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

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.

Extract from Rachael J. Denhollander’s article “If the foundations be destroyed” inVol. 24(1) 2010 of the “Journal of Creation” publication.

The “beginning of the end” for teaching creation science or Intelligent Design (ID) in the public school classroom came in 1947, in Everson vs Board of Education, a case which, interestingly enough, addressed no issue of science at all, and was actually decided in favor of the more “conservative” client. What Everson did do, however, is completely reshape the understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ultimately providing the framework for banning creation science and ID in the classroom.

The Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Thus, in every Establishment Clause challenge, the Plaintiff must prove two essential elements: 1) That the government is involved in religion, and 2) that such involvement has the effect of establishing a religion. Currently, there are a myriad of tests the court may apply in determining whether an establishment of religion has taken place, the most popular of which is known as the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test arose from the case Lemon vs Kurtzman, and requires a three-prong analysis which holds that the Establishment Clause has been violated if any of the following are true:

a) There is no valid secular purpose for the government’s action.

b) The primary effect of the action is not secular.

c) The government action fosters excessive entanglement with religion.

While other tests have occasionally been used or suggested, these have generally all been merely “revisions” of Lemon, rather than entirely new tests themselves. It is generally the Lemon test which has been used to rule out ID and creation science as unconstitutional, and it is Lemon which also finds its roots in the Court’s reshaping of history in Everson vs Board of Education.

Read the rest of this entry

Could someone please explain to me how it is that taxpayers in the U.S. are funding NASA not for scientific space exploration but rather for international Muslim outreach? The last time I checked, NASA and the U.S. Department of State were different federal agencies. When did that change?

On Wednesday of last week, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was interviewed on an episode of Talk to al-Jazeera. During that interview he described three of the top priorities President Obama had tasked him with for his new job (in response to the question about NASA finding itself at a crossroads):

When I became the NASA Administrator—well, before I became the NASA Administrator—he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

He was asked if this is “a sort of diplomatic role to win hearts and minds of Muslims.” Bolden quickly denied that, and claimed President Obama simply wants to draw in “the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.” Yet in a speech two weeks earlier at the American University in Cairo, Bolden said that NASA used to work “mostly with countries that are capable of space exploration,” but that has changed in light of Obama’s Cairo initiative:

[Obama] asked NASA to change [...] by reaching out to ‘non-traditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and in particular in Muslim-majority nations.

“NASA has embraced this charge,” Bolden said, adding that NASA “is not only a space exploration agency but also an earth improvement agency.”

Is the American public aware that their tax dollars are funding the U.S. space agency to patronize Muslims to “feel good” about themselves with soft-diplomacy outreach? As noted by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, NASA’s purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity. No doubt. Its purpose is to expand our knowledge of space and its attendant technologies. “If by doing great things people are inspired, well, then that’s wonderful,” Griffin said, and then observed, “There is no technology they have that we need” for NASA to accomplish its missions.

But earlier this year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed in her speech at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar that the Obama administration is embarking on a new era of engagement with Muslim nations “to expand educational opportunities, support entrepreneurs, and promote advances in science and technology.”

“NASA, our space program,” she said, “has partnered with the Arab Youth Venture Foundation in Dubai to give Arab and American engineering students the chance to work together on NASA missions.”

Highly advanced rocket technology. Prime Directive, anyone?

Update: 27 July 2010

NASA: National Arabic Sensitivity Administration

(HT: Mike Church)

May 15, 2010 — Two teams have succeeded in building little robots that work on DNA tracks.  These resemble in many respects the machines that cells use to perform its functions on DNA.  No one denies that humans engineered their nanobots on purpose, but Darwinist scientists claim natural cellular machines evolved without purpose or design. What’s the difference?

…

So if we do it, it’s intelligent design, but if nature does it, it’s blind evolution? You realize, of course, that the natural machines in cells are far ahead of us: they are not only autonomous, but attain very complex behaviors that are programmed into their molecular systems. Not only that, they belong to complexes of molecular machines, which belong to networks of signal processing systems, that boggle the mind – and they belong to entire systems that have a coded library, and can reproduce all their parts! Why should not scientists find it “inspiring to see such creativity” of “autonomous molecular systems that can execute complex actions” and ascribe it to design? Molecular biology should be filled with God-fearing, worshiping, praise-singing scientists shouting Hallelujah! What we get instead are man-fearing, fault-finding, hate-mongering ingrates shouting Pal-Ayala.

In a recent article from Science Daily [1] we find a compelling bit of science. Evidently the thinking is that humans became the ‘hairless ape’ we are because we evolved in a really hot region in East Africa. You see, the need to “stay cool in that cradle of human evolution may relate, at least in part, to why pre-humans learned to walk upright, lost the fur that covered the bodies of their predecessors and became able to sweat more,” Johns Hopkins University earth scientist Benjamin Passey said. [2] These constituted an “evolutionary advantage” these pre-humans gained. What I find curious, however, is in what intelligible sense this granted an evolutionary advantage when other fauna in that region or similar climates supposedly evolved just fine, walking around on all fours and covered in hair, etc. (picture animals like buffalo, wolf, baboon and such).

Surely the Panthera genus had even more selection forces acting upon them, being not only covered in fur but walking around so close to the ground (which radiates absorbed heat, so they get cooked on both sides). What do you suppose they think of this robust evolutionary science?

1. Johns Hopkins University. “Some Like It Hot: Site of Human Evolution Was Scorching.” Science Daily, 8 June 2010 (Accessed 10 June 2010.)
2. Benjamin H. Passey, Naomi E. Levin, Thure E. Cerling, Francis H. Brown, and John M. Eiler. “High-temperature environments of human evolution in East Africa based on bond ordering in paleosol carbonates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1001824107

[image removed pending permission from ICR]

Today is the 30th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens. But what has that got to do with a blog dedicated to defending a Christian world view? Well, quite a lot actually.

On May 18, 1980 when Mount St. Helens in Washington State erupted, melted snow mixed with the volcanic debris and formed huge mud flows. The flows reached speeds of 90mph, picked up sediment and rock, and, in addition to the original steam explosion, devastated a huge area, including some 150 square miles of forest in only six minutes!

These mud flows laid down enormous amounts of sediment, covering the area like a stack of pancakes, and resulting in a sediment pile up to 600-feet think in places. In some areas, thousands of individual layers formed within those sediments.

Then another eruption occurred on March 19, 1982, which created even more mud flows. They eroded large canyons as they scoured the countryside. One of these canyons is now called the “Little Grand Canyon,” and is almost like a smaller model of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. This new canyon even has side canyons, carved by catastrophic water and mud actions.

Catastrophism was a meaningful way of trying to interpret the strata in the early days of geology and this is well attested by the likes of Dr. Terry Mortensen in his writings on the scriptural geologists of the 19th century. However the uniformitarian view of geology popularized by Charles Lyell (and now becoming less popular in the midst of the “second coming” of catastrophism) compelled us to understand that the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Yet the canyons that resulted from the eruption of Mount St. Helens were witnessed to form in mere hours. As the caption in an image from this article says, “…  the stream did not form the canyon, the canyon came first and is responsible for the stream being there!” So perhaps the Grand Canyon formed in a similar fashion?

In fact, Creation scientists believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a similar fashion, probably carved out by the drainage of the enormous lakes that formed after the worldwide catastrophic flood and volcanic upheavals of Noah’s day (Gen 6-8).

See, it doesn’t take long for layered sediments or canyons to form from sediments, as proven by the Mount St. Helens eruption. It just takes the right conditions. Mount St. Helens demonstrated what creationists had been saying for centuries. Not only is Noah’s flood an historical event, but it is a plausible way (the best way?) to understand the geological record.

[Main reference: Answers in Genesis Flood Card Set]

Aren’t Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes?
‘I got excited at Mount St Helens!’

This is the continuation of my survey of Issue #4 of SALVO Magazine, as it relates to creationism. If you missed part one it might be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the first post before continuing, as I will dispel with the background already covered in part one and get straight back into it.

