16 February 2007
“Bill Dembski is world famous” says creationism’s prodigal son Michael Shermer
scordova
I was at the Dembski-Shermer Debate at Bridgewater College in Bridgewater Virginia last night. I had the privilege of finally meeting both William Dembski and Michael Shermer for the first time in person. They spoke to a crowd of about 350 people from Bridgewater College, James Madison University, and the surrounding community. The crowd was diverse from high-school educated carpenters to PhD trained scientists and philosophers. Symbolic of the diverse mix of people was an American pastor of a rural church and his wife, a Russian laser physicist!
Dembski won the debate, but I must salute Shermer’s honorable and courageous performance in the face of overwhelming odds. Shermer debated fairly and cleanly and avoided slinging mud and motive mongering. He did his best to stick to the discussion of scientific issues. Hats off to him.
It is hard not to really like Michael Shermer. One often gets the sense that Michael Shermer is viewed as creationism’s Prodigal Son by many. He was once an Evangelical Christian and renounced his faith after accepting Darwinian evolution. It seems many in my circles hold out hope Shermer will one day see the light and be restored to his long lost family.
That said, Shermer made a gallant attempt to discredit the hypothesis of intelligent design. His presentation reminded me of the valiant but ill-fated Pickett’s Charge in the battle of Gettysburg where Confederate soldiers marched a mile in the open field in the face relentless canon and musket fire. In that charge two life-long friends (Armistead and Hancock) found themselves pitted against each other, with Armistead leading his confederates into the blistering fire of Hancock’s canons. Such was the debate last night. Two friends, Bill Dembski and Michael Shermer were pitted against one another, and Shermer heroically fought on the side of a losing cause. I cringed that it was a courageous and honorable Michael Shermer marching into the battlefield instead of Barbara Forrest (see: Barbara Forrest, will the real coward please stand up).
Shermer attempted to discredit intelligent design by arguing the evidence for common ancestry. Shermer really shined when he cited the writings of Evangelical Christian and renowned scientist Francis Collins. He said Collins’ defense of Darwinian evolution in the book The Language of God was one of the best ever written, and Shermer read almost verbatim from chapter 5 of Collins’ book. That was a brilliant move by Shermer (especially before a crowd sympathetic to Dembski), but the move was brilliantly repulsed when Dembski reiterated, “ID is not inherently against the idea of common ancestry”. Thus Dembski neutralized Shermer’s best argument.
Shermer in the end said he was open to ideas like self-organization, or other evolutionary scenarios, and thus contradicted his own thesis on the importance of natural selection. When Shermer said he was open to the possibility of other mechanisms for evolution (like self-organization), Bill pulled out Shermer’s book and reminded him of Shermer’s own words:
No one, and I mean no one, working in the field is debating whether natural selection is the driving force behind evolution
Bill put together a wonderful arsenal of slides, videos, and compelling arguments making constant references to engineering. The audience was full of wonder as he showed the marvelous complexity of life graphically. He cited peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that debate was active on various ID topics. Bill Dembski mentioned the infamous Wistar Convention of 1966 where the world’s top neo-Darwinists were bludgeoned by mathematicians and computer scientists.
During the Q & A, Jason Rosenhouse (of Pandas Thumb) vigorously objected to Dembski’s citation of Wistar. Rosenhouse used a line of argumentation that he used in the essay CAN PROBABILITY THEORY BE USED TO REFUTE EVOLUTION?. Rosenhouse makes a formidable and convincing argument, but there is actually a more formidable and almost invulnerable counter argument (which I will give briefly). But rather than using his best counter to Rosenhouse, Dembski chose to avoid formalism and appeal to a popular audience by pointing out the selective use of probability theory by evolutionists. He showed Rosenhouse’s objections based on uncertainty regarding the conditions of the deep past were equally fatal to proponents of Darwinian evolution if Rosenhouse’s standards were equally applied, thus demonstrating Rosenhouse was arguing for a double standard.
But for the reader’s benefit, and to try to put a rest to some of this, the more solid but tediously formal argument against Rosenhouse’s thesis is laid out in Design Inference. Understandably because of time constraints, Bill did not bring out the big guns of formalisms laid in Design Inference. The formalisms demonstrate that there is a moot point crushing the Darwinist position, namely that Darwinists arguments are logically self-contradictory probability arguments of the form: “E = not-E” (page 46). Bill even uses the phrase reductio ad absurdum to described what his formalism demonstrates. “Reductio ad absurdum” is “proof by contradiction”. A proof by contradiction is not the same as argument from incredulity. A proof by contradiction shows how a claim is logically self-contradictory and therefore indefensible.
Darwinists argue that an unspecific mechanism can make specific outcomes. That is a logically self-contradictory claim, like the square circles. Probabilistically speaking, it’s like saying any ole combination (an unspecified mechanism) will open the safe (a specified outcome). When Darwinism is put into mathematical language, the self-contradictory nature of Darwinism is readily apparent. Rosenhouse argues that we would need detailed knowledge to make a probability argument, whereas the formal ID refutation is simply pointing out Darwinists have framed their claims in a logically self-defeating manner. That is the crux of the ID formalism refuting Darwinian evolution. This was shown in more detail in The Fundamental theorem of intelligent Design.
Shermer touched on the co-option argument and the flagella of other organisms other that E. Coli. This is a deep enough subject, I might have to defer discussion to another thread, but in brief, consider the fact your passwords are irreducibly complex. Does the fact that other people using passwords with some of the same alphabetic characters negate the IC of your password? Because some people have passwords that use the same letters as yours, can your password be more easily broken? There is a similar problem then with using arguments from protein homology to say IC is solvable since organisms use similar proteins (where we might think of proteins as letters to a password, and the passwords as IC systems). Dembski did not have time to address that point in Shermer’s presentation, and it was probably deep in the weeds enough that it would have bogged down the discussion.
