bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/

It really disturbs me when terms are abused and this happens often.  It is especially disturbing when those who are adversarial to the term in question use it to mean something it does not.  This means they are either ignorant or dishonest.  So this is a public service announcement for the benefit of all the adversaries of Intelligent Design out there.

Intelligent Design is not a rival to Evolution.  When you pit the two against one another, you sound stupid.  You are making either a claim from ignorance or are being dishonest.  Both discredit you and your argument.  Furthermore, intellectual dishonesty runs completely contrary to the ideals of scientific inquiry which you attack Intelligent Design for violating.  Therefore you are a hypocrit.

Young Earth Creationism is a rival to Evolution, Intelligent Design is not.  Most Intelligent Design proponents reject Evolution, but the theory itself does not.

Evolution (personified) should take no issue with Intelligent Design.  Intelligent Design (though not a direct rival) is a rejection of Modernism, with its rejection of all things super-natural.  It is not a rejection of Evolution which makes no claim with regards to the super-natural.  Lets get this right, Please!

    This is the fourth article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good!  (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder) I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.

As to your point that “…Christianity is ultimately reasonable…”:

1. God is not a good explanation for the beginning of the universe. We do try to answer the question, but the origins of the universe is not “a question that you must answer.” Science may not know, but it is more honest to say “We don’t know” then to ascribe it to a God. We are then still left with the question – who created God?

I’m sorry if I came across as “you personally must answer this question, now“.  I merely meant that the origin of the universe is a question to be contended with and that science is incapable of doing this. 

    I think it is more honest to say “we do not know” than to say that “there is no god” as in, the seven on the Dawkins Atheism scale.  There is also a difference in knowing something through deductive logic and knowing through inductive reasoning.  Almost if not, all that we know, we know through induction.  Interestingly, much more emphasis was placed on inductive logic throughout the classical, medieval , renaissance/reformation, and the enlightenment ages.  It is only in the last two-hundred years or so that deduction has eclipsed inductions as the primary means of proving something in philosophy.  But that was a rabbit trail.

    To ask “who created God” is to assume God was created.  The reason you might assume God was created is that we have no experience (baring “supernatural” experiences that some claim to have) with anything outside of nature.  In nature things have beginnings and ends, they are finite.  God is by definition infinite and outside of the scope of nature.  God is supernatural.  It is logically possible that God was created but it is not logically necessary. 

    This is why I believe that the universe must have been created.  It must have had a beginning in something outside of nature because nature by virtue of being natural and following certain natural laws, does not spontaneously create itself.  The big bang points to a finite beginning and some have theorized that there exists a never ending cycle of big bangs and big squishes leading to more big bangs.  This just leads us to an infinite regression of squish, bang, squish, bang, squish, bang, ad infinitum.  This cannot be a natural process because all natural processes have beginnings.  This leads us to a dilemma, either the universe and nature do not really exist at all, or they were created by something outside of nature, something supernatural.

    Admittedly this argument does not immediately lead to the conclusion that that supernatural universe starter was Jehovah, God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  It does however, lead to the conclusion that there is something other than nature.

    A colleague of mine in the blogging world, Adrian Thysse commented on my last article, The Fifty-First Psalm in English Verse.  His comment brought up some interesting and very important questions facing the world today.  These questions are some of the key battlefields in the so called, culture wars.  I started to respond to Mr. Thysse’s comment with another comment but, it soon became too long and too divergent from the original article.  Mr. Thysse’s original comment appears below in full.

Adrian Thysse
June 30, 2008

“Behold, I in iniquity
Was formed the womb within;
My mother conceived me also,
In guiltiness and sin.

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.Doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith? How do you keep them separate?

The first part is a direct quote from my post.  It is Psalm 51:5, in an English verse translation.  My response to the questions raised by Mr. Thysse is below.  In deciding how to respond, I found that moving in reverse order (of that in which the questions were posed) will work best. 

    How do I keep my faith and my passion for truth separate?  There is an underlying claim in this question and it is that, my faith is not also true.   I fully understand that Mr. Thysse is not a Christian and so, I expect him to believe Christianity to be false.  Also nothing should be taken dogmatically.  The more important an issue is, the more reason there is to test the conclusion.  Certainly world view and metaphysical beliefs are extremely important, and so should be subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.  See my article, Pseudo-Polite Conversation, for more on my views on this.  

The unstated premises (I hope Mr. Thysse will forgive me for making assumptions) for this question are that,

• Christian faith is unreasonable and not supported by reason.
• I am a reasonable person (he says that I have a “passion for truth”) and yet am a Christian.
  
• The first and second premises contradict
  
• Therefore, I am either making a separation between faith and rationality (as Mr Thysse believes) or I am a walking contradiction.

    Now that I have spent two paragraphs expanding a six word question, I will get to answering it.  First I would like to thank Mr. Thysse for implying that I am a reasonable person.  Thanks.  I try my best to be reasonable and your ackowledgment of the fact means that we can conduct a civilized debate.

    Second, I do not keep them separate.  (Hey, a six word response!)  To do so would constitute a contradiction.  I can not love truth during the week and indulge in what I know to be fantasy on Sundays.  That would be literally and in all other ways, insane. 

    So, it appears that I have backed myself into a corner.  Mr. Thysse presented a dilemma, either I make a separation or I live a contradiction.  I have stated that to make a separation would be a contradiction.  So it appears that, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.  I have already stated that I do not make a separation between my faith and my passion for truth.  I’ll now address the other option in the dilemma, namely that I am a walking contradiction.

    This, I do not accept.  I do not believe that a contradiction exists between my faith and my pursuit of truth.  (I suppose, I should be thankful to Mr. Thysse for assuming that I made a separation rather than asking “why are you a walking contradiction?”)  I find Christian faith to best explain the universe we live in.  That is to say, I find Christianity to be reasonable and rational. 

    We must dismiss completely, with the idea that metaphysical questions, (such as, what is ultimate reality, is there a god, what is the meaning of life,  and why is there evil?) are questions of science or that science could answer.  They are not.  These are not the sort of questions that scientists ask; nor are they the sort of questions that science answers.  If we found video footage of the last six billion (or 100 billion) years and could see the beginning of life and all the wars and famines in history, it would not tell us why there is evil, if there is a god, if he is active or passive, or if he is knowable or distant. 

    Science ( and mathematics, physics etc.)  is very useful but, it is limited.  Science can answer many questions but not questions of this sort.  I do not know if Mr. Thysse’s belief that Christianity is unreasonable is based on an adherence to science or not but, it is very common to believe that science is somehow at odds with faith, religion, and even philosophy.  It is not.  It cannot be.  Science being opposed to these things is like English muffins being opposed to purple.  If you believe in English muffins then you cannot believe in purple and the other way around.  It makes now sense at all.  You cannot even conceive of what it means for English muffins to oppose purple.  The same is true of science opposing faith.

    It seems that in the course of answering the question about separation, I have also answered the question, “doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith?”  It does not.  My faith is based on what I believe to be true.  I believe it was Augustine who said that “all truth is God’s truth.”  This is what I believe.  If God exists, and I believe he does, then all honest search for truth whether molecular biology, astronomy, philosophy, or a criminal investigation, is a search for God.  This is true even when the searcher is not conscience of it or does not believe in God. However, when the search is not really about truth but rather about supporting a previously held position, then neither is it a search for God. 

    Now to respond to the first sentence in Mr. Thysse’s comment. 

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.

The burden is only self imposed if it is not true, but that is beside the point and not worth arguing about at the moment.  Mr. Thysse has made a very astute observation that most of the secular world does not recognize or at least, does not admit to recognizing.  Mr. Thysse has recognized the heavy burden.  Yes there is a heavy burden, but Christians do not bear it.  That is the essence of Christianity.  We have sinned, we are living outside of our original nature, we are God’s enemies but God in his love has extended his hand to us, so that we may become His children!  He has taken the burden from us!  We do not bear the burden because Jesus bore it on our behalf.  As Paul said,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 8:1 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

 Or even earlier in that same Psalm,

For your compassion great, blots out
All my iniquity.
Psalm 51:2 

And later,

With perfume do, you sprinkle me,
I shall be cleansed so;
Yes, wash me please, and then I will
Be whiter than new snow!
Psalm 51:7

Or as Jesus Himself said,

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.“ 
Mathew 11:28-30 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

This is Why Christianity is ultimately reasonable and rational.

