so severe it has spawned an entirely new school of evolutionary thinking--punctuated equilibrium, championed by Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. It's also spawned a bitter feud between Gould's camp and traditional Darwinists like Richard Dawkins who still hold to gradualism in spite of the paucity of fossil evidence for it.

Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, "If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact."

We are within our rights to question the stability of the entire enterprise. But the minute we do, we run into a second problem.

Two Faces of Science

Science has two definitions. The first is the most well known. Science is about a methodology--observation, experimentation, testing, etc.--that allows researchers to discover the facts about the world. Presumably, this is what evolution is about--the facts of science. Science in this sense has prompted the litany of concerns expressed above by evolutionists.

The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn't conform to this definition is not scientific.

These two definitions are not always compatible. Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked. The philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as "religion disguised as science."

Futuyma says, "Where science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes unknowable supernatural forces." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 12

Creationists claim, however, that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation of the scene might indicate foul play and not accident. In the same way, evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence vs. evidence.

Notice how Futuyma conflates these definitions in the following statement taken from Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, the most widely used college evolutionary textbook:

The fact is, in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural special creation. Belief in special creation must rest on faith, on the authority of the Bible and its most literal interpreters. The fundamental conflict, then, is between two incompatible ways to knowledge. Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain. It deals not with irrefutable facts engraved on stone tablets, but with hypotheses that may be refuted by tomorrow's experiments and concepts formulated by fallible human minds. The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of reason."  Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 18

How does Douglas Futuyma know in advance there "can be no evidence for supernatural special creation"? Because it's stipulated by definition. Even if evidence is available, it cannot be allowed. Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution (as opposed to the method of evolution) is allowed either, in spite of Futuyma's assertions to the contrary. Any denial of evolution is simply not "science."

Darwinism as Dogma

Clearly, the paradigm is paramount and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin is very candid about this fact. In The New York Review of Books he makes this remarkable admission:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.[6] [emphasis in the original]

Here Richard Lewontin, distinguished Harvard Genetics Professor, admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers.

Phillip Johnson sums it up: "The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point."

Presumed Guilty

Once one presumes evolution, many of the pieces seem to fit. If you simply presume someone associated with a crime is guilty, you're bound to find some pieces of evidence that appear incriminating. But if your suspect produces an airtight alibi, you must rework your presumptions.

In the same way, Darwinism has fatal flaws, in spite of some circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. The mechanism (natural selection) is not adequate to do the work it needs to do. Behe and others have made this clear. The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out. Robert Shapiro of NYU admits there is no current evidence that life could come from non-life. Paleontologists can compare fossils all they want, but if evolutionary processes cannot even produce the most basic amino acid sequences necessary for life, then the game can't even get started.

To label creationist efforts as "religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns," as one editorial did, skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss any objections to evolution as flat-earth religion than to intelligently and fairly engage the facts in public discourse.

Three Errors

The view that "religious" theories should not intrude in science is guilty of a several of logical errors.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some factual support. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience (NDE) research, or conclusions about the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they're allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

Read This Book!

I want to recommend a book that gets right to the heart of this issue in a clear and accessible way. It's called An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson.

You'll get first-rate advice on how to be a player in this discussion without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. You don't need a technical background, just a simple game plan. It's an easy read and a powerful tool that will help you expose the real issue in this debate.

The evolution/creation controversy is not about evidence. It's about the power of an academic elite to enforce a philosophy. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Once this becomes clear, then evolution will have to stand on its own merits and it won't be able to do so.

Evolutionists are dancing on the Titanic. If it were not for philosophical strong-arming in the field of science, Darwinism would have become an historical curiosity long ago. It's only a matter of time before the iceberg hits.

Comments

[Jumper]

Greg

How would you investigate whether a particular event had a supernatural cause and how would you be able to come to a conclusion that the event definitely had a supernatural cause?

[ToNy]

Raise your hand if you would STOP being a Christian if molecules-to-man evolution were true.

[Trent]

How would you prove it?

[Cowboy Bob]

I perked up at the title of this article because several of us are involved in a grass-roots movement. Greg, you may recall that I called in (with permission of The Enforcer) to mention "Question Evolution Day", described at www.PiltdownSuperman.com. My call happened on the day you were interviewing Michael Flannery. Questioning evolution should happen every day, really, for thinking people, but the emphasis is on Darwin's birthday, February 12.

Another book by Phillip Johnson, huh? The way evolutionists "defeat" his work is by saying, "No, it's not true". How intellectual of them!

I hope the new one is on Kindle.

[Malebranche]

The title of the post is “Question Evolution.” Often when confronted with posters or pamphlets imploring us to “Question Such and Such,” we feel that we are being told to draw upon our somewhat skeptical, critical resources. “Question your faith,” a secular humanist poster might read, nudging us to intrepidly expose our faith to the cold winds of intelligent scrutiny. In the case of this post, however, it seems that the suggestion is to be so bold and courageous as to be skeptical of scientific theories when they conflict with our strongly held religious convictions! What? We are to be so bold and courageous as to continue to think that, concerning religious matters, we were right all along? I wasn’t aware that such things required such a courageous, questioning spirit.

To tactically employ skepticism, even scientifically informed skepticism, only towards threats to one’s religious commitments is just another way to hold those commitments dogmatically. And unlike the raving fundamentalist who is forthright about his dogmatism, one suspects a duplicity, even a self-deception, about those who dress the persistence of certain religious convictions in skeptical clothing. It is possible that some look upon evolution not as a threat to their faith, but as a theory whose falsity would be a boon to their faith. Even in this case, however, strategic skepticism aimed at confirming one’s religious beliefs hardly counts as a bold, intellectually virtuous consideration of the evidence.

Greg implores his readers to be suspicious of the claim that Darwinian evolution is an indisputable fact. But what is the thesis of Darwinian evolution concerning which we are to be skeptical? Are we using the term in such a way that it entails metaphysical naturalism because metaphysical naturalism is built into it? No doubt some biologists use it that way (e.g., Dawkins), but I’ve been lead to believe that such a use is merely a self-serving abuse. So what is the thesis we are to be skeptical of, really? Are we to be skeptical, for instance, of common ancestry, according to Koukl? I’m not really sure. It’s like pulling teeth just to get the evidence for common ancestry and speciation fairly presented on this blog (although there is an admission that there is such evidence in this post), but perhaps folks don’t address that topic because it’s outside the scope of their target. Again, I’m not really sure, because I’m not always sure what folks include under the rubric of “Darwinian evolution” when they present it as the proper object of disbelief. The following remark might suggest that Koukl has only a sufficiency thesis concerning natural selection in mind:

You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.

But this remark about “the entire enterprise” can sound more general:

We are within our rights to question the stability of the entire enterprise.

The impression given in the surrounding context of this remark is that we are within our rights because evolution is a moribund theory. What is truly remarkable about these comments is that Koukl is recommending that his readers come to this judgment, but Koukl doesn’t even make sure that his readers are aware of the successful predictions and explanations that evolution has offered. The reader is not reminded, for instance, that a year prior to discovering fossils of whales with legs, leading ID theorist Michael Behe said the following:

Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found.

Famously, however, the evolutionists were right in predicting that such intermediates existed. Is success in such a bold prediction of such negligible importance that it doesn’t even merit a mention in a post encouraging informed skepticism about evolution? Can Koukl not, as Behe has done, include in his commentaries even a single kind remark about evolution? Behe, for exmaple, writes:

Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 5).

I would hope that as much as evolution is discussed around these parts, care would be taken to at least once fairly present the evidence for crucial aspects of the theory, but I doubt there is any danger of that happening.

Koukl writes as though it were a fatal flaw to the theory of Darwinian evolution that we currently have no theory of the origin of life. But why is that a fatal flaw? The claim is hard to evaluate because I’m not clear on what Koukl takes the thesis of Darwinian evolution to amount to. But we can distinguish theories of life’s origins from theories of life’s subsequent development. If we restrict our attention to theories regarding the latter topic, then no problem necessarily arises for those theories from not having a theory of life’s origins. Suppose I have very strong evidence that my brother was in fact in my house yesterday, but can think of no plausible way that he got into my house. Each theory for his entrance into the house sounds rather unlikely. Is this a fatal flaw for the brother-in-the-house hypothesis? No. In that case, I would simply believe he got into the house without knowing how. Similarly, it doesn’t follow from the fact that we have no idea how the evolutionary process got going that we should have no confidence in crucial aspects of the theory of evolution. We can be very confident in speciation and common ancestry, for instance, even without a theory of life’s origins. We can also be confident that natural selection has great explanatory power, even if it must be supplemented by other mechanisms, without having a theory of life’s origins.

[Brad B]

I think that the iceberg as been hit already, it's just taking longer to sink because committed Darwinists are bucketing out water as fast as they can while never taking care of the holes.

Hi Jumper, you ask:

"How would you investigate whether a particular event had a supernatural cause and how would you be able to come to a conclusion that the event definitely had a supernatural cause?"

