Here, 4 min, if you can’t make time for the 45 min version: Follow UD News at Twitter!

There are two and only two options with respect to the origin of the universe. 1.  An infinite regress of dependent existence. 2.  The universe was caused by “that beyond which nothing can be reduced,” to use Dr. Roy Clouser’s definition of God. More familiar terms for these categories are (1) an infinite regress of contingent causes; and (2) one necessary cause. Science demonstrates that option 1 is false.  The universe had a discrete beginning at the event popularly known as the “big bang.”  Since option 1 is false, it follows that option 2 is true. All scientific conclusions are provisional.  Therefore, this proof does not work to demonstrate the existence of God as a logical certainty.  It does demonstrate, Read More ›

On October 16, in response to a comment by frequent UD commenter Dr Liddle to the effect that we have misunderstood Harvard prof Lewontin in the infamous 1997 NYRB article snippet, I did a markup of the snippet highlighting fourteen points of concern:

______________

>> . . . to put a correct view of the universe [1 –> a claim to holding truth, not just an empirically reliable, provisional account] into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out [2 –> an open ideological agenda] . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations [3 –> a declaration of cultural war], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [ 4 –> this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [5 –> a self evident claim is that this is true, must be true and its denial is patently absurd. But actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question, confused for real self-evidence] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [6 –> Science gives reality, reality is naturalistic and material], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [7 –> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim: if you reject naturalistic, materialistic evolutionism, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, by direct implication] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world [8 –> redefines science as a material explanation of the observed world], but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [9 –> another major begging of the question . . . by imposition of a priori materialism as a worldview that then goes on to control science as its handmaiden and propaganda arm that claims to be the true prophet of reality, the only begetter of truth] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. [10 –> In short, even if the result is patently absurd on its face, it is locked in, as materialistic “science” is now our criterion of truth!] Moreover, that materialism is absolute [11 –> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [12 –> Hostility to the divine is embedded, from the outset, as per the dismissal of the “supernatural”] The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. [13 –> a slightly more sophisticated form of Dawkins’ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, certainly, irrational. This is a declaration of war! Those who believe in God, never mind the record of history, never mind the contributions across the ages, are dismissed as utterly credulous and irrational, dangerous and chaotic] To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [14 –> Perhaps the second saddest thing is that some actually believe that these last three sentences that express hostility to God and then back it up with a loaded strawman caricature of theism and theists JUSTIFY what has gone on before. As a first correction, accurate history — as opposed to the commonly promoted rationalist myth of the longstanding war of religion against science — documents (cf. here for a start) that the Judaeo-Christian worldview nurtured and gave crucial impetus to the rise of modern science through its view that God as creator made and sustains an orderly world. Similarly, for miracles — e.g. the resurrection of Jesus — to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary course of the world, there must first be such an ordinary course, one plainly amenable to scientific study. The saddest thing is that many are now so blinded and hostile that, having been corrected, they will STILL think that this justifies the above. But, nothing can excuse the imposition of a priori materialist censorship on science, which distorts its ability to seek the empirically warranted truth about our world.]

[[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >>

_________________

On Oct 22, Dr Liddle has made a main response, which I now present below, and insert markups in dark red, continuing my enumeration from 15 on: Read More ›

Previously in this series, I have discussed the arguments for common descent presented by Wikipedia in the areas of comparative physiology/biochemistry and comparative anatomy. In this third installment, I will discuss the arguments from paleontology and the fossil record. Wikipedia’s page on the “Evidence of common descent” contains only a brief section on the fossil record, half of which is concerned with describing the discipline of paleontology and noting the limitations of the fossil record. Click here to continue reading>>>

Richard Dawkins tells us that we should allow our thinking to be based solely on rational facts. If, on the other hand, you let a little emotion in, then this link might lead you to feel a bit of pity for the famed misotheist: http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/10/richard-dawkins-for-prime-minister/ It’s a model demolition job, on the ex-prof’s latest excuses. Dawkins apparently still has a loyal fan-base who believe that their master is  a serious philosopher. Seeing a live conversation with an actual philosopher would be a bit of a shattering experience for many of those fans. So Dawkins has to keep coming up with the excuses to maintain their loyalty. It’s a bit pathetic really – all the public efforts to explain why he Read More ›