The WCG in Aotearoa (New Zealand) publishes its own magazine, which has reached issue 11. I can honestly say that it hasn't got a lot of profile as I've never seen a hard copy anywhere, not in a waiting room, on the freebie stand at a Christian bookshop or anywhere else. The website states that "Inside Life is a magazine of understanding" (!) and is published three times a year. The lead article in the current issue is penned by Rex Morgan, longtime front-man for the church here, and considered a decent bloke by most, though I'm not sure where Rex picked up the expertise to comment on the Evolution/Creation thing. Just to be perfectly clear, that's not him on the cover; at least I don't think so, it's been a long time...More interesting to me was the list of WCG congregations appearing inside the mag. Maybe someone else can refresh our collective memory on where they existed in times past, but now only four are mentioned: Auckland, Rotorua, Wellington (all in the North Island) and Invercargill, the last Southern holdout. Whatever happened to Christchurch? Hamilton?
Inside Life is attractively laid out, but I doubt it'll do much if anything to stem the tide of decline.
52 comments:
Uh oh, the evolution/creation issue strikes again!
We just can’t seem to leave that hot-button topic alone, now can we?
Several years ago back in late 2006, during a trip I took back to the Midwest, I had the chance to meet up and have lunch with WCG/GCI minister and writer John Halford. At that time he was entirely re-thinking his view of origins. As a matter of fact, if my understanding is correct, he has since renounced all his earlier anti-evolution writings (including the rather corny video he made for the WCG around the mid ‘90’s about the origins controversy).
Subsequently he (as well as Grace Covenant [or Community] International, that is, the new WCG) has embraced the demonstrable findings of evolutionary theory – or at least he/they no longer actively try to argue against it, which is definitely an applaudable turn of perspective. And while I may not agree with Joe Jr. on many other issues, he’s no fool on this particular topic.
Just look at GCI’s statement of beliefs for proof of this.
It’s not been “shouted from the rooftop,” and I suspect the vast majority of GCI members are still unaware of it, but the change has officially, albeit quietly, occurred.
I think their view of evolution is much like that of the Catholic Church, a version of theistic evolution, although with a protestant twist. Even they realize that to argue against the rising tide of evidence in favor of evolution ultimately will turn into a losing game, not to mention be a tremendous embarrassment to their organization, which is something the traditional COG’s still haven’t come to grips with yet.
For example, recently I scanned through Mario Seglie’s latest anti-evolutionary installment in the most recent issue of The Good News, and I simply cringed at the man’s utter ignorance of this vital topic. It’s nothing but a rehashed “God of the gaps” type of argument, just pointing out why he thinks Darwin got it wrong. Seglie’s lack of knowledge on this issue is astounding, but here he is, writing “authoritative” articles on the subject for the sheep to lap up. After all, he is one of “God’s true ministers,” so he must know what he’s talking about, right?
So if Rex Morgan is a representative of GCI in New Zealand, he must certainly be aware of his organization’s change of view with respect to the creation/evolution issue.
The good science creeping up, or leaping up upon literalists churches on the truth of human evolution is like a tractor pull. That weight that slides forward as the tractor tries to keep going often has "You know I'm gonna get ya" written on it.
And so it will be in time for those who cling to mythologies that were never meant to mean what they have been made to mean. Or if they were, they were literally wrong.
so WCG is now embracing evolution? why is that any surprise? once you turn your back on God you are apt to believe anything that comes along....
OK, I just carefully read through Rex Morgan’s article “Creation, Evolution or both?” – and while I applaud it in general, in terms of it being written by a GCI minister, still, there are many areas where the author’s knowledge is seriously lacking.
The general theme of the article, doomed from the start, attempts to produce a seamless integration of the mystical worldview of faith-based Christianity with the empirical fact-based methods of science. This is nothing new – fundamentalist creationist writers of every stripe and colour try to do this all the time.
And the only audience they ever persuade with this nonsense is either their fellow fundamentalists or those ignorant upon the subject in general.
Morgan writes:
“Christians and scientists haven't always been in conflict. In fact the Christian faith was instrumental in the early development of scientific observation from the 1200s onward, particularly in mediaeval Europe. People like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Bacon, Pasteur and many other leading early scientists were men of deep Christian faith and conviction. Galileo believed that he was revealing the laws of God in his work.”
Well, not quite. This is a complex subject that cannot be candy-coated so easily. Let me just say that it involves considerably more cultural factors than most are willing to consider. I just finished an enlightening 12-lecture course entitled “Science and Religion” as well as a video called “The Christian Foundations of Science.” The former covered this topic in great historical detail. The actual objective story is a fascinating one – but FAR from the simplistic cartoon-like version Christianity typically projects this issue to be, which was what the former presentation essentially consisted of.
In reality, the many experimental procedures summarized under the umbrella term “scientific method” represented an extremely foundational and serious DEPARTURE from supernatural revelation as a means of gaining accurate knowledge of the natural world, which Christian faith had promoted up until that time, and still promotes to this day.
And the clear effects such supernatural methods had upon the societies it influenced when it had both widespread and powerful influence are a matter of history. Historians call it the Dark Ages for a reason, as it represented extremely serious declines in human well-being and progress in general. And yet this is exactly the kind of culture Christianity wants to bring back to us in modern times – a faith-based ideology with total cultural, legal and political hegemony, where the fantastical “the truths that faith and science represent are one and the same” is the fundamentalist mantra of the day.