There is a small section refuting three main accusations against the Intelligent Design movement called What ID is NOT (p.36). Under the sub-heading of ID is Creationism is the following response:

“You’ve no doubt heard this one numerous times. In reality, this is flat-out false. The average creationist believes in a young earth, biblical literalism, and the complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes. The ID proponent, on the other hand, rejects – or at the very least suspends speculation on – all three of these convictions, maintaining only that there are reasons to conclude that life was designed; how it was designed or by whom lie beyond the ID theorist’s field of inquiry.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

In reality, it is this characterization that is flat-out false! While it is important to distinguish between creationism and ID, the more I read this issue the more I began to wonder if they had gone out of their usual way to build a subtle case against the reasonableness of creationism. In fact throughout the entire 96 pages, I have struggled to find a single positive comment about it and just about every attempt to define it is false on some level. The only thing missing from this caricature on page 36 is that the average creationist is a flat-earther! That certainly would’ve helped to drive the wedge deeper between the two positions… but of course, that would be misleading. Three main points to make here:

1. It’s true, ID is not Creationism and the average creationist may indeed believe in a young earth. But;
2. As pointed out earlier (see part one) creationists are not biblical literalists. To suggest otherwise is sloppy, and grossly misrepresents the position that YECs actually hold.
3. To say that YECs believe in a “…complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes”, really depends on how you define an evolutionary process. For example, mutations and natural selection are part of the supposed evolutionary process and yet creationists accept both of them.^[1] Why wouldn’t they? These are observable phenomena, otherwise known as real science! Instead they reject the notion that these processes are evidence for the evolutionary worldview depicted in the typical monophyletic Darwinian tree. Creationists hold this view for two main reasons: 1) they believe the Bible – which is held in the highest authority – provides enough information about the origin of life on earth to make a distinction between it and an evolutionary world view; 2) they are far from convinced that mutations and natural selection constitute the observable modus operandi of evolution – a function that would need to alter an organism so that it gains the new genetic information required for new body parts or plans.

So if creationists are not biblical literalists and do not deny observable “evolutionary” processes such as mutations and natural selection then the characterization of the view presented on page 36 is seriously misleading. In fact other than the age of the earth and the universe, the only key distinction between ID and Creationism mentioned on p.36 would appear to be how and by whom life was designed.

Read the rest of this entry

In a November 2006 interview with Time Magazine, Dawkins gets it so miserably wrong;

TIME [Magazine]: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986-2,00.html

In depth discussions of epistemology aside, I believe Dawkins is making a category error which results in a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise. You see science, which is limited to observations of interactions within the “natural” world, is being used to come to the conclusion that a “supernatural” creator does not exist. Or put another way, if it turns out that science doesn’t have the tools to “test” for the existence of supernatural things, then it stands to reason that it cannot be used to come to the conclusion that a supernatural creator does not exist. I think that’s fairly straight-forward.

Thinking that science (defined as it is within a materialistic framework) can be used to make such conclusions on questions like this, is like concluding that chickens have no weight because the thermometer we used to investigate this question failed to provide any answers. Science can only deal with physical things governed by physical laws. So by very definition then, science cannot directly address the question of whether non-physical things, like God, exist or not. Such a question is outside its capabilities.

But there is another point to be made here concerning the use of reason and logic. Reason and logic, it turns out, are tools that science depends upon, yet they are not physical things that science can test. To illustrate, what scientific experiment could you do to verify reason? Can you put it in a test tube and watch what happens when it’s heated? Can you measure its diameter or weight, or check it’s reaction to various external stimuli? No of course not. Instead science must assume the presence of immaterial things such as reason and logic to be able to make a scientific case for anything! They must therefore rely on the presence of the immaterial to make sense of the material. But that’s not all folks! Not only must atheists like Dawkins assume that reason and logic exist to be able to do the science that he thinks disproves the existence of God, but he must also assume that his own mind (another non-physical entity) can make accurate assessments pertaining to these non-physical things, which if anything, implies the existence of God, rather than evidence against. No amount of high-tech lab equipment can take a sample of reason or a few milligrams of logic, put it under the microscope and test its properties. These are things that only a mind can grasp and put to use, because minds, like thoughts, reason and logic, are not physical things. In other words they’re real, but not physical.

So if reason and logic and the mind are immaterial things that we know exist, even though we know science cannot possibly test them, then is it at all correct for Dawkins to claim that the answer to the question, “Does God Exist?” is a scientific one to which the “answer is no”? Absolutely not! This is a category error. It’s like trying to weigh a chicken with a thermometer. Science can teach us some pretty awesome things about the universe that God created (and to a certain point, about God Himself), but science alone can never disprove God. It’s not a scientific question.

I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.^[1] 

Read the rest of this entry