What would convince a Christian...part 3

Okay, I'm going to warn everyone right from the start, this is long....really.

I received another email from Adam asking for more clarification on certain points and also asked more questions. Below, I have pasted my response to him.

I have made the color of his questions like this while my response remains in this color.


And now………I begin!__________________________________________________

“I read over your list with interest. I have some more specific comments, but in general, there's one point I want to make. I'm sure you can agree it would be hypocritical for you to reject a proposition for failing to meet certain criteria when you accept a different proposition that also fails to meet those very same criteria. I'm wondering if the things you presently believe meet the standards of proof you're asking to see before you would consider accepting evolution.”

Of course it would hypocritical of me to reject one proposition for failing to meet certain criteria while accepting another proposition that also fails to meet the same criteria. That is contingent, of course, upon whether or not both propositions require the same self-imposed standard by which the criteria is judged.

To be more specific, the topics in question (age of the earth and Theory of Evolution), claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research and as such are required to adhere to the self-imposed standard of the scientific method, which is why my first criteria was ‘Truly Observable Evidence.’ For me to believe in the ‘scientific’ validity of their claims, those claims must prove, first and foremost, that they are truly scientific i.e. in compliance with the scientific method.

Does Christianity claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research? No. As such there is no self-imposed standard of the scientific method that it must adhere to. Christianity does not claim to be science. This does not hinder a Christian, however, from utilizing the scientific method to determine whether or not there is suitable evidence to support the Biblical assertions of specific events, processes, places and/or people.

When one uses the scientific method to explore the claims of the Bible, for the most part it is in agreement with the Bible (when it comes to claims about events, how the world works, places, etc.), but certain claims of the Bible cannot be scientifically verified for the same reason that certain claims of the theory of evolution cannot—we weren’t there to observe it.


“Documented spontaneous generation in an observable format would be very compelling. Evolution does not require the occurrence of spontaneous generation, nor is it dependent on any other hypothesis about the origins of life.”

Hmmm…Interesting. I have a couple of questions for you then. First, by what means did life originate then? What is your stance on the origination of matter, the universe, and life?

By starting in the middle of the process (your current stance on evolution as I understand it) or just after the very beginning (of life) and evolution begins…it is in fact establishing the rules as to how thing progress from that point forward, the question is naturally one of, “If this process is responsible for how things progress, logically should the same rules not also have applied for the origination or generation of life?”

“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. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life changes and diversifies over time in response to environmental pressures. It is not a theory intended to explain the enormous array of different fields you've just listed - in particular, it is not meant to provide a complete accounting of every human cultural behavior - so I find it unreasonable of you to demand that it explain all those things anyway.”

I do understand what the Theory of Evolution is, what it says, and what it doesn’t say; I however do not find it unreasonable to have it explain those things I listed. If we are, as the Theory of Evolution asserts, the result of random chance, and a purely mechanistic explanation is all there is, then the logical conclusion is: The process that biologically/genetically (mechanistically) brought us to where we are is also responsible for the resultant behaviors and as such only those behaviors that are deemed beneficial should remain as they are the result of biological natural selection. In other words, if the Theory of Evolution is the sole mechanism by which we have come to be, then it is very reasonable to conclude that it is responsible for everything including morality, ethics, religion, politics etc. Even though officially the Theory of Evolution does not state that it addresses these things, it implores them to be addressed by its silence, by implication.

“Origin of Information Observation of how specificity (specifically complex specificity) came to be along with answers to the following: I don't know how to meet this criterion unless you define your terms more specifically. What definition are you using for "information", and is it the same thing or a different thing than "complex specificity"? Can you give me an objective metric or formula that I can use to evaluate two DNA strings and determine which one of them contains more information?”

First, the question is probably moot as you have stipulated that evolution does not address origin, but rather the process by which things are transformed into something else. However, I still affirm that while the Theory of Evolution does not state that it addresses origins, by inference it pleads them to be addressed.

Now I will attempt to answer your question specifically.

Information and complex specificity are different not the same. Complex specificity is a combination of types of information. Defining information is difficult. I will try my best to do so, however, I don’t know that I can define it properly without the use of metaphor and analogy. For the upcoming analogy, I define “language convention” as: the methodology by which information is understood to have meaning or form, the set of rules that governs the meaning of specific information.

The DNA coding system can be compared to that of a compact disc. The music on a compact disc is stored in a digital fashion and can only be appreciated if you have knowledge of the language convention used to create the information on the disc. Appropriate machinery, which functions to translate that code into music, is also required for the music to be played. In a compact disc player this decoding process involved dozens of electronic and moving parts.

When you look at a compact disc, you see no evidence of the musical information stored on the disc's surface. Once the disc is formatted and imputed with information, it weighs no more than it did before this procedure was done. This is because information has no mass or weight. Without the knowledge of the language convention used to create the disc and the machinery to translate it, we are unable to use it for anything but a coaster or maybe a trashy Christmas tree ornament. This is exactly the same predicament facing spontaneously derived DNA or any information storage system.


The information carried by the DNA molecule contains the instructions for all the structures and functions of the human body. Within each cell resides all the necessary hardware to decode and utilize that information.


If one examines the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the look of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless.


Consequently, my question is for you to explain how a language convention (the genetic code) and the necessary cellular machinery to translate the information stored on the DNA molecule came to be.

Also, when I asked how a life form acquires 'more information', I mean: By what process does the 'new programming' come about? All that we currently observe is a loss of information (programming) not a gain. For example (very simplistic) as we breed dogs, we see a line of breeds from say the German shepherd to the Chihuahua. The German shepherd and the Chihuahua are both canine, but the shepherd is larger, stronger, faster, better eyesight, stronger immune system, etc. This is because there is a certain genetic programming in the shepherd. When we look at the Chihuahua, we see a small, weak, comparatively slow, in some cases nearly blind, sickly dog that can catch a deathly cold fairly easily. This is the result of a change (loss) in the genetic programming for the other attributes. The loss is not in an amount but in specification or direction.

Another example is: white light contains all the colors and it's spectrum is ROY G. BIV. The white light contains all the 'information' (programming) in this case. How would red and yellow light produce white light once again? It has lost the Blue component. There has been a "loss of information" (programming). They can't, they lack the 'information' (programming) to become white light. They can be combined in different proportions to make orange and various shades of orange, red, and yellow, but they lack the ability to become white, or for that matter, blue, or purple, etc. Once the genetic programming is there, we do not see evidence for anything but a loss of information (programming). We do not see a gain. If we did, it would be akin to abiogenesis, except it would be ainfogenesis.


“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. I can't understand this condition. First you say that someone would have to somehow accelerate evolutionary change so that we could watch it happening. Then you say that this has to be done with minimal to no human intervention. It seems to me you're simultaneously asking for and ruling out human interference in the natural course of events. Please explain.”

Sorry, I guess that is a little confusing the way I wrote it. With minimal to no interference, I mean no correction of direction of the process as it occurs should take place. I need to see the absence of intelligent design influencing the process. Someone would find a way to ‘flip a switch’ genetically or atomically or whatever, that would cause the evolutionary process to occur at a highly rapid pace and from that point on would not be interfered with, or directed by anyone.

“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. So let's get this straight: For you to accept evolution is true, it has to be agreed upon by every single scientist in the world? If even one scientist disagrees, that would count as a veto in your eyes? If that is the case, do you also apply this same criterion to Christianity? Do you demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before you'll believe in it? After all, it seems reasonable to expect that if Christianity were true, then it would be agreeable to only one interpretation. Is that what we actually find?”

If I may quote you, “I'm sure you can agree it would be hypocritical for you to reject a proposition for failing to meet certain criteria when you accept a different proposition that also fails to meet those very same criteria.”

I’m sure you recognize your own words. In this instance when I chose the category of “Evidence without internal arguments or divisions”, I simply rephrased your challenge of “Religion without internal disputes or factions.” I realize that you stated that there could be the result of human influence and as such would only be circumstantial not conclusive. However, I thought that if you could use that argument so could I.

Obviously, there are internal disputes and factions within the fields of science. Do you demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before you'll believe in it? Do you also apply this same criterion to your belief system? Please understand that I am not trying to throw your words in your face or pull a fast one on you. I am simply trying to do as you did in confronting me, make sure the playing field is level.

Now to specifically answer your question: No. I do not demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before I will believe in it.

However, I posit: Neither do you. So why would you require this of theism?

In light of that you did bring up some interesting points, on which I would like to comment. The following applies to this question and another one of my points that you questioned, particularly “Unbiased Review of Evidence” Your objection was as follows:

“How do you tell the difference between religious individuals being unjustly excluded from publication simply because of their religious beliefs, and religious individuals being justly excluded from publication because their preconceived faith commitments to anon-scientific position lead them to write shoddy, fallacious, or evidentially unsupported papers that cannot withstand peer review?”

My point is that science is supposed to be objective, and scientists claim that they are objective. Whether or not a scientist is justly or unjustly excluded isn’t my objection. I object to the exclusion. If their papers are shoddy, fallacious, or evidentially unsupported then let peer review point out the shoddiness, fallaciousness and the unsupported evidence used. It is entirely possible that some of the scientists that are currently excluded from peer review could be doing great work in their field. It is also possible that another scientist is wrong in his conclusion yet another in the same field could point out where the former was wrong, yet be inspired to go in a direction that the latter had not yet thought of until reading said paper. I realize this particular example is purely hypothetical, yet it is reasonable.


Correct me if I am wrong but is every scientist that is published in peer review journals/publications always right/correct in his/her findings or conclusions?


If he/she isn’t always right/correct, then how does the peer review process point that out?


How are mistakes corrected?



Isn’t the peer review process part of the scientific method? Aren’t truly ‘objective’ scientists expected to take into consideration experiments that have been preformed and then test the conclusions made by performing the same and other experiments that will either disprove or support the previous conclusion(s)?

I thought that this was the methodology to which scientists are supposed to adhere; yet it would appear that simply based upon the conclusion or a pre-disposition other scientists are being excluded from the entire process.


How does this advance science and the search for the truth?


I would argue that the assumption that "preconceived faith commitments” necessitates the automatic label of “non-scientific” position. I assume in this case you are arguing the “Intelligent Design isn’t falisifiable, therefore it isn’t science” point of view. The problem with this is simply the facts that some scientists have (in the case of Michael Behe’s work on bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and the eye) responded by falsifying his conclusions. So my answer is, either it is falsifiable and therefore science or it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. It can’t be both.

Now let me try to answer another of your questions, …If only one scientist were to disagree would that count as a veto in my eyes? Yes and No. Let me explain…

If 1,000,000 scientists (having properly employed the scientific method) arrive at the conclusion that the experiment supports the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then by that data (and by definition) the conclusion is valid. However, if 999,999 scientists were to come to that conclusion and only one single scientist were to do another experiment (properly employing the scientific method) and arrive at the conclusion that disproves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then it stands disproved and false. A single scientist and a single experiment (which needs to be checked and validated insuring the methodology is accurate) can disprove the other 999,999. That is science. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. That is how most scientists would describe science to be. If the experiment by the 1 scientist were valid then my answer to you would be a resounding, “Yes, a single scientist contrary conclusion would count as a veto.” If, on the other hand, the experiment by that same scientist were shown to be fallacious, erroneous, etc, then my answer would be a resounding, “NO! If it isn’t good science, then the resultant conclusion is unreliable and therefore the point is moot.”

But if that single scientist were to be excluded from the process, then the 999,999 are still not correct, even if they don’t know it. Truth is not dependant upon our understanding or awareness of it, nor is it defined by majority vote or consensus…it simply is what it is.

"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 embryologydrawings, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc. are serious breaches of scientific honesty that the average layman will not take the time to question. So, again, let me get this straight: You're saying that if a scientific theory has ever, at any time, had any mistaken or fraudulent evidence offered in support of it, then that automaticallyrules out that theory in your eyes? Again, do you apply this same standard to Christianity? Have you taken into account the hoaxed Jehoash Inscription, the hoaxed James Ossuary, the Shroud of Turin radiocarbon dated to medieval times, the forged Donation of Constantine, the supposed "Noah's Ark" on Mt. Ararat which turned out to be a natural mudflow, creationists falling for April Fool's Day pranks about Neanderthal musical instruments and fossil humans in thejaws of fossil dinosaurs, and the countless pieces of the True Cross, the crown of thorns, and other dubious relics sold by antiquities dealers and collectors? Do all these hoaxes and frauds constitute reason for you not to believe in Christianity?"

No, if a scientific theory has ever at any time had mistakes, or fraudulent evidence offered in support of it, it does not automatically rule out that theory in my eyes.

That being said, if the scientific theory in question has had mistakes, fraud, etc, and continues to perpetuate said mistakes and frauds, then it would cast serious concerns upon said theory. How are we to know if the rest of the evidence is not also fraudulent? I realize that no one is perfect, but the fact is that Ernst Haeckel’s embryology drawings are still in high school and college science textbooks to this day! Why? It is known to be fraudulent, and inaccurate yet it is still promulgated as true. If scientists that support the Theory of Evolution do not loudly and publicly denounce these things, then shame on them, it will give the whole of Science and Scientists a big black eye!

In this instance I do apply this same standard to Christianity, those things that have been shown to be fraudulent, or mistakes should be rectified and denounced loudly, otherwise credibility is lost for those things which can be supported. The end result is a huge black eye for Christianity and Christians. As anyone who knows me can tell you, this type of thing in the Christian community infuriates me! Honestly, if truth be told, I hold Christians and the Christian community to a higher standard in this area than I do others.

The validity of Biblical Christianity does not rest upon frauds after the fact (of which there are many—you listed several). Jesus himself warns of ‘false teachers that are wolves in sheep’s clothing’ that deceive. If a prophet is wrong only a single time, then the Bible says not to listen to anything he has to say. The validity of Biblical Christianity rests upon the claims of the Bible and their conformity to reality. (If the Bible claims the earth to be round (which it does), and it is discovered that the earth is flat, then that would disprove the Biblical claim.)


“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. Interesting. Again, do you apply this same standard to Christianity? Do you believe that Christianity is false unless we right now have absolute and total understanding of everything God has ever done or ever will do?”

You make a legitimate point.

I stand corrected and therefore withdraw this as one of my criteria.

I would however ask a question of you in this area.
Would you or would you not agree that (in fairness) many supporters (not you specifically that I have read) of the Theory of Evolution use this criterion against Christianity and call it blind faith? I have read many different blogs and articles etc, and have had conversations with others that have made this exact point against Christians while maintaining this stance on things that we don't know "yet" scientifically, but will some day.

“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. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires disbelief in the Bible. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the Bible contains verses which are miraculous examples of divinely inspired knowledge, that has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true.”


Except for the fact that the Bible would show that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, that each animal reproduces after its own kind not evolving from common ancestor, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and weren’t from a long lineage of primates, that the fossil record and rock strata can be explained by a global deluge, etc.

In my opinion, Biblical belief and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution as it is taught are mutually exclusive. That is not to say that there are not portions of the two that do agree and are observable today, however the particle to people evolution that is commonly thought of in today’s world and the Bible are like oil and water…they just don’t mix.


“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. Okay, fair enough. Do you require the same standard of evidence for Christianity? For example, in order to believe in the literal Garden of Eden, do you first require the invention of a time machine that would permit us to look back into the past and observe creation occur in six twenty-four-hour days with our own eyes? If you use a different standard when it comes to believing in Christianity, why is that?”

First off as I stated in my original response concerning the age of the Earth, I don’t think it can be ‘scientifically proven’.


Secondly, to be honest, no I don’t require the same standard of evidence for Christianity. The “Why” I have already answered; Christianity does not claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research. However, once again that does not preclude a Christian from utilizing the scientific method to determine whether or not there is suitable evidence to support the Biblical assertions of specific events, processes, places and/or people.

As it pertains to the Garden of Eden as a literal place: Literary scholars have found that the Old Testament of the Bible is in fact one of the most accurate ancient literary works in the world as it pertains to geography, historical events, historical figures, genealogies, timelines etc. and has proven to be so through archeology, anthropology, and other disciplines.

When we read about the Garden of Eden, the Bible talks about the geography of the surrounding topography, events that took place there, and individuals that lived within it. The geography speaks of specific rivers, we can locate these still today or know of their location in times past, the topography it speaks of in correspondence to the geography isolates it to a certain region, these alone support the authenticity of such an area existing. So, the next question is where is it. The Biblical account speaks of a Global Deluge (Noah’s Flood). It is reasonable to conclude that such and event would at the very least tainted the “pristine form’ of the Garden, so no-one is going to find an untouched Garden of Eden. This relegates the Garden of Eden to one of those unobservable events, such as creation.

Now take into consideration that most of the genealogies listed in the Old Testament are well supported with the only real criticism being in the alleged age of certain individuals. As such, the individual testimony of those involved in the story (as it was handed down through generations) would seem to be compelling evidence. All of this together makes a reasonable case for belief. While there is a dispute about the age of these individuals, it is significant to point out that every writing of this era speaks of similar life spans. The Hindu Vedas talk about kings that lived for thousands of years.

Some early Christians decided to name certain places as historic sites that turned out not to be the case. For example: Mt. Ararat, where Noah’s arc was said to have landed. Who ever named Mt Ararat did so because they thought it was, but the Biblical description did not match their selection. The Bible says, ‘The mountains in Ararat ”, and gives ‘directions’ that don’t match what has now been labeled Mt. Ararat. Bob Cornuke (1 among many) has done much work on this. Mt. Sinai is another example. (How exactly can 3 million people get lost in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years? The answer is that the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula was named such much later and does not fit the Biblical description. Cornuke (and others) found the real mountain in Iraq and found numerous physical artifacts that support the Biblical account including an altar, artifacts for ceremonies and a dried up lake bed that could have provided water for 3 million people for 9 months.)


In closing, I will admit, that Religion does in the end require Faith. But, in the same breath, I would tender to you…so also does your standpoint on the age of the earth/universe and the unobserved planks of the Theory of Evolution (Neo-Darwinism).

I say this to neither goad nor disparage you in any way, but to simply point out the inconsistency inherent to this line of thought. A postmodern division has occurred wherein one has consigned religion to the sphere of “VALUE” (which takes it out of the realm of true or false) while at the same time purports that ‘non-religion’ or ‘atheism’ through the mechanism of ‘Science’ retains sole ownership of sphere of “FACT”.

Allegedly “Religion” is: Irrational, Non-cognitive, Subjective, and Relative to personal preferences and individual choice, while the other is supposedly: Rational, Verifiable, Objective, Universally Valid Scientific knowledge that is binding on everyone. Yet both require the following:

The willing belief in something that has not/cannot be observed and as such is de facto a firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This in a single word is called FAITH.

Neo-Darwinism (along with many Atheists adherents) calling itself ‘Science’ grabs the label of FACT for itself and relegates the VALUE label to religion. Neo-Darwinism commonly called “Evolutionary science” or simply “Evolution” is put forth as: Binding on everyone.

While Religion is presented as: Relative to personal preference and individual choice.

This thought process, that so pervades Western Society, implies a dichotomy where none exists.

It seems unreasonable and hypocritical (as you put it) to classify one belief system as “Irrational and Subjective” based upon its failure to meet specific criteria, while labeling another belief system “Factual and Objective” that also fails to meet those same criteria.

Looking forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Mark Long