The fact that many of the early forerunners of what eventually became known as modern science had theological beliefs doesn’t necessarily lead to the foregone conclusion that such beliefs actually inspired their research methodology. In some cases it no doubt did, but on the whole this is a myth heavily (though erroneously) promoted by Christianity.
Christianity and Islam both are what I term “mooching mystical religions” in that they tend to claim credit for practical real-world advances that benefit man’s life (in other words, the fruits of science) that they could have NEVER originated themselves within the stifling context of their supernatural ideologies. And they never DID either.
The Medieval Dark Ages, the period in which both Christianity and Islam grew and spread rapidly, and thus enjoyed significant cultural impact within, represented a time period of major cultural and academic decline, especially in Christian Europe. Christianity and Islam, far from inspiring methods like science, often did all they could to suppress them, with few notable exceptions.
Did anybody read what I wrote to Larry in a previous blog? – where I cited the fact that when St. Augustine was asked the question: “What was God doing before He created the world?” he answered, “Preparing hell for those who asked unnecessary questions!”
Augustine further wrote: “There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity…It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn.”
And yet Christianity wants to champion Augustine’s mystical writings (as expressed above) ALONG SIDE the highly successful enterprise of science, and actually claim that the former actually inspired, promoted and served as a philosophical foundation leading to the latter?! This is a blatant contradiction that, yes, is pushed by a desperate Christianity, but one not warranted by the actual historical record.
Morgan further writes:
“Darwin himself presented his theory of evolution as a concept compatible with belief in God.”
Well again, sort of, at least at first, simply because he did not want to cause a public stir in general by directly confronting the religious sentiments of the time, nor offend the feelings of his dear and devout Christian wife specifically, because they shared a wonderfully close and intimate relationship together. The historical record is indisputable on this.
Darwin’s book (Origins) published in November of 1859 didn’t even broach the subject of evolution as it pertained to human beings. This is perfectly true. Darwin was bright enough to fully realize the devastating body-blow his theory, if true, was going to deal to popular supernatural religious beliefs pertaining to the origins question.
However, by his 1871 book “The Descent of Man” Darwin WAS applying evolutionary thinking to man’s origins. So while Morgan is technically telling the partial truth, he’s not informing his readers of the ENTIRE historical story.
Very typical of modern day Christian writing.
Morgan further states:
“In the frontispiece to the first edition of The Origin of Species, he included a quote from the Anglican clergyman and philosopher William Whewell proclaiming that God doesn’t act by constant miracles but ‘by the establishment of general laws’. This was followed by a quote from Sir Francis Bacon stating that true understanding must be sought both ‘in the book of God’s word and in the book of God’s works’, referring to scripture and nature. The Origin of Species itself contains several references to the Creator, and the final sentence states ‘There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…’ ”
Yes, but references which Darwin REMOVED in later editions of his work.
Morgan continues:
“In the sermon at Darwin’s funeral, in Westminster Abbey, the Reverend Frederick Farrar said that Darwin’s theory posed no threat to belief in God, and that Darwin had enabled people to read “many hitherto undeciphered lines in God’s great epic of the universe.’ ’’
Again, technically true, however, Morgan fails to inform his readers about “the rest of the story”: that fact that a great stir arose among the clergy, as many of them became vigorously opposed after it was suggested, upon Darwin’s death, that his body be interred at Westminster Abbey.
Morgan mentions the Clergy Letter Project. I know Dr. Michael Zimmerman, the man who started this project. But what the letter actually says - even though to date Zimmerman has accumulated over 12,000 clergymen signatures - is not what the vast majority of Christians believe (and most certainly not the COG ministry):
“We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
I won’t continue any further.
We’ve barely begun to analyse just the first few paragraphs of Morgan’s article and we observe that, while not totally false, it is nonetheless extremely incomplete in it’s initial assertions. Technically true up to a point, yet ignoring many other facts that give the overall account an entirely different meaning.
And yet, what fundamentalist reader who reads Morgan’s article is not going to walk away from it believing that his supernatural religious beliefs are still intact?
Anybody can do this with an article if they are highly-selective in the facts they are willing to use. But the ENTIRE ARRAY of facts we have access to presents a very different, a more accurate, and a considerably more interesting story.
But then, Christianity never has been known for it’s warm embrace of truths clearly disconfirming of it’s supernatural ideology.
The bottom line is this: one can no more synthesize supernatural faith and empirical reason together any more than one can permanently bring oil and water together. The two represent diametrically opposite methods of knowledge acquisition.
One is mystical — the other is rational. One is based upon subjective feelings, pre-scientific ancient tradition and dogmatic rigidity — the other on tangible facts, empirical evidence, rigorous rationality and always willing to refine itself based upon further information. One has an extremely violent historical track record — the other has greatly alleviated the pain of the human condition. One is oriented toward death in this world — the other toward the promotion of life. Each is as alien to the other as war is to peace.
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, could say lofty things like: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth….” — but the everyday reality of this conceptual integration is another thing entirely.
Anonymous 7:32, can people like you ever actually make a serious contribution to this blogsite that is even worth serious consideration?
All you do is make extremely lame and shallow comments that are of benefit to nobody.
Is it because you simply lack the knowledge base, and therefore have nothing of real substance to say upon any of these subjects under discussion here?
Anonymous 7:32, your kind of comment is what I mean when I refer to "preach & run" bloggers - you just make a short little statement, never extrapolate on it or explain in greater detail so it will be intelligible to the rest of us, and then leave it at that.
But all this does for your cause is mightily reinforce the all-too-real stereotype of the uneducated, inarticulate and shallow-thinking fundamentalist believer. And then you folks wonder why you are the laughing stock of serious thinkers.
"so WCG is now embracing evolution?"
The church always embraced evolution --- an Intelligent Design, "god of the gaps" type of evolution, mind you, but we were never dead-set against evolution the way the professing Christians always were.
evolution does occur, for sure....bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, but they never advance beyond being bacteria...
humans evolve too...the genes that get passed on determine the characteristics of the future generations...(the same applies to every living thing) but we have never been anything other than human, and will never be anything other than human (as long as we are flesh beings, that is)...
to say that pond scum evolved into frogs which evolved into mammals is lunacy...it boggles my mind how anyone could believe such a thing...
Anonymous 7:13:
"…to say that pond scum evolved into frogs which evolved into mammals is lunacy...it boggles my mind how anyone could believe such a thing..."
We are in 100% agreement on this, Anon, because that's NOT what evolutionary theory directly teaches or even remotely implies. How many times must this be said before it sinks into your mind? Rather, it’s the creationist’s extremely foolish version of evolution you find so mind-boggling. And who wouldn’t, because it’s utter nonsense!
Once again, this straw man CARICATURE of evolution SEEMS ridiculous to you because it IS ridiculous, but you must realize that it is not what the scientists teach - it rather is a creation of the religious community who do not accurately understand evolution, clearly don't WANT to understand it, and are bound and determined to convince as many people who will listen that this version of “evolution” is completely wrong, and that by magical default, their supernatural version of special creation is therefore the correct view.
Perhaps your mind wouldn't be as "boggled" if you just were willing to educate it, rather than clinging to your cartoon-like false version of evolutionary theory.
The recent 186-comment blog discussion on the whole creation/evolution controversy plainly showed (I know because I’ve carefully read it over several times now) that creationists/fundamentalists persistently fight against a fantasy of their OWN creation, rather than what the world of science actually teaches us. But if they stubbornly refuse to educate themselves on the realities in order to clarify their comprehension of the subject, what more can people like me do?
And you, like them, appear to be resolutely unwilling to further your learning about this topic. Therefore, your comment is meaningless and cannot serve as the basis for a reasonable discussion on the issue.
Would you expect an historian of American History to waste his time engaging you in serious discussion if you mindlessly insisted that it was Genghis Khan who was the first President of the United States, and NOT George Washington?
Folks like you remind me of the foolish fellow who wanted to be matador, only to find himself in the ring with a 2,000 pound bull charging toward him, and then comes to the realization that what he REALLY wanted was to wear tight pants, fling around a bright red cape with dramatic flair and hear the roar of adoring fans!
well leon...i was taught in school that we all evolved from pond slime...(i didn't believe it then, and i surely don't now)
watch most any nature program on discovery channel or the like and you will hear endless gratituous insertions of that very "evolution" tossed in, for no other reason than to perpetuate the myth that we evolved from lower life forms...
"scientists" are working their little fingers to the bone trying to find the "missing link" that will prove we evolved from apes...
so no, my take on what the evolution theory is seems to be dead on...
to say that pond scum evolved into frogs which evolved into mammals is lunacy...it boggles my mind how anyone could believe such a thing...
So, who believes that? Creationists must believe that because evolutionists do not.
I realize that Creationists believe in everything being poofed into existence, fully grown, out of nothing. So, it would make sense that Creationists would also believe that a frog turns into a mammal - I don't know, it boggles my mind too.
But, you gotta remember that a prince is changed into a frog and has to be kissed by a princess to change him back into a prince.
Oh yeah, that story has to do with a wicked witch. You know, those creatures that creationists burned at the stake over a fairy tale.
Anonymous 10:40 wrote:
"...watch most any nature program on discovery channel or the like and you will hear endless gratituous insertions of that very "evolution" tossed in, for no other reason than to perpetuate the myth that we evolved from lower life forms...so no, my take on what the evolution theory is seems to be dead on...”
Well then there’s your problem, Anon, STOP watching those nature shows that are aimed at the extraordinarily scientifically-illiterate mass public and START reading some serious books written by real scientists!
Then you can at least argue against the actual objective FACTS of science rather than the creationist-created straw man CARICATURES of evolution, which you are currently doing.
"scientists" are working their little fingers to the bone trying to find the "missing link" that will prove we evolved from apes...
Bzzzzzt, wrong. We are apes, not descended from apes. As far as a missing link between apes and man is concerned, there is none, because we both have a common ancestor. Therefore, we are cousins, distant cousins, but still cousins. The missing links would be farther back - before apes.
Watching Discovery channel and the like will teach you nothing in the real world. It's entertainment they have as an agenda moreso than facts.
Very seldom will you see factual documentaries on Discovery or the History channels. Evolution is not something that can be explained in a thirty minute documentary stretched out to an hour by advertisements.
Leonardo said...
“STOP watching those nature shows that are aimed at the extraordinarily scientifically-illiterate mass public and START reading some serious books written by real scientists!
Then you can at least argue against the actual objective FACTS of science rather than the creationist-created straw man CARICATURES of evolution, which you are currently doing.”
That’s quite a statement, Leonardo. You seem to be suggesting that documentary programs supporting evolution are not actually representing evolution at all, but rather they are presenting evolution the same way that creationists present evolution, with the same flaws.
Interesting – are these documentary producers really secret undercover Intelligent design agents????
The plot thickens……
Questeruk wrote:
"You seem to be suggesting that documentary programs supporting evolution are not actually representing evolution at all, but rather they are presenting evolution the same way that creationists present evolution, with the same flaws."
Wrong again, Quest!
What I'm saying is that a 30 minute or one hour documentary show on African wildlife preserves (or whatever) cannot possibly go into a detailed, point-by-point explanation covering all the facts that verify evolutionary theory.
They don’t present a false, cartoon-like caricature of evolution, just the briefest possible summary of it in passing.
That's all I'm saying.
And by the way, Quest, the plot isn't "thickening" at all.
The evolutionary account of origins as told by science is controversial primarily in the minds of creationists, not in the minds of scientists or those who possess a working familiarity with the FACTS of the theory.
Let’s remember that evolutionary theory has been “on the verge of collapse due to lack of evidence” for about 150 years now, but ONLY in the fantasy world of fundamentalist religious believers. And yet, in the REAL world that science inhabits, evidence for it is growing by the month.
By the way, how's that book by Protho you promised to acquire and read on the fossil evidence for evolution coming along. Remember, the book that both Apostate Paul and I recommended to you several weeks ago?
Now come on, be honest with us here!
Hi Leonardo,
My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but to me the logic of your comment came across in the direction that I suggested.
We had a bit of a postal strike in the UK, but Prothero’s book arrived a week ago.
I am working my way through as time permits, and am just into chapter 3 at the moment.
I am keeping a note of problems encountered as I go through it. As you will realise, I am only now getting to the fossil record.
I have several queries so far, including one specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error, and has only made the statement for effect.
I will write to him direct on that, but not until I have finished the book, as who knows what else I will find!
Happy reading, Questeruk! Just remember to live up to your username, and keep asking every question! Even those that might be well outside of your comfort zone.
Aggie
the term ape can be used to include all species in hominoidea (chimps, gorillas, humans, etc.) although traditional usage of the word does not include humans.
and i was thinking the same thing as Quest....the people pushing evolution are pushing the false version???
no wonder they're so confused ;-)
i forgot to add, what you see in the similarity between humans and apes is called common design characteristics....(for example, the bone structure in the limbs is 1 - 2 - 5...very common in the animal world)
much like a vw bus and a transit bus...rectangular box with engine in the rear and driver up front that holds a number of passengers.....but the transit bus did not evolve from the vw...
Questeruk wrote:
"I am keeping a note of problems encountered as I go through it…I have several queries so far, including one specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error, and has only made the statement for effect. I will write to him direct on that, but not until I have finished the book, as who knows what else I will find!"
Ah, in great fundamentalist form: ignore all the MASSIVE amount of clearly confirming evidence with which you simply can't logically argue against, and zero in on the relatively few areas of conflict - the "God of the gaps" strategy!
A clearly losing strategy, as proven by the record of the past 150 years, but at least you're thinking, and I do very much appreciate your willingness to extend your range of knowledge beyond the comfort zone that the vast majority of fundamentalist believers stubbornly refuse to move out of. Bravo for that!
And I do congratulate you on following through on your promise - I sincerely admire that as well in you, Quest.
And again I say, that you totally accept all that evolutionary theory proposes is not what is important here – as I have issues with certain areas of it – but that you are willing to learn what scientists actually have to say about it rather than basing your understanding of evolution on the creationist’s perverted versions of it.
Personally, I have Prothero's book, but don't think it one of the best all-around popular treatments on evolution, although its goal is to zero in specifically on the fossil record.
Dawkins' new 2009 book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" is very readable, and would have been my first choice, but I realize most Christians see the good Professor as a spawn of the Devil and therefore wouldn't even come close to reading one of his many excellent works.
In any event, as the Scottish philosopher David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
"I have several queries so far, including one specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error, and has only made the statement for effect."
Like what? I brought the book with me today and am interested.
The Apostate Paul
"Ah, in great fundamentalist form: ignore all the MASSIVE amount of clearly confirming evidence with which you simply can't logically argue against, and zero in on the relatively few areas of conflict - the "God of the gaps" strategy!"
reminds me of the old perry mason shows....massive evidence against his client which of course proves his guilt...
but wait! one single area of confict, which pretty much renders all of that massive evidence null, that one point of conflict that proves all of that massive evidence wrong.
that one point of conflict that puts all of that massive evidence in a new light.
that massive evidence wasn't what it initially appeared to be.
"i forgot to add, what you see in the similarity between humans and apes is called common design characteristics....(for example, the bone structure in the limbs is 1 - 2 - 5...very common in the animal world)"
Common design characteristics? Well that's what you would call it if you believed that a dude named Jehovah created every living animal instantaneously with magic. However, the rest of us call it homologous structures.
The reason organism share similar structures is because they share common ancestors. Or, you could also look at it as the mysterious will of god.
