My friend and very esteemed colleague Duane Proud two days ago wrote an article in which he asked evolutionists to provide examples of bad evolutionary arguments they have seen used in debates and discussions on origins. And he provided a list of twelve examples to help get the ball rolling, asking whether evolutionists would concede that any of the arguments listed are bad—and if so, which ones—or provide other examples of evolutionary arguments they have seen used which are bad. “In other words,” he said, “I’d like evolutionists to be self-critical and provide a list of arguments they would endorse as ‘arguments evolutionists should not use’.” Duane wanted to see if there were any among our evolutionist readers “who are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument,” which could be demonstrated by their providing “any arguments for evolution they think are lacking and why.”

Not a single response.

Let me clarify that: not a single response that actually answered the question Duane was asking. He received several responses but they mocked Young Earth creationists, defended many of the arguments listed as actually good, provided links to web pages that explain what biological evolution is and why it is true, or they gave completely retarded examples of arguments I’m quite sure nobody ever uses—like the gems that Nocterro provided, e.g., “Evolution is true because my cup is green.” (Given that he values philosophical discipline, he should have known better; moreover, he is the one person I expected relevant and intellectually honest answers from.) But when it came to the question Duane had actually asked, there was not a single response.

So I want to demonstrate something about intellectual honesty. I want to put forward the same question but this time directed toward creationists. That is, I would like the creationists out there to be self-critical and provide examples of arguments they would concede as ‘arguments creationists should not use’. Unlike evolutionists, I know that creationists are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument and can provide creationist arguments they think are lacking and why. The complete silence from evolutionists regarding Duane’s question will be deafening in comparison to the intellectual honesty and self-criticism of creationists. The contrast of responses will say something important about dogmatism.

Read the rest of this entry

(via)
(HT: Luis Dizon)

In the interest of honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research, several Christian ministries maintain a list of arguments they think creationists should avoid (e.g. moon-dust thickness, and Darwin’s recantation of his evolutionary beliefs on his deathbed).

Similarly, I recently discovered that Answers in Genesis have a list of 12 Arguments they think evolutionists should avoid:

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact

Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution

Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution

Argument 4: Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved

Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution

Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry

Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution

Argument 11: The Scopes trial

Argument 12: Science vs. religion

Something that struck me about this list though, is that it comprises many arguments that evolutionists do make on a regular basis. So I wondered how many on the list evolutionists themselves would concede are bad arguments that evolutionists should not use and whether there were other arguments that are not on the list that they’d advise proponents of evolution to steer clear of.

In other words, I’d like evolutionists to be self-critical and provide a list of arguments they would endorse as "arguments evolutionists should not use." It’s a serious request and I ask only to be better informed of the kinds of arguments that evolutionists themselves think are unjustified in attempting to make their evolutionary case. I invite anyone who considers themselves an informed evolutionist to contribute to this humble project.

On the other hand, if you’d like to explain why any of the arguments above should not be on that list [you know you want to], I’m happy to receive those objections. But in the interest of give and take, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide at least one argument that you think evolutionists should not use and why.

There was apparently a rally in Dearborn, MI, yesterday (Monday) protesting the arrests of the Acts 17 Apologetics team, organized by Dearborn attorney and Republican candidate for Congress Majed Moughni, who is not only concerned that their constitutional rights were violated but also that it might hurt the image of Dearborn. “Their arrests should never have happened,” he told the Detroit Free Press. “We respect the Constitution. No one should be afraid to come here and speak.” He said the rights of the missionaries ought to be respected even if the people being addressed don’t agree with the message. “It’s like the KKK walking into an African-American festival,” he said. “You can’t arrest them just because you disagree with their views.”

Behind him was a large sign that he had designed which read, “USA: Free Speech For Everyone!” Moughni is also a Muslim well-known for organizing a silent protest along with 150 other Muslims following the Christmas Day terrorist attack on Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 (for which he received a death threat).

Supporters for the protest rally at Dearborn City Hall had come from Monroe County, Taylor, Dearborn, Canton, Westland, Brownstown, Woodhaven, and even the state of Arizona, Moughni said. “Our biggest battle today is fighting for the freedoms of others in order to protect our freedoms. If we succeed, we all win!”

• “Rally in Dearborn backs arrested missionaries.” Niraj Warikoo. Detroit Free Press. 27 July 2010.
• “Muslim candidate leads rally in Dearborn for Christian evangelists arrested at Arab Fest.” Jonathan Oosting. Michigan Live. 27 July 2010.
• “Muslim attorney leads rally for Christian missionaries in Dearborn.” Edward Brayton. Michigan Messenger. 27 July 2010.
• Dearborn Area Community Members (Facebook.com).

My name is Luis Dizon, otherwise known by my pen name, “Fisher.” I am a Canadian of Filipino descent who is aspiring to become a historian, theologian and apologist, and who is learning to live according to the calling of God in the service of His Kingdom and His Gospel. I am a Conservative, Evangelical and Reformed Christian by conviction. I believe strongly in the Bible as our final and infallible authority on matters of faith and morals, and I strive to do everything according to the principles set forward in God’s Word.

For over a year, I’ve been writing articles for a little theology blog that I run called Epagonizesthai. The blog name is based on the Greek word επαγωνιζεσθαι that appears in the epistle of Jude which is translated as “[to] contend earnestly” (Jude 1:3, NASB). This relates to the primary purpose that I have for blogging, which is to apply my theological studies in that most honourable of endeavours known as Christian Apologetics. I have written many articles on various apologetic topics, plus I have also recorded many of the various dialogues and debates that I have had over the past year. I have had encounters people from all sorts of religious groups, including Ahmadis, Atheists, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims, and various other such groups. My motivation for entering into this kind of discussion stems from the doubts that I previously held before I became a Christian, not to mention the various challenges that I have been faced with from various opposing groups after I came to Christ. It is my firm conviction that God is calling me and many other budding young Christians who are of a similar background as I have, in order to build us up into preachers, missionaries, evangelists and apologists.

Now, I have in the past month become good friends with my fellow Canadian David Smart (whom you all know as Ryft) via #ProsApologian, the IRC chat channel of Alpha and Omega Ministries. It is he who had invited me to join the Aristophrenium as a part of its staff. So I accepted the invitation, and that is why I am now here as a contributing writer to the Aristophrenium. It is truly an honour to be able to work along with my brothers in Christ in the defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7, NASB). am very much looking forward to contributing to this blog. Most of my articles will be concerning matters of church history, systematic theology and apologetics, especially towards Muslims and various religious cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. I have done extensive research on these religions, and have conversed with many who belong to them in order that I may be able to better understand their beliefs and provide a response to the challenges that they pose to Biblical Christianity. Hopefully, this will be an excellent opportunity to bring glory to our sovereign Lord, edify the saints and be a witness to the lost world that we all live in.

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Romans 1:7)

Some of the things I’ve been reading this week:

• Peter Jacob with the Daily Times looks at the UN and its Defamation of Religion resolution.
• Brian Riedl, writing an opinion article for the Wall Street Journal, says that runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues (e.g., Bush tax cuts), is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.
• The "religion of peace" threatens a woman into terrified seclusion for the sake of her life.
• Washington Post staff writers Greg Miller and Thomas Erdbrink tell of how the U.S. paid Iranian nuclear scientist $5 million for aid to CIA.
• Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs compares the stories of Crying Wind and Ergun Caner and evangelicalism’s history of celebrity frauds.
• Mark Lamprecht explores why it was so deeply incongruent for Liberty University to invite Glenn Beck to give the Commencement speech.
• H. David Schuringa, with the Crossroad Bible Institute, writes a brief but poignant article asking, "Can Atheism Create a Virtuous Society?" (PDF)
• If getting a tattoo is forbidden in the Bible, then so are bowl-cuts. And no, this is not comedy.

And on the lighter side:

• The world’s most awesomest tree house evar. It’s called the Minister’s House, built by Horace Burgess in Crossville, TN.
• The Galactic Empire must be really strapped for cash!

I wish I could say that Justin at Consider Atheism has posted some more of his thoughts on the Problem of Evil and how to refute my defeater of it, but unfortunately they are the embarrassingly weak responses of Dawson Bethrick. I suppose that is at once both good and bad. On the one hand, it is good that such a train wreck didn’t come from his own brain. But it is bad, on the other hand, that he didn’t approach the problem with critical thinking of his own, despite my hope that he would, choosing instead to publish Bethrick’s response (but mostly in Justin’s own words).

Originally Bethrick tried to save Justin’s argument by using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that evil is indeed something God creates. Justin was rather enlivened by this passage and brought it to my attention in the comments area of my first article. And I proceeded to show him why he should probably not get too excited about arguments that Bethrick uses by showing him what the passage is actually talking about. And as to be expected, Bethrick responded (at Justin’s site). I was going to send Justin a private email about this and tell him that he would score critical thinking points if he could identify what was wrong with Bethrick’s response. But it seems I didn’t get off work soon enough, for by the time I got home Justin had uncritically regurgitated the train wreck in a new blog post, so now this gets to be done in public instead. Readers of the Aristophrenium know that I don’t mind dismantling logically bankrupt arguments from atheists who pretend to esteem reason—to put it kindly—but I was really hoping to save Justin the embarrassment because I like him. “Before you invest yourself in Bethrick’s response,” I was going to write him, “evaluate it critically for logical flaws.” Anybody can teach people what to think, but I want to teach people how to think, and few things achieve that goal quite like learning how to critically evaluate an argument.

But if he wishes to do this publically, I’m willing to oblige him. Let’s have a look.

Read the rest of this entry

Great example of reductio ad absurdum in a clever piece by John over at Sydney Anglican Heretics last month. He is responding to Greg Clarke’s comments in the Australian christian newspaper Eternity, where Clarke made a fairly strong inference to young earth creationists as “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots.” 

I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context: 

“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity. 

“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.” 

Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue: 

Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot. 

The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot? 

In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message. 

First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message. 

Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.

One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.

This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry