Posts
A friend who represents herself as an atheist sent me this link on the premise that it had something to do with the question of existence of God. It does not, of course; creationism versus evolution is a very different issue.
But since she asked, it is interesting to look at some of the questions as someone who, as a Catholic, has no dog in this hunt. The questions from creationists are almost uniformly silly, but also look as if they are selected by the evolutionist for being easy to answer. Pop flies. Yet there are real issues here.
1. Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
Truth is true regardless of one's personal preferences. To believe otherwise is to be a liar.
2. Are you scared of a divine creator?
Ad hominem. Imputing motive.
3. Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? I.e., trees created with rings ... Adam created as an adult ...?
Yes, it is illogical, but the author does not address the issue. He says only that it is not plausible. He gives no basis for this claim. It is implausible because, as Descartes pointed out, such an assumption would make God a deceiver, and this is inconsistent with the nature of God.
Unfortunately, as the author is apparently not prepared to point out, non-theists are stuck on this point. For them, there is no justification to assume the one thing or the other.
4. Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
No; as the author states. Yawn. This would only be true if evolution were a closed system.
5. How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
This is a valid point, which the author avoids. The question is, I presume, how can the theory of evolution explain the experience of beauty, and of beauty in nature? How does this have any survival value, and how can its survival value, if discovered, justify an experience that seems so self-validating, so meaningful in itself? It makes the theory of evolution seem trivial by comparison.
The author simply avoids the question by saying “we have evolved to appreciate colors, shapes, and metaphors.” Why? And why so profoundly?
Then he throws in a blatant red herring/ fallacy of the false alternative by saying “understanding the science behind events adds to their beauty.” Then he covers the trail with another red herring/ad hominem by saying “incidentally, some creationists are geocentrists.”
Given all the misdirection, one can only assume he has no answer.
6. If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
Eh? Why is this question here? Besides being incoherent, it is, as the author points out, essentially a repetition of question four. The only purpose of including this question seems to be to obscure the point that the Big Bang theory supports the theistic hypothesis; by claiming or pretending that creationists themselves dispute it.
Given all the misdirection, one can only assume he has no answer.
6. If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
Eh? Why is this question here? Besides being incoherent, it is, as the author points out, essentially a repetition of question four. The only purpose of including this question seems to be to obscure the point that the Big Bang theory supports the theistic hypothesis; by claiming or pretending that creationists themselves dispute it.
But then, perhaps I too am imputing motive.
7. What about noetics?
This question seems deliberately phrased so that it can be dismissed without being properly addressed. What “noetics” is is irrelevant, but the author is able to hide behind the obscurity of this term.
The underlying issue is presumably how Darwinian evolution can explain the existence of consciousness. After all, a robot ought to be able to handle stimulus-response in such a way as to maximize survival without ever being conscious or self-conscious.
The author also slips in an unjustified assertion here: “we know the mind is an effect of the brain—as many say, the mind is what the brain does.” We know no such thing. On the face of it, this assertion makes no more sense than saying “the meal is an effect of the menu; the meal is what the menu does.” Obviously the two are related in some way, but it is clearly not simple cause and effect.
Scientifically, we can in principle never know how the mind works, because science presupposes the presence of an objective observer. The observer necessarily cannot objectively observe himself. There is a necessary and unbridgeable distinction between subject and object.
This was understood as early as Heraclitus in the West, and Gautama in the East.
8. Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
This is irrelevant. Again, a thing is not true just because we find it convenient for it to be true.
9. If God did not create anything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
The author surprises me by agreeing that this was not by chance. This issue of how the first single-celled organisms emerged is not a part of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution per se, but the big problem that many religious people have with the latter is its claim that mutations are random, i.e., “by chance.” If you admit that they are not, you are no longer a Darwinian. You have accepted the essential premise of Intelligent Design. The question then simply becomes whodunit.
I wonder if the author realizes this.
His final question, “who created God,” is puerile. It is part of the definition of God that he is self-existent, immortal. If he were not, he would not be God, so the question “who created God” is an immediate self-contradiction.
Why not say the same about the universe? Because the universe is simply the sum of things. If every single apple must come into existence, it is contradictory to suppose that two apples are immortal.
7. What about noetics?
This question seems deliberately phrased so that it can be dismissed without being properly addressed. What “noetics” is is irrelevant, but the author is able to hide behind the obscurity of this term.
The underlying issue is presumably how Darwinian evolution can explain the existence of consciousness. After all, a robot ought to be able to handle stimulus-response in such a way as to maximize survival without ever being conscious or self-conscious.
The author also slips in an unjustified assertion here: “we know the mind is an effect of the brain—as many say, the mind is what the brain does.” We know no such thing. On the face of it, this assertion makes no more sense than saying “the meal is an effect of the menu; the meal is what the menu does.” Obviously the two are related in some way, but it is clearly not simple cause and effect.
Scientifically, we can in principle never know how the mind works, because science presupposes the presence of an objective observer. The observer necessarily cannot objectively observe himself. There is a necessary and unbridgeable distinction between subject and object.
This was understood as early as Heraclitus in the West, and Gautama in the East.
8. Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
This is irrelevant. Again, a thing is not true just because we find it convenient for it to be true.
9. If God did not create anything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
The author surprises me by agreeing that this was not by chance. This issue of how the first single-celled organisms emerged is not a part of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution per se, but the big problem that many religious people have with the latter is its claim that mutations are random, i.e., “by chance.” If you admit that they are not, you are no longer a Darwinian. You have accepted the essential premise of Intelligent Design. The question then simply becomes whodunit.
I wonder if the author realizes this.
His final question, “who created God,” is puerile. It is part of the definition of God that he is self-existent, immortal. If he were not, he would not be God, so the question “who created God” is an immediate self-contradiction.
Why not say the same about the universe? Because the universe is simply the sum of things. If every single apple must come into existence, it is contradictory to suppose that two apples are immortal.
10. I believe in the Big Bang theory ... God said it and BANG it happened.
The author says, that's fine by science, and fine by theism. Perhaps he really is an adherent of Intelligent Design without realizing it.
11. Why do evolutionists ... reject the idea of there being a Creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
As phrased, the question seems silly. The point, I presume, is that at least two well-known public evolutionists and atheists, Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, have been quite ready to entertain the thesis that life on earth is indeed an intelligent design, but by aliens rather than by God.
The author says “we don't”; but then, the author himself hints at finding the alien hypothesis at least possible.
The author says, that's fine by science, and fine by theism. Perhaps he really is an adherent of Intelligent Design without realizing it.
11. Why do evolutionists ... reject the idea of there being a Creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
As phrased, the question seems silly. The point, I presume, is that at least two well-known public evolutionists and atheists, Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, have been quite ready to entertain the thesis that life on earth is indeed an intelligent design, but by aliens rather than by God.
The author says “we don't”; but then, the author himself hints at finding the alien hypothesis at least possible.
And so again, the author seems to accept the thesis of Intelligent Design, which is supposed to be incompatible with Darwinism. He may have an argument still with Creationism, but he has ceded the argument to Intelligent Design. But then, why not take the next step? Why aliens when Occam's Razor would seem to make God the more scientifically acceptable answer as designer?
So something like this question apparently stands, and has not been answered here.
12. There is no in-between ... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an 'official proof.'
This is the oldest argument in the book. Ask the experts. Is there really a “missing link”?
13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
Again, this is confusing as phrased. The point is presumably that metamorphosis is a plausible alternative explanation for the data the Theory of Evolution seeks to explain. And the author seems to simply admit this.
So something like this question apparently stands, and has not been answered here.
12. There is no in-between ... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an 'official proof.'
This is the oldest argument in the book. Ask the experts. Is there really a “missing link”?
13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
Again, this is confusing as phrased. The point is presumably that metamorphosis is a plausible alternative explanation for the data the Theory of Evolution seeks to explain. And the author seems to simply admit this.
Yet later he says evolution is fact, not just theory.
14. If Evolution is a theory ... why then is Evolution taught as a fact?
The author responds in part with a red herring: “If this question is an argument to allow creationism to be taught in schools, that's a violation of the First Amendment.” Let's suppose that statement is true (although it is really highly debatable): it still does not answer the question.
He also asserts that evolution is “a fact and a theory.” Yes, but the fact is not the same as the theory. Evolution is a fact if by “evolution” we mean “change over time.” But that is certainly not what the creationists mean by the term. So the question remains.
Bottom line: it is thoroughly unscientific to teach the Theory of Evolution as a fact, and that is indeed what it happening now in schools (the same is true of most other school science). Moreover, teaching evolution as a fact, given that it goes against at least some parents' religious views, is itself a clear violation of the First Amendment.
15. Because [evolution] is 'theory'--not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools?
The author gives a link here to an experiment any creationist would find irrelevant, because it shows nothing more than breeding, which is uncontroversial, not interspecies development. He mostly simply asserts that evolution “fits the criteria” for science. But whether it does or not is a very live debate.
Richard Dawkins, challenged on the point that Evolution was not properly falsifiable, as a scientific hypothesis must be, claimed that it would be falsified if, say, a modern rabbit fossil appeared in an ancient rock formation.
But it turns out that this kind of fossil anomaly turns up fairly often. It is explained away in a variety of ways, all of which are superficially plausible. But that means the point stands, so far as I can tell: is Darwinian evolution really scientific? And, if not, what is the justification for not teaching other unscientific theories along with it?
16. What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
No idea what this is about.
17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you don't believe in salvation?
This is the same non sequitor we have seen earlier: because we want meaning in the universe does not mean there has to be meaning in the universe.
But it turns out that this kind of fossil anomaly turns up fairly often. It is explained away in a variety of ways, all of which are superficially plausible. But that means the point stands, so far as I can tell: is Darwinian evolution really scientific? And, if not, what is the justification for not teaching other unscientific theories along with it?
16. What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
No idea what this is about.
17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you don't believe in salvation?
This is the same non sequitor we have seen earlier: because we want meaning in the universe does not mean there has to be meaning in the universe.
But the author is wrong to imply, as he apparently does, that a devout Jew would have an answer very different from that of a devout Christian. All major religions believe in salvation.
18. Why have we found only one 'Lucy,' when we have found more than one of everything else?
Non sequitor. If we had found only one Lucy, it would make no material difference to the theory.
19. Can you believe in the big bang without faith?
I think the author misses the point of this question by answering “yes, we have tons of evidence for it.” I think the point is that the big bang implies the existence of God, per Aristotle, not that there is no evidence for the big bang. Again, the author seems to misrepresent or misunderstand theism as being hostile to the concept of the big bang.
20. How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it?
The author does not really address this simple statement of the argument from design. He says “it does not take very complex rules to create huge diversity.” Exactly. The fact that the physical universe can be discovered to follow a rather small set of consistent rules is another way of saying that it shows strong evidence of design.
18. Why have we found only one 'Lucy,' when we have found more than one of everything else?
Non sequitor. If we had found only one Lucy, it would make no material difference to the theory.
19. Can you believe in the big bang without faith?
I think the author misses the point of this question by answering “yes, we have tons of evidence for it.” I think the point is that the big bang implies the existence of God, per Aristotle, not that there is no evidence for the big bang. Again, the author seems to misrepresent or misunderstand theism as being hostile to the concept of the big bang.
20. How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it?
The author does not really address this simple statement of the argument from design. He says “it does not take very complex rules to create huge diversity.” Exactly. The fact that the physical universe can be discovered to follow a rather small set of consistent rules is another way of saying that it shows strong evidence of design.
So--he leaves the challange unanswered.
21. Relating to the big bang theory ... where did the exploding star come from?
There was, of course, no exploding star. This badly stated question seems again to serve as a convenient red herring for the author. I presume the real question is “what caused the big bang?” That is a very good question, apparently requiring the Aristotelian thesis of a “First Mover,” and the author's answer is simply “we don't know.” He rejects a “supernatural” explanation, but what does “supernatural” mean here? If this is meant to dismiss God, it seems to me tautological: if God is involved, he is not “supernatural” in the relevant sense.
22. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This question makes no sense on its face. Sly to end with it, so it is the one that may stay in the reader's mind as the final statement by the opposition.
21. Relating to the big bang theory ... where did the exploding star come from?
There was, of course, no exploding star. This badly stated question seems again to serve as a convenient red herring for the author. I presume the real question is “what caused the big bang?” That is a very good question, apparently requiring the Aristotelian thesis of a “First Mover,” and the author's answer is simply “we don't know.” He rejects a “supernatural” explanation, but what does “supernatural” mean here? If this is meant to dismiss God, it seems to me tautological: if God is involved, he is not “supernatural” in the relevant sense.
22. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This question makes no sense on its face. Sly to end with it, so it is the one that may stay in the reader's mind as the final statement by the opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment