I recently got into a debate over young earth creationism. One objection to the view went as follows: “A scientific theory is a concise set of statements which has broad explanatory and predictive power within its purview. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must predict what must or must not be observed if it is true. If such things are not observed/observed, then the hypothesis is considered falsified. [Scientific Creationism] does not espouse any idea which makes exclusive predictions about what must or must not be observed. Every biological observation falls under “God made it that way” or borrows from evolutionary theory and says “it adapted that way.”…
-
-
Scrapping Over Crime: How Assumptions About Human Nature Explain Political Divisions
In clear-cut cases of crime, terror, and other instances of wicked human behavior, you’d think we’d all be on the same page. But we’re not. We argue over it, especially if we talk politics. It seems we can all call something bad, but when we talk about what we or the government should do about it, we can’t agree. Why not? The answer is fairly simple and comes down to our views of human nature. In other words, the argument is not primarily political but a question of worldview. Consider any event in which a person has done some immoral action. Now, consider why the action was taken. What is…
-
Blunting the Fallacy Fork
Marrten Boudry claims that there are far fewer fallacies out there than we think. His reason involves a ‘fallacy fork.’ The fallacy fork is a dilemma the conclusion of which is supposed to show us that fallacies are not usually fallacies. Here is the fork: Either the fallacy is hardly ever used, or it is hardly ever fallacious. For a fallacy to count, it must imply some deductive form. Since, we hardly ever make deductive arguments that are candidates for fallacies, we should prefer the second fork. So, are what we call fallacies not really fallacies after all? Consider, the ad hominem fallacy. A candidate for office claims that policy…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos pt.2: Dr Jeanson (AiG)
There is a clock in DNA. Does it show how old the species is or not? We have less than 5% of DNA’s function. This is small fruit and does not conclusively tell us that ancestry is common or not. So, what do the number of DNA differences show? DNA resides in the nucleus and mitochondrial DNA resides in a separate part of the cell. The mitochondria is passed on through the maternal line (the sperm unites only with the nucleus). DNA has its own language comprising of four letters, ATCG. We can compare two DNA strands. When there is similarity and difference we can see it. DNA strands might…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos pt2: Dr Venema (BioLogos)
Dennis Venema I am sitting waiting for part 2. Some comments on what I’ve heard so far: So far the talks have not focused on Adam. Instead, we have heard arguments for the thesis that the similarities of traits across species do not show common ancestry and that they do. Neither argument is conclusive since both arguments conclude from that the data does not disconfirm the respective theories. Conclusions are thin. Design was a feature of Dr Jeanson’s talk – all the data is compatible with design. But this is true even if evolution is true. The data would not be radically different given either evolution or young earth. This…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos: Dr Venema (BioLogos)
Dr Venema from BioLogos is professor of Biology at Trinity Western University in BC, Canada. Dr Venema is a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist, as he calls it). Here are my notes: Three assumptions: If every square inch of creation is under the Lordship of Christ, then science is an act of worship. If God is the author of both books–the Bible and nature–then there cannot be a contradiction. If there is apparent conflict between our study of the Bible and nature, it is only apparent. A theory is an explanatory framework that has survived testing and makes accurate predictions. Evolution is this kind of theory. It makes accurate predictions,…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos: Dr Jeanson (AiG)
[DISCLAIMER: I’m ‘live-blogging’ so there will be errors, maybe many] I’m at the Evolution, Genetics, and the Historical Adam Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The question for the conference is: Did Adam exist? The debate has achieved critical mass and now has its own Four Views book, an accomplishment reserved for only the most debated of topics. The speakers today represent two sides of the debate – Dr Nathaniel Jeanson argues that the Genesis account should be taken literally – six days, less than 10,000 years ago, and a guy, formed from the dust and the breath of God, called Adam, the first man. Dr Venema argues that Adam……
-
Back to First Thoughts: Defending Davidson with Theism
Donald Davidson In an earlier post I looked at an argument by Donald Davidson that supported the idea that thought depends on language. Thought is possible through learning of the concepts of true and false through interpreting another person asserting something about an object in the world. Davidson calls this “triangulation.” I suggested that the problem with Davidson’s argument is that, from an non-theistic perspective, there appears no way for a “first thought” to emerge from non-thought. It only takes one person who has language, and therefore thought, to get the ball rolling. But if there is no language and therefore no thought then there can be no first thought.…