M
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
From the article << Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel premiered his one-hour documentary “The Case for a Creator” to hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned something. >>
I have the documentary and have read the book. I’ve said it before, I don’t like the book since it basically tells lies about the scientific status of evolution. Strobel constantly equates evolution with atheism. That is wrong. Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk utterly demolish Strobel’s claims.
The only chapter worth anything in The Case For A Creator is the chapter on the beginning of the universe and cosmological and fine-tuning arguments by William Lane Craig. The other stuff on macroevolution (Wells, Meyer, Behe) is a re-hash of well refuted anti-evolution arguments from the “creation scientists” of the 1980s and before. There is nothing new in the book. If you want to learn about evolution, stay away from Strobel.
His Case For Christ was great, and his hosting of the famous "Great Debate" with Craig vs. Zindler from 1993 was very well done. But the science in his newest book is terrible.
The same thing with the evangelical apologist Mike Licona. His review of "The God Who Wasn’t There" DVD was great, except when he starts to deal in science and the bogus anti-evolution quote mining. So I deleted out those boneheaded sections and put the rest on my site.
Phil P
I have the documentary and have read the book. I’ve said it before, I don’t like the book since it basically tells lies about the scientific status of evolution. Strobel constantly equates evolution with atheism. That is wrong. Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk utterly demolish Strobel’s claims.
The only chapter worth anything in The Case For A Creator is the chapter on the beginning of the universe and cosmological and fine-tuning arguments by William Lane Craig. The other stuff on macroevolution (Wells, Meyer, Behe) is a re-hash of well refuted anti-evolution arguments from the “creation scientists” of the 1980s and before. There is nothing new in the book. If you want to learn about evolution, stay away from Strobel.
His Case For Christ was great, and his hosting of the famous "Great Debate" with Craig vs. Zindler from 1993 was very well done. But the science in his newest book is terrible.
The same thing with the evangelical apologist Mike Licona. His review of "The God Who Wasn’t There" DVD was great, except when he starts to deal in science and the bogus anti-evolution quote mining. So I deleted out those boneheaded sections and put the rest on my site.
Phil P
R
ribozyme
Guest
Did Robin Collins write in that book? I like his presentation of the “anthropic coincidences”.From the article << Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel premiered his one-hour documentary “The Case for a Creator” to hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned something. >>
I have the documentary and have read the book. I’ve said it before, I don’t like the book since it basically tells lies about the scientific status of evolution. Strobel constantly equates evolution with atheism. That is wrong. Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk utterly demolish Strobel’s claims.
The only chapter worth anything in The Case For A Creator is the chapter on the beginning of the universe and cosmological and fine-tuning arguments by William Lane Craig. The other stuff on macroevolution (Wells, Meyer, Behe) is a re-hash of well refuted anti-evolution arguments from the “creation scientists” of the 1980s and before. There is nothing new in the book. If you want to learn about evolution, stay away from Strobel.
His Case For Christ was great, and his hosting of the famous "Great Debate" with Craig vs. Zindler from 1993 was very well done. But the science in his newest book is terrible.
The same thing with the evangelical apologist Mike Licona. His review of "The God Who Wasn’t There" DVD was great, except when he starts to deal in science and the bogus anti-evolution quote mining. So I deleted out those boneheaded sections and put the rest on my site.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Rib << Did Robin Collins write in that book? I like his presentation of the “anthropic coincidences”. >>
Yeah there is a chapter with Robin Collins. The rest is just the usual “Discovery Institute” Suspects, I mean Fellows: Behe, Meyer, Wells, etc. Nothing in Strobel’s book is new or interesting. All the anti-evolution claims are wrong. Even the chapter with Craig is old stuff found in more detail in Craig’s other books and debates.
Phil P
Yeah there is a chapter with Robin Collins. The rest is just the usual “Discovery Institute” Suspects, I mean Fellows: Behe, Meyer, Wells, etc. Nothing in Strobel’s book is new or interesting. All the anti-evolution claims are wrong. Even the chapter with Craig is old stuff found in more detail in Craig’s other books and debates.
Phil P
R
ribozyme
Guest
Robin Collins is associated with the Discovery Institute, although he does not actively promote anti-evolutionary arguments.
J
jbuck919
Guest
Christians are never going to “win out” over atheists on the basis of science (or vice versa). Faith and science occupy two different, non-overlapping realms, and one cannot be put at the service of the other, except possibly in the sense that a person’s faith might be morally supportive of scientific work in difficult times, e.g., Gregor Mendel. If you are trying to find scientific proof for Christian dogma or historical truth of certain biblical accounts, you are barking up the wrong tree.
And BTW, to address an earlier post, atheists do not “believe” that the universe had no beginning. Educated atheists, like most educated Christians, “believe” the same thing, which is based on scientific research: The universe did indeed have a beginning in the Big Bang. That is another difference between science and faith. Christians will always believe in Jesus’ resurrection. What we “believe” in the realm of science depends on the state of scientific knowledge, and frequently has to be adjusted. Prior to about 50 years ago, it was still reasonable for a scientist to accept the steady-state theory of the universe. But all recent study points in the direction of the Big Bang; that is the best model we have currently to work with.
All problems in this area are related to the assumption (which goes back to the origins of scripture, of course) that the Bible has anything to do with science at all. The Copernican/Keplerian/Galilean model of the solar system, evolution, and various other controversies were based on this false assumption, which was understandable for the most of human history that was the pre-scientific age. But it was somebody long ago, pehaps St. Augustine, who said,. “Sacred scripture tells not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.”
And BTW, to address an earlier post, atheists do not “believe” that the universe had no beginning. Educated atheists, like most educated Christians, “believe” the same thing, which is based on scientific research: The universe did indeed have a beginning in the Big Bang. That is another difference between science and faith. Christians will always believe in Jesus’ resurrection. What we “believe” in the realm of science depends on the state of scientific knowledge, and frequently has to be adjusted. Prior to about 50 years ago, it was still reasonable for a scientist to accept the steady-state theory of the universe. But all recent study points in the direction of the Big Bang; that is the best model we have currently to work with.
All problems in this area are related to the assumption (which goes back to the origins of scripture, of course) that the Bible has anything to do with science at all. The Copernican/Keplerian/Galilean model of the solar system, evolution, and various other controversies were based on this false assumption, which was understandable for the most of human history that was the pre-scientific age. But it was somebody long ago, pehaps St. Augustine, who said,. “Sacred scripture tells not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.”
D
danielsgram
Guest
Hi Everyone:
Donna
The truth is, Ken Miller’s work has been debunked. Don’t take evolutionists word for it. Do your homework. I did.
Donna
D
danielsgram
Guest
Dear Jbuck:
Donna
I have a couple of questions for you. What caused the big bang and at what time in history did the “scientific age” arrive?
Donna
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ever since Darwin, atheists have believed that science gave atheism the upper hand over Christianity. In a sense, it did. At least to the degree that many people who were born into religion have found in evolution an excuse to debunk their own faith and abandon it.
Even Darwin admitted in his autobiography that after he became an evolutionist he lost his faith.
But more recent developments have turned the tide against science being a bulwark for atheism. The concept of intelligent design as understood by scientists, not theologians, is more respectable today than it was in the 19th century.
Intelligent Design turned the famous atheist Antony Flew into a theist, and it is giving some atheists today pause to reconsider how evolution can be regarded simply as a product of blind chance.
Even Darwin admitted in his autobiography that after he became an evolutionist he lost his faith.
But more recent developments have turned the tide against science being a bulwark for atheism. The concept of intelligent design as understood by scientists, not theologians, is more respectable today than it was in the 19th century.
Intelligent Design turned the famous atheist Antony Flew into a theist, and it is giving some atheists today pause to reconsider how evolution can be regarded simply as a product of blind chance.
J
jbuck919
Guest
I hope I am not being baited with these questions, because there is actually a straightforward if not short answer to the second, which I will address first. Science didn’t develop until the Renaissance. amd was heralded in by key figures like Kepler and Galileo. By the end of the 17th century the ball was really rolling with figures like Newton. I am aware of precursors, but this is the lineage that stuck.
Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, and it is probably even the wrong question. Cause and effect is an artiffact of human experience and may not be the mechanism that applies in extreme cases. But it is irrelevant to the theology of there being a God creator, and probably misguided to associate the Big Bang with “God said: Let there be light.” Even if the steady state theory of the universe had turned out to be true and the universe had no temporal beginning, the point is that God is outside space-time. His creation of the universe would be (to my mind is) a mystery involving something rather more beyond our understanding than that there is a wooden box on the floor because yesterday I built a wooden box.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
jbuck
Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, and it is probably even the wrong question. Cause and effect is an artiffact of human experience and may not be the mechanism that applies in extreme cases. But it is irrelevant to the theology of there being a God creator, and probably misguided to associate the Big Bang with “God said: Let there be light.”
Neither “irrelevant” nor “misguided.”
Certainly not just because of your say-so.
Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, and it is probably even the wrong question. Cause and effect is an artiffact of human experience and may not be the mechanism that applies in extreme cases. But it is irrelevant to the theology of there being a God creator, and probably misguided to associate the Big Bang with “God said: Let there be light.”
Neither “irrelevant” nor “misguided.”
Certainly not just because of your say-so.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< The truth is, Ken Miller’s work has been debunked. Don’t take evolutionists word for it. Do your homework. I did. >>
What science in Finding Darwin’s God is wrong or been answered by creationists? The only thing I see is Behe claiming Miller misrepresents “irreducible complexity” but that’s about it. See for example Behe’s reply to Miller’s arguments in Debating Design.
Here is Ken Miller’s presentation from Jan 2006 at Case Western in Ohio.
Ken Miller debates Paul Nelson, or see the AEI video and transcripts
I don’t see Ken Miller losing or being debunked anywhere. How about some examples?
Phil P
What science in Finding Darwin’s God is wrong or been answered by creationists? The only thing I see is Behe claiming Miller misrepresents “irreducible complexity” but that’s about it. See for example Behe’s reply to Miller’s arguments in Debating Design.
Here is Ken Miller’s presentation from Jan 2006 at Case Western in Ohio.
Ken Miller debates Paul Nelson, or see the AEI video and transcripts
I don’t see Ken Miller losing or being debunked anywhere. How about some examples?
Phil P
J
jbuck919
Guest
I’ve been on a couple of these “science vs. faith” threads in the last few days, and I wonder if anyone has noticed that I come down firmly on the side of faith and on the side of science. I am trying to enhance and not diminish my awe at the glory of God by not limiting him to human-conceptual schemes of things discoverable by science that may in their accidents and corincidentally (the Big Bang, the common female ancestor proved through mitochnodrial DNA) appear to lend credence to paradigms that are intended as edifying, theological, salvific, and defnitely not scientific.
Here’s an analogy. Blood transfusions, as many know, are not completely unproblematic. What most people don’t know is that even if transfusions go well, each successive one introduces complicating factors into the patient’s blood that increase the possibility of undesirable reactions with the next transfusion. “Aha,” says the Jehovah’s Witness, “we were right all along that blood transfusions are evil.”
A faith that hangs on a connection with science hangs on a slender thread indeed. If you think science is going to prove a created universe or ever even point in that direction, you must also think that it is going to prove the possibility of coming back from the dead, or being conceived without a human sperm cell. Is it harder that way? Of course. It was never meant to be easy. It may have seemed easier to our spiritual ancestors, but we do not get thrown to the lions.
Here’s an analogy. Blood transfusions, as many know, are not completely unproblematic. What most people don’t know is that even if transfusions go well, each successive one introduces complicating factors into the patient’s blood that increase the possibility of undesirable reactions with the next transfusion. “Aha,” says the Jehovah’s Witness, “we were right all along that blood transfusions are evil.”
A faith that hangs on a connection with science hangs on a slender thread indeed. If you think science is going to prove a created universe or ever even point in that direction, you must also think that it is going to prove the possibility of coming back from the dead, or being conceived without a human sperm cell. Is it harder that way? Of course. It was never meant to be easy. It may have seemed easier to our spiritual ancestors, but we do not get thrown to the lions.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
jbuck
If you think science is going to prove a created universe or ever even point in that direction, you must also think that it is going to prove the possibility of coming back from the dead, or being conceived without a human sperm cell.
This is curious logic for a Catholic. If you really are an orthodox Catholic, you have to believe that nothing in science can contradict the Catholic doctrine that God created the universe. And if you believe that God created the universe, why can’t science come up with trace evidence that points in the direction of God … or at least the fingerprints of God on the universe? Many great scientists have thought so. If you need a list of them, I’ll be glad to provide it. Let’s start with Isaac Newton, for example, who posited that the universe seems filled with intelligent design.
The Big Bang certainly points to a Creation event. Why would you think for a moment that it doesn’t? Does the Big Bang contradict Scripture? “Let there be light!”
If you think science is going to prove a created universe or ever even point in that direction, you must also think that it is going to prove the possibility of coming back from the dead, or being conceived without a human sperm cell.
This is curious logic for a Catholic. If you really are an orthodox Catholic, you have to believe that nothing in science can contradict the Catholic doctrine that God created the universe. And if you believe that God created the universe, why can’t science come up with trace evidence that points in the direction of God … or at least the fingerprints of God on the universe? Many great scientists have thought so. If you need a list of them, I’ll be glad to provide it. Let’s start with Isaac Newton, for example, who posited that the universe seems filled with intelligent design.
The Big Bang certainly points to a Creation event. Why would you think for a moment that it doesn’t? Does the Big Bang contradict Scripture? “Let there be light!”
D
danielsgram
Guest
No Phil, been there done that. When a person points out the problems with the evolutionary theory the evolutionists rarely if ever deal with the information at hand. As a rule the evolutionist will ignore the evidence that an anti-evolutionist presents and posts more evolution “evidence” that then if the discussion continues the anti-evolutionist is required to debunk that “evidence”. I have done my homework and have argued until I’m blue in the face. Evolution is a religion for some folks evidence be darned.
Donna
D
danielsgram
Guest
Hello Jbuck:
I tried to post this note but I received a message that it is too long so I’m forced to break it into two posts.
Evolutionists prove anti-evolutionists right at every turn. Consider:
“Secular science actually agrees with the necessity of repeatable observations for the application of the scientific method, of which the penultimate step is the experimental testing of a theory. [14] Quite inconsistently, however, the propagandists for atheistic naturalism claim that only science through the application of the scientific method can discover the past history of the universe, the earth and life on earth, even though their hypotheses aimed at doing so are based upon observations that are unrepeatable. This situation can be seen to have arisen because the Genesis doctrine of creation was rejected by “enlightenment” philosophy, and was later replaced by a fallacious “positivism”.” theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html
“Saint Albert also served in important positions of authority within the Church, including provincial of the German Dominicans for several years and bishop of Regensburg for two. “Proficient in all branches of science,” writes the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, “he was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the High Middle Ages.” Canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1931, Saint Albert would be named the patron of all who cultivate the natural sciences ten years later by Pius XII.”
“Saint Albert was a renowned naturalist and recorded an enormous amount about the world around him. His prodigious output spanned physics, logic, metaphysics, biology, psychology, and various earth sciences. Like Roger Bacon, Saint Albert was careful to note the importance of direct observation in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world. In De Mineralibus, he explained that the aim of natural science was “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.”’
“His insistence on direct observation and-for all his admiration of Aristotle-his refusal to accept scientific authority on faith were essential contributions to the scientific frame of mind.”
I tried to post this note but I received a message that it is too long so I’m forced to break it into two posts.
No, I’m not baiting. However my personal timeline begins a bit earlier so that I can include Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, and St. Albert the Great among others.
Evolutionists prove anti-evolutionists right at every turn. Consider:
“Secular science actually agrees with the necessity of repeatable observations for the application of the scientific method, of which the penultimate step is the experimental testing of a theory. [14] Quite inconsistently, however, the propagandists for atheistic naturalism claim that only science through the application of the scientific method can discover the past history of the universe, the earth and life on earth, even though their hypotheses aimed at doing so are based upon observations that are unrepeatable. This situation can be seen to have arisen because the Genesis doctrine of creation was rejected by “enlightenment” philosophy, and was later replaced by a fallacious “positivism”.” theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html
All of that above you “believe” but have no proof for. It is a philosophy that you have chosen to believe (some call evolution a religion and I can see why) even though you can point to nothing to prove what you believe. You take it on faith. I’m amazed that evolutionists can’t see that. There is no scientific test you can offer for your belief. Below are some quotes regarding the necessity of experiment in science from some brilliant men.
“Saint Albert also served in important positions of authority within the Church, including provincial of the German Dominicans for several years and bishop of Regensburg for two. “Proficient in all branches of science,” writes the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, “he was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the High Middle Ages.” Canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1931, Saint Albert would be named the patron of all who cultivate the natural sciences ten years later by Pius XII.”
“Saint Albert was a renowned naturalist and recorded an enormous amount about the world around him. His prodigious output spanned physics, logic, metaphysics, biology, psychology, and various earth sciences. Like Roger Bacon, Saint Albert was careful to note the importance of direct observation in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world. In De Mineralibus, he explained that the aim of natural science was “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.”’
“His insistence on direct observation and-for all his admiration of Aristotle-his refusal to accept scientific authority on faith were essential contributions to the scientific frame of mind.”
D
danielsgram
Guest
Continued from #16
“Robert Grosseteste, who served as chancellor of Oxford and as bishop of Lincoln, the largest diocese in England, shared the enor mous range of scholarly interests and accomplishments that characterized Roger Bacon and Saint Albert the Great. Grosseteste had been influenced by the famous school at Chartres, particularly by Thierry. Considered one of the most knowledgeable men of the Middle Ages, Grosseteste has been called the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment. In ROBERT GROSSETESTE AND THE ORIGINS of EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, A.C. Crombie suggested that the thirteenth century possed the rudiments of the scientific method, largely thanks to figures like Grosseteste. Thus, although the innovations of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution certainly deserve their due, a theoretical emphasis on observation and experiment is already evident in the High Middle Ages.”
“Without experiment nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment.” Roger Bacon, Opus Maius
Another quote: “{t}he strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.” ibid.
(Roger Bacon) “identified several obstacles to the transmission of truth, among them uninstructed popular opinion and long-standing but erroneous custom. (Roger Bacon a Franciscan who taught at Oxford. He was one of the most important figures of the thirteenth century. Bacon wrote about the philosophy of science and emphasized the importance of experience and experiment.)” All quotes are from HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT WESTERN CIVILIZATION by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. except for the quote where I reference a web site.
Donna
“Robert Grosseteste, who served as chancellor of Oxford and as bishop of Lincoln, the largest diocese in England, shared the enor mous range of scholarly interests and accomplishments that characterized Roger Bacon and Saint Albert the Great. Grosseteste had been influenced by the famous school at Chartres, particularly by Thierry. Considered one of the most knowledgeable men of the Middle Ages, Grosseteste has been called the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment. In ROBERT GROSSETESTE AND THE ORIGINS of EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, A.C. Crombie suggested that the thirteenth century possed the rudiments of the scientific method, largely thanks to figures like Grosseteste. Thus, although the innovations of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution certainly deserve their due, a theoretical emphasis on observation and experiment is already evident in the High Middle Ages.”
“Without experiment nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment.” Roger Bacon, Opus Maius
Another quote: “{t}he strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.” ibid.
(Roger Bacon) “identified several obstacles to the transmission of truth, among them uninstructed popular opinion and long-standing but erroneous custom. (Roger Bacon a Franciscan who taught at Oxford. He was one of the most important figures of the thirteenth century. Bacon wrote about the philosophy of science and emphasized the importance of experience and experiment.)” All quotes are from HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT WESTERN CIVILIZATION by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. except for the quote where I reference a web site.
Donna
J
jbuck919
Guest
Everything in your response indicates that this is exactly what you were doing. I should have known better.
D
danielsgram
Guest
It was not intended as “bait”. Recently on a few threads on different forums around the net I have read the phrase “scientific age” or “scientific era” so I thought that I’d (even though you referenced “pre-scientific age” it was close enough) ask the next person who used it. You just happened to be that next person. I was curious to know when the scientific age began in your opinion. Do to research that I have been doing lo these many months, I have a different opinion. That’s all.
Donna
J
jbuck919
Guest
Donna, I said I was aware of antecedents. I wasn’t about to qualify my statement all over the place because I happen to know about Roger Bacon. For that matter, Aristotle and Ptolemy were decent scientists by the standards of their times, though ancient Greek thought ended up being more a hindrance than a help to the advancement of science more than 1500 years later. If you want a true scientist who was devoutly Catholic, go with Galileo (no fooling) or, much later, Gregor Mendel.
If I start second-guessing or anticipating every response everyone from the entire spectrum of opinion and/or serious thinking that exists here, every post would be endless. Everyone here is so defensive. I make what seems to me a common sense statement supported by the current state of knowledge and not at all contradictory to faith and people come back at me as though I was questioning the divinity of Jesus.
Thanks for staying with me (I mean that),
John
- Status