The catch cry of atheists world wide would have to be how unreliable the Bible is as a book to believe in. Their premier example is the creation story on Genesis. They scoff at creation in six days, and the way Genesis presents the order of creation. Up till recently it appeared as though the Christian was cornered. They only way to hold belief in Genesis and the scientific data meant a mythic approach to Genesis.
In a strange twist of science however the Christian is now turning to science as CONFIRMATION of the Genesis account.
John W. Loftus (Why I Became an Atheist) is scathing of the creation account in Genesis and devotes two chapters in his book pointing out problems with the account. His initial attack goes along this lines, p.270.
Modern Science Genesis 1
First the universe of stars existed First the earth was formed,
then the earth was formed. then the universe of stars was created.
Rain comes from clouds. Firmament holds back the water.
Stars are extremely far away. Stars in the firmament.
Sun existed before vegetation Vegetation before the sun.
Marine life before vegetation. Vegetation exist before marine life.
Insects exist before birds. Birds exist before insects.
John is not a scientists or a literary/historical expert. Contrast his reading of Genesis with that of a Darwinian scientist Andrew Parker, (The Genesis Enigma, p.3).
Scientific History of the Earth Genesis 1
The formation of the sun, And God said, 'Let there be light.'
(5'000 millions years ago)
The formation of the seas, and the And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven
separation of land areas (4'200 be gathered together unto one place, and let
million years ago). the dry land appear.
The beginnings of life, including 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
single-celled, photosynthetic seed [vegetation].'
organism ('plants') (around 3'900
million years ago.
The first image forming eye evolved 'Let there be lights... to divide the day from night'
and visual information used. The lights
were turned on for animal behavior and
evolution.(521 million years ago)
The Cambrian explosion - evolutions Big Bang 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
(beginning around 520 million years ago) creature that hath life.'
Life was exclusively marine at that time. God created the great whales, and every living
It was in this period that all the animal phyla creature that moveth, which the waters brought
that exist today evolved their characteristic forth abundantly after their kind.
forms. These facts are not common knowledge
Only an experienced biologists would know this.
All animals adapted to the vision of predators, ... and every winged fowl after his kind.
except for birds, which could afford not to because
they can escape predation through flight, and so
generally can avoid camouflage colours.
It is fascination that sea creatures and birds
should be singled out. These are, respectively,
the main characters and exceptions in life's
history book.
The contrast could not be more transparent. Notice also that John does not quote scripture but rather interprets it for the reader. Andrew Parker, just like a good scientist, does not, placing the very words of scripture alongside actual scientific historical knowledge. Looks like the reliability of the creation account in Genesis is not only fantastic but it offers proof of divine existence as it shows that this clearly was not a fluke. This really is the sucker punch that atheism never saw coming.
Posts
14 comments:
Cool.
I'd like you to agree to a test to the scientific superiority of the bible. If you get sick, I'd like you to refuse any modern scientific medicine and ONLY get treated with oil from a church elder.
Let's see how efficacious the bible's scientific rendering is.
Hi Chuck,
Yea I have heard this before. Problem with your test here is that it is prohibited in the bible. Believers are told time and time again not to put God to the test.
Phil.
Hi rev Phil,
I recently read, either in discover or scientific american, an article about the multiverse theory. The author said that those not believing in a creator ought to jump on the multiverse theory because the universe has alot stacked against it to removing a creator from its exsistance. The odds against this universe turning out like it is by chance is astronomical. But the odds for something creating it as orderly and precise as it is are small, in my opinion which means little in the scope of things. I like to compare it to the line in dumb and dumber when Jim carrey says to a girl at a bar, "what is the chance of me going out with a girl like you?" And she responds, "one in a million." which was meant to say to him never, but he says, "so you're saying there's a chance?"
So yes there is a small chance that this universe came to be without any help. But I think there is a better chance that this universe was planned and created. To me the evidence for a creator is in the order that is present.
Hi Rich,
Yep I agree totally, it is funny how the atheists have a slight contradiction when assessing stats! For example they will cite prayer stats or ask for miracle stats but when it comes to the universe they are interestingly quiet. Thanks for the comment. Phil.
Rich: The odds against this universe turning out like it is by chance is astronomical. But the odds for something creating it as orderly and precise as it is are small, in my opinion which means little in the scope of things.
It's amazing that people are able to pull out these precise numbers hen we have a sample size of 1.
