Lost and Found: Modern Science and Ancient Faith

BreakPoint ^ | 19 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

G. K. Chesterton once told a story about "an English yachtsman who slightly miscalculated his course and discovered England under the impression that it was an island in the South Seas."

The yachtsman "landed (armed to the teeth and speaking by signs) to plant the British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the pavilion at Brighton." Expecting to have discovered New South Wales, he realized "that it was really old South Wales."

Chesterton was talking about the way in which we cast off the truths we learned as children, only later, if we are fortunate, to rediscover them as adults. What we dismissed as "simple" often turns out to be far more profound than we ever imagined.

According to Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware, what's true about people is also true about science. In his new book, MODERN PHYSICS AND ANCIENT FAITH, Barr tells us that after the "twists" and "turns" that science took in the twentieth century, it, like Chesterton's yachtsman, wound up in "very familiar surroundings": a universe that "seems to have had a beginning . . . [and is] governed by laws that have a grandeur and sublimity that bespeak design."

Instead of man being merely the result of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," we now know that the "universe and its laws seem in some respect to balance on a knife's edge" -- exactly what is needed for the possibility of life. A slight deviation here or there, and we wouldn't exist -- the anthropic principle.

These and other "recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist's expectations and confirm those of the believer in God," writes Barr.

Notice, he said "materialist's," not "scientist's." As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists besides matter, and it is a philosophical opinion. It may have, as Barr puts it, "[grown] up alongside science," but it's not science. Remember that, a critical point.

The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. There's nothing about physics, for example, that assumes, much less demands, that view of the universe. In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

Despite these facts, philosophical materialism has become so identified with science that scientists, and the general public, often have trouble telling them apart, which is why the discoveries that Barr describes come as a surprise, and their implications are resisted by many within the academy.

These implications aren't inconsistent with science, but rather with their dogmatic materialist worldview. Resisting these implications has required ingenious, almost fanciful, attempts to interpret the evidence in a way consistent with the materialist worldview.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about some of these discoveries and how they have "damaged the credibility of materialism." It's an important story about how science, far from being the enemy of faith, is only at war with those who, against the evidence, insist that England is "Tahiti."

[Ichneumon]

Natural science is an impossible enterprise under a materialist rubric.

I'm sure you believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

[Ichneumon]

ID explains irreducible complexity whereas evolutionism doesn't.

Actually, it does. Even by Behe's definition (in particular, *especially* by Behe's definition), evolution is perfectly able to produce "irreducible complexity".

Furthermore, most of Behe's "examples" of irreducibly complex systems are provably *not* "IC".

Behe's either a fool, or a huckster making bucks selling comforting books to creationists grasping for "proof" design. And neither option inspires confidence.

The fossil record indicates morphological stasis in species, in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

Horse manure. The fossil record indicates *BOTH* morphological stasis *AND* morphological change in species (contrary to what many creationists will try to tell you). And that's exactly what one would expect to find if evolution were responsible for modern life.

And this has been recognized since 1859. A little behind on your science reading?

Evolution simply lacks explanatory power.

ROFL! Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

[saradippity]

Teillard du Chardin??Isn't he that lying Jesuit that fabricated tales about the Piltdown man as well as Pekin man? It boggles the mind that anyone could act like he was/is credible.

[MissAmericanPie]

bttt

[Aquinasfan]

Even by Behe's definition (in particular, *especially* by Behe's definition), evolution is perfectly able to produce "irreducible complexity".

Then explain to me how transitional stages of development would benefit the creature (increase its ability to survive) in the following cases:

• The woodpecker's tongue that wraps around (over) its head. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted the bird?

• The human eye. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted human beings?

[Aquinasfan]

I'm sure you believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

Here's why. Assume that materialism is true. Then under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, human thought must also be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, my thought that "materialism is false" is equally the product of moving atoms as your theory that "materialism is true." Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other. But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion is false. The intermediate propositions are logically valid. Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that materialism is true.

Materialism can be shown to be incoherent in another way. Materialism cannot give a coherent explanation for the unified experience of consciousness or the unified sense of self. Is my sense of self reducible to my thoughts? But my thoughts must be strings of chemicals. But if each thought is a discrete set of atoms then there must be as many "selves" as discrete thoughts. Is the self a scanning mechanism in the brain that analyzes these discrete thoughts? If so, then there must be as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Empirical science is only possible under a moderate realist epistemology.

[Aquinasfan]

This link may be helpful. Nominalism, Realism and Conceptualism.

[Aquinasfan]

Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated; most of Behe's examples of it have been shot out of the water.

Link? Proof? Arguments from authority are weak to begin with, and evolutionary biologists have lost what little authority they may have had.

Moreover, ID does not explain... Why did the designer do that?

I don't know? How should these things have been designed? What would a perfectly designed human being looked like?

[One of the funniest Gouldisms was his suggestion that animals should have been given wheels so they could move faster. But how would they move in mud? In snow? Over uneven terrain? How could they swim and run?

What's the difference between God and evolutionary biologists? God knows that he isn't an evolutinary biologist.]

I don't know whether these examples represent disorder or not. But I will concede that disorder appears to exist in nature. But this apparent disorder in nature does not contradict the idea that Creation is generally if not overwhelmingly good and ordered. First of all, this world is not necessarily the "best of all possible worlds." Secondly, the Fall is generally considered to have introduced disorder into the universe. Certainly this is true regarding human nature. The human will is universally imperfect. Regarding apparent disorder in nature in general, there are several permissible speculations. The natural world may have been corrupted after the Fall, or our natural faculties were so damaged that things which hurt us now (the thorns on a rose) did not hurt us before the Fall. But generally, the universe overwhelmingly bespeaks design, and where there is a design there must be a designer.

So where's the explanatory power?

Apparent disorder in nature does not contradict intelligent design, as shown above. However, intelligent design better explains irreducibly complex systems like the human eye, and Behe's examples, than a theory which posits transitional forms which benefit from incomplete transitional features. Secondly, ID better explains the fossil record than evolutionary theory. Stasis in species is overwhelmingly the rule in the fossil record. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear in the same way. Transitional forms exist only in artists' depictions.

[Aquinasfan]

And yet, some of those pieces are quite functional without the whole. How is this irreducible?

The whole cannot operate without all of its components in place. Any speculative intermediate stages would not operate and would offer no survival advantage.

[Aquinasfan]

This wasn't a problem for Frere Teilhard, Christian evolutionist.

His philosophy was pretty weird. But in general, the theory of evolution can be incorporated into a theistic worldview. The problem I have with evolution is the science. Evolutionary theory just doesn't correspond to the available data.

The species remain, but new species arise from them. In some cases, maybe most cases, no new species arise from existing species at all; for the one case, a whole new branch could arise and flower into even more variety than the branch it came from.

This is interesting speculation, but it doesn't conform with the fossil record. The other problem is that when examined carefully this speculation falls apart. Thinking about the staggeringly complex human body, it just seems impossible that it could have developed gradually. Take the eye, for example. How could it have arisen gradually? Not only do all the parts have to be in place for it to operate, which seems impossible through chance, but all of the supporting biological systems (neurological, circulatory, etc.) must also have arisen simultaneously, which is equally implausible.

[RightWhale]

Man is just another mammal, nothing special except the relative size of the lump of fat at the forward end of the spinal cord. Teilhard's problem seems to be that he actually went out into the field and looked for himself. People get strange ideas doing that.

[Ichneumon]

[Even by Behe's definition (in particular, *especially* by Behe's definition), evolution is perfectly able to produce "irreducible complexity".]

Then explain to me how transitional stages of development would benefit the creature (increase its ability to survive) in the following cases:

• The woodpecker's tongue that wraps around (over) its head. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted the bird?

Intermediate stages would have looked like a tongue that wrapped only *partway* around the head -- like a chicken's tongue, for example:

"Supporting biological systems" would have been the same hyoid bone that other birds use to guide their tongues -- the woodpecker's tongue works exactly the same as other birds' tongues, just greater in length. How would they have benefitted the bird? Because a longer tongue is better in bark-probing birds, even if it's not quite as long as the most extreme examples found in modern woodpeckers.

For pete's sake, was that so hard to figure out for anyone who knew even the SLIGHTEST, most ELEMENTARY information about bird anatomy? (I guess this leaves out all the creationist sources which still wave the woodpecker around as if it somehow used an impossible "new" tongue structure.)

What exactly led you to believe that this was in any way "irreducibly complex"? Did you use the same system that other creationists (including Behe) use, which is to say "I don't know the answer off the top of my head, therefore it must be impossible?"

• The human eye. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted human beings?

The eyes of "human beings" are the same as ape eyes, which we inherited them from, therefore it's silly to ask how "intermediate stages" of the eye would have benefitted *humans*, as if you're under the bizarre impression that humans (*as* humans) had to evolve their eyes from scratch while human.

But to answer your question in its more sensible form, the evolution of modern mammalian-style eyes (which of course includes "human eyes") is well understood. Basically they arise from a primitive eyespot through a gradual sequence schematically represented as:

Eyes easily evolve through the following intermediate stages, each of which is a step up in visual ability from the stage before, and therefore would have obviously benefitted the creature which had them compared to the eyes of its ancestors:

1. Light-sensitive nerves, such as in the dinoflagellate Gyrodinium dorsum, the pulmonate Lymnea stagnalis, the marine gastropods Aplysia and Onchidium and the bivalves Spisula and Mercenaria, the hydra, and so on.

2. Light-sensitive spots (composed of a patch of the light-senstive nerves from stage #1) as in many unicellular organisms esp. eukaryotic algae, and multicellular creatures like Leeches, the bivalves Lima, Mya, and Tridacna, etc.

3. Cup-shaped light sensitive spots (composed of the spots in #2 with the addition of a transparent protective covering which becomes thicker, pushing the light-sensitive spot itself downward into a cup-shaped depression), as in turbellarian worm Planeria gonocephala, nemertime worm Drepanophorus, the limpet Patella, etc.

4. A deepened cup-shaped light-sensitive spot which has deepened to the point that the cup becomes more spherical and the opening which accepts light has begun to narrow, forming a primitive pinhole camera, as in the cephalopod Nautilus, etc.

5. Modification (shape, material, etc.) of the transparent material in the light-admitting aperture, in a way that better shapes the incoming ilght (i.e. a "lens"), as in abalone, ragworm, polychaete worm Vanadis, and so on.

6. Addition of a method (muscles, generally) to reshape the lens as needed for changing focal requirements.

Also somewhere in there at any point is the incremental addition of the ability to widen/narrow the light aperture to better adjust for changing brightness (i.e. which through refinement becomes the iris or some similar structure), and an ability to skew the "aim" of the eyespot/eye without having to move the body it rests in (i.e. muscles or some other structure to rotate the eye).

Voila, there's the mammalian eye structure, having arisen by gradual modifications, which of which improves vision acuity, yet each step is still fully functional.

You know, if you spent even a fraction of the time looking for answers as you do looking for what you hope will be "stumper" questions, you'd have known all this already.

For example a Google search for "evolution woodpecker tongue" turns up many good websites on the anatomy and evolution of woodpeckers, including this excellent page, and a Google search for "evolution eye" turns up more fascinating information on evolution of the eye than you can shake a stick at, and also excellent books such as Cronly-Dillon, JR. & Gregory, RL., eds. Vision and Visual Dysfunction Vol. 2: Evolution of the Eye and Visual System. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 1991.

It never ceases to amaze me how often creationists propose "problems" with evolution that are no such thing, and in fact are well-understood areas of biology.

Is it too much to ask that creationists *learn* something about biology before they attempt to refute it, or that Freeper creationists take a moment to peruse some *science* sources before they post what they have read in their tunnel-visioned reading of *only* creationist sources?

[PatrickHenry]

[Thunderous applause!]

[balrog666]

[Thunderous applause!]

[Thunderous applause!]

