Posts Tagged ‘epistemology’
Hickory-Dickery Dawkins
Written by Ron McClure Jr.
Monday, 09 June 2008 04:18
4 Comments

The Deconstruction
of an Urban Legend

Writer’s note: (Italics should be read like a parent to a child, with a lot of enthusiasm and dynamics.)

Once upon a time, there was a Great Zoologist from Great Britain. It is said that he could deflate an argument with a single syllable. In fact, he is said to be the smartest person ever to roam the earth…and several other “highly evolved” planets! One day, while skipping through the garden, he realized his academic achievements had far surpassed that of a simple college professor. In fact, he had climbed his way up to be Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford in England. Not only did he excel in his academic endeavors, he also assumed the role of ambassador of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.” Meanwhile, one dark and spooky night, his study of animals and Darwin’s research led him to this conclusion, “There is no God!” In a state of fear and panic, he scrambled about, adding “U’s” to words like favor and color and changing “er’s” to “re’s.” Latre that night, while savouring his newfound revelation, The Great Zoologist from Great Britain ventured out to make a bundle of money by writing books and giving lectures about his conclusions… Who is this man? No one knows for sure, but some say that his name is, GASP! ………..

Dr. Richard Dawkins!

 

 

A few weeks ago, my close friend Chad and I attended a showing of the documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film focuses on the “Big Science” movement to squelch scientific discussion of “Intelligent Design” (ID). ID is a “science-based” alternative to Darwinian Evolution as the origin of life on earth. Its conclusions are the result of high-tech advances in modern molecular biology, a science that post-dates the “Theory of Evolution.” Darwin had the same agenda as ID, the acquisition of truth. However, the main difference between the two methodologically is that Darwin had archaic scientific tools from which to derive his conclusions.

I have always equated Richard Dawkins with extreme intellect, regardless of disagreeing with many of his opinions. However, recently I discovered that Dawkins is just a man. He is a simple man, with great passion and a strong faith. In fact, I believe Dr. Richard Dawkins has turned his back on science and embraced religion.

I happened upon a blog post on one of Richard Dawkins’ websites a few days ago that challenged the movie, “Expelled.” I first started to read the commentary, because I believe in fully understanding both sides before I make judgments. I in no way wish to abandon my faith, but I believe that gathering as much information as possible will lead me to the best understanding of my existence. As a Christian, I concede that innumerable Christians before me have often rushed to judgment and come to erroneous conclusions. Expecting maturity and strong content, I began to read, hoping to glean a better perspective.

Instead, I found that the post was tainted with emotional sewage and continuous ad hominem degradation of the film, its producer, and its narrator. Assuming the author was a follower of Dawkins, I was nearly halfway through the piece before I realized that Dawkins himself had written it. In spite of the fact that Dawkins got off to a very disrespectful start by choosing to personally attack Ben Stein, the narrator of the film, I reluctantly read on:

"The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein,” wrote Dawkins. “I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants” (Dawkins’ blog site).

But, Dr. Dawkins is an intellectual, right? Why would he stoop to name-calling and childish rants? Dawkins had not heard of Ben Stein, but since Americans “apparently” are oblivious to “knowledge of science,” “logical reasoning,” “box office appeal” or even “public speaking ability,” the only “logical” explanation for “big dumb Ben Stein” to have been selected is…Americans are stupid. Man! Dawkins’ respect (or lack thereof ) for America is quite evident here. Dawkins actually tried to avoid the content of the film and also diminish its significance because “he didn’t like Ben Stein.” Very scientific, Doc! That just oozes with logical reasoning. Under the same logic, those who find YOU arrogant and obnoxious have good “reason” to deny the “validity” of Darwinism.

Here is another short passage from Dr. Richard Dawkins’ post that pontificates on the link between Adolph Hitler, Nazism and Darwinism, purported in the film:

"We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very “ungarbled" understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.”
(Dawkins’ blog site).

Let us examine Dawkins’ use of logic, since it seemed to “rank high” in importance to him while attacking Ben Stein. “Just because Hitler subscribed to Darwin’s ideas of natural selection to extinguish millions of people, in no way could Darwin be held accountable…because after all, Hitler had a “garbled” understanding of Darwin.” However, in the same sentence Dawkins attacks Christianity with the same argument, but with an inverse conclusion. “Just because Martin Luther subscribed to the ideas and teachings of Christ, Christianity “IS” held accountable for Martin Luther’s “garbled” understanding of Christ.” Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. To illustrate the absurdity of this tack let’s take the same prose and exchange some names to better understand Dawkins’ logic in practice. We all have heard of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) (the cult in Texas with all of the charges of polygamy and child abuse). Let’s see how this looks when I substitute the “FLDS” in place of “Hitler” in Dawkins’ quote.

"We are supposed to believe that [the FLDS] was influenced by [Jesus]. [The FLDS] was ignorant and bonkers enough for [their] hideous mind[s] to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of [Jesus] (along with [their] very “ungarbled” understanding of the [young polygamy] of [Joseph Smith], and of [their] own never-renounced [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] religion) but it is hardly [Jesus’] fault if [they] did.”

Would Dr. Dawkins make this statement? Would he defend Christianity this fervently? I highly doubt it. He blames Christianity for every mistake, or “garbled” manifestation produced by Christians, but when it comes to Darwin…he’s standing high on the stump to defend him, “but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.” (Dawkins’ blog site).

Though not a fan of Dawkins, at the very least I was geared up for an intellectual “chess match,” not the infantile game of “Chutes and Ladders” that I encountered on his site. I was devastated… This world must be going to hell…or “de-evolving”…depending on where your faith lies. Don’t be misguided folks, Dawkins has faith, and he defends his faith more passionately and apparently more successfully than most Christians. Isn’t it comical how closely Dawkins’ representation of Darwin is to that of an “omniscient deity.” He says, “who would dare question (you have to say this part really slow and in a deep voice) ‘The All-Powerful Charles Darwin?’” echo…echo…echo…echo.

Dawkins clearly is a hypocrite. His chastisement of “Believers” is one of a sanctimonious liar, because he himself has faith. Dawkins just chooses to put his “faith” in Darwin, and he hides it under the cover of “science.” Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” is nothing more than an antiquated philosophy that does not address the problem of “something formed from nothing.” No matter how you dress it up, evolution does not explain the initial origin of the first organism. The only “origin” Darwin could find was on the cover of his book, “The ‘Origin’ of Species.” Now that’s faith folks—faith, like that of the masses which insisted the earth was flat, even after science had advanced and found it to be round. Darwin himself admitted that some of his postulations were “highly speculative,” and that “some no doubt would prove erroneous.” (Darwin, “The Descent of Man” p 315).

But what happened to “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain” that I have heard of in legends?

…and so the “Great Zoologist from Great Britain” clung and clung to his atheistic identity. But, after Toto had revealed the man behind the curtain and thwarted all of his illusions, the little children GASPED! First Santa Claus! Then, the Easter Bunny! SHRIEK!!…now, “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain!” They wept and wept, and it was nearly two and a half days before they were able to drink Kool-Aid again.

THE END.

 
Fraudulent chain email reveals hidden opportunity
Written by Chad Phillips
Thursday, 10 April 2008 02:27
No Comments

If you consider yourself to be a trusting person, you might want to stop and check your sources before forwarding that next chain email to everyone on your contacts list.

This week I received yet another in the long litany of chain email hoaxes being circulated about town. It had the following heading and lead:

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006

“Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.”

Yes…well, it would if it were true.

The piece, which was obviously written as neocon shtick, opines a great deal about how important it is to decipher fact from fiction, about bias in the media, and about how that bias leads to a presentation of facts which are inconsistent with the reality of the universe. That sounds pretty good, – until you get to the “facts” used to support the assertions of bias in this tripe-laden polemic.

The email cites (ttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) as its reference in attempting to make its case of agenda driven reporting. Next, it lists statistics for total military fatalities for each year from 1980 up through 2006. It also shows who was president for those years. These stats are supposedly taken from the report cited at the url listed in this post. Using the stats contained in the email, the writer makes the case that there were more military deaths during the Clinton years, than during the Bush Jr. years. Moreover, it adds that such an egregious oversight constitutes a massive mainstream media cover up. Finally, (and this is the amazing part) the author of the email invites readers to check out the linked document for themselves. However, when you do, you find that the statistics as presented in the email are almost totally bogus.

After a protracted rant and the citing of these fabricated stats, the writer makes the following hilarious statements:

“I hope that during the time between now and November, that (sic) intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters."

"Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice?"

"Who spins the facts and who is genuine.”

Those last couple of paragraphs are pure genius. Why? Because the writer practically begs us to check his sources, both in his lead and in his concluding remarks. He begs us to go beyond our biases, begs us to do more than just believe his presentation because we want to. Maybe that is why the author has the following tag in his leading paragraph, “this report should open some eyes.”

But with the volume of propagandistic email I see like this on a weekly basis, it is evident that people’s eyes aren’t being opened. Instead, their preconceived notions are being reinforced, and that’s a sad commentary in itself. We should know better. Yet, somehow, we don’t, probably owing to our human propensity for believing what we want to believe. It’s just all too easy to buy into a concept if it already fits our biases.

I suppose that really is the lesson of that email. Don’t believe everything you hear or read, especially, if you agree with what is being posited. We’ll do ourselves, our friends, and our family a huge favor if we check our facts before hitting the “forward” button.

 
The Case for a Creator: Part III
Written by Lance Ponder
Thursday, 27 March 2008 02:33
No Comments

Was the universe caused?

The Kalam Principle states that whatever begins to exist has a cause: The universe began to exist, thus the universe has a cause. The principle was first put forward around 400 AD by John Philoponus of Alexandria. Once you reach the logical conclusion the universe was caused, then the philosophic question, "Why?" cannot be avoided.

Does a beginning require a cause?

In the current age of scientific enlightenment when the very foundation of science itself is based on studying cause-effect relationships, it should be obvious that for something to begin to exist, it must have a cause. In the case of the existence of the universe however, scientists who accept the idea that the universe is expanding must also accept that the universe had a beginning. To avoid this conclusion, some scientists have instead suggested that something can come from nothing.

The “Big Bang Theory” attempts to resolve this by suggesting the universe can do, and did do, just that – it spontaneously popped into existence “ex nihilo,” as it were. To summarize, the universe exploded from a state where everything was previously stuffed into a tiny spot, perhaps no bigger than the period of a sentence. The Big Bang, however, does not explain why the universe exists. Nor do observations of the universe support the Big Bang as the origin of “stuff.” Nor can a thinking person truly conceive of something coming from nothing by any natural means.

Some scientists have put forward the idea of “quantum uncertainties” as the cause of matter’s existence. It has been shown that in a vacuum, sub-atomic matter/anti-matter pairs can spontaneously appear, though they tend to exist only briefly, and very rarely with any greater complexity than a quark or lepton pair. Furthermore, the “vacuum” in which they spontaneously appear is not truly an empty void of nothingness, rather it is a sea of turbulent, if generally low level, energy devoid of matter.

If, however, a person holds to the idea that the universe is static (not expanding and potentially infinite), the question of effect requiring a cause is not a problem. So, with either model, the premise that the beginning of the existence of anything requires a cause cannot reasonably be denied.

Did the universe have a beginning?

Whether the universe is consistent with a static or expanding model, it cannot have an infinite past, thus it must have had a beginning. This proposition holds both mathematically and philosophically.

To demonstrate this mathematically, imagine you had an infinite supply of marbles. If you gave away all your marbles to a friend, they would have infinite marbles and you’d have none. The sum would then be infinity plus zero. If instead you gave your friend every other marble, you’d both have an infinite amount of marbles. That yields the net sum of infinity + infinity. As another alternative, if you kept only three marbles, the new sum would be 3 + infinity.

Mathematically speaking, infinity is only a concept. It cannot exist in the physical universe. Substitute past events for marbles and the absurdity of the infinite model becomes obvious. In the real universe, you cannot add one to infinity because it is already infinite, thus you cannot add a new sun, moon, planet, galaxy, or even atoms.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity requires the universe to be non-static. If this is true, then it had to have come from somewhere, by some means, as a result of some prime cause. Even if the universe really is static, transfinite mathematics require a beginning for the cosmos.

Even the noted cosmologist Stephen Hawking has admitted that his best mathematical models can only create a parabolic past rather than one without a singularity at its core. To get there, he had to use “imaginary” numbers (numbers which include the square root of -1) in coming up with his parabolic time model. In other words, the hocus-pocus of high math could only blur the distinction of beginning from a “singularity” point to a curve. Regardless of its shape, a beginning is still a beginning.

Another theory which tries to skirt the issue of causation is that of the oscillating universe. If this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? A theory was recently put forward suggesting multiple simultaneously existing universes which overlap. For this to be true, there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” cranking them out. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of natural explanation where there is none.

In spite of the theories of various scholars, the universe may actually be consistent with the static model. To begin with, there are a number of profound arguments against an expanding universe which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, the biblical text does not prohibit an expanding universe, nor does it require an expanding universe. However, scripture does not require nor prohibit a static universe, although many Bible scholars would find it easier to support a static model with scripture. If the universe is static at this time, and it very well may be relatively static, this does not get around the requirement for a beginning using the transfinite mathematics discussed earlier. With regard to God, it seems absurd that an ultimate being would endure an infinite past to get humanity to its current state.

If the universe began and it had a cause, is God that cause?

God is eternal. Thus He is without beginning and therefore the only logical prime cause for the existence of the universe. God started time and created all matter. Then He gave it order, and finally, He created life. Thus far, scientists positing a natural cause for the universe have been utterly unable to account for that cause. The only answer when the natural concept fails is a supernatural one. If science cannot show us our origin, perhaps the revelation of God’s word is the only logical answer after all.

The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution

The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos