Another search of the internet has turned up a number of excellent posts. I have found another diverse array of topics for you to browse at your leisure. This week, we’ll look at dinosaurs, Ray Comfort’s Evolution vs. God, cave diving, preterism, design, the economy, and Mumford and Sons!
Dinosaurs, Dragons and Ken Ham: The Literal Reality of Mythological Creatures– Often, the claim is made that legends about dragons sprang from humans living alongside dinosaurs. Young earth creationists cite this as evidence for their position. Here, the Natural Historian sheds some light on these claims in a well-researched post with plenty of pictures for those of us with short attention spans. I highly recommend following this blog as it remains an outlet for great analysis of young earth claims.
Evolution vs God– Another issue which has been making the rounds on apologetics/Christian sites has been the recent video by Ray Comfort, “Evolution vs God.” The video is available to watch for free on youtube. Feel free to check it out yourself (you can find a link to it here). My good friend over at No Apologies Allowed seems to endorse it to a limited extent (see his comment on this post), and his comments have touched off a great discussion: [DVD] Evolution vs. God. On the other hand, the Christian think-tank Reasons to Believe has offered their own brief video review (the link will stat playing instantly) of the movie which has a very different perspective. What are your thoughts?
Some Questions Concerning my Preterism– I am not a preterist, but I appreciate well thought out positions and the insights they provide into their positions. Here, Nick Peters shares a number of question-and-answers related to his preterist views. Preterism is the view that the majority of the prophecies found in Revelation and the like have been fulfilled, usually in the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
The theory of intelligent design (Video)- As one friend sharing this video put it: “A video on MSN featuring Michael Behe narrated by Morgan Freeman? What world did I wake up in?” My thoughts exactly. This video is a very basic exposition of the theory of intelligent design. Check it out.
Cave Diving and Apologetics– I like caves, though I have never done cave diving and almost certainly never will. I found this post to be fairly helpful in regards to drawing out some of the dangers of apologetics and going everywhere at once. I wasn’t terribly appreciative of the explicit appeal to defense of Catholic dogma, but apart from that the post is pretty solid.
Mumford & Sons: Five Songs With All Sorts of Christian Undertones– A really excellent look into several Mumford & Sons songs. I admit I’m not a big fan of the style of music, but I found this post fascinating nonetheless. Check it out.
What happened to the economy after Democrats won the House and Senate in 2007?– People who know me personally realize that I am a complete mishmash of political views. I frankly despise both major political parties because I think they are both ridiculously partisan and do little correctly. That said, I found this post to be a pretty interesting look at the economics of policy. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for the nod, JW!
I’d just like to add that I mildly endorse “Evolution vs. God”. LOL🙂 I don’t agree with everything Ray says or all of his methods, but I think he’s done much more than me to at least get people to think about the issue of origins. (I’m slowly working on that.)
A lot of the online atheist community, including PZ Myers, is talking about what is NOT in the filme. But I was outraged by some of what IS in it, like PZ Myers not admitting that rape is always wrong (THAT was outrageous, as I told him on his blog.) and to see Gail E. Kennedy claim that professors at UCLA can teach “anything they want” when confronted by Ray about professors not being allowed to teach intelligent design. There are accusations of selective editing and a bunch of other claims (claims being without evidence). Let’s not forget that when a creationist organization interviewed Richard Dawkins a few years ago, similar claims were made that turned out to be simply Dawkins faulty memory, if I’m not mistaken. (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html)
Anyway, thanks for the link to the mythological creatures, too. I’m one of those YECs, but I’m willing to read or listen to just about anything.
Keep in touch, my friend! Sorry for the lengthy disclaimer.😉
Posted by Joshua | August 30, 2013, 9:01 AMI edited the post to better reflect what you’re saying! I hope you enjoyed the mythology post, that site is fantastic.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 9:23 AMWhy would ID be permitted in a science classroom at UCLA?
That non-scientific fluff can stay at home at Liberty U. It has no place in scientific academia.
Now a philosophy classroom is another story…
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 9:43 AMYou keep using those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
What is not science about ID? It is directly falsifiable by empirical data. Period.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 9:45 AMNo comment on PZ Myers unwilling to go on record saying that rape is always wrong? Focusing instead on comparatively minor issue, are we?
Something about your reply tells me you won’t care what I say anyway, but I’ll still say it: You do a disservice to the hard-working scientists who are involved in the ID movement. I’ll list some of them here:
Stephen C Meyer
John G West
Michael J Behe
David Berlinski
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
Michael Denton
David DeWolf
Guillermo Gonzalez
Bruce L Gordon
Michael Newton Keas
David Klinghoffer
Jay W Richards
Richard Sternberg
Jonathan Wells
Benjamin Wiker
Jonathan Witt
John Bloom
Raymond Bohlin
Walter Bradley
J. Budziszewski
Robert Lowry Clinton
Jack Collins
William Lane Craig
Michael Flannery
Brian Frederick
Mark Hartwig
Cornelius G Hunter
Robert Kaita
Dean Kenyon
Forrest M Mims
Scott Minnich
J.P. Moreland
Paul Nelson
Nancy Pearcey
Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
John Mark Reynolds
Henry F Schaefer III
Geoffrey Simmons
Wolfgang Smith
Charles Thaxton
Richard Weikart
Note: Please don’t take this response as an pen-pal invitation. You’ll squeeze no more responses from me. I take things too seriously to waste time reading sarcastic one-liners.
