I Think, Therefore ...

At Discovery Institute, Michael Egnor takes note of the inherent self contradictions in materialism in the article Descarte's Blunder.  We are all aware of Descarte's famous "I think therefore I am" phrase.  The idea being one has to exist to think.  Egnor flips the script, or more accurately, points it back a step.  

"Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”

The idea that "A" cannot be "non-A" is a necessary axiom for any knowledge.   If we can't distinguish between this and that, we simply can't think.

The Central Questions - Part 1

(This is a repost from a few years back.)

The central questions

In my 54 years on earth, I have had only two significant challenges to my faith.  It occurs to me that both of those challenges focused on the same basic questions, perhaps the central questions that all human beings have to ask.

This will sound a bit odd, but those two challenges were evolution and Calvinism. (More)

The Central Questions - Part 2

Evolution, built on a foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism asserts that what we experience now, including corruption, suffering and death, have been the norm from the beginning of life on the planet.   Death is not an enemy, but is instead part of the engine of progress toward higher life forms. It is necessary for the weak to die so that the strong can prosper.

In it's atheist form, there is no purpose at all to this pattern.  Life arose, but it could have failed to arise.   Creatures that survive are "better"  only in the sense that they were better equipped to survive.

In it's theistic form, God may have devised a universe that made life possible and may in some hidden sense be the energy behind the laws of nature, but the "survival of the fittest" reality is nevertheless the overarching fact of existence.   Death cannot be an enemy if it is a necessary component in the development of more complex life forms.

So why do we suffer?   Because suffering and pain are evolutionary developments that aid our survival, a notion that is brutal if there is no purpose in existence and perhaps far worse if this was "God's method of creation".

In either case the traditional "free will" explanation for the origin of evil and suffering cannot be maintained.   Evil and suffering are part of the fabric of reality from the beginning and by design.   

Shadow of Oz - Pay no Attention to That Scientist/Theologian Behind the Curtain

Wayne Rossiter followed an interesting path, from Christianity to Darwinism to a vocal atheism, to crisis and back to Christianity.   While he remains a practicing scientist, he found himself troubled by the path chosen by many Christian intellectuals in attempting to maintain a purely Darwinian view of origins while claiming to hold to Christian beliefs.   He begins the book with the troubling tale of a young college student who was so devastated by the destruction of his faith through Darwinism that he committed suicide.   While extreme, this brief story sets the stage for the discussion of the uneasy marriage of two contradictory worldviews.   (More)

A Step Beyond Orthodoxy at Jesus Creed

At Jesus Creed, the continued Evangelizing in the name of Christian Darwinism continues with a post by the prolific guest blogger RJS.  The post is titled “Evolution, Belief, and the Virgin Birth” and features a discussion of a book by Robert Asher, “ Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.”

While I think I should be fair and say that I believe both RJS and Scott McKnight would profess to affirm tenets of the faith called into question by the author of the book, the rather uncritical discussion of the views and the ho-hum tone of the comments indicate a great deal of comfort with one who questions central doctrines of the historical Christian faith.

RJS has been a steadfast champion of Evolutionary Creationism, what used to be called Theistic Evolution.  In the views presented in her posts, the primary constant is that science requires a commitment to seeking understanding of nature through natural processes alone.  Though she is a theist and an adherent to Christianity, she sees natural law as vital to the scientific enterprise.   Adding the possibility of interference from somewhere “outside of nature” is anathema to the science academy, which means no miracles are permitted, particularly in the discussion of origins.  That raises a bit of a contradiction when EC’s deal with New Testament miracles such as the resurrection and virgin birth of Christ, as we shall see.  (Read More)

The Information Enigma

The Discovery Institute has put out this video:  The Information Enigma.

It does explain the basic idea that the Darwinian model doesn't work and a brief description of the design inference.

The video focuses on a combination lock as an illustration of the problem.   A bike lock with four
10-character possibilities would have 10,000 possible combinations, making it unlikely that a thief would have or take the time to randomly try to guess the combination.   Proteins are vastly more complex and the possibility of randomness producing new functions is essentially nil.

But what isn't discussed is that someone had to first design the lock and set it to open with a correct combination.   What lies behind the physical representation of the "design" or "information" is even more beyond the realm of random mechanistic processes.

I support ID even though it avoids the theological questions.

I just want to push a little further.  

Things I Don't Believe

Creeds, declarations, manifestos have been written about many, many things and are usually a positive affirmation of what someone believes.   I think about beliefs when politicians are asked gotcha questions about hot button topics and no question gets more ridicule than suggesting one rejects Darwinism.  

