Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Pastor Mike Peddles more Palaver

Well, my brother Pastor Mike is at it again, peddling more palaver at his site. Now it seems he intends to set one and all straight about the "real" aims of evolution, and exactly why a preponderance of scientists support it. Let's take a look-see at some of his codswallop in terms of an exercise in critical thinking.

He begins his sermon with:

"The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case . But is that true , really ? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye ? "


Now, first of all it is not a matter that scientists simply "believe" it. The nature of belief is faith in the absence of evidence, but scientists have tons of it to support evolution. In one of the most powerful ever demonstrations of the validity of evolution, Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy', showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans.

Those who wish to avail themselves of comprehensive evidence to show common descent - the keynote concept ot macro-evolution, can go to:

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

Of course, the problem in teaching evolution, is that most people who comment (like Pastro Mike) or even students - don't grasp it at the molecular or genetic level. Hence, they talk (or write) too much offal and gibberish.

In each of the molecular cases cited in the link material, the particular alteration results in subtle changes in the coding of information, or the transfer of information. These molecular changes therefore act as sources of genetic variation, and ultimately evolution if the change is reinforced by natural selection. And this makes it feasible to trace back species lineages using comparisons at the molecular level, viz. different segments of chromosomes for suspected related species. Thus evolution is observed, and it is fact - not merely "theory" (which most of the ignorant confuse with speculation!)

This also means that "creationism" cannot also be true. Creationism is a pabulum developed for naive minds - such that the elements are simplistic enough for them to grasp at a primitive level. But that doesn't make it "true".

Pastor Mike next quotes a contrarian, and in fact most of his "sermon" amounts to a quote-fest, with very little of his own input (so I will not repeat all of it):

Wayne Friar , Ph.D.,Resource Associate for Science and Origins , says this :

"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community , especially evolutionary leaders today , hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews , these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life , especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator . If one starts with Darwinism , certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God . Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science . "

Of course, atheism doesn't "need" evolution at all to expose religious belief for the non-starter it is. Simple logic can suffice. I’ve often been asked how exactly one rationally arrives at a position of atheism – as opposed to say, agnosticism. The recurring questions set me to the task of identifying rationalist principles and then showing, if they were faithfully applied to most theistic claims, one would be led to a position of implicit atheism. This isn’t the outright “denial” of a God, but rather the simple withholding of belief in such to render the claim and underlying entity redundant.

I’d like to outline this approach here, in terms of four overriding principles:

i) Ockham’s Razor, which inheres at the heart of scientific hypothesizing. That is, given two competing hypotheses the one with the fewest ad hoc assumptions is closest to the truth.

ii) The probability test of philosopher David Hume- that reads: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

iii) The ignotum per ignotius test for logical fallacy. Ignotum per ignotius means “invoking the LESS well understood to explain the not well understood.”

iv)The fundamental principle for all exotic (or "obscurantist") claims: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”.

Let’s now apply these to a number of cases to see how they work. I will start with the claim for “soul”. Given two hypotheses – one which uses simple observations of consciousness (e.g. See Daniel Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Explained’) and one which posits “soul” in addition, which is to be preferred? Obviously, that which excludes “soul”, since it unnecessarily complicates the issue. In addition, invoking “soul” violates the ignotium per ignotius test. Indeed, religionists have not even offered an operational definition for “soul”, and until they do so there is small likelihood they can provide extraordinary evidence for it!

What about “God”? All the same aspects apply. Consider the question posed by the late astronomer Carl Sagan in the “Cosmos” episode, ‘The Edge of Forever’. He asks: “How did the universe begin?” He interjects, “Some will say ‘God made it’, but then WHO made God?” He argues that rather than inviting an “infinite regress” of cause, the simplest action was simply to leave “God” out of the causal nexus. Thereby we satisfy all the principles (i)- (iii).

Is Sagan justified? Consider that adding “God” into the mix doesn’t enhance cosmological data or predictions one iota. Nor does it refine the tensor equations. Clearly it amounts to a redundancy.

Lastly, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”.

Now let us apply the Hume test (ii). Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.

Thus, even the most basic atheism doesn't require evolution to "escape" implications reagrding a creator - because there aren't any! Neither Pastor Mike nor his cohort have demonstrated the most meager evidence that such a creator exists. Yes, it is true that now primitive creationsism has been replaced by the more sophisticated Intelligent Design (ID), but even that doesn't get the job done. It is more a non-answer. Or what we call a "Macguffin" in fictional writing.

ID’s claim of “irreducible complexity” or “intelligent design” is actually pseudo-science not genuine science. The central problem of ID, is that though its muddled adherents make multiple fusses about some particulars to do with evolution's evidence - they never come up with ID's presumed unique evidence to support its claimed "irreducible complexity". Any time they do, the real scientist can show a process whereby the same structure, organism can be better explained by a combination of natural selection, adaptation over time.

Ultimately, the problem for ID, when you strip away the scientific jargon and window dressing, is that its base premise comes down to the logical fallacy of: ignotum per ignotius (‘seeking to explain the not understood by the less well understood”). In this case, attempting to account for alleged "failures" of evolution or some claimed aspects not yet fully explained by to totally unknown constructs (e.g. ‘supernatural’ or unknown "designer") .This isn't science, it's hogwash, supernaturalist drivel disguised in the wardrobe of science. As Richard Dawkins points out the fallacy in all ID reasoning:

“This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the biological structure or organism is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created.”

Until ID’s proponents establish a base of facts and evidence unique to itself – preferably in the context of publishing in established scientific journals – it will remain rank speculation. Along the lines of little green men surveying the Earth in flying saucers.In the end, “irreducible complexity” (which is the specious basis of ID) inevitably amounts to a cop-out argument from ignorance.

Because a structure (e.g. eardrum) or process (origin of life from inanimate matter) appears difficult from the inferior vantage point of the percipient, it’s automatically assumed that no scientific appeal can be made. No model, however remotely probable, can be offered. Thus “intelligent design” is latched on to as a “god of the gaps”.

But history shows how absurd such an approach is. For example, ball lightning used to be assumed to be a supernatural manifestation until its static electrical nature was exposed. Same thing with ‘St. Elmo’s fire’ appearing near the yard arms of ships. Diseases like plague were believed caused by "malefic influences" or even demons, until the microbial basis of pathogens was revealed by the use of microscopes.

All these and more disclose that a long record of scientific history exists to demonstrate the wisdom of the materialist- physicalist view. And why special, ad hoc causes, exceptions are to be dismissed as unfounded. This is what’s wrong with all “design” or “supernatural” appeals. They preemptively halt inquiry just as it’s beginning to get interesting.

Rather than following the lines of scientific thought, with the objects of scientific inquiry available, the “design” proponent wants to leap to his supernatural Macguffin which, by definition, can never be exposed to verification, falsification, or even the most general hypothesis test. We are simply asked to accept (on faith) this or that structure is "too complex" and had to issue from a (unspecified) "designer".

Though nouveau creationist advocates like Pastor Mike bandy about words like “design” and “designer” they are yet unable to state clearly what this entity is. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional “essence”? They can’t even specify their “designer” so why should we take it any more seriously than the tooth fairy or elves?

If the proponents of “irreducible complexity” want to be taken as more than religious preachers, let them explicate their designer. In what conditions (or not) does it operate? To have a genuine counter theory, one must provide a positive hypothesis and observational infrastructure – not merely attempt to negate the existing prevailing theory by myriad cheap potshots. That's a cop out. As Robert Shapiro has noted ( ‘Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth’, Bantam, 1986, p. 257):

“Anomalies, artifacts and deficiencies exist in every scientific field. A certain level is expected, as part of the normal practice of science. However, their existence doesn’t mean the entire field or theory is expendable. Nor can the collected anomalies support the Creationists main idea”

The creationist-ID finger-pointing about evolution's deficiencies would be analogous to me finding fault with umpteen aspects of Einstein's general relativity, and then somehow imagining that this recitation of negativity alone constitutes a genuine alternative theory. It doesn't, it only shows I have bones to pick with Einstein's theory. Ditto with the ID naysayers and their ilk in regard to evolution.

Pastor Mike's final bit of claptrap takes the cake:

"Scientists see the evidence for creation , and they see it clearly , but peer pressure, financial considerations , political correctness , and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so , the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself . "

As noted from the earlier discussion, there is NO evidence for creationism or ID, only assorted negative slams against evolution absent of proiducing unique evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. The "peer pressure" gambit is as lame as insisting Bigfoot witnesses are victimized by their poor eyesight. The only peer pressure on qualified professional scientists, indeed, is that they meet the stringent requirements and criteria for publication in the professional journalis. In other words, you can't just write anything based on hunches, you must provide substantive support for claims. This is something creationists like Pastor Mike will never learn.

The final bit of chutzpah to his screed is the assertion that it is rigorous scientific discipline that is responsible for "the illogical origins myth of modern society". However, the real truth is that it is the off the wall irrationality of the believers, and their dedicated obscurantists that is taking us pell-mell into a new dark age.

For a frightening look at what awaits, please read Morris Berman's book, "Dark Ages America".


Of course, to those like Pastor Mike, a New Dark Age would be welcome. After all, his site doesn't even allow powerful responses unless he first vets them to determine if they are consistent with his message. How good does it get? In a new Dark Age, Pastor Mike and his all his close-minded ilk will act as the ultimate gate-keepers for all information, to the extent of determining which books get published and which don't.

Can this really occur? Perhaps not. But the signs are not very hopeful.

7 comments:

Jim Deardorff said...

I would comment on this one point:

"Lastly, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”."

If you look at the whole story, the man called "Jesus" walked on the water out to the boat in order to aid the disciples in their distress against the wind & waves. Then, whether or not you believe the Peter water-walking event, "Jesus" climbed up into the boat. Thus, he could not have been walking along the shore.

In Mark's account, which actually came after Matthew's, its writer added a clause saying that Jesus had intended to pass by the disciples! (I.e., in that writer's eyes, the Jewish disciples weren't worthy of being saved! There is much other anti-Jewishness in the Gospel of Mark, partially in response, I'd say, to Matthew's anti-gentile slant.)

So I don't see how Schonfeld has a leg to stand on there. But I've seen some writings of his that seemed quite good.

Copernicus said...

“So I don't see how Schonfeld has a leg to stand on there. But I've seen some writings of his that seemed quite good.”

Schonfeld was merely using that as an example – not that I necessarily think he himself bought into it.

Perhaps the most insightful take I have found concerning the account is that of Oxford biblical scholar Geza Vermes, in his terrific monograph ‘The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus’ (p. 7) where he notes it “echoes the nature miracles of Jewish folklore”

He compares it to the incident (in the OT) where Elijah “declares the restoration of rain after a period of drought will be effected by his word” (1 Kings, 17:1)

He further observes (ibid.):

“Similarly in rabbinic literature the bringing and arresting of rain are attributed to the miracle working prayers of Honi and Hanina Ben Dosa”

In effect, Jesus getting into the boat to “save” his disciples is an illustration (by Yeshua) that pusillanimity is the greatest impediment to “religious well being and divinely inspired action”

Of course, none of this means Yeshua actually “walked on” water, merely that he appeared then got into the boat to help the faithless disciples!

Re: the Mark vs. Matthew accounts, this is clearly an example of late additions wreaking havoc in arriving at a consistent interpretation. The late additions probably in mark at the hands of Christian copyists. A good account of this sort of take can be fonund in Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’, p. 62-69, ‘’Reconstructing the Texts of the New Testament’.

In Vermes’ conclusion, with which I concur, Yeshua’s mission was all about the Jews, not Gentiles.

As he notes (op. cit, p. 415):

“The religion revealed by the authentic message of Jesus is straightforward, without complex dogmas, mythical images or self-centered mystical speculation. It resembles a race consisting only of the final ‘straight’ – demanding from the runners their last ounce of energy and with a winners’ medal prepared for all the JEWISH participants who cross the finishing line.

At this juncture, one may wonder how a religious genius of the caliber of Jesus could have been such a narrow-minded chauvinist. But the Jewish eschatology of that age was exclusive, and maybe Jesus was simply a child of his time. On the other hand, he may have embraced the prophetic idea manifest in the second half of the Book of Isaiah according to which entry of the Jews into God’s Kingdom would persuade the Gentiles to join them. If so, Jesus could easily imagine that on completion of his exclusively JEWISH mission, God would step in and take care of the rest of mankind.

Compared with the dynamic religion of Jesus, Christianity seems to belong to another world. With its mixture of high philosophical speculation on the triune God, its Johannine Logos mysticism, and Pauline Redeemer myth of a dying and risen Son of God, with its sacramental symbolism and ecclesiastical discipline substituted for the extinct eschatological passion- with its cosmopolitan openness combined with a built-in anti-Judaism- it is hard to imagine how the two could have come from the same source.”

Jim Deardorff said...

Hi Copernicus,

"At this juncture, one may wonder how a religious genius of the caliber of Jesus could have been such a narrow-minded chauvinist."

As I see it, Vermes and most others place far too much reliance on the Gospels giving truthful representations of what the man said, starting with Matthew. It would fit the character of the writer of Matthew if it was he who had developed the strong mission to convert Jews to the new Messianic form of Judaism that he had converted to, but that he was frustrated with his lack of success and so added the utterance of Mt 27:25 ("His blood be on us and on our children!"). He was the narrow-minded one, who placed gentiles on the same level as the hated tax collectors. The historical Jesus must also have found little success trying to convert Israelites to his teachings, and so urged his disciples to go to the gentiles (which the writer of Matthew would reverse). One just can't trust much of it! The truth is all up for grabs, really. My take on it is contained in this website.

Jim Deardorff said...

Copernicus wrote:

Pastor Mike's final bit of claptrap takes the cake:

"Scientists see the evidence for creation , and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself . "

As noted from the earlier discussion, there is NO evidence for creationism or ID, only assorted negative slams against evolution...
- - - - - - -

I found another point to comment on, above. Here, your brother spoke of creation, and you altered that into creationism. Was that nice? The latter evidently involves a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, including an Earth that's only some 6000 years old. But the former -- creation -- could well describe the Big Bang theory of astrophysicists. They postulate that it was the start of everything.

A key question is: Must there have been an Intelligence associated with the Big Bang (creation), such as to provide all the laws of physics and Nature that cause our universe to run smoothly? Or were there some hundreds of trillions of different universes created willy-nilly before one of them would have exactly the right physical properties to allow life to get started and evolve, and so we happen to live in that one universe?

Copernicus said...

jim deardorff wrote:

"As I see it, Vermes and most others place far too much reliance on the Gospels giving truthful representations of what the man said, starting with Matthew."

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is the case. What I would suggest is reading Vermes' book and how he dissects each synoptic piece by piece using textual criticism and analysis.

You will get an entirely different perspective.

Another excellent text to get a handle on what I mean: 'The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant' by John Dominic Crossan.

I believe there's a very good review of it on amazon.

Copernicus said...

jim deardorff wrote:

"I found another point to comment on, above. Here, your brother spoke of creation, and you altered that into creationism. Was that nice? "

Perhaps not, but it was accurate! His site has a number of forums, links - not all of which I referenced or cited, but they all have ONE thing in common, they refer to the attributes and doctines of CREATIONISM. That includes biblical inerrancy, which the Pastor is very big on.

So - while he may have used the term "creation" he is clearly coming from the POV of creationism. I always like to call "a spade a spade" even if my brother doesn't.
-----


"The latter evidently involves a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, including an Earth that's only some 6000 years old. But the former -- creation -- could well describe the Big Bang theory of astrophysicists. They postulate that it was the start of everything."

Yes, well - believe me Brother Mikey has NO use for the Big Bang and thinks it is as much codswallop as evolution. (He has a whole separate page devoted to quoting numerous "authorities" who castigate the Big Bang. This despite that 2 Nobels in Physics have already been awarded for major finds connected to it.

As I already indicated, Pastor Mike also refutes the notion there is any error anywhere in the bible. It says what it means and means what it says in his view. So, by any definition he is a biblical literalist and also a creationist.

--------------------

"A key question is: Must there have been an Intelligence associated with the Big Bang (creation), such as to provide all the laws of physics and Nature that cause our universe to run smoothly?"

My take - NO. And also it is incorrect to call the Big Bang "creation" since first, it may well be the Big Bang we observe now is only one of many (though true the evidence leans to one only right now).

Second, it is more accurate to refer to the Big Bang as inception. The reason is that we have quantum gravity models, for example, that can show spontaneous INCEPTION.

In his definitive paper, ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756, T. Padmanabhan uses as a time coordinate hyperboloids of constant distance, inside the light cone of a point in de Sitter space. The point itself, and its light cone, are the big bang of the Friedmann model, where the scale factor goes to zero. But they are not singular.

Instead, the spacetime continues through the light cone to a region beyond. It is this region that deserves the name, the "pre -big bang scenario. It is also this basis that provides the model for the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation that arises when one treats the conformal part of space-time as a quantum variables Padmanbhan shows in his paper, such a cosmos from nothing is perfectly expected and indeed, follows from the basis of the tensor set up, the light cone restrictions and so on.

As he notes, ff the Euclidean four-sphere were perfectly round, both the closed and open analytical continuations (using complex integrals around specific paths), would inflate forever. This would mean they would never form galaxies. A perfect round four sphere has a lower action, and hence a higher a-priori probability than any other four -metric (x, y, z, t) of the same volume. I don't doubt that most laymen can't understand conformal space-time or de Sitter space or much (if anything) of Padmanabhan's paper, but that deficiency doesn't mean a God did it! Or "created" it.
-------------


"Or were there some hundreds of trillions of different universes created willy-nilly before one of them would have exactly the right physical properties to allow life to get started and evolve, and so we happen to live in that one universe?"

That speculation is now pretty much on the out. I don't know of any cosmologist who takes it seriously. The new dark energy evidence which shows the cosmic OMEGA factor << 1 and an accelerating expansion pretty much discloses that this universe is it and it is "blowing apart" from a gravitational repulsive force associated with the dark energy.

Anonymous said...

There is only one explanation for Pastor Mikey's Plaver, and that he is not operating on any molecular or genetic level known to man. He spouts off and parrots the bible verses as so many of these type of fanatics do. He wishes no debate on his website as he no longer can think or reason for himself. He merely pulls out bible verses to cover most anything that comes up, in the way of proof, for his newfound re-birth into total chaos and gray matter meltdown.