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

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

In conjunction with the Global Atheist Conference which concluded yesterday, Australia’s national broadcasting station, the ABC, invited Professor Richard Dawkins onto to it’s program of panelists, Q and A. The topic to be discussed was, none too coincidentally, “God, Science and Sanity”. And given the makeup of the panel on last Monday night (8 March 2010), it comes as no surprise that Prof. Dawkins stole the show.

For those of you unaware – of which I assume this is the vast majority of you – the Q and A program pits pollies, professionals and “pundits” up against each other while passing the questioning over to the audience, whether to a member in the studio or to someone watching at home who participates via the program’s website. The idea is quite simple: grab a hodge-podge of celebrities, specialists and politicians, throw them in the same room, given them a topic and then let the public “have at it”.

And “have at it” was the operative word last Monday; but not against Prof. Dawkins – that was one parrot that wasn’t going to get knocked off his perch. But the other panelists, namely those who identify as theists, sure did get a hammering.

Read the rest of this entry

[Last updated by Duane: 9 March 2010]

According to a recent SMH article, the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism as part of the science curriculum.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required “teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.”

The SMH article provides an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues relating to creationism and science. However I only want to make one simple point about the misconceived relationship between the two.

To put it simply (as the SA board have done), the empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis – watch this – is an integral part of creationism. It’s not anti-science or non-science, but values the scientific method as a way to understand the world in which we live. The two are very much homogenous, in the same way that materialists might view the relationship between evolution and science.

Science is the study of the natural world, which Christians would say is the study of the world God created. While materialists don’t accept a Christian worldview, we all still live in the same world and so we all have access to exactly the same evidence.

In studying this evidence however, materialists must draw conclusions shaped by materialist presuppositions. Appeals to design (implying a designer) are not allowed. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. However the inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. So Christians are not limited by a materialistic paradigm. This doesn’t mean that creationists invoke God-of-the-gaps solutions to problems that the materialist’s paradigm cannot currently resolve. But it means that they approach the evidence with the view that God created and that God’s word provides clues about the world which can inform our presuppositions for understanding the evidence. A practical example of this is the work of PhD physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett, who have both proposed models for the universe to rival popular big bang cosmology.

Read the rest of this entry