Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox Versus Dawkins, Hitchens,

summit.org — Our 2008 Australian Summit was conducted in Melbourne at the Deakin University campus.The college bookstore was drenched in Richard Dawkins. But nowhere to be found were any works challenging Dawkin's atheism, evolution, humanism.Dawkins teaches at Oxford University, but so does John C. Lennox. The bookstore had no interest in Lennox, only Dawkins

Bury

these3remain 74 days ago

19 diggs
digg it

rightwingattila, on 05/13/2008, -5/+14My fav’s are, “Vox Day points out that faith is not the opposite of reason; the opposite of reason is irrationalism.” And of course there’s Aikman's #2: "…they (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris) stray into unfamiliar territory (Biblical studies, theology, philosophy) and prove they are wading in way over their heads."

I recall reading the Bible before I became a Christian and little of it made much sense. If these guys, with all their worldly wisdom, try and read the Word they will be utterly baffled. I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of their sessions of Scripture reading and discussions.
- Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3"I recall reading the Bible before I became a Christian and little of it made much sense."
  
  Hey I can tell you why it made little sense. It really isn't that big of a secret. It is because it doesn't make ANY sense at all.
MoniqueMoniCat, on 05/13/2008, -8/+7
http://www.dontvoteobama.net/?gclid=CJK4iJ69oZMCFQ ...
DON’T VOTE OBAMA.NET
InRussetShadows, on 05/13/2008, -11/+15The number one problem with atheists is that they lack reason. What's that? At some point, their knowledge and reasoning skills lead them into a kind of superhero megalomania, where the rules no longer apply to them. That is why they wade into fields that they know nothing about, make pronouncements, and expect their knowledge in other fields to make what they say true. In short, they start believing that they are gods and that is the most obvious sign of their downfall. In more familiar terms, the instant an atheist starts talking about fields he doesn't know, he has jumped the shark.
- eir574, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8"That is why they wade into fields that they know nothing about, make pronouncements, and expect their knowledge in other fields to make what they say true."
  
  An ironic statement given that you claim to know the mind of every atheist. Things you said here that aren't true of me or of any other atheist I know:
  
  1) The rules don't apply to us: wrong.
  2) We wade into fields we know nothing about: Sometimes, but so do other people. This isn't a characteristic of atheism. It's a characteristic of humanity.
  3) They start believing they are gods: Really? You seriously believe this?
  4) They lack reason: We all lack reason from time to time, but I don't know any atheist who lacks reason all of the time. Again, this is a characteristic of humanity rather than of atheism.
  
  It's hard not to notice that these kinds of statements are popular on digg. Why is that? People have a tendency to put others into boxes and to apply labels that make them easier to understand. If you take away the boxes and the labels, then you have to deal with the people and consider the possibility that they might not just be immoral, arrogant idiots. If they're not, then you may have to consider that they might have a reasonable point of view with which you happen to disagree. That's much more difficult. It's much easier to envision that everyone on the other side of the issue is your enemy. Unfortunately, in so doing, you create battles that you need not have fought otherwise.
  - shanson13, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2How do you define Atheism? (you--underlined)
    - eir574, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4I didn't see this reply until now. Sorry. I define atheism as a lack of belief in a deity. It is not a belief that there definitely is no god, but just lack of belief that one exists. How do you define it?
mortification71, on 05/13/2008, -6/+9I went into a major bookstore the other day and looked at the religion section and all they had where atheist books and new age crap.

I asked the girl "Sold many of these?" Didn't get much of a response...

I think it is so hilarious that bookstores are so committed to the cause of Atheism that they ignore the billions of dollars the Christian book industry brings in worldwide (Bibles included).

You know these guys are dead serious when bookstores risk bankruptcy to target one of the worlds smallest minorities (Atheists).

I wonder what will the Atheists do when their bookstore stooges go belly up...Shake their fist skyward at ...no one in particular...How unfulfilling!
Nannybell, on 05/13/2008, -9/+8I appreciate that this article confirms that our founding fathers believed that our self-governing society could not survive without the restraints of Judeo-Christian morals. And I don't think we are surviving. We are in decay, ripe for the picking by tyrants.

Pray for revival. Encourage everyone you know to pray for revival. Pray for moral renewal in this country. I am not saying that just as some trite platitude. I really mean it: Pray, please pray, and with all your heart, daily, that God will be merciful and send revival to our nation. I may not be here to see the ultimate results of this plunge into immorality, but it breaks my heart to think of the world my grandchildren will inherit.

As to atheism, all anyone has to do is look around and see all that exists in all its beauty and complexity. It got there somehow. The most rational thought is that it had a creator.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -5/+2I am curious. Do you have any commentary that is not a vague anecdote?
ashfish, on 05/13/2008, -1/+10I fail to see how atheism has any real connection to the theory of evolution. I'm sorry that a small portion of people from that group have some wacky ideas, but to label all atheists that way, would be the same as labeling all Catholics child molesters because of a few. This is starting to turn into a high school rivalry with the level of stupidity being brought to the table. Science doesn't claim to prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even take a stance on the existence of any deity. Nor does believing in God mean that you can't believe in evolution.Think for yourselves, decide what you think makes the most sense. We live in a country with people of many different beliefs, it's ok if someone doesn't agree with you. That's the beauty of living here. However, trying to call something science, that can't have scientific procedure applied to it, is inaccurate. But science isn't the be-all-end-all for everyone, so I'm at a loss to understand why that conclusion is such a problem.
- shanson13, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
  a·the·ism Audio Help /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
  –noun
  
  1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
  - Dimensio, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Please explain how, exactly, your posting relates to the previous posting.
  - ashfish, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3I still don't see the connection with not believing in God and believing in evolution. People of all belief systems consider the theory of evolution to be accurate, including Christians.
grahamjj, on 05/14/2008, -6/+6I have a DVD titled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (The scientific case for Intelligent Design).
They make a great case that will never get an adequate hearing. America does not want to know the truth in this issue. The implication of 'God created the earth' are too overwhelming.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -4/+7Please explain the "scientific case" for 'Intelligent Design". Also, please define "Intelligent Design".
  - grahamjj, on 05/15/2008, -5/+4The short DVD is about an hour long. Michael Behe (biochemist) covers in his book and the DVD several systems that are so complex in nature that any element missing causes a system failure. Darwin considered the human eye. Behe talks about the eye, flagellum, blood clotting chemistry, and the bombardier beetle. He suggests the best explanation for these complex system is not slow step by step change, but intentional design...by God. His reason is that complex systems are not possible to develop by one change added to another small change but are irreducibly complex. The whole system works only by requiring all its component parts. Dean Kenyan look at intelligent design from the bio chemical perspective. He tried to explain protein synthesis thru the characteristics of the molecules and concluded an intelligent designer must have constructed genetic code to direct protein synthesis.
    - Dimensio, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5"The short DVD is about an hour long. Michael Behe (biochemist) covers in his book and the DVD several systems that are so complex in nature that any element missing causes a system failure."
      
      Are you not aware that Behe's claims -- and his specific examples -- have been rebutted and debunked?
      
      " Darwin considered the human eye."
      
      You are correct. Darwin anticipated possible objections to the possibility of the evolution of the eye and specifically addressed them in his book because of this anticipation, as he did not believe the eye to be "so complex" that it could not have evolved.
      
      " Behe talks about the eye, flagellum, blood clotting chemistry, and the bombardier beetle."
      
      Claims regarding "irreducible complexity" regarding all of such systems have been addressed:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
      
      "He suggests the best explanation for these complex system is not slow step by step change, but intentional design...by God."
      
      What processes does he propose make up the mechanism of this alleged "design" event? When have these processes been directly observed, or what observed processes have been used to directly derive the processes involved in the "design" mechanism? How has he determined the existence of this "God"? How does he define "God"? How has he determined that his explanation is actually the "best" explanation? Additionally, are you aware that Behe does accept that all existing life, including ***** sapiens, has descended from shared common ancestry, and that he employs the case of "Intelligent Design" only to explain structures that he believes are "irreducibly complex", while acknowledging that all other physiological features emerged through evolution?
      
      "His reason is that complex systems are not possible to develop by one change added to another small change but are irreducibly complex."
      
      This argument suggests limited thinking. In drawing this conclusion, Behe believes that evolution is purely additive, and thus he neglects to consider that apparently "irreducibly complex" systems could have come about through the gradual elimination of redundant features. Such neglect means that his conclusion cannot be considered reliable.
      
      " The whole system works only by requiring all its component parts. Dean Kenyan look at intelligent design from the bio chemical perspective. He tried to explain protein synthesis thru the characteristics of the molecules and concluded an intelligent designer must have constructed genetic code to direct protein synthesis."
      
      Please explain how Kenyan came to this conclusion. Please state the physical processes that Kenyan proposes as the mechanism implemented by this "designer" for the construction of genetic code.
    - grahamjj, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2I have been talking with folks on the evolution side for about 30 yrs. I'm amazed at the intensity of their faith in Evolution.
      Bottom line you have your faith and I have mine.
      I view creationism as eminently more convincing an explanation for the origin of species.
    - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5@grahamjj
      It isn't a matter of "faith", but confidence in the evidence. Saying that we have "faith" in science is just a form of theistic equivocation. When I do a physics experiment to test Newton's Laws, I'm not performing an exercise of faith - the same as with biology experiments. Let me reiterate - confidence in careful procedures and data collection is not the same as faith in the supernatural, for which there can be no empirical evidence.
    - grahamjj, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Hello again ApokalypseNow
      You sound very scientific.
      I remember my first chemistry experiment. Watching a candle burn and making observations.
      It was amazing the number of conclusion drawn by the students. Observing events and data and arriving at an interpretation of the events and then devising experiments to 'prove out' our theory is science. That experiment demonstrated to me the huge number of conclusions one can draw from any observed event.
      I will believe for eternity God created the heavens and the earth. In viewing the world and life, creation answers most all of the questions I have about the origin of species.
      The evolution folks have faith in: the fossil record will prove out transitions and missing links.
      They 'know'"proteins are synthesized by physical properties within amino acids
      They believe life's origin occurred some how without a designer
      They point to variations within species to prove out a new species (without find a genetically isolated new population)
      They ignore the explosions of life starting within Cambrian era fossils and by faith know the gap will someday be filled.
      They see Carpoids,Cystoids, Asteroids begin with no ancestry but have faith that an answer will be found linking them to some parent someday.
      They bridge huge gaps in the fossil record by faith ( leaping from a doglike mammal to whales )
      They assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply
      They call upon a geological column that has never been found.
      They in faith make a monkey out of you and me using faked fragments, and twist a partial bone into whole skeletons.
      Evolution I find is the most volatile issue in digg. I am outnumbered 10 to 1.
      But "Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?
      Yours in Christ...grahamjj
    - ApokalypseNow, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4@grahamjj
      "They believe life's origin occurred some how without a designer"
      Without evidence to point to the existence of a designer, considering the existence of such an entity does not fall within the bounds of science.
      
      "They ignore the explosions of life starting within Cambrian era fossils and by faith know the gap will someday be filled."
      Talkorigins.org has a very good article on the Cambrian explosion that might answer some of your questions on the subject. Science does not "ignore" such details, they simply acknowledge that such gaps in knowledge sometimes exist. The so-called "missing links" are akin to pages in a family photo album lost in a fire - just because you have no photographic evidence of your father is no reason to believe that Prometheus scooped up some dust and breathed some life in to you after your Grandfather.
      
      "They see Carpoids,Cystoids, Asteroids begin with no ancestry but have faith that an answer will be found linking them to some parent someday."
      As I said, it isn't a matter of "faith". "Faith in science" is just theistic equivocation, as I stated above.
      
      "They assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply"
      The earth is not an isolated system, so it does not.
      
      "They call upon a geological column that has never been found."
      Ok, this seems silly to me - we have a pretty good idea of what went on for a number of fossil species in the geological record - we can trace lineages back through common morphologies (admittedly not a great way to determine speciation from non-living animals, but given that many species have particular structures unique to them, it seems to work well) back through a great many years. Check out Foraminifera some time - that's a perfect and continuous fossil record dating back to the mid-Jurassic.
      
      "They in faith make a monkey out of you and me using faked fragments, and twist a partial bone into whole skeletons."
      When a scientist attempts to reconstruct an animal from fossil or skeletal remains, they are working from the presumption that physical evidence means something, and, more specifically, that it's possible to learn something about events in an object's past history by examining the currently-observable traces which those past events might have left of the object. Obviously, the more complete the skeleton or fossil you've got, the more can be learned about the once-living animal; but even from a single bone, you can learn something.
      Those not familiar with the techniques involved often do not understand the full implications of the taxonomic categories. In short, we often CAN tell what sort of lifeform a creature came from by looking at just a tiny piece, because the shapes of many features are unique to particular groups in the animal kingdom. For instance, ape molars are distinctive: no other animal has a molar quite like an ape (and human beings, being apes, have just such a molar). The same is even more true for larger elements. For instance, ape shoulder bones are unique and distinctive in the animal kingdom, and once you've discovered one, concluding that it came from an ape is perfectly legitimate given everything we know of how life forms develop and evolve.
    - Dimensio, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2"I have been talking with folks on the evolution side for about 30 yrs. I'm amazed at the intensity of their faith in Evolution.
      Bottom line you have your faith and I have mine.
      I view creationism as eminently more convincing an explanation for the origin of species."
      
      You have not addressed any of my questions, nor have you provided any supporting evidence for your claims. Additionally, why did you reference Michael Behe's claims if your position is "creationism", and not "intelligent design"?
  - grahamjj, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2PS should I include a definition of the word "IS" for you?
7sons, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Thanks for the shout, this was a great piece.
grahamjj, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Hello again ApokalypseNow
You sound very scientific.
I remember my first chemistry experiment. Watching a candle burn and making observations.
It was amazing the number of conclusion drawn by the students. Observing events and data and arriving at an interpretation of the events and then devising experiments to 'prove out' our theory is science. That experiment demonstrated to me the huge number of conclusions one can draw from any observed event.
I will believe for eternity God created the heavens and the earth. In viewing the world and life, creation answers most all of the questions I have about the origin of species.
The evolution folks have faith in: the fossil record will prove out transitions and missing links.
They 'know'"proteins are synthesized by physical properties within amino acids
They believe life's origin occurred some how without a designer
They point to variations within species to prove out a new species (without find a genetically isolated new population)
They ignore the explosions of life starting within Cambrian era fossils and by faith know the gap will someday be filled.
They see Carpoids,Cystoids, Asteroids begin with no ancestry but have faith that an answer will be found linking them to some parent someday.
They bridge huge gaps in the fossil record by faith ( leaping from a doglike mammal to whales )
They assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply
They call upon a geological column that has never been found.
They in faith make a monkey out of you and me using faked fragments, and twist a partial bone into whole skeletons.
Evolution I find is the most volatile issue in digg. I am outnumbered 10 to 1.
But "Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?
Yours in Christ...grahamjj
Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Damn, I stopped reading after they put forward the first three arguments. They are so TERRIBLE.
(1) their assertions are too wild to be taken seriously (e.g., "religion poisons everything" or "better many worlds than one god" or "Jesus was born in 4 A.D."); (2) they stray into unfamiliar territory (Biblical studies, theology, philosophy) and prove they are wading in way over their heads; and (3) their view that somehow science invalidates religious truth is far from historically true and certainly not scientifically true since religion birthed science (see Berlinski, p. 46). Berlinski goes so far as to state that the faith necessary to do coherent scientific work is debauched by a complacent atheism.
Number one says that the atheists' assertions are "too wild", wow, just wow.
Number two, ubiquitous, you must have a degree on fairies before you can say what kind of dust do they sprinkle or what color are their wings.
Number three, that is simply an opinion, and if religion did start science, so what? Does a child not grow up do defeat the father at a game of basketball?
grahamjj, on 05/18/2008, -4/+1I'm pretty sure we both will take our conclusions about the evidence we view to the grave. Fortunately I have had a little preview of whats coming.

Be very sure your right.

Your in Christ...grahamjj
grahamjj, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1Without evidence to point to the existence of a designer, considering the existence of such an entity does not fall within the bounds of science.
I agree somewhat but all of nature scream of design, in particular one genetic code directing all life forms. Why just one elegantly simple code. To know the answer we can apply science and philosophy. It is a question of great importance. Your right the designer has hidden the direct evidence.

"Talkorigins.org has a very good article on the Cambrian explosion that might answer some of your questions on the subject. Science does not "ignore" such details, they simply acknowledge that such gaps in knowledge sometimes exist.
But if missing data exists a great deal of supposition replaces evidence. Just as Darwin uses the "let us suppose" expression, today we fill in the gaps with 'surely we will find" just as Darwin thought of the fossil record. The fact remains we have no evidience of ancestry of Cambrian fossils.

"They see Carpoids,Cystoids, Asteroids begin with no ancestry but have faith that an answer will be found linking them to some parent someday."
As I said, it isn't a matter of "faith". "Faith in science" is just theistic equivocation, as I stated above. These are huge groups of organisms.
Isn't your statement of belief equivocation as well. You are leaping past what is known to restate
what is supposed.

"They assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply"
The earth is not an isolated system, so it does not.
The law of entropy is a law. You are leaping past the law to arrive at what is supposed. Law trumps theory. And on the biochemical level we see the law at work all the time. Light and oxygen degrade complex organic molecules but evolution calls for bucking the system at every turn. The 'open system' of the earth is irradiated and oxidized by a lot of harmful stuff.

"They call upon a geological column that has never been found."
Ok, this seems silly to me -
I'm referring to the practice of dating rock strata by the fossils found in the strata.
We do not find a comprehesive column from earliest to most recent.
I'm straying into mud here
Geology isn't my bag. Except for rock climbing.

I really am amazed at the intensity of feelings on this issue. I think its because it strikes at the heart of peoples' belief system and worldview. That's probably why it stirs things up so much.

Your in Christ...grahamjj

"They in faith make a monkey out of you and me using faked fragments, and twist a partial bone into whole skeletons."
When a scientist attempts to reconstruct an animal from fossil or skeletal remains, they are working from the presumption that physical evidence means something, and, more specifically, that it's possible to learn something about events in an object's past history by examining the currently-observable traces which those past events might have left of the object. Obviously, the more complete the skeleton or fossil you've got, the more can be learned about the once-living animal; but even from a single bone, you can learn something.
Those not familiar with the techniques involved often do not understand the full implications of the taxonomic categories. In short, we often CAN tell what sort of lifeform a creature came from by looking at just a tiny piece, because the shapes of many features are unique to particular groups in the animal kingdom. For instance, ape molars are distinctive: no other animal has a molar quite like an ape (and human beings, being apes, have just such a molar). The same is even more true for larger elements. For instance, ape shoulder bones are unique and distinctive in the animal kingdom, and once you've discovered one, concluding that it came from an ape is perfectly legitimate given everything we know of how life forms develop and evolve.
- Dimensio, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5"I agree somewhat but all of nature scream of design, in particular one genetic code directing all life forms."
  
  Asserting that "all of nature scream of design" is not evidence that design exists in nature. Appeal to assertion is a logical fallacy.
  
  "Why just one elegantly simple code. To know the answer we can apply science and philosophy. It is a question of great importance. Your right the designer has hidden the direct evidence."
  
  Please justify your assertion that there exists a "designer" who in some way has "hidden" direct evidence of its existence or actions.
  
  "But if missing data exists a great deal of supposition replaces evidence. Just as Darwin uses the "let us suppose" expression, today we fill in the gaps with 'surely we will find" just as Darwin thought of the fossil record. The fact remains we have no evidience of ancestry of Cambrian fossils."
  
  Your assertion is simply false. The Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of 80 million years. The period is known for a notable increase in biological diversity, but it is not true that "no evidence" exists for ancestry of the various emergent species.
  
  "Isn't your statement of belief equivocation as well."
  
  No, it is not.
  
  "The law of entropy is a law."
  
  This is irrelevant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics specifically applies exclusively to isolated systems. You cannot assert that a process would necessarily violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics within an open system, as the Second Law, by definition, only addresses the entropy state of a system in isolation.
  
  If you believe that the process of evolution would necessarily violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics then you must first define the constraints of the isolated system in which the violation allegedly occurs, then provide the necessary thermodynamic calculations that will show that the process of evolution would necessarily result in a condition where dS/dt ≥ 0 for that isolated system. Please do so. If you cannot, then you cannot claim to know that the process of evolution would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
  
  " You are leaping past the law to arrive at what is supposed. Law trumps theory."
  
  Your statement is false, and it suggests that you do not understand fundamental scientific terminology. In science, a "law" is a generalization about a regular observed pattern with the universe. Many scientific "laws" are expressed as mathematical equations; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity defines resultant gravitational force based upon the mass and distance of two objects through a mathematical formula. A "theory" in science attempts to explain why events in the universe occur. Many theories attempt to explain laws. For example, the theory of relativity attempts to explain the cause of gravity; it should also be noted that the theory of relativity "trumps" Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which is known to be false. In science, theories and laws are different types of statements that address different questions, thus it is not always possible to rank a "law" over a "theory".
  
  " And on the biochemical level we see the law at work all the time. Light and oxygen degrade complex organic molecules but evolution calls for bucking the system at every turn. The 'open system' of the earth is irradiated and oxidized by a lot of harmful stuff. "
  
  Please justify this assertion. Define the constraints of the isolated system, and then demonstrate, mathematically, the decrease in entropy that would necessarily result if evolution occurred.
  
  "I'm referring to the practice of dating rock strata by the fossils found in the strata.
  We do not find a comprehesive column from earliest to most recent.
  I'm straying into mud here
  Geology isn't my bag. Except for rock climbing."
  
  It is apparent that you have not studied geology: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6I've never seen so many experts on thermodynamics as I have in threads like this on digg. If your interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics were correct, then how would you explain the fact that when you plant a seed, a plant grows? That's an increase in order.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Aikman, Berlinski, Day, and Lennox Versus Dawkins, Hitchens,

Login or register to add a comment