Sinners & Saints

6 comments so far

1. Feb 8, 2007A nice Atheist   #

   So I listen to the show with an open mind:

   “We agree with Dawkins, a lot of Christianity and so called religion is harmful”
   glad you agree

   “It [Atheism] cannot account for absolute standards of morality”
   Because there are none, What we view as moral today is different then what they viewed as moral 2000 years ago. They found it moral that Joshua caused the extinction by genocide of 7 Nations, They found it moral that the Levite man would offer his daughter and the guests mistress to the mob to be gang raped, Jesus found it moral to have slaves as long as you don’t beat them to much. Now we find all three things horribly immoral. Our morality has improved and we of this century hold that Human life has more value then at any other time in history. Absolute moral standards are not only nonexistent but are horrible since they would stop morality from evolving into a more caring and honest form as it has in the past 10,000 years.

   “Boeing 747 argument is his main argument”
   First off this is not Dawkins central argument, it is one of many he offers.

   “After all by our own experience you don’t have anything complex that was designed”
   Yes you do. You have Snowflakes, You have Solar Fusion, You have Rainbows, you have Fluid Polyhedras. All these things are complex, none of them were designed, so by my experience we do have complex things that were not designed. They just use man-made objects as their argument.

   “Natural Selection is based upon a violation of the laws of Logic”
   actually their argument is a violation of logic, reasoning and reality. They use the eye as an example and throw in “we don’t have any examples of intermediary’s” which is a lie, Cave worms have sense organs closely related to eyes. They can sense light changes but cannot sense objects. They can see in a very mediocre sense. One of many examples.

   “How still do you get from nothing to something”
   They try to refute Evolution by bringing up origin. Evolution and origin are two different things. Evolution happens all around us at all times over all of history since origin. So evolution is very probable compared to Origin, which only had to happen once. Something that happened once in 4 billion years is not the same thing as evolution through natural selection.

   “Their are no intermediaries between nothing and something. that is a violation of the law of non-contradiction”
   He tries to say you need intermediaries between nothing and something, Well are proteins nothing or something? are complex protein strands nothing or something? are complex protein such as RNA nothing or something? Virus’s nothing or something? he is shooting himself in the foot since none of this count as life when we use the word yet they are the foundations of life, so they are ‘nothing’ that through mutation turn into ‘something’. Something need only be something self-replicating which viruses and RNA do. What I’m basically getting at is he is drawing a meaningless line in the sand, no one says nothing turned into something. Since we’re talking about something called proteins, carbon, elements, etc etc. People use this argument for origin of universe too and are again refuted by singularities which do just that and of which are in the universe in immense quantities (Black Holes) which by the way do create matter from nothing. (Google for Vacuum energy at event horizons for an explanation)

   “Evolutionary theorists will refuse to answer it. will duck it and…”
   I just refuted it.

   “They directly contradict evidence and ignore gaps…. where are the transitional forms”
   Again they don’t understand evolutionary theories. You want a transitional form, look in the mirror. Every fossil and every living species IS A TRANSITIONAL form. We have not stopped evolving nor has anything else. Every time scientist find a new fossil that fits nicely between two others species as a transitional form, creationist decide instead to say that “ahah scientist now have to gaps to explain, where is the transitional fossil proving the first species turned into the newly found one, and where is the fossil to prove the newly found one turned into the second species” This is a stupid and irrational argument.

   “Reptile turned into a bird, where is it”
   how about Sinosauropteryx, Archaeopteryx or pterodactyls, Which are bird-like reptiles, and you have Rahonavis and Buitreraptor gonzalezorum which are reptile-like Birds

   “It is riddled with all kinds of assumptions”
   again no it isn’t, they have not proved anything but have simply made things up or disregarded evidence either on purpose or from ignorance

   ——————–

   “The conclusions which natural selection draws contradict what it is supposed to be in the first place, You need the law of.. Induction, logic, uniformity of nature and Natural Selection cannot account for them”
   Um this is where they just go off the deep end. Natural selection is not a theory of everything. It isn’t a theory that explains how galaxies are formed, it does not explain gravity. We have other theories to explain other things. Also they turn the scientific meaning of ‘law’ and bastardize it. there is no such thing as a LAW of induction or a LAW of logic. These are human conceits that help us organize our thoughts and better explain reality. They are not laws in any way. If humanity would go extinct so would logic and induction (on earth anyways). On the other hand Gravity and Evolution would keep moving onwards.

   ———

   In conclusion these two guys disregard evidence, mount false arguments, make things up, speak illogically and in the end have nothing new or relevant to say.
   Buried for inaccuracy and lameness

2. Feb 13, 2007Rev. Kaloostian   #

   “You’ve made your program into a complete waste of time to listen to and I feel like an idiot for listening to it . . . Gentlemen, I wish you the best of luck in the future, but you have lost me as a listener, to be sure. One program was much more than enough.”

   [That quote comes from a lengthy, thoughtful critique we received, to which we thought to direct you, as it was originally (before we reorganized the show) submitted as a comment on our site. Our thanks to its author for revising his thoughts to fit the reorganized show. You can find his critique here: http://derekwyatt.org/page0/files/747_Gambit_rebuttal_rebuttal.html ; after which, if you like, you may return here to get our five basic thoughts on it. –AK]

   1. Arguments about God’s existence, including the UB747G, never restrict themselves to questions about the natural world. For one thing, no argument about anything can do that, because certain supernatural presuppositions are required for any rational argumentation. For another thing, though their scope appears limited in this way because of the naturalist presuppositions particular to certain arguments, they explicitly draw conclusions that speak of “God”, thereby making questions of “reality”/”the answer to life, the universe, everything” an integral part of their arguments. This is exactly our first critique. Since without the Christian God there is no philosophically coherent foundation for any sort of statistical analysis of the natural world the first place, the UB747G borrows the Christian theistic worldview in order to try and refute it.

   2. This idea is also at play in part of our second argument, that “Darwinian evolution by natural selection directly violates logical principles.” The reason the inability of this theory to account for the law of non-contradiction is the big fat gorilla in the room is NOT because its use of that law inherently disproves evolution, but because this evolution is used as a necessary part of an argument concluding with the denial of the Christian God. Without the Christian God there is no philosophically coherent foundation for the law of non-contradiction, so again, the UB747G is found borrowing the Christian theistic worldview in order to try and refute it.

   3. We readily admit that we share many presuppositions that naturalists have, as you point out: “Well, guys, you need the Uniformity of Nature to explain anything. The UoN states that things behave themselves in nature. If they didn’t, we couldn’t fly planes, we couldn’t walk, we couldn’t breathe, we couldn’t do anything. So, yes, this argument depends on the UoN, but no more than you do to survive or to create this program.” We, everyone, shares the conviction that the laws of logic are invariable, that moral standards are absolute, etc. Our worldview has a foundation for these things; whereas the UB747G uses them but draws a conclusion that undercuts any possible foundation for them.

   4. As to our use of the word “chance”: Point taken, and we don’t mean to mislead there. The theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, on its own presuppositions, is really the opposite of chance, as it’s understood to be the deliberate, grinding crane of which Dawkins speaks. Though “chance” was a poor word choice, we meant it to reflect both the impersonality and the philosophical incoherence of this proposed explanatory crane.

   5. As to our stated and implied explanation and analysis of the natural world specifically (e.g., they eye or eyes, birds and cows, Lance Armstrong, the pre-Cambrian period), and in general (e.g., the whole Darwinian idea, the fossil record, the proposed transitional forms and intermediaries):

   (a) We do not share all the naturalist presuppositions by which Darwinian evolutionary biologists interpret evidence in the natural world, which may account for some of our contradictory interpretations of the data, in which case we believe there is no rational basis for refuting our claims; which point we think is still not compromised by . . .

   (b) . . . your correct admonition that we are not trained enough to by ourselves attempt to make an argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection directly contradicts evidence in the natural world (“You two gentlemen lack the basis you need to speak on these topics. You seem to think that the decades of schooling that Dawkins has had, and the constant immersion he has in the field is somehow irrelevant and that you don’t need the same level of understanding. I hope that it is clear to you now (although I won’t hold my breath on it) that you understand this much better. You require about 4-6 years of strong study in the areas of Biology and Physics . . .”.

   Okay, we don’t take our word on our initial impressions here either; we are indeed kind-of mimicking what we’ve come across over time, without a thorough enough foundation to do so. NOT that we are conceding that any or all of our evidentiary claims are wrong (at least not yet). We are seeking out someone better qualified than us to readdress this issue, and who can correct us as far as we need to be on these matters, and we’ll post that interview when we can get around to it. For now, and until then, on this point, we shut-up, since the stupid-fundamentalist-bug had jumped up to bite us.

3. Feb 13, 2007rjf   #

   First, I appreciate that you guys seem to be attempting to analyze what to you is obviously “the other side”. I happen to strongly disagree with your position, and here are a few specific comments based on this episode:

   1) The eye: You claim there are no intermediaries for the eye. You are incorrect. Even leaving aside a fossil record, there are intermediaries in existence today. Dawkins covers this clearly in “The Blind Watchmaker”, which I don’t have in front of me so I cannot list the animals specifically, but he gives living examples of animals with eyes that are clearly an intermediate state between no eye and the currently sophisticated eye — including an eye with no lens (no ability to focus), and eyes which do not see color, etc. So your argument here is just patently false.

   2) Intermediates in general: I am sure that you would agree that the fossil record demonstrates at least some intermediates; for instance there is a very detailed fossil record of human evolution from pre-upright to today. Your mistake is in assuming that because the fossil record doesn’t demonstrate a “perfect” set of intermediaries, that there are no intermediaries at all, and thus evolution is a fallacy. You either dismissing the evidence of the current fossil record, or just being dishonest in your analysis. Given the dynamic nature of the surface of the Earth, and the specific conditions which permit fossilization, it is not the least be surprising that our fossil record is nowhere near perfect.

   3) Chance: This is the favorite “hole” in natural selection and evolution in general. You claim that no set of improbable events can result in what to us appears an impossible natural creation (the eye for instance). There is a very demonstrative argument to the contrary: Imagine a coin flipping contest in which there are 32 contestants. Initially 16 pairs meet up, and from that round 16 people win the coin toss and meet up in round two. Now 8 pairs flip a coin, and from that round 8 people advance, next 4 people advance, and finally 2 people advance and we have a single winner. Now, that winner won all 5 coin tosses. Winning each toss was pretty lucky, but winning 5 in a row is pretty incredible — and yet she MUST have won 5 in a row to get there. Now, scale the contest up to 500,000 contestants, and repeat. There has to be a winner, a single person who wins every coin toss they participate in. But what a miracle that one person could win that many coin tosses in a row, yes? This is exactly how something as improbable as the final form of an eye can come about from a series of very slightly improbable events.

   The only time that chance really enters into the theory of natural selection is the very first event that created self-replicating organisms. Science makes NO claim to completely understand how this works. However, science does confront the mathematical, statistical probabilities involved. And given a universe around 10 billion years old (which I am sure you refute), containing hundreds of billions, if not trillions of stars, and hundreds of millions if not billions of planets, statistically speaking, with all the ways in which matter can combine given the known laws of chemistry and physics, while extremely unlikely, it is no where near impossible that an event took place that started self-replicating organisms on their way. What’s more, figuring out whether such an event is possible is within the realm of possibility for scientists to test via experiment. Unfortunately, proving the existence of a creator does not have those attributes.

   4) General comments: You like to point out that science often contradicts itself — but that is the point of science. Without contradictions, and the investigations and experiments that follow, you will never arrive at the truth. When was the last time you actively searched the bible for self-contradictory statements? They are there, I assure you. If you do find them, and admit to their existence, how do you go about resolving those conflicts? What experiments, or other supporting empirical evidence do you consult to arrive at a self-consistent story? Historically this has been solved via the anointment of the power of interpretation on a very few humans (a Pope, for instance).

   The theory of evolution is not perfect. No scientist would ever claim so. But it is the only theory we have to date which has largely stood the test of time, with many, many critics testing, disproving, modifying and retesting its claims. It will continue to change, evolve if you will, as our understanding of the world around us and its history continues to progress.

   Our frustration with Intelligent Design is that it does not lend itself to experimentation as a method of proof. It makes a series of claims which as they are one-by-one disproven by experiment, eventually lead to the core of ID’s philosophy, which is that in the end, you must take it on faith that we are here because of the direct participation of the one and only creator, god, who has and always will existed and is beyond scientific experiment or proof, and furthermore arbitrarily terminates the infinite regress. This is as unsatisfying to a scientifically curious mind as our theories of natural selection appear to be to you.

   I urge you to continue your quest for truth, and encourage you to add to your list of reading (even if your only goal is to dismantle the theories within) the following books:

   The Blind Watchmaker
   Richard Dawkins

   Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
   Daniel Dennet

   The Demon Haunted World
   Carl Sagan

   Peace,
   Ron

4. Nov 26, 2007Neal   #

   Catching up on some posts.

   “You two gentlemen lack the basis you need to speak on these topics. You seem to think that the decades of schooling that Dawkins has had, and the constant immersion he has in the field is somehow irrelevant and that you don’t need the same level of understanding. I hope that it is clear to you now (although I won’t hold my breath on it) that you understand this much better. You require about 4-6 years of strong study in the areas of Biology and Physics . . .”.

   The above is a fallacious argument. First, it makes a claim that is not supported (“You seem to think that the decades of schooling that Dawkins has had, and the constant immersion he has in the field is somehow irrelevant”), second it is an appeal to authority. This kind of reasoning would assume that one’s training in a particular field makes one immune to criticism or making mistakes. I am quite sure the poster would reject the opposite following claim, which makes the same mistake: “Dawkins needs 4-6 years of seminary training before he can critique Christianity”.

   The idea that one needs to have the same level of technical training in order to make a logical critique is preposterous.

   Also, to expand on what Adam said, Dawkins himself has not limited his arguments to the natural world. When Dawkins starts critiquing Christianity, he has entered the domain of metaphysics. If he were merely restricting himself to “natural” science, it is doubtful he would have attracted the attention of theologians, as he is really not saying anything new in that regard. It is his attack on religion that brings him under the scrutiny of theologians.

   Moreover, it should be pointed out that when Dawkins (and others) try to construct “natural” explanations without recourse to God, they are taking a metaphysical stance. All of their interpretation of the data (fossil record, eyes, etc.) are actually historical reconstructions that try to organize the data per their presuppositions. There is no such thing as a “brute fact”. All “facts” are interpreted facts. The naturalist does this just as the Christian does. While it might be useful to argue about the interpretation of the data, very quickly the argument is going to be driven to worldview considerations. Which worldview can account for the necessary preconditions of science?

   I also think the poster was being disingenuous when he stated that his listening to the program was a complete waste of time. Why then did he spend so much time writing up a critique? The comment seems to be nothing more than an insult, which seems to be the MO of atheists. If you can dismiss your opponents as “stupid fundies”, I guess it makes you feel better about your own position.

   The following link refutes the “Lance Armstrong” argument.

   http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php

5. Nov 26, 2007Neal   #

   One of the other posters basically re-hashed the same arguments, but I want to address one particular thing that was said:

   “Our frustration with Intelligent Design is that it does not lend itself to experimentation as a method of proof. It makes a series of claims which as they are one-by-one disproven by experiment, eventually lead to the core of ID’s philosophy, which is that in the end, you must take it on faith that we are here because of the direct participation of the one and only creator, god, who has and always will existed and is beyond scientific experiment or proof, and furthermore arbitrarily terminates the infinite regress. This is as unsatisfying to a scientifically curious mind as our theories of natural selection appear to be to you.”

   Without getting into the specifics of ID, I want to point out what I believe to be a fairly consequential mistake here. It is assumed that the existence of God needs to be proved in the same way as other things. He is correct that the existence of God cannot be proved by experimentation, but incorrect in assuming that experimentation is the only reliable way of attaining knowledge. There are certain preconditions that must attain before scientific experimentation can take place. What are the preconditions of science? Are we justified in believing in induction, which is the basis of modern science? We are not positing a “god of the gaps”, but asking how is it possible for scientific experimentation to occur at all in a random chance universe? One can arbitrarily assume the law of induction, but one should not mistake the necessity of it for its justification, which is not possible on atheist presuppositions.

6. Aug 5, 2008Mike Westfall   #

   Regarding the coin-flipping contest described above:

   Even if you start with eleventy-bazillion participants, there WILL BE, with a probability of 100%, a winner who wins every single coin toss after a finite and predetermined number of rounds. That’s the nature of the contest, and that deterministic result is by design, and is in the mind of the designer of the contest before the contest is ever carried out.