Another atheist rebuttle
http://openparachute.wordpress……new-zealand-supports-evolution/
Ken Perrott has recently criticized our use of a Stuff article and accused us of “misrepresentation“. Not so quick Ken: if you read carefully, all we said was:
With our culture so saturated in Darwin-speak, this is a real surprise to me, especially in light of the fact that I was once heavily in that 26 percent.
What Stuff said is in fact 100% true, and not misrepresented. 26% of people in NZ are sure molecules-to-man evolution is how we got here. Moreover, 24% of NZ’ers do believe we were created in our current form. How this data can be reconciled with itself, or perhaps the spagetti-beliefs of many Kiwis is more the issue. For example, 24% state:
God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.
And yet 20% believe the following question should be answered as either probably or definitely false:
Do you think evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false?
What this data may show is that 4% of creationists believe we got here by Darwinian evolution. Well, we wouldn’t expect any less from many Christians who have not really made much effort on the thinking front for many years. Then again, there are plenty outside the church who fail to think very often also.
Now, let’s put the boot on the other foot now and talk for a minute about Ken Perrott, his logic and his website. First up, Ken tells us about his background in scientific research.
My background is in scientific research and I currently spend some time in art (painting). However, I still maintain an interest in science and am particularly interested in the relationship between science and beliefs.
Kiwis who are interested in the area of science and belief will certainly get a hearing here. This is such an interesting area and we sincerely wish more Kiwis were more like Ken.
We should also note that Ken’s artwork is quite stunning. (We would gladly display one of them on this article if you like Ken). Check it out here:
http://www.artvitae.com/artist_portfolio.asp?aist_id=487
Ken continues:
My own beliefs are non-theist, or atheist. That’s a very limited, but accurate, description. The problem with more extensive descriptions of belief is that names mean different things to different people. Also, I feel that if you declare an -ism or -anity as a belief you are in danger of converting your beliefs into a dogma, having to adhere to a defined (by others) body of thought. This acts as an inhibitor of free thought and evolution of one’s own beliefs.
But here Ken has a logical problem. Why? Because Ken “accurately” tells us that he is a non-theist, or atheist. But Ken, being a non-theist does NOT mean you are an atheist. Many non-theists are not atheists; they are agnostics! Names may mean different things to different people, but not names this basic. And what about converting beliefs into “dogma”? Ken: this is exactly what you have done! Do you think atheism is neutral? No, atheism is heavily biased against free thought.
Firstly: free thought in atheism is totally questionable since every particle in the universe today is simply following the route determined for it at the Big Bang. These initial conditions have set the play in motion, and atheistic determinism leaves no room for free thought. What you think when you read this is simply the mechanical working of 10^11 neurons and 10^15 synapses inside your skull, all fulfilling their duty as laid out at the beginning of creation.
Secondly: Atheism is a denial of the existence of God — what does theist, and therefore a-theist, mean? And being an atheist means you are NOT neutral but are rather making a definite truth claim: THERE IS NO GOD! But this is why atheism is such a defunct belief system — because it states something it cannot prove. Go ahead: prove God does not exist.
Ken, you have bought into the presumption of atheism; unfortunately for atheists, it is now an intellectually dead position.
I like the slogan “If you have not changed your beliefs in the last few years, check your pulse as you may not be alive”.
It just got worse, Ken. If your beliefs change with regularity, perhaps they are wrong. What you once believed must either now, or back then, have been wrong. So why are you using your website to promulgate ideas that you yourself consider likely to be false? Which one is it — are you wrong now, then, or in the future?
Assume with me for a moment that God exists and gave us revelation through a book. Could that revelation wrong, if God being perfect in nature and unable to lie, gave it to us? Is it at least possible that God exists and acted in this way? That is one of many reasons the Christian system makes so much sense within its own beautifully coherent worldview.
Having said that, I do have my own beliefs (wider than, but including atheism). They are always evolving (aren’t we all) and they are a source of great spiritual comfort and pride to me. I won’t give them a name but, of course, they are revealed in discussion.
Sure, we are all evolving, if you simply mean change over time. My hair is turning grey just writing this! What I don’t understand is what an atheist means by “spiritual comfort”. If there is nothing outside the box — just space, time, matter and energy, what is this spiritual stuff you are talking about? Seems rather inconsistent — like atheism — and we haven’t even begun on the moral problems of Hilter, Stalin and Mao, that atheists generally prefer to ignore.
Such a long response! All you had to do was check the UMR Research report and acknowledge your mistake. Instead, you compound it by again confusing the two sets of data from two different questions to get 4% of “creations” believing in evolution!
The simple facts are:
Responses to “Do you believe in evolution?”: 75% believe evolution is true (26% definitely, 49% probably) while 20% believe it false (12% definitely, 8% probably).
Responses to beliefs about involvement of a god in human origins: 24% believe the biblical creationist story, 27% believe evolution guided by a god and 40% don’t believe any god was involved.
I have presented this data in a graphical form in my post mentioned above. There is also a link to a pdf version of the UMR Research report containing the data (Morality, Religion and Evolution – also available form the UMR site: http://www.umr.co.nz/)
Check for your self – it also contains interesting data about the proportion of people who actually do have a belief in a traditional god – not as many as you think!
Your other points are discussed in many posts on my blog (http://openparachute.wordpress.com) – I am always happy to discuss these issues.
A couple of points on this:
‘Darwin speak’
Darwrin’s Origin of the Species does not refer to Evolution but rather to ‘Natural Selection’.
The word evolution does not even appear in the landmark Origin of the Species. The word God does however, in a rather positive light too. Check it out for youself you might be surprised.
Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is constantly confused with the fact of evolution. There are a number of things which demonstrate evolution but don’t explain how it occurs. Here are 2:
1. At lower levels in the earth’s strata fossils of less complex organisms are found. Going up through the layers complexity rises. This is a fact.
2. Many human like remains have been found at various stages of development. These bones show increasing skull cavity sizes and other characteristics. This also is a fact.
3. Some creatures are more similiar than others according to DNA. In particular Human Beings, Orangatangs, Chimps and Gorrillas, have startling genetic similiarities. As you know, genes can mutate. Sometimes these mutations are harmful, Cystic Fibrosis, Downs Syndrome etc. Sometimes mutations exist which have no effect. These 3 species share a non harmful mutations of genes related to glucose production. The odds against this occuring by chance are astronimical.
Hi Gareth. As you probably guessed, we don’t view evolution — macro, that is — as “a fact”. Micro evolution is a given of course.
Your two (actually three) points:
(i) Fossils are no longer a Darwinist’s best friend. Have you read chapter 4 in “Darwin on Trial” by Philip Johnson?
(ii) How many skull fragments have been found? Can you point me to the documentation?
(iii) What you are arguing for here sounds like a common designer. Imo, engineers, not biologists, should be interpreting the ‘design’ of life. When engineers (software, hardware, mechanical etc) design a product, they often use a common toolkit rather than reinventing the wheel.
Cheers.
Philip Johnson is hardly a credible authority in these matters. A law professor on a campaign to “change” modern science and lead a return of society to pre-enlightenment times.
No, there are plenty of sources for credible information on evolutionary science but Johnson and his fellow ID campaigners are not in this class.
Just quickly, thankyou for posting my reply, it’s shows balance and willingness to reason.
In point 3 I mentioned that this specific mutation of genes between apes and humans has no known affect, it is harmless. Why would this be the result of three *seperate* intentional designs?
I agree as you say this does point to a common building block. That is why the many mainstream churches (RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbytarian) ‘allow’ belief in theistic evolution.
Belief in Evolution and God are certainly not mutually exclusive.
A strong case could be made that evolution is the result of intervention by a creator, why not pursue this path, instead of trying to convince the world, that Noah’s Ark was a historical reality?
This site on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
about half way down lists 13 different human type remains that have been found, and how many samples there are of each one.
Cheers
Gareth
Hi Gareth. You wrote:
“These 3 species share a non harmful mutations of genes related to glucose production. The odds against this occuring by chance are astronimical.”
Good question Gareth. So how do you know these are a mutation? Can you point me to some literature or references?
Regarding theistic evolution … firstly, the Bible is plain that was not the means used to put us here. Dating issues aside, it is very hard to read theistic evolution in the text anywhere. Evolution of the type required would also be a cruel process, honing a finished product using death, struggle, killing and survival of the fittest to get there — a tooth and claw mechanism.
Secondly, the ACTUAL fossil evidence for human evolution is almost non-existent to my knowledge. Referring to your wikipedia article, you just need to count the “fossil record” column to see how weak the “evidence” is. People today are all shapes and sizes (as are the fossils), and once a person dies and their flesh rots away, how much of the original body — including so much that is required to characterize it — is left?
You brought up Noah’s ark: where is the problem there?
A few years ago, uniformitarianism was the accepted method for dating many things. Not so any more according to my geology friends. Catastrophism is back, and this puts all this type of dating up in the air.
Recently a world expert in geology gave a lecture — a friend attended. My friend has a PhD in this area. After the lecture he asked the lecturer whether a young-earth model would better fit the known data. Yes, laughed the lecturer, but no-one believes that!
Check this:
http://christiannews.co.nz/2007/dogbert-and-the-theory-of-evolution/
Bye for now.
Ken wrote:
“Philip Johnson is hardly a credible authority in these matters. A law professor on a campaign to “change” modern science and lead a return of society to pre-enlightenment times.
No, there are plenty of sources for credible information on evolutionary science but Johnson and his fellow ID campaigners are not in this class.”
Reply: Time will tell Ken. My advice: know your enemy. ID is not going away. I find Johnson very convincing. I wonder if you have actually read any of his material.
As for him being a law professor — that is arguably a better place to be if you want objective answers to the questions. Not many scientists (in my experience at least) have in-depth knowledge outside their scientific specialty. As you know, a PhD means you know almost everything about almost nothing
It doesn’t make you an expert in the philosophy of science, logic or evolution.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT