Science doesn't need God to function as science. Fine. But people will always need God. Just one uniquely human question will confound science: "Why am I me? Why am I here in this body, instead of looking out through the eyes of one of those other bodies?" Instantly, you have an existential question that science is powerless to answer.

I think we should put the sophomoric philosophising by some physicists aside, and look at the street level results of such thinking. The twentieth century is replete with the results of the idea that we can dispense with God and His moral laws:

First and foremost, the existence of the soul is denied (because we can't quantify it), thus humans beings are not persons, but biological processes with no transcendent dimension. Some of these processes are more advanced, thus they naturally should lead and deal with the less evolved ones (the masses) - the laws of the universe give them that right .

Religion is accused of being a repository of superstitions, and of retarding the evolution of the voiceless masses. Consciousness is a by-product of biological processes, and ceases to exist when these processes stop - there is no consciousness after that point.

In the hands of ideologues, the results of such thinking are horrific, as the history of the last century shows. As pope John Paul II stated, this thinking literally becomes a "culture of death".

To those who tend to think along these lines, I would like to propose this: the square root of -1 was for some time thought of as a contradiction, an "impossible" number (Euler), etc. Yet, we've rotated our thinking about this "impossible" proposition, and today accept it as normal and necessary. Now we know we can do much more with it, than without it. I propose: so it is with God.

What is the title of the song.

A friend's father, a noted astrophysicist and equal of Hawking, who hosted Hawking on a conference on Black Holes and I were having dinner. There was a picture published from the Hubble Project which was honed in on a Black Hole.

The image showed mcuh mnore than could be expected. Hawking, at that time was of the opinion that a Black Hole was so dense that nothin, not even light could escape it.

My question was that, if this was true what were we seeing in the photograph. Hawking has since recanted, and his opinion is know that he was wrong, but that it was impossible to say what we were seeing, because it was incomprehensible?

Perhaps it is incomprehensible, in which case one could argue that it is one of the theological definitioins of God?

The recent headlines n the discovery of the :God Particle" may also be indicative of science's search for understanding. The heqadlines imply that the "God Particle" has been found, but the article clearly states that the announcemnet was that it could lead to finding it.

Perhaps in the search for a beginning, the doubters reach for any explanation?

“I don’t think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.”

Right. But modern science has become aware of the astounding functional complexity of the nanotechnology of life, which is light years beyond anything it knows how to build from scratch. Science, confronted with technology that it has no idea how to bring about intentionally, has no basis for the assertion that it came about mindlessly and accidentally. Until a jungle savage has some idea of what it takes to construct and program a functioning laptop PC, it isn't possible for him to even begin to explain how one might come about accidentally, and there would be no rational basis for his assertion that that is possible.

So it is with modern science and the nanotechnology of life; there is no rational basis for the assertion that it came about accidentally, and our Universal experience is that significant functional complexity always requires an intelligent agent to bring it about.

Nobody thinks the inscription on the Rosetta Stone was the extremely lucky result of mindless erosion. We can't prove scientifically that an intelligent agent must have been a causal factor in the nanotechnology of life coming about, nor that one was involved in the inscription on the Rosetta Stone coming about, but it IS rational and reasonable to assume that is the case, which is more than can be said for the alternative view. Vastly more information had to be correctly inscribed in DNA for it to be functional than is inscribed on the Rosetta Stone. If we rightly scoff at the notion that the inscription on the Rosetta Stone was a mindless accident, we can laugh hysterically at the absurdity of notion that the massive amount of necessary information correctly inscribed in DNA is a mindless accident.

Science does not proceed with the assumption that there are no supernatural beings, but rather, proceeds without the assumption that there ARE supernatural beings. I know that difference may not sound like anything that makes a difference to most, but that subtle shift of position is philosophically deep. Part of the job of Science is find out how far we can go with natural explanations for the things we observe in the world, so to find that limit it is necessary to stick to natural explanations.

Individual scientists who are not paying close attention will, from time to time, make off hand statements that slip over the line. Someone might say that Zeus does not exist because we now know how lightning works and we have been tot he top of Olympus and there is no one there. Actually, we don't know that Zeus does not exist, just that there is no evidence for a being that has the attributes of throwing lightning and living atop Olympus, and that having looked, we would expect to have found such evidence.

Richard Feynman was fond of telling a story of the first scientist who could sit back and know why the stars shine. It is the continuing quest to find natural explanations that deserves our respect and admiration over superstition.

It's a choice between God -- a person who has wants and intentions -- and a set of impersonal laws and equations. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. It seems to come down to a personal preference. I.e., whether you are inclined to believe that the universe has meaning and purpose or not.

Or I suppose you could put it this way. If you have God, you get laws and equations, but you also get meaning and purpose. We can see and demonstrate that the universe has laws and equations, but we can't see or demonstrate that the universe has meaning or purpose.

It's interesting to note that Daniel Dennett actually quotes that very song in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". He even likes it. Of course, he comes to rather different conclusions than Saltzman does above.

harry - "Science, confronted with technology that it has no idea how to bring about intentionally, has no basis for the assertion that it came about mindlessly and accidentally."

I don't think we need to rehash our argument again here. :)

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site%3Afirstthings.com+ingles+harry+nanotechnology

Another great article. Hope all is well with you Pastor Russ.

Suffice to say that science doesn't know about God. Indeed, if one searched for God within the limits of science, you won't find him. That's not because God is or isn't but rather because He, as an idea, is willful and science has no idea how to handle that. So, as to God, you need to look into other fields of study.

There is no doubt that science has revealed much about the workings of the world and in doing so provided much good for man but is it necessary. It has been said that God is the one necessary thing. Since the beginning of mankind there have been, some say, 100 billion people, of those people I would bet that not 1 in 100 million, give or take, were convicted of their place in existence by a comprehensive understanding of the findings of science. The rest of us down through the ages have lived and died not having a clue that there was a thing called science, that it had findings or that it would be where one would look for meaning in their lives even if they had heard of it. Most humans lived there lives ignorant of anything about science at all and that includes most of the people alive today. Yet our lives were full of meanings, some found in spirits or gods or God or in the patterns of nature and culture culled from lived experience and the peoples we shared our lives with. Life teemed with meaning. Today, in the heyday of science, meaning has taken a back seat to a process that does not speak of meaning at least in anyway that mere mortals can understand. So if tomorrow science were to vanish with all of its findings meaning would remain. God is necessary, science is not.

"Scientists started doing science as if God did not exist long ago, at least back to Descartes, and the habit is well established."

Of course we should keep in mind that it was the belief in a God ordered universe that prompted the scientific exploration by Man to find the keys to that order. This gave them the impetus to the great advances in science in the West, unequalled anywhere else on earth.

I am a physicist and have met many other smart, clever physicists in the past several years. If there is one common philosophy that good physicists share it is that you shouldn't talk about areas of physics you don't understand. If you do, you are bound to be called out and identified as being full of BS.

I really wish more physicists carried this philosophy over to disciplines outside of physics...

I didn't read the book, but I did read some of the press. Here's a summary that includes some interesting quotations from Hawking's co-author, Leonard Mlodinow:

"Creation is no longer a big mystery, said Mlodinow. 'Ours and many other universes were created spontaneously from nothing and all the universes have different laws of nature and we happen to live in one that has laws that are friendly to our existence,' said Mlodinow.

[snip]

"The book explores two issues: how the universe came into being and why the laws of nature in the universe are what they are, explains Mlodinow.

“ 'Our conclusion: This (the universe) can all be explained through science and we don’t need God to explain how the universe came into existence or why the laws of nature are what they are,' said Mlodinow."

--http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/857464--hawking-book-says-the-universe-was-created-spontaneously

Ah yes, that infinite number of observable universes. You know, those universes that meet the observability criterion to be admitted as real science. By, you know, those real, impartial scientists who discard a theory when their hypothesis is falsified, and never reach outside observable science to reach conclusions. Yes, those neutral and detached scientists. Like Hawking and Mlodinow. Nice to know they're on the job, to keep the playing field level in the scientific 'community.' Trustworthy lot, those.

Like Job, I'm comforted already.

George wrote:

"I really wish more physicists carried this philosophy over to disciplines outside of physics..."

I agree that when highly trained and smart people, such as physicists, pronounce on subjects out of their area of expertise, they should accept that they are, like it or not, on an equal footing with the rest of us unwashed 99 percenters - however:

In such situations, a highly trained mind can, and often does, offer valuable insights, which the real experts can then refine and take to the next level. The saving grace may be to voluntarily make it clear that these are merely offerings of private opinion, not dogmatic statements from the Great Oz.

Humility can save one from many embarrassments.

Thomas Murray - Your point is correct, so far as it goes. But that may not be as far as you supposed. Alchemy begat chemistry, astrology begat astronomy - but that doesn't mean alchemy and astrology are more likely to be true because of that ancestry.

This little ditty made a tour of the internet on Facebook recently.

ATHEISM:

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically re-arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits that eventually turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Mike Melendez - "Indeed, if one searched for God within the limits of science, you won't find him. That's not because God is or isn't but rather because He, as an idea, is willful and science has no idea how to handle that."

Well, not quite. Plenty of scientists in the scientific revolution (e.g., James Clark Maxwell) recognized him through their work, and their wonder at what they'd discovered. The problem comes in putting God to the test, sitting in judgment on him, namely the unexamined heart attitude of the scientist that is the problem.

God gave us the senses and the brain and is pleased when we use them for observation and deduction; he is not pleased when we conclude, despite the multitude of evidence he has left us in nature, when we conclude that what we see is all there is. When we make an idol of something, like science, loving it and trusting in it instead of him, he gets angry.

A recent National Geographic cover story was devoted to theories of how people had carved, transported and erected the huge monolithic statues on Easter Island. The editors are so dedicated to evolution and other naturalistic theories of origin (ten years ago they told readers not to write any more letters questioning evolution); I wondered why didn't they just assume that the statues sprang into being by themselves, or were carved by natural processes. No moral stake for them to rule out designers and builders there, I guess.

Ironic, isn't it, that the real idol there is not the Rapa Nui statue; it is the world view of the editorial board of National Geographic, one that biases their work and results in embarrassing mistakes.

Similarly, the world view of physicists like Stephen Hawking is showing, and ought to be embarrassing when they make "scientific" statements about an infinite number of unobservable universes.

We're half way there, Dean. Many observations are necessary in order to do science. My own thoughts are those should lead most people to a deep wonder and awe about this universe of ours. From there it is only a short step to belief. But that short step must be taken by each of us without the help of science. Of course, if one insists that science do all the work, that one will never take the step.

Pr. Dan Biles - Note that pretty much any position can be made to sound ridiculous if its *opponents* get to pick how its phrased.

Tell you what. If you grant that bit of text isn't representative of an actual 'atheist' position, then I'll ignore the at-least-as-common summary of Christianity that talks about a 'cosmic Jewish zombie'...

Dean from Ohio - I rather imagine that the National Geographic people didn't propose evolution to account for the Easter Island statues because those statues don't reproduce. If there's no descent, there's no 'descent with modification'.

Unless you know something about those statues I don't... :)

Ray Ingles - I should have emphasized the "and other naturalistic theories of origin" part in my description of National Geographic's world view.

The statues of Rapa Nui coming into being without people seems just as likely as the universe coming into being without God. My point was that National Geographic has no problem recognizing designers when there is no moral or spiritual stake involved. When there is such a stake in asserting their own moral and spiritual autonomy, and only then, they find a thousand and one reasons to explain away the Designer.

"Scientists started doing science as if God did not exist long ago, at least back to Descartes, and the habit is well established."

"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass."
-- St. Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis

A bit before Descartes, I think. But it was not the assumption that God did not exist. It was the conclusion that God was not an efficient cause in rivalry with other efficient causes, or a scientific hypothesis invoked to explain this or that detail of nature. My mechanic can do auto repairs as if Darwinian natural selection did not exist. So what?

With or without the Higgs Boson, the standard model still can't explain gravity, dark matter, and other niggling details like consciousness. I still think Hawking wants to be a closet Christian.

Dean from Ohio,

>I didn't read the book, but I did read some of the press.

Then, it's probably bad form to submit opinions about the book. If the ideas are flawed, it would be more informative to listen to contrary opinions from people who understand the physics or at least who have read the book so that they can pretend they understand the physics. Sorry. I'm a bit of a stickler that way.

>My point was that National Geographic has no problem recognizing designers when there is no moral or spiritual stake involved.

They have no problem recognizing things that are clearly made by humans. There are criteria for that. If you found a watch in the middle of a forest, you would recognize a designer because there are things that show evidence of human design as contrasted with things that don't.

The rocks scattered by geological processs around the watch show no evidence of design.

Words like "accident" and "design" are utterly useless in these discussions. unless they are clearly defined. They function as sophistry, intentional or not.

What are you really trying to assert here?

Dean from Ohio - "When there is such a stake in asserting their own moral and spiritual autonomy, and only then, they find a thousand and one reasons to explain away the Designer."

C.S. Lewis noted that you can't address someone's motivations until you address their arguments. That's the main problem I see with people who have objections to evolution - they almost always conclude that it's a giant conspiracy. As Katha Pollitt puts it:

"Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it."

The idea that people might be compelled to accept something counterintuitive because of wrestling with actual evidence is given a miss.

Let's try the economic argument: http://xkcd.com/808/

Why do oil companies use the standard model of evolution when studying and dating rocks? Literally trillions of dollars are riding on finding oil, and yet standard geology - which is intimately intertwined with the dating methods and 'tree of life' model of evolution, including preliminary dating of rocks via fossils - is used exclusively. ( http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm )

Arguing that there are better theories out there than evolution boils down to arguing that modern international corporations aren't *that* ruthlessly profit-focused.

The greedyoilcorporations could just as easily use stratigraphy without any particular theory of evolution running in the background, just as calendar-makers, navigators, and astrologers could use Ptolemaic astronomy to correctly anticipate the solstice, chart a course, or cast a horoscope. Arguing that there are better theories out there than the Ptolemaic theory boils down to arguing that Early Modern international trading companies weren't *that* ruthlessly profit-focused. Or that sailing masters did not care where they wound up. Or that farmers were indifferent to when the spring rains would fall.

Besides, evolution is not a theory. It's a fact. The *theories are Darwin's natural selection, Kimura's neutral selection, Shapiro's information-theoretic model, et al.

The modern Kuhnian-Popperian dispensation holds that it is unnecessary for everyone to be engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud. Groupthink alone is sufficient. It is well-known that science is underdetermined and that any finite set of facts can be explained by multiple theories. When Xenophanes observed marine fossils in the mountains of ancient Greece, he concluded that there had once been a massive world-flood, because he knew of no natural process that could deposit marine life on land other than a flood or tsunami. Avicenna's conclusion was that fossils were simply rocks that just happened to look as if they were shells or skeletons. He regarded bone-into-stone as alchemy and did not believe in alchemy. Albrecht of Saxony hypothesized that mountains were once sea floor because unless there were some sort of uplift going on, erosion would long ago have worn away all the mountains and filled in all the valleys.

That is, what a given fact *means depends on the paradigm through which you view it. What used to bug Gould so much about adaptationist "just-so" stories was that because they were told assuming natural selection to be true they could not be used as proof that natural selection was in fact true.

BGR,

>With or without the Higgs Boson, the standard model still can't explain gravity, dark matter, and other niggling details like consciousness.

What does the Higgs Boson have to do with consciousness? If you're interested in consciousness, there is plenty of fascinating study in the field of neuroscience. Fascinating subject, consciousness. Very difficult to define, too. Not a word you just want to bandy about without some very clear definitions.

As far as dark matter, the Higgs Boson is key in many theoretical models of the interaction between dark matter and ordinary matter. Determining a connection means doing more science. It's very interesting. There's lots of material out there if you want to look into it.

Gravity? Really tricky stuff that. If we ever figure that out, it will be science that does it. Unless you can recommend a superior method.

I hate to say god-of-the-gaps because it starts to feel like such a cliche. But your statement is a textbook example.

I hope you'll understand why I can't take it seriously as an argument.

>I still think Hawking wants to be a closet Christian.

Why do you think that?

Ray Ingles:

The objections, or rather approaches, to the theory of evolution, can be multifaceted. For example, it is one thing to see it as merely a vast collection of intriguing data that needs to be analysed and refined, using acceptable scientific methods.

On the other hand, this theory has often been misused to drive religion from the public and private spaces, to force atheism, and to mercilessly ridicule and punish belief in the supernatural. These are hard, undeniable, historical facts, most coming from the bitter experience of the last century. In this scenario, to a believer in God, this kind of promotion of the theory of evolution is just another method for his physical, mental, and spiritual subjugation.

There is a tragic irony in all of this. The misuse of the very theory that attempts to show how life has survived, developed, and even flourished, has resulted for many of our species in the very opposite.

"Of course we should keep in mind that it was the belief in a God ordered universe that prompted the scientific exploration by Man to find the keys to that order. This gave them the impetus to the great advances in science in the West, unequalled anywhere else on earth."

Arguably, belief in a "God ordered universe" caused Einstein to unjustifiably reject quantum mechanics with all its counter-intuitive conclusions (although Einstein was not Christian). So a certain worldview is useful for understanding the universe until it runs smack into the evidence and has to be modified. It is also interesting to note that evolution is apparently not a source of controversy or culture war among Buddhists or Hindus -- it seems that most of the people who have a problem with evolutionary explanations of life are monotheists.

@Susan - Thanks for your comment.

Yes, reading the book is required for a detailed discussion about it, but using statements that the author(s) make about the book, especially when summarizing the sweeping *metaphysical* conclusions of a so-called scientific book, is admissible. I suppose someone could mischaracterize the book by selectively quoting the authors, but I don't do that here. Read the article I referenced. When the author says, "The book means that..." I take him at his word.

@Ray Ingles - Thanks also for your comment.

"And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it."

Yes, that's exactly right, but with two additions--the home schooling mom and Bible college graduate have a body of special revelation from the Creator himself, and they have the minute-by-minute guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In fact, doing this sort of thing is a sort of hobby with God:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." - 1 Cor 1:18-25

In addition, accusing and belittling followers of Christ is a favorite tactic of Satan, whose very name means Accuser. His followers did it to Jesus and his disciples, and they will do it to you and me. But although Jesus and his disciples did not have a formal education (except for Paul, for whom it was as much liability as benefit), they had the truth and their well-schooled opponents did not have it, and did not want it, and killed to suppress it:

"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13 (NIV1894)

There is in fact a worldwide conspiracy involved, but not at the human level. It is at the spiritual level, where a real, personal, super-intelligent Satan, and a huge hierarchy of his real, personal, malignant demons actively coordinate the set of lies-- of which evolution is one--that lead all humanity astray:

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." - 1 John 5:19

Fortunately, Jesus crushed Satan and his forces in just one 33-year campaign, and he will shortly mop up:

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he [Jesus] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." --Colossians 2:15

Now since I have a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, I also realize what it means to handle data competently and honestly. But I must also remind you and other readers that one's interpretive framework carries a host of assumptions that are not part of the data, and by definition cannot be. Simply put, when you add evolution ingredients to your flour, you get an evolution cake. When you add creation or intelligent design ingredients to your flour, you get a creation or intelligent design cake. No surprise there.

No model of origins I know of fits every data point. For example, I don't understand the cosmic purpose and origin of a perfectly designed, multi-sensor killing machine, the white shark. However, the creation and intelligent design models are better fits than the evolution and common descent models. Romans 1 can apply to scientists as well, and if they are wise they will beware that road to ruin.

By the way, the common descent "Tree of Life" model is beginning to fall apart as molecular data is being examined: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/uprooted_trees061481.html

As to worldwide geology, arguing for spiritual truth from the oil companies' approach to profit in this blog is certainly a new one. I would argue, however, that the only reason it works is that a worldwide flood that buried the entire ancient world and left some semblance of predictable strata. I am not a geologist, but I would say the oil companies' scientists and engineers would obtain better results starting from assumptions of creation and a worldwide flood.

Every day when my car climbs the hill to home, I thank God for the worldwide mass of plants that Noah's flood buried to make oil to push my car up the hill, so I don't have to. Being out of electric power and air conditioning for 7 of the last 9 days after the recent severe storms scourged OHio has been another occasion to thank God for the incredible gift of plentiful and cheap fossil fuel from that great flood, that makes our conversation here possible.

In other words, I suggest that the oil companies could make even more money if they used a creation/catastrophic earth model. Apparently the status quo of evolutionary assumptions rules even there, that they haven't yet considered alternatives. Oh well...their loss.

YOS and Dean illustrate one problem with discussing this issue. YOS appears to accept an old Earth, and the 'fact' of evolution, that life has changed over time. Dean, on the other hand, explicitly cites "Flood geology" - which posits an Earth about a millionth as old as YOS is talking about.

Dean, actually read this link, that I put up before: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm - it's from a petroleum geologist, who is no longer a young-Earth creationist *because* he became a petroleum geologist. He wound up working with data that was simply incompatible with Noah's flood.

But you claim that "the oil companies could make even more money if they used a creation/catastrophic earth model". Why doesn't anybody actually *put their money where their mouth is* on that one?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? As you acknowledge, if "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make *better predictions* than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism - to some people the demonstrated profits would *be* evangelism. Why is no one doing this?

Ray Ingles - Thanks for giving me the link again. I just read it; it's interesting and worth a look. Morton apparently did what I have always tried to do--find a model that fits as many of the data points as possible. It's still only one side of the story, since I have recently heard some plausible counter-points to what he is saying, but worth consideration.

Dean

YOS - "The modern Kuhnian-Popperian dispensation holds that it is unnecessary for everyone to be engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud. Groupthink alone is sufficient."

That depends rather a lot on the scale of the groupthink posited, though, doesn't it?

I mean, let's face it - Dean from Ohio is saying very specifically that the Earth is young and Noah's Flood created the oil deposits. If science is ignoring discrepancies on *that* scale, we've moved well beyond groupthink. Indeed, even Dean doesn't claim it's groupthink, he thinks Satan is actively afflicting... well, pretty much all scientists.

On the other hand, you appear to - and correct me if I'm wrong - accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years, and that life has changed drastically over that timeframe in a pretty-well-dated sequence. You appear to think, however, that natural selection and related concepts aren't sufficient to account for the evolution of life that we see.

I don't think so. Dean's link on microRNA is the kind of thing that *could* argue that, but as it notes, Peterson's work isn't published yet. Further, working with microRNA's is, er, tricky, and there's a lot of noise in the data, *and* nowhere near as many microRNA's have been identified as have genes.

For example, once up on a time, long ago (say around 2000) the "ID" types were hyping a genetic anomaly known as an "ORFan". An "Open Reference Frame" signals the existence of a protein being coded for, but sometimes we find ones with proteins we don't recognize and that have no known relatives in other species (hence 'ORFan', a play on 'orphan'). If there were a lot of them, it might question standard evolution. Early on, say in 2003, it looked like there were a fair number.

As more data has accumulated, though, things have changed quite a bit. As more genomes are sequenced, and more varied genomes are sequenced, we actually find relatives. The graph in this article is illuminating: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/nelson-vs-mycop.html

What groupthink accounts for the reduction in percentage of ORFans as more genome data is accumulated? Where's the bias, the cognitive filter? How are these scientists blinding themselves?

Ray Ingles -- "Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? As you acknowledge, if "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make *better predictions* than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism - to some people the demonstrated profits would *be* evangelism. Why is no one doing this?"

Every time I try something like that on the psychic believers in my family they go to great lengths, to great lengths, to explain how the psychic world only works in a way such that you can't profit from the information, at which point I stop them and interject "Except, psychics do profit from all the money they get by fooling their supporters into thinking it's real."

Dean From Ohio:

My point was that you dismiss his "sweeping claims" without having made any effort to see if he manages to support those claims, or to put those claims in the context of his work.

Throughout history, there have been examples of what appeared to be outrageous claims but upon further investigation, have turned out to be demonstrably true.

Have you made any effort to investigate his reasons for the claims he's made?

@Susan - "Have you made any effort to investigate his reasons for the claims he's made?"

Not yet.

My comment was that an infinite number of parallel, unobservable universes seems to me like the ultimate unscientific, metaphysical cop-out, with even less evidence than any of the points I hold by faith in Jesus Christ. Yet when he talks about his claims, he puts them forward as science. That hypocrisy is my target.

I have other books that are higher on my priority list, but perhaps sometime in the future I will read the book. Thank you for your suggestion, though. It's a good one.

Ray Ingles - "As more data has accumulated, though, things have changed quite a bit. As more genomes are sequenced, and more varied genomes are sequenced, we actually find relatives."

If I've understood you correctly, here's an example of a common descent interpretative framework producing a common descent conclusion. Where you and Musgrave and others see homologous genes as evidence of common descent, I see them just as likely--more likely--as common structures reused by a designer. I have a Christian friend who is a professor in bioinformatics who has told me as much. As I've remarked before, misunderstanding design is a big blind spot for many scientists.

As an example of this, a couple of years ago I noted that in the Sigma Xi website, there was a feature section by Eugenie Scott and others specifically on how to counter ID and creation arguments. In that section, the authors wrote that a designer, if there were one, would never reuse parts of a design. I don't know where they got that idea, but it merely displays their lack of design experience. Anyone who had designed a family of complex operating systems would never make such a sweeping statement disparaging the reuse of existing elements that are both efficient and elegant.

Again, I recognize that not every data point fits my models, but to date they are the best fit for the data points I am aware of.

By the way, here are some counterpoint sites to Glenn Morton's claims, in the interest of showing all sides: http://truthmatters.info/107/#more-107, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2002/02/06/whos-misrepresenting-history. The first link was down just now, but you can see the cached pages in Google that I was reviewing yesterday.

Dean From Ohio:

>Yet when he talks about his claims, he puts them forward as science. That hypocrisy is my target.

As I said, until you investigate his claims (read the book), it's dishonest to hold an opinion about whether or not his claims have a scientific basis, or to call him a hypocrite. You have failed to engage with his argument, because you don't know what his argument is. Anyone with a PHD in any scientific discipline would be remiss if they thought they could put forth an opinion without evaluating the evidence. I'm sure you understand that it's only reasonable to withdraw your comments on the subject.

I have yet to see you provide evidence that supports your argument for Satan, your faith in Jesus or Noah's flood in this thread, and I wonder if you have any that would withstand peer review or if you will continue to default to assertions about faith and revelation, in which case you will understand that your accusations of hypocrisy are hard to take seriously.

You've failed to consider the evidence that Mlodinow is forced to provide (as he has no recourse to claims of revelation), you've made claims based on revelation, and you call him a hypocrite.

As someone with a PHD in a scientific discipline, I'm sure you can appreciate the point I'm respectfully making.

Thank you for responses. That is all I have to say on the subject until you are willing to commit to a position. Either evidence matters, in which case you should familiarize yourself with Mlodinow's argument and whether or not that evidence supports his argument, or revelation is all that matters, in which case anything goes. The muslim and the evangelical christian position (positions arrived at through revelations from god) are that catholics are going to hell.

Revelation is a very large, slippery fish that way.

Dean - Actually, it's not "a common descent interpretative framework producing a common descent conclusion."

Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible. The process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups.

When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones[1]) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.

But it's important to note that not everything fits into a 'tree' hierarchy. Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thing for minerals. But minerals don't form from copy-with-modification, and a 'nested hierarchy' just didn't work and never caught on.

Try to build an unambiguous 'tree' hierarchy for designed things, like cars or computers. It doesn't work, because cars and computers aren't produced via copy-with-modification. Traits jump around models willy-nilly, things like variable-delay wiper blades or solid-state disks appear in multiple 'lineages' simultaneously, etc.

"Eugenie Scott and others... wrote that a designer, if there were one, would never reuse parts of a design."

Without a link it's hard to say, but I strongly suspect this is a misunderstanding or is misremembered. I'll bet they were making a point like mine above, that 'design reuse' looks very different from a 'family tree'.

And the support for common descent is much stronger than just the fact that living things can be fit into a tree by morphology. Today, close to three centuries after Linnaeus, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the *same* tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.

It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)

The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience) This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... universal common ancestry is actually true.

"Anyone who had designed a family of complex operating systems would never make such a sweeping statement disparaging the reuse of existing elements that are both efficient and elegant."

Be honest, now - if you were comparing the source code of the family of Unix systems, could you produce a 'family tree' accurate to 38 decimal places? See this image: https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9133696/The_Unix_family_tree and note all the 'cross-linkages' there. (And when you add in *function* ('morphology') as well as code - the trees would be even more muddled. Many Unix variants would reimplement features like TCP/IP or SCSI disk management with different code.)

([1]: single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.)

Regarding Glenn Morton, that was an interesting link... but I think the most interesting points are in the discussion linked at the bottom of the page. Morton actually seems to answer questions that the poster claims he doesn't.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://truthmatters.info/107/#more-107

@ Susan - "As I said, until you investigate his claims (read the book), it's dishonest to hold an opinion about whether or not his claims have a scientific basis, or to call him a hypocrite."

Susan, thank you for your comment again, but I cannot agree with what you say. I claim two sources of knowledge: revelation from God and observations from the scientific method. Therefore, I can make physical and metaphysical claims. That is not hypocrisy.

Mlodinow explicitly states, in his own words, that his argument is physical only ("science"), yet he makes both physical and metaphysical claims, while calling his metaphysical claims "science." That is hypocrisy. My evidence is the direct quotations he makes; therefore I don't need to read his book to evaluate those claims in the narrow fashion that I did.

I am not making either a hypocritical statement or an argument without evidence. My evidence is the words from his own mouth, and I hold those up for examination. That is right and proper.

If you want to back away until I jump through more hoops, that is your prerogative. But don't label my argument as incomplete; I specified from the very first what was my basis for evaluation. If I have misrepresented his quotations, please show me how.

You want me to make a larger evaluation based on the whole book; I have not elected to do that. My claims stand or fall based on the evidence I have stated.

@Ray Ingles - "Try to build an unambiguous 'tree' hierarchy for designed things, like cars or computers. It doesn't work, because cars and computers aren't produced via copy-with-modification."

Ray, you're wrong here. Designers of computers, software, electronic systems, avionics, etc. all readily use components previously invented and optimized. They absolutely use "copy with modification."

I make this argument from experience. Let's say I need to design a complex system that does X, Y and Z. If I already have a software routine, or set of functions, that does X and Y but not Z, I will certainly begin with X and Y, and if I have a prototype that does something like Z, I will likely start with that and make the changes needed to produce a full-fledged "Z".

Let's say I am designing a software function that will return the altitude of a spacecraft above the surface of Mars. If I have such a function for the Earth, and maybe another one for the moon, I will certainly evaluate those to see what parts can be reused, and I will "copy and modify" source code wherever I can. That's the way programmers and engineers work. If the previous code was well structured, I will be able to use most of the existing functions without modification. But there will likely be some features that will require source code extension, and it's usually easier and more effective and efficient to start from something that already works.

I will, however, be careful to standardize and label my unit variables and constants so that I don't use miles and kilometers ambiguously, as did the 1999 Mars Orbiter design team. That resulted in a loss of spacecraft (http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric.02_1_climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team-metric-system?_s=PM:TECH).

In a wider sense, beyond "copy and modify" and beyond my own experience, reusability of compiled software modules is a design feature of Object Oriented Programming. Reuse of software modules is an industry in itself: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=234531.

Furthermore, if no one uses "copy and modify," why do companies aggressively protect their intellectual property? Write to Microsoft sometime, asking for its "outdated" Windows XP source code, for example.

Arguing that an Audi does not have the same tree as a Ford, or a PC does not have a traceable tree as an iPAD is not the point, because they each had different designers. That is what we'd expect. Patent lawyers enforce this separation by looking for such trees, as evidence of illegal design sharing.

Biological systems that use DNA, on the other hand, point to a single designer. Your arguments actually bolster the idea of a single designer.

Again, I would say that your framework is intruding too far into your conclusions.

Dean - You miss my point. When I say "copy with modification", I am referring to how biological reproduction (or copying of text) is done - a verbatim copy is made, with a few changes, additions, or deletions. Like I noted, when dealing with books including the Bible the 'family trees' that arise from this process are unambiguous and uncontroversial.

That is *not* how the design you're talking about is done.

Object Oriented Programming actually offers a major illustration of the difference. It's actually a classic, textbook example! When discussing 'object hierarchies', objects 'inherit' properties, interfaces, and functions from their 'parents'. But this becomes a problem in a lot of real-world cases.

For example, you can have an object representing a boat, and specialized subclasses like motorboat, rowboat, aircraft carrier, etc.. And you can have an object representing a plane, with specialized subclasses like fighter plane, cargo plane, etc. But what do you do when you want to make a seaplane object? Google 'multiple inheritance boat plane'; like I said, it's a textbook example and many different computer languages have resolved this in many different ways. (Including disallowing multiple inheritance, btw.)

But multicellular animals don't have multiple inheritance. Whereas "computers, software, electronic systems, avionics, etc." *do*. Even when solving very similar problems, living things evolve different ways to do it because of historical constraints - they *can't* 'multiply-inherit' from other species that have solved the problem, they must 'roll their own'.

And, again, there are two *independent* trees - morphology and detailed DNA sequences (including neutral mutations) - that match to *38 decimal places*. Neither of which show 'multiple inheritance' except occasional endogenous retroviruses, and even *those* form identical trees.

Look at that 'family tree' of Unix operating systems. As I specifically pointed out, biological trees don't have those 'cross-links', but designed things (like OS software) do.

Dean from Ohio,

I'm fascinated by your take of knowledge through revelation from god. Is this a revelation from god directly to you or is it a revelation from god to someone else? If it is from someone else, how do you know they got it right? Beyond that, even if the human 'revelator' was right, it no longer becomes a revelation from god when that person speaks of it. It becomes hearsay, and can only truthfully be considered a revelation from that person. Unless of course god is standing by and reveals this (to others) as the right thing, which would then make the human 'revelator' an unnecessary step. That's a sloppy, imprecise (and possibly dangerous way) to transfer information (especially regarding life and death situations) don't you think?

Ray Ingles - Thanks for the follow-up comments.

I evidently do not understand your specialist usage of the term "copy and modify." If I understand you rightly, it's "copy with no functional changes resulting," just a few typos made here and there. In other words, the common gene that you view as inherited from one organism to another always accomplishes just one function and never incorporates another function or upgrade.

