Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Book Plunge: Evidence Considered

  1. #21
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    What about the origin of life?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Does the difficulty of the origin of life provide evidence for theism? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    We continue our look at Glenton Jelbert with chapter 11 of his book Evidence Considered. In this chapter, he looks at Walter Bradley and his arguments concerning the origin of life. As many of you know, my area of expertise is not the sciences so I will not be speaking on science as science.

    I also do have a problem when Christians look at this as a necessity in that if we find a materialistic way that life can come about, then it's game over. If that is the case, then God's role in our system is to be a gap-filler and the only way he can create is through direct fiat creation. We already have a way where he does not do that which we will be commenting on later. When I reviewed*Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation this was something I noticed from Fuz Rana.

    If evolutionary mechanisms possess such capabilities, then believers and nonbelievers alike wonder, what role is a Creator to play? For example, evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins quipped, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” I debated developmental biologist Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers, a well-known atheist and author of the award-winning blog*Pharyngula, at North Dakota State University on Darwin Day, February 12, 2015, on the question of God’s existence. One of the key points Myers made was, in effect, evolution can explain everything in biology, so why do I need to believe in God?” (P. 129)
    And

    The key lesson from my interaction with Myers (and other atheists) is that to make a case for a creator and the Christian faith, it is incumbent on us to (1) distinguish our models from those that are materialistic and (2) identify places where God has intervened in life’s history. If we cannot, it is hard to convince skeptics that a creator exists. (Ibid.)
    Rana, as well as his opponents, are both doing theology. Notice in this that there is nothing about the resurrection of Jesus. There is also nothing about metaphysical arguments. This feeds the whole conflict hypothesis where there is a conflict between science and religion necessarily and that science is the arbiter of if God exists or not. I have no wish to concede that ground.

    This isn't a scientific stance. It's a theological one, and one has to ask the atheist especially how he scientifically establishes what it is that God would do? I contend that such is impossible and it's really just bad theology. This doesn't show that God exists, but it is important to show that science cannot determine that.*

    So let's look at the chapter now.*

    Jelbert makes the claim early on that deism is much closer to theism. He will give an argument for this later on. This is said because Bradley says the origin of life problem is causing atheists and deists to become theists. I am sure this happens with some, but I have no reason to question what Jelbert says about the majority not converting to theism.*

    Jelbert also says the difficulty to account for this makes it an argument from incredulity. Jelbert later says in this chapter that there are many arguments Bradley does not interact with, but in fairness to Bradley, there are places where he has. One example is in Lee Strobel's*The Case For Faith. I don't say this to say that Bradley's arguments work or are persuasive. I leave that to the scientists. I say it to say that he has covered these elsewhere and an essay in a book with 50 such essays cannot be expected to give a full synopsis.*

    If one is presented with several materialistic hypotheses and does find them all lacking and one thinks they have positive evidence of intelligence, then this is not an argument from incredulity. I think an argument like that is much more like what is said by many atheists on the problem of evil with "Why would God allow evil X to occur?" If one does not know, it does not follow that there is no reason. It only follows that we are not omniscient.*

    As he goes on, he gets to deism being closer to atheism than theism. I am not convinced of this. Deism also provides an ontological foundation for the origins of the universe and for the transcendentals like goodness, truth, and beauty. Jelbert regularly looks to God's functions instead of His nature to make his case.*

    There's also this idea that if it is God, we have no need to search. He points to embryology as an example since David speaks about being formed in his mother's womb. We know so much about embryology so this is false apparently. I do not see how. This is the example I was speaking about earlier. Aside from the virgin birth, which I do affirm, there is no instance of fiat creation and even in the former case, once the conception took place, the normal materialistic processes took over.

    The idea seems to be then that if we can show a materialistic way that something came about, God did not bring it about, with the implication being that God could not or would not use materialistic means to do something. No reason is given for this claim. To give examples, let's take some scenarios.

