Saint and Sinner on Francis Collins

Saint and Sinner said:

Several of the guys at Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views have reviewed (Francis) Collins' book.

The major problems with Collins' arguments are:

1) He presents a straw-man of ID. He obviously has never read any ID works.

2) He constantly assumes methodological naturalism to attack ID but does not apply MN to his own arguments for God's existence (such as the physical constants of the universe). [Also, MN has been dealt with in philosophical literature, and he completely ignores that as well.]

3) His Darwinism undercuts his argument for God's existence from aesthetics. According to Darwinism, the only reason why he believes in God is because natural selection has caused him to for survival purposes, not necessarily because it is true.

4) His belief in methodological naturalism undercuts his Christianity entirely as it would eliminate the Resurrection of Jesus as a possibility in favor of naturalistic options (no matter how implausible).

5) He uses the argument from 'Junk' DNA when, in reality, that argument has been debunked for a long time. 'Junk' DNA is fully functional. Other arguments are dealt with in Dembski and Wells' book mentioned by Steve above.

Theistic evolution in anthropology, or My Presuppositions Live!

Mike Beidler (from "The Creation of an Evolutionist" blog) continues his hamhanded and question-begging romp through the Truth Project.  I comment here.


It quickly becomes clear that Tackett desires to extend his anti-evolution bias to sociology, claiming that desirable, orderly social systems could not have evolved via natural means

Why isn't it reasonable to demand that the Darwinian who makes the positive assertion that natsel acting on random mutations is what is responsible for desirable, orderly social systems SHOW US HOW IT HAPPENED?  Is asking questions "bias", according to you?


evolution is anything but random.

Don't obscure the issue.  MUTATIONS are random, and so a part of it most definitely is random.
Natsel apparently operates according to natural laws (ie, repetitive natural processes), so the astute reader would like to know specifically to which natural laws the Darwinian would appeal to form desirable, orderly social systems.


These things only appear random as a result of our limited ability to ascertain their direct causes or calculate particular magnitudes.

Are you appealing, by faith, to the variegated inscrutable forces of nature?  Can you identify them for certain?  You claim that they're there, but are just guessing.  So this is faith, right? 
Why is this superior to the Christian faith, even if I were to grant that Christian faith is blind?


So what if the best aspects of human civilization arose through "cultural selection"? 

Well, it has a ton to do with it IF we're asking about ethics and the foundation for morality. 
But maybe we're not, so...


What's wrong with God taking the best of human societal structures—products of eons of cultural evolution—and declaring them to be ideal?

And now you're ascribing to God sthg that He never said He did.  In fact, He claimed in the Bible precisely that He did that whole thing a different way, but on the word of your blind faith in "modern science", you're perfectly willing to overturn that.  It's easy to see where your real faith lies.


Although ideal human societal structures may indeed reflect certain aspects of God's triune nature as revealed in Scripture, it is not necessary for them to have been "created" de novo in the Garden of Eden, as a literal interpretation of Scripture would suggest.

And it certainly doesn't matter that God SAID He did it that way!


God's "divine stamp" didn't come upon human social order until after our fundamental ethos arose naturally.

Reconstructing human history based on your blind faith presuppositions.  No proof, no evidence, no historical textual evidence (excepting that to the contrary), but a sure statement based on what you think you know about NOW.  I don't have to point out how much this is naked faith, and it ain't faith in Jesus.


To assert that a snapshot of 15th-century BC Israelite society (commanded by God Himself through Moses) and the culture of those who support Focus on the Family represent the same divine social order is to deny both anthropological reality

??? You need to define your terms much more clearly.  What do you mean by "divine social order"?  If you mean the laws of God and the recognition that God speaks, then you need to prove your assertion, not assume it. 


the theological diversity so evident throughout Scripture.

Which is almost always code for "the contradictory ways that Scr expresses itself", devoid (as here) of any supporting argumentation.


Tackett's claim for objective, scientific support for the ideal Christian society flies in the face of established scientific and historical fact.

You mean the scientists who were there, who observed the events in question, who don't make naked assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism to then read BACK ONTO the historical events as written?  Oh, who are they? 


