Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PasserBy11’s comment — well said, even though I disagree

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[I was incredibly impressed by the testimony of PasserBy11 in the thread Are dinosaurs the real reason young Christians in college desert their faith.

He had the opposite journey that I had in some respects. I have to say however I can so relate to the effect of bad behavior in the Church and the friendship and warm welcome that some can receive in atheist and agnostic circles relative to the judgmental and presumptuous abuse some parishioners subjected me to when I struggled with my questions. (When I say atheists and agnostics, I’m not referring to the internet variety like PZ Myers, that’s almost a whole nother species. These were people I know personally.)

Some may argue, “Sal why are you defending this guy?” My response, I’m not defending his final conclusion, I am saying, for the creationist community, even though the choice of what people accept is true is theirs, the creationist community might consider where they can do better in light of what PasserBy11 is saying. If the creationist community believes there is no room for improvement, and is unwilling to even consider that some of the ways the conduct business are hurting their own cause, well that’s already a problem…

Let me say this. When I had creationist college students dealing with doubts, I tried to answer them. When they wanted to hear a contrary opinion, I referred them to PZ Myers website. I was confident the bad behavior by PZ Myerists would be quite convincing to creationist college students. I can say the strategy works incredibly well.

The behavior of some creationists isn’t exactly welcoming of questions and expressions of doubt, instead, sometimes abuse and ridicule. I don’t mind getting in the face of someone like Nick Matzke for his sophistry, but I don’t treat sincerely expressed reservations about creation or ID with ridicule or contempt.

You’ll see in this account the way that PasserBy11 was persuaded to his current view. That is something creationists would do well to consider, imho, vs. pointing fingers and saying “who are you sleeping with?” when someone expresses sincere doubts about the Christian faith and the doctrine of creation.

I welcome comments of the variety, “In light of what PasserBy11 has said, creationist can improve the way they do business by ….”

Comments of the variety, “PasserBy11 is obviously not understanding…..” That won’t be consistent with the purposes of discussion, it might make you feel better, but that’s not why I’m hosting this discussion.

For example, one could say, “it seems that to many, common descent looks strongly in evidence, why is that? And why do humans perceive or misperceive the evidence this way?” That is a constructive comment. [FYI I gave examples of how to deal with this issue as best as I could when dealing with questions raised by Nick Matzke. See: Two faced Nick Matzke.]

There is a time for everything under the sun, and I think this is a time to confront and a time to console. In this discussion, I encourage us to be welcoming to PasserBy11, not so much to dissuade him, but to consider hyppothetically, what creationists could have done differently if we had the chance. ]

I was reared as a fundamentalist Baptist in the Upper Midwest. On Sundays, my family attended Sunday School and Bible Study, paired with morning and evening services, respectively. (Both of my parents taught SS classes, and my father led the morning Children’s Church service.) Wednesday night meant both Bible Study and Prayer Meeting, and some Thursday evenings found me participating in soul-winning and visitation events with my father. The church took a firm stance on Biblical literalism and inerrancy, distancing itself even from the GARBC, which it called “hypocritical” and “left-leaning.”

I also attended the church-run school, complete with daily Bible Studies and Friday Chapel services, for the first nine years of my education. I was pressured during all of that time to become either a pastor or missionary, just as the girls my age were pressured to become the wives of pastors and missionaries.

One could say that, as a youngster, I had a little bit of Bible — or at least a particular pastor’s interpretation of it — thrown my way. 🙂

After four years of a public education at the local high school, however, I was leaning more toward Literature or Biology, and my decision to ignore the “warnings” of my church and to attend a public Division II university, also in the Upper Midwest, had nothing to do with evolution. On the contrary, I was a staunch YEC who had read Gish, Denton, et al, and as an eleventh-grader had written a research paper proposing that the Genesis Flood had ultimately been responsible for exterminating the dinosaurs.

While earning a B.S. in Zoology, I never once heard a professor or fellow student badmouth a Creation Scientist, as we called ourselves in those days. Everyone always answered my questions patiently, attentively, and seriously. After graduating, I worked as a TA for some Comparative Chordate Morphology dissection labs before transferring to the Communications department (and eventually finishing my M.S. with them).

