 "Photo: Elizabeth Moskowitz/The Daily Texan")
Against a backdrop of space, Hugh Ross presented a creationist model of the universe to both religious and non-religious audience members.
The department of biomedical engineering sponsored a debate on Tuesday evening in Gregory Gymnasium between creationist scholars and evolutionary experts. The Austin chapter of the Christian think tank Reasons to Believe conducted the event. The Atheist Community of Austin and the Christian organization Hill House co-sponsored the event.
Ross, founder and president of Reasons to Believe, created a presentation to illustrate the organization’s creationist model of the universe.
The existence of “fine-tuned” and “just-right” space features and Earth’s features provide evidence for a creator, Ross said. In his presentation he cited statistics, phenomena and the interpretation of Bible passages.
“We’re presenting a positive case of creationism,” he said. “We’re not trying to bash
evolution.”
Fazale Rana, vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons to Believe, gave a detailed presentation on biochemical systems, genetics and early life.
Gene expression in brain tissue is unique in humans and different from chimps — evidence for the theory of creationism, Rana said.
Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society, presented what he called logical fallacies against the argument for creationism and also cited religious literature.
“Ross is picking and choosing biblical passages after he knows what the evidence is,” Shermer said. “the Bible is a book of mythology and history, and people will misunderstand The Bible if they interpret it the way Ross does.”
During a technology snag at the beginning of his presentation, Shermer told the audience to stand up and stretch.
“You may have heard some nonsense tonight, and I’m set to disprove that nonsense,” he said.
Some students at the debate supported evolution as the correct model of the universe and the origins of life.
“Creationism relies primarily on belief in a creator, and that’s silly,” said philosophy senior Steven Warren.
Some students countered with creationist beliefs based on religion.
“I personally believe in divine intervention,” said Elizabeth Benedict, a biology and allied health professions freshman. “I hope to get better ways to defend what I believe in.”
In response to Shermer asking whether people would give up their Christian faith if the creation model presented by Reasons to Believe was disproved, several people yelled “no.”
“I believe that answers my question,” Shermer said.
I've heard this sort of lament, that scientists should be debating creationists, before but as a practical matter its not likely to be helpful. Would you thing we should have a professor of astronomy debate an astrologer? A physician a shaman? Granted, the expertise offered by the creationists here is largely borrowed from science, but the underlying thinking isn't. If you'd like to understand the factual science behind the theory of evolution I'm sure you can take a course in biology which would barely skim the surface but give an outline of the evidence supporting it, along with the thinking which integrate the facts into the theoretical model. In debates of this sort the only feasible approach is to get to the underlying ideas and thinking. That is, very likely, what Shermer did. I wasn't at the debate, nor can I find a transcript, but this is not the first instance, and a discussion of an earlier instance, with the same people, is available. When all is said and done, the argument of the RTB folks is a simple fallacious one: that because there is much that is puzzling and not understood the universe we observe it must have been created and shaped by an intelligent entity. However, this is, in essence, the same fallacious argument that has been employed for millenia except that science has provided far more sophisticated grist for the apologists mill. Of course, along the way, the creationists have developed very slick presentations with an array of confusing and distracting details, bogus calculations of probability and so one. But the underlying argument remains the same, and remains invalid. It is always the negative argument, that science can't account for everything. That's true, but neither does science pretend to explain everything. It presents facts and models from what we know and merely promises to keep plugging to learn more. That may not present a sufficiently compete story to some, but its honest, accurate, and undeniably useful.
plus with any "help" nature can provide. So we are self focused.How does that make anything right or wrong (since you talked about evil at the end)?Perhaps the best you can say is that anything to do with survival and increasing our own abilities
is right and everything else is wrong. That means we should either help or kill everyone who does not seem to be contributing to survival and ability even though we all are going to die anyway. So in that case nothing should ever be taken very seriously, just enjoy life while you have it is the top real goal and understanding. So happiness is the real goal with
no moral directive.Then reason itself turns into a mere hobby like everything else in life, no point to it.There are "coulds" but no "shoulds".Reason would not have a reason and can not be its own reason, unless there
was more to it than that.Natural laws have no built in ethics, we have to make up whatever we want and
hope others agree with us for no reason at all except desires at the foundation of our lives.
This makes life quite arbitrary with arbitrary pursuits. Is that satisfactory?Like you said, "it was developed and passed down" just like, er, religion!Makes sense to me!Actually, no, I believe life to actually be more than atoms and molecules.Knowledge means nothing without love. It has no purpose on its own.Without something having a value and goodness there is no
determining what should or should not be done, only what
could or can be done ultimately. Then it would not matter
what anyone ever did, so it would not matter if we
studied evolution or not! It is self refuting in that way.Matter has no awareness but somehow we have it and want to
know what to do with it!Take care! Party on!
I was deeply disappointed that this turned out not to be a debate at all. I was expecting a serious, scientific, respectful, and scholarly presentation of the facts of evolution versus the RTB creation model.
Both Drs. Ross and Rana of RTB followed the debate format and supported their old-earth creation argument with a large amount of scientific data. Then Dr. Shermer of the Skeptics Society went into his presentation. While he was certainly entertaining and humorous, his argument was sarcastic and condescending and contained little scientific evidence to support evolution.
More disappointing was what was absent from the debate - any credentialed UT faculty member actually participating in the debate portion of the event. The impression I came away with was that once again, the scientific elite cannot be bothered with "wasting time" debating those wacky Christians over the fact of evolution.
You write:"You are right in that I have many ideas now to think about one by one!"
Well, your writing in this post is vastly better than the previous ones""To me the supernatural is not unobservable, it is observable in different ways than the natural is."
Since, as established earlier via the dictionary, the word supernatural carries the meaning of unobservable, this is a contradiction in terms. It equivalent to saying what is unobservable is not unobservable. I doubt this is what you meant. If you are trying to say that some entity thought supernatural isn't, then its a different statement. The means are of no relevance to whether something is or isn't observed. Bacteria weren't observable prior to the invention of th e microscope, but no one suggests they are supernatural. " The supernatural has its characteristics and the natural has its characteristics to study. The supernatural is more vast, complex and more important than the natural." Again all this makes no sense if, as the word implies, they can't be observed. Even if we were to say we're discussing some special class of things, lets call them X's which are detectable in some as yet unspecified way, you have given no reason for one to think Xs are more vast, complex the ordinarily observable, and haven't defined what importance would mean and why it would apply to Xs. Of course, I suspect what you're talking about is a deity. Many religious people think their deity is detectable and hence observable in some special way though such observation has ever been verified. Your other reflections regarding awareness, thought etc. reflect a long standing notion of a mind-body dichotomy which is pretty clearly no longer a mystery. There is no mind without body. Thought and perceptions are products of the activity of biological activity. The emotional rejection of the thought that our mental activities are the product of biological, and hence chemical activities is a reflection of a desire for self importance that we humans have. Moreover, why this physical reality is troubling is hard to see. Why the experience of living is in any way demeaned by its molecular composition is puzzling. Computers are wonderful machines which deal in 1s and 0s. It doesn't make them any the less useful, interesting, enjoyable or valuable. You write:"Where would we get the idea that awareness, goodness, etc. are merely chemical attributes?
It is pretension to me."
Awareness is a function of brain activity. Goodness is a value judgment defined by culture, not a thing in itself. To the contrary, seeing these things as anything but manifestations of physical reality is pretension to something special. The seeking for eternal significance, for importance in studying the supernatural (or spiritual) is to glorify one's self importance, constructing the notion of a deity to justify it. Now, that's pretension. You write:"hen you say to me, "prove there is more than molecules, reason, and emotion". And I will just tell you that reason, emotion, and matter do not account for awareness, love, good, evil, etc., and I will even tell you that reason can not account for itself, oddly enough!"
Really? Where did that false notion come from? As I said reason is a set of thinking tools we humans have developed and passed down through culture. What more do you want as an accounting? The rest are human emotions, reactions to our experience adapting us to our existence as social beings and amplified, refined, changed, described by the product of our brain activity. To make of it some sort of ethereal mystery is simply an exercise of imagination. That there is much that we do not know is certainly true, and we will, as long as we don't destroy ourselves, learn a lot more. To fill the areas in which our knowledge and understanding is incomplete with magical speculations that can't be observed or verified is an understandable left over from ignorant ages, and probably inevitable as what you would no doubt describe as sin. But self indulgence in superstitious speculation to answer questions is, like sin, to be avoided as it results in very real evil, as we saw in 9/11 and continue to see in areas of the world where ignorance and superstition prevail.
and more important than the natural. The study of the natural has temporary purposes (serves survival and physical ability) yet the natural also gives clues about the supernatural, reflects it just as art work tells about an artist. To be aware as well as the ability to think and explore the natural is truly a gift from God to me as many in the past and present who study science say. Even Einstein (I know was not actually religious) said that to study nature was like "tracing the hand of God" - like children who trace their letters.The study of the supernatural has deeper and eternal purpose, not for mere happiness, but truth as life foundation - what goodness, wisdom, purpose, love, etc. are about. We are not molecules, we were given molecules to work with as tools. We are our awareness, choices, opportunities, and more - not molecules, atoms, chemicals, etc. that decay and are temporary.There is more to life than that and all our attitudes and pursuits in life need to reflect these ideas, not the idea that we are only matter. Matter has no value, purpose, good or evil in an of itself. Where would we get the idea that awareness, goodness, etc. are merely chemical attributes?