I think it would be wise, when asked about origins, if politicians turned the question around and stated things in a negative way.  

So, if you will, the anti-creed - a statement of things I DO NOT believe.

Biologos and the Invisible Hand of God

Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.

Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)

First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.

Steven Meyer Gets in a Word at Biologos

I've not been a fan of the website Biologos. Since Deborah Haarsma took over the site it has been a bit less strident in relegating all creationists and ID advocates as anti-science rubes.

Steven Meyer's second major ID book Darwin's Doubt got a fair amount of attention at the site, Several different contributors provided reviews of the book, starting here. Meyer was given opportunity to respond here.

It was a reasonably civil exchange and Meyer thanked the contributors for that. His take on the whole of the discussion is telling. " I—and many others—have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological."

Immaterial Reality Times Two

Not too long ago, I posted about the notion that information is the immaterial reality that cannot be explained by reference to material causes.

Now this.  

Not only is the genetic code a language, it is two languages with two different purposes stacked onto the same chemical sequence. 

From the original article:  "The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other"

David Klinghoffer responds:  "But think about how implausible this is. Let's say I write an article in English about Subject A. But ingeniously I choose my words in such a way that the article can also be read in a different language, providing information about a related but separate Subject B. Meditate for a moment on the ingenuity this would take -- not only that, but the forethought, with imagining a complex, distant goal being the first step in the process."

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

Naturalist Claim: Global Flood Explains the Cambrian Explosion

Interesting article at Evolution News.

Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt raises questions about how a vast array of life forms and body plans for those life forms could arise during the Cambrian explosion.  Critics of the book apparently mostly trashed it without engaging it, but Casey Luskin makes note of some attempts to deal with the specific question raised.

Here's the gist of a significant problem:  (more)

Misquoting Augustine, Revisited

A number of months ago I posted several times on the misuse of Augustine by Theistic evolutionists.   The gist of the posts, here, here and here, was that Augustine's "Literal Meaning Of Genesis", often quoted in a way that implies Augustine would have approved of reading Genesis 1-11 in a non-historical manner.  I countered with extensive quotations from City of God that showed Augustine was very insistent that Genesis was true history, and more specifically, that if there is an allegorical meaning or spiritual meaning, that always is parellel to and not in opposition to the historical.

Australian Creationist organization Creation.com is one Young Earth Creation site that I frequent, along with certain ID and Theistic Evolution sites to keep myself up to speed on things. 

This article profiles Professor Benno Zuiddam who teaches theology at North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.  He essentially makes the same point, that yes, some early church fathers believe there was an allegorical meaning in the Old Testament, but that allegorical meaning did not negate the historical truth of the events. 

The Hidden Censorship of Scientism

I do read Uncommon Descent daily. Interesting article last week regarding Professor James Tour is listed as Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

Tour has stated his opinion that no scientist alive really understands macroevolution.  His primary concern is with the mechanism of chemical evolution.  He "makes molecules" he says, and he knows how hard it is to get all the pieces to fit together, so the question of how it all happened in nature a long, long time ago leaves him with questions.  But the ugly secret is that behind the scenes he is not alone.  Here is his claim:

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."  More

C.S. Lewis on Scientism

I recently finished reading The Magician's Twin subtitled "C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society".   The book is edited by John G West.  It is a good read and it was fun to reengage with Professor Lewis' ideas once again. 

A few internet articles have made a bit of a point about Lewis' views of Darwin or Intelligent Design, but the central theme of The Magician's Twin is really not Lewis' view of Darwinism.  At the heart of the book is Lewis' view of scientism, his distrust of an overconfidence in the value of natural science to lead us to ultimate truth about the universe.  And more to the point, Lewis feared the manipulation of science by those in power.  (More)

A Concise Statement of a Familiar Point

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God presents a new twist on an old objection to Darwinist views of origins.  Hunter's point is that there is an a priori assumption inherent to the mindset of most Darwinists that can logically prevent them from seeking truth.  Key paragraph is near the top.

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priori restriction of the answer might exclude the true answer.