I want to point out that evolution wasn’t the only reason I walked away from my faith. Here are a few others:

* Anthropology
* Comparative folklore / mythology / religion
* Scholarly approach to Old and New Testaments
* GOTG
* Personal experience with agnostics and atheists practicing humility, compassion, and moderation without fear of suffering supernatural disfavor
* Personal experiece with self-proclaimed Christian men abusing their wives, with self-proclaimed Christian parents abusing their children, and with self-proclaimed Christians acting so un-Christ-like

But evolution was one of the most important to me, mostly because of my childhood fascinations with — geek alert! — taxonomy and paleontology. And after studying both Scientific Creationism and evolution in pretty detailed fashion, this former Born Again Christian honestly concluded that a Dobzhansky paraphrase was in order: Nothing in Biology makes more sense than evolution, at least at the level I was studying it. While dissecting cats, sharks, salamanders, etc, I personally never saw common design; instead, I saw descent with modification, a concept supported by the ideas outlined in “Origin” — comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, homology, etc.

Naturally, this change in my worldview forced me to reject a literal interpretation of some passages of Genesis, but I still attended a more modern Baptist church for two years before finally walking away from it all (for the reasons listed previously). That was twenty years ago, and it was a move I’ve never regretted.

Since then, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome 2, and the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik have all provided additional support for evolution. The details and mechanisms will undoubtedly be revised over and over again as new facts are uncovered, but the ideas that populations change over time, and that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor (or a small number of common ancestors), are most likely here to stay.

My $2E-02…

Comments
F/N: Just for record, I think the discussion here on and in its wider context may be of help to those concerned on issues in this thread, also the slides here. Similarly, I think a sober assessment of what Paul had to say to the learned in Athens c. 50 AD, here on, will be of help. I will say, too, that we need to focus the issue of truth and our duty of care to live by it, despite the fact that genuine and serious Christians can make bad mistakes and slip into awful things that require major repentance, correction and even restitution. Moral struggle is a reality, and the challenge of transformation and the hope of purity and growth are blessings. KFkairosfocus
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
I have to say, there is so much richness to the New Testament and Christian History that we never learn in Church. The New Testament says Jesus had brothers and sisters! Now it stands to reason, if Jesus had brothers and sisters, he was possibly uncle to their children. I do not mean to be irreverent, but imagine, being in such a position as to be told, "your Uncle was Jesus"! How did I find this out? Trying to weigh whether the "mythers" (those who insist Jesus was not a real person, much less the risen Christ) have any substantive argument. I went back and tried to look at the best historical reconstructions of the past. Consider this Wikipedia article on Jude, brother of Jesus, and then the descendants of Jude that would be the nieces and nephews of Jesus, and great nieces and nephews. I'm not saying this account is necessarily true, but still, it makes one think. To give a little background, Emperor Domitian was the younger brother of Titus who sacked Jerusalem in the Roman Jewish war where 1,000,000 died. Titus was famous for destroying the Jews, and so some of the anti-Jewish sentiments apparently remained also with Domitian who succeeded him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_(brother_of_Jesus)
Hegesippus, a 2nd-century Christian writer, mentions descendants of Jude living in the reign of Domitian (81-96). Eusebius relates in his Historia Ecclesiae (Book III, ch. 19-20): "But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh."Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them;and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor." Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.[6]
Eusebius also relates (in Book III, ch. 32,5f.), that they suffered martyrdom under the Emperor Trajan.
This is non canonical, but these are part of the historical records of the church. So how many of these and similar accounts do we have to regard as fabrications in addition to the New Testament? But what this account does indicate is that by the time of Constantine, there was a considerable body of accepted literature of Church history. If the church was real, it suggests the church fathers were real, and if the church fathers were real, the apostolic fathers were real, and if the apostolic father were real, the apostles were real, and if the apostles were real, Jesus was real. Where in this chain of succession did the "myth" arise? "Myther's" are in the difficult position of having to revise accepted accounts (even by non-Christians like Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, and Josephus, and possibly Suetonious) to prove the New Testament was revised. Ah, the irony! Here is a beautiful online book that summarizes the First 300 years AD. I found it inspiring, and that's where I learned of the possibility of Christ being an uncle: From Christ to Constantinescordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Sal
I don’t credit callous abusive individuals in the church who on top of their callousness spread evil gossip about me regarding my struggles.
These uncharitable partisans should have known that it is normal (and often preferable) to have intellectual doubts and spiritual struggles. That they would carry on that way says a lot more about them that it does about you. People who never have doubts of any kind can be found flying airplanes into buildings in the hope of obtaining virgin sex slaves. The time to express doubts about the worthiness if such a mission is in advance of its execution.StephenB
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Greetings, Something I found in the site posted in the 20th comment: http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/why-early-christians-were-despised-11629610.html What follows is what I think is relevant to this OP:
CAECILIUS: Oh, aren't you so pure and good. That's another thing that bothers me: you all think you are so righteous and better than the rest of us. OCTAVIUS: First you accuse us of cannibalism and orgies, now you're offended because we seek to lead a holy life. Let me assure you, we do not consider ourselves to be holy. Every Lord's day we have a service of communion, and it is a service of thanksgiving -- thanksgiving because we are forgiven, not because we are holy, and if we are forgiven, then we shall seek to lead lives that are like Christ.
If this record is true, then such claims are old.seventrees
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
scordova, I apologize if it sounded like I was attempting to diminish the value of your post and discussion - I certainly was not. I agree that such a discussion is valuable, and I doubly agree that we have an obligation to emulate Christ in our presentation of our beliefs. I was just trying to make the very limited, but (IMHO) very important point that the final destination of a person's belief system is not contingent on how the creation or ID argument is presented. In other words - if PasserBy11's experiences with creationists and atheists had been other than he proclaims them to be, would his outcome have been different?drc466
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” And again, “Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.” (From John Paul II [Fides et Ratio]). I agree. How sad it is that atheists think they must abandon faith for the sake of reason. How sad it is that Christians think they must abandon reason for the sake of faith.StephenB
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
human chromosome 2
No serious biologist would deny that Homo Sapiens have 46 Chromosomes and the great apes have 48. However, to say this is 'proof' of common descent is completely misleading, because to believe that 46-48 chromosomes of close human to apes relationship as ancestry would mean that potatoes,Tobacco and gray tree frogs are direct descents as well for they also have 48 chromosomes.
prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
Actually, Tiktaalik having a bit of trouble remaining as the first fish to evolve walking on land, 18 mya years of trouble.origin_surgeon
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
drc466, First, I am uncomfortable with the underlying presupposition in this discussion that people can reason themselves into or out of Christianity.
I realize you may perceive it that way, but that is certainly not the case for me, I'm part of reformed PCA church professing most of the essentials of the Westminster Confession, so that should declare where my doctrinal views are in terms of faith.
– I’m unconvinced that “Christians” could have done anything, at least from a “how do we market ourselves and our belief about origins and creation”, that would have changed PasserBy11?s life choices. It is fair to say that, had all Christians followed the teachings of scripture better, perhaps his decision to forsake God would have been a little less simple and his excuse less persuasive, but that is true in all things, not just CvE.
But the essential point of our success is not whether someone accepts the message or not, it's whether we have done our duty, and whether we can do it better in the future. The Lord even commanded one prophet, "speak to them and they will not listen". Should that prophet say, "Lord what's the point of talking to them, you already to me they won't listen, isn't that a little pointless?" Judas Iscariot, the Pharisees and Saducees and many in Capernaum had more evidences provided to them than anyone here, and we know where they ended up. As I said, what people choose is ultimately up to them. That said, I'm hoping you'll consider that maybe this discussion is part of the grace that might be extended to someone in the future that you (or others reading) might be in contact with in the future. Suppose some day you encounter someone like the SCordova of 13 years ago? By all appearances he might strike you as PasserBy11 in the way he probes and wrestles with difficult questions of the Christian faith. I've laid out how you might be of service to such a person. In my case, the struggle lasted about as long as the time my Dad was ill until the time he went to be with the Lord, 3 to 4 years. I persisted in the faith because of God's grace through the love and support I received from many. I don't credit callous abusive individuals in the church who on top of their callousness spread evil gossip about me regarding my struggles. I hope you'll consider that if you encounter such a person in your future, you'll be merciful and patient and hopefully you've found something of use in this discussion that will help you provide mercy and grace for him.scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
JGuy:
This is no excuse for Christians to sin or not love one another, but this explains why such can happen.
Nobody can stop sinning even if they wanted to. This is our nature.
Agreed... sinners sin.... this is why I wrote in that context that Christians are saved sinners. That is... it (being a sinner) is the reason Christians still sin, but not an excuse to sin. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&version=NKJVJGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
JGuy:
This is no excuse for Christians to sin or not love one another, but this explains why such can happen.
Nobody can stop sinning even if they wanted to. This is our nature.
Especially, if it is a church that doesn’t teach the Gospel fully or correctly according to scripture.
No church teaches the Gospel fully or correctly according to scripture. It's always someone's interpretation mixed with a mountain of tradition and BS. And if you believe that scripture is 100% the word of God, I got a bridge to sell you. The devil has his filthy paws in everything, especially in the church. This is why I left organized religion and will never go back. However, unlike PasserBy11, I did not lose my faith. As I said elsewhere, the Master said "Search and you shall find". He did not say, "Let someone else in some church do your searching for you and believe in their interpretations." Conduct your own search and let God's spirit guide you, otherwise, you will be led astray. Personally, I have found that faith in God and his sacrifice is the most important thing of all because that is all that is needed for salvation (it is a lie that doing good deeds will save you). Everything else is either icing on the cake or plain BS.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
For all the bad behavior in the church, there is one ironic benefit that seems to go unnoticed. No matter how badly throughout Christendom's history the Bible's teachings weren't practiced by Christians, the one thing that was NEVER done was to re-write individual books of the Bible to justify a lifestyle or new belief. There are at least 3 reasons for this: 1. if you disregard it as an authority in practice, why bother to re-write it? I have a such a low opinion of Darwin's writings, if I were to hand it down to posterity, I wouldn't bother altering one iota of anything he said. 2. when there were Schisms in the church, it made collusion to re-write the Bible impossible. 3. if you believe it and revere it you'll transmit it faithfully to the best of your efforts. Thus, with respect to the individual 27 books of the New Testament, whatever one's religious beliefs, there is little justification to make a large scale revisions to an individual book. Why bother when you can: 1. just omit the book from your canon 2. add your own book to the canon From the 4th century and on, it was effectively impossible to make large scale revisions without being called out on it, and to some extent, even if you were no longer a practicing Christian (but one only in name), one would prefer to simply ignore individual books of the Bible than re-write them. Even in the case of Martin Luther, who had a low opinion of the book of James, the thought never crossed his mind to re-write it, he de-emphasized it, and some said he had doubts of it's canonical status, but he would never think of re-writing it! So then, this fact encouraged me to feel that the essentials of the New Testament were handed down faithfully from at least the time of Constantine. Further arguments could also be made, that the evidence of the Schism in Constantine's time (emperor from 306 to 337) also made it impossible to collude to alter the specific books of the New Testament for many years before Constantine was emperor. The most one could do is introduce new books or suggest books of the New Testament be deleted as authoritative. And as bad as the behavior of Constantine may have been, at best books were burned if he didn't approve, they were never revised! Setting aside the question of the Resurrection, for those that believe Jesus was a myth and not a historical person, where is the explanation of the origin of a "myth" that demanded so much loyalty as to die and be tortured? We can then at least say, the "myth" was accepted as early as Diocletian's time AD 284. Now we have the obvious fact that there were so many other more comfortable and convenient deities to believe in that wouldn't incur Emperor Diocletian's wrath. Why the persistence of Christianity? Example of around the time of Diocletion involving co-emperor Maximian: Marcellus of Tangier So even setting aside the issue of the truthfulness of the Gospels for the moment, it is so evident that Christians would have no cause or incentive to actually re-write recognized books of the New Testament, the only thing that could be done would be to write new books, not try to edit existing books that have already been circulated. The books were faithfully transmitted as far back as we can see, and that there is both theoretical and empirical evidence people, copyists will not in general intentionally edit the books to their liking any more than I would think to edit Darwin's writings to my liking. I'll just copy it, and if there is stuff I don't like, I'll write my own book! So, ironically, the bad behavior's lack of altering the transmission of the Bible has made me believe the Bible was transmitted faithfully from the time the individual books were written. Which then poses the question, were the books describing real events? I've said it before, it's one thing to die for a lie you sincerely believe is true, quite another to die for a lie you know is a lie, especially one you made up yourself! The original books of the New Testament suggest to me several individual sincerely believed they saw the Lord rise from the dead with their own eyes, that several knew him and walked with him while on Earth, so much so that they would instill a tradition of suffering to defend the claim, and they instilled that tradition by being martyred themselves. Why did peter, why did others who were eye witnesses, offer their lives. Now one could say that peter, paul and the apostles and the martyrdom were fabrications. Ok, so justify that theory. How does one account for the martyrdom of the next generation of Ignatius and Polycarp, did they make up lies about knowing the apostles and then die for a lie they knew is a lie? So on and so forth up until the time of people lke Marcellus and the martyrs under Diocletian and then the time of the Blessed Emperor Constantine who ended the persecutions. One would have to then build theories to explain away the martyrdom of so many of the Christians. When were those stories fabricated, and how was such a story marketed? Frankly, if I were one just willing to believe whatever I wanted, I think I'd choose a deity that wouldn't demand so much suffering but one that promised good things in this life and the next for the most minimal effort...scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
First, I am uncomfortable with the underlying presupposition in this discussion that people can reason themselves into or out of Christianity. The Bible states that it is by grace you are saved, through FAITH. Romans tells us that Creation is all the proof we need, and that because of it we are without excuse if we do not believe. But belief is just that - it is a step of faith, not a logical conclusion at the end of a debate. Second, all people are sinners, even Christians. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. So pointing out that some Christians do bad things is kinda like, "duh". King David, a man that God said was a man after his own heart, was guilty of adultery, murder, polygamy, etc. Belief in God should never be about what someone else does, or says - it is about who God IS, and a personal decision YOU make. Seeing a true Christian following the basic commands of Love God and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself can help lead someone to God - but at the end of the day it is about You and God. Third, further to point two, anyone can claim to be a Christian. The Bible says that by their fruits you will know them. I would have serious doubts that anyone who doesn't show any of the qualities of what the Bible calls "the fruit of the Spirit" is actually a Christian, regardless of what they call themselves. Fourth, I feel sorry for PasserBy11's experiences, and pray he finds his way back to God. But his personal experiences with "Christians" and atheists is just an excuse - anyone who finds evolutionary just-so stories about homology and erv's and HC2 as evidence that God doesn't exist and the Bible is false was a house built on sand. As can be seen by the enormous number of very intelligent, very educated individuals who find the evolutionary story lacking and the creation account convincing, evolution fairy tales are far from a slam-dunk case. Fifth, the scientific case for or against Creation is at best an encouragement, and support for Belief in God. For all the arguing and debating that goes on around the scientific evidence, sites like creation.com, icr.org and answersingenesis.org are correct when they state that YEC starts with the Bible as a framework, and looks at the science from that perspective. All of PasserBy11's "evidences" for evolution also fit within a creationist perspective - what matters is your starting point. Clearly PasserBy11's starting point changed somewhere along the way. In conclusion - I'm unconvinced that "Christians" could have done anything, at least from a "how do we market ourselves and our belief about origins and creation", that would have changed PasserBy11's life choices. It is fair to say that, had all Christians followed the teachings of scripture better, perhaps his decision to forsake God would have been a little less simple and his excuse less persuasive, but that is true in all things, not just CvE.drc466
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
When you walk into a Christian church building or place of fellowship, one needs to remember, Christians are saved sinners... not super sanctified saints... This is no excuse for Christians to sin or not love one another, but this explains why such can happen. Especially, if it is a church that doesn't teach the Gospel fully or correctly according to scripture.JGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Personal experience with self-proclaimed Christian men abusing their wives, with self-proclaimed Christian parents abusing their children, and with self-proclaimed Christians acting so un-Christ-like I don't know anyone who has emerged unscathed from someone in the church. Ive has a couple hard knocks myself. It turns out Christians are also sinners. I also have a few friends with similar stories to yours. When I have firsthand knowledge of their stories, I notice that the bad guys are cartoon versions of reality (they rarely have any good points) and the narrator is the humble voice of reason. There is room for improvement. I suspect I have rubbed some the wrong way myself. But every story has personal bias built in. I would like to hear what the villains in your story have to say for themselves.bevets
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
For the reader's benefit that don't quite understand how Nick helped solidify my acceptance of ID, look at the discussion of a simple question posed to Nick about whether chance can be rejected as an explanation for the appearance of a system of 500 coins laid out all heads on a table. Nick said it could be due to a double-headed coin, to which I said in so many words, "in that case chance is still rejected as a mechanism of the pattern." Nick had to find a way to disagree, and said "not really" and went on to give the most absurd explanation as to why. I suggested then that in the future ID proponents confront Nick in the following way about his absurdities:
Nick, Sal said that a 2-headed coin would preclude chance as a mechanism even in principle with respect to a 500 all-heads coin pattern. You disagreed and said, “not really”. Can you elaborate further how there is a chance tails could emerge as an outcome with a 2-headed coin since you insist chance can still have a role in the final outcome? A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke
:mrgreen: Nick has been a reliable source of such illogic in my exchanges with him over questions over evolutionism over the decade plus that I've known him . That was just one illustration.scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
The rest of that thread is just mindless cheap quote-mining of me.
Nick Matzke, nationally renowned Darwinist and hero of the landmark Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. Thanks for dropping in. You're one of the best engines for helping the next generation of creationists stay creationists. You certainly helped solidify my acceptance of ID and my return to the faith. Thanks for visiting.scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke:
You don’t mention Denton in that thread, and he now accepts common ancestry anyway.
Even if true he also says that it isn't the genome that is the key- see his essay in "Dissent From Darwin". Here is a sample:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene
That was written after "Nature's Destiny".Joe
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Sal wrote,
What happened however to Denton is he studied the pattern of similarity, and then was astonished when on closer inspection it controverted the pattern of common descent, something I pointed out with here
Eh? You don't mention Denton in that thread, and he now accepts common ancestry anyway. The rest of that thread is just mindless cheap quote-mining of me. You've always gone for the "I don't understand this topic but I'll blab about it anyway", Sal, over the whole decade-plus that I've known you.NickMatzke_UD
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Like I said. The idea that this is about getting to lie and cheat is idiotic.NickMatzke_UD
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
But evolution was one of the most important to me, mostly because of my childhood fascinations with — geek alert! — taxonomy and paleontology. And after studying both Scientific Creationism and evolution in pretty detailed fashion, this former Born Again Christian honestly concluded that a Dobzhansky paraphrase was in order: Nothing in Biology makes more sense than evolution, at least at the level I was studying it. While dissecting cats, sharks, salamanders, etc, I personally never saw common design; instead, I saw descent with modification, a concept supported by the ideas outlined in “Origin” — comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, homology, etc.
Again, I point out the purpose of this discussion is to explore whether or not creationists can or cannot do something better to help people in their journey, it is not to directly criticize PasserBy11 for the choice he made. In some respects, we might consider the hypothetical scenario of a daughter who ran off with a guy the parents clear saw was a bad boy scumbag rat that will lead almost inevitably to her harm (not always, thank God some men get reformed by their wives). To some extent, the choice is the daughter's, and maybe no parent on Earth could have changed the outcome. Recall, even the truest 1st parent, God himself, allowed Adam to make his own choices! That said, there was an interesting personal account by Michel Denton, himself. We are so blessed that it was published. Denton was Old Earth creationist, turned agnostic, turned atheist, turned agnostic, turned anti-Darwinian, turned ID-sympathizer. When Denton was studying to become a medical doctor, he said his atheism got full blown when he was in the dissection room! The reason I find the account very credible is that years later he wrote one of the two books that started the modern ID movement. The overpowering impression of physical common descent is there because of the similarity of creatures. What happened however to Denton is he studied the pattern of similarity, and then was astonished when on closer inspection it controverted the pattern of common descent, something I pointed out with here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/two-faced-nick-matzke/ The same issues arise at the molecular level which I point out here: https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/new-mechanism-of-evolution-poof/ It would be good to get creationist surgeons or MD's who been in the dissection room and hear why they didn't perceive the similarities in a way that made them believe in evolutionism. It would also be good to expose the young creationists to the work of Geneticist Jeff Tomkins. It dealt with the 98% similarity question and Chromosome 2 etc. https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/icc-2013-geneticist-jeff-tomkins-vs-evolutionary-biologist-who-got-laughed-off-stage/ I'm of the opinion, at somepoint no level of argument will likely reconvert someone once they are gone even in the face of new data. I've not seen it happen, it would be nice, but I know of know case. We can however help them have the access to the best arguments before they go down a path from which they might never return in this life.scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
"Nothing in Biology makes more sense than evolution, at least at the level I was studying it. While dissecting cats, sharks, salamanders, etc, I personally never saw common design; instead, I saw descent with modification, a concept supported by the ideas outlined in “Origin” — comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, homology, etc." This, to me, is what made Behe's work a revelation. Evolution is very good at just-so stories, like a modern Aesop's Fables. Behe put his finger on something that was hard to articulate but could be grasped intuitively. Actually show how these changes can be accomplished at the molecular level. There are so many "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments it is amazing any time I hear a "God of the Gaps" complaint. We have a little light sensitive spot that somehow sends signals to a nervous system...and then it gets more working parts and eventually becomes an eye. Again, naturalistic just-so stories.geoffrobinson
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Isn't evangelism a heart-to-heart thing? We are more deeply and surely impressed by example than by the words we hear, even those of Scripture, if we have no experience of human goodness to relate them to, however subliminally. Happiness, too, a generally sunny temperament, speaks immeasurably more loudly than the false desiderata of 'worldly success, but with a miserable face'. One of the main reasons why youngsters - often temporarily - lose their faith, is that they are scandalised by the imperfections of adults, no wiser than atheists as to their own goodness, such as it might be, being a gift of God, and one which having to deal with the World in adult life, will put in jeopardy. The person who most influenced me in my early Christian formation was my brother, who after being confirmed at the age of about seven, seemed to have become an agnostic. He was not at all academic, and, though not one to look for trouble, and a little pip-squeak like me, was a fearless street-fighter. And yet he had a heart full of compassion, big enough for both of us - and any stragglers. Of course, it wasn't he that directly brought me back to Christianity, but he was an epic touch-stone I could relate Christianity to at its deepest level. By contrast, I find repeated posts by fundamentalists on a Christian forum, stating: 'Once saved, always saved', increasingly obnoxious. It is so desperately fatuous, but characteristic of that crass mindset that seems to think that book learning, of itself, makes a wise Christian, even a teacher of the faith, when the reality is that such wisdom as we possess in interpreting scripture is essentially a fruit of the life of the spirit we have developed over the course of our life; and possibly the greatest ever miracle to have occurred in the world since Gospel times, the Catholic church's accumulated wisdom in the course of two millennia. 'Sola scriptura' makes no sense, but the RC church is the great 'no-no', indeed, Satan, to the more fundamentalist Evangelical Baptists, - just as theism, and notably Christianity, is to the materialist. On Judgment Day, there will be some explaining to do, to grossly understate the matter, concerning the state of the RC Church, under the centuries long Tridentine dispensation, prior to Vatican II, and the wholesale scandal it must have generated for so long - and compounded of all things by a virulently obnoxious triumphalism. Thank God, literally, for Francis, our new pope, who is seeking to substantially restore the values of the Church to those prevailing during the days of the Gospel.Axel
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
The argument is not that atheists can't be moral. It's that they can't ground any morality they have in any sort of objective way with their atheism. Atheists have to steal from theism to trust their own rationality, believe in morality, and believe in induction. When they act morally they show themselves to be latent theists.geoffrobinson
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Since then, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome 2, and the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik have all provided additional support for evolution.
OK wait- ERVs, they are just pieces that "look like" parts of ERVs. In order to get the pattern observed many pieces would have had to have become fixed in a population. And that takes either a severe bottle-neck or design. And taht had to have happened many times. Again no evidence for such a thing only wishful thinking. HC2- again unguided evolution cannot account for it. What did it do? Why was it favored? Tiktaalik- oh my- the out-of-place fossil that now gives us fish->tetrapods-> fishapods- I doubt that is the pattern we should observe wrt UCD.Joe
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
* Comparative folklore / mythology / religion
I don't completely understand the objection, and I hope PasserBy11 will elaborate. If not, I still thank him for the comment. That said, I found this website very helpful: http://www.tektonics.org/programhub.html
Finally, the 21st century Apologist needs to take Apologetics far more seriously. He needs to incorporate Apologetics into every aspect of his or her ministry: every sermon, every class, every evangelistic activity. We have woefully neglected our responsibility to train our young people in the solid case for Christianity, and then we wonder why they depart from the faith under the influence of secular university instruction. We give our parishioners and our missionaries no foundation in the defence of the faith, and then wonder why our evangelistic efforts show so little fruit in a world where people have long moved beyond accepting something just because someone else believes it.
As with all things regarding questions of history, no argument is airtight (like say inferences we may draw in math), but if one can accept circumstantial arguments, he makes weighty cases. I thank God he has made his works available, and they are so readable by ordinary laymen like me. I personally would have delighted if an entire 3 years of Sunday sermons would engage along the lines of what he wrote. I don't want to be mean, but standard sermons of "God loves you, go out there and proclaim the gospel, be good, why aren't you going out there witnessing? You need to be donating more of your time and money to the church, etc." It can get tiresome. Perhaps to illustrate what I mean, it's like someone nagging you to eat right and exercise, nagging is a very poor way of inspiring conviction and changes in behavior, but lots of preaching is little more than nagging! I thank God for the good pastors he's brought my way to teach me, but there were a few that were just nagging... Apologetics would be incredibly boring to some, and perhaps its just as well pastors don't tailor their sermons to people like me! But I would delight to hear Apologetics material for the next 3 years on Sunday morning.
4.Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge. Their degrees are more geared towards counseling or some form of preaching technique, similar to Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told such things as questioning is evil or they should have faith, etc. None of which is satisfactory. 5.The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
Amen! I recall one visiting preacher once preached on the difficulties of life. For about twenty minutes he enumerated all the challenges we're going to face, and then he answered it by pointing to Psalms, "look what it says here, it says you're gonna be alright!" He then just started dancing on stage saying "you're gonna be alright", and just kept dancing on stage like an entertainer! I could watch the tonight show with Jay Leno for such comedic escapism from the horrors facing the world! Seriously, the guy was well meaning, and God bless him for his heart, but hearing sermons like that can convince people the Bible is false since for many it seems that things aren't going to be alright given what they are experiencing in their lives. So what sermons did turn me around, I remember I got some recordings of Reverend David Moore while I was rock bottom in believing. Of all things he really started quoting George Wald and Michael Denton in his sermons. He then described probability arguments which were slightly flawed, but good enough. I had studied discrete math in one of my undergraduate majors so I understood the strength of his arguments. Tears started to well up in my eyes as I listened. I sometimes wondered why the Lord had me change majors from music to science disciplines and endured the tedious classes of mathematics. It prepared me to appreciate Reverend Moore's sermon. I would have never thought hearing math would put tears in my eyes, but it gave me conviction that if life is a miracle, there is a God!scordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
I am a Christian but I would rather hang around PasserBy11 than any fundamentalist Christian, especially YECs and hell fire and brimstone church members. But then again, I can't stand some of the equally self-righteous atheists and Darwinists like PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.Mapou
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
you have Judas straightaway
And that reminds me, Jesus called him "the son of Perdition" a "devil". Yet we read that Judas hanged himself because of the feeling of guilt, so even an evil person can have a moral conscience! And thus it doesn't surprise me at all to hear of atheists and agnostics acting morally and doing things even Christians would regard as good. Even "a devil" like Judas still had a moral compass, but he chose to go against it, and like a pilot ignoring his compass and navigation and instruments, Judas crashed and burned (into hell). That's why I think it may hurt the creationists cause to say, "atheism necessitates immoral behavior". It is better to point out, "atheism cannot cure immoral behavior". I have to laugh a little bit at atheist Peter Bogusian
A Manual for Creating Atheists The goal of this book is to create a generation of Street Epistemologists: people equipped with an array of dialectical and clinical tools who actively go into the streets, the prisons, the bars, the churches, the schools, and the community-into any and every place the faithful reside – and help them abandon their faith and embrace reason.
Does he offer any evidence that some evil immoral person somehow became a better person by "embracing reason"? Sadly, someone who has been part of the Christian church but behaves immorally, I think there is little hope of a cure. He's already tasted the goodness of God, so what is left that can possibly make him a better person? Surely not "embracing reason" or "embracing atheism". HT Mike Genescordova
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT
* Personal experience with agnostics and atheists practicing humility, compassion, and moderation without fear of suffering supernatural disfavor
It doesn't help to keep promoting the meme that agnostics and atheists behave immorally of necessity, in fact there is some scripture to the contrary. Even Jesus said, "You being evil know how to give good gifts to your children." That moral code is embedded in everyone. What I do point out however is that I've not known a SINGLE case where an immoral religious believer became suddenly moral because he was converted to atheism. Whereas we know of many atheists who behaved immorally that became good citizens after they became Christians. That is a very subtle and important nuance to the whole "atheists are immoral" controversy. I think atheists like religious people can behave as morally or immorally as anyone else, but the twist is asking the question "when has atheism ever transformed a bad behaving religious person into a moral atheist?" I can't attest that I've never met one, but I can attest of many former atheists becoming moral once they became Christians. So, that's how I think the Christian/creationist community can improve in the way it argues its case regarding the personal morality of atheists and agnostics.scordova
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
I will never get the 'bad behavior of self-proclaimed Christians' line of reasoning. Did people miss the part in the New Testament where the apostles were routinely pretty disheartening? I mean you have Judas straightaway. You have 'cock crows three times' / 'slash off someone's ear' Peter. The OT isn't all that much better.nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Personal experiece with self-proclaimed Christian men abusing their wives, with self-proclaimed Christian parents abusing their children, and with self-proclaimed Christians acting so un-Christ-like
That is a real problem. My PCA pastor said when he went to seminary he was aware of two of his peers abusing their wives. Doesn't surprise me, some people I meet in church are incredibly polemic, and some of those end up in leadership positions. I don't know that there is anything systematic that can be done to solve this. It seems in Paul's writings, there were lots of abusive leaders and bad behavior in churches he planted. Maybe the creationist and Christian community can try to improve, I hope they improve, but I think if even such things happened to churches the Apostles planted, well we could expect more of the same. I suppose all we can do at the individual level is not behave this way. We might not have very much control over the bad behavior of others except to condemn it and not ignore it. Why did I remain in the faith? Thank God for those souls who loved me despite my bad behavior. God bless them!scordova
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply