Gosh it's all go on the science and faith front at the moment!
On Wednesday night the moral maze featured the topic "why are we so scared of religion?" possibly as a response to the Michael Reiss incident at the Royal Society.
By far the best witness was Steve Chalke who gave Michael Portillo and Kenan Malik a real beating. Protillo tried to trap Chalke by asking him if his real motivation (behind his ministry) was to convert people to Christianity, but was totally unprepared for his answer. Chalke argued that his motivation is to follow Jesus which means loving God and loving people. What people then do with that is their own business BUT Chalke made the point that you never change people's minds by twisting their arms (echo's of John Locke). Thus Chalke delivered the essence of the Christian gospel in a highly effective way - evangelism is a result of the Christian lifestyle, not an aim in itself. The way for Christians to transform the world is through love, not proselytization.
Next Malik tried to trap Chalke by asking why religion has a special status in being able to run state schools. Chalke accused him of talking nonsense by pointing out that the government academy scheme is open to anyone who wants to put up a couple million of their own money. Malik tried to argue that there was no such thing as secular schools, a point which Chalke laughed off as being totally fictitious seeing that the program started with a statement that there are 7000 faith schools; in which case all the others must, by definition, be secular.
All in all Chalke gave a brilliant defense of the Christian position against two opponents who were not really up to the challenge.
Friday 26 September 2008
Thursday 25 September 2008
John MacKay - talk 24th Sep '08
Here's a run down of MacKay's talk that I attended the other night. I originally posted this on the CiS website but note it was later copied and discussed on the BCSE discussion forum.
The title was "Creation, the final proof" although he claimed this was given to him and he hadn't spoken on this topic for a while.
He started off asking how we could know something was "created" however defined creation as only "ex nihilo". He then got a bit of mileage talking about the futility and waste of money of the large hadron collider (he denies the big bang) followed by his first (of many) claims that evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity which relies on God creating out of nothing (and he used the example of Jesus turning water into wine). He asked how the universe of such complexity could possibly be created out of an explosion, and even commented on how ridiculous it was that hydrogen could be made into other elements! (Gee wiz look how complicated this all is, it couldn't possibly of just happened!)
He next moved into a section on the history of science quoting Lyell (amongst others) for wanting to remove "Moses from Science". He spent a bit of time criticising uniformitarianism and claimed there to be an atheist conspiracy amongst scientists.
Next he produced a boomerang and talked about the information content that was needed to turn a piece of wood into a boomerang. This served as an introduction to about half an hour on DNA and information theory, claiming that you could identify design when the information present in an object is greater than the information in its parts (and he produced the formula IP>ip = creation). He was actually relatively good at explaining simply how DNA works (even if he did keep on using a picture of a left-handed helix) however time and again he commented on how complicated the system was and how it couldn't possibly have evolved (incredulity argument again).
He finished off with the points that no one had seen evolution, that the bible was the word of God in its literal form, that if you deny the creation story you deny Jesus as God, and that academics and theologians were conspiring against the truth - which he had been called to preach....
In the question time he claimed that Geologists are (and I quote) "really quite stupid" because they use circular reasoning to date rocks with fossils, and then he came up with the amazing claim that the monkey-tree fossils in Lulworth (Dorset) were trees planted by humans who brought them from the southern hemisphere! He then commented that geology professors believe in evolution because they think the genetics professor has proved it whist the genetics professor believes because he thinks the geology professor has proved it.
On carbon dating he thinks decay has varied over time and that extrapolating a long time based on current decay rates is begging the question. He also thinks the global flood messed up decay times.
Somewhere in there he also claimed that Adam had "perfect knowledge" and knew about aerodynamics and how to make metal-alloys however never bothered to try. Other claims were that thorns only appeared after the fall, Lions once ate grass and dinosaurs cohabited the garden with Adam.
Prehaps most concerning of all was his response to the question from someone from CiS (who wants to remain nameless) about whether you could hold to evolution and still be a Christian. He essentially said that anyone agreeing with evolution would have such a distorted picture of God that they would not be able to be in relationship with him, and that on the day of judgement God would ask them why they had said/taught that God was a liar.
The fun and games that happened afterwards I mentioned in my previous post, below.
I did however go up to him and ask him about Kent Hovind's prison sentence, the lawsuit between AiG and CMI, and his accusations against Ken Ham, commenting that you can know a teaching by its fruit and that the fruit of the six day creation lobby isn't exactly pure. He replied that people thought Jesus was a scoundrel and a liar and that whenever you speak the truth people try to smear you.
In conclusion MacKay is very slick but has little substance. His skill is to make the most ridiculous claim sound believable. Sadly this seems to be quite an effective tactic amongst people not accustomed to question, however no thinking person is likely to find him persuasive in the slightest. 6-day creationism is not a well thought-through position.
The title was "Creation, the final proof" although he claimed this was given to him and he hadn't spoken on this topic for a while.
He started off asking how we could know something was "created" however defined creation as only "ex nihilo". He then got a bit of mileage talking about the futility and waste of money of the large hadron collider (he denies the big bang) followed by his first (of many) claims that evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity which relies on God creating out of nothing (and he used the example of Jesus turning water into wine). He asked how the universe of such complexity could possibly be created out of an explosion, and even commented on how ridiculous it was that hydrogen could be made into other elements! (Gee wiz look how complicated this all is, it couldn't possibly of just happened!)
He next moved into a section on the history of science quoting Lyell (amongst others) for wanting to remove "Moses from Science". He spent a bit of time criticising uniformitarianism and claimed there to be an atheist conspiracy amongst scientists.
Next he produced a boomerang and talked about the information content that was needed to turn a piece of wood into a boomerang. This served as an introduction to about half an hour on DNA and information theory, claiming that you could identify design when the information present in an object is greater than the information in its parts (and he produced the formula IP>ip = creation). He was actually relatively good at explaining simply how DNA works (even if he did keep on using a picture of a left-handed helix) however time and again he commented on how complicated the system was and how it couldn't possibly have evolved (incredulity argument again).
He finished off with the points that no one had seen evolution, that the bible was the word of God in its literal form, that if you deny the creation story you deny Jesus as God, and that academics and theologians were conspiring against the truth - which he had been called to preach....
In the question time he claimed that Geologists are (and I quote) "really quite stupid" because they use circular reasoning to date rocks with fossils, and then he came up with the amazing claim that the monkey-tree fossils in Lulworth (Dorset) were trees planted by humans who brought them from the southern hemisphere! He then commented that geology professors believe in evolution because they think the genetics professor has proved it whist the genetics professor believes because he thinks the geology professor has proved it.
On carbon dating he thinks decay has varied over time and that extrapolating a long time based on current decay rates is begging the question. He also thinks the global flood messed up decay times.
Somewhere in there he also claimed that Adam had "perfect knowledge" and knew about aerodynamics and how to make metal-alloys however never bothered to try. Other claims were that thorns only appeared after the fall, Lions once ate grass and dinosaurs cohabited the garden with Adam.
Prehaps most concerning of all was his response to the question from someone from CiS (who wants to remain nameless) about whether you could hold to evolution and still be a Christian. He essentially said that anyone agreeing with evolution would have such a distorted picture of God that they would not be able to be in relationship with him, and that on the day of judgement God would ask them why they had said/taught that God was a liar.
The fun and games that happened afterwards I mentioned in my previous post, below.
I did however go up to him and ask him about Kent Hovind's prison sentence, the lawsuit between AiG and CMI, and his accusations against Ken Ham, commenting that you can know a teaching by its fruit and that the fruit of the six day creation lobby isn't exactly pure. He replied that people thought Jesus was a scoundrel and a liar and that whenever you speak the truth people try to smear you.
In conclusion MacKay is very slick but has little substance. His skill is to make the most ridiculous claim sound believable. Sadly this seems to be quite an effective tactic amongst people not accustomed to question, however no thinking person is likely to find him persuasive in the slightest. 6-day creationism is not a well thought-through position.
"Evil"ution
Last night I went to a talk by the (in?)famous australian geologist (actually schoolteacher) John MacKay. I was preparing to be outraged however was actually rather amused by the whole thing. MacKay was a very slick presenter but didn't make any good arguments, basing most of his talk around the incredulity argument. The best bit was a conversation I had with a chap afterwards:
I had asked a question as to whether it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (which MacKay essentially said no to). After the talk finished some guy came up to me and asked me why I thought evolution was called evolution. Before I could answer he said more slowly "evil"lution - there's evil even in the name". At this point I thought he was joking and said "no it's spelt e v O l u t i o n" to which he said I was deceived by satan. I asked him if it was my spelling or my beliefs that were deceived and he launched into a hand waving diatribe about intellectuals and then returned to his idea that there was "evil" even in the name (he wasn't joking!!). I then asked him how he knew that it was only I who was deceived and not him, to which he answered that he knew the truth!!
I had asked a question as to whether it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (which MacKay essentially said no to). After the talk finished some guy came up to me and asked me why I thought evolution was called evolution. Before I could answer he said more slowly "evil"lution - there's evil even in the name". At this point I thought he was joking and said "no it's spelt e v O l u t i o n" to which he said I was deceived by satan. I asked him if it was my spelling or my beliefs that were deceived and he launched into a hand waving diatribe about intellectuals and then returned to his idea that there was "evil" even in the name (he wasn't joking!!). I then asked him how he knew that it was only I who was deceived and not him, to which he answered that he knew the truth!!
I went along to the talk trying to think the best of six day creationists however left with the distinct impression that they really are not very bright.
Wednesday 17 September 2008
The Royal Society makes an arse of itself...
So Prof Michael Reiss gives the following talk suggesting that science teachers must engage with students who hold non-scientific beliefs and teach them why evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for origins:
However after a brouhaha by a certain professor in Oxford, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir Harry Kroto (all FRS's) he is forced to resign:
Two interesting articles on the topic from the Guardian include Adam Rutherfords:
And a related article by the ever thoughtful Denis Alexander:
To coin a phrase, by ignoring the issue of an increasing number of Creationists the Royal Society is putting it's head in the sand. By doing so all anyone sees is a big arse.
Tuesday 9 September 2008
Radio interview
I was interviewed about science & faith by a chap from the BBC the other day. Apart from getting Darwin's anniversary wrong (it's 200 years since his birth not death!) and calling property dualism emergent dualism, I was quite pleased! Click here to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)