    Picture the Red Sea event during the Exodus. Let's suppose for argument's sake that this is a true historical event which an atheist will not grant. The sea parts and the Israelites pass through and it closes over the Egyptians. Suppose you find out that this happened because of a wind and this has happened before. Therefore, it is no miracle. Not at all! The miracle is not just that it happened, but when it happened.*

    Jelbert later says about Bradley that he is claiming certainty where it does not exist and searching for God in arenas that have little evidence available. Yet if this is so, why is there so much about science here and so many theological claims built around science? If science has little information available for the debate, why should it be the arbiter of the debate? Would it be better for us to go through philosophical and especially metaphysical evidences?

    Again, note the position I am in. You could dispatch of Bradley's argument and I'm fine because the metaphysical arguments for God and the historical argument for Jesus will still stand. Yet what about Jelbert? What if Bradley was right? Would Jelbert be in trouble? If so, Jelbert is letting science be the arbiter as said, and this in an arena with little evidence.*

    Jelbert is also then doing what he accuses Bradley of. Bradley is in essence marrying theism to science if he bases his case on this. (I do not know if he does or not.) If that is problematic, what if Jelbert does the same and makes his atheism dependent on the gaps being found out supposedly? It was said years ago that he who marries the spirit of the age is destined to be a widow. If Jelbert wishes to base atheism on the science of the day and if a Christian wishes to base his theism on it, that's their choice, but I think I'll stick with philosophy and metaphysics that have been faithful to their cause for millennia.*

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  2. #22
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,905
    Amen (Given)
    20214
    Amen (Received)
    6482
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    I also do have a problem when Christians look at this as a necessity in that if we find a materialistic way that life can come about, then it's game over. If that is the case, then God's role in our system is to be a gap-filler and the only way he can create is through direct fiat creation. We already have a way where he does not do that which we will be commenting on later. When I reviewed*Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation this was something I noticed from Fuz Rana.
    If I understand this correctly you are saying the idea that 'if a materialistic way that life could have come about' then it is game over. I hope. Because something could be explained materialistically does not mean that it did happen that way.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

  3. #23
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Not at all game over. Even if we did come about through those materialistic means, it doesn't spell doom at all. That just shows us the mechanism God used.

  4. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  5. #24
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,610
    Amen (Given)
    951
    Amen (Received)
    16372
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Not at all game over. Even if we did come about through those materialistic means, it doesn't spell doom at all. That just shows us the mechanism God used.
    Yup. God created the world and surrounding universe. It was He who established all the processes and mechanisms that we find within it. It does not lessen God at all when we are able to discover one of them

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  6. #25
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Should we teach the controversy?

    The link can be found here.

    ----

    Should we teach the controversy? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Our look at the work of Glenton Jelbert continues as we look at chapter 12 of his book Evidence Considered and this time he's responding to Michael Newton Keas who has an essay about what high school students need to know about science. I would certainly say our high school students don't know enough about science. To be fair, our education is lacking so much that too many today don't really know enough about anything unless they've been through private school or homeschool. Just look at the snowflake population today.

    We are normally told to teach the controversy. Jelbert says that they can teach his children the view of Intelligent Design when they can convince scientists of it. Now I do honestly have some understanding here. I am not someone who is a promoter of Intelligent Design. Like many Thomists I think it produces a view of the universe that is still too mechanical.*

    I also understand that some controversies that take place on the internet do not take place in the academy. I certainly hope that Jelbert will be consistent and not treat mythicists seriously for you have more Ph.D.s in the field that hold to ID than you do Ph.D.'s in the field that hold to mythicism. If Jelbert does not do this, then he will be guilty of being inconsistent.*

    That being said, I do understand ID has made some contributions, such as their prediction that junk DNA would have some usages. Also, if information in Expelled is right, then a number of people have published papers with reference to intelligent design and lost their job for it. If that does happen, then excuse the public if they get suspicious about the claim.*

    Finally, if we look at an organization like the National Academy of Sciences, they do vote their own members in and we can understand a selectiveness to it. If there is a supposed bias, it does undercut Jelbert's claim. For the classroom itself, I would say that if a student thinks ID is true, then here's a suggestion. Let the student make a presentation to a classroom and he has to present his case and defend it.*

    Some people have said, "Well would that mean that everyone from another religion gets to give their account?" If so, what's the problem? Everyone has the same task. Get up and make your case and defend your view in the face of opposition. Not only do students learn different views, they learn how to examine and critique them as well.*

    Also, for someone who referenced Galileo earlier saying that Christians should keep it in mind, perhaps Jelbert should keep him in mind more. Galileo came with the minority position and the majority position did shut him down. Now we know that Galileo was right. Does this mean that ID is right? Not my call to make there, but it does mean that the claim is certainly one to be explored.*

    Jelbert tells us that Keas does not define science and then tells us that a simple Google search could come up with a definition. He gives us one of "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Perhaps this is a good definition, but I wonder why Jelbert goes with a Google search. Would it not have been better to look up a qualified philosopher of science for this? This is a difficult term and when it comes to Google, I have no way of knowing who the source of this quote is and what this person's authority is.

    Jelbert speaks about how Keas says that geologists study one large object. Namely, the Earth. Jelbert says that Keas apparently wants to undermine the sciences that he does not like. I am unsure how Jelbert reaches this conclusion. I would have said geologists study the Earth as well and I have no wish to undermine geology. (Aside from the every now and then Big Bang Theory joke that geology isn't an actual science.)*

    Keas then goes on to say that different motivations shape how we do science. Jelbert quotes him as saying

    The ancient Babylonians produced the longest sustained scientific research program in human history (twenty centuries). Although their motivation was based in religion and astrology, their resulting mathematical astronomy wielded great predictive power.
    Keas goes on to say that naturalism

    amounts to atheism. Naturalism in science has guided many scientists to limit themselves to material causes to explain the world.
    Jelbert tells us that Keas is criticizing methodological naturalism and upholding the ancient Babylonians as how science should be done. It is difficult to see how Keas is doing this. Keas is just making a statement about motivations. I don't see him saying Babylon shows how it is done. It is just saying that even with motivations less than fully scientific, the Bablyonians gave us great success. He also says then that we should beware of our own presuppositions, which I think most of us would agree with and this is how scientific revolutions take place. There has to be a whole shift of the paradigm overtime because all data is interpreted under the current paradigm.*

    Jelbert tells us that the triumph of the scientific revolution was that it studied nature as nature which gave us much more success in five centuries than the Babylonians had in twenty. I think Jelbert is missing several factors here. These factors undermine his claim greatly.

    For one thing, there was hardly the time to spend properly in science in the time of Babylon. Many people were more focused on survival and leisure time was unheard of. It was only the immensely wealthy who could do this. It was through the Middle Ages where science was really starting to take off that we developed better agricultural procedures to better enable people to survive and then the printing press better allowed the dissemination of materials relevant to the field.

    Furthermore, Jelbert started talking about methodological naturalism, but methodological naturalism is not only a difficult term to define, and both parts at that, but it does not necessarily equal science. At least if it does, Jelbert has not given us an argument for that. It also does not work to say that this is what we do today, so this is what they did for five centuries. Atheism as a major worldview is still a latecomer. There have been atheists throughout history to be sure, but it has never reached the popularity level it has today.

    Finally, Jelbert is ignoring the history of science as it began in the Middle Ages. Through this, he perpetuates what is known as the conflict hypothesis, that there is a necessary conflict between science and religion. This is not a view among most historians and philosophers of science today. It's one largely shared in the public viewpoint, but not really so much in the academy, kind of like other ideas, like Intelligent Design.*

    Jelbert then tells us of how Keas says that scientists studying origins study presently existing things and use this to develop their hypotheses. Jelbert says they could hardly be expected to study things that do not exist, but with this it looks like Jelbert is saying something just to be argumentative. I don't think Keas is presenting this as a problem.*

    Jelbert says further on that religion is fascinating and was humankind's first attempt to understand the world it lives in, but if the Judeo-Christian view coincides with science in this instance, it is not of scientific interest. Maybe not of scientific interest if it does, but should it not be of philosophical and theological interest?*

    He also says it is clear that Keas is using science to confirm religious claims rather than the other way around. He says there are many ways that Judeo-Christian claims blocked science, but unfortunately gives no examples. The same can be said of atheism. How many atheists were hesitant to accept the big bang theory due to not liking the idea of the universe having a beginning? Everyone will approach the science from their own worldview and often interpret the data to fit that. No worldview is exempt.*

    Jelbert then says that Keas makes a distinction between how things work and how they originated and says he doesn't know anyone who says says our origins affects the way we view our purpose. Really? Is he serious? How about Stephen Jay Gould?

    We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a “higher” answer — but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating. We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers for ourselves…
    One wonders about this. What is liberating exactly here? Gould doesn't say, but one wonders. It leaves me thinking about Jerry Walls's article on the hope of atheism. He quotes from Thomas Nagel in The Mind and the Cosmos.

    The conflict between scientific naturalism and various forms of antireductionism is a staple of recent philosophy. On one side there is the hope that everything can be accounted for at the most basic level by the physical sciences, extended to include biology. On the other side are doubts about whether the reality of such features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought,and value can be accommodated in a universe consisting at the most basic level of physical facts—facts, however sophisticated, of the kind revealed by the physical sciences.
    Walls rightly asks why anyone would hope that this is true. He understands that one can be a regretful atheist, but why would one discover there is no meaning in life and rejoice? You can realize that your wife is a jumble of atoms and be sad but hey, that's reality. Why would you rejoice?

    This is one problem I do have with evolution. It is not the science, but the philosophy. That we are animals in a sense is certainly true as Aristotle called us the rational animal. If we use evolution to say that we are mere animals, then I have a problem. It's not the fault of evolution if this happens and it doesn't change if evolution is true or false, but evolution in itself cannot show us if naturalism is true. Unfortunately, this kind of philosophy can lead our youth to especially act like animals, hence we can have a crisis with teen sex.

    There are many things here I think are valid in Jelbert's critique and I have not touched the science as science. He could be right. Unfortunately, in many areas, I think he takes a simplistic approach. He could be right on the science. I do not know. Yet when it comes to philosophy, theology, and history, there is a grave lack.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  7. #26
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Chapter 13 looks at Phillip Johnson.

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    What do I think of Jelbert's look at Phillip Johnson? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    We return to our look at the work of Glenton Jelbert now. Jelbert is still in a section about science and this time looking at the work of Phillip Johnson. Johnson is largely known for his writings on evolution and in support of intelligent design. He thinks the whole system of evolution is problematic and is due to fail. He could be right. It's not mine to say.

    There's not much in this chapter that I think needs to be said. It starts with the fact that many ID proponents don't get their work in peer-reviewed journals. It could be because it's bad science. I don't know. It could also be that there is a bias in the field. I don't fault IDists though for thinking that there is something else afoot. Too many well-known atheists use science and seem to have a God allergy as it were.

    There is one main point I do want to comment on. Jelbert says what would be the point in studying origins naturalistically if it were assembled by a great designer and did not come about naturalistically at all? He says that if we knew what ID purports to know, there would be no point at all.

    I do not say any of this as a proponent of ID. If the ID movement fell tomorrow I simply would not care. Still, I do think the idea that there is a God behind it all does not mean that science has to end.

    For one thing, saying that something came about through a designer does not mean that the designer did not use naturalistic means. My favorite example of this is the Psalms. We are fearfully and wonderfully made in our mothers' wombs. I do not dispute this just because we know more about the gestation practice and what happens when a man and a woman have sex together.

    Second, if we find there is a designer, that can lead us to asking questions of how He made things and why He made things. It's my understanding that the ID movement was right on this when it came to junk DNA. The thought was that if a designer made this, it had to be made with a reason. If a designer even set up the evolutionary process, it had to be set up for a reason.

    Unfortunately for Jelbert, saying that X is a science stopper does not mean that X is false. We could say by that that if we find any explanation for anything, then we have come across a science stopper. The point of science is to find the answers to the questions. More questions do come on the way, but we are on the quest of finding the answers.

    Jelbert also says that even if accurate, this would only give us deism and not theism. Perhaps, though it is a stepping stone to theism. At any rate, giving us deism shows us that atheism is not true.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  8. #27
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Chapter 14 looks at the Scopes trial.

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Can we learn anything from the Scopes Monkey Trial? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    We return again to the work of Glenton Jelbert in Evidence Considered. The next response is to Edward Sisson on the Scopes Monkey Trial. Like Jelbert, I consider the trial itself irrelevant. Evolution does not stand or fall on it. (And if that is the case, then in fairness, ID doesn't stand or fall on the Dover trial.) However, there is a sort of*Inherit The Wind mentality about the ignorance of the Christian side as opposed to the calm rationality of the agnostic side.

    The trial arose because someone thought the teaching of evolution was undermining belief in the Bible and another person decided to take advantage of that politically to help his career. At the start, I consider this a mistake. If a teaching is problematic for the Bible and that teaching is true, then we dare not propose a double-theory of truth. We need to be consistent. There are a number of steps that could have been taken.

    One could have taught evolution for instance and yet pointed out problems with the theory. How would it not explain scientific data well in its time? What were the best critiques of the theory? What were the best evidences proponents of the theory used?

    You could also go back and look at your interpretation of Scripture. This was a mistake in the Middle Ages to think that some texts were meant to be read scientifically. Maybe the same is happening here. Maybe these texts aren't really scientific texts but instead are teaching something else.

    Or, you could say right now we just don't know, but we do have other grounds for believing in Christianity. You could then go to the classical theistic arguments (Which I have yet to see Jelbert touch) and then to the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. There is often this strange idea we have that we must be able to answer every question and know how every piece of data fits into our worldview to be coherent. This is simply false. We are not omniscient like that.

    Jelbert points out that Sisson said the law the trial was over merely barred teaching Darwinian evolution." I agree with Jelbert that saying merely barred is not a good idea if the youth were to be up on current science. What would be said of saying "The Dover trial merely barred the teaching of Intelligent Design."? Of course, it could be now that Jelbert would have been saying in Scopes, "Teach the controversy", but not so much here.

    Jelbert goes on to say that the Intelligent Design movement is trying to put Christianity on a firmer scientific footing. I agree with Jelbert that this can be a bad move. In fact, it's a bad move for atheists. If you hold to atheism for modern scientific reasons, I think that's a bad idea. The science of today can often be the junk of tomorrow. Certainly much has stood the test of time, but much hasn't.

    This is one reason I don't really do scientific apologetics. It's too easy to base your worldview on the science of the day so much so that the Biblical accounts have to be read as scientific accounts. It's the old mistake of Concordism. When it comes to Scripture and theism, science is not the final decider.

    At the same time, I think in this day and age, Jelbert is too highly optimistic when he speaks about education getting a student to think and read for themselves. That is just not happening. Too many young people out there are believing stupid things because of what they read on the internet. They are uninformed in never learning anything and their hobbies dominate their lives. If they want an informed opinion, they use wikipedia or they google and believe the first thing they read.

    I am a gameshow junkie. On New Year's Eve, my wife and I were watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and it was a college week. A student came out and was asked as a question where the Middle East was. I think his choices were southwest Asia, southeast Asia, Southwest Europe, or Southeast Africa. The student had to ask the audience. The most popular answer was the right one, but over 60% got it wrong, and these are the same students who are going to be voting for leaders based on what goes on in the Middle East.

    Later, this same student had to have someone come down and help him with a question, and it was his uncle. The question was stating that two presidents had resigned in office during their terms and the second took place in the 1970's. Which president was this? Yes. This student needed help to know about Richard Nixon.

    Excuse me then if I don't share Jelbert's optimism about students informing themselves and giving theories a fair hearing.

    Jelbert also says that scientists love to tear down an existing paradigm and replace it with one of their own. That may be so, but other scientists aren't so crazy about others doing it. This is what Kuhn said in his book on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. New data is taken and put into the old paradigm as much as possible until it just can't take it any more and then a new paradigm must be found, but that new paradigm is hard to come by. Other scientists are resistant to it, much as many Christians are resistant to doing new things in church. (But we've always done it that way!)

    Sisson does say that since eugenics was taught, it shows that we should not let those teaching be slavishly bound to what is popular science today. I'm not sure that this is saying the government should handle it as Jelbert says, but I would have a problem here as well because while eugenics is evil, could it have helped if differing opinions on it had been taught? Why not confront the idea rather than hoping it will just go away? Of course, the movement was evil and wrong, but it was still there and it needed to be dealt with.

    Something interesting about Jelbert's response is a sort of postscript at the end. He says Sisson was questioning the moral character of Darwinists and Jelbert realized he was doing the same with Sisson. Sisson is just as interested in truth. Jelbert says he had reacted emotionally to a perceived attack on his children's well-being. Sisson could very well say the same as could many Christians today concerned about evolution. I definitely agree with Jelbert that an idea stands or falls on the data and not the people who hold to it.

    We'll continue another time.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  9. #28
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Does evolution dumb us down?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Has evolution dumbed us down? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    It's been awhile since we've looked at the work of Glenton Jelbert*and his book*Evidence Considered. We're going to return today with looking at his chapter in reply to Nancy Pearcey. The theme is that evolution dumbs us down. Pearcey argues that Darwinism eventually leads to pragmatism and postmodernism since all our ideas are products of evolution. This is reminiscent of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. I have no wish to defend or critique the argument here.*

    Let's get to what I do disagree with. Jelbert says that Pearcey gets wrong what atheism is. Atheism is not saying that there is no God. It is saying that a person does not believe there is a god. He goes on to say that this is important because it determines the burden of proof. One supposedly can't prove that there is no God, just like you can't prove there is no tooth fairy.

    Well, these people disagree:

    “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

    William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

    “Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

    Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii
    Ultimately, I find this a dodge. The atheist is just saying that he doesn't believe and the burden is automatically on the theist and if the theist doesn't prove his claim sufficiently, the atheist is justified. Would the same be said to a person who is leaning towards a flat Earth and says "I'm not saying the world is flat. I'm just saying I don't find sufficient reason to believe that it's round."? Would the same be said to the person who is arguing against evolution? Jelbert's position should be considered more agnosticism, but then the burden needs to be placed on the atheist and the theist both. Whoever makes a claim has a burden.

    It's also a problem because let's suppose that the claim "God exists" is true. In this case, theism is true, being the proposition that "God exists" is an accurate description of reality. On the other hand, let's suppose that there are still atheists who say they lack God belief. In this universe, Theism could be true, in that God exists, and atheism could be true, in that people still lack God belief. This is something nonsensical though since atheism and theism are contradictories and contradictories cannot be be true. Theism is not making a statement about a subjective belief but about reality. If that is so, the denial of that statement is not making a statement about subjective belief, but reality.

    And also, yes, God can hypothetically be disproven. One could show a necessary contradiction in the nature of God. That's the way we disprove the idea of a square circle. That's why there are such things also as the problem of evil that if they don't disprove God, they at least try to show that God is highly unlikely.*

    Jelbert goes on to say that the big revolution of science was the freedom to say you don't know something. Thus, you can try to find it out empirically. At this, one has to wonder if Jelbert has done any real looking into the medieval period. Empirical investigation was nothing new. It was being done. Scientists were trying to find natural explanations for most everything.*

    Jelbert then says that until God presents Himself for experimentation, we have no other recourse than naturalism, but why should I think that? This isn't a scientific explanation but a theological one. If there is a God, then He would present Himself for scientific experimentation to us. Why should anyone think that?

    "Doesn't God want us to know He exists?" Why? What if God's stance is sufficient evidence has already been given? What if He wants people to come to Him who want to know Him and not just treat Him like an object of trivia? What if He's looking for people who are disciples?

    But Jelbert has an example of this! Prayer experiments! Prayer experiments have not found prayer to be effective. Somehow, theists always have an excuse for God's indolence!

    Indolence?

    That's an odd way of putting it. The word refers to laziness or sloth. I'm sorry. We performed an experiment and God was obligated to play along? God is not like a machine where if you push A, B happens. There are no guarantees. Any married man should understand this. What your wife will like one time, she could find just annoying the next time.*

    Besides that, there are always too many variables. How do you know no one else is praying for a person in an experiment? How is the faith of each person involved in praying for a sick person? There is too much we don't know, and from what we don't know, we're able to somehow make great leaps in logic. I've never been impressed by the idea of prayer experiments and having those tested. (Not to mention, there's this little thing in the Bible about not putting God to the test.)*

    Pearcey goes on to say that each worldview gives an account of origins. Jelbert says that this is not correct. Scientists are fine with saying they don't know and do not have undue concern for the origins of the universe. This must be news to Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking. He also says theists had ages to preach their truth with fervor only to adjust their position because of science. With this, Jelbert is perpetuating the myth of the warfare between science and religion. Yes. The conflict hypothesis is a great myth. It is recommended that Jelbert look at resources like Newton's Apple And Other Myths About Science.

    Pearcey also says that morality is always derivative from one's worldview. Jelbert says this seems to contradict chapter 2 where absolute morality could demonstrate that there is a God. Pearcey is, however, right. What one believes about morality involves their whole worldview. Also, I don't think Copan is saying morality proves that there is a God, but rather it gives strong evidence and he thinks God is the best explanation.*

    In closing, I have to say that yes, this isn't meant as a proof of God, but a part of a cumulative case. I do agree that if the science is that evolution is true, we have to accept that and not just look to the consequences, but i think many times in his response Jelbert has made a number of philosophical and historical errors. Largely, having so many chapters endorsing the conflict hypothesis doesn't really help. (And in all fairness, scientific apologetics doesn't really impress me anyway.)

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  10. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  11. #29
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Are there limits to evolution?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    What about limits of evolution? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    We continue our work at the look of Glenton Jelbert and Evidence Considered. This time we look at a chapter on the limits of evolution. As a non-scientist, there is not much I can really say.

    I do agree with Jelbert that rejecting evolution does not make you a Christian or even a theist. That is true. Also, just because you are a Christian or a theist does not mean that you have to reject evolution. This is why I suggest Christians not try to make this a strong point. I contend that both Christians and atheists are often making the same mistake when evolution is made a central point.

    The Christian can often think that if God made the world, He had to make it through a certain methodology. Of course, He could have and maybe He did make life through a non-evolutionary means, but is this necessitated? If every life formed in the womb is formed through a process, could not all life come through such processes? Is God only there if you can find gaps for Him?

    Meanwhile, atheists say they don't care for God of the gaps arguments, and rightfully so, but they often make it that the more we gain knowledge about the world, the less need there is for God. They too have the same kind of mindset. If God created the world, He had to do it this particular way and had to bring about life this particular way. Maybe not.*

    Both sides*also hurt one another because they perpetuate the conflict hypothesis that there is necessarily a conflict between science and religion. Both sides*will lose out. For the theist, many times their religion means much more to them. They are happy to accept many things in science, but if accepting evolution as science means they have to ditch God, who is much more central in their lives, forget it.

    I'd also say it's understandable for the theist. The theist looks at the world and sometimes his mind is just blown by the way things are and thinks it just couldn't possibly happen by chance. Call it incredulity if you want, but there is a certain sense to it that the theist thinks this world didn't just happen. There is some sort of purpose. He doesn't want to lose that wonder.

    The atheist meanwhile can accept sometimes many good things that religion has done, and if anyone thinks religion has only brought about evil, they don't know what they're talking about. Still, if accepting religion means he has to ditch science, forget it. Why should he come to God if that means he has to live in a world where he denies what he sees in the laboratory? As long as the two are seen in conflict, each side will go with what is most important to them. Each side will also miss out on the full benefits of the other.*

    I also agree with Jelbert that if natural selection is true, it has the aim of getting the most fit species out there and will do so even if without intent. This is actually excellent for theism. It fits in perfectly with the fifth way of Thomas Aquinas. Many people look at the fifth way and think it means everything must act with intent. Not so. It just means that there is a correlation with things working towards an end even if not intentionally.*

    I also agree with Jelbert that if we go with God of the Gaps, new information can damage the argument. This is a reason why while science is fascinating, I don't really go with scientific arguments. I don't think Christianity or science should be married to either.*

    One small thing, Jelbert does talk about limits and says that zebras haven't evolved machine guns to survive the lions. I would be amiss to say that if that ever happened, it would be truly one of the coolest things ever.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  12. #30
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,731
    Amen (Given)
    288
    Amen (Received)
    2759
    Chapter 18.

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Does atheism have a case with evolutionary computation? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    We're continuing our look today at the work of Glenton Jelbert. We're still on the science section which many of you know is not my forte. On this chapter, I cannot comment much because I do not claim to understand the science. What I will comment on is a couple of claims that Jelbert makes that I think can be worth discussing.

    Jelbert does rightly say that a goal is central to biological evolution. The goal in biological evolution is the passing along of genes with the end result being reproduction, survival, and food. Jelbert in the chapter says he puts the word goal in quotation marks because goal implies an intent.*

    The fascinating thing about this is that this is something that fits exactly in line with classical theism. When classical theists talk about teleology, they do not mean intelligent design. Instead, what they mean is that things do indeed act towards an end. This does not mean rational things or divine things. It means anything that is created acts toward an end.*

    Edward Feser gives a summation of what this means here. Too many atheists will be too quick to jump on their own assumptions. Feser tells us we have to drop everything we've heard from the modern ID movement and just look at the argument of Aquinas for what it means to him, not understood in light of modern ideas of teleology. I leave it to the reader to go through Feser's article as he explains it much better than I can and those intrigued can get his books.

    What this means then is that if we have a goal in evolution, then we have a basis for the existence of God. This does not mean that evolution is some entity that has this intent in mind. It just means that if creatures tend to, all things being equal, act toward a certain end, then there is a reasonable case for theism.

    At the end of the chapter then, we get to another claim of Jelbert's that bears relation to this. Jelbert is right that the removal of biological evolution would not require the acceptance of a creator. I agree. One could be an atheist even before Darwin. On the other hand, the acceptance of biological evolution does not require the negation of a creator. (If this is so, and I am sure it is, it makes me wonder why we're arguing this so much.)

    Yet Jelbert says something problematic when he says that Robert J. Marks II, his opponent in this chapter, has not connected a creator to any specific claims theists make, then he has not established theism. At this, he is definitely wrong. Suppose we could take the classical arguments like Aristotle did and establish there is some sort of deity, which is what Aristotle did. Even if we don't know the nature of this deity in connection to an established world religion, we still have a deity. It seems to be a bizarre universe in which we can say a deity exists and atheism is true. Establishing theism does not mean establishing an Abrahamic religion. It means establishing theism. Establishing theism is necessary to showing an Abrahamic religion is true, but it's not sufficient. Still, it is sufficient in itself to refute atheism.

    We'll deal with chapter 19 when we return.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •