On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:43:00 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
[continued from 1/2]
SB>If God exists you guys are ignoring, suppressing
>information about and lying about the world He made.
Another blanket mind-reading condemnation of creationists from Susan!
Maybe Susan could give examples where *I* (for example) am "ignoring,
suppressing information about and lying about the world" God has "made"?
>>>SJ>Actually Susan touches on an interesting thing. If atheists think that
>>>God is the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, why do they bother arguing against
>>>>God? Do they spend equal time arguing against the Tooth Fairy?
>>SB>They are fools? I would find it incredibly boring to do either.
>SJ>I note that Susan does not answer the question.
SB>actually I did. To broaden the answer, they do it because they feel an evil
>falsehood is being spread abroad in the world by religionists. They feel
>they are fighting against the darkness of ignorance. They've read about the
>Dark Ages when Christians destroyed or hid as much of the ancient pagan
>knowledge as they possibly could.
What "Dark Ages"?:
"Dark Ages
the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the
term refers to the time (476-800) when there was no Roman (or Holy
Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between
about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual
disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of
the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its
meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the
term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual
darkness and barbarity. See Middle Ages."
("Dark Ages", Britannica.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica online, Thursday,
Dec. 30 1999.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,29246+1,00.html
Susan has been reading too much atheist propaganda. It was the
*Christian* monasteries in the so-called "Dark Ages" who *preserved* all
the "ancient pagan knowledge" (ie. Greek philosophers) that we have
today. How does she think we got it?
In fact when the *Christian* universities like Oxford and Cambridge were
set up in the 13th century, the courses consisted mainly of these pagan
Greek philosophers!
SB>They have read the history where virtuous
>Christians burned books and their authors in order to maintain general
>ignorance. They don't want any of that back
No doubt there were times in the last thousand years or so when
"Christians burned books and their authors" but how bad really was it? As
the non-theist Koestler has pointed out, only *two* scientists (Bruno and
Servetus) were ever "burned" by the Christian church and that was for their
*religious* opinions not their scientific opinions:
"Many accounts of science history invoke the fate of a Dominican friar
named Giordano Bruno as a prime example of the enormous struggles
suffered by early scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries at the hands of
religious authorities. But, technically speaking, Bruno was not a bona fide
participant in this new and exciting way of looking at the world...A radical
thinker as well as a devoted mystic, Bruno was a fiery public speaker, and
his outspoken pronouncements on a variety of subjects the church saw as
heretical often put him in danger from the authorities. Constantly on the
run, and constantly developing more and more extremely mystical and
fanatic ideas, he fled from Rome to Geneva, sought solace in Paris and
wandered all over Europe. Along his travels he also lectured in England
and Germany before being arrested finally in Venice in 1592. Bruno's
philosophy was a hodgepodge of ideas, which included believing that space
is infinite and that there might be people on other worlds in the universe. It
is this belief that usually finds him included in popular books on science
history. There is little evidence, however, that Bruno arrived at these
conclusions through a logical or scientific process. Instead, they were just
examples of the many ideas, often contradictory, from which he wove his
somewhat incoherent brand of personal mysticism. Giordano Bruno was
burned at the stake in Rome in 1600 after a seven-year trial. He refused up
to the last to recant...While some popular books claim that Bruno's
execution was due to his belief in the infinity of space and the inhabitability
of other planets, these were insignificant items on his long list of what the
church considered dangerous heresies. He was, unquestionably, a martyr in
the cause of free speech and thought. But as a hero in the cause of early
science, he falls short." (Spangenburg R. & Moser D.K., "On the Shoulders
of Giants: The History of Science from the Ancient Greeks to the Scientific
Revolution", 1993, p61)
There have been *far* more executions and book-burning by *atheists* in
the 20th century (e.g. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) than in all the Christian
centuries prior.
SB>In the modern world where burning someone at the stake is illegal almost
>everywhere and Christianity does not have the power of government behind it
>and must compete in the marketplace of ideas (and does very poorly there) I
>don't really see much use in debating the existence of any of the gods. I
>*will* fight against people who spread lies for God's sake.
>SJ>From my Biblical Christian perspective, the *real* reason Susan bothers
>>arguing against God is because unlike "the Tooth Fairy", Susan knows in
>>her heart that God is *real*! (Rom 1:20)
SB>:-) yep!!!! just like you fear the eventual return Quetzalcoatl and the
>human sacrifices he will demand (could be you!).
Susan proves my point! *I* don't bother arguing against Quetzalcoatl
because I know he is not real.
BTW it was the Biblical God, alone among all the other god's of antiquity,
who outlawed human sacrifice:
Lev 18:21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,
for you must not profane the name of your God...."; Lev 20:2 "Say to the
Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his
children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are
to stone him".
>>SB>You are so fond of quoting, here's a quote for you from Bertrand Russell:
>>>
>>>"I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to
>>>the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort
>>>of a fenced-in dogmatic creed? etc." ... "The Impact of Science on Society" 1953
>SJ>But no matter. I used to be a follower of
>>Bertrand Russell, as my testimony on my web page says, until in read the
>>following and realised that according to Bertrand Russell there was no
>>point in being a follower of Bertrand Russell:
>>
>>". . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm
>>foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be
>>safely built." (Russell B., "A Free Man's Worship", in "Mysticism and
>>Logic: And Other Essays", 1949, pp47-48)
SJ>unusual quote from a man who is usually quite cheerful. May I have some more
>of the essay? I don't have it in my collections.
I have the book but I don't have the whole essay scanned. It is about 12
pages. Maybe Susan can buy the book or get it from a library?
I must admit I am surprised that Susan, who claims to be a follower of
Bertrand Russell, has apparently never even heard of the quote, since it is
probably the most widely quoted part of Russell's writings! A search of
AltaVista for "scaffolding of these truths" brought up 39 hits.
>>SB>:-) we are a social species and we evolved to be altruistic. People who
>>>behave in uncompassionate and unaltruistic ways are being "unnatural."
>SJ>This only proves my point. Since 90% of the public believe in God and only
>>10% don't, it is the *atheists* who are being "unnatural"!
SB>100% of ancient Aztecs believed that ripping out the hearts of thousands of
>people would make it rain. Shall we test their hypothesis? Oh, no need. I'm
>sure such a pure consensus meant they were correct.
Susan doesn't know that "100% of ancient Aztecs believed" this. It is quote
possible that like Darwinism, only 10% believed it but they had the power
to compel the other 90%.
Besides, even if "100% of ancient Aztecs" did believe that "ripping out the
hearts of thousands of people would make it rain", it is hardly comparable
with the "90% of the public" in the *modern-day USA* who "believe in
God" and the 10% of atheists who don't.
Whichever way Susan slices it, it is still the 10% of atheists *today* in the
modern-day USA (and probably every where else), who are being
unnatural!
>>SB>Also true information is important to survival. In medieval times it
>>>was thought that disease was caused by sin.
>SJ>I am sceptical of these blanket claims of what people believed "In medieval
>>times".
SB>though few people in medieval times could read and write--enough of them
>were permitted by the church to learn those arts--that we have books to read
>on the subject. We know what they thought because they wrote their thoughts
>down.
Which "books" in particular is Susan referring to? And what exactly
did these "few people" write concerning that "disease was caused
by sin"? How does Susan know that these "few people" were a
representative sample of "what people" *generally* "believed `In
medieval times'"?
>SJ>Susan is getting ultimate and proximate causes mixed up. That disease might
>>be proximally caused by germs, does not preclude that it could also be
>>ultimately caused by sin. AIDS is predominantly a disease of homosexual
>>and heterosexual promiscuity, which the Bible says is sinful.
SB>that explains why faithful wives are commonly the victims of it. Also people
>who get it through blood transfusions. Also infants who get it from their
>mothers. It also is a wonderful illustration of how vicious relgion can make
>a person--or perhaps give a venue for viciousness that such a person would
>not otherwise have.
It is hard to follow Susan's logic here. That innocent victims suffer
because of the sin of others is no argument that the sin of others is
not sin. If that were the case, the perpetrators of the Columbine
massacre were not sinning because their victims were innocent!
SB>Nasty old materialistic
>>>science has introduced the idea of the germ theory of disease and developed
>>>the antibiotics to kill the germs.
>SJ>When the "germ theory of disease and developed" there was no such thing as
>>"materialistic science". Two of the pioneers of "the germ theory of disease",
>>namely Pasteur and Lister were in fact *Christians*!
SB>So what? a lot of scientists are Christians. The germ theory of disease was
>not possible until after the Enlightenment and the rise of empiricism.
Again Susan is getting two different things mixed up. The
"Enlightenment and the rise of empiricism" is not the same thing as
"Nasty old materialistic science". Most (if not all) the leaders of the
"Enlightenment and the rise of empiricism" were *Christians*.
And "the Enlightenment and the rise of empiricism" only happened
in *Christian* Europe!
SB>SB>I'm sure design theory will produce even
>>>more useful stuff--once a theory of design is formulated.
>SJ>That is indeed the necessary first step!
SB>so what are some of possible things design theory wishes to
>investigate--once it has some funding, of course?
I can't speak for the ID movement, but I would have thought that four main
areas of research could benefit from an ID perspective: 1) Fine-tuning of
the universe for life; 2) the origin of life; 3) the origin of new designs; 4)
the origin of human consciousness.
In 2) above, ID has already pointed out that the only successful origin of
life simulations are those which involve human intelligent design:
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which
shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter and
energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only through what
Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly informative intervention." When
it is acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic simulation experiments
actually owe their success to the crucial but *illegitimate* role of the
investigator, a new and fresh phase of the experimental approach to life's
origin can then be entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical
evolution will probably continue to be dominated by reports of experiments
in which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon, will have
performed work on the system through intelligent, exogenous intervention.
... As long as this informative interference of the investigator is ignored, the
illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this
practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's origin."
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, p185).
IMHO only ID has the potential to work out a plausible scenario in which a
supernatural Intelligent Designer brought life into being from non-living
chemicals to the first living self-replicating system.
>>>>SB>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
>SJ>See above again! I will await details of Susan's exhaustive survey of all
>>"anti-evolutionists" on Earth and her criteria for detecting which ones
>>"know the truth and lie" and which ones don't.
SB>See the list of "scientists" above.
The "list of `scientists' above" number *six* only: "Dr. Erich von Fange",
John Woodmorappe", "Dr. John Morris", "Dr. Steven Austin", "Dr. Don
DeYoung" and "Dr. Walter Lammerts".
I would hardly call that an "exhaustive survey of all `anti-evolutionists' on
Earth"!
And it still doesn't have Susan's "criteria for detecting which ones `know
the truth and lie' and which ones don't."
SB> Presumably, they know what the real
>evolution says and is and are misrepresenting it (lying about it) because of
>their devotion, not to any god, because their god doesn't care for
>dishonesty, but a Book.
>SJ>See above re Ratzsch. While I hold no brief for "Henry Morris", the *real*
>>problem is that Susan and her ilk don't take the time to understand what
>>Morris is really saying about "thermodynamics".
SB>and of course, you have copious examples of Morris saying publicly "Wait!!!
>you guys have misundersood me! I meant evolution only in the cosmic sense!"
>As far as I know Morris the elder is still alive, and I'm certain his son
>is. They don't seem to be hurrying to clear up this nasty misunderstanding.
The point that Ratzsch is making is that it is *both* creationists and
evolutionists who are responsible for this "misunderstanding":
"Creationists nearly unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty
problem for evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in
mind here is widely misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at fault
for that confusion. One reason is that as noted earlier (chapter six), most
popular creationists use the term evolution ambiguously-sometimes to refer
to the cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer to
the Darwinian biological theory. Although a coherent position can be
extracted from some of the major creationists (such as Morris, Gish,
Wysong and Kofahl), this ambiguity has rendered some parts of their
writings monumentally unclear. One has to read extremely carefully in
order to see which evolution is being referred to, and some critics of
creationism either have simply not noticed the ambiguity or perhaps have
misjudged which meaning specific creationists have had in mind in specific
passages." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p91)
But Ratzsch was able to work out what Morris, et. al. were saying, so any
one of the many evolutionists who have written on this topic should have
been able to work it out also.
But even after Ratzsch has pointed this out, I suspect that evolutionists will
continue with this "misunderstanding" of Morris et. al. as before!
>>SB>I'm pretty sure
>>>Phil Johnson falls in the same category. He's not ignorant of evolution as
>>>his critics claim. He understands it very well and chooses to
>>>misrepresent it.)
>SJ>Since those "critics" who claim that Johnson is ignorant of evolution are
>>on Susan's own side, this shows how arbitrary and confused evolutionists
>>really are in their criticisms of him.
SB>It's science, not religion, therefor we are not reading out of (or
>worshiping) the same book.
Nevertheless, if it really *was* "science" one would expect evolutionists to
come to some sort of a consensus eventually. That they continue with
diametrically opposed positions on such a simple matter as whether their
major critic "Johnson" is "ignorant of evolution" or not, shows how
unscientific (ie. how much based on subjective opinion) evolution these
days is.
>SJ>The problem for Susan and her ilk is that Phil Johnson does indeed
>>understand evolution very well and what's more he accurately *represents*
>>it. Susan might not realise this but Phil Johnson has personally debated
>>leading evolutionists including Gould, Eldredge, Futuyma, Provine, Ruse
>>and Eugenie Scott. He is actually a personal friend of the Provine and
>>Ruse. Apart from a couple of minor errors in his first book, "Darwin on
>>Trial", none of these leading evolutionists have shown (or even claimed)
>>that Johnson misrepresents evolution
>SB>There is an on-line debate between Johnson and Ken Miller
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/
>in which Miller exposes a lot of Johnson's misrepresentations
I am well aware of the debate. Indeed it is on my own Johnson web links
page. Maybe Susan can quote exactly where "Miller exposes a lot of
Johnson's misrepresentations"?
As I said at the begiining of this two-part response to Susan, this thread has
gone on for a while so this will probably be my last post on it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"For example, the assertion that populations of organisms can change in
their genetic composition from one generation to another (i.e., evolve) is
undisputed, even by the creationists. To say without qualification that "all
present life has evolved from more primitive forms" is unscientific because
such a statement is an absolute. A scientifically acceptable restatement is
that `scientists have found a great deal of evidence from many sources
which they have interpreted to be consistent with the theory that all present
life has evolved from more primitive forms.'" (Stansfield W.D., "The
Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth
Printing, p9)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------