Q: Can the universe be any other way?
A: We don't know.
Q: What sort of changes to the fundamental constants (assuming they can be changed independantly) result in complexity and the plausibility/probability of 'life'?
A: We don't know. Simulations have demonstrated either any changes destroying the chance of complexity arising, or for a wide range of changes to the constants still allowing complexity (and therefore the possibility of life) to arise. Short answer - we don't know.
Q: What is the probability of this 'creator' just existing?
A: I would say even lower than the universe coming from "nothing" and ending up somewhat orderly, given the attributes generally given to this putative creator.
Are there any decent estimates which don't rely upon Ontological arguments (which fail)?
Rich: But I think there is a better chance that this universe was planned and created. To me the evidence for a creator is in the order that is present.
As my question above, what is the probability of this creator just existing? :-)
Phil: Yep I agree totally, it is funny how the atheists have a slight contradiction when assessing stats! For example they will cite prayer stats or ask for miracle stats but when it comes to the universe they are interestingly quiet.
The intercessionary prayer stats use a lot of samples and comparisons, which lead to stats which are valid.
For the universe, how do you calculate stats from a position of ignorance and a sample size of 1. The probability of the universe existing as we see it is 1 - it is as we see it.
When it comes to stats regarding the existence of their deity, theists are strangely quiet :-)
Hey Havok,
You say...
For the universe, how do you calculate stats from a position of ignorance and a sample size of 1. The probability of the universe existing as we see it is 1 - it is as we see it.
When it comes to stats regarding the existence of their deity, theists are strangely quiet :-)
My Reply,
Good point however it is misguided. Yes we have only one universe to evaluate. However, we know WHAT makes this universe possible for life. The chemical and physical make up of that universe and the unfathomable impossibility of those conditions coming together by chance. Would you ever consider a marble table evolving into a conscious living organism that comprehends the universe. If yes you are delusional by definition. This has to be your position [atheism] which is totally ridiculous. This is the point. Your sample argument is rather weak and a little silly.
Phil.
Phil: However, we know WHAT makes this universe possible for life.
No we don't. We have some idea of what enables the complexity which makes OUR SPECIFIC form of life possible.
Phil: The chemical and physical make up of that universe and the unfathomable impossibility of those conditions coming together by chance.
This was my point - how does one calculate that these conditions are unfathomably impossible?
Here you're going beyond current evidence. We don't know if the "laws" could have been different. A "Theory of Everything" may have no degree's of freedom, meaning a universe could be no different to ours, or it could have many degrees.
We don't know.
Phil: Would you ever consider a marble table evolving into a conscious living organism that comprehends the universe.
A marble table is pretty chemically inert - a good strawman, but a a very poor example Phil.
Phil: If yes you are delusional by definition. This has to be your position [atheism] which is totally ridiculous.
For a start, strawman'ing your opponents position in such a pitiful manner indicates you may not be arguing in good faith.
Secondly, I suppose you deny the evidence that complexity can arise from "simple" organic chemistry, and the research into abiogenesis which has a number of promising "pathways" for the juncture from complex organic chemistry to biology?
If you take a look into current research into abiogenesis, you may be surprised :-)
Phil: This is the point. Your sample argument is rather weak and a little silly.
Actually, you've said nothing to address my points that we're currently not in a position to assess those probabilities with any sort of accuracy, nor have you attempted to address my question to theists like yourself - the probability (with supporting reasoning, if you'd be so kind) of your specific deity simply existing?
Surely an entity with such ludicrously "perfect" attributes as are generally attributed to your deity simple existing would be incredibly less probable than "the universe" (which has none of those "perfections") simply existing :-)
Hey Havok,
You said,
"Theory of Everything" may have no degree's of freedom, meaning a universe could be no different to ours, or it could have many degrees.
We don't know.
My Reply,
This is a science of the spaces argument. There is no evidence to suggest science will ever make suck a finding, so I cannot see the force of your point.
You said,
A marble table is pretty chemically inert - a good strawman, but a a very poor example Phil.
My Reply,
But this is the same life conditions that you are pertaining to is it not?
You said,
For a start, strawman'ing your opponents position in such a pitiful manner indicates you may not be arguing in good faith.
My Reply,
I'm sorry you have chosen to think like that.
You said,
Secondly, I suppose you deny the evidence that complexity can arise from "simple" organic chemistry, and the research into abiogenesis which has a number of promising "pathways" for the juncture from complex organic chemistry to biology?