"...much like a vw bus and a transit bus...rectangular box with engine in the rear and driver up front that holds a number of passengers.....but the transit bus did not evolve from the vw..."
Are you serious? Are you that lacking in basic biology?
Buses are machines made of metal. Inert substances. Caught on yet? Okay, here's another- metal doesn't contain genes. Think about it.
The Apostate Paul
much like a vw bus and a transit bus...rectangular box with engine in the rear and driver up front that holds a number of passengers.....but the transit bus did not evolve from the vw...
No, it didn't, but they both evolved from a passenger coach pulled by horses - that's their "common ancestor".
Anonymous 4:20 wrote:
"that one point of conflict that puts all of that massive evidence in a new light."
You got me all excited now Anon!
And that one point of conflict that would put all the massive amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory in a new light would be...
The Apostate Paul said:-
“Like what? I brought the book with me today and am interested.”
Paul, as I said earlier, I am only up to Chapter 3, so who knows what the rest of the book holds.
However the “specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error,” is on page 21.
See if you can find it.
I believe the author should be aware that this is an error, because of two separate brief comments that he makes in the next chapter.
A little task for the weekend!
Leonardo said...
“Dawkins' new 2009 book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" is very readable, and would have been my first choice, but I realize most Christians see the good Professor as a spawn of the Devil and therefore wouldn't even come close to reading one of his many excellent works.”
I like Dawkins. As an evangelical atheist he can sometimes be as annoying as evangelical Christians, but I think he means well.
He is often popping up on TV over here, but I have to admit the only book of his that I actually own is ‘The Selfish Gene’.
I found it very good, learnt a lot, and ended up even more convinced of the hand of God in designing life. Interesting that modern computers use binary code, but God chose to use four. But then I suppose that makes things a lot more versatile.
Dawkins waxes lyrical on the wonders of DNA e.g. from page 22:-
‘There are about a thousand million million cells making up the average human body, and, with some exceptions which we can ignore, every one of those cells contain a complete copy of that body’s DNA. This DNA can be regarded as a set of instructions for how to make a body, written in the A,T,C,G alphabet of the nucleotides. It is as though in every room of a gigantic building, there was a book-case containing the architect’s plans for the entire building. The ‘book-case’ in a cell is called the nucleus. The architect’s plans run to 46 volumes in man – the number is different in other species.’
He carries on in this fashion, explaining this marvel of creation, so much so that he feels he has to add an override – just to make sure we don’t misunderstand he adds ‘Incidentally, there is of course no ‘architect’. The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection’.
Yes, I like Richard Dawkins – I probably will get his latest book – but I want to get through the fossil book first.
Quest, if you are not willing to expose your underlying ideology – religious, secular, or whatever it be - to new views and factual discoveries with the possibility of altering (and therefore improving) such an ideology, then what’s the point of learning anything new?
A main motivation I have for my extensive learning program (right now I’m simultaneously reading about a dozen books, and going through five lecture courses, for example, which allows for creative synthesis to occur, as insights from one field amplify and build upon those of other seemingly unrelated fields of study), as well as for blogging here on AW, is to expose my current views to perspectives different from my own, in the hopes that in the final analysis "iron will sharpen iron." I can assure you I have considerably more constructive things to do than engage in pointless polemics with fundamentalist!
And I've found such a strategy, with constant tweaking, to be incredibly fruitful. Many comments I’ve read here on AW have given me pause for thought, at least the more intelligent, well-thought out and well-expressed ones have.
If all you want to do, as you've explicitly stated, is merely to justify your current ignorance (as was clearly demonstrated in the last creation/evolution blog), then why waste your time?
Leonardo said...
”If all you want to do, as you've explicitly stated, is merely to justify your current ignorance (as was clearly demonstrated in the last creation/evolution blog), then why waste your time?”
I’m afraid its you that missing the point Leonardo.
I am reading these books for enlightenment. But I am also reading them with a questioning mind.
The Selfish Gene book WAS enlightening; it gave me a greater insight on the whole area. But it also came over that Dawkins was seeing these things, and to an extent ‘whistling in the wind’ to convince himself that everything happened without any higher power.
He apparently sees the FACTS in one light – I see these same facts in a different light, and I gave my honest impression.
You may read the same book and have a different impression to me.
Fine – I wouldn’t question your integrity in that case – neither should you be questioning mine.
Q, you got me.
The number of Creationists with PhDs?
Ashton's book?
The Apostate Paul
"He carries on in this fashion, explaining this marvel of creation,"
What evidence do you have that supports the hypothesis that this was a creation? Why should Dawkins, who I believe, has no evidence of the supernatural, should accept the hypothesis that this was the result of a creation? Why?
"... so much so that he feels he has to add an override – just to make sure we don’t misunderstand he adds ‘Incidentally, there is of course no ‘architect’. The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection’."
Once again, why not? Does he have any evidence of a creator? Do you have any? If not, then why should we fault him for this view?
Just because living organisms exist is not evidence for a supernatural creator.
The Apostate Paul
OK, that's fair enough, Quest.
But I'm not questioning your integrity. I don't have to. I'm just pointing out what you've already plainly stated.
Anyway, if you're interested in reading some anti-Dawkins books, may I recommend a few?
"The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheists Myths" by David Robertson
"The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine" by Alister McGrath
"Letter to an Influential Atheist" by Roger Steer.
I'm sure there are other ones available, but I hope the quality of argument is higher in those than in the ones I've read thus far.
Dawkins is a favorite target of Christians, but they have an extremely hard time seriously refuting his arguments. This is very clear if you read any of the anti-Dawkins books and articles out there.
Perhaps this is because Dawkins relies on facts, evidence and logic in support of his assertions, and knows how to express them quite articulately - whereas Christians seem hard-pressed to recruit any of these in defense of their patently faith-based ideology.
Re:- the “specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error,” is on page 21.
Hi Paul,
Seems unfair not to clarify this point, although probably only yourself, Leonardo (and Gavin) will read it, now this topic has moved to page two of the blog.
On page 21 Prothero says:-
“I know of absolutely no scientists who rejected evolution on purely scientific evidence without the powerful force of religious fundamentalism operating behind the scenes.”
He then goes on to say “Instead, these creationist “scientists” all came to their conclusions because their religious belief demanded it, and afterward began to take seriously the phony “evidence” against evolution that we’ll discuss in the rest of the book”.
What he is claiming here is that any scientist that rejects evolution is doing so because at some level their religious conviction is telling them that they must do so.
This claim sounds impressive, at face value, if it were true.
However there are several well known scientists, professed atheists, whose rejection of evolution was for different reasons – because they did not believe that evolution was a viable option.
In the following chapter he mentions two of these scientists. On page 48 he says “Gish’s favourite analogy (borrowed from maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle) concerns the improbability that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could assemble a 707.”
Now Sir Fred Hoyle was an atheist for most of his life – nearly all his work was written as an atheist. As an atheist he wrote many things against evolution, and definitely did not believe it was a viable option. The reason he wrote against Darwinian evolution was not because of religious conviction.
He atheism was well known, I am sure Prothero is aware of that. It is true he began to express serious doubts of his atheism near the end of his life, but most of his works were written during his atheist years.
On page 35 Prothero writes ‘One of their star witnesses, the maverick British astrophysicist Chandra N Wickramasighe, openly scoffed at the idea of creation science’
Dr Wickramasighe is no 'religious fundamentalist', in fact he had a Buddhist background. He is certainly not a creationist, but to say he ‘openly scoffed’ is not apparent if you read his prepared statement at the trial, in which he has severe critism of evolution.
http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm
Interesting how Prothero describes both these men as ‘mavericks’ – because they do not support Darwinian evolutionary thoughts?
There are several other scientists who would also be in this category – i.e. not creationists, but who reject evolution on scientific grounds.
Quest, your argument above essentially shows a desperation on your part, yet another aspect of the infamous "God of the gaps" line of reasoning – that is, pointing out the extreme exceptions in the false belief that this thus justifies in some way supernatural claims with respect to origins.
I'm sure that certain aspects of evolutionary theory will be corrected, revised or amplified as the years pass, as future evidence either supports or disconfirms such aspects.
But you ARE correct in that Prothero could have worded what he wrote with greater accuracy. I agree to this. Although he did speak only of the scientists of which he was familiar – “I know of absolutely no scientists…”
However, I notice that you speak NOTHING at all about the hard evidence the author cites in support of evolution. You are reading about that, right? Or are you just wasting your reading time desperately looking for anything you can to justify rejecting essentially everything else Prothero has to say?
I don’t know, and am not imputing motives, or attacking your integrity, but based on your comments above that seems to be what you’re doing.
Q,
Thanks. I was sort of hoping your criticism was of Prothero's evidence for evolution.
But, before I address your point, I want to be clear on something; it's relevant.
You said,
However there are several well known scientists, professed atheists, whose rejection of evolution was for different reasons – because they did not believe that evolution was a viable option.
In the following chapter he mentions two of these scientists...
And then you go on to discuss Hoyle and Wickramasighe.
Are you sure that these two rejected evolution????
The Apostate Paul
Paul asked:-
“you go on to discuss Hoyle and Wickramasighe.
Are you sure that these two rejected evolution????”
Yes I am Paul – provided that you are discussing the standard Darwinian view that life evolved from a one celled living creature, up to the diversity we have now, including mankind.
But neither of the two men were creationists – I imagine that the idea of the universe being created 6000 years ago would embarrass them.
However they are definitely of the opinion that evolution as a system would not work as such. They believe that it needed a lot of ‘kick starts’ at many times to progress it.
I will extract a couple of paragraphs from Dr Wickramasighe’s statement at the 1981 Arkansas hearing (found on the link I gave in my last posting):-
“It is believed by neo-Darwinists that the full spectrum of life as we see it today as well as in the past is accounted for by the steady accumulation of copying errors and the consequent development of variety as a primitive living system is copied billions upon billions of times. It is stated according to the theory that the accumulation of copying errors, sorted out by the process of natural selection, the survival of the fittest, could account both for the rich diversity of life and for the steady upward progression from bacterium to Man.
In our recent book Sir Fred Hoyle and I have argued strongly against this proposition. We agree that successive copying would accumulate errors, but such errors on the average would lead to a steady degradation of information. It is ridiculous to suppose that the information provided by one single primitive bacterium can be upgraded by copying to produce a man, and all other living things that inhabit our planet. This conventional wisdom, as it is called, is similar to the proposition that the first page of Genesis copied billion upon billions of time would eventually accumulate enough copying errors and hence enough variety to produce not merely the entire Bible but all the holding of all the major libraries of the world. The two statements are equally ridiculous. The processes of mutation and natural selection can only produce very minor effects in life as a kind of fine tuning of the whole evolutionary process. There is above all an absolute need for a continual addition of information for life, an addition that extends in time throughout the entire period for the geological record.”
As he mentions both he and Sir Fred Hoyle wrote jointly on the subject, so are basically of similar opinions.
Now they do believe in some sort of ‘universal evolution’. But for the purposes of this discussion, that is actually irrelevant.
The point I am making is that they are very convinced that ‘standard’ evolution just cannot work – in their view for very good scientific reasons.
Q, are you sure that those two rejected evolution?
If you find evidence that they didn't reject evolution (the Big Bang and abiogenesis aren't evolution), then you need to completely revise your post.
The Apostate Paul
"Yes I am Paul – provided that you are discussing the standard Darwinian view that life evolved from a one celled living creature, up to the diversity we have now, including mankind....Now they do believe in some sort of ‘universal evolution’. But for the purposes of this discussion, that is actually irrelevant."
By Darwinian evolution I assume you mean "natural selection," correct?
But I have no idea of what you mean by "universal evolution;" could you define it?
And it is incredibly relevant. You stated that these two rejected evolution. I have reason to think otherwise, but will await your reply.
The Apostate Paul
Oh, and could you also define "standard evolution" for me?
I have heard of several different mechanisms of evolution, but never the types of evolution that you describe.
The Apostate Paul
Questeruk, I've been following your exchange of comments with Apostate Paul, and I'm having a difficult time figuring out what precise point you are trying to make here.
As far as I can tell, as I’ve written previously, yours seems to ultimately be a quote-mining kind of "God of the gaps" sort of argument, because even if you can point to the relatively few scientists with degrees in fields pertinent to evolutionary theory who disagree with certain aspects of evolutionary theory, so what? This is how science works and progresses.
If I searched hard enough I could probably find some rare person, perhaps even with a degree in geography, who still believes the earth is flat – so does this throw into serious doubt the overwhelming amount of evidence that the earth is spherical in shape? Does it refute all the affirming evidence in its favor?
And how does what you are saying provide evidence for special creation, if that’s even what you are arguing for? I say “if” because I’m having a hard time trying to decipher your view since your statements are rather hazy, ambiguous and sort or rambling all over the place.
Paul, I don’t know if you had seen my last post before you made your comment.
If you think Fred Hoyle supported Darwinian evolution, check this link:-
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm#Notes
It’s a review of his book ‘Mathematics of Evolution’. Just reading the review it should be clear that he, as the review said “was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic”.
He wrote many other books on the subject, including an aptly titled short work “Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work”.
Of course Hoyle had his own ideas – he supported a version of Panspermia theory.
The word ‘evolution’ on its own is a vague term. I am saying Fred Hoyle did not support Darwinian evolution, which is the entire subject of Prothero’s book.
Fred Hoyle strongly felt the idea was wrong, and he also felt that by most scientists adhering to the Darwinian idea, it was hampering studies into what actually had happened.
Quest, I notice you are really avoiding answering both Apostate Paul's and my own questions.
It's clear you are on a rant with respect to Fred Hoyle - because in his views you somehow feel a kindred spirit, one that just magically sweeps away all the evidence for Darwinian evolution so you no longer have to seriously and honestly deal with it.
Of course it doesn't eliminate the facts, but it appears to me that you think it does.
My question is: Are you reading and mentally digesting the boatloads of evidence that Prothero documents in his book? Or are you just looking for loopholes so you can maintain your non-factual supernatural beliefs about origins?
Q,
I'm still confused. Could you answer my previous questions regarding "universal evolution" and "standard evolution" and "Darwinian evolution."
I am unaware of any evolution but evolution; there are several proposed mechanisms of how evolution occurred, all of them valid (natural selection vs genetic drift) but I am unaware of different types of evolution.
The Apostate Paul
Leonardo said...
"Questeruk, I've been following your exchange of comments with Apostate Paul, and I'm having a difficult time figuring out what precise point you are trying to make here."
Hi Leonardo & Paul
The original point I was making is very simple, and not at all earth shattering.
I quoted from Prothero where he said
“I know of absolutely no scientists who rejected evolution on purely scientific evidence without the powerful force of religious fundamentalism operating behind the scenes.”
I made the comment that this is incorrect, that even Prothero himself mentions two people that this applies to in the very next chapter.
That was my entire point. An important point, yes, but a very simple one.
Paul it seems you have taken exception to this, and are challenging every comment I have made about this.
The facts are that both these gentlemen do not accept Darwinian evolution to be a viable idea. It’s simple, and it’s not really up for question, as they both have repeatedly publicly stated this to be the case, over many years.
Paul, I have provided evidence. There is plenty more evidence around that you can search out for yourself. It’s not some secret thing, and on this point I KNOW I am right.
I would actually like to get on and read Prothero’s book instead going round in circles with you.
You said “You stated that these two rejected evolution. I have reason to think otherwise, but will await your reply.”
Well, you are wrong. If you indeed do have evidence that Hoyle and Wickramasighe do believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution – fine, go ahead and present the facts. I would like to see it, and maybe Leonardo would too.
I await your reply with interest – until then I will proceed further into Prothero’s book!
Q,
I'm not henpecking here. You've stated that those two scientists reject evolution. When I pressed you on this, you said that they reject "Darwinian evolution." I don't know what Darwinian evolution is. And your subsequent use of "universal evolution" and "standard evolution" only confused me further. I don't know what those terms mean and I don't understand why you originally used plain "evolution" but changed the term when I asked you if you were sure about that.
I'm asking you for the third (?) time to explain the differences in these terms not to be nitpicky but out of curiosity and a need to understand what we are talking about.
The Apostate Paul
But Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (Hoyle's student) had some version or another of panspermia.
I considered this concept at length about 12 years ago, and came to the conclusion that it only pushes the argument back a step without providing us any new or useful insights: where did the aliens who seeded life on other planets come from?
It's an interesting concept, but, unless I'm really missing something here, I don't consider it all that fruitful or productive as far as origins goes.
My two cents worth.
Q,
I don't see my last post so I'll try again. You stated that these two scientist rejected evolution. When pressed, you switched from "evolution" to "Darwinian evolution" and used two other unfamiliar terms, "universal evolution" and "standard evolution."
I ask you to define those unfamiliar terms because you seem to be making a distinction between your early use of evolution and the later "Darwinian" and "Neo-Darwinian" and "standard" evolution.
What I am trying to get at is this: are you saying those two scientists rejected the theory that all organisms we see around us evolved from a common ancestor?
The Apostate Paul
I'm afraid I've ran out of patience, Q. I gave you every chance to recuse yourself, and chances to explain what your various new evolutionary terms meant. I did this because I didn't want to embarrass you.
I hold in my hand a copy of Fred Hoyle's "The Intelligent Universe." Page 109;
"The most crucial aspects of life, its origin and information content, did not arise here on the Earth. Nor, despite widespread belief in the work of Darwin, did terrestrial life evolve in the way he proposed. Yet, evolution certainly has occurred, there can be no doubt about that, but in a way that is prompted from a very different source than the one imagined by Earthbound theory."
Page 123;
"There is little doubt that the eyes of of vertebrate animals like mammals, those of cephalopod molluscs like octopuses and squids, and those of insects have evolved quite independently.
FRED HOYLE ACCEPTED EVOLUTION.
Before you start sputtering, it was you who said that Hoyle rejected "evolution." Later, you started weaseling by inventing new evolutionary terms- yet did not deign to explain them so don't try to back out of that.
Hoyle rejected the Big Bang, and abiogenesis, and his rejection of natural selection (which is erroneous; natural selection happened) is basically an extended, bastardized version of abiogenesis.
But he accepted what you and other Creationists reject: EVOLUTION.
If you meant otherwise, you should have explained so, as I gave you several chances to do. But you chose the path of arrogance.
A Tip For Creationists: If you are going to use the "a scientist who rejects evolution!" gambit, then by all means find one who actually rejects evolution!
The Aposte Paul
Very strange post, Paul.
You quote to me exactly what I have been quoting to you, and seem to think you are making some new point!!!! No need for any spluttering on my part – what you are saying is what I have been saying.
I have been saying the entire time that Hoyle rejected Neo-Darwinian evolution – i.e. natural selection, taking place self contained, here on Earth.
Now you quote back to me about Hoyles ‘rejection of natural selection’, (which is exactly what I have been telling YOU these last few posts), and then you add your own override comment ‘which is erroneous; natural selection happened’.
This is the whole point I have been repeating and repeating, but it just doesn’t seem to get through to you. Hoyle rejected natural selection – he stated and stated almost his entire career that the idea just doesn’t work.
Of course I know he didn’t believe in Creationism. Of course I understand that he believed that evolution had to happen outside of the environment of the earth.
He was an atheist – so he was going to reject the idea of Creation – of course he was. But the point is that he was also rejecting Darwins and Prothero’s view that natural selection could happen here on earth, all by itself. As he also rejected a ‘higher power’, of course he has to believe that evolution took place somehow outside of earth, somewhere in the universe.
As Leonardo said, the weakness of the Panspemia idea is that ‘it only pushes the argument back a step without providing us any new or useful insights: where did the aliens who seeded life on other planets come from?’. I agree with Leonardo on that observation.
Paul you are an intelligent person – you know exactly what I was saying. You know that what I was saying is the same as what you are now saying. Hoyle did not believe that evolution by natural selection could occur here on earth, all by itself.
Just check back what I have been saying in earlier posts, a couple of examples:-
“Of course Hoyle had his own ideas – he supported a version of Panspermia theory….I am saying Fred Hoyle did not support Darwinian evolution, which is the entire subject of Prothero’s book.”
“The facts are that both these gentlemen do not accept Darwinian evolution to be a viable idea.”
"I have been saying the entire time that Hoyle rejected Neo-Darwinian evolution – i.e. natural selection, taking place self contained, here on Earth."
Oh, so now you choose to clarify your term. Too bad you didn't do so at the first.
Q, you said that Hoyle rejected "evolution." You didn't say he rejected the mechanisms of how evolution happened. Do you understand this?
And I had no idea of what you were talking about, or trying to get at with your "Darwinian," "Neo-Darwinian," "universal," and "standard" evolution. That is why I wanted you to explain these terms. If you had simply done so then I would have seen your point. But you refused.
The Apostate Paul
Post a Comment