He ignores the fossil record. 

And bully for him. Prove that any one fossilised organism had even one child.  Just one.


He ignores the evolutionary history embedded in our DNA.

It takes a real ignoramus to go this far, to assume that our DNA expresses "history", when there is no reason to presuppose that history is displayed in our DNA, that it did in fact develop evolutionarily.  Maybe DNA is just DNA, and maybe it was designed and you're seeing a pattern or similarity where none really exists.


He ignores the findings of anthropology.

Said the guy who is ignoring the most archeologically reliable and archeologically best-attested and transmitted writing of antiquity.

More on science and the problem of induction

Hi AMW,

I'm sorry to say, I think that so far you're not entirely following what I'm trying to say, and that's possibly b/c I'm not explaining myself well.
When I said I'm running reductios, what I mean is that the naturalistic worldview has a dire and unresolved epistemological weakness - the problem of induction. Related to that is the problem of sense perception. You don't know that your specific observations, of which you can make a few hundred on a given topic per year out of quintillions of actual events, reliably lead you to understand the universal, the way the world is. You ASSUME it. Similarly, you ASSUME that your senses accurately observe the outside world, then you ASSUME that the senses properly report that data to your brain, then you ASSUME that the data arrives correctly, then you ASSUME that your brain properly interprets the data, then you ASSUME that you then act properly on that data. But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
Further, you have no reason to think that the natural processes you think you observe around you are in operation everywhere. You have no reason to think they have always, or at least since a very long time ago, been in operation. You ASSUME these things are true, but you can't even start to prove it.
This is the massive problem with any naturalistic worldview. That's what I've been riffing off of in my comments to you.

I don't have that problem, since my fundamental basis of knowing things is not observation at all. Nor is it human reason or thought. I can know anything b/c God has spoken and He has assured me that my cognitive faculties are generally reliable though certainly not infallible, since I am made in the image of God. He has promised that in general He holds the universe together, and cycles of seedtime and harvest will remain, the Earth will remain in orbit around the sun, life on Earth will continue and my responsibility is to live for Jesus and proclaim the Good News of repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name to everyone, until the Eschaton. I have the unflinching and unchanging promise of the omnipotent Creator God. You have nothing, since you have chosen to distrust Him. But you can always turn back.

Notice that to overturn my argument, you're going to need to give me some argument that your senses and cognitive faculties are in fact reliable AND how you can know that with certainty. Don't assume it, prove it. You're then going to need to solve the problem of induction and let me know how you can know that your pitifully small numerator of things you think you've observed and experienced add up to some meaningful amount given the vastly huge denominator of total events in the universe, and how that ratio informs you with any degree of certainty as to the truth of the universal law you think your observations inform you of. It's a big job, so let's not waste time with "Junior"; you need to start doing some heavy epistemological lifting.

Notice, finally, that even if you were able to give some reason to think you're right, besides your bare assumptions, you still haven't gotten anywhere with respect to the actual question of your overlaying your story over the fossil "record". Even if the fossils were all once organisms, and even if they had parents, that doesn't tell you anything about the parents since you don't know who the parents were or what they were like, what traits they had, what genetic code they had. You don't know anything, but you want to pretend like YOU'RE the guys with the truth on your side?

Peace,
Rhology

More theistic evolution, sorta

I would say that the conversation "continues" over at the blog of The Creation of an Evolutionist, but the author of the blog, Mike Beidler, did not really engage me.

Here's my response to him:

Mr. Beidler,

Yes, I most certainly understand your lack of lots of spare time. Don't worry about it. I myself plan to be overseas, doing mission work, in the near future and can't imagine blogging much if at all after making the move. I was referring mostly to the other commenters who had time to give you misplaced accolades w/o interacting with my critique.


AMW is quite correct when he criticizes the tone with which you present your arguments and disagreements.

Then I'd like to ask you the same question I asked him/her about the moral objectionability of addressing someone in a disrespectful tone.


(Your blog post "Theistic evolution really is dumb" being a case in point.)

Sorry you didn't like it, but I'm glad you read it. I'm more sorry you chose not to interact with most of my critique.


I was quite surprised to find that you're a former overseas missionary and love foreign cultures.

Well, I'm the kind of former (and future, God willing) missionary who takes the Word of God seriously and holds in contempt those who think they know better than God.


I would think that experience would open your eyes to different ways of thinking,

You know what they say - open your mind too much and your brains fall out. My mind is quite open enough to examine other points of view, and then reject them based on where they're wrong. If they're wrong. And the liberal "I accept the parts of the Bible I like and which my REAL authorities - modern scientists - don't contradict with their nearly-infallible studies" position is particularly bad - you attack the integrity of God's revelation to the church from within the church.


your cultural experiences are irrelevant to understanding Scripture.

Actually, my cultural experiences are what have driven me to love the Bible that much more and to hold in high priority its truth and finality. (I mean, since you're asking about me, rather than interacting with my critique.)


You really should take the time to better understand the cultures which produced the Bible

Sir, with all due respect, you know nothing about me, and you have made no logical connection between my better understanding the "cultures that produced the Bible" and my critique. Interestingly, this does reveal quite a bit about your position. You think the Bible is more or less only a manmade document. I think the only rational and coherent worldview possible is to take the Bible as the true and infallible revelation of an infinite and Almighty God. That's a big difference between us, and it enables me to understand how inconsistent you are in for some reason subjecting SOME of your sensibilities and morés to the Bible. Just not the parts that it might be embarrassing to have to defend before unbelievers, apparently.


I know you'll be disappointed when I tell you that I'm not going to respond to most of your challenges.

Yes, but not surprised. I've spoken to many liberals.

And by my inability to answer an impossible challenge, you see it as validation of your own theory, i.e., ex nihilo of every fossilized species in the geologic column.

Again with all due respect, you don't know what my position is, since I haven't told you. Do you consider it polite or proper debate etiquette to assume the other guy's position?
And yes, I do happen to think my challenge is impossible to answer, b/c I've pointed out the many assumptions that you could never hope to justify. Much better and much more rational that you ask the One Who was there and Who made it all happen, and go with what He said.


It's obvious to me that you really don't know what you're talking about

Where's the Tone Police when you really need them?


Why don't you tell me how accepting biological evolution makes me a functional atheist

With respect to THIS QUESTION? Where did God act? And how do you know?


So, because something is "well-meaning" means it's correct?

No, and I have trouble seeing why you think that question is relevant.


As for Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, I really can't reflect on how utterly ridiculous their latest books are.

Right, b/c you're apparently much more concerned about the evil and horrid effects that Focus on the Family projects will have on society...


BTW, you're rewriting of Romans 5:12 is pretty darn close to what I believe.

That, sir, is a shame. May the Lord be pleased to bring you to repentance.

Peace,
Rhology

Theistic evolution really is dumb

Ran across a blog called "The Creation of an Evolutionist" recently. Clever name. Given what I've read of him so far, fairly clever author, but of course his wit is misdirected. Recently he's been going over Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project", and given how he clearly isn't a huge fan of the consistency and coherence of the Bible, he's predictably not a big fan of TTP.
Anyway, I decided to leave this comment on Part 5 of his review, on "Science - What is True?"

Hi there!
I have to take issue with a few things, hope you don't mind.


What Tackett does not mention is that our primordial ancestors didn’t require a complex blood clotting system since their circulatory systems didn’t require the high-pressure system that we do.

How does that solve the problem? Seems like that makes TWO problems to figger for the adherent of Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TENS).


Evolutionary biologists are quick to point out that the various structures of the flagellum likely performed different functions

Have you ever stopped to think about how "talk is cheap" applies to this kind of 'rebuttal' from the TENS side? How is "this likely performed diff functions" not a just-so story? Why should we believe what the TENS ppl say? How DID it happen? Precisely?


Tackett asks whether Darwin’s theory “stacks up against reality.” Tackett’s answer is that it does not.

Has you ever stopped to think about the massive edifice of assumption that has created a "storyline" of fossils out of thin air? Read Henry Gee's "In Search of Deep Time" in which he explores this question - not as an authority, but b/c the argument is good.
In short, I'd like to see some evidence that any one fossil in our possession was definitely the descendant of any other.
For that matter, I'd like some evidence that any one fossil definitely had any offspring at all.
And if you can't evidence that, why would any reasonable person buy into the storyline?
And, for whale evolution, you point to a wikipedia article? Oooh, I wanna play!


The mechanisms of evolution, as random as they might seem because of our limited perception and knowledge, are still subject to the laws of nature that govern the universe;

What laws, precisely? How have scientists known they are laws?



Even Tackett should recognize that even the results of a “random” roll of the dice are known by an omniscient God (cf. Proverbs 16:33).

This is a pitiful failure to expose an internal inconsistency in Tackett's position. HE is not an evolutionist, my friend. Remember?


Why should the natural laws God designed be insufficient to create life from non-life?

1) B/c He told us how it went down - in Genesis. That's one good reason.
2) But let's say I concede #1 - just give me some evidence that life just suddenly banged into existence from non-life and let's talk. Evidence. Please.


In the end, it is Intelligent Design, not evolution, that actually limits God’s power and creativity.

This is just stupidity. Explaining how God did something doesn't "limit" His power or creativity. Neither of them do. But TENS leaves no room for God to TELL US HOW HE DID IT, b/c He already did tell us and you don't accept it. That's not His fault.



if I had known beforehand that accepting the evidence for evolution would automatically make me a functional atheist

In what way does it NOT make you a functional atheist with respect to THIS QUESTION?


Science shouldn’t have a philosophical side, Mr. Tackett! As much as you want there to be, there shouldn’t.

Are you even listening to yourself at this point, sir? How can you define science...scientifically? Show me the experiments that created "science". What volume of which elements were used? At what pressures? What molarity? What temperatures? What did science smell like? Is it toxic? If not, how did you test it?
Then make sure to refrain from any metaphysical or philosophical speech when you interpret the experiments. Thanks!


As a counterpoint to Tackett’s logic, I could highlight the use of the Bible to justify slavery

If you don't think there's an obvious argument for a logical progression of thought from Darwin to racism and racial superiority, as opposed to a MISuse of the Bible to support a system of slavery in which slaves have virtually no rights and can be abused at will, you're very ignorant, and that's sad.


As an evolutionary creationist, I still believe that humanity possesses a sinful nature and that we are still in need of a Savior.

Oh, OK. So, when was the first sin? Any idea? How developed was the animal that did sin?
Tell you what - let's examine how some Bible psgs SHOULD have been written.
Matthew 19: 3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created the human race out of lower animals from the beginning CAUSED THEM TO DEVELOP INTO MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THE REASON THAT GOD MADE HUMANS TO EVOLVE TO SUBSIST IN TWO GENDERS RATHER THAN JUST ONE, OR FIVE OR SOMETHING, A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one metaphorical man, sin metaphorically entered into the world, and only spiritual death through sin (since physical death is the way all life had evolved since the first time that life coalesced out of rocks), and so spiritual death spread to all men, because all sinned (once they had evolved enough to arrive at moral awareness, of course)— 13 for from the time of evolution of moral awareness until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless spiritual death metaphorically reigned from Adam until Moses (of course, what really happened was that once humans had evolved enough, they brought some instincts over from their animal origins even though they totally shoulda known better), even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of the metaphorical Adam (even though they had no idea that Adam was a metaphor, since he never really existed - 'Adam' is a historical construct created by Old Testament Jews who needed a way to explain the origin of sin. Or something), who is a type of Him who was to come (and I mean "come" in real, physical truth, honest. Not like the way "Adam" "came", see?).
15 But the free gift is not like the metaphorical transgression. For if by the metaphorical transgression of the one the many spiritually died, much more did the metaphorical grace of God and the metaphorical gift by the grace of the one metaphorical Man, Jesus Christ, metaphorically abound to the metaphorical many.

Here's hoping you can see the errors you've propounded here. I can think of a LOT better ways to spend your time than dissecting the very well-meaning Truth Project. Maybe reflect on how utterly ridiculous Richard Dawkins' last three books have been? Hitchens? Sam Harris?

Peace,
Rhology