If anyone is interested; I will do my best to obtain a large amount of these books and distribute them at either Lehigh University or Desales myself. Enjoy.
Unfortunately due to family obligations I was not able to - but I have been following it closely and receiving all the update emails from Way of the master ministries - So far, they launched the date one day early due to Atheist attempting to gather all the books and burn them up or threatened to rip the introduction out etc... I think as of last note several hundred thousand where handed out already and they are currently out of stock. It's very difficult to get a hold of the ministry due to being so large and busy but Im trying to work out a deal to get some discounted books so I can head over to the two or three universities by my home in Pennsylvania. You can read the full introduction here of the book:
“I would like to engage him in intellectual combat, but it wouldn’t be fair,” Guffey says. “If he were to play by the rules of reason and logic, I would whoop his ass, but he’s not constrained by those rules, so it wouldn’t be fair to me.”
"There is, however, a fundamental problem with this worldview. How does it account for abstract concepts such as the immaterial, unchanging, universal laws of logic? How do energy and matter relate to laws of logic, which cannot be picked up, painted, or squeezed? The fact of the matter is that the unbeliever cannot account for his logic, he just uses it. He just knows things must be logical. You can hear the unbeliever demonstrating this in his cries for evidence, proof, and science."
"Obviously, the unbeliever has no explanation for his use of logic that is consistent with his worldview. In fact, he must actually operate within the worldview of Christians in order to debate anything! The analogy has been used of a man trying to argue against the existence of air. He must breathe it to argue against it! Thus the unbeliever is reduced to foolishness, attempting to argue against God, while using God's laws to reason in the first place."
You probably guessed that I wouldn't be impressed by that argument, and I'm not. I think it is unconvincing.
If you want to get an opinion from someone who is an actual philosopher AND evolutionary biologist (PhDs in both subject and a professor in both subjects), as well as an atheist, you might visit the blog of Massimo Pigliucci. You may recognize the name because there's a youtube video of him debating Hovind in the past. His blog is: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ Since he has done extensive study and research in both fields, I would respect his ideas on the subject in a way that I would not value the thoughts of Hovind and his friends.
Philosophy is a subject where exact definitions are important and definitions of those words might differ from the way words are used in common conversation. So I can't give a serious reaction to the statements you posted. But I can give my uneducated reaction.
I am not sure whether logic in that essay refers to a process of thought and observation or whether it also refers to something inherent in physical reality, like geometry, or to both. If it's something that is inherent in physical reality, then it is a function of the properties of our universe such as the properties of space and time and of matter - from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules etc. If it is a result of thought, then it is a way the brain organizes information. Humans can put words to logic and define other abstract ideas, but the words apply to properties of the physical universe or to human emotions, thoughts, and understanding of the universe and of having a human brain (which is explainable as a result of evolution). Immaterial concepts and logic do not require some separate creation.
Here's one type of logical argument: All mammals have skeletons. Dogs are mammals. Therefore my dog has a skeleton.
This is simply using two pieces of information to draw conclusions that give me a third piece. How does this require more than a human brain looking at physical evidence? Sorry, I have no respect for Hovind's associate's conclusion; I think it is unsupported and self-serving.
(And also, suppose there were a Prime Mover or whatever who created logic and oxygen etc. It doesn't follow from that that this hypothetical Prime Mover was the god defined by the Christian religion or any other religion or had any of the characteristics or interactions with individuial humans that you associate with your idea of God.)
After two years of debating you on the topic I doubt I or anything will ever convince you :)
Why is it that you are so focused on Hovind and Comfort?
I have quoted and posted works from many Scientist with Phd's but you only focus on evolutionist and atheist's work.
Are these men not credible? Are they wrong because they are Believers and Christians?
Dr. John Lennox who debated Richard Dawkins and if I might say for lack of a better term "whipped his but"
About JohnJohn Lennox MA, MA(Bioethics), PhD., DPhil, DSc., is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College. He is also Lecturer at Wycliffe-Hall, University of Oxford
He also does a wonderful job proving that scales cannot evolve into complex feathers/wings etc.
And how about Dr. Jason Lisle Phd in Astrophysics? Are these men wrong because they believe in the bible and will not compromise where the evidence leads them and stick to a six day literal 24/hr creation?
Why are your scientist right and these wrong? It goes back to our presuppositions.
I had read about Menton before because someone pointed me to an AIG essay of his about Tiktaalit, and also I read a blog post about a talk he gives at the AIG creation museum.
His credentials are good, and his research articles look like standard cell biology and anatomy. So I can't criticize him for his science in that part of his life.
His research does not add anything to the creationist position; his research was not about anything relating to evolution. It looks like standard cell biology. So he did not produce any particular infomation specifically supportive of creationism, FWIW.
I don't know why he can do respectable science and yet be a YEC and a writer for AIG, but I guess people can compartmentalize.
From what I read on the AIG site, the people who write for that site have to affirm the YEC position. And as far as I can tell, the purpose of the AIG essays is to add confidence to laypeople who believe in the YEC position from their religious beliefs but are unclear on science. I see it as a propaganda site. The essay I read by Menton used words to make it seem as though the evolutionary biologists were threatened by various results. As a scientist I'd think he would try to be more accurate. So I am not impressed by his AIG articles.
The blog article was here: http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/09/13/creation-museum-microscarium/
The blogger wrote about Menton's talk at the creation museum. Hereported Menton saying some things about evolution and the tongue which I thought was just silly and which sounded like Menton had an unclear understanding of evolution - strange, with his credentials. Reading that made me lose some respect for Menton.
(OTOH, the blogger thought Menton made a big error about the placenta and I think this was more likely to be a case where the blogger misheard him or Menton worded it wrong by mistake. I do think Menton is informed about the anatomy of the placenta.)
I've read something about Lisle - he is also connected with AIG. But that's all I know. I haven't yet read anything by the other perosn you mentioned.
I do have respect for that blogger whose URL I posted a while ago - Todd Wood of toddsblog.
The first one is on feathers because you mentioned feathers and scales in your comment about Menton. I was going to read about feathers and scales after your coment so this caught my eye. No special argument here, just a description of new info on feathers. It is from a standard biology perspective, so of course it is not creationist. But still, you might find the biology interesting.
(In general, this blog talks about some recent research papers that the blogger found interesting; you might enjoy his other articles.)
The other blog essay in a different blog is about being a skeptic. I hope you'll read this particular article. However I don't think you would like this blog in general, to put it mildly.
10 comments:
So.... did you give out books today?
Unfortunately due to family obligations I was not able to - but I have been following it closely and receiving all the update emails from Way of the master ministries - So far, they launched the date one day early due to Atheist attempting to gather all the books and burn them up or threatened to rip the introduction out etc... I think as of last note several hundred thousand where handed out already and they are currently out of stock. It's very difficult to get a hold of the ministry due to being so large and busy but Im trying to work out a deal to get some discounted books so I can head over to the two or three universities by my home in Pennsylvania. You can read the full introduction here of the book:
50 Page Intro:
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383&utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Image+-+Origin+of+Species&utm_content=jsirianni7@gmail.com&utm_campaign=We+Are+Ready+/+SOBE+Textbook+50%25+Off
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/dec/02/ut-professor-considers-legal-action-over-use-charl/
Now that's very interesting:
“I would like to engage him in intellectual combat, but it wouldn’t be fair,” Guffey says. “If he were to play by the rules of reason and logic, I would whoop his ass, but he’s not constrained by those rules, so it wouldn’t be fair to me.”
Here's a link for you
http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=153
"There is, however, a fundamental problem with this worldview. How does it account for abstract concepts such as the immaterial, unchanging, universal laws of logic? How do energy and matter relate to laws of logic, which cannot be picked up, painted, or squeezed? The fact of the matter is that the unbeliever cannot account for his logic, he just uses it. He just knows things must be logical. You can hear the unbeliever demonstrating this in his cries for evidence, proof, and science."
"Obviously, the unbeliever has no explanation for his use of logic that is consistent with his worldview. In fact, he must actually operate within the worldview of Christians in order to debate anything! The analogy has been used of a man trying to argue against the existence of air. He must breathe it to argue against it! Thus the unbeliever is reduced to foolishness, attempting to argue against God, while using God's laws to reason in the first place."
You probably guessed that I wouldn't be impressed by that argument, and I'm not. I think it is unconvincing.
If you want to get an opinion from someone who is an actual philosopher AND evolutionary biologist (PhDs in both subject and a professor in both subjects), as well as an atheist, you might visit the blog of Massimo Pigliucci. You may recognize the name because there's a youtube video of him debating Hovind in the past.
His blog is:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/
Since he has done extensive study and research in both fields, I would respect his ideas on the subject in a way that I would not value the thoughts of Hovind and his friends.
Philosophy is a subject where exact definitions are important and definitions of those words might differ from the way words are used in common conversation. So I can't give a serious reaction to the statements you posted. But I can give my uneducated reaction.
I am not sure whether logic in that essay refers to a process of thought and observation or whether it also refers to something inherent in physical reality, like geometry, or to both. If it's something that is inherent in physical reality, then it is a function of the properties of our universe such as the properties of space and time and of matter - from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules etc. If it is a result of thought, then it is a way the brain organizes information. Humans can put words to logic and define other abstract ideas, but the words apply to properties of the physical universe or to human emotions, thoughts, and understanding of the universe and of having a human brain (which is explainable as a result of evolution). Immaterial concepts and logic do not require some separate creation.
Here's one type of logical argument:
All mammals have skeletons.
Dogs are mammals.
Therefore my dog has a skeleton.
This is simply using two pieces of information to draw conclusions that give me a third piece. How does this require more than a human brain looking at physical evidence? Sorry, I have no respect for Hovind's associate's conclusion; I think it is unsupported and self-serving.
(And also, suppose there were a Prime Mover or whatever who created logic and oxygen etc. It doesn't follow from that that this hypothetical Prime Mover was the god defined by the Christian religion or any other religion or had any of the characteristics or interactions with individuial humans that you associate with your idea of God.)
After two years of debating you on the topic I doubt I or anything will ever convince you :)
Why is it that you are so focused on Hovind and Comfort?
I have quoted and posted works from many Scientist with Phd's but you only focus on evolutionist and atheist's work.
Are these men not credible? Are they wrong because they are Believers and Christians?
Dr. John Lennox who debated Richard Dawkins and if I might say for lack of a better term "whipped his but"
About JohnJohn Lennox MA, MA(Bioethics), PhD., DPhil, DSc., is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College. He is also Lecturer at Wycliffe-Hall, University of Oxford
Dr. David Menton (Answers in Genesis)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/bios/d_menton.asp
He also does a wonderful job proving that scales cannot evolve into complex feathers/wings etc.
And how about Dr. Jason Lisle Phd in Astrophysics? Are these men wrong because they believe in the bible and will not compromise where the evidence leads them and stick to a six day literal 24/hr creation?
Why are your scientist right and these wrong? It goes back to our presuppositions.
Joe
I had read about Menton before because someone pointed me to an AIG essay of his about Tiktaalit, and also I read a blog post about a talk he gives at the AIG creation museum.
His credentials are good, and his research articles look like standard cell biology and anatomy. So I can't criticize him for his science in that part of his life.
His research does not add anything to the creationist position; his research was not about anything relating to evolution. It looks like standard cell biology. So he did not produce any particular infomation specifically supportive of creationism, FWIW.
I don't know why he can do respectable science and yet be a YEC and a writer for AIG, but I guess people can compartmentalize.
From what I read on the AIG site, the people who write for that site have to affirm the YEC position. And as far as I can tell, the purpose of the AIG essays is to add confidence to laypeople who believe in the YEC position from their religious beliefs but are unclear on science. I see it as a propaganda site. The essay I read by Menton used words to make it seem as though the evolutionary biologists were threatened by various results. As a scientist I'd think he would try to be more accurate. So I am not impressed by his AIG articles.
The blog article was here:
http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/09/13/creation-museum-microscarium/
The blogger wrote about Menton's talk at the creation museum. Hereported Menton saying some things about evolution and the tongue which I thought was just silly and which sounded like Menton had an unclear understanding of evolution - strange, with his credentials. Reading that made me lose some respect for Menton.
(OTOH, the blogger thought Menton made a big error about the placenta and I think this was more likely to be a case where the blogger misheard him or Menton worded it wrong by mistake. I do think Menton is informed about the anatomy of the placenta.)
I've read something about Lisle - he is also connected with AIG. But that's all I know. I haven't yet read anything by the other perosn you mentioned.
I do have respect for that blogger whose URL I posted a while ago - Todd Wood of toddsblog.
Here are links to essays on two blogs I follow.
The first one is on feathers because you mentioned feathers and scales in your comment about Menton. I was going to read about feathers and scales after your coment so this caught my eye. No special argument here, just a description of new info on feathers. It is from a standard biology perspective, so of course it is not creationist. But still, you might find the biology interesting.
(In general, this blog talks about some recent research papers that the blogger found interesting; you might enjoy his other articles.)
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/an_insiders_look_at_the_feather_a_marvel_of_bioengineering.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2FRuxi+%28Not+Exactly+Rocket+Science%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
The other blog essay in a different blog is about being a skeptic.
I hope you'll read this particular article. However I don't think you would like this blog in general, to put it mildly.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/12/skeptics_how_do_you_know_what.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GregLadensBlog+%28Greg+Laden%27s+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Thank you very much for compiling that
Post a Comment