Investigate, if by that term you mean by sense perception, as in physical sensation [sight smell, feel, wiegh, measure], you can not come to a reliable conclusion on anything supernatural.

For that you need a supernatural ability or a supernatural revelation--fortunately, mankind has both. In the former, there is imperfection, in the latter, perfection. I think you'll just scoff at that, but no sane person just looking unbiased-ly at the evidence would believe naturalism is the correct framework to view the world.

[Rob]

I lack belief in Darwinism.

Lack of belief, I am told, does not need any justification.

After reading The Case for a Creator, I find it uncompelling.

[Jumper]

"For that you need a supernatural ability or a supernatural revelation--fortunately, mankind has both"
Can you explain that please given that in the previous sentence you say "you can not come to a reliable conclusion on anything supernatural"?

[RonH]

With a title like 'Question Evolution' you would think we find some evidence against evolution. (That would be something.)

Instead, what do we get?

Quotations from a few popular creationist books.
A sidebar on definition of science.
A sidebar on the origin of life.
And quote-mining of the worst kind.

Evolution accounts for the tree of life.
Evolution accounts for transitional forms. (Yes they do.)
Evolution accounts for genetics.
Evolution accounts for present biogeography.
Evolution accounts for the fossil record including past biogeography.

This success in accounting for the data is not the result of a prior commitment to materialism. The success is there with or without such a commitment.

Design could account these data too. But so what? Design could account for anything. This brings me to the mined quote.

Lewonton wrote:

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

The italicized sentence is in the original and is not in the version given in the OP. I call this quote mining of the worst kind because we are not even warned by the miner's ellipsis (...).

I'm going to guess the OP didn't remove the sentence himself. The same sentence is frequently missing from creationist sites. Most likely the OP took this one from one of those.

RonH

[confused]

I thought skepticism was default, and lack of belief didn't require any proof?

Now we are demanding proof to be skeptical?

[confussed]

Just like providing an alternate explanation is supposed to be the same as debunking.

[RonH]

Malebranche,

I like what you wrote.

Boldness comes up twice.

You point out that the recommendation, Question those things that call into question what you already believe is hardly a bold one. Amen.

Evolution expects fossils of whales with legs. Certainly design can account for them too. What can it not account for? But when evolutionary theory makes such a prediction it is risky. Bold.

RonH

[ToNy]

That is kinda weird that the quote is taken out...

It appears that the spirit of Lewonton's quote is merely to assert that science is a "no pixie dust allowed" domain.

For indeed, once pixie dust is on the table, then your model gets a lot more challenging to work with.

Now indeed, it may be the case that, in actuality, pixie dust was responsible for the creation of the organisms in question. And, that a scientists refusal to allow this possibility in his model, means that he won't arrive at the actual truth of the matter.

But I for one think the "no pixie dust" rule is fine for now. We seem to do pretty good without it.

I mean does anyone really want a researcher (who is standing in front of a whiteboard, and trying to cure cancer) to stop and devote half the white board to the question: "Well what if we assume demons are actually the cause of cancer."

Forget it.

I'd tell him to stop chasing demons and get back to work.

I am TOTALLY ok with our scientists taking an "a priori commitment to materialism" in his quest to cure cancer.

And, I am TOTALLY ok with our scientists taking an "a priori commitment to materialism" in his quest to prove evolution.

If exorcism resulted in more people being healed of cancer, then "the magical demons theory" goes back on the drawing board.

Until then, i'm ok with it being "off the table" for now.

[Malebranche]

Ahh, I didn't realize that today is Darwin Day. That explains why the obligatory "Boo on Darwinism!" fell on today. Apologist Brian Auten has tipped his hat to Darwin Day by calling attention to the following quote from Darwin himself:

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Charles Darwin

That's a fine quote. What is less impressive is that the quote's sentiment is lodged in the hearts of so few leaders in the Christian apologetics culture. Can any of us, after all, place our hand over our heart and declare with confidence that we expect conservative Christian apologists, in significant numbers, to begin to accurately and fairly present to their audiences the strongest evidences for crucial aspects of evolutionary theory? I suppose hope is a theological virtue, so that might recommend hoping for such things; but do we not also have it on good testimony that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick"?

[Bennett]

"Raise your hand if you would STOP being a Christian if molecules-to-man evolution were true."

No takers here. Which renders the whole point a little moot, for my beliefs. I'm profoundly skeptical of some of the offshoots of evolutionary biology, like "genetic memory" or "evolutionary psychology", but that's because they're all guesswork and no hard facts. If people in a chem lab conducted themselves the way folks in bio can get away with, they'd be laughed out of the academy. But bio really is one of the battlegrounds of metaphysics, and that means some wacky, wacky ideas get floated around from all directions.

[Josh Stewart]

Greg's mistake is that he refuses to seperation the process of evolution from abiogenesis.
This is evident when you ask the question: Is it a possibility that God could have created life and then used the natural process of evolution to guide it to the resent day? If the answer is yes. (that its possible not plausible) then they are two different things and he needs to admit it.

Also, he tries to dispel the image that it's fundamentalist Christians vs scientists. He is not entirely off base but the VAST majority of scientist accept evolution and mostly it's a relatively small group of evangelicals that are so hard against it. People who have little to no background in the sciences and believe a lot of other silly ideas from the same book. No wonder they get compared to flat.

I grew in church and was homeschooled. I went to science classes that taught nothing but ID or versions of creationsism. After rejecting my faith I still didn't accept evolution. It took a lot of research at debating with biology professors in order to convince me.

Confused, don't stop being skeptical. Even of evolution. It's a great discipline and a tool of science. My only hope is that you try to search out what you believe that you haven't put to the fire of skepticism and be honest. Even if it's scary.

[Sam]

Is it a possibility that God could have created life and then used the natural process of evolution to guide it to the resent day?

Greg has address this subject elsewhere. He thinks it's a contradiction to say that God used the natural process of evolution since if God was guiding the process, then it would not be entirely natural.

[Josh Stewart]

Sam, then does he think that stars forming are natural or that tress growing is natural?

[Sam]

As far as I know, yes.

[ToNy]

Bennett,

"Raise your hand if you would STOP being a Christian if molecules-to-man evolution were true. No takers here. Which renders the whole point a little moot"

Exactly.

It's a moot point.

It has no bearing on Christianity anymore whatsoever.

Yet it is CONSTANTLY discussed on christian blogs.

Why?

Why do they want creationism to win.

If creationism lost, there would be no detriment.

so they say...

I think secretly, they really do see evolution as damaging to the Christian world view and the creation story.

even if its now typical to be blase about it.

or, as william lane craig said: "agnostic on this one."

[Bennett]

Josh,

I wonder about the same thing. CS Lewis said that God turns water into wine all the time--by making it rain on vineyards, and through the subsequent process, in which chemistry, biology, and even human action all play a part.

There seems to be some sort of odd standard for biology, here.

[Bennett]

ToNy,

It's one of those things. I don't really see any reason that evolution damages Christianity, but creationism would demolish metaphysical naturalism. So it's very hard to let go of. I find it problematic, because it would make religious faith compulsory for any reasonable person, and I don't think that's part of God's design. I could be wrong, but there does seem to be some very deliberate hiddenness and mystery inherent to the whole exercise, to ensure freedom of choice.

[Josh Stewart]

"As far as I know, yes."

Same with evolution. It is possible that God put evolution in place just as the other natural laws that create things. Just as stars form from hydrogen gas and gravity and create elements that form planets ect ect...
The universe is big place. This reveals the hole in his understanding of evolution. I don't mind listening to someone who has legit objections. But when they don't understand what they are arguing against it's upsetting.

[Brad B]

Hi Jumper, what do you mean by "investigate"?

[Josh Stewart]

"There seems to be some sort of odd standard for biology, here."

A double one. Exactly.

[ToNy]

>> "there does seem to be some very deliberate hiddenness and mystery inherent to the whole exercise"

sometimes, when you can't find someone. It doesn't mean they're hiding. They may have never been there to begin with.

[Bennett]

ToNy,

Who says I never found Him?

[ToNy]

interview him and put the footage on youtube

[Louis Kuhelj]

ToNy

"interview him and put the footage on YouTube"

You want a fake video? Isn't that what you would call it if it was provided even if it was genuine? Why would god allow something as worthless to his purpose as a YouTube video of himself to be distributed? If anything, it would do the exact opposite of what you are convinced it would do. Furthermore, if such a thing would have convinced people of the truths god wants them to know, the video would already have been made and you would have seen it.

[Josh Stewart]

Thats true Louis. It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Josh

"It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book."

The purpose for which ToNy wanted the video is to prove God's existence. In a sense he is right that it would, but it would do nothing that God wants done. God is not interested in your intellectual affirmation of his existence. God wants your heart, your mind and your life all willingly given. Such a willingness does not come from intellectual ascent, but through a change of the attitude of the heart toward God. No amount of empirical evidence can ever result in that. That is why the bible does not attempt to prove God's existence(it assumes it), but reveals his nature and how that nature relates to our fallen one. It is our understanding of that, that can lead to what God wants. Our recognition and acknowledgment of our deep rebellion against the source of all that is good, which he is, and that hatred of that which is the greatest good of all, is the greatest evil of which we are each guilty of as expressed through our rebellion against God. Thus, it is the purest of justices that we be given exactly the amount of time in hell as it takes for us to undo a lifetime of wrongs we are each guilty of. That is the justice we deserve. Yet God chose the path of mercy instead.

[Bennett]

ToNy,

He says those commenters are way too harsh. Just look what they did to him last time he came down for a chat.

[Brad B]

When asked to give similar proof, Jesus answered:

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

[Bennett]

Brad,

I dunno if the pagans ever tried to search for God on YouTube. I think they were going more after some "miraculous sign", like the Carl Sagan's "giant cross on the moon" or somesuch.

But if you ever wanted to define "category error", I think trying to find the Holy Spirit with an internet search is probably up there on the list of examples.

[Brad B]

"Evolution accounts for the tree of life. Evolution accounts for transitional forms. (Yes they do.) Evolution accounts for genetics. Evolution accounts for present biogeography. Evolution accounts for the fossil record including past biogeography."

Shouldn't these be accounting for evolution instead of the other way around. As it is, evolution cannot account for even one intellectual thing, unless your definition or standard of account is lacking precision for how it is normally used [if you want the force of reason to compel assent]. In a philosophical context, for this to have any meaning, accounts should mean ultimate or to justify rationally. Though, in that sense, I dont think account is the right word, opinion would be better.

[Daron]

Thats true Louis. It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book.

...

And [D]aron thinks I'm the troll...

Yep.

[Jumper]

Brad

I use investigate in its normal way i.e carry out research to find out what's going on.

As to your latest post - evolution is the theory which allows us to understand the natural mechanisms which produced those phenomena RonH describes.

Its difficult to understand what the point is in your post.

[Brad B]

Meant to say "opines" instead of "opinion" up above as alternative to accounts.

[Brad B]

Hi Jumper, so you prove your conclusion by imposing its presuppositions on its proofs?

[Jumper]

Brad

I asked how you would determine whether the supernatural were involved? What method would you use?

[Brad B]

hi Jumper, does the normal way investigate is used mean by physycal sense perception? If so, you cannot prove supernaturalism by investigate. That is my only point on that. If a broader sense is allowed, supernaturalism is inescapable.

[Jumper]

Brad

What sort of phenomena require you to invoke the supernatural as a potential cause?

What 'broader sense' do you refer to?

[Brad B]

Logical necessity. Or, impossibility of the contrary are two that come to mind. Oh,and there is the prophetic word also. Sense perception cannot account for these immaterial ideas but the physical world declares them also.

Try to account for knowlede, justify the necessary preconditions by phenomena, maybe you'll be the first.

[Brad B]

Please excuse my phone typing, I'm not proofreading very well.

[Jumper]

Brad

I'll try and ask the question again.
Do you accept that there are phenomena where there are perfectly good natural explanations where no supernatural explanations are required?

If so, under what circumstances do you need to invoke a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon?

[Brad B]

Ill try an answer again. How about knowledge?

[SteveK]

Jumper,

I asked how you would determine whether the supernatural were involved? What method would you use?

The rational method. The one that starts with the question: what would reality have to be like (it's essential nature) in order for it to give us the reality we see today?

The rational method concludes that matter and energy alone can't get you there - and isn't that what naturalistic reality is, in essence?

[Jumper]

SteveK

BradB - Im sorry I don't understand.

SteveK - I dont understand what you mean by the rational method so if you could describe it that would help me - apologies. What I would say is that there must be, philosophically, a difference between reality ("it's essential nature") and the reality we see - i.e. observational reality.

Do either of you conclude that supernatural causes are involved when I drop a ball and it falls to earth? Why?

[Bennett]

Jumper,

Are you referring to material, efficient, formal, or final causes when you ask whether there is a supernatural "cause" involved in you dropping a ball and its subsequent falling?

[Josh Stewart]

Thats true Louis. It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book.
...
And [D]aron thinks I'm the troll...
Yep.

No trolling. Just trying to make a point out of the inconsistency. He scoffs at one medium of communication because it's modern. But suddenly place the same claims in a book thousands of years old and it becomes more credible. It's preposterous.