…and this is a 
Handing out a little rope
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 26, 2006 11:32 AM, by PZ Myers
This fellow, Daniel J. Lewis, from Answers in Genesis has come along and requested a space to defend creationism.
Then if the blog administrator allows it, I'm available to publicly discuss creation vs. evolution if we can do so on level, intelligent grounds without childish attacks. You can start with your belief system (naturalism), and I can start with mine (the Bible).
Perhaps the blog administrator will create a specific area where we can do this. (Preferably a place to which I can subscribe via RSS or email.)
I'm open to debate, are you?
I'm not too keen on accommodating creationist kooks with demands like that, especially when he could have just said what he wanted on that thread, but OK…I'll give him a chance. Let's see some intelligent discussion of creationism. It could be amusing.
So, everyone, keep quiet on this thread for a while. Give Daniel J. Lewis a chance to make his statement first.
Comments
I love how he admonishes you to avoid "childish attacks". That's rich.
In every debate I've ever had with a religionist, they reach for the "personal attack" or "childish" cookie jar LONG before I even think about it.
Posted by: Paul D | November 26, 2006 1:08 PM
Can I call a preemptive 'foul' on his reference to naturalism as a belief system?
I think the discussion might also stand a better chance of not devolving into a flamewar if it begins with a description of the axioms the participants are starting from.
Posted by: M | November 26, 2006 1:14 PM
I propose that as soon as someone says "Because the Bible says" or "Argument from faith" the debate is over.
If this person really thinks that creationism is a valid science, then he should argue using scientific arguments and the scientific method.
This might be the shortest threat in history...
Posted by: Aa | November 26, 2006 1:18 PM
"thread" not "threat"...but well, I suppose either words.
Posted by: Aa | November 26, 2006 1:19 PM
To emphasize again: "So, everyone, keep quiet on this thread for a while. Give Daniel J. Lewis a chance to make his statement first."
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 1:23 PM
Um, AIG surely has the wherewithal to open its own salon for discussion of this issue, no? I mean, Blogger's barrier to entry is quite low. I haven't looked but I have to assume AIG has some web presence.
That said, I think the earlier comments help set some ground rules ("naturalism?" We call it science where I come from) and expectations.
If the idea behind holding the discussion here is that no one will go to a debate hosted by AIG, that suggests a credibility issue, given the cost of visiting being what it is.
Posted by: paul | November 26, 2006 1:33 PM
I'll second the call to settle on an axiom list before you start. That way as soon as God comes up either he has to prove it or you agreed to it on the axiom list. All too often these arguments wind up with a statement like:
"If God exists then Y"
...and there is an instant disjunct because we see it as a setup for a reductio ad absurdum to disprove God and they see it as a derivation of Y from an axiom.
Posted by: bmurray | November 26, 2006 1:33 PM
Thank you. I appreciate the chance to have an intelligent debate.
That is pretty much the same thing that I was thinking. We need to first define our respective starting grounds. Without these, there is no plane for discussion.
I openly admit that my starting point is the sixty-six books of the Bible. I base my thinking on it, and I view the world around me through the principles that I learn from Scripture--it's my worldview.
I believe the words of Scripture are breathed by God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16) through over forty different writers, but that the Holy Spirit allowed each writer's unique perspective an personality to show in his writings.
I know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe.
Everyone has a worldview, or a set of presuppositions through which they interpret evidence. Most evolutionists have presuppositions of naturalism, and thus atheism. Your naturalistic presuppositions influence your interpretation of data.
I hold presuppositions that God exists and that the Bible is His written, historical record. And since there are no other historical books that record the origin of life, I believe the Bible is the only reliable history book for origins.
To rule out the Bible is unfair because you want to remove my presuppositions, while keeping your own. This cannot be allowed in a fair debate.
And before you try to turn this into a "science vs. religion" debate, understand that we both have our set of beliefs, and we both base our science and interpretations upon those beliefs. So it's the science of one belief system vs. the science of another.
I've explained my starting point--my presuppositions. Now please explain yours.
(Is there any way for me to subscribe to the comments of this post?)
Posted by: Daniel Lewis | November 26, 2006 1:49 PM
For my part, my main assumption is that it's possible to learn about the universe by studying it. While I am an atheist, I don't see this as an exclusively atheistic assumption - for example, both the Catholic and Anglican churches (amongst others) see Creation as the first and most reliable Testament of God.
If the study of God's Creation and of God's Word as interpreted by humans are at odds, do you automatically assume that the fault lies in Creation?
Posted by: wintermute | November 26, 2006 1:55 PM
Lewis said,
"I know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe"
-Bible says, earth is approximately 6,000 years old. This cannont be independantly confirmed.
-Carbon dating says, reproducably, earth is billions of years old (i'm not sure the exact #s, but orders of magnitude older).
Also, starting this way, you've just set yourself up to have to defend every single fact in the bible. Sure that's a good idea?
PBC.
Posted by: protobiochemist | November 26, 2006 1:56 PM
No conclusions incompatible with a set of axioms can be validly derived from those axioms, presuming the axioms do not encode a contradiction.
If this AiG person defines his belief that the Bible was divinely-inspired as an axiom, then he cannot intelligently discuss the validity of that belief.
To participate in an intelligent discussion of the topic, he must accept a set of rules for reasoning with which the supposed inspiration can be examined and analyzed.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 26, 2006 1:58 PM
On what grounds? We're here to debate creation vs. evolution. To start on a trail of every fact in the Bible is as much a sidetrack from our purpose as me asking for your every reason that God doesn't exist.
Let's start with our predefined presuppositions, and then discuss our resulting different interpretations of evidence. You can explain your evolutionary interpretations, I'll explain my creation-based interpretations.
Posted by: Daniel Lewis | November 26, 2006 2:02 PM
Mr Lewis, I just have a question. When I see a helicopter and an automobile, I know that they are both designed. However, there is no indication that they are designed by the same designer, and in fact they are not. So is there a reason to think that a lion and an antelope, or a human being and an HIV virus have the same designer? It seems to me we should believe in an infinite number of designers. Particularly given that, there is no antagonism between a car and a helicopter, but antagonism among the organisms knows no bounds.
Posted by: mndarwinist | November 26, 2006 2:03 PM
-Carbon dating says, reproducably, earth is billions of years old (i'm not sure the exact #s, but orders of magnitude older).
Um, it's not carbon dating that tells us the earth is billions of years old.
C dating tells us that the earth is much, much older than stated in the Bible. But that's about all.
Posted by: Art | November 26, 2006 2:03 PM
Dear Mr. Lewis,
You have been remarkably clear in stating your axioms. I hope you understand it would be impossible to manage a debate if those axioms remained unchallanged. Assuming your axioms, it is clear the creationism "wins". So the only possible way to have a profitable discussion is to criticize your axioms. And why would we have to leave them unchallenged? It is not much of a rational debate between positions A and B if the supporter of A just says "My axiom is A" and does not allow axioms to be criticized.
Fortunately, you have made an allowance for rational criticism, when saying: "I know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe."
This shows that your belief in the Bible is not truly "axiomatic", in the sense that it is a starting point from which proofs proceed but that is itself unproved. In this sentence you tacitly assume that the basic criterion for truth of a theory must be "total consistency with what we observe". Basing yourself on this criterion, you claim that the Bible is (literally) true because it provides such a consistent worldview.
Would you agree with me so far? If so, then we can move on to compare the biblical and the evolutionistic accounts and see which fits more consistently with everything we observe, and then reach a decision. But the truth of the Bible cannot be accepted as axiomatic from the start.
Posted by: Alejandro | November 26, 2006 2:04 PM
Daniel the view of most naturalists is that we have a view that makes the best interpretation of the available evidence. If as you claim:
"I know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe."
Then you are going to have to back that up with the evidence. Starting with age of the earth and how people came into existance would be good starting points. Note that in your statment you say the biblical worldview is ENTIRELY consistent with what we observe. So if you start by telling us about the age of the earth and how people came into existence, these are two points we can discuss on the basis of available evidence.
Posted by: oldhippie | November 26, 2006 2:04 PM
Protobiochemist,
I am sure you know, but just to aviod a possible pitfall, carbon dating is unreliable once we get into more than 10 or so half lives, IIRC (that may be old info), depending on the accuracy and precision of the measurement (each half life is around 5730 years). It's still plenty to demonstrate the earth is more than ~6000-10000 years old, but for the really old stuff, other radionuclides need to be used, e.g. Uranium/Thorium and others. The currently accepted age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2006 2:04 PM
I stopped reading right there. A book that talks about four-legged locusts and lists bats among birds isn't consistent with what I observe.
Posted by: Greco | November 26, 2006 2:07 PM
Another slight problem..
Lewis: "..that we both have our set of beliefs, and we both base our science and interpretations upon those beliefs".
With sincerest hopes of NOT opening this up to debate, I would define science as a method of SEARCHING for an understanding of reality. Therefore, you cannot do "Science" from a standpoint of already knowing the "Truth" and seeking to prove what you already hold sacrosanct.
Also, for the record, our "set of beliefs" upon which we base our interpretations, is dynamic and subject to constant re-evaluation. Again, not so for the Biblical literalist.
PBC
Posted by: Protobiochemist | November 26, 2006 2:08 PM
Daniel, your presupposition is simply not appropriate. It would be like having a debate over whether or not the evidence showed that John went to the bank this morning, and you say that your presupposition is that we can use physical evidence to determine whether or not I did, while I state that my presupposition is that John went to the bank this morning, period.
In short, there is no separation between your claim and the evidence for the claim: they are one in the same. At best, your presupposition simply begs the question: you declare that the Bible is reliable because it "is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe." but this claim simply assumes the very conclusion we might be otherwise debating.
In short, what you accuse of being a biased presupposition or naturalism is in fact just the regular standard of physical evidence. If that standard isn't good enough for you, or you think it is biased, then feel free to propose another and explain how it can be empirically validated to the satisfaction of everyone. Declaring that this or that set of claims, based on a religious conviction that those claims are true is NOT, in fact, a legitimate alternative to empiricism, and in fact negates the whole point of debate.
You cannot simply assume your conclusions in the very setting of the stage.
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 2:09 PM
First off, thanks Mike for clarifying the carbon dating evidence, which I'm clearly no expert on. Alejandro, thanks for defense of my earlier point.
Lewis, you said:
"I hold presuppositions that God exists and that the Bible is His written, historical record. And since there are no other historical books that record the origin of life, I believe the Bible is the only reliable history book for origins."
and
"I know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe."
Perhaps unfairly, I assumed these were open for discussion. If they are in fact axioms, a debate would be seemingly very difficult...
Posted by: Protobiochemist | November 26, 2006 2:15 PM
Alejandro, you're pretty much correct in understanding my axiom.
First, let's realize that there is no fact or evidence that speaks for itself. Everything has to be interpreted. And we interpret the facts that we see based upon what we believe. In the case of origins, we interpret evidence based on our beliefs about the past. I believe that God created distinct kinds of life about 6,000 years ago, and that creation was corrupted by sin, and that there was a global flood.
Most evolutionists believe that life arose through natural processes and progressed by gradual changes from one kind of lifeform to another. And that fossils and rock layers are the results of slow accumulation over millions of years.
Probably all of you disagree with my axiom, but I'm simply stating my starting point. I disagree with your axiom of naturalism. Very well. So let's discuss things from our contrary axioms.
Posted by: Daniel Lewis | November 26, 2006 2:20 PM
It's like saying you want to compete with me in a game. I propose that we have a race, and the rules will be that whomever first reaches that fence post after I yell go is the winner. Daniel is proposing that the rules of the game be "Daniel won." And then he talks about how, well, all rules are biased and unduly influence our perception of who wins.
Er...
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 2:20 PM
See the elegance of it? The creature has stated that nothing speaks for itself, that everything has to be "interpreted", and so any contrary evidence will simply be "interpreted" in such a way so that it does not contradict the predetermined conclusion.
It doesn't understand that the sword of reason cuts both ways.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 26, 2006 2:23 PM
PBC,
That's part of what makes science so useful, it's collaborative.
As for the axiom being the same as his desired conclusion, I agree that debate is impossible.
I suppose we'll have to wait for Mr. Lewis' clarification. I don't have high hopes for this particular discussion, though.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2006 2:24 PM
OK, so you've given yourself space to allow inconsistencies and interpretation to be accommodated...
... but that then means that the Bible can only be considered as a secondary source: none of the writers were actually there at the time. It's therefore only as historical as any other creation myth. You thus only have your faith that the text was inspired by your god, and nothing else, to back up your arguments.
But if the person you're debating doesn't share your pre-suppositions, you can't have a debate, only mud-slinging. This is because your two world-views are based on different predicates, and yours only has faith in a text to support it. Any argument that shows the text is factually wrong or inconsistent can be countered by an appeal to a faith that your opponent does not share. At this point, the debate cannot continue except as a set of statements of belief.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | November 26, 2006 2:24 PM
Daniel, unless we can settle on some basic axioms of objective observation, there is simply no point to the debate. There are no grounds on which to agree on anything. No matter what the evidence we show you is, you can always complain "well, no fair, you guys are just ruling out the possibility that this is all an illusion, or magic, or the work of Satan, etc." Actual empirical debate over evidence MUST define some sort of working standard, otherwise it cannot proceed anywhere.
And no, scientists do not simply "believe" that "life arose through natural processes and progressed by gradual changes from one kind of lifeform to another. And that fossils and rock layers are the results of slow accumulation over millions of years." These are conclusions taken from studying the evidence in a particular sort of way: that of scientific empiricism. And as a matter of fact, many of the scientists who discovered these things were, in fact, creationists who realized that their beliefs didn't square with what the evidence could support.
Trying to compare scientific conclusions based on evidence to your own beliefs, based on you own beliefs, simply is not a case of "you have your beliefs, I have mine." Not even close.
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 2:25 PM
How about this, then Daniel. I was, in fact, present at the origin of life it did, in fact, arise spontaneously via a chemical hypercycle. Oh, you don't think I was there to see this? But how do you know? WERE YOU THERE?!?! No? Well, then what right do you have to question my word, and my axiom?
Do you see the problem with this sort of argumentation? There are no mutual standards for debate, or what evidence can settle what questions to both of our satisfactions.
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 2:29 PM
"And since there are no other historical books that record the origin of life, I believe the Bible is the only reliable history book for origins."
To a scientist the records laid down in sedimentary rocks are records as well, and records that are more reliable than historical books. After all, there are many contradictory creation myths in different parts of the world (even if I assume you have decided that the bible is the only true one), while fossils tells much the same story wherever they are collected.
Posted by: Thomas Palm | November 26, 2006 2:29 PM
Beating it to death, but I'll chime in too. Your supposition is that the Bible is true. Therefore, you are using it as your evidence. We then have to discuss its reliability as evidence before even approaching the finer points of evolutionary theory. If you don't want to begin with dating methods, we could start with "Are the historical events depicted in the Bible corroborated with other accounts from the same time period", "Is there an unbroken traceable line that connects the original writings with what we have now, indicating no substantial change from the original documents", or "So, what about all the things the Councils of Nicaea, Trent, etc. threw in or removed from the Bible, and should the Apocrypha also be included?"
Posted by: Carlie | November 26, 2006 2:30 PM
"I hold presuppositions that God exists and that the Bible is His written, historical record. And since there are no other historical books that record the origin of life, I believe the Bible is the only reliable history book for origins."
There's a NOVA show called Origins. Worth a look.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html
From this and multiple other sources, I can only conclude that the Bible is not the "only reliable history book for origins." It is a book, but it is neither reliable, nor history (it's religion!).
I would not think of limiting my beliefs to what I can get out of one book. Why do that? It's bound to limit your outlook.
Posted by: George | November 26, 2006 2:32 PM
Mr. Lewis starts by telling us that we all have presuppositions that inform how we interpret the evidence. He then says that he believes the bible because of the evidence which he has admittedly interpreted though the filter of these presuppositions, which are based on the bible.
At this point, he reasoning is completely circular and thus fails to stand up to scrutiny.
Additionally, he makes the strawman argument that evolution is based on materialistic presuppositions. Given that evolution is compatable with a wide variety of faiths, including having been endorsed by the catholic church, this is nothing short of another false premise.
As such, I don't think Mr. Lewis has presented any rational basis upon which to build an argument. Would he care to try again?
Posted by: Jon Voisey (aka, the Angry Astronomer) | November 26, 2006 2:32 PM
Not only don't you seem to understand the scientific process, your knowledge of history is sorely lacking as well. Plenty of historical books/writings deal with the origin of life.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 26, 2006 2:33 PM
Daniel Lewis writes, "Everyone has a worldview, or a set of presuppositions through which they interpret evidence. Most evolutionists have presuppositions of naturalism, and thus atheism."
The metaphor of battling world-views is a popular one for modern Christians, precisely because it asserts that everyone must practice the kind of faith that they practice. That assertion is false, on several grounds.
First, it is by no means the case that everyone holds presuppositions through which they view all evidence and to which they'll stick come hell or high water. Every argument, of course, will have some presuppositions. But the set of presuppositions varies depending on the topic discussed, and rather than being held as articles of faith, can be posited merely as the framework for current discussion. One result of a liberal education should be the recognition every "axiom" is conditional, axiomatic in one area but a topic of debate in another. Thus, a geology or paleontology course assumes that the world was not constructed to exhibit a patently false history in the current record. A philosophy course points out that there is no way to validate such assumption, that adequately powerful demons or gods could have created the universe last Thursday, purposely creating the traces of a false past. A reasonably adept undergraduate should be able to participate in both discussions, each having their own and different discursive framework, without confusing the two or having his head explode.
Second, even if it were the case that people were stuck in "worldviews," it is not the case that these are incomparable, with no way to decide between them except by some leap of faith. Consider some naive geology professor who managed to excel at rocks, but couldn't wrap his head around the possibility of the world having been created last Thursday. Most Christians today make the same assumption. (Excepting some creationists who, following Philip Gosse, believe that the creation of a false history is precisely what the Christian god did.) Were you to come home to find a dead body on your living room floor, you would not much consider the possibility that your god has created a false scenario that never occurred, just to test you, the corpse never having been alive, but just dead flesh created [i]ex nihilo[/i] in order to put you through paces, a la Job or Abraham. That assumption doesn't require adopting a Christian "worldview." Rather, it is the kind of commonsense assumption that most people learn as children but don't even realize they are making until some philosophy course or text points it out. Even if one doesn't then take the rational route of using it for some purposes, and bracketing it for others, that doesn't make it the kind of leap of faith required to believe in God, the Bible, and all that. In other words, the assumptions the naive geology professor needs are ones that you also make. But the reverse is not the case. You have made a leap of faith in a way that he has not. It is logically fallacious to pose the conflict as simply that between two "worldviews," without recognizing that the assumptions made by one are a subset of the other.
Posted by: Russell | November 26, 2006 2:33 PM
Daniel says:
This is true, but it does not mean that any previous beliefs are inmune to being challenged by new evidence. We interpret new evidence not only in the light of previous beliefs, but also and more fundamentally in the light of general principles of simplicity, consistency, testability, and so on. When these principles requiere so, we can abandon previously held beliefs.
It is holding to these principles, not "that life arose through natural processes and progressed by gradual changes from one kind of lifeform to another and that fossils and rock layers are the results of slow accumulation over millions of years" which is the basic "axiom" of the scientific position. This implies, for example, that when we find geological evidence that is very difficult to interpret in the light of a global flood (requiring, for example, to posit a large number of unattested and untestable "miracles" to explain it with the Flood presupposition) but that is easily explained assuming only geological processes of the same nature we can observe today, if we only relinquish the assumption of literal truth of the Bible (and we can always go for an allegorical reading, if we are not prepared to deny it is the Word of God) then... well, then we must deny the global flood and accept the naturalistic explanation. But note that the naturalistic explanation is not an axiom, it is accepted because it provides the simplest explanation and because it has testable consequences that are verified.
Posted by: Alejandro | November 26, 2006 2:35 PM
Posted by: J Daley | November 26, 2006 2:38 PM
I see that plunge had already made my same point. It is really difficult to catch on...
Posted by: Alejandro | November 26, 2006 2:39 PM
Mr. Lewis, I assume from this statement that you are using the Protestant Bible. I've a couple questions for you on your basic starting point.
First, how is the Bible revealed to you? What I mean is that do you understand the Bible through prayer and study, or do you also accept interpretations of the Bible? Do you have any problem when acceptable Bible authorities disagree on interpretations of a passage?
Second, what is your opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, which uses 75 books in its Bible, and the Greek Orthodox Church, which uses 84 books? I assume you believe they are in error, and I would like to understand why.
Lastly, I'd like to know if you think other texts are divinely inspired, Apocryphal texts, such as the Gospel of St. Thomas, and perhaps on the Dead Sea scrolls?
I guess the whole thrust of my question is, why the Bible? Why is your version of the Bible true, and others are not?
Posted by: calladus | November 26, 2006 2:39 PM
I disagree with your axiom of naturalism.
Except that you don't really. It is part of your axiom that truth, or the things that we accept as knowledge, must comport with the things that we observe:
In other words, axiomatic to your axiom is that getting to the truth does not begin with the bible but with our observations. This is also the central principle of science, or naturalism as you seem determined to call it. It is only in your insistence that the bible is consistent with our observations that we disagree. Obviously thats a big disagreement but according to what you have already said, the central principle of truth based first on observation is not disputed.
Posted by: brent | November 26, 2006 2:40 PM
So, Daniel, can I own slaves? Can I kill adulterers? Can I kill blasphemers? Is it right an good to do so? The Bible says it ism, after all, the Bible is holy writ.
And also, God created all forms of life 6000 years ago, eh? Honestly, in all seriousness, do you think that there is no evidence that humans existed well before your 6000 year time line? Or is my evidence just "naturalism"?
And shh, Carlie. No need to bring up Christian history, lest we find dragons! 8^D
Posted by: JackGoff | November 26, 2006 2:46 PM
I like this discussion. Nearly everyone got right to the point- that it can't work.
"So let's discuss things from our contrary axioms."
That's my favorite.
Posted by: asgromo | November 26, 2006 2:51 PM
"In the case of origins, we interpret evidence based on our beliefs about the past. I believe that God created distinct kinds of life about 6,000 years ago, and that creation was corrupted by sin, and that there was a global flood."
The evidence from a variety of dating methods is incompatible with the notion that the earth is 6000 years old. How do you reconcile this with your idea the biblical worldview is ENTIRELY consistent with what we observe? If you can explain this to us, maybe we can decide how and if to move on.
Posted by: oldhippie | November 26, 2006 2:53 PM
I must challenge this statement. First of all, my Catholic upbringing told me there are 73 books in the Bible, not 66. You need to demonstrate objectively why the Protestant Bible is to be the accepted standard over the Catholic Bible or the Orthodox Bible (which I believe has 76 books).
Secondly, I challenge the implied statement that the Bible represents the totality of God's Word. As per John 21:25 (KJV)...
...clearly indicating that the Bible does not detail every teaching and act of Christ. If the Gospel itself claims that the Bible is insufficient to the task of recording Christ's ministry, why do so many Christians claim otherwise?
Posted by: False Prophet | November 26, 2006 2:54 PM
Did you catch the comment by brent, Mr. Lewis? If you know that the biblical worldview is the only correct one because it is the only worldview that is entirely consistent with what we observe, then you're starting out with what you call "presuppositions of naturalism, and thus atheism" and then concluding that the biblical worldview is entirely consistent with it.
Actually, you're probably just repeating something that someone told you. And whoever this someone was, they don't care if it makes sense, or they themselves got it from someone who doesn't care if it makes sense.
Posted by: 386sx | November 26, 2006 3:01 PM
*(with tongue planted firmly in cheek)*
I think today's thread is an instance of "reductio ad axiom absurdum". Perhaps debates about God should rest on the Sabbath?
All joking aside, I would like to see Mr. Lewis define some useful starting points for debate, since the consensus appears to be that this has not taken place. I fear however that it may be impossible from his perspective for reasons pointed out in the discussion already...
Ball is in Mr. Lewis' court I suppose...
Posted by: PBC | November 26, 2006 3:04 PM
If I understand the goal of the creationist, it is to "prove" that life began 6000 years ago and that everything was created by God. This creationist view discredits the theory of evolution. If I am interpreting the goals of the creationist and ID movement, I believe that the they would like our students to learn this set of beliefs as "science".
So, what I want to know from the creationist, is how do we take this view of creation and apply it in the laboratory?
Let us say that I am a scientist working in a laboratory and my objective is to develop a new drug that will fight a bacterial infection that has become resistant to existing antibiotics.
If I believe that life was formed via the creationist point of view, how do I go about developing this new drug? How do I investigate and find the information that I need about the bacteria so that I can help save peoples' lives?
And for our scientists, how do I go about this task using the theory of evolution?
See, Daniel, it's not that we believe in evolution because it sustains our world view - it's that we use scientific analysis to measure results, predict results and measure outcomes. Praying in the lab doesn't help develop new drugs or cure diseases.
I think we need to ask all IDers and creationists to tell us how we are supposed to use their "theory" to do the work of scientists. It's easy to believe in the creation story when your job is to lobby congress or write speeches. But putting those beliefs in to practice is another thing entirely - I want to see a creationist use his theories to cure disease and heal the sick.
Posted by: Mary | November 26, 2006 3:05 PM
Did you guys come in here to discuss the Bible, or creation vs. evolution? I've simply stated that the Bible is the basis for my thinking. For our debate, you don't have to agree with that, but just understand that is my axiom. And I acknowledge that you have your axioms with which I may not agree. Very well. Let's move on.
On what axiom do you want us to agree?
Posted by: Daniel Lewis | November 26, 2006 3:06 PM
Let me clarify that ID and creation science are not the same. ID simply holds that life is so complex that there must be a designer--but makes not statement on the identity of the designer. ID still allows for evolution and an old earth. ID is not and never claims to be creationism. Please don't confuse the two.
Posted by: Daniel Lewis | November 26, 2006 3:10 PM
I've simply stated that the Bible is the basis for my thinking.
You stated that the Bible is the basis for your thinking because the Bible agrees with what you observe.
On what axiom do you want us to agree?
How about that axiom where we (tentatively) admit when we say something that doesn't make sense. How about that one.
Posted by: 386sx | November 26, 2006 3:14 PM
Maybe we're getting confused here, but by saying it is your axiom, what you are implying to all of us is that it is going to be relevant to any debate we are going to have, i.e. part of the process and the discussion. In general, that's what positing axioms means: it means that here is a principle that our further discussions will refer back to and employ in our reasoning. So of course we take issue with it as an axiom: we all HAVE to agree to the same sorts of axioms in order to have a rational discussion. Using different axioms in a discussion just won't work. And if that's not what you meant, then why bring it up at all?
The axioms for any possible debate over the evidence must basically be those that define what evidence is. The basic axioms of empiricism are really the only ones that offer any objective standard that is equally available and open to all, because they are basically just the "everyday common sense" assumptions that we all take for granted in our daily lives and interactions with the physical world (the only one common to us all: you may well believe that there is a spiritual realm of truth as well, but unlike physical reality, that world is not common to us all, but only to some believers).
Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 3:15 PM
Daniel, you are the one that brought the bible into play. That makes it fair game to discuss, particularly when you proclaim it to be an "axiom" of your position. And speaking of axioms, like the line in "The Princess Bride," says, "you keep on using that word - I do not believe it means what you think it means."
Posted by: Milo Johnson | November 26, 2006 3:15 PM
Creation science is an oxymoron; show me the science in creationism. ID is creationism pretending that it isn't as part of a legal strategy to displace science education with religious nonsense.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 26, 2006 3:16 PM
Excuse me Mr Lewis, but your statement about ID and creationism is absolutely false. ID does intend to make us believe in a theistic God. No ID people claim to believe in Thor, Lord Brahma, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster-these entities would be quite plausible if they did not have a biblical world view and were just concerned about "complexity of life". ID is "the Trojan Horse of Creationism".
What you are talking about is "seeing the hand of God in evolution"-a rather common but baseless opinion-which is still different from ID.
Posted by: mndarwinist | November 26, 2006 3:18 PM
Darnit, Milo! You beat me to it.
Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2006 3:18 PM
Daniel, you can't have it both ways. If your contention is that you can argue the evidence for a creationist viewpoint based on the observed world outside of what is written in the bible, then you shouldn't object when someone says as a ground-rule you can't quote the bible. But you did make this objection in your first post:
Fine...you think the Bible itself is a piece of evidence for the pro-creationist side. Then those arguing against a creationist viewpoint, even in a debate supposedly only about creationism vs. evolution, have a valid rhetorical point in pointing out fallacies in the bible. If you want to take the bible as an axiomatic starting point, then you can't object like this:
Well...I shouldn't say can't. You can (and probably will) pick and choose the points you want to debate and not others. But you'd simply be wrong. If the bible is an axiomatic starting point for doubting evolution, then attacking the contents and other predictions of the bible as illogical is a perfectly valid rhetorical argument in defense of evolution. I'd say it's pretty much required even...it's not really possible to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that the earth is 6000 years old and still believe species evolved over billions of years.
Posted by: ikonen | November 26, 2006 3:18 PM
Mr Lewis, we discuss the Bible only beacause of the way you framed the debate. You started from stating as an axiom of yours that the Bible account of creation is literally true. We could not have a meaningful debate of "creation vs evolution" without trying to undermine this assumption of yours.
Otherwise, the pattern would be familiar. We bring out all the evidence for evolution, and you reinterpret it from the starting point that the Bible is true. If you wanted to defend the position that this can be done, there is no need -we will admit it. You always can interpret all the evidence to fit coherently one single belief, be it that the Jehovah created the world or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did. But we will say two things:
a) that your chosen "unmovable starting point" does not seem to be a reasonable one, considering the many versions of the Bible there are, and the many ways of interpreting them (and here is where questions about the Bible come in),
and b) that the naturalistic interpretation of the evidence allows simple theories fitting all the data consistently and making testable and verified predictions, while the Biblical interpretation requires a lot of unntestable and ad hoc miracles to work, and has no rational preference over the Flying Spaghetti Monster one or dozens of others.
Posted by: Alejandro | November 26, 2006 3:18 PM
We're discussing the Bible because you've stated that your position is "Because the Bible said so". In my opinion, at least, that has the same validity as the reason "because I said so". If you want to use that as your basis, and want to be taken more seriously than a 5 year old stomping and saying "Because", then you have to in some way show that it is a valid starting point.
Posted by: Carlie | November 26, 2006 3:20 PM
Usually a debate is one side being for, and another side being against, a stated propostion.
What kind of debate is this meant to be?
Posted by: George | November 26, 2006 3:20 PM
Daniel: You have not initiated a dialogue, but a monologue. You start with the axiom that the Bible is 100% true. Scientists, of whom I am one, start with the axiom that to learn something about the world, we have to study it, to examine it, to try to make sense of it without invoking the supernatural. Such studies have led to conclusions that the earth is far far older than 6000 years, that dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time and to a myriad other facts that do not agree with the simplistic pictures given in the book of genesis. Scientists have thus concluded that the book of genesis does not give a good account of the origins of the earth or of life. Your approach is a turning away from reality, and since it would be a waste of time trying to reason with you, this will be my only post in this discussion.
Posted by: Sceptical Chymist | November 26, 2006 3:21 PM
"Did you guys come in here to discuss the Bible, or creation vs. evolution?"-Lewis.
Are you suggesting there is evidence OUTSIDE the bible for 'creation'? Since your sole (I would think, but feel free to offer OTHER evidence which we can discuss) evidence for your version of creation is the bible, it would seem you HAVE TO open up the bible to discussion.
Example (from my likely flawed recollection of logic 101):
The Bible contains the Truth(your axiom)
--If the bible says creation took 7 days,then creation took 7 days (or whatever you'd like to assert).
--The bible does say creation took 7 days.
--Therefore creation took 7 days.
so
If A then B
A
Therefore B.
problem is A relies upon your axiom fully, not containing anything otherwise arguable. We don't accept your axiom. But hopefully its clear why we harp on the bible....you want to claim evidence outside the bible for creation, and we'll discuss that happily, i'm sure.
Posted by: PBC | November 26, 2006 3:22 PM
ikonen and Alejandro beat me to it. Damn the hive mind we all partake in after accepting the evolutionist's creed! ...oh, and now I've said too much...
Posted by: Carlie | November 26, 2006 3:22 PM
The problem with long posts is by the time the get up there, someone else has beaten you to the punch....or in some cases 4 other people have beaten you to the punch, and done so with greater eloquence...
Posted by: PBC | November 26, 2006 3:25 PM
Related to the contrivance of battling worldviews, let me point out that even if evolution were proved false tomorrow, that would not forward creationism one whit. Creationism has to stand on its own two feet.
So, here is my question to Daniel Lewis. Discard evolution. Unlike PZ Myers, I'm not a biologist, so I have no career at stake in this. ;-) Discard whatever naturalistic assumptions you fear are lurking in the corner.
Why should anyone then credit creationism? Can you answer without your leap of faith, your presuppositions about God and the Bible? If not, then you have lost the argument. Creationism is, as rationalists (not just scientists) point out, a mere religious myth, no different in stature than the creation myths of the myriad other religions.
Posted by: Russell | November 26, 2006 3:26 PM
Posted by: Jim Wynne | November 26, 2006 3:28 PM
Mr. Lewis? I think they are trying to get you to clarify just how and why the Bible should be used as a foundation for your argument toward creationism, and how, exactly, you intend to use it as evidence when the information it contains can not be suitably verified, and has, in many places, been proven erroneous.
Then again, I might be wrong. This IS a very heady crowd, ya know.
Posted by: Dan | November 26, 2006 3:31 PM
Russell makes an excellent point. Shall we pause and let Daniel tackle that question? Can you, indeed, present anything in support of creationism without using your faith about God and the Bible?
Posted by: Carlie | November 26, 2006 3:32 PM
Posted by Ken Cope:
"show me the science in creationism."
YES! Could we PLEASE get around to the actual science discussion? I don't think I've seen Daniel say anything other than that he believes in the bible, and now he's having to defend that. When are we going to get to the creation vs. evolution part? You know, the entertaining part. Holy shit, I never want to see the word axioms again in my life.
Posted by: JD | November 26, 2006 3:32 PM
AiG, in the person of Ken Ham, says that when evidence conflicts with the bible, the bible must be chosen as correct. So Lewis isn't interested in evidence, because any evidence shown to him will be rejected out of hand, perhaps with some sort of sciencey-sounding prevarication. What's the point?
Posted by: Jim Wynne | November 26, 2006 3:32 PM
ID requires that certain structures were created by a supernatural being. Just because it allows that creation to have occurred before last Wednesday doesn't mean that it isn't creationism.
It's just not Young Earth Creationism.
Posted by: wintermute | November 26, 2006 3:35 PM
On what axiom[s] do you want us to agree?
1. Things we can see, hear, taste, touch, and smell actually exist, and are not tricks played on us by an invisible demon or computer program.
2. The results of scientific experiments, observed by us through the medium of the above named five senses, provide us with valid information to make assumptions about the nature of the universe. These assumptions become stronger as they are tested, and can be independently verified by any objective observer.
Posted by: junk science | November 26, 2006 3:38 PM
Dan,
for myself at least, your interpretation is bang on.
I also agree with Carlie and JD...let's relax and let Lewis make some debatable assertions (he did ask for a debate).
I like Junk Science's axioms, since I can't (immediately) see refuting them without refuting our ability to read/interpret the bible. I hope that's non-controversial for our guest..
Posted by: PBC | November 26, 2006 3:48 PM
"ID simply holds that life is so complex that there must be a designer"
The missing words there are 'I think, but can't prove'
Posted by: Peter McGrath | November 26, 2006 3:53 PM
Mr. Lewis, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your 'axiom'. An axiom is supposed to be self-evident, and saying that something is self-evident is very different from proving such.
Many of us are pointing out that the Bible is anything but a self-eviden