Tags
Sometimes it is necessary to take a few steps back and look at the big picture. In the evolution/creationism debate, there is a more fundamental question we can ask other than questions of the fossil record, genetics, or morphology. We can ask, do religion and science evaluate the world differently? If so, suddenly the tiny details get drowned out by the epistemology.
By using a basic conversation about the different ways of knowing the world, as told by adorable bunny figurines, we can take a step back and consider which way of knowing seems to best fit into the larger picture of reality.
The following conversation could be thought of as between a creationist relying on the Bible for direction on the diversity of life and a scientist collecting evidence about it. However, this conversation could characterize many differences between valuing tradition versus valuing independent evidence.
When scientists first began collecting the evidence for evolution, they were opposed by a strong contingent of other scientists and authorities in society that had already accepted the creationist world view. But the evidence kept piling up. Today, we have a theory which is every bit as much a fact as gravity.
How should we discover the world? Do we keep our minds open, letting the evidence we gather and the observations we make steer us? Or should we accept the dictations of a few powerful men, whose time has long past?
Now, did you think you would get such a lesson from tiny bunnies?
[Via My[Confined]Space]
Science-Based Life 
http://www.amazon.com/He-Who-Thinks-Has-Believe/dp/0890510733
I ran across this small book a number of years ago, and highly recommend it. Like your puzzle parody, this is a parody on the creation/evolution discussion, but with a decidedly different outcome. I suggest you broaden your reading material beyond what appears in your quite narrow reading list. Another of A.E. Wilder-Smiths fine books is
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Sciences-Know-Nothing-Evolution/dp/1931713502/ref=pd_sim_b_1
Best regards,
don
Thanks for your kind assumptions about my knowledge of evolution.
Creationism couldn’t be further from science, has no evidence for it, and makes no valid explanations over and above evolutionary theory.
But are you open to reading these books?
Well, I know when I want to know where modern science and biology stand I try to find a book published in 1989. Seriously, this books is about as old as I am. Maybe you should read a book published in this millennium, or just do a simple Google search on the topic. For anyone to cite a book that is 23+ years old (ESPECIALLY in the field of science) and then to claim that someone else needs to broaden their reading list is absurd. It more likely shows that you had to dig to find a book that happened to agree with the view you already held but that the scientific community does not.
In one of my recent articles (link is below) I reference a “recent” book titled “The 4% Universe. What caught my attention, and what I see in responses here, is a high degree of close mindedness bordering on arrogance. I don’t mean to be insulting here, but rather ask that each of you consider the implications of a view of science (not necessarily the correct one) that on the one hand acknowledges that science knows only 4% of all there is, and at the same time asserts with 100% certainty that there was no “creation”, and therefor no God.
Believe me, I was where each of you are (in the last millennium by the way) immersed in the fog of the evolutionary world view. Many real and working scientists and engineers do not buy into that fog, because they have found, and are finding, that fog is all there is. Do your own homework please.
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/are-the-laws-of-nature-accidental/
So you then argue against evolution and for god with a giant logically fallacy, namely the argument from ignorance. We only understand 4% of the universe therefore god is a possibility? This does not follow from any logical worldview.
We may not understand much, but what we do, we understand very well. There is nothing about the universe that rigorously suggests that there is a god. Dark matter and energy will not, when understood, suddenly make the supernatural possible. They still fit into our equations, and do not belong in your argument from ignorance.
We don’t know with 100% certainty that there is no creator. Acceptance of evolutinary theory does not automatically mean atheism. However no theory involving creators is supported by available evidence and therefore science can only disregard the idea for now.
That’s exactly the analogy I thought of 15+ years ago when dealing with creationists. It sums up their mindset precisely.
Wilder-Smith’s book is basic young-earth creationist arguments, nothing that would sway anyone. He even references the Paluxy mud tracks.
Kyle,
I do indeed argue for the existance of God, and His Creation. However, please re-read my remarks on the 4% universe; I was not here arguing for or against either the theistic or athistic line of thinking, but rather advising caution on beleiving one knows something with 100% certainty when in fact we all know far less than that (say 4%). You say you are a skeptic, then why not retain some of that skeptisism here and allow for even a small chance that God does exist? Can you do that?
Surely. But no one here is arguing 100% certainty about anything. As I’m sure you know, science accumulates evidence and observation until a “fact” status can be obtained, but these facts are always open to new evidence, and are fluid. Scientific facts are a temporary agreement between some statement or theory or law and reality, based on the available evidence.
Concerning evolution, we have enough evidence to call it a scientific fact, while leaving the door open for new evidence. Sure, there is a small chance that perhaps a deity has something to do with it, but based on what we have found so far, there is no reason to take that chance seriously.
Kyle,
Thank you for your comments. Please know that I respect that this is your blog, and I intend to remain civil and respectful and wish to contribute to your understanding and your search for truth. If at any time you wish me to stop responding, I will.
So until told to stop, or if I feel I have no further influence, I will contribute with future comments and suggestions for your consideration.
don
Don,
4%? How on earth did you come up with this slice? We can’t possibly know what we don’t yet know – so assuming how much we know (i.e assuming the whole) and how much we don’t (assuming the part) is utterly false and quite frankly an idiocy.
“what appears in your quite narrow reading list”….You want us to take you seriously? Stop making assumption about us and/or our reading list. This is where we differ: We don’t make Assumptions and call them Truths. You ever so quickly call our vision foggy and yet your views are based in no scientific evidence. They do however based on sources that have Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, talking bushes, and a giant arc that carried 400 million different species (times 2) etc etc…
And you dare saying calling us closed minded because we refuse to believe. You are a classic example of playing chess with a pigeon…
David,
I agree with your criticisms of Don’s arguments, but to clarify, I believe that Don is referring to the percentage of the universe that our laws of physics accurately describe. All of the matter that we see, such as stars, planets, and gas clouds (made out of the fundamental particles) only makes up roughly 4% of the universe, while dark matter and dark energy make up the rest.
Sure, but his assumption is still for getting that number is wrong, even when considering he is referring to the ratio of matter, forces etc. dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, new particles, holographic universe…who knows what we’ll discovery in 10 years. The scientific method allows us to question knowledge. We only claim we know something with 100% accuracy after we’ve tested it over and over again.
I will not stand for creationists attempt turning the scientific method against us while having no clue (or choose to ignore) what it stand for. Worse, they use questionable “research method” and have the audacity to claim they have successfully invalidated our knowledge.
A Creationists Response to the Cutest Response …
Perhaps the best way to respond to my critics in this blog thread is to begin with my own personal story. So if you will indulge me, here is the short version:
From the age of 19 to the age of 36 I was in very much the same place many of you appear to be in … an evolutionist and an atheist, and very much an evangelical atheist. A friend introduced me to atheism and induced me to read Bertrand Russell’s book Why I Am Not a Christian. Russell was a giant in his day; a giant in mathematics and a giant in philosophy, whose opinion and writings carried much weight back then. So I was hooked, and from then on read much that would confirm my new found faith. I also, like so many others, became enamored with Carl Sagan and his seminal series Cosmos. “The Cosmos, all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be” was a clarion call of rejection to the very idea of God and His creation; very well done, captivating and persuasive. There were also books like The Passover Plot, a popular attempt at debunking the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
All along the way there was (and still is) what I have come to call the fog of evolution. What I mean by this is that all through popular culture, the idea (nay, the fact) of evolution as the source of most everything (life in particular) permeates; magazines, newspapers, text books, television, radio, movies, schools and especially universities. For example, just the other day I turned on NPR and found an interview with an “Evolutionary Anthropologist/stand-up comedian” who was researching the evolution of laughter. It was clear to me that he wasn’t just looking at the cultural differences and nuances of laughter across diverse cultures, but was attempting to somehow create a type of time-line along the lines of the history of man; Cro-Magnon … Homo-Sapiens and all that. Good luck with that, fossils will be few and far between.
Then something different started happening in my life, and also in my wife’s life, although we were each unaware of the others travels. I won’t go into the details here, but Easter Sunday 1981 found the two of us at church and the beginning of a radical turn around in my world view; something or someone was intruding into my life and whatever it was compelling.
Yea, you guessed it, God was that someone intruding in my life. Could I prove He was real? Well no, that wasn’t the point.
So there I was, in a completely foreign place, with my world view turning upside down; an atheist and an evolutionist confronting the very things I had rejected for so many years. I had a couple of choices; I could try to run away and hide and continue in my old ways, or I could confront the issues and seek answers to my many questions; evolution being one of my most serious.
I’ll shift gears here and answer a question put before me about my reading list (yea, Mr. Hill, I brought this on myself by criticizing your reading list; but it does seem sparse and I suggest you beef it up.)
In my quest for truth I found my first line of attack was the Bible itself. At this point in life I guess I was the world’s foremost authority on a book I had never opened. Could the Bible really be the “word of God” as many claimed it to be? Along the way in searching out this answer I discovered quite a number of thinkers and writers who had already asked the same question; some were professional theologians such as Dr. D. James Kennedy, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and others. But many writers I studied were not professional theologians, but rather skeptics as you who read this essay are. Many of these skeptics, such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, began with attempts to objectively discredit the Bible, but wound up instead creating powerful apologetics in support of the Bible. Others I read from the scientific world were Henry Morris (the founder of ICR), and A.E. Wilder-Smith. If there is any interest among you I can flesh out my reading list with authors and titles; let me know. My intent here in this essay is to give you the general flow of my quest, but leave the details of any exploration to you.
Can I prove the existence of God? No I cannot; He lives beyond space and time. But I can prove His creation; all I have to do is reflect on and observe the wonder of my own body.
I’ll leave you with this thought. It’s been many years since my change in direction, but I can tell you with great enthusiasm that it’s been a good, good ride; full of new discoveries, a sense of purpose to my life, I’ve become a better husband, father, brother, employee, friend and co-worker and citizen; and a knowledge of my place in this magnificent universe and this wonderfully and beautifully created Earth.
