Kudos to Ray Comfort, who does a great job narrating the work and running the interviews. Yes, of course they were edited. The video is 35 minutes long. But as someone trying to get better at street evangelism and to get over fears of talking to people I've never met before about serious and profound topics, having just walked up to them on the street, I admire Ray's cheek and manner. He's not intimidated at all, or if he is, he doesn't show it.
I assumed PZ Myers, who makes an extended appearance in the film, would whine that he was taken out of context after the editing of the film was done. Of course he would, because he looked like a self-deceived snake oil salesman in the film (and hey, appearances don't always deceive).
Excerpt
Comfort: "Could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution?"
Myers: "OK, I would point to, as one great example is, look at the genetics of the stickleback."
Comfort: "What's that?"
Myers: "Uh, so stickleback fish are a very interesting colleciton of species that were recently isolated after the end of the Ice Age."
Comfort: "What do they become?"
Myers: "They're various species of stickleback."
Comfort: "They stayed as fish."
Myers: "Well, of course...they're distinctly different fish."
...
Myers: "Human beings are still fish."
Comfort: "Humans are fish?"
Myers: "Yes, of course they are."
...
Myers: "For instance I would say look at Lenski's experiments with bacteria, then."
Comfort: "So what do the bacteria become?"
Myers: "The bacteria are still bacteria, of course."
...
Comfort: "To summarise, the observable evidence that you give me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria."
Myers: "No, it is bacteria acquiring new metabolic capabilities."
If Ray really took PZ Myers out of context in such a way as to misrepresent what Myers had to say (ie, that the evidence he'd adduce to indicate
-finches evolved into finches
-mosquitoes evolved into mosquitoes
-bacteria evolved into bacteria (which Myers also offered in the film, as seen above)
-salamanders evolved into salamanders
-fruitflies evolved into really jacked-up fruitflies
-moths evolved into moths
"Fish evolved into fish" or "bacteria evolved into bacteria" is entirely consistent with those other answers I've been given.
Anyway, the movie is an enjoyable watch, picking up where Genius and 180 left off. My favorite part was the montage of long dumbfounded response-free pauses when Ray asks a variety of interlocutors the question, "Can you think of any observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there's a change of kind?" It evokes Richard Dawkins. Go support Living Waters by purchasing the mp4 download, if you can.
70 comments:
"Can you think of any observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there's a change of kind?" is a disingenuous question.
It's like asking for "observable evidence" of something like the Grand Canyon having formed via erosion. The timescale is too long to present the kind of evidence being disingenuously asked for.
Why is it disingenuous to ask for evidence of something which I am widely maligned and called wicked and stupid for not believing?
Rho, I posed a question under your thread "Pastors". I'm very interested to hear your thoughts.
ZA
It's disingenuous because, according to Darwinian evolution, the "change of kind" doesn't occur in a period of time that is observable. But, you know this.
You're not wicked because you don't believe in evolution. You're wicked because your morality is based on your imaginary beliefs.
As NAL noted, there is no disingenuousness merely in asking for evidence. What is disingenuous, however, is to ask for "observable evidence" when "observable" is narrowly defined in a way that demands evolution operate in a fashion -- and on a timescale -- that no Darwinian espouses.
Yes, of course I know it and so does Ray Comfort. That's part of the point - no observable evidence exists.
So...why believe it, again?
You're wicked because your morality is based on your imaginary beliefs.
1) Dick Dawk says I'm wicked for not holding to evol. That's what I was referring to.
2) Imaginary beliefs like "objective moral values exist and are knowable"?
Mr. Dan, so, what you're saying is that there is non-observable evidence? I don't get it.
Dawkin's said you were wicked? Could you supply the quote to which you are referring? Beside, why should you care what a one solitary individual says about you?
There is plenty of "observable evidence" for large scale changes in populations over time. Lots and lots of it. Had Comfort been more specific about what he wanted, I'm sure that the scientists would have been glad to provide that evidence. For example, had Comfort asked for the observable evidence for the transition from reptiles and mammals, there would be much that could have been presented.
Of course, you and Comfort would reject the evidence, rendering the exercise somewhat pointless. Comfort's goal is not to educate and enlighten. Comfort's goal is to edit the words of scientists in order to make his followers feel good. Apparently, in your case, he succeeded. (I have to say that your fluffing of Comfort does not do you much credit.)
If you insist that the only evidence that would count would be something that we can watch with our own eyes over the course of a human lifetime, then you will reject any evidence that anyone might present regarding changes that occur over thousands or millions of years. As others have noted, you cannot watch with your own eyes a process that takes thousands or millions of years to play out. The theory does *not* predict that you will be able to watch the transition from reptiles to mammals in your lifetime. But, if that's what you insist upon, then it's easy to blind yourself to the evidence that is available to support the position that such a transition occurred.
Finally, could you do me a favor and define the word "kind" for me? Much of the problem with Comfort's questioning is due to this word. What is a "kind"?
Hi RSW,
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114
Anyway, I didn't say I cared. :-) I was just providing some context.
Changes in populations over time is called "adaptation", isn't it?
had Comfort asked for the observable evidence for the transition from reptiles and mammals, there would be much that could have been presented.
Not observable evidence, though. Comfort wasn't asking for fairy tales appended on top of a few hundred bones, put forward by an establishment with a track record of fraud, deceit, and sticking its fingers in its ears.
Comfort's goal is to edit the words of scientists in order to make his followers feel good.
Meh - what they said was fine in and of itself. Have you watched the movie yet?
Apparently, in your case, he succeeded. (I have to say that your fluffing of Comfort does not do you much credit.)
Fortunately, we have already established that I don't care what one solitary individual says about me. ;-)
If you insist that the only evidence that would count would be something that we can watch with our own eyes over the course of a human lifetime
Wait, back up.
What I insist on is that, when you say "evidence exists", you actually mean evidence exists, not that just-so stories and fairy tales exist.
As others have noted, you cannot watch with your own eyes a process that takes thousands or millions of years to play out.
Hmm, so maybe you should stop claiming that you know so strongly, no?
could you do me a favor and define the word "kind" for me?
I'd probably ask AiG or someone who thinks a lot about that sort of thing.
I do know this - a mosquito evolving into a mosquito is not what we're looking for.
Of course,the difficulty of defining taxonomic categories is a difficulty for everyone, as I'm sure you're aware.
But why are you asking me? Why not ask your river sprite gods?
With respect to the Dawkins quote, note the use of the word "OR". He did not say that folks like you are stupid AND wicked. Big difference between OR and AND. Dawkins did not say that anyone and everyone who rejects evolution is wicked, and Dawkins did not say that you, Alan, were wicked.
And obviously, you care. Otherwise, you would not have introduced this into the conversation. It bothers you when you think that someone is maligning you or calling you stupid or wicked. No big deal, just means that you're human.
As I expected, you've chosen to blind yourself by insisting that the only thing that counts as observable evidence is something that you can watch with your own eye during your lifetime. Makes it easy to deny that process that occurs over thousands or millions of years has actually occurred. I understand that this makes you feel better. So it goes. Your choice. I won't waste any time presenting evidence that you will reject before we start.
However, I really would like for you to define what you mean by "kind". If it's your position that one kind cannot change into another kind, then you really need to define this word so that we can understand and test your claims. You may start by defining the word "mosquito".
Rho:
Yes, of course I know it ...
You ask for "observable evidence" of a "change of kind" when you know that Darwinian evolution asserts that such "observable evidence" of a "change of kind" won't exist. That's why the question is disingenuous.
Mr. Dan, so, what you're saying is that there is non-observable evidence? I don't get it.
If "observable" is narrowly defined to mean "right before one's eyes," then there is no "observable evidence" of changes in kind via Darwinian evolution. But, on Darwinian theory, changes in kind do not occur on a timescale amenable to observation "right before one's eyes"; rather, they occur over hundreds of thousands of years. All Darwinians espouse such.
Is there observable evidence that you had a great, great, great grandfather?
If yes, then I would put forth our present-day observations of fossils and genetics as observable evidence of evolution.
If no, then I don't expect anyone would find your definition of "observable evidence" to be something worth caring about.
Also, evolutionary theory does not claim that one "kind" changes into another "kind". You and your parents are, of course, the same kind. Your parents and their parents were the same kind. And that is true going all the way to the first forms of life. But just like you and your second cousin are more distantly related than you and your siblings, if you look at distant enough relationships, you could start to consider yourself to be a distinct "kind" from, say, a neanderthal or chimpanzee.
When did 'observable evidence' become the only thing that defined what is and is not science? Ah that's right when creationists saw they could use it to disprove all kinds of things they didn't like, from evolution to the age of the Earth.
They seem to forget that observable evidence is only one type of evidence used in science. I can't physically observe atoms, does that mean you can't prove the existence of atoms? I guess those bombs we built to drop on the Japanese were conjured into being with pixie dust and wishful thinking...
I also find it interesting that you linked to PZ's blog where he explains that Ray cut out his explanation of the fish comment and called it whining. Clearly the editing chosen by Comfort is to make Meyers look foolish... by not allowing him to explain his statement, so Meyers has a right to complain, aren't you at all interested in WHY Meyers would say that human beings are STILL 'fish' or are you just content to just clap your hands at how awesome this 30ish minute youtube video is? I only hope you don' throw money at Ray Comfort's ministry... though if you did it wouldn't surprise me.
RSW,
No, I really truly don't care. :-)
I bring it up to show how lame Dick Dawk is.
Do you know what "observe" means? I think you do, but you want to change the definition for the sake of propping up your doctrine.
"Kind" is tricky to define. Kind of like "species". Lizard to bird would be a change of kind. Lizard to lizard would not be. Mosquito to mosquito would not be.
Does that help?
Sorry, why do I need to define the word "mosquito"? I'm not the one claiming mosquitos evolved.
NAL,
Yes, I know it. The question is rhetorical, and it must be asked b/c people out there think DarEvol has been substantiated by evidence.
Mr. Dan,
My comment to RSW is also applicable to you.
sanscredo,
Is there observable evidence that you had a great, great, great grandfather?
Is anyone arguing that I came about thru some sort of ex nihilo creation? If not, then I don't see why not to conclude it's true I had one.
But there are competing hypotheses for life's origin, so you can't just assert you have the Trump Card. You need evidence. You don't have any. So you try to change definitions.
If yes, then I would put forth our present-day observations of fossils and genetics as observable evidence of evolution.
You don't know how those fossils got there.
And genetics are a much better indicator of God's creativity than a mindless process.
evolutionary theory does not claim that one "kind" changes into another "kind".
Any theory that includes common descent does indeed claim that.
you could start to consider yourself to be a distinct "kind" from, say, a neanderthal or chimpanzee.
How about a primitive single-celled organism? Am I a different kind than that?
vintango,
I deleted the duplicates.
When did 'observable evidence' become the only thing that defined what is and is not science?
Do *you* know what "observe" means?
I can't physically observe atoms, does that mean you can't prove the existence of atoms?
Isn't that a category error? Atoms are presumed to be in existence today. But we're talking about forensic investigation of what happenED in the past.
I guess those bombs we built to drop on the Japanese were conjured into being with pixie dust and wishful thinking...
Sorry, how did thinking DarEvol is true contribute to the creation of the atomic bomb? I don't get it.
, aren't you at all interested in WHY Meyers would say that human beings are STILL 'fish'
Oh, a little, I guess. It's still a really, really stupid thing to say. But believing false, sinful things has a long history of making smart people say stupid things.
I only hope you don' throw money at Ray Comfort's ministry... though if you did it wouldn't surprise me.
As I was saying to RSW above, I don't really care what you think. No offense intended, but you are a fool because you reject Jesus' lordship. I'll go ahead and follow Jesus.
“I bring it up to show how lame Dick Dawk is.”
In comment in which you introduced the “stupid and wicked” wording, you said *nothing* about Dawkins. No one could have known that you were trying to show how “lame” Dawkins is. Nor have you shown how Dawkins is “lame”. I’m afraid that the evidence does not support your “lame” statement here. But then I don’t expect you to concede the point that you really do care about being called stupid.
“Do you know what "observe" means?
I think so. Did you “observe” the resurrection of Jesus? If not, then I guess this is just another just-so story, another fairy tale. You follow a fairy tale.
"Kind" is tricky to define.”
It’s deliberately made “tricky”. It’s the ultimate YEC weasel word. You see, if you can’t define “kind”, how do you know that one “kind” cannot turn into another “kind”? How do you know that we haven’t seen this happen? If you can’t define what we’re looking for, how can you conclude that you can’t see it?
The term “kind”, as used by young earth creationists (you, Comfort, etc.), is meaningless. You can’t define it. So it’s easy to say that scientists can’t show you one kind turning into another kind right before your eyes. “Kind” means whatever you need and/or want it to mean. No matter what you are shown, you can claim that this is not a change of one kind into another…because you never defined kind. It’s a perfect way to move the goalposts as needed.
“Why do I need to define the word mosquito?”
You claim that the descendents of mosquitoes will always be mosquitoes. But if you can’t tell me what a mosquito is, then how do we know if this is accurate? How can we test your claims?
If you can’t define mosquito, then how can we tell if the descendents of an ancestral mosquito population are still “mosquitoes”? If the descendents of an ancestral population of mosquitoes could be placed in a new genus, why wouldn’t this count as a change in kind? What's the reason for rejecting this as a change in kind?
“Lizard to lizard would not be. Mosquito to mosquito would not be.”
Why not? Why wouldn’t this count as one kind turning into another kind? Why are all lizards to be considered “one kind?” Why are all “mosquitoes” considered to be one “kind”? Are you aware that there are several different taxonomic families of lizard species? So, what criteria are using when you declare that lizards are one kind? Where’s the definition of “kind”?
So, let’s sum up. You (and the fraud Comfort) decide that all of the evidence for evolution can be rejected because you can’t be shown something that THE THEORY ITSELF says that you won’t be able to with your own eyes in your lifetime. Further, even if you could be shown a large-scale change in your lifetime, you would simply dismiss and reject this again by claiming that it doesn’t count as a change in some undefined entity called a “kind”. No matter what you see, you will claim, without any criteria, that it’s not a change in kind. I’m sorry, but the word “disingenuous” does come to mind here.
River Sprite Worshipper: "Did you “observe” the resurrection of Jesus? If not, then I guess this is just another just-so story, another fairy tale. You follow a fairy tale."
Simply applying the logic of your own reasoning to your own position, we then have the following:
Did you, River Sprite Worshipper, “observe” the evolution of humans? If not, then I guess this is just another just-so story, another fairy tale. You follow a fairy tale.
TUAD,
You missed the point. Alan demands "observable evidence" for evolution. If there's no observable evidence, then evolution is to be rejected. No other type of evidence counts. No other type of data may be introduced. No other argument or testing of the evidence may be used. Unless he can see the transition from reptiles to mammals in his lifetime, right before his eyes, then evolution can be dismissed, in his words, as a "just-so story, a fairy tale.
I'm just following HIS logic and HIS criteria when I conclude that the story of the resurrection is a just-so story and a fairy tale. This is ALAN'S logic, not mine.
River Sprite Worshipper,
Do Neo-Darwinian evolutionists generally claim that there's "observable evidence" for macroevolution? Or do they generally claim that there's no "observable evidence" for macroevolution?
If I'm not mistaken, Rhology is simply asking that scientific evolutionists hold themselves accountable to the standard that they themselves uphold and tout.
"Do Neo-Darwinian evolutionists generally claim that there's "observable evidence" for macroevolution? Or do they generally claim that there's no "observable evidence" for macroevolution?"
I think that the problem is that the word "observable" is used in different ways. For example, I consider fossils to be "observable". "Macroevolution" is another one of those words that is used in many different ways. As is the word "kind".
So, we need to start with clear definitions for these terms. If one is truly interested in a meaningful discussion about the evidence for evolution, then the questioner should simply make it very clear from the start what they mean by words such as "observable", "macroevolution" and "kind". However, I fear that it was not Comfort's goal to have a meaningful discussion.
"If I'm not mistaken, Rhology is simply asking that scientific evolutionists hold themselves accountable to the standard that they themselves uphold and tout."
No, Alan and Comfort are just playing games with words. This has little to do with "standards".
(See "disingenuous" above.)
I don't think Comfort or Rho are playing games with words. I think it's actually you who are playing word games.
"I think that the problem is that the word "observable" is used in different ways. For example, I consider fossils to be "observable"."
#1. Trivial.
#2. Even though trivial, there are scientists who regard the fossil record as invalidating macroevolution.
"I don't think Comfort or Rho are playing games with words. I think it's actually you who are playing word games."
Matter of opinion, I guess. I still never got a definition of "kind", did I?
It sure looks to me like Comfort's goal was to point a camera at scientists who appear to say...according to Comfort's definition of "observable evidence"...and with a little clever editing...that there was no "observable evidence" for evolution. This was disingenuous for the reasons already given.