I really don't see how that rules out a designer. Why wouldn't a designer use one gene for feathers and one for fur, instead of modifying one into the other? You seem to be saying that a designer must do that sort of thing; I don't see why that is the case.

In any case, it sounds like I'm due for another visit to my bioinformatics specialist friend.

Take care, Dean

@severalspeciesof - "Is this a revelation from god directly to you or is it a revelation from god to someone else?"

I'm simply using the well-worn term "special revelation" to mean the written word of God, that we know as the Bible, as opposed to "natural revelation" such as nature and the conscience. I don't claim any special revelation from God directly to me. God may use my words if he wishes to, but I never say, "This is what God says," unless I am quoting the Bible. I treat the Bible as it treats itself, and as Jesus treated it--God-breathed, infallible, authoritative, unchanging.

Your insinuation that God (or god) is foolish, or at least inefficient, in communicating to humankind is frankly foolish in itself, and dangerous as well. God always does his work in the best way, at the best time, to achieve the best result possible. His work is always optimal. If his purposes would be achieved by appearing directly to every human being, he would do so. Evidently he does not see fit to do so, and we should thank and praise him for that. Refusing to do that leads to a hardened heart, and that is the greatest of all dangers a human can face.

God works in the context of relationships; that's why he doesn't limit himself to loudspeakers. He longs for you to know him. He came to earth as a human being to seek and find you, even though you were (or perhaps still are) his enemy. He has promised that if you seek him on his terms, you will find him. He may even pursue you out of genuine love even if you keep turning him away, as C.S. Lewis writes in his book Surprised by Joy. But one day, if you persist in turning away, it will be too late.

By the way, I'm not making all this stuff up; it's straight out of the Bible. My appeal to you is just a paraphrase of the ways God has spoken to humanity already (e.g., http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/65.htm), and no one loves humans more than God himself. He also respects you enough to tell you the truth, through other people--so you can understand it and validate its effect--and to hold you accountable for it.

@Dean from Ohio,

Thanks for your response. While I will be commenting just so that I can see from where you are coming from I’d like to ask some more questions. I want to be able to at least hope that we are on the same playing field, so there’s less chance of us talking past each other..

Just how does a book treat itself? You are aware that the Bible didn’t come fully bound as it now stands. The several writers of the Pentateuch were not aware at all, of the writer of Judges or Ephesians, etc.

When you say ‘infallible’ do you equate that with ‘inerrant’?

When you say the bible is unchanging, by what measure? You are aware that the early church re-arranged the order of the Torah in order for it to be a ‘better read’ into the New Testament. That’s one change that can’t be denied, and no, it’s not superficial.

How is communication via several books, as efficient as communication of one to one in present time? I can’t possibly see that being the case; not in the past, present or future.

You say that ‘If his purposes would be achieved by appearing directly to every human being, he would do so. Evidently he does not see fit to do so.”, appears to me to be you speaking for god, yet you said, “but I never say, "This is what God says," unless I am quoting the Bible.” For myself, speaking for someone is very, very close to saying “This is what someone says” What says you?

This part is especially question worthy:

“He also respects you enough to tell you the truth, through other people--so you can understand it and validate its effect--and to hold you accountable for it.” How do you define respect? Purposely telling me about important ideas only through other people is not my idea of respect.. I view that as evasion at best.

If this is too far off this threads purpose, my apologies.…

@severalspeciesof

Thanks for your comment. I hope my replies are helpful. After all, the point of being made by God and not "spontaneous creation" is that each of us can seek and find him. So here goes...

1. "How does a book treat itself?"

I was referring primarily to the entire Bible as the "book" that treats itself. For example, Jesus took a very high view of what we now call the Old Testament (OT), saying that not one of the least strokes of the pen (yod) would fail before all came to pass. He believed in Jonah and the great fish, as do I.

The apostles wrote in the New Testament that "All scripture is God-breathed" and "Men were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Peter referred to Paul's writing and grouped them with the "other scriptures" using the Greek word allos, from which we get the word ally, meaning "other of the same type." The OT prophets proclaimed "Thus says the Lord."

Beyond this is the remarkable unity of all the 66 books (recognizing that Psalms and Proverbs were collections from different human authors). One view of sin, one view of God's redemption, prophecies, types and the like make the Bible a unified, though diverse, set of books.

By the way, I don't hold with the multiple author theories of the Torah, except for the appendix that describes Moses' death. Moses wrote them or directed their writing.

2. "When you say ‘infallible’ do you equate that with ‘inerrant’?"

Yes, I am using those words interchangeably. More precisely, I mean that all scripture is inerrant in the original autographs (manuscripts). Copying errors do not affect this definition, though the percentage of scriptures affected by copying errors is vanishingly small. The content of scripture affected by manuscript variants is in the 1- 5 % range, and this does not include any major doctrines. The remarkable match between the Masoretic Text (~ 1000 A.D.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (~200 B.C.) is a remarkable example of this.

It is obvious to me that God also superintended the copying of the Bible through the ages, although I have no scriptural statement explicitly for this (but see the example of King Josiah for how God preserved a copy of the Book of the Law when it was apparently being destroyed all around).

3. "When you say the bible is unchanging, by what measure?"

I mean that the Bible in the original autographs is meant to apply to all of history, past, present and future, without the need for "updating" by humans, as some view our so-called "living Constitution."

I am aware of the changes in order, and the formation of the Canon (which I believe God guided), and, in my view, the reactionary, inappropriate and misguided inclusion of the inferior apocrypha books by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church's attempts to prevent it from being translated into the common speech (these products do of course need periodic updating). The Catholic Church is to be commended, however, for its preservation of the Bible through careful copying through the centuries, and its use of a single common version in liturgy (although its long embrace of the inferior New American Bible is regrettable).

4. "How is communication via several books, as efficient as communication of one to one in present time?"

Efficient in getting freshly-baked words to you, perhaps not, but efficient in achieving the purposes of God over the ages--glorifying himself through the salvation of humanity through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ--certainly. God knows how to save the greatest possible numbers of humans with free will from the destruction that is coming due to their sins, and this is it. One might ask why God sent a Messiah, one individual, or for that matter, or even picked out a chosen people to whom the Messiah would be relevant. God seems to prepare long and then act quickly, for maximum effect. The Apostle Paul wrote, "In the fullness of time, God sent forth his son, born of a woman...." That Jesus was born in the height of the Pax Romana, in other words, was not a coincidence.

5. "For myself, speaking for someone is very, very close to saying 'This is what someone says' What says you?"

I know God, at least a little, having walked with him for 35 years since I gave my entire self to him and his purposes. Not because of any merit on my own, but because he revealed himself to me through the scriptures and other people when I was a child and a young man. I know the scriptures, at least a little, and in them the heart of God is revealed to those to whom God will do so. When I say, for example, that God hates sin, and that every human is a sinner, I am just paraphrasing scripture, but also confirmed by my own experience. That God has chosen to communicate his life-giving and life-saving message through imperfect and sinful humanity is one of the great mysteries of all time.

I certainly can't say why he does this, except to say that he brings glory to himself this way. By the way, that is appropriate for a perfect being, and don't forget that the God of the Bible, through Jesus, made humility the major virtue it is today; it's hard to understand sometimes why God seeks his own glory, but he does because it is the most appropriate thing in the universe.

6. "How do you define respect?"

Two ways. The first is other-seeking love ("agape" in Greek) that sacrifices all for the ultimate benefit of the other (i.e., you), and the second is to grant us free will and not coerce us to make a choice.

But here is what I was getting at in my earlier post: the Bible says, "God resists the proud, but gives grace (loving, undeserved care) to the humble." We must come to God with humility if we are to find him at all. Everything else he will explain to you, but you, and I, must humble ourselves.

If you approach God with humility, you will find that his words in the Bible will come alive. It will be as if your eyes were blind, but now they see. But as you see truth (and you will know it to be truth), you must follow it and obey it to obtain more. There is no more effective communication than that, because it is in the context of a relationship of radical love and trust.

Dean - "If I understand you rightly, it's "copy with no functional changes resulting," just a few typos made here and there. In other words, the common gene that you view as inherited from one organism to another always accomplishes just one function and never incorporates another function or upgrade."

No, not at all.

Mutations in fact *usually* have multiple effects, and structures often have multiple functions. (My favorite example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2 )

My key point is the *lack* of design reuse seen in life - the fact that there is a *single* tree that applies to *all* traits.

You claim the fact that there's one tree points to one designer. Except, each time there's a branch in that tree, the separate branches never interact again. If the designer puts a feature into one branch, those features never get put into other branches. At most, at another time a similar feature gets added, often implemented in a completely different way. (The classic example of the panda's thumb: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html )

*If* there's design, it *actually* looks like each time there's a branch in the tree of life, a new designer takes over, and doesn't talk to the designers on the other branches. In other words, designs *aren't* reused in biology, they are reinvented. Over and over.

To put it - again - in object-oriented terms, the tree of life has no multiple inheritance, even when it would make sense.

Consider one of the functional units of your navigation program - X, we'll call it. You may well find different version of X in different programs, and be able to form it into a tree. And you can do the same for Y, and Z. But in general they will be *different*, *contradictory* trees. On program incorporated Xa and Yb, but Za instead of Zc. Another program had Xc and Zc, but Ya. Etc.

When Microsoft needed to add TCP/IP networking to Windows, they essentially grabbed the BSD Unix TCP/IP stack and shoehorned it in. (This was legal, BTW, by the BSD license). If Windows was developed the way life has demonstrably evolved, that would have been impossible. They would have had to rewrite the code from scratch. The same way the panda redeveloped the thumb from scratch.

Thanks, Ray, for your clarification. I see what you are getting at now. Good questions for me to look at.

Best regards, Dean

@Dean from Ohio,

Thanks for your time in explaining your positions to my questions. It appears to me that indeed, you and I are playing on different fields, with your field comfortably encased in beliefs that by their own design, are constructed to be untouchable to reason, via the ability to goalpost shift.

This idea that the bible is inerrant, but of course with exceptions (even small), should tell anyone that, at that very instant, it is no longer inerrant (Exodus 15:3 vs Romans 15:33 or Isa 14:21 vs DEU 24:16) clearly points to goalpost shifting.
I try not to goalpost shift on my field.

Plus, when one has to 'explain away' the contradictions, that really points out the inefficiency of the writing...

I do appreciate though, this short exchange...

@severalspeciesof - "The idea that the bible is inerrant, but of course with exceptions..."

Thanks for your comment, but I don't see that my position is goalpost shifting. "Inerrant in the original autographs" may not be a suitable position to you, but it is self-consistent, and I accept the consequences.

For example, I've not heard that any of these four passages you've mentioned has any manuscript problems, so I will accept that each accurately reflects the original manuscript. I could comment on each pair, but there is no need here. For a moment, I thought that you were going to cite the real difficulties with my view, for example free will vs. predestination, or the sun going backwards on the steps, or thee Trinity, or something like that.

The bottom line is that of course there are things I don't understand about the Bible, but I'm willing to accept by faith the things I don't understand because of the things I do understand. If I fully understood God, I would be God. I guess I thought that would be obvious, since I've never claimed to be omniscient. I also never said, and will never say, that I can *prove* that the Bible is inerrant in every case. I believe I can give a convincing account of most such seeming contradictions, but there are some I have to accept on faith.

But that is the case with every comprehensive account of ultimate reality. Certainly Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking have their articles of faith, such as an infinite number of unobservable universes that began this exchange. Dawkins, Gould and the rest of them have many articles of faith as well.

This is also the case with your account of ultimate reality, if you are honest. As when you sit on a chair you have never personally tested before without giving it a second thought, for example. Likewise, what philosophical chairs are you using that you have not proven?

For example, why do you uphold the virtue of consistency (no goalpost shifting) in the first place? If the universe has no purpose and no unity, why should that matter at all? Furthermore, why should you think there is an overriding truth out there in the first place? And if there is, why would it matter? And it seems you consider your senses to be fundamentally reliable. Why should that be?

Be careful; it may be that you are sawing away at the philosophical limb on which you sit.

I believe my faith is more reasonable than other accounts of ultimate reality, but that too is an article of faith. I also believe that God's way of acting and communicating is, in the end, most effective and most efficient for his purposes, because he has made himself known to me, and I trust him because he has proven himself trustworthy. But my assertion of his efficiency is within the parameters I've stated, not yours. At worst, it is self-delusion on my part (I don't believe it is, obviously), but it is not duplicity.

Best regards,

Dean

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

"By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: 'He could not be found, because God had taken him away.' For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Hebrews 11:1-6 (NIV)

@Dean from Ohio

You say: "I don't see that my position is goalpost shifting. "Inerrant in the original autographs" may not be a suitable position to you, but it is self-consistent, and I accept the consequences."

Hmmm, you are correct (in this particular case). It isn't goal post shifting, it's special pleading as you have no proof whatsoever that the 'original' manuscripts are without error, only that that has to be the case in order to shore up your own arguments.

Also, the passages I referred to are example of inconsistencies/contradictions within the bible itself not to any 'original' manuscripts.. There are hundreds more, many trite, but many troubling.

But when you use the sleight of hand using 'faith' regarding my situation when sitting down in a chair I've never sat down in before (I call that 'confidence', not 'faith', because of testable evidence of reality), that is a type of goalpost shifting, using a different definition of faith to shore up the definition of religious faith (which, as I understand it, is 'Belief in something without evidence.'). The faith you speak of regarding the chair HAS evidence... past experience that is testable and that others can see and also test. There is more, but I'm sure I've started to veer this particular article's comments a bit off the discussion of using science to disprove god...

Cheers.

Dean - You might find David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone" useful in giving a focus to some of your questions. In any case, it's nice to have a *civil* conversation about this stuff. Thanks!

@severalspeciesof - "[defining faith as sitting in a chair I haven't personally tested] is a type of goalpost shifting, using a different definition of faith to shore up the definition of religious faith (which, as I understand it, is 'Belief in something without evidence.').

Thanks for your comment. The Biblical definition of faith is what I've quoted, though I meant to use a different translation:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." - Hebrews 11:1 NIV1984.

It is not belief without evidence; that is a straw man. It is belief based on a wider span of evidence types. Some is scientifically verifiable, such as the inscription of Pontius Pilate found in Caesarea Maritima; and some is not, such as the stunning change in the life of someone who has become a follower of Jesus Christ.

I think the parsing of "confidence" versus "faith" is a distinction without a difference, since the word "confidence" derives from the Latin cum + fides = with faith.

My point was that I exercise faith *and* admit that I exercise faith; while Mlodinow and Hawking exercise faith just as much as I do (albeit in something other than God), but they play a shell game and call their faith "science" when it is demonstrably not (unobservable other universes are not science).

And you don't test every chair, do you? Unless you see someone sitting in a new chair before you do, or unless you put your hand or something else down to test it first, or unless you consciously prepare to be dumped on the floor every single time you sit, you're exercising faith. Conversely, God has proven himself faithful to me in many ways, and I put my weight fully on him as a result.

It also seems to me that you have faith in the fidelity of your ability to reason and the conclusions you derive in that way. How do you know that your reasoning is reliable?

Anyway, if you want to put your eternal destiny in the hands of your senses and your reason, you are free to do that. Perhaps someday you will find that is not enough.

The best to you,

Dean

@Dean from Ohio,

Ah yes, language and its inefficient ways of transmitting information. Below I have taken what two different Christian websites say about faith:


(1) What is Faith?

Faith is conviction of truth without tangible proof. The Bible says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
(Hebrews 11:1). To have faith is to believe God's Word before it comes to pass.
_________________

(2) Many Bible students will give Hebrews. 11:1 as the definition for faith and leave it at that. Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." However, even though this is the form defintions are given in, this verse is more of an expression of the power and importance of faith than it is a definition of faith.

[bold/underline emphasis mine]

So it’s not quite cut and dry. Sure it can be melded together, but that just shows what I’ve pointed out in a previous comment of the inefficiency of the bible’s ability to communicate. If the bible is from a perfect god, one would expect that all interpretations would all be the same. Indeed 'interpretations' would not be needed.

And your chair example just doesn’t quite fit the bill in the same way as ‘religious faith’. One thing obvious is the use of our eyes to see. I can see the chair, so can you, and whoever is within eyesight of it. And we can ALL agree that it is indeed a chair and that particular chair only. Can’t do that with a belief in god. We can ALL touch it and agree that it is that chair. Can’t do that with a belief in god. We can ALL sit down in the chair to test it. Can’t do that with a belief in god (in fact one is specifically commanded to not test god itself: Luke 4:12).

So there is indeed a difference in the faith that the chair will hold me up vs. the religious faith in god.

And of course the best to you too...

Dean - "It also seems to me that you have faith in the fidelity of your ability to reason and the conclusions you derive in that way. How do you know that your reasoning is reliable?"

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen

Or, here: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/faith.html

@ Ray Ingles - Perhaps you missed my point. I am not dissing reason; it is a gift from God, even if fallen, limited and imperfect. I am saying that reason is reliable only because a rational God created it. If there is no reliable great Mind in the universe, why on earth would there be reliable small minds? Occam or no, it's really as simple as that.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if there is no evidence for God. I hope you don't think that way, because that would be a poverty.

@ severalspeciesof - Yeah, next time a chair breaks under you, then you'll what faith is, or at least was.

About seeing, among the first words in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount were these:

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." --Matt 5:8

Take care,

Dean

@Dean from Ohio,

I’m really perplexed by your last comment to me. You must know that ‘seeing’ in the context of the chair example I gave is completely different from the ‘seeing’ in your biblical quote. Reading mistake perchance? I hope?

And as for your quip about a (possible?) loss of faith from a breaking chair, it is not at all the point I was driving at ( I’ll let others figure what my point was). At least I’ll be able to ascertain (look for evidence) and know why the chair failed and I can show others (they won’t have to take my word for it). If god fails any of your expectations all you have is that god works in mysterious ways or you ‘read’ god wrong or no ‘answer’ yet., but with no evidence to point to as to which it is. Of course you might reply that god has never, ever let you down, and I can only take your word for it.

Have a good day...

>If there is no reliable great Mind in the universe, why on earth would there be reliable small minds?

Our reliable small minds would not have survived if they didn't have the capacity to make limited maps of reality (limited to our survival needs). Seeing patterns in the cycles of migration meant that we could hunt and gather and eventually farm successfully, for instance. The ability to predict local weather cycles, to harness fire no matter how incompetently (warmth and protection), and to recognize
principles of structure (shelter), gave our species an ability to survive.


Our ancestors understood enough about evidence to make predictions based on it to ensure another generation. When it came to almost everything though, they had no means or methodology to examine the evidence. They invented gods to explain what they couldn't examine. Thousands and thousands of gods. There was no evidence for these gods. These gods were invented to fill in the gaps in their evidence.

Though they can't be held responsible for misunderstanding the causes of disease, floods, hurricanes, famines, droughts or for having no grasp of the age of the earth, the story of life on it, the cosmos or the physical forces that govern the very small, I think they had figured out chairs (or their equivalent) fairly early on.

Their understanding of chairs (or their equivalent) had little to do with blind faith and a lot to do with evidence. The same goes today.

>Furthermore, you make it sound as if there is no evidence for God. I hope you don't think that way, because that would be a poverty.

Which god? And what evidence?

Dean - "I am saying that reason is reliable only because a rational God created it. If there is no reliable great Mind in the universe, why on earth would there be reliable small minds? Occam or no, it's really as simple as that."

As a matter of fact, I address that question here: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/rational.html

"Furthermore, you make it sound as if there is no evidence for God. I hope you don't think that way, because that would be a poverty."

I don't claim there's *no* evidence. I'm certainly not familiar with any evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt', though.

@Ray, I had read your piece, and I appreciate your effort on it. But God doesn't, and won't ,fit neatly into the "no evidence either for or against" category.

@Susan, I was referring to Ray's blog piece and the God of the Bible.

@severalspeciesof, those are Jesus' words; do with them what you will. To those who humble themselves before God, there are more ways of seeing than you imagine.

It's astonishing, really. To one degree or another, each of you seems to think that it's your right and duty to put God on trial, evaluating "evidence" and convicting him of non-existence, or inefficiency, or all manner of other misfeasance and malfeasance.

The only more astonishing thing is that the God who created the universe gladly puts up with this foolishness in the hope that you will soften your hearts, open your eyes and come to know his love for you, his love that was shown by humbling himself to be born as a human who died on the cross to pay the fearsome moral debt for your sins and mine.

Here are the words written by the prophet Isaiah nearly 700 years before Jesus Christ went to the cross. They are preserved in the great scroll of Isaiah dated conclusively to 100 - 200 BC, as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls...written for you and me:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Read the rest of this incredible prophetic poem at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2052:13%20-%2053:12&version=NIV1984