My Reply,
Yes but we are not just talking about biology here. We are talking about cosmology. I think there is great biological evidence for complexity arising out of simple organisms however very little evidence of those conditions originally coming together initially, this is the point.
Phil.
Phil: This is a science of the spaces argument.
No it isn't. My point is simply that we are in a position of ignorance.
Phil: There is no evidence to suggest science will ever make suck a finding, so I cannot see the force of your point.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not saying we'll ever have an answer for that, simply that currently we're ignorant.
Your claims for fine tuning require these constants to be able to vary a great deal and very independently. Can you or any of the people you rely upon for that claim justify it, or is it simply an assertion on your part?
Phil: But this is the same life conditions that you are pertaining to is it not?
Are you actually that ignorant of current abiogenesis and solar system formation theories/hypothesis?
Phil: I'm sorry you have chosen to think like that.
Your previous comment combined with your initial marble table "analogy" either indicates a position of ignorance or arguing in bad faith. Which is it, do you think?
Phil: Yes but we are not just talking about biology here. We are talking about cosmology. I think there is great biological evidence for complexity arising out of simple organisms
Good, so you accept that abiogenesis is at least possible. That's a start :-)
Phil: however very little evidence of those conditions originally coming together initially, this is the point.
So we're back to the fine tuning argument, and you still need to support your claims, that it is indeed improbable/impossible, something you've only asserted without backing it up.
Hey Havok,
You said,
No it isn't. My point is simply that we are in a position of ignorance.
My reply,
That's the space. :-)
You said,
Your claims for fine tuning require these constants to be able to vary a great deal and very independently. Can you or any of the people you rely upon for that claim justify it, or is it simply an assertion on your part
My Reply,
No but neither can the opposite be asserted. Hence we must go with what we currently know.
You said,
Are you actually that ignorant of current abiogenesis and solar system formation theories/hypothesis?
My Reply,
To be honest yes, however are they or are they not just theories.
You said,
Which is it, do you think?
My Reply,
I hope ignorance?
You said,
Good, so you accept that abiogenesis is at least possible. That's a start
My Reply,
Completely.
You said,
improbable/impossible, something you've only asserted without backing it up.
My Reply,
Haven't I done that. Carbon based life for example?
Phil.
Phil: That's the space. :-)
I'm not the one claiming to know what fills the space, Phil. you are: "The chemical and physical make up of that universe and the unfathomable impossibility of those conditions coming together by chance."
So, either justify this assertion, or retract it - it's that simple really :-)
Phil: No but neither can the opposite be asserted. Hence we must go with what we currently know.
What is it that we know on this score, Phil?
Phil: To be honest yes, however are they or are they not just theories.
As soon as we move outside the realms of logic and Math (and it seems even within them, in some circumstances), everything becomes "just theories". What is your point?
Phil: Haven't I done that.
Not that I noticed. Lots of claims (some quite grandiose), not too much else :-)
Phil: Carbon based life for example?
What about carbon based life?
How does it support any claim of fine tuning? If you're talking about the energy resonance of carbon-12 and thre triple alpha process, I don't see how that supports your claims (though I think you're claimed it does previously).
Hey Havok,
It appears that we are going around in circles. We have spoken about these topics before and found that we got stuck there. Your assertions have been answered before and you can find it there.
You say,
Everything becomes "just theories". What is your point?
My Reply,
Your assertions are theories and you ask for my facts. This is the issues I have been trying to point out, but again we are moving in circles. This is not cleaver just sophism.
I think we have gone far enough over old ground, you agree?
Phil.
Phil: Your assertions have been answered before and you can find it there.
We've covered similar ground before, true, but you've never supported your claims, either here or previously.
Phil: Your assertions are theories and you ask for my facts.
No, I simply asked that you support your claims that "The chemical and physical make up of that universe and the unfathomable impossibility of those conditions coming together by chance." and therefore the universe being fine tuned by some kind of "person" is more probable.
You're yet to produce any sort of argument or evidence to support this, and yet seem unwilling to retract the claim.
Phil: I think we have gone far enough over old ground, you agree?
We keep going over the same ground, Phil, because you continue to make the same/similar claims without justification.
Since you brought this post up, how about you actually demonstrate that science confirms genesis instead of indulging in the ad hoc rationalisations and special pleading you seem to rely upon? :-)
Post a Comment