The last line is worth repeating.  ANY a priori restriction of the answer logically may exclude the true answer.   (Read More)

Information - The Immaterial Reality

In much of the debate between ID and Evolution advocates, the focus is on the mathematical complexity of the genetic code.  ID advocates point out that the sequences of chemicals arranged to carry the information that makes life possible are so detailed and vast that no amount of time could account for the unguided arrangement of even the most basic chemical structures of proteins.  Steven Meyer's recent tome suggests that the random combination of chemicals necessary for even the basic building blocks of the genetic code are so unlikely to have arisen by random processes as to be equivalent to finding a single marked atom blindfolded in an area equivalent to size of the known universe.  ID does not then merely resort to a "God of the gaps" argument where "design" wins by default, as his critics charge, nor is it merely an argument about "chance".  Rather, the suggestion is that the order of the genetic code is analogous to virtually everything else that we know to have been designed, therefore design is the best explanation.  (More)

It's Immaterial

There was much consternation on the blogosphere a month or so ago over the Gallup poll t hat showed that in this country very few believe in evolution.  46% believe God created humans in pretty much the present form, 32% believe God somehow guided evolution and only 15% believe evolution occurred with no help from a deity.

The lament seems to be that somehow science education has failed or worse, the false science of Creationists has poisoned the minds of too many of the undereducated folks in flyover states.  I find that hard to accept.  For decades evolution has been taught virtually unchallenged in public education and major science programs on popular and public TV have also pushed the standard Darwinist viewpoint, while one would be hard pressed to find a "creationist" view tolerated on virtually any mainstream media outlet without considerable qualification.  In addition, Intelligent Design views are almost universally disdained in mainstream media and academia while in the courts ID is lumped in with creationism as an enemy to be vanquished.  (More)

The Lie

It is said by Evolutionary Creation advocates that if Young Earth Creationism is true, then God “lied” by making the universe appear old. In fact the “appearance of age” is one explanation some YEC use to explain the apparent age of the universe. The argument YEC makes is that if God were to create a tree, instantaneously, and someone came along moments later, the someone may have no idea the tree was only seconds old, for a “created” tree would appear to be mature. The same logic would apply for the land masses, earth and the universe itself.

But to evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, this explanation imputes to God a “lie”, that he would have left clues in the universe that make it appear to be old when it is not, deceiving…well, scientists primarily… who want to assume the age of something very old can be determined by examining its properties.

It is not my purpose here to defend a particular age for the cosmos. As a conservative Christian, I am not committed to a particular age of the most distant star, or of the necessity of a precise 24 hour day in the creation of planets or land masses, but I am committed to the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin as recorded in the Genesis account. What concerns me here is logic, for this is a curious and horribly inconsistent charge made by EC advocates against YEC.

If find it stunning that EC advocates suggest that

A) God “LIED” if the universe is young when it appears to be old,

B) But there is apparently nothing deceitful about an “inspired” text that indicates absolutely nothing about the alleged irrefutable truth of common descent!

The utter absurdity of that inconsistency ought to be enough to cause any serious reader of scripture to doubt whether EC is the least bit honest with the text of scripture.

What is the greater lie?

Is it the lie latent in a subtle set of clues allegedly buried in inferences made by a few highly specialized technicians; conclusions measured in the long slow decay of radio-isotopes or measurements of the speed of light, each revealed only through sophisticated scientific methods based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of the physical universe?

Or is the greater lie laid out in common human language in story form which explicitly and repeatedly claims that human beings are descended from a single pair whose rebellion is the cause of all death and suffering?

It is often asserted by these sophisticated academics that God revealed the Genesis story to earlier pre-scientific peoples because they would not have been sophisticated enough to comprehend common descent. Really?

Were the men who lived in the age that built the pyramids really so incapable of higher level thinking that a story of creation which simply suggested all living beings came from earlier creatures would have been incomprehensible to them? Is it more credible that instead God reveals to them a story that all humans descended from a single pair?

The Fall of Man and the Rise of Science

Two Interesting reviews of a book by an Oxford guy. here and here.

The book is “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” and the Oxford guy is Peter Harrison.

I'm intrigued by the book, and will likely buy it, but I have to say I find this thesis vaguely familiar. Francis Schaeffer outlined a similar viewpoint decades ago.

There are a few distinctly Christian presuppositions about the universe that many argue were necessary for science as we know it to come into existence. The first is often cited and understood by Christians in the ID and Creationist camps. It is simply the idea that the universe is orderly and that our brains can apprehend that order.

Still Looking for Ken Miller's God

Published way back in 1999, Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwins God" was a major event in the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design battles. A friend loaned me a copy and I finished it today. A few observations:

Miller has an absolute commitment to naturalism as essential to science. And he is opaque to that being a problem for many theists who believe in a God who is outside of nature. He writes: "Presented modestly and accurately, evolution is a simple scientific idea. It claims only that material causes, the laws of physics and chemistry as played out in living things, are sufficient to account for the history and complexity of life. If evolution is neither more nor less than this simple scientific idea, then why does it engender such hostility?" (167)