I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision. Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.
William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No
Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,
Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution
Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage
Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance
Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design,
and Public Education
Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education
Thaxton, Bradley,
and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin
Guillermo
Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet
Rose and Rose-
Alas Poor Darwin
Stephen C. Meyer-
Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell
Guillermo
Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Alister
McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God
Charles Colson-
How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth
Denyse O’Leary-By
Design or By Chance
Lewis and Barnes-
A Fortunate Universe
http://www.discovery.org/a/200If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him. What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog. Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again. Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.
9 comments:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123-000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-fine-tuned/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1655.summary
The National Academy’s way of dealing with the religious implications of evolution is akin to the two-platoon system in American football. When the leading figures of evolutionary science feel free to say what they really believe, writers such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and others state the “God is dead” thesis aggressively, invoking the authority of science to silence any theistic protest. That is the offensive platoon, and the National Academy never raises any objection to its promoting this worldview.
At other times, however, the scientific elite has to protect the teaching of the “fact of evolution” from objections by religious conservatives who know what the offensive platoon is saying and who argue that the science educators are insinuating a worldview that goes far beyond the data. When the objectors are too numerous or influential to be ignored, the defensive platoon takes the field. That is when we read those spin-doctored reassurances saying that many scientists are religious (in some sense), that science does not claim to have proved that God does not exist (but merely that he does not affect the natural world), and that science and religion are separate realms which should never be mixed (unless it is the materialists who are doing the mixing). Once the defensive platoon has done its job it leaves the field, and the offensive platoon goes right back to telling the public that science has shown that “God” is permanently out of business.
(Phillip E. Johnson: “The Wedge of Truth”, IVP 2000, pp. 88-89).
While it seems clear that (for some unknown reason) Dan has chosen not to engage with any of what he asked for. However, for the sake of easy reference, I'll continue to add relevant information to the comments section.
I will say, that when this resource was pointed out Dan claims that "I've read them". That's either incredibly impressive or a load of bovine excrement.
An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.
Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).
[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.
The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).
The creation hypothesis predicts that there will be specific amounts of these light elements formed as the universe cools down. Do the predictions match with observations?
Yes they do:
The predicted abundance of deuterium, helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe, as shown in the figure at left. These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory.
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
However, the Big Bang model can be tested further. Given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of the other light elements becomes highly constrained. The WMAP satellite is able to directly measure the ordinary matter density and finds a value of 4.6% (±0.2%), indicated by the vertical red line in the graph. This leads to predicted abundances shown by the circles in the graph, which are in good agreement with observed abundances. This is an important and detailed test of nucleosynthesis and is further evidence in support of the Big Bang theory.
“An important and detailed test”.
For completeness, we should learn how elements heavier than these light elements are formed:
Elements heavier than lithium are all synthesized in stars. During the late stages of stellar evolution, massive stars burn helium to carbon, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, and iron. Elements heavier than iron are produced in two ways: in the outer envelopes of super-giant stars and in the explosion of a supernovae. All carbon-based life on Earth is literally composed of stardust.
Here's what some folks on Dan's side have to say.
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto1/
One of the key pieces of evidence in the universe is simply it’s origin. If our universe began to exist, what could have caused it’s beginning? How did everything (all space, time and matter) come into existence from nothing? One way atheist physicists have navigated this dilemma has simply been to redefine the terms they have been using. What do we mean when we say “everything” or “nothing”? At first these two terms might seem rather self-explanatory, but it’s important for us to take the time to define the words. As I’ve already stated, by “everything” we mean all space, time and matter. That’s right, space is “something”; empty space is part of “everything” not part of “nothing”. For some of us, that’s an interesting concept that might be hard to grasp, but it’s an important distinction that must be understood. When we say “nothing”, we mean the complete absence of everything; the thorough non-existence of anything at all (including all space time and matter). These two terms, when defined in this way, are consistent with the principles of the Standard Cosmological Model, but demonstrate the dilemma. If everything came from nothing, what caused this to occur? What is the non-spatial, atemporal, immaterial, uncaused, first cause of the universe? A cause of this sort sounds a lot like a supernatural Being, and that’s why I think many naturalists have begun to redefine the terms.
Lawrence Krauss, Arizona State University Professor (School of Earth and Space Exploration and Director of the Origins Initiative) wrote a book entitled, “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”. As part of the promotion for the book, Krauss appeared on the Colbert Report where he was interviewed by comedian Stephen Colbert. During the interview, Krauss tried to redefine “nothing” to avoid the need for a supernatural first cause:
“Physics has changed what we mean by nothing… Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence… if you wait long enough, that kind of nothing will always produce particles.” (Colbert Nation, June 21st, 2012)
Now if you’re not careful, you might miss Krauss’ subtle redefinition. In describing the sudden appearance of matter (“particles”), Krauss assumes the prior existence of space (“empty space”) and time (“if you wait long enough”). If you’ve got some empty space and wait long enough, matter appears. For Krauss, the “nothing” from which the universe comes includes two common features of “everything” (space and time), and something more (virtual particles). This leaves us with the real question: “Where did the space, time and virtual particles come from (given all our evidence points to their origination at the beginning of our universe)?” Krauss avoids this inquiry by moving space and time from the category of “something” to the category of “nothing”.
If you’ve got a teenager in your house, you might recognize Krauss’ approach to language. I bet you’ve seen your teenager open the refrigerator door, gaze at all the nutritious fruits and vegetables on the shelves, then lament that there is “nothing to eat.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXke0dURBZQ
Theistic Evolution: a scientific, philosophical, and scientific critique. Soon to be published, Dan probably hasn’t read this yet.
Strauss is offering what he claims is scientific evidence for a creator.
You have two choices.
1. You can watch the video and engage in a specific critique or refutation of the items he’s factually wrong about.
2. You can come up with some excuse not to do so.
For example:
His credentials don’t measure up to your high standards.
You’ve hear every possible piece of evidence he could possibly offer and decided it wasn’t compelling decades ago.
You don’t have the time or inclination.
He’s not arguing from a preconceived position of naturalism/materialism and is therefore excluded for consideration.
It’s all just opinion anyway.
Or come up with your own.
The problem you are now faced with is that you’ve claimed that there is no “measurable evidence” for God, now your faced with someone claiming the opposite position. You’ve asked for evidence (or data, or whatever), now you have the possibility that evidence exists.
The only question is, will you engage with the evidentiary claims, or dismiss them out of hand and without even knowing what they are.
Who knows, you could be right.
Post a Comment