During the Q & A the community of YECs came out in force and were rather polemic toward Shermer. I thought their tone was a bit rude. Can’t these guys be just a bit more collegial? No wonder they have such a bad reputation. After the hammering Shermer took, the YEC behavior was like the act of sticking bayonets into the bodies of dead soldiers. They could have been considerably more gracious, but they seem to have a real chip on their shoulder. Some YECs in that community are pretty tough, and one even showed me the door last year because he viewed me as too much a compromiser for my association with the ID movement! I was actually worried for Bill that the YECs in the crowd would start giving him a bad time over him not being a YEC himself. I mean, I was worried these guys would start arguing with Bill about what they think the Bible says.
In the closing remarks Shermer made some good points. He commented on the question that people pose to him about the after life, to which he responds “I’m all for it….but wanting something to be true does not make it true…the question of ID does not address the matter of such things…science shouldn’t be used to bolster religious belief, because science may over turn it.” Interestingly, that hit home for me. I cannot imagine having a religious faith not bolstered by empirical facts and sound theoretical arguments. If the facts overturn what I believe, then so be it. I can understand Shermer’s not wanting religion to rely on science, but on the other hand I can’t imagine a body of beliefs totally decoupled from empirical reality…..
The informal reception afterwards was very interesting. I met Bill Dembski for the first time and also had a cordial conversation with Jason Rosenhouse about things outside of ID. Though Rosenhouse and I are polar opposites, and sometimes we probably fume at each other, he has always been civil in person and conducted himself in an honorable manner whenever he participated in the Campus Crusade/Chi Alpha/IDEA functions I put together at his school.
I finally managed to talk to Dr. Shermer. He is quite a gentleman, and it was a delight to meet him. I asked him what he thought about the media attention given the ID movement. He said, “It’s far more than anything the creationists have ever gotten…it’s a truly successful media relations campaign…the creationists had nothing like it…a lot of it has to do with the internet….Bill Dembski is now world famous because of ID”. This is an interesting comment about the effectiveness of the internet. I didn’t have the time to pursue why he thought the internet was so important to the spread of ID.
I asked him about the mood of his colleagues post-Dover. To my surprise he said, for most of them it’s back to business. He’s all for people believing what they want to believe and teaching their children as such. He and his colleagues were concerned that tax payer money would be used to impose Christian beliefs on students, and thus he and his colleagues are much less worried about that now that Dover is behind us.
If I recall corretly, he said, “I’m against public schools, I think they’re a bad idea.” He mentioned he is favorable to private and home schools. But home and private schools are a veritable incubator of creationists! So I had to see if I could corroborate my recollection of what Shermer said with something he has published. He in fact wrote 25 EVOLUTIONISTS’ ANSWERS
In private schools funded and/or controlled by creationists, it is their freedom to teach whatever they like to their children.
Whoa!
He said he wanted to visit my alma mater, George Mason, because of their renowned free-market economics department run by 2 Nobel laureates. Is Shermer a libertarian of sorts? Hmm….Any way, I could go on, but the sum of my remarks is that I find Shermer to be an honorable gentleman. I would hope some day he sees the light.
Print This Post
1
Douglas
02/16/2007
6:40 pm
Salvador,
“During the Q & A the community of YECs came out in force and were rather polemic toward Shermer. I thought their tone was a bit rude.”
All of them? Or the more vocal and rude of them?
“Can’t these guys be just a bit more collegial? No wonder they have such a bad reputation.”
Yes, well, one can always judge an entire group by the actions of a relative few at an isolated and not hugely attended meeting. As you seem to have done.
“After the hammering Shermer took, the YEC behavior was like the act of sticking bayonets into the bodies of dead soldiers.”
War imagery. Maybe they had been singing, “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war…”, and had a bit of a militant mind-set. Or maybe they weren’t astute enough to realize Shermer’s entire argument against ID and YEC had been defeated, especially given Bill Dembski’s comment that “ID is not inherently against the idea of common ancestry”? Could it be that they wanted to defend not only ID, but YEC also? Maybe the body you perceived to be dead was still crawling around a little.
“They could have been considerably more gracious, but they seem to have a real chip on their shoulder.”
Given the treatment they receive from not only the entrenched scientific community, but also ID supporters generally, it’s quite understandable.
“Some YECs in that community are pretty tough, and one even showed me the door last year because he viewed me as too much a compromiser for my association with the ID movement!”
Shocking. But then again, Salvador, if one’s conscience says that another person is compromising on matters which impinge on the Gospel, then if one seeks to obey the Bible, one SHOULD show that other person the door. In the case you mention, the person might be mistaken, but his actions were likely not due to rudeness, anger, or vengefulness, but rather to sincere conviction.
“I was actually worried for Bill that the YECs in the crowd would start giving him a bad time over him not being a YEC himself.”
By “giving him a bad time”, do you mean pointing out where his views on these matters contradict the Bible? Bill’s a tough guy - I’m sure he could withstand, at least emotionally, some such volleys from polite audience members.
“I mean, I was worried these guys would start hammering Bill about what the Bible says.”
Horrors. They wouldn’t have? Would they have? I tremble even to think of it - Bill Dembski called into question about some of his views about what the Bible says.
By the way, Salvador, there was a period of many months at ARN, at least, where you were claiming that you were leaning more towards YEC than OEC. Am I mistaken? Or have you changed your views in this?
2
scordova
02/16/2007
6:45 pm
Douglas,
Thanks for proving my point about YEC polemics. Sheesh you guys embarass me.
Sal
PS
I lean toward YEC, but like Marcus Ross and Paul Nelson, I’m comfortable working within alternate paradigms.
3
IDist
02/16/2007
6:57 pm
Can’t wait to read the transcript.
4
Douglas
02/16/2007
7:02 pm
In what way was my post offensive, Salvador? My spirit in posting it was not snide, but a gentle, though hopefully clear, humor aimed at highlighting ways in which you seemed to not treat YECs fairly, or to have perhaps perceived the situation clearly.
The majority of your post which dealt with YECs seemed to be a subtle but obvious attack upon them, Salvador. And you seemed to judge YECs based on what apparently was the behavior of a relative few “YECers” at that meeting. You have not, though, provided any specific examples which would illustrate in what way they were “rude” or “willing to bayonet a dead body” (your image, helpfully provided).
I must say, Salvador, I’ve watched you now for quite some time, and my above post was far “gentler” and less rude than many of yours to many of your anti-ID opponents at ARN. Are you looking to distance yourself from Young Earth Creationism?
(Oh, and I pray that Dr. Kennedy is recovering well. I will say, though, that after having donated a fair sum of money to his ministry recently for something-or-other, I have been buffeted by letters from his ministry suggesting more donations. I have never received such insistent and consistent “suggestions”/requests for donations as I have from Dr. Kennedy’s ministry. I think that’s why I prefer Dave Hunt’s “The Berean Call”, where they NEVER request donations, or make pleas which amount to requests for donations - they even state that they have always, and will always, trust rather in the Lord to provide.)
5
shaner74
02/16/2007
7:05 pm
Out of all the atheists I’ve seen debate I like Shermer the best. He comes across as a stand-up guy. I don’t doubt that if he found evidence he thought pointed to God, he would give up his atheism readily. Concerning the YEC crowd, I have to admit I hold some disdain for them. Where ID seems to follow where the evidence leads, YEC seems to rally against it. I know there are some YEC’s here but I’m just giving my honest opinion – don’t mean to offend. To an extent I can understand the Darwinists lashing out against them, but willfully confusing YEC with ID is simply disingenuous. I think if it weren’t for YEC, Darwinism wouldn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to all this “coming theocracy†nonsense. BTW, the debate wouldn’t be available online anywhere would it?
6
JGuy
02/16/2007
7:35 pm
“In the closing remarks Shermer made some good points. He commented on the question that people pose to him about the after life, to which he responds “I’m all for it….but wanting something to be true does not make it true…the question of ID does not address the matter of such things…science shouldn’t be used to bolster religious belief, because science may over turn it.†Interestingly, that hit home for me. I cannot imagine having a religious faith not bolstered by empirical facts and sound theoretical arguments. If the facts overturn what I believe, then so be it. I can understand Shermer’s not wanting religion to rely on science, but on the other hand I can’t imagine a body of beliefs totally decoupled from empirical reality…..”
Though I believe the bible is supported by real science and facts. There is an inherent & serious problem with relying on science & scientific opinions…
A case study:
http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20070112a
This is one reason I think the Answers in Genesis mission is one of the strongest. It knwos how we can mess up science, and uses the bible to see the world. Even though their stance is probably one of it’s most criticised views by opponents… this stance has stood the test of time and found that the science evnetualy turns around back to support the bible.
I think, personally, that creation, by an innate kind of science, testifies that God created… and that’s about that.
Some things, such as the age of the earth, I don’t think we can fully know without revelation. Without the bible, there would have been no reason to think the earth was 6000 years old. Even though, some work by Setterfield may be possibly leading to that discovery.. many many years after the belief was accepted by Chirstians.
Anyway…
I look forwrd to reading the debate too. Will there be a video?
7
tribune7
02/16/2007
7:56 pm
Sal, great reporting. Thank you. It was as though I was there.
Wistar Convention of 1996
I think you mean 1966.
8
Forthekids
02/16/2007
8:06 pm
Thanks Salvador. That review was very interesting and informative. I wish I could have been there.
I agree with you that there are people from all sides of this debate who can become vicious in their response to those they disagree with.
Q&A always brings out the worst in these types. I’ve cringed on more than one occasion listening to people at the mic attack the speaker. Emotions run high in this debate, but people should try to understand the other person’s point of view and realize that they truly believe what they are saying so it’s not right to treat them with distain.
[Note to self: be nicer to the pro-Darwin crowd.]
9
scordova
02/16/2007
8:09 pm
JGuy,
I have less trust of many theologians claiming to have absolute truth than I do empirical scientists who constanly admit their fallibility. How much trust do you give to someone claiming they can’t possibly be wrong? [Unless of course they can work miracles like walking on water or rising from the dead....]
AiG has practically equated their theology with God’s word, they have no doubts of their possible fallibility.
A statement or profession of faith (like the creeds and profession I made to join the church) is different than promoting oneself has having an infallible interpretation. I profess what I believe, but I don’t go around pretending my understanding of the Bible is infallible.
Someone who has such an attitude of their personal infallibility, may be correct, but how much trust are you willing to bestow on them given their pronouncements of infallibility?
That statement may actually be contrary to the truth. Romans 1:20 promises a degree of irrefutabilty from empirical evidence. IF, and a big IF, the Designer wishes to affirm a literal Luke 3:20, it stands to reason creation will not allow science to make any other interpretation. We will be forced to follow where the evidence leads. Perhaps a little tolerance from the YECs are in order until more data comes in. I am not willing to give a final word on these difficult issues by interpretational fiat as AiG is willing to do. I much rather profess what I believe to be true and admit I could be wrong. A little caution and skepticism is healthy….
ICR kept using the argument, “if God says it’s a certain way” then that over rides empirical appearnces. There are not many instances whre that principle is applied in the Bible, and those were the exceptions rather than the rule.
That’s where we ended up getting the whole “appearance of age theology”. That was especially true in arguments of distant starlight. Even AiG saw right through that.
Now, let me show a double standard with AiG. If they start appealing to empirical arugments to support their position, then that is a repudiation of the thesis that its sufficient to know about origins through reading and interpreting God’s Word alone. If that were the case, why bother doing any science???? Look at how the Lord dealt with Gideon when Gideon sought empirical corroboration.
Rather it affirms the purely empirical approach which the Lord himself hints at in John 10:38 that if one cannot believe the words one “can believe the works”.
Bible pounding conveys the image of someone deeply insecure about empirical facts. How good of a witness is that before a world seeking truth?
Shermer might be right to criticize that ID does not lead to all the other theological claims in various world religions. That is a respectable objection which I will address elsewhere.
The point at issue in the debate was the evidence of the design argument. Without that, for me personally I would be on Michael Shermer’s side today. Some may disagree with me, but a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth ascenting to….
10
shaner74
02/16/2007
8:41 pm
“The point at issue in the debate was the evidence of the design argument. Without that, for me personally I would be on Michael Shermer’s side today. Some may disagree with me, but a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth ascenting to”
Can I get an Amen!
11
Forthekids
02/16/2007
8:56 pm
Rock on, Sal!!! I couldn’t agree more.
12
bFast
02/16/2007
9:09 pm
shaner74, “a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth ascenting to.” I’ll give you a cautious amen. The consern, of course, is that science has by no means uncovered all of the facts yet. Furthermore, the scientific community is somewhat selective about which facts they bring to the table, and which they are quiet about. (I’m still waiting for an explanation of the dried blood found on T.Rex bones.) However, I, like you, have seen sufficient evidence that, blood on T.Rex bones notwithstanding, I am bought into the old earth conclusion. At that point, I have three options, discover an interpretation of my theological position that is in line with the evidence, abandon my theology, or “live in the ambiguity,” waiting for a future science, or future theological interpretation to unify these two apparently established but contradictory truths. (Isn’t physics in the same position re quantum theory and relativitiy?)
13
GilDodgen
02/16/2007
10:07 pm
Sal,
Here’s something interesting: I am the antipole of Shermer. I was a lifelong, Dawkins-style, militant atheist until age 43 (I’m now 56), but once I started investigating the evidence of modern science my atheism collapsed catastrophically and very quickly.
I am the ultimate lost son who finally figured out that he was really, really stupid, because the evidence was screaming at him from every corner, all throughout his life, but he refused to recognize it.
14
mike1962
02/16/2007
10:27 pm
Salvador,
Great post.
15
a5b01zerobone
02/16/2007
11:08 pm
When people are polite and civil with one another things are always so much better.
Great post.
16
1of63
02/16/2007
11:34 pm
How do you decide who won in these debates?
17
intp147
02/17/2007
1:34 am
Salvador: “a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth assenting to.”
Darn right! Assuming a strict definition of “facts” that requires them to be true, regardless of current acceptance, if what God reveals is proven false, then it would appear that “God” is either mistaken or lying.
Salvador: “Romans 1:20 promises a degree of irrefutabilty from empirical evidence.”
Hmmmm…. Actually, Romans 1:20 names just two things that are evident from empirical evidence: God’s eternal power and his divine nature. It is these that the text says men are without excuse for denying. Nothing here about how old anything is, by what means God brought us into existence, etc.; therefore, no apparent suggestion from this text that empirical evidence would necessarily tell us much about such things.
bFast: “Furthermore, the scientific community is somewhat selective about which facts they bring to the table, and which they are quiet about.”
This agrees with a wide enough array of sources that I don’t have difficulty believing it–nor is that reason for cynicism with regard to the scientific community. It simply illustrates what I believe to be the human tendency to reinforce, without conscious effort, what one expects or wants to see. This doesn’t deny the occasional, but often vociferous, clown out there who deliberately tries to silence facts he knows will hurt his cause.
I suppose this observed selectivity is one reason why I don’t feel compelled to accept the majority view about the age of the earth, any more than about unguided, common descent. Evidence is presented on both sides of the question, after all.
As far as the Bible goes, the text of the Creation account appears fairly clear to me. There isn’t obviously symbolic imagery as in other passages, and there are no intricate theological concepts that have to be worked out before the account can be understood. It’s really pretty basic, actually. Just as few would question the intelligent origin of DNA if a plausible agent were known within the range of common experience, so few would question the meaning and timing of the Creation account were there not strong motivations to somehow reconcile the text what what are regarded as facts. The two possibilities for me, then, are that it’s a historically true account, and the supposed “facts” are actually mistaken; or that, if the “facts” really are true, then the Creation account is false. Rick’s perspective, simplified version.
OP: “After the hammering Shermer took, the YEC behavior was like the act of sticking bayonets into the bodies of dead soldiers. They could have been considerably more gracious, but they seem to have a real chip on their shoulder.”
Yeah, nothing like good Christian behavior to win over one’s perceived foe, eh?
This behavior is perhaps understandable to some degree from a human point of view; but if Christians treat their “enemies” like that, they discredit the primary evidence that there’s supposedly a superhuman power within them. Good for you, Salvador, for your gracious attitude toward Dr. Shermer.
GilDodgen, #13: very cool.
18
JGuy
02/17/2007
2:02 am
Sal,
From my prior post and our outside correspondance, you know that I do not discount science as useful - if done very critically. And I’ve even used it to edify my own faith. But for matters of knowing truth, I don’t rely on a full bore evidentialist approach, nor do I think it is solely a presuppositional one. I think there is some need of correspondance between faith and reality. I’m still in personal debate on how to use these ideas. However, I’ve used my understanding of science to help me see how reality confirms/corresponds with the truth/reality of/within God’s word.
Let me back up a sec.. when I say science, I don’t neccessarily mean science that you only find in books or labs w/ beakers, flasks & test tubes. Here it means also the innate sense of ’science’ that I think all of us have from birth. Concepts which do not - at all - require a PhD in any one field of study. For example, we can know from experience and/or with an innate understanding of probability that designs do not just pop into existence from chaos. An ordering process needs to be present. And some designs, such as those ID is concerned with (CSI, IC..etc..), always require an intelligent cause for that ordering. This is innate AND somewhat empirical. [BTW: It's odd that these ideas seem so obvious, yet so may evolutionary scientists don't seem to "get it".]
Anyway, I appreciate science ..done right.. but I do not dicard the value of presuppositions (w/ a biblical basis) and ‘how it is’ that we interpret evidence. To take the inverse of one of your critical statements of AIG, and not to suggest you mean this exactly, but if a purely evidential means to know truth were all there was needed, then why have the bible? We should then be able to pick up a rock, look at it and figure out morals, the Triune God and maybe even the Gospel. But science of any form can’t do that - those are inscribed or special revelations. And if science were a reliable way to truth, then past centuries of peoples are at a disavantage compared to us.. as we will be considered at a disadvantage compared to future generations (that will presumably have more advanced understandings of the physcial world and scientific discoveries). Perhap, we could argue, that it may simply be that scientific understanding keeps just up to par with increasingly “advanced” oppostional arguments against God’s existence. Which is reminiscent, to me, of the Message Theory developed by Walter Remine.
There seems to be a NEED for a balance.. between evidences and special revelations. One which doesn’t require a life long quest. Which Romans 1:20 tells us:
“18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
” - NASB
This tells me, yes.. evidentially.. creation testifies of God. But it also tells me that this is very innate (no man or scientist need hold our hands). And when people resist evidences of God.. it says it isn’t because there isn’t enough evidence. Also, it might mean that we can be edified by the evidences and encouraged as believers… since it is the creation which testifies, and testifying does edify and strengthen belief.
Regarding AIG. I don’t think that they are thinking they can’t be fallible. They’d probably admit as much. I think they are thinking the bible can not be fallible. With that, then it’s not really AIG’s fallibility or not at stake.. it’s the bible. Of course, you can reasonably argue that it’s THEIR intrepretation that can be fallible, and yes that is possibly true… but what does a plain reading (I don’t mean literal but plain reading) of the bible tell us? That seems, to me, to be AIG’s approach. They distrust secular scientists AND theologians as much as you distrust theologians AND secular scientists - the order mentioned being deliberate.
As for me, I think there is merit to having a biblical basis to do science. Others may simply disagree. Sobeit.
By the way Sal. I like the arugment you present using John 10:38. I think this will help me in understanding on how to balance the use of evidences.. my current struggle.
One mroe thought:
Some may disagree with me, but a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth ascenting to….
Fair enough. But how would you ever know that you have an accurate understanding of what are the facts to overpower a plain intrepretation of scripture? Remember my case point in my prior post - the guy who lost his faith (supposedly) because of his view of facts (whgich LATER cme to be found wrongly intrerpested). There are many other possible examples. There seems to be a need of a healthy balance of evidences and faith.
19
JGuy
02/17/2007
2:21 am
Correction this statemnet from above:
“However, I’ve used my understanding of science to help me see how reality confirms/corresponds with the truth/reality of/within God’s word.”
Is mroe accurately read:
“However, I’ve used my understanding of science to help me see how the empirical & even experiential part of reality (ie creation evidences) confirms/corresponds with the truth/reality of/within God’s word.”
I just want that to be clear so nobody thinks I was suggesting that God’s word (ie. the bible) was not reality. I err in typing too fast or use my terms, unfortunately, too loose or ad hoc at times.
20
inunison
02/17/2007
2:59 am
“Some may disagree with me, but a theology not in line with the facts is probably a theology not worth ascenting to….”
I think scordova that you are mistaken. Facts are assigned meaning by our interpretation. So, today, you would reject a particular theology because it does not line up with interpretation of the facts and what happens when interpretation of the same facts change tomorrow?
21
JGuy
02/17/2007
3:47 am
Sal,
Did you mean Luke 3:20 in the above? It reads: “Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.”
22
scordova
02/17/2007
4:25 am
There maybe some merit, but there can be even more merit and trustworthiness when science is done from an atheistic world view and then the results of the evidential investigation over turn the very presupposition of the initial investigation.
A world searching for truth will be more convinced with a self-refutation of atheism. Proof vial self-contradiction is a powerful tool.
People will tend to distrust a scientific procedure not open to falsification as that conveys a deep insecurity with empirical facts. Such insecurities are actually the antithesis of a bold faith, and sends a message to outsiders that one really does not have a secure faith!
“Biblically based science” is somewhat of an oxymoron, and is in contradiction to the very sense of Romans 1:20 and John 10:38.
We have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. Formally speaking that is a faith statement, not a immutable mathematical fact. People can come to faith by various means. To use the language of math, the empirical facts are a sufficient but not necessary means to arrive a reasonable conclusion of faith.
But if ones faith is BOLD, one ought to feel confident the facts are strong enough that one can start with the wrong world-view of absolute materialism and atheism and end up with the opposite.
For that reason, I have greater respect for the BSG than the ICR. The BSG does not require its members to sign a declaration that they are creationists. [The most notable such non-creationist member, of course, was Richard Sternberg].
Practicing science without the assumption of God is no more a rejection of truth than a mathematician trying to prove the square root of 2 is irrational by first hypothetically presuming the exact opposite of what is true (namely, the square root of 2 is rational).
23
scordova
02/17/2007
4:40 am
I meant 3:23-37, I corrected it. Thanks.
24
scordova
02/17/2007
5:00 am
By the way. I forgot to mention, Shermer said he would disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found a human fossil along with a tribolite.
There are of course controversial claims to that effect. For the reader’s benefit, here is one such artifact suggested by Walter Brown:
Tribolite and Human Footprint
Is that the correct interpretation of the fossil? Hopefully in time we will have more data….
25
DaveScot
02/17/2007
6:25 am
1of63
How do you decide who won in these debates?
Personally, I’ve found that paramedics are good impartial observers with the requisite expertise.
If the paramedics aren’t called in then debate wasn’t really vigorous enough to be called anything but a draw.
Just my opinion though. Everyone has different standards.
26
DaveScot
02/17/2007
6:35 am
Sal
Shermer said he would disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found a human fossil along with a tribolite.
I’m sure he’d call it a sham or a mistake. Write to him and ask for clarification about what conditions would be necessary to convince him it was an authentic find. People as convinced as he is are in total denial and no evidence would ever be sufficiently reliable. Even if he couldn’t pinpoint how the hoax was accomplished he’d still be convinced it was somehow a hoax. He’d sooner believe David Copperfield could make the Statue of Liberty disappear for real.
27
jerry
02/17/2007
8:47 am
I have a question. Since this thread is eliciting some very religious discussions and I prefer to keep things to science. Are there any species that have appeared since the appearance of humans? I realize there may be some minor species variations in birds or fish but has anything as dramatic as homo sapiens appeared since they first appeared a few hundred thousand years ago?
If humans are the last major species to appear then how did the writers of the bible know this? Just a lucky guess.
28
Douglas
02/17/2007
8:51 am
“For that reason, I have greater respect for the BSG than the ICR. The BSG does not require its members to sign a declaration that they are creationists.”
There is nothing wrong or deserving of less respect for a Christian-based organization, whether scientific or theological, to require that its members adhere to particular beliefs which align with the organization’s foundational beliefs. I believe ICR also has many of its scientists speak at churches - it would be silly for them to send out an atheist or Buddhist to do so.
29
tribune7
02/17/2007
9:07 am
Shermer said he would disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found a human fossil along with a tribolite.
Why not a Coelacanth?
30
Joseph
02/17/2007
9:25 am
MaxAug,
I believe it was Rosenhouse who trued to sell the idea that since random number generators can generate specified complexity then Dembski’s arguments fail. He held this belief even AFTER it was pointed out that RNGs are the product of a designing agency and as such all alleged SC derived by them can be traced back to that intelligent agency.
IOW he is as good as any anti-IDist for setting up and tearing down a strawman. He is also good at taking quotes out-of-context. And he is very bad at substantiating the materialistic anti-ID position. Which in reality is all he has to do to refute ID.
31
jerry
02/17/2007
9:28 am
I thought that tribolite have not existed for a few hundred million years while the coelacanth is with us today.
32
scordova
02/17/2007
10:21 am
I appreciate your reluctance to agree, and to be consistent with what I have said, let me offer that I could be mistaken.
I am willing to accept that our interpretation of physical facts is faulty. What I find distressing is that some are reluctant to admit their interpretation of sacred writings might not be faulty as well. What is especially bad is when the science and the theology are faulty but the individual promotes themselves as infallible in their understanding.
Yes, I have made profession of faith, but that does not equate to an assertion that my understanding of things is infallible. In fact, like a child with limited and fallibile ability, I have rather put child-like trust in claims that I cannot fully prove, but seem reasonalbe to me. It remains in the hands of the thing I trust to vindicate the truthfulness of what I have come believe with my limited fallible mind.
But if we wish to invoke theology, what does Romans 1:20 mean? Our interpretation of facts may be faulty, but will they ever be so faulty as to invalidate the strength of the facts as described in Romans 1:20?
33
kairos
02/17/2007
10:24 am
Great post Sal.
Has the debate been TV recorded and is it accessible by INTERNET. IMHO a debate between one of the ID leaders and the leader of CSICOP is worth to be seen worldwide.
34
IDist
02/17/2007
10:27 am
Any idea when the transcript will be available?
Thanks!
35
tribune7
02/17/2007
10:40 am
I thought that tribolite have not existed for a few hundred million years while the coelacanth is with us today.
Once upon a time, it was thought the coelacanth had not existed for hundreds of millions of years.
Would Shermer disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found living trilobite?
36
jerry
02/17/2007
10:57 am
tribune7,
Shermer is using the trilobite as generic for long extinct organism. Pick any other long extinct organism and the same analogy would work.
If we found trilobites today it would be very interesting but probably wouldn’t change much other than there would be a hunt for other long extinct life. It wouldn’t change Shermer’s proposition in any meaningful way. There would be a lot of heat but not much new light.
37
tribune7
02/17/2007
11:12 am
Pick any other long extinct organism and the same analogy would work.
And if the extinct organism turns out not to be extinct then the analogy falls apart.
So, we find another extinct organism. What if we should find that that is not extinct? At what point would we start saying we are flat-out wrong about evolution?
And shouldn’t finding human fossils next to marine life be more of an anomaly than an expectation?
38
scordova
02/17/2007
11:22 am
There is a group of non-ID people who suggest that there are lots of out of place fossils, and that the prevailing paradigm is forcing the anomalies to be ignored.
Hypothetically if these anomalies do point to something wrong, it still raises the issue of why fossils have tended to be sorted together into certain strata. I don’t think the problem is unsolvable to give an explanation for the sorting phenoma, but it is challenging.
Let us also, for the sake of argument, say the Earth is Old. Why then over 100,000,000 years is 600 some meters of continent not fully eroded into the sea? 6 centimeters of erosion per 10,000 years would do the trick, and even with tectonic crustal recycling, we ought not to have geological strata with 300,000,000 year old fossils. Something of basic geo-paleontology is amiss. This is a very BASIC question. It does not immediately argue for a young earth, but it puts into doubt why there should be a geological column strata in the first place. The answers offered have been almost as bad as the defense of OOL and Darwinian evolution.
If there were enough money, I would say antartica would have some very interesting fossils preserved there. I wonder what we would find?
We have found evidence of lush fossil forests in Antartica. Why is that??? Was antartica a warm place once upon a time and then we had global cooling? What sort of fossils will we find? Furthermore, these fossils, being possibly frozen may give us soft-tissue samples and not just decayed bones!
That would be a good place to find pre-cambrian rabbits.
39
scordova
02/17/2007
11:51 am
Rosenhouse give his opposing account of events, Shermer and Dembski in Bridgewater. I would recommend reading his take on things to balance what I have written.
Rosenhouse also raises questions I think would benefit every serious ID proponent to have an answer for.
He raised the question:
First of all the claim by Dembski is not a definition. If I said, “carrots are orange” is that a definition of what carrots are? No. The statement is true, but it is not a definition.
Bill responded to such issues himself here:
Flamboyant Theological Quotes
Rosenhouse’s account is more detailed regarding the specifics of Shermer. I gave only tidbits of what Bill said, because anyone who has read this weblog and watch Unlocking the Mystery of Life knows that vast array of arguments that Dembski had at his disposal. So much so, that Bill could barely cram them into a 20 minute presentation!!!!!
Shermer made good use of the bad design argument, but bad design is still design. Even a master playwright like Shakespeare will design deeply flawed characters for the ultimate purpose of his story. In like manner, the Divine drama might be filled with “bad designs” for a reason.
40
JGuy
02/17/2007
12:17 pm
Jerry:
Do you mean like finding a city of upright lizards? or A community like the movie Planet of the Apes? hmm or Birds with hands and big brains? I bet the bird race would have destroyed us all… air power.
41
jerry
02/17/2007
12:26 pm
tribune 7,
When we start finding a multitude of long thought extinct species still alive today, then your discussion has a point. Till then Shermer’s analogy works and nit picking it gets nowhere.
42
jerry
02/17/2007
12:28 pm
JGuy,
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I was asking a scientific question and you responded with nonsense.
43
jerry
02/17/2007
12:44 pm
Salvador,
The beginning of the declaration for this site says
“Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. ”
Do you want to add geology to this too? It would be interesting to pursue this but I never heard much of a beef against geology except it obviously affects the YEC viewpoint.
It would be the kiss of death to the ID movement if it tried to add geology but if in fact the same level of distortion is going on there, it should be discussed. I never had a geology course but have watched several lectures on it and I find it convincing, especially volcano formation and the continual adding to the shelf at the mid Atlantic ridge. They have all the changes over time documented visibly. It is not like biology where there is nothing but hand waving and sudden shifts in species formation.
Do we have any geologist in the house?
44
JGuy
02/17/2007
12:52 pm
Jerry:
Maybe, I should’ve simply asked you what you mean exactly… I’m not sure what you mean by “species”.
I suppose my question was moreso asking you for clarification. Sorry if you got dazzled with my uncanny ability to complicate questions
45
JGuy
02/17/2007
12:57 pm
correction… I mean, what is meant by a “last major species”.
46
JGuy
02/17/2007
1:06 pm
Jerry,
In regards to your post to Sal above, the following isn’t geology per se, but it may have implications - somethign like you suggest. It is a YEC argument, but at least look at the data presented. You might find this interesting:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm
JGuy
47
scordova
02/17/2007
1:06 pm
No, as it is Bill and Denyse’s site and I am only a visiting contributor.
HOWEVER, since there has been an intense interest in the topic, I am working with others on starting a website and weblog to invite people on both sides to discuss the issue.
Thus, most of the intense interest in creationism expressed here will find a home in a more appropriate venue.
It would not surprise me that since the topic is SO Controversial, that it might attract web traffic. How nice if Pandas Thumb would have to parry with their old foe the YECs and not just the ID proponents.
They ought to be licking their chops that they could take shots at me over geology. One of their best, a geologist who presented a strategy of combatting YECs at the Geological Society of America sparred with me at KCSF over lava formation.
Origins of Lava, Mantle Plumes and the fine work of Walter Brown
The issue of lava formation pertains to the Atlantic Ridge. Let me say, I don’t have quite the disdain for the idea of an Old Earth. The arguments are reasonable. I do, however consider the arguements in favor of OOL especially bad.
There are many ID proponents and creationist who subscribe to Old Earth Geology, so hopefully some of the theology sparring will be lessened and reasoned discussion takes place.
Salvador
48
jerry
02/17/2007
1:18 pm
JGuy,
I was actually making a plug for the credibility of the bible. I personally believe a lot of the Old Testament is more allegorical than fact. But please, I do not want to get into a discussion of that here.
But as far as I know there has not been any major evolution since man showed up. So my comment “Just a lucky guess” was meant to be ironic that the bible which is often heavily criticized got this part of evolution right.
49
JGuy
02/17/2007
1:19 pm
Sal,
Thanks for the chuckle.
As if the PT’ers don’t have enough problems with ID — reminds me of a classic pincer movement.
50
JGuy
02/17/2007
1:48 pm
Will the DNA be intact, throw in your bids: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....z4V3UPLBIF
Ok… when is this transcript for the Dembski-Shermer debate come out? I’m at the stage of commenting about preserved frogs.
51
scordova
02/17/2007
1:54 pm
Shermer mentioned Newton as the greatest scientist in history and rightly described Newton’s theological interests.
Shermer quoted Newton who argued for the special creation or at least the intelligent design of the solar system.
Shermer then argued that the problem was “solved” and thus Sir Isaac Newton’s claim has been decisively overturned, and thus faith of people rooted in Newton’s claim has been uprooted.
But in 2001, I had recently finished several courses in Classical Physics and Orbital Mechanics when I happened upon the following material which surveyed prevailing theories and convinced me that the problem of Solar System formation has been far from solved:
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
I’m now rushing to get the new website up so that these topics can be pursued outside of Uncommon Descent.
But the above link made very much sense to me after having studied orbital mechanics.
Sal
52
idnet.com.au
02/17/2007
2:53 pm
May I remind YECs and others that Bill has writen a brilliant essay that if correct solves the major theological problem of pre fall death. It is really worth a read and should be offered to those who feel YEC is the only theology that fits with the Bible. http://www.designinference.com.....eodicy.pdf
ID is separate from religion.
The “revelation” which ID gives is that there is some amazing intelligence behind the biosphere.
53
tribune7
02/17/2007
4:02 pm
Till then Shermer’s analogy works and nit picking it gets nowhere.
It’s not so much nit-picking but about having a claim carved in granite i.e. having a neutral party hold the bet; not moving the goalposts after the pass is caught etc.
54
tribune7
02/17/2007
4:23 pm
Sal, your posts are great and you are dead right about separating religion and science (albeit almost all secularists see that as a one-way street and fail to realize how close they are to walking in the footsteps of Mengele or this bunch anyway.)
Concerning Antarctica, that would be a very cool (okay, bad pun) place for serious digging.
Concerning Rosenhouse, why do some willfully (I can only see that it’s willful) refuse to recognize that design is a real phenomenon and attempts to quantify it is real science and it is not breaking any rule to apply what we learn from those attempts to biology?
55
jerry
02/17/2007
4:28 pm
Salvador,
When Shermer used the forrest animal to whale evolution as evidence for gradualism working did he use the phony artist drawings of the ancient animals?
Just curious.
56
JGuy
02/17/2007
5:27 pm
tribune7:
I’ve always thought the same thing! I think it would blow people’s minds. The problem is not the cold, but how thick the ice is there. I work with a guy that was working at the south pole (perhaps tens of meters from it). I think he said the ice was up to 3000 feet - I think.
How could you get down that deep? By the time you get a tunnel bored.. perhaps the ice sheet might shift and close the tunnel.
…
So. Where’s the transcript?
57
scordova
02/17/2007
5:35 pm
I don’t think so.
Again, Dembski did not have time to contest that part of Shermer’s presentation. Had he dones so he could have cited Berlinski. Berlinski argued the cow to whale evolution is highly suspect even though we have some bones which evolutionists use to argue that cows turned into whales.
We’re dealing with bones and 95% of the most interesting evolution is in the soft tissue.
Even if there is common ancestry, the mechanism of Natural Selection is suspect. But here is Berlinksi
I think Shermer raised an important issue of vestigial organs. We do have strong evidence of reductive (degnerative) evolution, but this is not any more convincing that Darwinian evolution is creative than cars losing a tail light via a collision and then concluding tail lights were created by a collision. Darwinian evolution is destructive, not creative. If one doubts this, consider the latest on reductive eye evolution: Blind Cave Fish.
Along with the whales, Shermer also showed how snakes had legs once upon a time. It seems that for some reason snakes once had the ability to walk, and then, well, they then lost the ability and seemed doomed to go around crawling on their belly ever since. He couldn’t have chosen a more worse example before a crowd of YECs than a snake that once walked.
58
tribune7
02/17/2007
5:36 pm
How could you get down that deep?
If we could put a man on the moon . . .
Seriously, solving and implementing the engineering would be fun and educational. It’s just a matter of where the money would come from.
Could any private source (Paul Allen?) have enough to do it right?
59
Mats
02/17/2007
6:14 pm
Douglas,
Don’t be surprised with Sal’s comments. He has a very low view on Young Earth Creationists. I mean, what do you expect from someone who uses words like:
We have a bad reputation bkz we don’t subscribe to nonsensical darwinian geology.
How graphical. Was it done for schock impact?
That’s really odd, considering that YECers are very enthusiastic of ID as good science. YEC organizations sell ID books joyfully.
As far as I know, there hasn’t been an ID scientist attacked in a debate, due to his non-Biblical positions regarding the age of the universe, I don’t really think you were afraid of that.
In a debate between ID vs Unguided Evolution, that would be totally unexpected.
Seems to me that the charicatures that the liberal media does of YEC has been swallowed by “some people”.
60
JGuy
02/17/2007
6:58 pm
tribune7,
Well, yes, I think your right.. an engineering solution could be devised. But like you said, who would throw the money at it?
One reason I’m highly intrigued about the idea of Antarctica, is that I love the idea of looking for fossils in extreme locales. I have a theory that we would find fossils of land dwelling creatures if we were to excavate the middle of the Pacific ocean basin. Sounds crazy.. but that’s why I like it
Only a world view with a global flood would make the prediction.
Last year, I belive, there was found a knuckle bone of a large dinosaur a mile under the basin of the North Sea (I believe it was)… but the Pacific would be an exceedingly more shocking find - imo.
61
tribune7
02/17/2007
7:06 pm
Mats
The methodology of the Young Earther is the Bible is the Word of God hence calculating the genealogies in Scripture can provide an accurate age of the Earth.
Now, that’s fine. It’s not stupid. It’s not irrational. It could very well be right. But, it’s not science. It’s faith.
So if the Young Earther tells the Old Earther, yes I know measurements of radioactive decay of particular isotopes indicate the Earth to be 4.3 billion years old but my faith tells me that ultimately they are going to be found incorrect, his position is unassailable.
If, however, the Young Earther starts citing data that can be tested and claiming science as evidence of his position, then the Young Earther is free to be hit.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the Young Earther doing so — in fact the Young Earther may be obliged to do so — but the Young Earther must understand that he can be hit and when he is he mustn’t cry.
Now, Sal strikes me as someone who seems pretty sympathetic to Young Earthers and I’m saying this as one who is basically a Young Earther — namely when all is said and done the Biblical genealogies will be found to be right.
But that is a matter of faith. Right now science is on the side of the Old Earthers, and I’m certainly not going to hold it aginst someone who is an Old Earther for not sharing my faith.
62
tribune7
02/17/2007
7:07 pm
But like you said, who would throw the money at it?
I wish I had $100 billion as Gates did seven years ago
63<