Now I’ll step back and let the personal insults begin…
Posted by Joshua | August 30, 2013, 9:55 AMlol props for the meme use!
It’s not science for a couple reasons. First, it begins with a conclusion and regresses testing and observation in an attempt to explain that conclusion. This is the opposite of science which observes first, draws theories on those observations, and then tests the theory against more data. By definition, an intelligent agent cannot be tested and is not falsifiable.
In any case, evolution is not in competition with a god, God, gods, etc. at all. Evolution, as it were, is simply an explanation of natural phenomena using observation of natural phenomena which…is science.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 10:29 AMWrong again. How much literature have you read on ID? You seem quite dogmatic in your assertions, but ID is explicitly falsifiable. Consider irreducible complexity: all one has to do to falsify ID in this case is show that there is a Darwinian mechanism for the pathways which are alleged to be irreducibly complex. I don’t have the expertise to debate this issue, but my point is that if one were to discover such a mechanism, at least that assertion on the part of ID is falsified.
Now you say that “By definition, an intelligent agent cannot be tested and is not falsifiable.”
It is embarrassingly easy to come up with situations in which intelligent agents can be tested and are falsifiable. Criminal justice does it all the time. Initially, a scene may be thought to be a murder, when later it is discovered that it was an accidental death- the hypothesis of an intelligent agent (the murderer) is falsified. Look, intelligent agents can be tested and are falsifiable.
Or again, suppose I come home and I see that one of my bookshelves has fallen over. Because I am a bit paranoid, I immediately assume that an intelligent agent came into my dwelling and tipped over my bookshelf as they robbed me. But then as I explore the rest of my abode, I find that nothing else has been disturbed. Moreover, the lock was locked with the deadbolt engaged. I realize my bookshelf was top heavy and fell over on its own. Again, I have tested the hypothesis of an intelligent agent and falsified it.
Examples like these could be multiplied almost infinitely. So frankly, you’re wrong.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 11:13 AMJosh, thanks for the list.
Enjoy Project Steve:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 11:24 AMJW,
Didn’t think I needed to explain this but intelligent agents *in the context of a designer of life* is not falsifiable.
Furthermore, the “strongest” argument for ID, irreducible complexity, has been explained by science for some time.
In any case, it seems the courts agree with me (thank God) and we won’t be confusing impressionable minds in the US any time soon.🙂
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 11:28 AMWhy the exclusion in the case of larger contexts? That is remarkably ad hoc.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 11:40 AMWe’re talking about a specific context: the intelligent agent with the power to create life.
The nature of the discussion itself is ad hoc.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 11:46 AMYou didn’t answer the question. Why allow intelligent agency in one case and then arbitrarily decide there is a cutoff point at some level of complexity of your own choosing?
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 12:50 PMreplace “intelligent agent” with “supernatural creation agent” (because that’s what we’re talking about) and I think you’ll get it.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 1:22 PMin other words not all intelligent agents are equal.
some are falsifiable, like humans. others, namely those with supernatural (read: extra-natural) powers are by definition not falsifiable because they operate outside of the constraints of science…
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 1:23 PMAgain, you have done nothing to explain how you are not just arbitrarily setting a cut off point. Essentially, you’re just asserting that there is some (not listed) cutoff point for intelligence, above which it is magically undetectable. Amazing.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 30, 2013, 1:25 PMAre you kidding? I’ve set out an extraordinarily clear delineation point: that which is testable (namely what exists in the natural world) and that which exists outside of the natural world and is, thus, untestable.
This conversation is laughably ludicrous! Irrationalism is truly fascinating.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 1:47 PMAgain, I already showed how ID is falsifiable. I’m going to stop after this comment because I think readers can see I already offered a way that ID is falsifiable. Your dogmatic assertions to the contrary are ridiculous. Also, please leave aside your insults. It is unbecoming.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | August 31, 2013, 12:55 AMAnd where you’ve taken this conversation (or tried) is philosophy. Not science.
Suffice it to say I’m very grateful that an overwhelming (and growing) majority of scientists reject this kind of stuff. It has its happy corner on the Internet and in a few Christian universities but at least the stunting of science education in the US by creationists is almost completely over! That’s enough for me to praise God!
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 1:51 PMScience is not some distinct exercise from philosophy; explanations and their qualities (ad hoc, parsimonious, etc) are explicitly logical, and should not be shielded by some artificial demarcation based on ill-begotten politicized appeals to motivated reasoning. Courts have terrible jurisprudence these days.
Posted by cogitatingduck | August 31, 2013, 9:03 AMAlso, Josh, just realized you included William Lane Craig on your list of ID “scientists.”
You discredit yourself. Where did he study biology?
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | August 30, 2013, 11:30 AM