There's an echo in here ...

[Aquinasfan]

One day, a bird's tongue jumped from its normal length to three times its normal length, and wrapped around its head at the same time. Either that, or over countless generations the tongue slowly increased in length and gradually wrapped around its head. Although the survival advantage of a tongue that wraps halfway around a birds head is unclear, to put it kindly.

The moving eye spot thing is simply laughable. I can imagine a worm turning into a 747, but that doesn't make it so. What is lacking is a theory that is even remotely plausible.

[js1138]

No sane person would believe evolution as you present it. Judging from your characterization of evolutionary facts, it's no wonder you think it's a silly idea.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationist's strawman understanding of evolution:

For a more in-depth look at the creationist strawman version of evolution, Click Here.

[lasereye]

Here's a few that I found. I'm sure I could find a lot more.

"But the debate in the country's school boards is all around what should go into the science curriculums & textbooks. Whenever somebody proposes a compromise to put ID in a comparative religion class, the ID activists always reject that."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1011759/posts?page=25#25

"Ascribing the parameters of physics to mere chance or vagaries of cosmic weather is defeatist, discouraging people from undertaking the difficult calculations that would actually explain why things are they way they are. Moreover, it is also dangerous, he declared to ringing applause."

"It smells of religion and intelligent design," he said, referring to a variety of creationism that argues that the universe is too complex to have evolved by chance.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1009359/posts?page=386

"At the recent League of Women Voters' forum for the Modesto City Schools board, a candidate advocated teaching intelligent design (ID) in science classes. Intelligent design is the belief that life is too complex to have developed without an intelligent designer."

"While this claim may be true, it is a religious or philosophical belief because it invokes causes not investigable by science. "

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1011965/posts

[Aquinasfan]

Judging from your characterization of evolutionary facts, it's no wonder you think it's a silly idea.

fact n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

2. a.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

the·o·ry n.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[Ichneumon]

One day, a bird's tongue jumped from its normal length to three times its normal length, and wrapped around its head at the same time.

No, sorry, try again.

Either that, or over countless generations the tongue slowly increased in length and gradually wrapped around its head.

Yes, exactly. Now was that so hard?

Although the survival advantage of a tongue that wraps halfway around a birds head is unclear, to put it kindly.

The number of things that are "unclear" to you is likely quite large, to put it kindly.

I already showed you that the chicken's tongue "wraps halfway around" its head. I even gave you a pretty picture in case you found the words too difficult. Did you miss that, or was the significance of it just "unclear" to you?

If the survival advantage of a tongue which "wraps halfway around" its head is so "unclear", then why do so many freaking birds *have* one that does so? They seem to be surviving, do they not? And if this is *not* a useful trait, why did (in your view) your god "design" them that way?

Woodpecker hint for the "unclear": In a species which uses its tongue to reach food under bark, even a small increase in tongue length provides a *clear* survival advantage since it will be able to reach food deeper in crevices than will its shorter-tongued cousins. This is so obvious that I'm boggled that anyone could possibly find it "unclear".

The moving eye spot thing is simply laughable.

Giggling is a poor substitute for reasoning, son.

I can imagine a worm turning into a 747, but that doesn't make it so.

Is that the best rebuttal you can come up with? Sigh, I suppose it is.

But don't move the goalposts now that the game is over.

Your original question wasn't a request for what was necessarily "so", it was a challenge to show that the eye was not "irreducibly complex" by showing how "intermediate stages" could have "benefitted" the creature which had them. I slam-dunked your challenge by showing how a gradual series of steps could lead from the existence of light-sensitive neurons all the way up to a mammalian-type eye, with any given step providing an increased vision capability (and therefore increased survival advantage) over the preceding steps. Therefore the eye is *NOT* "irreducibly complex". QED.

Rather than acknowledge this, you attempt to move the goal posts by whining about how that doesn't prove that the eye actually arose by that exact sequence. Well gosh, Mr. Wizard, that wasn't the point under discussion now, was it? Bait-and-switch much?

What is lacking is a theory that is even remotely plausible.

Oh, "plausible" -- that handy weasel word which means "only those things I'm willing to believe".

Sorry, son, but we weren't discussing "plausible", we were discussing "possible" (since "irreducible complexity" is the creationists' fancy word for "impossible"). And the evolution of the eye has been shown to be quite possible, contrary to creationist dogma to the contrary. Game, set, and match.

But if you want to try to demonstrate (not simply *declare*) why the proposed sequence would not be "plausible", do feel free to explain why. Be sure to show your work.

[Ichneumon]

Look! He can cut-and-paste from a dictionary!

I'm *so* impressed...

[pickemuphere]

Just picked this up, looking forward to reading it after hearing Mr. Barr on Dennis Pragers show last month.

His argument is as old as Aristotle's "Metaphysics." I would, in fact, read Aristotle before I picked up anything by Barr.

[Ichneumon]

Here's why. Assume that materialism is true. Then under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, human thought must also be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, my thought that "materialism is false" is equally the product of moving atoms as your theory that "materialism is true." Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other. But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion is false. The intermediate propositions are logically valid. Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that materialism is true.

*boggle*. Is this what passes for logical thought these days? The real Aquinas would be aghast.

Let's examine that gem line by line:

Assume that materialism is true. Then under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion.

Grossly oversimplifies materialism, but I'll let it slide, since it's not the key error in your screed.

Therefore, human thought must also be reduced to matter in motion.

Close enough.

Therefore, my thought that "materialism is false" is equally the product of moving atoms as your theory that "materialism is true."

Okay.

Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other.

**EEERRRNNTT**!

Sorry, thanks for playing, but now Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you'll be taking home with you.

Whose butt did you pull *that* one out of?

But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction.

Right.

Therefore, the conclusion is false.

It most certainly is, thanks to your "everything is as true as anything else" whopper a few lines previously.

The intermediate propositions are logically valid.

ROFL! Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that materialism is true.

Nice try. Next time you have a late-night college bull session, lay off the schnapps.

Here, maybe you'll be able to see your own bone-headed error if we recast your ironclad logic (*snicker*) in the opposite direction:

Assume that supernaturalism is true. Then under a supernaturalist rubric human thought must be reduced to souls in action. Therefore, my thought that "supernaturalism is false" is equally the product of a soul as your theory that "supernaturalism is true." Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other. But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion is false. The intermediate propositions are logically valid. Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that supernaturalism is true.

Not too convincing, is it?

Materialism can be shown to be incoherent in another way.

Ooh, this ought to be good.

Materialism cannot give a coherent explanation for the unified experience of consciousness or the unified sense of self.

Unsupported statement.

Is my sense of self reducible to my thoughts?

You tell me, it's *your* argument.

But my thoughts must be strings of chemicals.

Must they? Define "string" while you're at it.

But if each thought is a discrete set of atoms then there must be as many "selves" as discrete thoughts.

Unsupported statement. Why not a single self comprised of many thoughts? And you have not demonstrated that thoughts must necessarily be "discrete".

Is the self a scanning mechanism in the brain that analyzes these discrete thoughts? If so, then there must be as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.

And if it's something else... Oops, you "forgot" to cover all your bases. Ten yard penalty for directionless rambling.

Empirical science is only possible under a moderate realist epistemology.

Why, just because you say so?

[Aquinasfan]

The woodpecker's tongue goes over its skull. Explain to me how an intermediate stage, where the tip of the tongue reaches backwards to the back of the head, offers a survival advantage. In these cases, the tongue could not even be used.

[Aquinasfan]

Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other.

**EEERRRNNTT**!

Define truth.

[Aquinasfan]

I slam-dunked your challenge by showing how a gradual series of steps could lead from the existence of light-sensitive neurons all the way up to a mammalian-type eye, with any given step providing an increased vision capability (and therefore increased survival advantage) over the preceding steps.

No, you showed me a gradual series of illustrations. What you need to provide is a plausible mechanism by which your imagined morphological changes could occur. You need to provide a plausible and mathematically possible explanation of how simultaneous genetic changes occur providing all of these structural changes (and simultaneous changes in the creatures supporting circulatory and nervous systems).

On a wider scale, you need to explain why the fossil record doesn't show a continuum of "morphing" species, but rather shows species appearing fully formed and disappearing millenia later in exactly the same way. This is the rule, not the exception.

[martin gibson]

In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

thank you...

[Doctor Stochastic]

How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion?

Zero. Ok, your post makes the first. (If you can find this exact quotation, I'll up the count.)

ID isn't a science primarily because it makes no testable predictions. The relibious orientation (or lacke thereof) of ID supporters has no bearing on the validity of their comments.

[lasereye]

Re: Post 62, all you've done is described some hypothetical intermediate steps which could exist between "light sensitive spots" and human eyes. What is the empirical evidence for that process actually having occurred?

Or to take an example of evolutionist objections to ID, what is the testable hypothesis which has been experimentally tested and provides evidence of that process?

[Gargantua]

"Intelligent Design isn't science because it... has no predictions that could, even in principal, be falsified by evidence."

Perhaps, if you assume that ID can exist absent any relationship to The Bible and Creationism, that statement could possibly be true.

I, on the other hand, we acknowledge that Intelligent Design, Creationism, and The Bible are all inextricably connected to each other, there is much imperical evidence that predictions therein made are both provable and, in fact, indisputable.

The Bible is rife with predictions, many of which were made over 2,000 years ago, and which refer with great specificity to our current historical timeframe, referred to in Bible-speak as the "latter days" or "end times".

Among the specifically-alluded-to signs defining our current timeframe as the Biblical "latter days" or "end times" prophecies are the following:

These times will be marked by:

1... a re-emergence of the previously disbanded Nation-State of Israel

2... a period when news of Israel will dominate weekly world news, during which the re-established Israel will "hang like a large stone around the neck of the world..."

3... a period when men will be racing to and fro across the face of the planet at a rapid pace

4... a period where Israel will be surrounded on all sides by sworn enemies

5... a period where there will not only be many who do reprobate things, but during which the masses will applaud the reprobates

6... a period when the greatest army in the world will not only have members who are "as women" (woman-like...), but will aslo have members who are women

7... a period when there is a push for the re-unification of the old Roman Empire

For so many prophecies (and I've barely scratched the surface with those listed here...) to have been made so long ago, and for all of them to come true in the same historical epoch, simply defies any and all statistical probability as some sort of hoax or clever guesswork.

The Truth of God, the Creator, and of his perfect Word, is undeniable, and is only hidden from those who refuse to see His Glory.

;-/

[Doctor Stochastic]

...very much argues from the scientific point...

I attended one of Behe's presentations. Behe started by discussiong his Christianity; then he made some personal attacks against some computer scientist that had disagreed with him but said he wouldn't address the guy's argument; then he showed a picture of a mousetrap and claimed the parts had no use separately.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would vote for huckster.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion...

No. But your are invited to explain why you feel this must be so.

[Ichneumon]

Define truth.

Define "lame dodge".

*You* invoked the notion of "truth" in your "logical" argument, *you* define it if you're using the word in other than its usual meaning. Don't expect me to fill in the holes in your own argument.

But be sure not to define "truth" in a manner that turns your argument into an example of the fallacy of "begging the question" or "circular argument".

Go for it.

[Ichneumon]

The Bible is rife with predictions, many of which were made over 2,000 years ago

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

Oops.

[Gargantua]

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

Oops.

Jesus was speaking to His disciples when He said this, and, indeed, many of those "standing there" when He said it did not die until after they saw Christ risen from death on the cross, having assumed the crown of His Kingdom, which lives on to this day, in The Year of Our Lord 2003... and forevermore.

....Ooops.

;-/

[Junior]

Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

Don't stop!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Howdy!

You said:

Eyes easily evolve through the following intermediate stages, each of which is a step up in visual ability from the stage before, and therefore would have obviously benefitted the creature which had them compared to the eyes of its ancestors:

First off - like many evolutionists before you, you make it sound like eyes could have easily evolved. Heck, even your buddy Dawkins suggested that the eye would have had to reinvent itself up to 60 times! If it weren't for the Cambrian explosion when eyes made the radical jump from cups to fully-formed eyes we'd be in big trouble. /sarcasm

You have faith, though, and that's important. Since you don't have any fossils to work from, and there is no research that shows the genetic and biochemical process that takes place for this to happen, you definitely need a lot of it.

Evolutionists try to explain how it could have happened via computer simulation. A simulation that is critiqued on pages 18-20 here:

Critical Thinking

A few more questions that come to mind:

1) Why two eyes?

2) Why are the eyes positioned where they are? (Note: what are the odds they would be be positioned where they are?)

3) Why are there up to 12 different kinds of eyes, each with their own blueprint?

4) What about the work of Murray Eden at MIT - whose calculations showed that there has not been sufficient time for nucleotide evolution to take place?

5) Who has done work showing the genetic and biochemical process that transforms a "spot, freckle, etc." into an eye? (note: just saying because we have 'variety' of different animals with different eyes does not prove anything. That's like saying: "A" and "B" have differnt eyes - "B" is more complex, so "B" must have evolved from "A"

5) What about the Nautilus fish, who just won't seem to evolve those eyes into something useful?

6) How did vertebrates get their eyes from inverebrates? Vertebrates have an inverted retina.

Time for me to get back to work. I have to give you some kudos for your posts, though - as they always seem to get my wheels turning.

[Junior]

Dumby. The anchor point of the tongue is the thing that moved to the back of the skull (as the illustrations provided to you show).

[Junior]

Define truth.

Boolean True = !False;

[Junior]

Each of those "hypothetical intermediate steps" is found currently in nature, from the simple eyespot through the human eye.

[PatrickHenry]

Each of those "hypothetical intermediate steps" is found currently in nature, from the simple eyespot through the human eye.

Yes. And each and every one is irreducibly complex! Therefore ...
</creationism mode>

[VadeRetro]

And each and every one is irreducibly complex!

And where are the alleged transitionals? Which one of the still pictures shows the alleged motion?

[PatrickHenry]

And where are the alleged transitionals? Which one of the still pictures shows the alleged motion?

And who witnessed these alleged transitions? And why aren't these things being reproduced in the lab? Piltdown man!
</creationism mode>

[VadeRetro]

And how did this alleged transition get past the second law of therapeutics?

[js1138]

May I have your house after the Rapture? Better yet, could I have it in 30 years, regardless, since you seem so sure of the date and time?

More seriously, I doubt if there has been a century in the last 2000 years in which serious people didn't see end times on the near horizon. Their analyses are on the scrap heap, just as yours will be pretty soon.

[VadeRetro]

1... a re-emergence of the previously disbanded Nation-State of Israel

A staple of this kind of prediction since 1948. 55 years and counting.

2... a period when news of Israel will dominate weekly world news, during which the re-established Israel will "hang like a large stone around the neck of the world..."

55 years and counting on this one, too.

3... a period when men will be racing to and fro across the face of the planet at a rapid pace

How many years on this one? What's "rapid?"

4... a period where Israel will be surrounded on all sides by sworn enemies

55 years and counting.

5... a period where there will not only be many who do reprobate things, but during which the masses will applaud the reprobates

The world's sad today,
It's gone bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
And most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos!

-- Cole Porter

6... a period when the greatest army in the world will not only have members who are "as women" (woman-like...), but will aslo have members who are women

True when I was in the service, 30 years ago.

7... a period when there is a push for the re-unification of the old Roman Empire

True when the Byzantine Empire tried to reconquer the west (500s AD), true throughout much of the lifetime of the Holy Roman Empire, true when Napoleon I had himself crowned emperor (1800), true when Mussolini proclaimed the rebirth of Italy's empire ... but what's particularly true about it now by comparison? The EEU? Milktoasts! Creampuffs!

[Phaedrus]

Bumping an excellent book with which I believe you are familiar.

[PatrickHenry]

End of the World Prophecies.