• It explains where the universe came from, God created it.  This is a question that you must answer no matter what you believe about old Earth creationism, young Earth creationism, intelligent design, evolution, the big bang, panspermia, or any other theory out there.
• It accepts the existence of evil as evil. (as does Islam and some other religions)
• It reconciles men who do evil with God, (Islam does not) who is pure good and has nothing to do with evil. 
  
• This is accomplished through Jesus Christ.  This is the lifting of the burden.

Looking back, I’m glad that I made an article out of this instead of a comment.  I hope this is useful to Mr. Thysse and anyone else out there with similar questions.  I gladly accept comments and criticism especially from Mr. Thysse.  Please don’t hesitate to comment, anyone, this is a debate after all. 

I read the New York Times every day, and on the whole I find it to be a pretty good source of news.  Though the New York Times leans liberal as with most news agencies in the US, I do not buy into the right wing conspiracy theories that the New York Times exists as a propaganda wing of the DNC or anything like that.  However today there was an editorial that was so false and offensive, that I was compelled to respond.  The first thing that is offensive about it is that it was printed as an editorial, this means no one had to attach their name to it.  If you’re going to express your opinion, especially one so controversial, be vertebrate enough to attach your name to it. I have reprinted the article below in its entirety, it is of course copyright, the New York Times, 2008, and you can go to the original article by clicking on the title.  My responses are in italics.

June 7, 2008

Editorial

The Cons of Creationism

When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.

This first paragraph serves no purpose except to set up the enemies of the New York Times editorial board in a bad light by associating them with the name, creationist.  The New York Times has stooped the same level as drunk kids, who call the police, the Gestapo.  They are trying to generate negative sympathy by calling names.

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.

Not only is this a lie, but it’s not a very good lie.  Any human who is not in a vegetative state, should be able to distinguish between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of one theory from teaching a totally different theory.  The New York Times has effectively said that, “teaching the advantages and disadvantages of freestyle swimming is the same thing as teaching the backstroke.” 

Any theory that is to be taught should be taught in its strengths and its weaknesses, to do otherwise would be to teach dogma, not science.  Education should be about teaching children how to think.  The New York Times seems to believe education is about teaching children to regurgitate facts given them by their betters.  In the pursuit of truth, all facts should be allowed to come to light.  If the New York Times is so confident in the theory of evolution than they certainly have nothing to fear from teaching its weaknesses.

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

Because there cannot possibly be weakness in dogma.

The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

With this first statement, I completely agree.  The Genesis story is a story that must be taken on faith.  However, the New York Times is once again resorted to equating Darwinism’s weaknesses with creationism.  There is no reason whatsoever to reference any divine creator, when speaking of the weaknesses of a scientific theory. 

If evolution has evolved since the time of Darwin, then it must necessarily have had weaknesses.  If it had no weakness then it could not have evolved. 

Students will certainly be handicapped by not having the approved dogma drilled into their skulls.  After all, they are only deltas.  They are not capable of examining evidence without  the guidance of someone superior to themselves.  Instead, they will have a scientific theory that as the New York Times rightly points out is evolving, taught to them in its strengths and weaknesses.  Who knows what this could do to a Delta’s mind?  It is obviously in their own best interest of a shield them from this.

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.

Ahhh, I get it now.  Evolution is exempt from examination.

If the weaknesses are antiquated and long since solved, then teach that.  It is not too difficult to do, “this is a purported weakness, and this is how it has been purported to be solved.”

This last sentence is the most offensive of the entire article.  The condescension and patronization is blatant and disgusting.  They believe that people of faith are too stupid to see that this is mockery in the clothing of a concession.  The New York Times has spent several paragraphs, demonstrating that they believe creationism to be a fantasy.  Then they have the gall to elaborate on where it should be taught!  No I’m sorry, it is never appropriate to teach fantasies as realities.

The origins debate rarely rises above the level of a playground brawl on either side, and that is a shame.  However, the New York Times has brought it to a new low.  In the past people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have argued that religious faith was nothing more than fantasy, but they had the decency to state the obvious, that fantasy should not be taught anywhere.  They also had the decency to write their names on the front of their books.
                                                                                                                                     J. W. Kraft