On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:07:13 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>As I have pointed out, you misuse "Occam's razor". All "Occam's
>razor" says is that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond
>necessity." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, vii:475-476). You
>haven't shown that God is not a "necessity" or an "extra
>complication". You would have to have a complete understanding of
>the whole universe and indeed beyond it, to assert that.
PM>Do you? One explanation asserts that there is a purely
>naturalistic explanation, the other one asserts that a supernatural
>entity did all this.
No. "One explanation asserts that there is a purely naturalistic
explanation" for the origin of: 1. the cosmos; 2. life; 3. life's
major groups; and 4. man. The other one asserts that" a "purely
naturalistic explanation" for the above unique origin events has
either not been given or is inadequate, and therefore a complete
explanation requires "a supernatural" explanation.
PM>The latter requires the presence of the naturalistic reality but
>also the existance of an invisible/unobservable entity.
Yes. So what? You need to show that either "the naturalistic
reality" is an adequate explanation or that there is no "existance of
an invisible/unobservable entity". I repeat that to do that "you
would have to have a complete understanding of the whole universe and
indeed beyond it":
"Ockham's razor can be applied in many situations and it has been
applied against God's creation Purpose, using the logic that is
"beyond need," or "without necessity," because it adds an unnecessary
entity (Purposeful creation) to an existing explanation, i.e., or
origin by blind Chance...(but)...MacKay has pointed out that a
scientific explanation is only complete when a complete chain of
cause and effect is available, as in the working of a simple,
mechanical clock. When the function and interaction of every part of
the clock's mechanism are fully understood, no other explanation is
required and Ockham's razor becomes fully applicable. However,
virtually all branches of science have not advanced to the level
where such complete explanations are available. In the absence of
full knowledge, there remains room for the formulation of new,
scientific, working hypotheses: such addition of new scientific
entities is both commonplace and appropriate." (Osmond D.H., in
Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose", 1994, p162)
PM>And then the question becomes who created the creator?
The simple answer is no one - He has always existed. Indeed, it is a
category mistake to even ask "who created the creator?":
"Some may also object that if we hold that all events need causes,
then what caused God? But we can consistently hold that all events
need causes and that God does not need a cause because God is not an
event. Furthermore, the question "What or who made God?" is a
pointless category fallacy, like the question "What color is the note
C?" The question "what made X?" can only be asked of Xs that are by
definition makeable. But God, if he exists at all, is a necessary
being, the uncreated Creator of all else. This definition is what
theists mean by "God," even if it turns out that no God exists. Now,
if that is what "God" means, that the question "What made God?"
turns out to be "What made an entity, God, who is by definition
unmakeable?" (Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
p22).
>SJ>Pim, your "Occam's razor" ploy is your ultimate fall-back
>position. You claim to want theists to present evidence for God,
>but when they provide it, instead of fairly considering that
>evidence you just rule it out of court with "Occam's Razor"! So for
>you evidence for God is not even necessary.
PM>If you provide evidence for a god you would have a viable theory
>with facts and data. Now you have mere speculation and need to
>invoke more complicated matters to explain the natural reality.
This is just double-talk. Every time I "provide evidence" for God
you don't even consider it but just reject it out of hand with
"Occam's Razor". So for you there can be no evidence for God. This
is fine as long as you are right and there really is no God!
[...]
>PM>We do not know if the universe is infinite in time. We now know
>based upon observations that there was a bing bang several tens of
>billions of years ago and we cannot observe what was there before
>that.
>SJ>There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time began with the Big
>Bang:
PM>How do you know? We cannot observe what happened before the big
>bang so how can you claim that there was no before?
*I* don't "claim" it. *Physics* claims it! The Big Bang was a
singularity at which this whole universe of space and time began:
"If there was a Big Bang, it must have occurred simultaneously at all
points in the universe. If the universe is finite, the explosion
would have taken place in a tiny volume approaching a point.
However, this point of extremely dense matter is not to be thought of
as a concentrated mass in the midst of a much larger space around it.
Rather, the initial dense point was the universe-the entire universe.
There wouldn't have been anything else." Giancoli D.C, "Physics",
1991, p902)
>SJ>You may note that a *Christian* theologian first thought of the
>idea that "the physical Universe came into existence with time and
>not in time" from his reading of Genesis.
PM>Yes but genesis also gets some details wrong. So are we to take
>what you consider 'good parts' and ignore the bad parts?
What "bad parts" exactly do you mean? But even if there are "bad
parts", theists do not need to claim that Genesis 1 is 100%
scientifically accurate. If it was only 99% scientifically accurate
that would be enough to show divine inspiration. The point is that
on all the really important things, Genesis 1 is accurate in a way
that can not be adequately explained on naturalistic premises.
>PM>But if you want to hold the bible to a standard of scientific
>accuracy you will have to deal also with the scientific inaccuracies
>of the bible.
>SJ>The Bible is not a textbook of science, so it does not need to
>have "a standard of scientific accuracy".
PM>Then don't use it as proof for something.
Who says I am using it as "proof"? I am using it as *evidence*. I
would hope there is no "proof" of the existence of God, because then
non-theists would be *forced* to believe, against their will. It is
important that there is enough evidence for faith to be rational but
not enough evidence to render faith unnecessary.
Also, I think you are getting a bit confused here Pim. Something can
be scientifically correct without being scientifically accurate. The
writer of Genesis 1 was scientifically correct when he said that the
universe began, even though he did not say it with 20th century
scientific accuracy.
>SJ>But the Bible's statement that the cosmos had a "beginning" out
>of nothing (is unique to the Bible, and it has great theological
>significance.
PM>Was it? I am sure other religions believe that the universe was
>created out of nothing?
No. Only those religions based on the Bible (ie. Judaism,
Christianity and Islam) believe that "the universe was created out of
nothing":
"Creation ex nihilo is peculiar to the Scriptures. It is not found
even in the most rational and spiritual of the ancient cosmogonies.
Even when an intelligent architect of the universe is affirmed, as in
the systems of Plato and Aristotle, an eternal ule, or chaotic
matter, is postulated, out of which it is formed." (Shedd W.G.T.,
"Dogmatic Theology", 1969 reprint, Vol. I, p464)
PM>It is however not even certain if there was a beginning. For all
>we know we are in an endless loop of inflation/deflation/big bangs.
No. This "oscillating universe" idea fails on at least 3 counts: 1.
There has not been enough matter to cause the universe's expansion to
stop and start imploding; 2. Even if it did, there is no known means
by which it would expand again; 3. And even if it did expand again,
it would not have enough available energy to expand out as far,
before it started to implode again. An infinite cycle of oscillating
"inflation/deflation/big bangs" is impossible according to the known
laws of physics:
"The oscillating universe. Yet another challenge to a universe of
finite age arose in the oscillation model. This model actually had
its roots in ancient Hindu and Roman beliefs. Restated in the 1930s,
and revived by Robert Dicke and his colleagues in 1965, the universe
is presumed to have enough mass to bring the expansion to a halt (via
gravity) and subsequently cause the universe to implode back on
itself. However, rather than crunching itself into a singularity,
the universe somehow bounces back and expands again, thereby
repeating the cycle. An infinite number of such cycles is thought to
relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at
any finite time in the past. Since 1965, when the oscillation model
first became popular, astronomers have been engaged in a tireless
effort to find sufficient mass to halt the observed expansion of the
universe. So far, however, all the evidence points the opposite way.
In 1983 and 1984, Marc Sher, Alan Guth, and Sidney Bludman
demonstrated that even if the universe contained enough mass to halt
its current expansion, the collapse would yield not a bounce, but a
thud. Because of the huge entropy of the universe, any ultimate
collapse would lack the energy to bounce. In other words, the
universe more closely resembles a wet lump of clay than a basketball.
The universe either expands continuously or goes through just one
cycle of expansion and contraction." (Ross H., "Cosmology Confronts
the Creator", Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall/Winter 1987,
p8. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/orpages/or102/ross1.htm)
Actually, there is a fourth reason why the universe couldn't
oscillate: a contracting universe would coalesce into one black
hole:
"On the other hand, if the universe is closed, it might turn around
and begin to contract even before all the stars have burnt out. As
the universe contracts, the background radiation would increase in
energy and temperature. The universe might simply retrace its steps,
if it weren't for black holes. As density increases and the universe
rushed toward its inevitable end in the big crunch, black holes might
gobble up more and more matter until the entire universe coalesced
into a single supermassive black hole-which would then be the
universe." (Giancoli D.C, "Physics", 1991, p911)
But black holes don't explode - they evaporate:
"The remaining matter would eventually condense into massive
"galactic black holes." Clusters of these would then coalesce into
extremely massive "supergalactic black holes." Finally, the black
holes themselves would "evaporate" the matter within them, through
the slow quantum-mechanical process of tunneling (see Section 30-12),
would "leak out." This process is so slow that it would take on the
order of 10^100 years. The universe would then be mainly a thin gas
of electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and photons." (Giancoli D.C,
"Physics", 1991, p911)
So, this is it Pim. According to all the known laws of physics, this
universe is the only universe there ever has been and ever will be.
>SJ>If it turned out that there was no beginning (eg. the
>steady-state theory), then the Bible would be wrong.
PM>Which would not be the first time.
I should have said, "wrong *on a major theological issue*". I don't
believe that the Bible can be proven to be wrong on any issue, but if
it was wrong on a minor non-theological issue, it wouldn't worry me.
PM>Nor is steady state the only possible scenario.
What are the other "possible scenarios"?
>SJ>As it is the Bible alone of all holy books and against all
>scientific opinion until the 1930's, held that there was a beginning
>of the universe. The Bible has been proved right, and science and
>all other holy books have been proved wrong. This is powerful
>evidence to me that the Bible writers had supernatural assistance.
PM>And that they got other facts wrong means that this assistance was
>flakey? Come on Steve...
What "other facts wrong" do you mean exactly, Pim? Note: I only
claim "the Bible writers had supernatural assistance", not that the
Bible is 100% error free. A few proven errors would not negate all
the other areas where the Bible is amazingly accurate, eg. Genesis
1:1, Micah 5:2, etc. If the Bible was only 99% accurate that would
establish its Divine origin.
>PM>It does not need to change? And yet the bible revealed that the
>earth was flat until science found otherwise? Is this limited
>scientific accuracy also admissible?
>SJ>There is *nowhere* that "the bible revealed that the earth was
>flat".
PM>But it is implied.
Where exactly? Please cite chapter and verse.
>SJ>Indeed, if anything the Bible teaches the earth was a sphere:
>"He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its
>people are like grasshoppers..." (Isa 40:22)
PM>You mean like a circle ? A pancake is a flat circle.
It does not say "flat circle" but "circle". Given the limited
vocabulary of ancient Hebrew (pointed out by Russell Cannon), it may
have meant either a "flat circle" or a sphere. I don't claim that
Isaiah did know the earth was a sphere but he may have.
>SJ>"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends
>the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7)
PM>Only the northern skies? And how does this show that it is a
>sphere?
It doesn't say "Only the northern skies". And you ignored the
second part: "he suspends the earth over nothing".
>PM>But your assumption is that it was revealed by God so it does not
>allow for 1) errors 2) transcription errors 3) interpretation
>errors....
>SJ>I would not have a problem if the Bible contained "1) errors" and
>certainly not if it contains "2) transcription errors" or "3)
>interpretation errors" after the Bible was revealed. The Bible
>nowhere claims to be 100% free from "error".
PM>So how do you know what part is accurate and what part is
>accidental?
I don't "know what part is accurate and what part" isn't, any more
than you "know what part is" in-"accurate and what part" isn't. I
approach the Bible like any ancient literature, with an open mind and
taking into account when it was written and for what purpose. When
that criteria is applied, most of the non-theist objections to the
Bible disappear.
>PM>What if it was just a mythical story?
>SJ>Some parts of the Bible have "mythical" elements, but few
>scholars would claim that the Bible is "mythical" in the same sense
>as (say) Greek mythology.
PM>Why ? The ancient Greeks would disagree with you.
What evidence do you have for your assertion. My understanding is
that "The ancient Greeks" did not think that their "myths" were real
history in the same way the Biblical writers did.
>PM>If you want to claim accuracy in genesis you will have to deal
>with inaccuracies in other books as well Steve.
>SJ>I don't claim "accuracy" in "Genesis 1", in the sense of
>comparing it with a 20th century precise scientfic report.
PM>So it might be accidental or incidental accuracy ?
Read what I said and discuss that if you want to, but don't introduce
red-herrings or put words into my mouth.
>SJ>I claim merely that comparing Genesis 1 with other similar
>ancient literature (eg. Babylonian, etc), it portrays an amazingly
>accurate account in pictorial form.
PM>Some parts it does, some parts it doesn't. Sort of a conflict...
Not really. Read what I actually said and comment on that, if you
want to discuss it further.
>PM>Why ? As far as I am aware there is no evidence against the
>theory of evolution. But perhaps I am wrong about this? And is
>this evidence fatal for the theory of evolution?
>SJ>No. It just confirms that "the theory of evolution is
>functioning as a creation myth for you". If it really was
>"falsifiable, testable, unlike religious creation myths" then you
>would be able to think of some evidence against it.
PM>Oh you mean if I know how it could be tested or falsified ? But
>that is different from asking "do you know evidence against
>evolution".
No. I mean "do you know any evidence against evolution"? I find it
significant that you can't even frame the question.
PM>Finding human fossils or 4 billion years of age would do it.
If that's your idea of falsification, you are on safe ground! But
what Popper really meant by falsification was a *risky* prediction:
"Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually
explains nothing. If wages fell this was because the capitalists
were exploiting the workers, as Marx predicted they would, and If
wages rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a
rotten system with bribery, which was also what Marxism predicted. A
psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder- or, with
equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save
another. According to Popper, however, a theory with genuine
explanatory power makes risky predictions, which exclude most
possible outcomes. Success in prediction is impressive only to the
extent that failure was a real possibility. Popper was impressed by
the contrast between the methodology of Marx or Freud on the one
hand, and Albert Einstein on the other. Einstein almost recklessly
exposed his General Theory of Relativity to falsification by
predicting the outcome of a daring experiment. If the outcome had
been other than as predicted, the theory would have been discredited.
The Freudians in contrast looked only for confirming examples, and
made their theory so flexible that everything counted as
confirmation. Marx did make specific predictions-concerning the
inevitable crises of capitalism, for example-but when the predicted
events failed to occur his followers responded by modifying the
theory so that it still "explained" whatever had happened." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p148)
Can you think of any really risky prediction that would falsify
evolution?
PM>Testable? Natural selection, speciation and mutation have been
>tested and they appear not to disprove evolution.
Give a specific example.
PM>SO perhaps your question was slightly unclear? You suggested the
>existance of evidence against evolution. If you meant it to be
>this, then I would like to hear some evidence. To call something a
>"creation myth" because one is convinced by the evidence is
>misleading.
No. I asked the same question that Kerkut asked:
"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to
indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also
the most telling points against it...Please tell me, then, some of
the evidence against the theory of Evolution." (Kerkut G. A.,
"Implications of Evolution", 1960, pp4,5, in Hitching F., "The Neck
of the Giraffe", 1982, p9).
And you answered the same way the schoolboy did:
"But there isn't any sir."
Here's another question:
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing,
any one thing, that is true?" (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and
Creationism", Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural
History, New York City, November 5, 1981, p1)
>PM>...To claim this as evidence like you have done above is of
>course hardly support for your assertion that evolution is a
>"creation myth". Unlike the religious myth it is open to criticism,
>change, it can be falsified, it makes predictions.
>SJ>How can "evolution...be falsified" to you, when you do not know
any >"evidence against" it?
PM>You are making no sense here. One can know how evolution can be
>falsified and still there has not be any evidence against evolution
>Steve. Two different issues here.
They are both related issues. You cannot even *think* of "any
evidence against evolution", so for you it is obviously far more than
a mere scientific theory.
And to date you haven't show me "how evolution can be falsified", ie.
in the Popperian sense of a risky prediction that it is possible for
theory to fail.
So my risky prediction that evolution for you is a creation myth,
rather than an ordinary scientific theory, has to date been
fulfilled.
>PM>To refer to this as a myth indicates that you are trying to
>reduce the value of science to an issue of faith. If your personal
>faith is that limited that you have to resort to such tactics then
>perhaps the problem lies at your end.
>SJ>What "tactics"? I gave you a test that Professor Kerkut (an
>evolutionist) used to give his students, to "tell me...some of the
>evidence against the theory of Evolution".
PM>And? The question is misleading if you meant it to be "how can
>evolution be falsified" ?
No. As you yourself said, they are "Two different issues". So if
evolution is for you just a scientific theory, then "tell me...some
of the evidence against the theory of Evolution". If you can't then
that tells me that evolution is functioning as a creation myth for
you, as it has functioned for many evolutionists, as leading
Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse admits:
"Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary
theory, and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely by
the talk just before me, it's certainly been the case that evolution
has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements
akin to a secular religion....And certainly, there's no doubt about
it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many
evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements
which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion....Certainly,
if you read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight, there's no
question but that for Huxley at some very important level, evolution
and science generally, but certainly evolution in particular, is
functioning a bit as a kind of secular religion...Certainly, though,
as I say, for Thomas Henry Huxley, I don't think there's any question
but that evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular
religion. And there's no question whatsoever that for Julian
Huxley...evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion...I
think that today also, for more than one eminent evolutionist,
evolution in a way functions as a kind of secular religion. And let
me just mention my friend Edward O. Wilson....Wilson is quite
categorical about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all
sorts of language like this. That for him, at some level, it's
functioning as a kind of metaphysical system.....evolution, akin to
religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical
assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically."
(Ruse M., "Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip
Johnson", 1993 Annual Meeting of the AAAS, Symposium "The New
Antievolutionism", February 13, 1993)
>PM>Two very different issues. If you consider your religious faith
>strong, then you should admit that the scientific creation myth has
>similar strenght as it relies on mere faith so why call it a
>creation myth?
>SJ>I am not sure what the above means. But if the theory of
>evolution is a "scientific creation myth" then why shouldn't I "call
>it a creation myth"?
PM>1) Evolution does not address creation
A "creation myth" does not have to "address creation" in the sense of
creation of the universe (although cosmic evolution does try to do
that). A "creation myth" tries to answer who we are and where we
come from:
"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and
where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. "
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p133-134)
Maybe "origins myth" is a more accurate term than "creation myth"?
PM>2) It is not a myth but a scientific theory.
Fine. If it "is not a myth but a scientific theory", then "Tell me
the evidence against this "scientific theory".
>PM>So either way I am curious why you decide to refer to science in
>a manner to suggest it to be similar to religious faith when in
>fact it isn't?
>SJ>I was not referring to "science" in general. I was not even
>referring to "the theory of evolution" as a scientific theory. I
>was referring to the "evidence...that `the theory of evolution'" is
>functioning as a creation myth *for you*." The main "evidence" is
>that you cannot even think of any evidence against it! If evolution
>was only a scientific theory *for you* you should have noproblem
>stating the evidence against it:
PM>No this is evidence of a poorly phrased question.
What's "poorly phrased" about it? It is simple and straightforward
English. I will repeat it in Kerkut's own words: "Please tell me,
then, some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution"?
PM>I could think of ways to falsify evolution which does not mean
>that there is any such data.
As you yourself said, "ways to falsify evolution" is a "different
issue". But now you've raised it, how about stating what are the
"ways to falsify evolution"?
PM>So why now use a poorly phrased question as evidence for something
>it cannot support ?
It isn't "a poorly phrased question". It is the same "question" that
Kerkut asked. The fact that you *think* it is "a poorly phrased
question" is highly significant. If you cannot even understand the
simple question "Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against
the theory of Evolution?", then that is strong evidence that for you,
"the theory of Evolution" is not just a scientific theory, but also a
religious dogma.
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------