Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

Boris: It should be noted that the few scientists (most notably microbiologists and physicists, those best able to appreciate complexity) are swayed by the intelligent design argument, which a scientific training does not equip one to refute as Russell does.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Boris: It should be noted that the few scientists (most notably microbiologists and physicists, those best able to appreciate complexity) are swayed by the intelligent design argument, which a scientific training does not equip one to refute as Russell does.

Microbiologists like Behe still believe in evolution, just that IC is "proof" there was an intelligent force behind it.

I'm not sure what antievolutionary physicists believe, but I'll take their opinion as seriously as I would an anthropologist making claims about the laws of thermodynamics.

[Berzerker]

Ah the problem created by the biblical authors seeking to rid creation of its gods to arrive at one creator.

The Babylonian (i.e., Sumerian) version of our creation says the gods, specifically Ea/Enki and Ninhursag (the Egyptian Hathor) bound the image of the gods upon a creature they found in the Abzu. This Abzu is believed to be Africa by some scholars... and in Africa we find the Zulu creation story referring to a time when "the artificial ones" (their ancestors) went to war with the apemen. Both these imply evolution, but the only part of the Sumerian tale that found its way into Genesis was God asking or advising the other gods ("angels" or watchers) to make man in our image, to bind their image upon man. The very same terminology in the Sumerian story.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hehe I think we're all aware of my opinions on the "common man". He's an animal. No more so than you or I of course, but at least we're toilet trained. I know which one I'd choose for the better smell

Did you get my allusion?

The only difference between the two, is that the sophisticated have more money to spend on stuff that covers up their smell.

And that goes for quite a few other things.

[Ben Kenobi]

My inclination would be to examine each claim on its merits and not automatically assign more, less or the same grains of salt as it were to something on the basis of theism or atheism. Again this boils down to distinctions between the empirical and faith.

That's all I ask.

Would this not render Christianity a bitheistic religion? If one considers Christ to be a God, where does this leave the God of the old testament?

A very good question, that gets us into the Trinity. The first part of John's gospel really helps with some of this, to show how Christ's life on Earth fits in with everything else.

Christ was begotten before all worlds, of the Father, and the Holy spirit proceeds from the love between the Father and the Son.

You have 3 persons, in one Godhead, all of one substance, each co-eternal with the other. There was not a time before one was with the other, nor can each person be entirely split off from the other. Each are of the same substance, like a human father, and human son.

John says this much better than I can though, to say that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

By Word, Christ is begotten of God the Father, yet still remains God.

One of the few passages I am aware of in this regard is John 3:16, where God giving his son reminds me very much of the early story of Lucipher (in relation to God that is).

The difference being that God freely gave his Son, as his Son freely accepted the burden of our sin. Lucifer didn't willingly accept his state.

Now, for those who aren't familiar, Job 1:6-7 (and to refresh my own memory)

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD , and Satan [also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"

Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Seems to me, that Satan existed well before this event, and has been stuck on Earth, to wander through the world.

I don't think this digression is pointless. I think it's more ontopic than most of the issues that have already been laid out.

We are, after all, assessing the merits of John's Gospel?

This, as (I think) Boris said is the problem. Now I am not a biblical scholar and I haven't studied any aspect of the bible, other than Leviticus for the purposes of refuting 18:22 and 20:13,

Then I suggest you get cracking. And I sincerely doubt that this is all you are familiar with, given your quote earlier on, and your previous religious instruction in the OT.

Why don't you show me what you are capable of?

but it seems to me a more admirable and humble trait to not present people with such a binary choice, but to allow ambivalence

You dismiss his approach too quickly. Does not Christ quote Isaiah, and talk in parables?

Surely, there were more direct methods of preaching, but you are very right that he sought to arouse interest through more indirect means.

However, this does not negate the motivations of the Jews to stone him for blasphemy. Rather than dismissing their charges, I argue that they had a very good reason to do so, given his claims about himself.

Secondly, why would a good man, if Christ is to be just another good man, claim that his opinion superceded the teachings of the old law? Did he not continually correct the provisions by saying that while Moses allowed things, he had greater insight than Moses?

"Moses allowed you to divorce, but I say..."

which perhaps explains the NT's lack of praise in favour of intelligence).

"Or they would see with their eyes..."

Jesus's choice as you put it seems to induce a dogmatism, unquestioning obediance through fear seems a reasonable conclusion of that.

Then why teach in parables? Why make it so that those who's hearts are closed, will not undestand him?

If the only difference is that of post-Messianic prophets, then surely the question of the Messiah and belief accordingly is settled, and thus by any reasonable definition they are Christians. I'm not sure whether the Book of Mormon is considered apocryphal, but would acceptance of an apocryphal text render one non-Christian, if so, upon what basis?

Ever read the Book of Mormon?

They assert first of all, that the old has become corrupt, and that a new testimony must replace the old. Which is the same things the Muslims, and many other religious groups have said about the Bible since it was written.

Now, why should the Muslims with their prophet Muhammed be treated differently from Mormons and their Prophet in Joseph Smith?

Secondly, it is not necessary to reject the concept of progressive revelation, and to be a Christian. The problem is that the new revelation must come in accordance with the old.

Look at Christ, did he not affirm the authority of the Old Testament, in saying that he came to fulfill all that was written in the law and the prophets?

That imo strengthens the scientific cause because by removing the involvement of faith, you are turning science into a matter of reason.

How different is faith in reason different from faith in other things?

Have you ever seen reason? Can you kick it like a rock? Much of what I have seen in progress from science has been in the introduction of distinctly unreasonable notions, such as quantum physics.

Because the scientific argument is immeasureably stronger, though I am more than willing to entertain dissention from that view if you are willing to elaborate upon it.

Immeasureably stronger?

Darwin was less sure than you are!

Whether or not you mean macroevolution, clarification is needed here.

Darwin thought change would occur slowly, at a steady rate, later evolutionists have not been able to corroborate this with the empirical evidence, and have sought to come up with much different mechanisms, such as punctuated equilibrium, which favours very rapid change.

Now, this seems to me a very basic tenet of evolutionary theory, yet there have been profound disagreements as to how it works, and at what rate such change will occur over time.

That's a woefully flawed test.

Why? These are the tests that have been easily passed by other theories in other fields. Physics is a very notable one, a theory makes predictions about how the world ought to work, and the theories that fit the empirical evidence become widely adopted.

You cannot have a workeable scientific theory that does not provide falsifiable predictions. That's the realm of theology, not science.

To measure it against humanity is troublesome because firstly of our subjectivity and interference of human nature,

Now, you fall right into the hands of the creationists here. Part of the biggest assertion made by Darwin, is that we are mere animals, no different from any of the other animals.

To say that we are different poses considerable challenges to this position, especially if you consider human nature to be profoundly different from other species.

This is not what an evolutionist would defend, rather your home is much more with the creationists than they.

We know full well that we cannot observe an experiment without changing it, again basic uncertainty principle; and the interplay between our environment, our nature and our genetic structure adds numerous complexities that makes a linear genetic study impossible.

Bravo! As such you have refuted Darwin, who says we are mere monkeys!

Evolution is better tested using sound science, not guesswork.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Jesus was God, who was he talking to when he challenged/asked God, "why has thou forsaken me?" When Jesus was asked why he was advocating a change in divorce law, he said because in Moses' time God knew the hearts of men were hard and allowed those divorces. Why didn't Jesus say he knew the hearts of men were hard?

The first question is a good one, the second less so.

Jesus's statement does not imply that he did not know the hearts of men were hard. All he's saying is that God knew your hearts were hard.

Now, the question you should really be asking, is how does Christ know that God knew their hearts were hard?

As for the first question, this goes back to the concept of two persons in one Godhead. Christ and God the Father could love each other more than any of us love each other. This statement of Christ's to ask God is remarkable, because it shows the full measure of Christ's suffering. Not only did he suffer the physical consequences of sin, but also the spiritual consequences, in being cut off from God during his Atonement on the cross.

[Ben Kenobi]

Both these imply evolution, but the only part of the Sumerian tale that found its way into Genesis was God asking or advising the other gods ("angels" or watchers) to make man in our image, to bind their image upon man.

Angels aren't God. They serve him, but they are not God.

You are taking quite a leap to say that when Genesis refers to these angels, that they refer to gods in the plural.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because there has not been, in the 140 years since Darwin formulated his theory, a scientifically accepted alternative to evolutionary theory. Mainstream science, the science accepted by 99.9% of the world's biologists, accepts evolution is true based on the evidence and facts.

Labels are lovely. Do you think any of the scientific folks who discover things are part of 'mainstream' science?

Was Einstein, as a patent clerk part of 'mainstream' science?

Just because no credible alternatives have arisen, does not mean that a theory is perfect. There have been many such theories where evidence began to mount against the theories, and all sorts of attempts to save the old theories were made.

I'm convinced that punctuated equilibrium is like Ptolemaic epicycles. An attempt made to save a flawed theory lacking a viable alternative.

As I said, there is no scientific theory of Creationism. Lamarckism is long dead (though Creationists continually seem to confuse it with Darwinism).

Who are these nameless 'creationists'?

I know the difference between the two.

I also know the doubts Darwin had about his own theory.

The evidence strongly supports evolution. Those who oppose evolution are, as far as I have seen, overwhelmingly from a staunch religious background. What other conclusion are we to draw?

Am I from a staunch religious background? I have refrained from making a religious case against evolution, rather I have pointed out the flaws in the theory in order to provoke discussion away from such pointless meanders.

Evolution has always been as it was. The theory of how evolution occurs (or rather, theories) have changed over time, yes. But so has atomic theory--it's all about the advance of information.

Yes, they have changed, but in the face of empirical evidence supporting the contrary. Sometimes in a powerful way, like in Rutherford's scattering experiment.

But you're again confusing the fact of evolution versus the theories of how it happens. The fact of evolution--that it occurs--is as solidly established as the facts of chemistry or physics, yes.

That I contest. I can, if I wish to observe many of these chemical and physcial effects. Can I say the same for macroevolution? Physics and Chemistry, due to the wealth of empirical observation, are much more solidly established than evolutionary theory in biology.

That we can predict the change in alleles in populations over time has been shown countless times in experimentation. Fruitflies, anyone? On the strength of the theory, Darwin predicted the discovery of many fossils that would show the progression of primate to man. See below.

Many did not fit his predictions either.

The question has always been one of showing a link between these different species, and the problems of dramatic changes that occur in a small period, being represented in the fossil record.

Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so predictions about specifically what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical.

Thank you.

This is why evolutionary theory is less solid than physics or chemistry.

Now, as for Astronomy being unproven, there have been many, many predictions made. Does not the author illustrate his point of the predicative nature of science being found in the predictions of orbital motions of the planets?

I do not see such feeble statements being made by Langrange who boasts of his mathematical models accurately predicting, and solving, many complex problems in orbital mechanics.

Yes, there are some things in Astronomy that could rest on a sounder foundation, but that is not an apologetic for the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, but rather a challenge to both.

They should be better. They should be able to make better predictions, but their theories do not permit them.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would think it be more natural that accounts written in the time period by those who were supposedly witnesses would have greater detail accuracy than those written 80-odd years later by someone who wasn't even born at the time.

What evidence do you have for this claim? How do you know that this Gospel was written 80 years after Christ's death?

Most scholars place it closer to 50, within John's lifespan.

I agree, that the other Gospels are better historical evidence than John's Gospel by virtue of being closer to the date. That doesn't mean there is no historical evidence present.

We've been over this before. The Gospel didn't bear his name originally. The earliest known manuscripts have no attribution on them at all.

True.

However, by the Second century they were there, as attested to by multiple church fathers. It wasn't the custom of the time, to attach specific authorship to these books.

I do think we have a way of being reasonably confident. If there were contested attestations, don't you think they would have emerged by the second century? After all, there are books, like the Epistle to the Hebrews that are not given an author. However, that's not the case with John's Gospel. No one contests his authorship.

Or, perhaps, he demonstrates a much greater gift for embellishment and the hindsight of several decades of refinement of Christian philosophy towards these ends.

Fair enough. But his historicity does not rest on such passages.

No one said it was completely ahistorical, though.

Cool. So you accept then, that there are historical passages in John's Gospel?

Which ardents atheists?

Oh, like Till I suppose?

Which are which? How do you tell the difference, other than through personal bias?

Good question. What parts of John's Gospel do you consider historical? I find this a very intruiging question.

Great men seldom do.

The greatest of all, must be servant to many.

Semantics. Mormons do believe in his divinity, you just don't like their take on it and ergo believe they aren't Christians.

Oh, it's not just me. It's an opinion backed up by quite a few other things.

A large swath of Southern Baptists will tell you, in this day and age, that Catholics are not true Christians, but rather are Mary-worshipping cultists.

Very true. Doesn't mean they are right in their assessment of Catholics.

Likewise, plenty of Catholics will tell you Protestants aren't true Christians. Mel Gibson recently said in an interview that he believed his wife--the woman he loved and who bore his children--would "likely" go to hell, not because she wasn't a Christian, but because she wasn't the right kind of Christian (Catholic).

Oh, that one I have to have quoted. Perhaps his father would say that, but I find that hard to believe he would say that.

The Catholics who say the Protestants are not Christians, are going against the Second Vatican Council, and their own pope. The Southern Baptists have just as much an argument against the Catholics, as they do to each other.

I was pointing out that each sect (often) believes the others are wrong and only they embody what is a true Christian (despite not believing he is God). That they don't see the others as embodying "true" Christians.

Granted. And it's an erroneous belief. However, there is a very big difference between saying, only those who are in my denomination are Christians, and from saying, some religions are not Christian.

Evolution is both theory AND fact. Nothing about the word "theory" in science denotes that it isn't a fact.

Yes, it does. There may be emperical evidence in favour of a theory, but that does not make any theory a fact. It may be backed up by factual evidence, but it still remains a theory.

[Whaleboy]

How different is faith in reason different from faith in other things?

Because in the sense that I use it, reason and faith are dualistic. I believe I have used this analogy before in this thread and also with you, but nontheless;

Imagine one has a rivine or some great chasm to cross (representative of where we are, and theism per se). To jump across it is rather like an act of faith, literally a leap of faith. But that act is devalued if there is a bridge over the chasm, over which one can walk without requiring that faith; one step at a time, as easily as one walked to the chasm itself? Faith and reason are, in that sense, inversely proportional to a given end, you can look at it as simple economics where value is a function of supply and demand, supply is made easier, value falls and demand falls accordingly (where faith is required for deity). Recall the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy take on the matter?

I refuse to prove that I exist," says god. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man. "The babel fish is a dead giveaway isnt it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says god. "I hadn't thought of that." And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh that was easy." says man. And for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

Of course that example completely ignores the PSR but you get the point .

Have you ever seen reason? Can you kick it like a rock? Much of what I have seen in progress from science has been in the introduction of distinctly unreasonable notions, such as quantum physics.

Quantum physics is a model, hence its evolution throughout its history. An example I am sure you are more familiar with is classical Newtonian celestial mechanics, though of course not a perfect analogy since QP is post relativity. Note that without it, your computer would simply fail to function. Such theories are not something tangible, they are merely conceptual relationships, and yes in that sense they do require faith (remember faith and reason are dualistic in one context, mutually composed in another), but in the same sense that one trusts ones vision, or trusting in the fact that there is not a lion and a gazelle copulating on my desk.

Why? These are the tests that have been easily passed by other theories in other fields. Physics is a very notable one, a theory makes predictions about how the world ought to work, and the theories that fit the empirical evidence become widely adopted.

I am not saying that such a test is impossible, it is simply more complicated than you imply, since our environment changes with us, and will affect our evolution too; though of course that could be your test but it would need to be precise considering both the relative youth of human civilisation and more importnatly human migration and breeding patterns. Sex and death are the dual currencies in evolution, to assess the experiment requires a control over those factors.

You cannot have a workeable scientific theory that does not provide falsifiable predictions. That's the realm of theology, not science.

Lack of ability to falsify or lack of contrary evidence |= canonical

Now, you fall right into the hands of the creationists here. Part of the biggest assertion made by Darwin, is that we are mere animals, no different from any of the other animals.

To say that we are different poses considerable challenges to this position, especially if you consider human nature to be profoundly different from other species.

This is not what an evolutionist would defend, rather your home is much more with the creationists than they.

Bravo! As such you have refuted Darwin, who says we are mere monkeys!

You misunderstand, humanity is subject to evolution and we are animals, simply that rapidly changing human civilisation as an evolutionary influence is not the case with other animals (where are the Chimps and their cities?) we would have to account for such an influence, making a test on humans more difficult. That is not because of any inherent difference between human and animals, it is because of a scientific appreciation of the influences that affect the outcomes.

I also know the doubts Darwin had about his own theory.

Indeed, consider pre-genetics evolution to be rather like pre-Einsteinian physics. They had the model, not the means (of gravity latterly). Needless to say, Francis and Crick had grounds to be more sure of evolution than Darwin himself, because they had access to evidence and the actual means of evolution, which Darwin didn't. That others can be more sure of a theory than its creator is not somehow a refutation of the creator though.

in the face of empirical evidence supporting the contrary

Where is this evidence, contrary to evolution?

Was Einstein, as a patent clerk part of 'mainstream' science?

He is now . If there is a scientist who has better ideas he should be listened to, but a theory should be judged by virtue of its validity, not by how far from the mainstream it is. Soundness and validity is the test applied to creationism consistently, and it simply fails. Paleontology, morphology, genetics... the evidence pro-evolution seems to continuously grow and furthermore supports the other.

This is why evolutionary theory is less solid than physics or chemistry.

Actually no, imo it is as solid (indeed said physics and chemistry support evolution, another reason I dislike artificial barriers between the sciences). The trouble with evolution though is that unlike chemistry and physics, because of its nature; time taken and extrenuous factors, it makes it much harder to test in the laboratory than boiling water with a bunsen burner. Like quantum physics .

They should be better. They should be able to make better predictions, but their theories do not permit them.

What are these actual flaws? Note that I do not think it is a perfect theory, I doubt the existence of such a thing, but this is why one accepts a theory provisionally... if one has not found flaws there always remains the possibility of such flaws, but then so our experience of reality itself (I know what direction you're trying to take, so remember how I place faith *in* reason in this regard). A useful analogy is that of Descartes evil demon.

One would ask of you this, do you concur with the view that evolution is the best theory for life, as opposed to creationism and Lamarkism?

Yes, it does. There may be emperical evidence in favour of a theory, but that does not make any theory a fact. It may be backed up by factual evidence, but it still remains a theory.

You seem to misunderstand how "fact" and "theory" are aligned and defined, I recommend you read back upon our lengthy discussion of the topic earlier.

By the way, you may be interested in the works of a theologian called Robert Beckford, there was a documentary recently where he explored the authorship of the bible.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1376992,00.html

Then I suggest you get cracking. And I sincerely doubt that this is all you are familiar with, given your quote earlier on, and your previous religious instruction in the OT.

Why don't you show me what you are capable of?

Well that aside I'm not inclined to biblical study. I know that the bible contains no compelling reason for God's existence (if i am wrong there do point me to the relevant sections) and I'm only really interested in religion in its external aspects. Of course there are times where I need to refer to specific parts to highlight flaws but this isn't the time for such study, nor do I have the time or interest at the moment.

As for what I'm capable of... I cannot show you something that I am not completely sure of. I don't really think about what I'm capable of so we'll both have to find that out as we go along

[Whaleboy]

As a side note, it may be worthy of consideration to view continental drift theory and geology as continuous with evolution theory, since the evidence for the three seems to overlap.

[Elok]

Crap, we've entered the BK-War phase. Oh well.

But seriously, Ben, I think people still refer to "the theory of gravity" and "the theory of relativity." Regardless of what you think about evolution, the word theory has nothing to do with whether it should be taught. The term can be applied to anything from the completely gonzo to the well-established but not directly provable. The descent of creatures from a common ancestor is pretty much indisputable...I still haven't heard how natural selection has been proven, but the theory is in such wide use among the scientific community that it just doesn't make sense to ignore it.

As to Whaleboy, if you still remember your last post (I've been busy...108 pages, yeah baby!), about the danger of abuse of power in organized religion, I think that you might have taken my formal study remark a little too literally. I meant something more along the lines of C.S. Lewis's famous remark: "If Christianity is true, it is of the utmost importance. If it is false, it is of no importance whatsoever. The one thing it cannot be is of moderate importance."

Fear of Machiavellian abuse appears to me to be based partly on memories of medieval history, e.g. the crusades, but also partly on the assumption that religion's existence is not terribly important except as a pacifier-UR's crutches. So the main value that a faith is judged by today is generally tolerance and open-mindedness. But if the actual truth of a belief doesn't matter, there's no reason to have the belief to begin with. And with something as intensely psychological as faith, there is also a considerable danger of "Machiavellianism" from within. A Personal Faith can grow to be a mouthpiece for feeling good about what you were going to do anyway. It breeds not spiritual hatred but spiritual complacency. It's a different kind of disease but still unpleasant in its own way. And it undermines the whole purpose of faith. Personal Faith is like religious Libertarianism. It has the potential to breed corruption and decay just as badly as the religious "Dictatorship" of the medieval RCC did, though of a different sort. It hasn't really begun, because it's a relatively new phenomenon. Give it time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Labels are lovely. Do you think any of the scientific folks who discover things are part of 'mainstream' science?

Was Einstein, as a patent clerk part of 'mainstream' science?

When Einstein presented relativity, was it just scoffed at, or did scientists look at it seriously, and then did it quickly become accepted as serious science? The answer is the latter, because Einstein went about formulating his theory scientifically and presenting it as such. So it was indeed mainstream science, just as Darwin's theory is. Creationism has had no such approach, precisely because it is 100% unscientific.

Just because no credible alternatives have arisen, does not mean that a theory is perfect. There have been many such theories where evidence began to mount against the theories, and all sorts of attempts to save the old theories were made.

No one said theories of how evolution happened are perfect. No scientist would. But neither are theories of gravity. Nothing is 100% certain. But what evidence has mounted against evolution? You've provided none that I've seen. Please, present the evidence against the fossil record. Or the DNA record. Or the molecular biological record. Or the geological record...

I'm convinced that punctuated equilibrium is like Ptolemaic epicycles. An attempt made to save a flawed theory lacking a viable alternative.

And what evidence do you have to support this? Or is it just your opinion? I mean, surely you have some examples of flaws that mean evolution must be wrong?

As Mayr pointed out, PunkEk fits perfectly well into Darwinism. And there hasn't been any evidence challenging it as a theory.

Who are these nameless 'creationists'?

Try any usenet group on the subject. There's a host of them who confuse them, like those who scoff at the notion of the giraffe's neck being a result of constant stretching to reach the trees, as if Darwinism said such a thing.

I know the difference between the two.

Nor did I say you didn't. But you do seem incapable in distiniguishing between evolution and Darwinism, which are not the same thing.

I also know the doubts Darwin had about his own theory.

First, lots of scientists have had doubts about their own theories. I suspect you're also a victim of quote mining about Darwin. The doubts Darwin expressed were only due to there being, at the time, a lack of fossils to support many of his predictions. As I pointed out in the last post, those predictions have been borne out by subsequent discovery.

Second, it's irrelevant even if Darwin had ever repudiated the theory, since once a theory is presented to the world, the theorist no longer owns it. If Newton had decided to recant and say objects fell to the ground due to invisible weights on them, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference as to the validity of the theory of gravity.

Am I from a staunch religious background?

I have refrained from making a religious case against evolution, rather I have pointed out the flaws in the theory in order to provoke discussion away from such pointless meanders.

But you haven't pointed out any of the flaws of the theory, except the claim it has no predictive power, which I pointed out is both not true and a distortion of what science says about constitutes good science.

Yes, they have changed, but in the face of empirical evidence supporting the contrary. Sometimes in a powerful way, like in Rutherford's scattering experiment.

So you'd agree then that changes in explanations, given new data, don't completely invalidate the facts that certain phenomena occur, yes?

That I contest. I can, if I wish to observe many of these chemical and physcial effects. Can I say the same for macroevolution?

Macroevolution? There is NO difference between micro and macroevolution, except degree. This is a false distinction that Creationists have been harping on for years, despite being roundly shown there is no real distinction. Small evolutionary changes compound to make big evolutionary changes, simple as that. We have observed evolutionary changes, so evolution meets the observation test:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And we've observed speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Physics and Chemistry, due to the wealth of empirical observation, are much more solidly established than evolutionary theory in biology.

The fact that evolution occurs, given the fossil record and molecular biology and observed evolution and speciation, is as solidly established as any other science.

Many did not fit his predictions either.

Such as? Remember that Punk EK does not deny gradualism.

The question has always been one of showing a link between these different species, and the problems of dramatic changes that occur in a small period, being represented in the fossil record.

And PunkEk has adequately explained this. Evolution does not predict a huge, complete fossil record. On the contrary, it is well known how difficult it is for fossil preservation to occur. Fossils are, relatively speaking, rare.

That's why it is even more remarkable that the fossils we have discovered all point, decisively, towards evolution. We can see gradual changes in species over millions of years that fit perfectly with the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Since Darwin proposed his theory, we have found intermediate fossils such as:

From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.

From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).

From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.

From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints--one reptilian and one mammalian.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html

All of these finds have confirmed predictions, that such creatures should exist if Evolution is true.

I also encourage you to read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html

This will address what you've posted in far greater detail than I can summarize.

volution is sometimes criticised for not being a predictive science, and for not having natural laws. This relates to the issue of whether science should be like physics (see the section on the nature of science), but the two issues raise a more general matter.

It goes to the question whether explanations have to make use of natural laws, and just what are explanations anyway?

One theory about explanation is called the nomological deductive (ND) theory, or less pretentiously, the hypothetical deductive theory. Due to philosophers Karl Popper and GC Hempel [cf Dray 1966, especially the essay by A Donagan], it has the form:

[See link]

The idea is that if the thing to be explained is a logical, deductive, consequence of the premises and the universal laws, then you have explained it. Once you have a theory of this form, then you can predict that a phenomenon will occur if the initial conditions are right, based on the universal laws of physics, chemistry, etc:

[See link]

There is a version that uses statistical assumptions and permits inductive argument rather than restricting explanation to deductive argument, called the statistical inductive model (SI), but we can safely ignore it here.

The prediction is a deductive consequence of a true theory and proper measurements. Since evolution cannot make predictions of this kind, and in fact any outcome is compatible with the theory, its critics say that evolution is not a complete science (see the section on the tautology of fitness).

However, there are problems with this highly idealised view of scientific explanation, and anyway, I will argue it doesn't affect evolution.

Any set of laws are ideal simplifications. In order to predict where a planet is going to be in 10,000 years, you have to ignore may things, such as the very small bodies, the influence of distant stars and galaxies, friction due to solar wind, and so forth. And it works, to a degree. But that degree is still real. You may only be off a few meters, but you will be off, due to these ignored complications. Physical systems of this kind are stable, in that the initial conditions do not greatly affect the outcome.

Evolution is not like these systems. It is highly sensitive to the initial conditions and the boundary conditions that arise during the course of evolution. You cannot predict with any reasonable degree of accuracy what mutations will arise, which genotypes will recombine, and what other events will perturb the way species develop over time. Moreover, the so-called 'laws' of genetics and other biological rules are not laws. They are exceptional. Literally. For every law, right down to the so-called 'central dogma' of molecular genetics, there is at least one exception.

And yet, we know the properties of many biological processes and systems well enough to predict what they will do in the absence of any other influences. This is proven in the lab daily. So, in this way, we have in biology the extreme end of the continuum of what we have in physics at the other end. The difference is one of degree, not kind. And more and more, physicists are uncovering systems that are similarly unstable and sensitive. You cannot predict in physics what any small number of molecules will do in a flame, or in a large gas volume, for example. And while the weather cannot be predicted at all in fine detail for very long, you can explain last week's weather through the initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics, etc, after it has happened.

If you take the standard form of biological explanation, it has the same structure as a physical explanation. It just differs in two ways. First, you cannot isolate 'extraneous' influences ahead of time for wild populations. Second, you cannot make a prediction much beyond the immediate short term (hence, nobody can predict the future of evolution of a species). Although a number of experiments have been conducted to test selectionist hypotheses through prediction, such as the studies on finches in the Galápagos Islands by the Grants, mostly, explanations in evolution take the following format:

[See link]

In other words, they are retrodictions, not predictions. The only formal difference between this and the same form in physics is that the tense is different. This use of the nomological-deductive model in historical cases is called a covering law model [Dray 1957, 1966].

So, physics is not really a different kind of science to evolutionary biology, except in some matters of convenience with experimentation, and the degree of the stability of the systems it sometimes explains, and not always then.

Covering law explanations can be used to retrodict the initial conditions, under certain circumstances. If you know what is now in evidence, and you have laws that generate these outcomes, you can sometimes predict what will be found:

For example - you know that certain features of ants are derived (not in the primitive ancestor). You have general laws of evolution that account for the phenomena you observe (actual ants today, and in the fossil record). So, you predict that a certain transitional form will be found. When it is, you have made a bona fide prediction.

What special conditions can this be done under? Well, for a start, if you have a deductive argument if A then B, you cannot immediately infer from the existence or truth of B, that A. It might have been something else. B might have a virtual infinity of possible causes. Before you can make a retrodiction like this, you have to narrow down the field. That is, you have to assume the validity of some theoretical models before you can make the retrodiction/prediction. On the other hand, if you make such a claim, and it pans out, you have certainly strengthened your model.

Finally, note that the ND model is not sophisticated enough to capture everything important about scientific explanations. A good many scientific explanations rest not on laws but propensities, that is, likelihood to behave in a certain way. And many perfectly useful accepted scientific explanations are not deductive, they are inductive. That is, the likely outcome of the initial conditions and the laws is not a rigourous deduction but an induction with all the problems that brings. Still, that's what science does, whether philosophers like it or not (cf Franklin 1997).

If evolution makes no predictions, someone had better tell this scientist:

http://www.eurekah.com/abstract.php?chapid=2258&bookid=176&catid=84

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What evidence do you have for this claim? How do you know that this Gospel was written 80 years after Christ's death?

Most scholars place it closer to 50, within John's lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship_and_date

There is nothing conclusive either way, but it's just as reasonable to believe this.

I want to say that you seem to not realize what the argument is about. Perhaps you should heed Whaleboy's advice and read the thread. We're not debating the authenticity of the gospels. We're talking about, as I Ned and I discussed, the feasibility of accepting even much of what the Bible says about Jesus as true without ascribing to his divinity.

I agree, that the other Gospels are better historical evidence than John's Gospel by virtue of being closer to the date. That doesn't mean there is no historical evidence present.

Again, never said there wasn't. But determining which is and isn't truly historical is an exercise in futility. So it's reasonable to believe John isn't as accurate a history.

True.

However, by the Second century they were there, as attested to by multiple church fathers. It wasn't the custom of the time, to attach specific authorship to these books.

However, there is no evidence as to why they gave the attestations. It's perfectly possible the authorship designations were given with the exact purpose of establishing a canonical collection of gospels that couldn't be challenged due to the supposed authority behind it.

I do think we have a way of being reasonably confident. If there were contested attestations, don't you think they would have emerged by the second century? After all, there are books, like the Epistle to the Hebrews that are not given an author. However, that's not the case with John's Gospel. No one contests his authorship.

Possibly the authorship was contested. But history is written by the winners. Or possibly it wasn't contested because nobody at the time knew enough to do so. And people do so want to believe some things.

Fair enough. But his historicity does not rest on such passages.

As I said, not really the issue at hand.

Cool. So you accept then, that there are historical passages in John's Gospel?

Possibly, but so? There are historical passages in the Romances of Alexander...

Oh, like Till I suppose?

Who? And relevance to this discussion?

Good question. What parts of John's Gospel do you consider historical? I find this a very intruiging question.

I really don't know, nor do I particularly care, as this isn't the real point of the discussion.

Oh, it's not just me. It's an opinion backed up by quite a few other things.

Actually, it's an opinion backed by other opinions backed by subjective interpretations.

Mormons believe Jesus was divine, there's no question to that. It's in a different fashion than other Christian sects, but it is still there.

Very true. Doesn't mean they are right in their assessment of Catholics.

Nor does it mean they are wrong. It's a subjective opinion, after all.

Oh, that one I have to have quoted. Perhaps his father would say that, but I find that hard to believe he would say that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

"Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”"

The Catholics who say the Protestants are not Christians, are going against the Second Vatican Council, and their own pope. The Southern Baptists have just as much an argument against the Catholics, as they do to each other.

And yet they make it, constantly, and it's an opinion that they feel is validated by what they believe to be true.

So, in summary, when people accuse Mormons, JWs or other such groups as being "not truly Christian," I just roll my eyes, because such accusations seem to apply to everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do. No one has ownership of the term, as far as I can tell.

Yes, it does. There may be emperical evidence in favour of a theory, but that does not make any theory a fact. It may be backed up by factual evidence, but it still remains a theory.

theory: [n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Jon Miller]

Note that Whaleboy should have no problem with BKs position because he doesn't think that science is neccesarily based upon physical experiments and observations.

Jon Miller