Best Regards to all,
Don Johnson
You want us to consider disputing all of evolution sciences, based on an “experience” you’ve personally had at a church…What kind of silly is this request? I’m really glad for you that you’ve had become a better husband, father brother etc etc. Some of us need a ‘churchly’ experience for that, some of us simply have strong upbringing to do so without church. We quite often look at the wonderful and beautiful universe as well but we don’t choose to sit there in bewilderment and “reflect upon ourselves” to learn it…I’m quite sure the 70’s generation tried doing that with drugs…they are still chasing their own tails to this day.
“God lives beyond space and time.” You know what else lives beyond space and time? Fairy Tales! The once-up-a-timer’s that live in land far far away. You can’t disprove them either. After-all they too can’t be touched, sensed, smelled or sighted! How wonderful! lets start believing in all of them!
I’m not going to entrust my life with a doctor or a scientist that believes that the monsters, ghosts, demons, angels, tooth fairy, Santa Clause and Peter Pen don’t only exist but have some magical powers that are in charge of human rights and morality and that they can cast a bad spell on us for all eternity if we don’t believe in them…yet if we steal or hurt someone but confess our sins they’d forgive us…as long as we believe in them…No thank you. I’m going to be good because I want to be treated the way I treat others. I want to be good because that’s the only way of living where our society can continue to exist. I want to be good because there are laws and police that I rather not cross as I want to live life to the fullest and not in jail.
The promise of salvation in the afterlife? I’m not buying that!
What your bible tells me, is that a person such as myself, who had never stole, never hurt anyone, never cheated and don’t plan on doing anything bad to others will……Burn in Hell for All of Eternity….because I didn’t accept the word of JC & joined a church (which depends on my donations)? Who do you think you are to have such power and insight about a world you have never EVER seen from a being you can’t even prove to exist? Do you not see you are being manipulated by a small group that tries to control the freedom of thought for their financial gain?!? If not, we have nothing else to discuss.
Read Daniel C Dennett or Christopher Hitchens…We view religion as a phenomena and Dennett even goes further in studying it in a way that should appease even the like of you. Reading just one book about any topic (Bible=to understand the universe or “why I’m not christian” to form an opinion about Atheism) is a bad start.
The calculation that the Universe was created about 5000 years ago was made by a 17th-century Catholic bishop. We Jews are in the business of studying the scriptures where creation occurs, and you will not find a single reputable Jewish scholar in the past two thousand years who buys into the current so-called “Creationism” interpretation of OUR HOLY SCRIPTURES. The existence of God and the appropriateness of the scientific method for knowing the Universe created by God are separate issues, and most Jews manage to live with both, thank-you-very-much.
Perhaps you have not heard of or studied the Rate Project; http://www.icr.org/research/rate/ A study from the Institute For Creation Research (ICR). I attended the several day briefing where the conclusions were presented. Rate was conducted by “real” scientists from the fields of physics and geology. I invite you to examine the findings of this study.
don
At least you had the decency to call them “real” and not real. They are as much scientists as doctors in the 40’s recommending smoking to people. If I recall, quite a few time these pro-creation “scientists” stood trial with dire outcome.
These people don’t follow the scientific method and we care very little of what title they might have acquired in university, as clearly, the one thing university tried teaching them (thirst for knowledge, research and above all academic credibility) did not make into their brain.
ICR – What kind of research institute has these three words on its website? “Biblical. Accurate. Certain” ?!? This is a clear example of the rude and ludicrously false sense of being above knowledge you creationists are. And this is why we, people of science look at you with contempt and disgust as you make mockery of the scientific method and quest for knowledge.
There yet may still be a chance that the world was created through evolutionary means but that it was naturally and supernaturally intended to be so. How would some lifeless material such as the material which made the stars and other solar bodies transform themselves into something as complex as us humans and other actual living and growing things without some help from say…a certain unidentifiable force? Perhaps it is not a deity but there must be something in the very start of creation that would always remain a mystery—that is the initial starting point itself. There must be a reason as to why life formed or was created this way. And we may be destined to find out the answer ourselves.
“Always remain a mystery”…Actually, it was clearly tested (Miller–Urey experiment for example) that given the right conditions (such as the atmosphere and environmental activity we had here on early earth) organic building blocks form out of non-organic materials. So the assumption that there must be a creator because organic materials can’t come out of non-organic materials is utterly false. That isn’t a mystery, so the starting point, in this case is that it is possible. How it evolved into the complex life (why you place humans complexity as a life form above all others life forms is beyond me) is what we study but it is a puzzle we study (like the little bunny) and intend to solve.
Can you see why this little bunny-puzzle example is so proper to our debate? We keep placing more pieces of the puzzle and you keep saying…”I don’t know, it must be a duck”
Pingback: Statistically Significant Posts « Science-Based Life
Reblogged this on The Re-blog Blog and commented:
Found following my love for Loki.
Reblogged ’cause it’s awesome. :}
It’s been awhile since our last dialog, but have any of you ventured out to read any of the material I’ve referenced above? If so, I’d be interested in your comments on the material.
Pingback: De schattigste reactie op creationisme - Kloptdatwel?
Pingback: Lief klein konijntje… |
Pingback: [Ctrl-P] Lief klein konijntje… | Kritische Massa