What would convince a Christian...part 2

Well, I must say that it has been an interesting study the past couple of weeks since I replied to Adam Lee on his 'challenge' if one could call it that to post what it would take for a Christian to become an atheist. I posted what I thought was a pretty defintive list, but came to realize that led to a bit of confussion for Mr. Lee. Not that he didn't understand what I was saying, he didn't understand why I objected to what has been widely accepted by mainstream scietists. Here is a copy of his first email to me.

Hello, Before I post about this, I think there are a few points that need clarification. You address issues like the age of the Earth and the existence of transitional fossils. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists would say that the evidence has already decisively settled these points in favor of the mainstream scientific view. Since it seems you're denying that, I'd want to know what additional evidence you'd have to see to change your mind. -Adam

I thought he had a reasonable request, so I obliged him. Of course any of you who have known me for any length of time no, that I don't usually give short answers. Such was the case this time. I wrote him a short novel... ;-) If you would like to know what my response was, I'll be glad to send it to you. Yet, to my chagrin, Mr. Lee emailed me again. Here is a copy of his second email to me.


Hello Mark, I read your e-mail, but it didn't answer the question I asked. I can assure you that I'm familiar with the usual creationist arguments,having heard them many times before. My specific question was this:Since you don't accept the age of the Earth or the theory of evolution as currently put forward by science, despite the evidence that has been offered, what additional evidence would it take for you to accept that the scientific consensus is correct and that your views are wrong? Please describe this hypothetical evidence in as much detail as you can. -Adam

So, I took a little time to really think about what it would take. I really wanted to answer his question. It has been a little longer than I would have liked to take, but it deserved my full attention. Not to mention everyone in the house being sick for the last week or so...

Anyway, here is my latest response to Mr. Lee, I sent it to him just prior to making this post:

Adam,
First let me apologize for the length of time it has taken me to reply to you. I have been ill lately and just haven’t felt like doing anything. Also, I apologize for not answering your questions completely.

As to the age of the earth and the theory of evolution:
Please let me know if you don’t completely understand why I don’t accept the current consensus by mainstream scientists.

What evidence would I need, what would it look like, and what would disqualify it?

Truly Observable Evidence

Direct Observation

Maybe if someone were to invent time travel or time TV where we could look back into time and have an eyewitness account that wouldn’t involve conjecture but true observation of every detail.

Genuine particle to people evolution occurring before our eyes
If someone were to figure out a way to accelerate the evolutionary process from billions of years to a few days or weeks and we could observe the full course of evolution right before our eyes. This would have to be with minimal to no interference and in the real world not the virtual world. Documented spontaneous generation in an observable format would be very compelling.

Origin of Information
Observation of how specificity (specifically complex specificity) came to be along with answers to the following:

How did genetic code come to be encoded and how is the code understood and ‘upgraded’ and then passed on?
Where did it come from to begin with?

In essence, even if we have a computer system (evolution), where did the software (genetic code) come from?
How does the computer understand the software?
What guarantees that each computer (out of billions on the earth) all speak the same language?
How would they communicate and make more computers with more advanced software and programming?

Maybe we meet a trans-dimensional alien programmer who fesses up to imparting the complex specificity of language, genetics, physics, etc to the universe.—but then…where did he come from…?

Genuine observation and explanation of how an organism acquires new information
If there was an observable and repeatable process that clearly demonstrates how a life form can both alter its physical makeup and also imprint the alterations upon its genetic code to pass on to future generations, then I would take evolution more seriously. What I am looking for here is a gain of genetic information not something that only allows for information already in the code.

Radiation induced genetic mutation that doesn’t produce a breakdown in the genetic structure, but rather add new and beneficial information/structure.

Genuine, repeatable and observable evolutionary mutation/transition from water breathing/dwelling to air breathing/land dwelling life forms would be compelling. It would need to be demonstrated that all the changes be simultaneous (or the organism would die and could not pass on the info) or show how the organism could pass on information prior to death. This evidence would be highly compelling if it could show how the gradual slow evolutionary process could produce mutations that would deal with salt containment, locomotion, reproduction, suspension of weight and lung development simultaneously.

Consistent Evidence

Non-Conflicting Evidence
All evidence supporting age of the earth and theory of evolution must be non-contradictory, non-circular, and not inter-dependant. For example archeologists dating artifacts age by the rock strata it is found in, then geologists dating rock strata based upon the age of artifacts that are found in it. Silly example but you take my point.

Uniform Evidence
If the theory of evolution is true, then it should have explanations that are consistent in all scientific disciplines and areas of life including philosophical venues. (i.e. morality, ethics, rape, murder, molestation, religion, politics, information origin, etc.) All these types things should be able to be explained using the process of evolutionary theory without conjecture or undocumented supposition.

Concurrent, Honest, and Unbiased Evidence

Evidence without internal arguments or divisions
Conclusive evidence agreed upon by ALL scientists, not just a consensus of the majority of mainstream scientists. It seems reasonable to expect that if the evidence supporting the age of the earth to be billions of years old or the theory of evolution were true, then it would be agreeable to only one interpretation.

Honest evidence and truly objective observation
Evidence that isn’t falsified, tampered with, or manipulated to support a foregone conclusion. Also, if evidence is found that would contradict current accepted belief it should be reported, not destroyed, hidden or otherwise altered. The speckled moth hoax, Ernst Haeckel embryology drawings, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc. are serious breaches of scientific honesty that the average layman will not take the time to question.

Unbiased Review of Evidence
Peer reviewed papers and publications that publish all degreed scientists without being biased against or for the individuals solely because of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or earlier conclusions. Right now, only those that toe the line philosophically get taken seriously, not based upon their work, but upon their commitment to the ‘official position’. Currently if it can happen with the Noble Prize it can and does happen in other areas of the scientific community. See this article about Dr. Raymond V. Damadian for further explanation. (He was denied the Nobel Prize for work with the MRI...even though he (mostly) developed it and the 2 that did win in that area were astonished becasue their work was based on his...he's a creationist btw)

The following are not necessarily linchpins for me, however I thought they were worth asking about.

Things that need answering

Suitable explanations to phenomena and consistency with other facts/conditions
Something other than… “we don’t know now but someday we will…” type of answer.

How did the polonium radio halos get trapped in metamorphic rock if the half-life is less than a second?
By what process did the baby wooly mammoth in Fairbanks get frozen in a running position and preserved without cell damage (the meat was still good)?
Why weren’t evolutionary clocks reset by natural disasters? (Global deluge would wipe out non aquatic life forms, as would meteors, Ice Ages, etc., and so it would be ‘back to the drawing board’ for these lines; but Uniformitarianism is crucial to evolution)
How does evolution account for migratory habits of arctic terns (without which over 40 other life forms would die)?
Why are there so many backup systems for migratory fowl?
How did altruism arise through natural selection?
How did religion and religious institutions survive natural selection?
How did the concepts of fairness and compassion survive natural selection?


Explanation of Biblical knowledge of science
If someone were to explain how the Bible got so many things right (ie, suspension of earth, shape of earth, ocean currents, fresh water springs in oceans, stars emitting frequencies, lightning associated with rain (not spears from gods), continental drift, canopy effect, ‘life in blood’, quarantine protocols, health practices, etc.) then it would be easier to dismiss the Bible.

I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. I tried to take the time to really think about what it would take for me to change my stance. This response is not total, there are other questions I would have still, but they would be questions, not necessarily objections.

Thanks for your patience.
Mark Long

What would convince a Christian that atheism is true?

Recently I was surfing the net and came across a page called “Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages” and in particular one page entitled: “The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists, What would convince an atheist a religion is true”. The author astutely points out that most ‘theists’ rely heavily on the “F-word” faith when asked; “…what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist…”? They don’t have any reason to even think they might be wrong. I find this ironic since every Christian I know will readily attest to being fallible, imperfect and not having all knowledge. Yet they think that they couldn’t be wrong and misplace our faith.

The author also goes on to state: “To be fair, I invite all theists to respond by preparing a list of things that they would accept as proof that atheism is true. If any theist prepares such a list, posts it on the Internet and tells me about it, I'll link to it from this page.”

That is what this post is about; I want to post those things that must be proven for me to convert to atheism (which I define in most cases as the religion of naturalism). So here we go, and I apologize to everyone for the length of this post. But you should be used to it by now. Also, I would like to reference the article on our website The Reality Check entitled The Fundamentalist Dogma of Atheism. I quote many areas from this article in this post, since Darren and I wrote this and it is on our website, I did not include quotation marks in this post for things on our site.

In the following criteria I will use the phrase “scientifically prove” often. I want to define what this means in each instance so as to avoid over-lengthy explanation on each point yet avoid confusion from the start. When I say “scientifically prove(n)” I mean: The 5 points of the scientific method must be used correctly and in order without the exclusion of any point. The conclusion(s) must take into consideration the possibility of a non-naturalistic event (to be truly objective).

1. The universe is self-existing and self creating.

If this can be scientifically proven without violating Physical Laws such as the Law of Conservation Mass, the Law of Conservation Charge, the Law of Conservation Momentum, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I would convert to atheism.

2. The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

If this can be scientifically proven without enormous mathematical extrapolation over colossal spans of unobserved time, then I would convert to atheism.

3. Life began as the result of spontaneous generation.

If this can be scientifically proven then I would convert to atheism. However, at this point scientists can’t even agree as to what the conditions were on pre-life Earth, the only “evidence” has been the production of certain amino acids (the building blocks of life) yet those amino acids produced had to be immediately quarantined from the environment that ‘created’ them because it was so toxic to them it would have destroyed them in seconds.

4. Mankind is the result of organic evolution.

If beneficial mutation and transition can be scientifically proven, then I will convert to atheism. The problems here are that scientists have yet to produce any beneficial result by random radiation induced genetic mutation and there is not even one credible transitional fossil. Not to mention the problems of irreducible complexity and the origin of information. Also, I would caution anyone using punctuated equilibrium as proof to not do so; it is circular logic at best and very bad science at worst. The postulation that we don’t see transitional fossils because every so often evolution makes rapid advances instead of the slow modification inherent to the theory flies in the face of reason and the very theory it alleges to support. The lack of evidence (transitional fossils) cannot be evidence.

“…The term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain.” Anthony Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow. 1950 E.P. Dutton, New York

5. Morality is an artificial construct.

If the origin of morality can be proven (verifiably) as a derivative of nature and not in conflict with natural selection or survival of the fittest and if history can show this pattern as true, then I will convert to atheism.

The problem here beings with the fact that no atheist can pinpoint the actual beginning of man’s morality, there is no definitive evidence to examine. Also, for every single time in history when societies abandoned the absolute standards of religion so that they could mettle it out themselves, the result was brutal tyranny and barbaric atrocities. This was made clear from Rome to revolutionary France to Nazi Germany to South Africa.

That is not to say that religion is free from bloodshed (Crusades and Inquisition) but in only one century, from 1900 to 2000, the death tally from non religious atheists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) killing religious groups exceeded one hundred and twenty million.

__________________________________________

Now I don’t know what kind of response I will get from the author, but I truly hope (and honestly expect due to his behavior thus far) that if discourse does begin, that it can be civil and avoid some of the name calling that is so prevalent in this category of debate. I also would like to say that I am glad that this author hasn’t (to my knowledge) used the argument that theists and atheists only disagree on one thing. Supposedly while atheists disbelieve in all deities, the argument is that Christians (theists) disbelieve in all except the Judeo-Christian God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is simply not true and is even verifiable in scripture that other ‘gods’ exist and are not to be worshipped. Etc. etc. If there is further communication betwixt the author and myself, I will try to post it here to let everyone know.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

See ya.