Using Alan and Comfort's definition of "observable evidence", I could point a camera at every Christian theologian in the world, and if they were honest, everyone of them would have to say that there is no "observable evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. But what's the point? Given the criteria for "observable evidence", the lack of "observable evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus is expected. All I'm doing is playing with words in order to make Christian claims look weak.
So, if I made a documentary with all of these theologians saying that there was no observable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, would you be impressed with me? Would you find the theologian's response devastating to the cause of Christianity? Would you fluff my documentary"?
(In fact, if you think about, there is no "observable evidence" for any historical event that occurred before you were born. I could do the same with Civil War historians, but would you conclude that the Civil War didn't happen?)
"Even though trivial, there are scientists who regard the fossil record as invalidating macroevolution."
Fossils are "trivial"? Wow. Trivial? Really?
I believe that only a tiny, tiny minority would regard fossils as invalidating macroevolution. Of course, I don't see where you've given me a definition of macroevolution. Anyway, I think you missed the point. The problem is that according to Alan, we couldn't even discuss fossils as potential "observable evidence" for evolution, right?
River Sprite Worshipper,
It was your dullard statement that fossils are observable evidence that was trivial. Fossils are not trivial. Your statement was. An elementary distinction that inexplicably eluded you.
With regards to word games, take the time to read this article about evolutionist advocate Steven Pinker's attempt at playing word games along with straw man rhetoric:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/08/steven-pinker-on-scientism.html
Ok, let's see ... we have a couple of insults that suggest that you missed my point (again), and an attempt at digression with a link to an irrelevant website (I guess this is supposed to be some sort of tu quoque arguement, right?).
So, I guess we're done here.
Regarding the interaction with Alan, RSW, and TUAD...all of this is actually an excellent argument AGAINST the use of evidentialism in apologetics.
As much as I love Ray Comfort and admire his zeal for the Gospel, I cannot endorse his new movie for this very reason.
I'm much more interested in hearing how an atheist/agnostic/skeptic/freethinker can account for truth, which is presupposed when words like "evidence" are bandied about.
- Shane
River Sprite Worshipper,
It's unfortunate that your smallness of intellect causes you to repeatedly miss the point.
The link to Steven Pinker was to show you what "word games" really is. And it's certainly nothing that Rhology or Ray Comfort did, contra Steven Pinker.
Try to be smarter, please.
"It's unfortunate that your smallness of intellect causes you to repeatedly miss the point. Try to be smarter, please."
Oh dear, more insults. Very Christian of you. Well, you've certainly put me in my place!
I understand that you don't think that Comfort and Alan played word games. Ok, so you don't get it. As I said, it's a matter of opinion. If you don't like my use of the phrase "word games", then I guess that I'll settle for "disingenuous".
River Sprite Worshipper,
Eventually, you will bow your knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is your place. Hopefully, you'll do that while you can still do so on this earth.
Lastly, Ray Comfort and Rhology were neither playing "word games," nor being disingenuous.
Rather, it was you and Steven Pinker who were being disingenuous and/or playing word games.
You're simply projecting your own moral failings and specious arguments onto others. When the mirror's held up to your behavior, you simply don't like what you see. Pride keeps you from acknowledging this.
Humility would allow you to acknowledge this, and to make the correction, as well as expressing appreciation to those who are holding up the mirror to you.
TUAD,
'Kay.
Inasmuch as Rhology has put forth the bible's plenary verbal inspiration as his First Principle of reasoning, he clearly is presuppositionally committed to a specific theory of origins: young Earth creationism.
And, in the past, Rhology has stated pretty explicitly that his biblical hermeneutic would have to be overhauled massively if knowledge of Darwinian evolution's truth were vouchsafed to him. It would be, in essence, a hermeneutical earthquake.
All of which is to say that Rhology, and those who think like him, could never allow himself to be convinced of Darwinian evolution's veracity because (a) its truth would violate his fundamental presuppositions and (b) its truth would lead to a hermeneutical upheaval that he cannot allow to be brought on.
River Sprite Worshipper,
Do yourself a favor and read this book called "The Atheist's Guide to Reality."
Here's an excerpt from a review:
"Dr. Rosenberg is the R. Taylor Cole Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. He specializes in the philosophy of science (he wrote a widely-used introductory text in that field) and has focused particular attention on the philosophy of biology. He’s also an atheist—and an impressively hard-nosed one too. Although he shares the evolutionary naturalist worldview of Richard Dawkins, the important difference between these two atheists is that Rosenberg is philosophically trained and far better equipped to recognize and spell out the full implications of his worldview. And that’s precisely what the Atheist’s Guide sets out to do. Rosenberg’s book is directed primarily at his fellow atheists and seeks to persuade them that they haven’t done enough intellectual house-cleaning. If they’re to take their worldview seriously they must purge it of every last remnant of theism."
Worth reading the whole review.
Mr. Dan,
"All of which is to say that Rhology, and those who think like him, could never allow himself to be convinced of Darwinian evolution's veracity."
Yup, got that right. Spot on.
TUAD,
Just to clarify, don't want to make assumptions...do you think that the Earth is 6000 years old (give or take a thousand years)?
By the way, why should an entity capable of creating universes care in the least if I bow my knee and declare it lord, let alone send me to eternal torture should I fail to do so? The god you hypothesize is so small, so petty, so ugly. I'm not a philosopher, but this god hypothesis of yours makes no sense at all to me.
Do yourself a favor. Think it possible that you are simply wrong.
"Mr. Dan,
"All of which is to say that Rhology, and those who think like him, could never allow himself to be convinced of Darwinian evolution's veracity."
Yup, got that right. Spot on."
River Sprite Worshipper, here's a better one on-target arrow which splits Mr. Dan's statement in half, and it's from from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist who is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, 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 an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
River Sprite Worshipper and Mr. Dan, did you get that? We, materialist atheists, due to a priori commitments, "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Goes quite well with "The Atheist's Guide to Reality."
River Sprite Worshipper, I'll answer your questions after you tell me that you've read the Steven Pinker link, and the "Atheist's Guide to Reality" link that I provided to you above.
Do yourself an eternal favor. Think it possible that you are simply wrong.
River Sprite Worshipper and Mr. Dan, did you get that? We, materialist atheists, due to a priori commitments, "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Oh my FSM, not the Lewontin quote again! Oy, vey! How many times have I seen this one dredged up in exchanges of this sort? A hundred times?
I know that when the creationist hauls out the Lewontin quote, he knows that he’s lost the argument. It’s like Godwin’s Law about throwing Nazis into the discussion.
If we were arguing over whether or not the Battle of Gettysburg occurred, nobody would be dragging Lewontin into the discussion. Instead, we’d stick to the material evidence. Well, evolution, like Gettysburg, is just another historical event. And how do we decide what happened in the past? We use material evidence.
If the material evidence overwhelmingly supported young earth creationism, then there’d be no need to bang on about Lewontin and materialism. You'd embrace materialistic science. But the evidence doesn't support YEC, it overwhelmingly contradicts young earth creationism. It also supports evolution.
So, you don’t want to stick to the material evidence. You must find a way to discount the material world. You must discredit approaches that stick to the material world, and so out comes the Lewontin and the bogeyman of materialism. It’s all digression and philosophical rabbit holes. Cite Lewontin, and I know that you know that the material evidence is telling you that you’re wrong. You lose.
And by the way, how exactly do you propose we do science if we don’t stick to the material world? I’d love to have an answer to this question.
Do yourself an eternal favor. Think it possible that you are simply wrong.
Ah, yes. And here’s another inevitable outcome of these discussion. The inevitable “believe what I believe or you will suffer eternal torture.” Christianity as a religion of threats, fear and terror. Sigh.
Could I be wrong? Of course, I could be wrong! One of the most important rules of science is that you can be wrong about anything and everything. Even your most cherished theory could be wrong, and your job is to try to prove that your most cherished theory is wrong. It’s not an easy rule to live by, and scientists are human and suffer from confirmation bias, just like everyone else. But the rule is still there. As Richard Feynman said, “he first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
So, yes, yes, yes; I could be wrong. The older I get, the less I know.
How about you? Do you think it’s possible that you are wrong?
River Sprite Worshipper, I'll answer your questions after you tell me that you've read the Steven Pinker link, and the "Atheist's Guide to Reality" link that I provided to you above.
So, now you want to play games and add conditions? I’ll play one round, but that’s it.
The Pinker link says that Pinker plays word games, attacks strawmen, and that scientism is bad. I don’t think that these points that are particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Alan and Comfort are disingenuous unless you wish to make a tu quoque argument. But I’m just a dullard, right?
The Atheist’s Guide link says that a philosopher says that here’s what happens if God doesn’t exists, and this would be really, really bad. Good enough, or do you wish, once again, to call me a dullard with smallness of intellect?
Ok, so do you want to answer my questions or not? Do you want to stick to the topic of the post? It’s up to you. If you wish to put more conditions on your response, that’s your choice, and I guess we’re done here.
A couple other thoughts.
If your point in bringing up Lewontin is that scientists have an a priori commitment to materialism when they do science, then yes, I agree. They do have such a commitment when doing science. But, so what? How else are you going to do science?
If you are saying that I, RSW, personally, have a commitment to "atheist materialism", then I think that you don't understand me very well.
Truth,
River Sprite Worshiper already ably responded to your response, but I will add three observations.
First, although you flatter me to lump me in with Richard Lewontin, I have never been known to ask myself, “What would Richard Lewontin do?” It may be the case that Lewontin has an a priori personal commitment to materialism, but you cannot foist such a personal commitment onto me if I reject it. My First Principle is not materialism and I am not presuppositionally committed to it.
Second, there is any number of possible events that, even now, would cause me to recognize the truth of supernaturalism, including the Christian theism form thereof. Things could happen today, tomorrow or the next day that would lead me to believe in the truth of supernatural causes. I will provide examples if you wish. There is also any number of possible discoveries that could have convinced me that Darwinian evolution was a bankrupt theory. Those counterfactual discoveries were not made, of course, but they could have been. I will provide examples if you wish.
Third, science’s a priori commitment to material explanations does not entail an a priori personal commitment from those who practice science to adhere to materialist atheism. You are conflating the practices of science as an institution with the supposed a priori personal assumptions science’s practitioners.
Fourth, at best, you have battled to a draw with some segment of the scientific community. You have not disputed that people like Rhology (and, presumably, you) are insincere debaters as regards Darwinian evolution because of their presuppositional commitment to the bible’s plenary verbal inspiration. Instead of disputing the indisputable, you said that the insincerity exists on both sides of the table, as it were. And, if you were debating Richard Lewontin, perhaps that would be true.
Make that "four observations." Points one and two were originally lumped together.
Mr. Dan...
How about simply starting with an answer to this question...
What is truth according to your worldview?
Thanks.
- Shane
Shane,
What is truth according to your worldview?
"Truth" refers to statements of fact about the universe, the entities that inhabit it, or the abstract concepts and/or fictional characters and worlds that those entities have discovered and/or imagined when those statements of fact accord with reality as it actually exists.
"...when those statements of fact accord with reality as it actually exists."
How do you know what's real?
- Shane
How do you know what's real?
Observation, experimentation and evidence adduction.
Oh, dear, it looks like it's down the metaphysical rabbit hole. This is leading to some sort of presuppositional apologetics thingie, isn't it?
This is leading to some sort of presuppositional apologetics thingie, isn't it?
We wouldn't go there if you'd repent or come up with a satisfactory answer that doesn't lead to total absurdity.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Sigh.
Honestly, dude, why should I take your views on what is absurd seriously?
Well, playing metaphysical games beats talking about the data, doesn't it? Or about Ray Comfort's disingenuous cartoon. Nothing here but digressions and rabbit holes. Enjoy your can opener.
You neither should nor shouldn't take my views on absurdity seriously, if your worldview is true, since no obligation, value, or meaning would exist in that case.
It's unclear to me how someone of your intelligence could fail to see how your worldview results in absurdity, but as I've noted before, sin makes you stupid.
But it's not morally right or wrong to engage in digressions and rabbit holes, to ignore evidence, or to enjoy doing so, is it?
It just is. You disagree. Disagreement is meaningless, isn't it?
May I ask a question?
Does your presupp apologetics lead you to the conclusion that the Earth is 6000 years old? Is the one derived from the other? I can't see how you could get to the belief in a 6000 year old Earth without presupp apologetics, but maybe I'm missing something here. I await correction.
The Transcendental Argument is perfectly circular and, as such, is not a serious argument.
It is true that, on atheism, no categorical obligations, objective value or objective meaning (in the sense of purpose) would exist. It is not true that, on atheism, everything breaks down to absurdity.
