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.
No comments:
Post a Comment