It is pretension to me.Our attitude towards life and ideas of life's potential affects EVERYTHING we do and that includes science.
That is what I mean by foundational principles. Sure science is about the methods and measurements but like all life, it is more than that!I am not saying that creationists are correct about everything they say, none of us are, I am saying that as
human beings, we are more than molecules and need especially to be sure we are not teaching children we are
only molecules and that only reason/logic and emotion exist to work with!Then you say to me, "prove there is more than molecules, reason, and emotion". And I will just tell you that reason, emotion, and matter do not account for awareness, love, good, evil, etc., and I will even tell you that reason can not account for itself, oddly enough!To me it is pretension to rule out the supernatural. To teach children to rule it out is above
being mid-guided. It is tyranny at its foundation actually.
Science works by methodological naturalism, which rejects the supernatural because it is (so far) undetectable and therefore untestable.Ross believes that it's statistically unlikely that the universe could have come into existence and be able to support our form of life. So what? Statistically unlikely thing happen all the time. That we are here is evidence of that. Anyway, maybe all that means is that we're the only example of our type of life in the galaxy, or the universe, and that there are other planets with life forms that would find Earth too hot or too cold, or the atmosphere poisonous or corrosive, or the light too bright or too dark. So much for fine tuning.For that matter, Earth isn't particularly "fine-tuned" for humans. Climb Everest, take a stroll along the Mariana Trench, jog through Death Valley or winter in the Arctic - in your street clothes.(Let me know how that works out for you.)And, one more time: where did this "creator" come from?Ross knows this isn't science, these are his personal religious beliefs. He knows this. So, is he a liar, or deluded?
I get the feeling you're struggling sorting out a number of difficult ideas. I don't think you've thought them through, and your stream of run on sentences suggests it might be better to slow down thinking more about the parts of the ideas. You're concerned with your perception of life, of what makes for happiness etc. Perhaps some courses in philosophy would help. We humans have, over the course of history, developed technologies, methods we use to achieve ends we wish. Most basic of these is logic, which is really a way to simplify our language so we can more clearly understand what we're talking about. Part of logic is induction, where we integrate our observations into thinking to form conclusions about the world. Science is an extension of that. Its success in providing us with factual knowledge which in turn is useful in creating practical technologies to improve our lives has been remarkable, especially in the last few centuries. Science, is however, devoted to discerning fact, which in itself is good in helping us get what we want. Science, however, doesn't pretend or try to help us know what we want or wish. Perhaps that's what you mean by "wisdom". You write:" You repeatably state that it seems to you the supernatural is inaccessable,
unobservable and only exists in the imagination. That is your view of the
situation and what is now being taught too much.."
To say that the supernatural is not observable is part of what the word means. Its not a question of viewpoint. I didn't say it existed only in the imagination. I said, and I repeat that the existence of the supernatural is unknowable because there's no way to know about things we can't observe. I disagree that teaching the meaning of the word is excessive. You go one:" I am seeking to improve in spirituality, religious ideas, and scientific ideas. Each of those have predictions and changes.
I'm not sure what it means to improve in spirituality or religious ideas but those principally concern feelings and emotions. That's fine as long as you don't confuse it with fact. Scientific ideas are those concerned exclusively about fact. That there may be religious predictions may be true, but since they are not based on fact I regard them as unreliable. Since as you relate, you seem to interpret your own thoughts as coming from a deity (and I'm sure many people do) its not difficult to see why you'd think religious teaching is capable of reliable prediction. Unfortunately, it has never worked out that way in practice. We are largely run by emotion. Reason is a learned discipline. It is valuable in keeping us from confusing our wishes with reality. Religion generally exploits our emotions to make our wishes more powerful than they are. I think it is not a constructive idea. I'm sure you don't like my viewpoint, but perhaps in understanding why you'll learn something.
Of course I do. Its a lie creationists like to use to cover for their ignorance of science.
All I can share is my perspective on the issues of today. I see the world
with a desire for more complete and solid answers that will unify it
somehow, but even at the price of selling out and inflating details
of what they know for more immediate gratification of the goals - to unify.
I see a lot of incompletes where it counts and a rush to be solid when
we are broken. There are ideals to move more towards religion and
to move far away from religion. The extemes appear in order to hold ground.
To get as many people on your side so there will be strengh in numbers.You repeatably state that it seems to you the supernatural is inaccessable,
unobservable and only exists in the imagination. That is your view of the
situation and what is now being taught too much. I am seeking to improve in spirituality,
religious ideas, and scientific ideas. Each of those have predictions and changes.When I went to school I was taught that science was dynamic and
religion was stagnant, but knew otherwise via experience.
In science and spirituality we see life with many mysteries
and wish to uncover more and more. I see facts as having no value at all in and of themselves without wisdom and love.Some say faith and hope is needed to go in positive active directions when
the facts seem against you and/or there is incomplete information and
some say that doubt is more needed in order to get more facts, but doubt
can cause a lack of action as well and can hurt more than help sometimes.
We never have all the facts we need or want, this is life, it takes faith
and hope always and the word faith should not be so reacted to negatively as it
often is today. We always have incomplete evidence.
I see facts as always incomplete yet always useful and valuable to serve practical applications - basic physical needs especially, but love being about purpose for survival. A connection to the Creator through
prayer is most important since God supplies wisdom to me in daily life, and this is
consistant when I follow and when I don't there are consequences that
are obvious or I realize I miss out on something that could have been had
I followed wisdom even above and beyond mere fact, probability, logic, etc..
That is my experience and many have had the same basically and can
back me up on the personality and attributes of the Creator I serve.
To someone who has not experienced this, there is nothing to compare
it to, how could there be? I have much to think about with these issues and not enough time to
write. Real life does not have so many compartments, there are connections
instead to live out as the truth of life - it should all connect. In a science class
I don't want to hear statements like science is dynamic but religion is
stagnant because this is generalization and both can be dynamic or
stangnant and anyway, both also have foundations to build upon
as it should be. In today's culture, I see a lack of foundation, a lack of
sound priority in much of everything, it's more scrambled, jumbled,
paying attention to details too much (sounding smart) in all the arguments including
religious and non-religious views.I hope that helps clarify some things. I know I did not answer everything.
There is much to it.
the causes and affects of the unverse. The supernatural is not a total unknown to so so many.
It is predictable and consistant or else there would be no long-term religious groups.
We have to look at what Does work and why it works, not just dismiss it in the name of
some cultural ideal that goes against other's cultural ideals (no double standards played).What the religious want is for science to have an integrity it used to have, to have a respect
towards ideas of the supernatural, the possibilities, and "allow" students room to
pursue it with all their being, both religion and science and not use science against
religion, not discount religion for pursuits that could be vain ones leading nowhere
ultimately - some do see things differently and want their ideas to count as well.
It is important and does not take anything away as long as there is integrity
and consistancy. Calling someone insane for beliefs in the supernatural is
unhealthy for society as a whole and denying basic human rights.
It is foolish as well as unscientific. It is about adgenda and is destructive
to humanity.
For instance, in finding how gravity, time, matter, etc. first began, it would have to be "supernatural" since we
define natural law to be all about atoms, molecules, time, gravity, etc. There is nothing scary about
considering this and we have it in us to explore these things.Clearly More work needs to be done on BOTH "sides" to understand the
problems on an intellectual, philosophical, cultural, and spiritual level. The sides are not
communicating. The creationists need to take more into consideration.And the nature-only skeptic/athiest side needs to stop their put-downs and humor that
are actually cover-up defense mechanisms (they are very emotional indeed).
They need to put down thier double-standard hypocracy as well that
they probably are not aware of and understand more clearly what science is in the lives
of human beings, what we are actually composed of as we also explore the universe.
Life is more than "they" think it is (this is the creationist view, btw) and they put
the world too much in a box and their debate tactic is often picking on details, actually
both sides do this and we could go on and on until we find out what the real problems
are!BOTH teh athiests and the religious want to do what is best for humanity and each think
the other a threat to their own personal humanity, society as a whole, global society,
and the future. How we think of science and religion is so important amongst all the
change occuring - not to be taken lightly at all. Some like the adrenalin rush of the debate too!
Everyone must check their motives, both sides. Many don't want religion illigitimatized in
the world at large for many many reasons and non-selfish reasons as well.
Many see the answers science does not provide and will not ever provide us with as
all humanity. We are lonely, curious creatures and science is not what we think it is
at times.Notice the imagery that Michael used of a predator in the grass in his presentation.
I think that is what he thinks God or the concept of God is like to him, a predator
to humanity and his humanity or concept of humanity in particular where the
religious view God as the atheist perhaps veiws the benefits or promises
of science or humanity. The religious values science but knows science is
limited just as some atheists think the opposite.Sure there are many religions, many differences of ideas too,
but most claim that there are also many types of deities or supernatural
beings and many of them do the work of deceiving humans
in so many ways, so how we handle the differences and how we dabate is
very important in this day and age. This must also be studied. Like I said, we do not know enough to even debate and need to narrow it
down, define it much more.