Atheism can account for "is" statements...just not categorical "ought" or "should" statements.
It's not the approach that leads me to that conclusion, but just straight believing the Bible.
Oh, and it's more like 7-10K years. :-)
Mr. Dan,
Ought anyone believe that atheism is true?
Ought anyone believe true things?
Atheism can account for "is" statements. It cannot account for categorical "ought" or "should" statements.
As such, no categorical "ought" or "should" statements -- or categorical "ought not" or "should not" statements -- are defensible on atheism.
So, no and no.
And where does "just straight believing the Bible" come from?
Isn't this a "presupposition?"
Where does it come from?
My faith in Jesus was a gift from Almighty God. Is that what you mean?
If not, I apologise for not understanding the question.
"My faith in Jesus was a gift from Almighty God. Is that what you mean?"
Well, this sounds like a kind of presupposition to me, but I admit that I may be using the term too loosely here. I assume that you take this idea of a gift from God to be an initial absolute truth from which you derive other conclusions and beliefs, for example, the straight believing in the Bible. Then straight believing in the Bible leads you to conclude that the Earth is 7000 to 10,000 years old. Do I have this right?
If I have this right, it looks like your belief that the Earth is 7000 to 10,000 years old is derived from a set of presuppositions that you hold to be absolute truths from the start. I'm honestly not sure I have this right, but this is how it appears to me. If I have this wrong, let me know. I find this metaphysical stuff a bit tricky.
"The Transcendental Argument is perfectly circular and, as such, is not a serious argument."
Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.
And we are to take your demands for evidence seriously because...?
- Shane
"Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with."
Well, I can observe gravity. Now, I don't know if my observational abilities are valid or not. I'm not going to assume anything. But I'm also not going to step off the end of the Grand Canyon, you know, just in case it turns out that my observations about gravity are valid.
Speakig (sic) of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.
I start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism. My confidence of any proposition, including the reliability of observation, is directly proportional to the evidence adduced. There is evidence that observational abilities, broadly considered, are valid. Thus, I am confident of observational abilities' validity.
And we are to take your demands for evidence seriously because...?
The answer depends on whether you start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism.
Shane Dodson:
Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.
My observational abilities would have to be valid in order for me to even consider the question of whether they are valid or not.
"My observational abilities would have to be valid in order for me to even consider the question of whether they are valid or not."
Would you agree that there are people whose observational abilities are not functioning properly?
If so, how do you know you're not one of these people?
- Shane
"I start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism. My confidence of any proposition, including the reliability of observation, is directly proportional to the evidence adduced. There is evidence that observational abilities, broadly considered, are valid. Thus, I am confident of observational abilities' validity."
How do you prove your observational abilities are functioning properly without first assuming their proper function?
- Shane
Shane Dodson:
Would you agree that there are people whose observational abilities are not functioning properly?
Same problem. How do I discern that an individual has observational abilities that are not functioning properly without observing them? It's like asking me to prove I can read without reading.
I guess I could imagine that such individuals exist and use the Christian worldview that holds that what I imagine actually exists in reality.
How do you prove your observational abilities are functioning properly without first assuming their proper function?
By adducing evidence.
If somebody writes a number or letter on a piece of paper, holds the paper up and asks me what number or letter he/she has written, I can test my observational abilities against the fact of the number or letter he/she wrote. If I answer his/her question correctly, then that is evidence of my observational abilities' validity.
Alternately, if I stand on the sidewalk and, to my right, observe a gaping hole and, to my left, observe more sidewalk, I can test my observational abilities' validity by stepping to the right and seeing whether I fall into the gaping hole (or stepping to the left and seeing whether I remain safely on the sidewalk).
So you use your observational skills to prove your observational skills.
Sounds perfeclty circular.
By your standard, you're offering an unreasonable argument.
- Shane
Only if you define "observational skills" in a ludicrously expansive way.
Also, even if your ludicrously expansive definition were valid, it would be circular reasoning not a circular argument.
Speaking of abortion, your and your bankrupt logic dictated my mythological dogma and the ironically evolutionary need to "live forever" are a load your Baby Jebus Loving mother should have swallowed.
Slurp.
See you in hell, ethically bankrupt, intellectually empty cretin.
Now you can get on your knees and pray for me. Try not to cum on baby jebus's face while you do it.
Post a Comment