Shutting down discussion of Intelligent Design rather than dealing with it critically

I've had a few blog posts stored up and wanted to post this one in light of the attack on ID over the course of this year.

This link describes but one example:
Free Thought Advocate Aggressively Shuts down course on ID

Ironic isn't it?

 I note a certain attitude of advocates for evolution in the public sphere to take a rather dogmatic approach to dealing with critics of evolution. It's as though any alternative to a naturalistic explanation is seen as a threat or dissent to science.

I think proponents of evolution over reach in their eagerness to champion the field. That the meta narrative of evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists shouldn't exclude critical examination of individual evidences and questioning of those individual pieces. These individual evidences in the literature are often challenged in time as new insight comes to light.

Therefore it strikes me as odd that there should be such a reaction when someone who identifies with intelligent design or creation, where the criticism is thrown aside in favour of ad hominem attacks. I have witnessed this in many forums including debates where those arguing for naturalistic evolution lean toward personal derision over mounting an evidential argument for evolution as if there job is already done.

Some evidences for evolution are very much open to interpretation and aren't without controversy. Teaching the controversy is an argument that many in the ID and creation camps advocate, but are met with quite strong resistance. There is no controversy the evolutionary advocates say. That seems to me to be a little dishonest. Many of the iconic findings for evolution have later come to be questioned in the literature, yet very rarely is this acknowledged in textbooks or in public discourse. We're talking everything from fossils said to be human-ape ancestors, junk dna and even the central mechanism of mutation and natural selection. My university textbook from 2002 was rather out of date in terms of discussion of particular evolutionary finds. Several of which have been found to be false, some even prior to the production of the textbook.

Instead of getting worked up about some anti-science push, lets enrich the conversation around our planets history and set aside largely philosophical antagonism towards those who think intelligent design is the best explanation for what we observe. 

Is God a Psychopath?

I thought I might dust off the cobwebs on gathering on this blog, since I haven't gotten around to posting for a while. I spent a couple of months out of the country doing some travel and R&R after completing my doctorate. 

'The God of the Old testament is a psychopath'

I note this sentiment expressed towards the God of the old testament by atheists, often followed by a proclamation of possessing superior morals. This is interesting for a number of reason, which I want to explore.

The rejection of the old testament God seems to me to stem primarily from a humanist world view, that believes humans are basically good, and generally regards the judgement of death as offensive. Certainly God cannot judge most people to have fallen short, with the sweeping proclamations we see in the old testament, that would be unfair. Some might contend that God couldn't possibly justify these actions. 

But it is not this simple. Could there not be circumstances warranting drastic intervention by God? What if it wasn't true that humans were basically good?  I note the tendency of a humanistic world view to grapple quite differently with events such as the Boston bombing. Such an event is quite confronting to the view that people are inherently good, but I recall that people wondered how the system had failed the two perpetrators, or if society had done enough to be inclusive of the migrant family, rather than raise the question about the existence of evil. We are reluctant to regard people as evil, but those guilty of the most monstrous of acts, but even then we prefer to see them as simply being broken in some way, to have experienced some great injustice or captive to some unfortunate ideology. 

If we see these events as the outworking of evil in the human heart then we can begin to understand God's actions. Fallen humanity prior to the coming of Christ was under the judgement of death. The reason for the flood in part was to stop the flourishing of evil. However, God extended grace to a remnant that began with Noah  and would lead to the 

covenant with Abraham. God would bring salvation through the nation of Israel and his son, which would be born a Jew, but bring salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike.

The context of the conquest of Canaan in the old testament is God's judgement on the iniquity of the Canaanites and Israel (God's chosen) being given a home in the promised land. Why was Canaan judged? They were a Godless and evil culture. Child sacrifice is just one example. To allow the people of Canaan to flourish would be for evil to flourish and for Israel to be corrupted also. 

One commentator noted that were a human to do the same it would be universally condemned.  But it does not make sense to limit God (who is the creator and over all things) arbitrarily in this manner. God would not in any sense be limited by human sensibilities, nor is it logical to reduce God to a common murderer, since he has authority over life that we do not. Humanity has also shown that taking of life is sometimes necessary, not desirable but necessary. Do we condemn as immoral the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima in WWII, or would that be overly simplistic?

This discussion hasn't even touched on the basis for the moral argument that atheists have made, when they make the statements this post has discussed. This is one big problem that the atheists world view faces. Sam Harris has suggested maximising human flourishing as a basis for morality, but that itself wouldn't necessarily prohibit a lot of things that atheists find objectionable in the bible. I have already noted some examples of the complexities of life and human existence above. In light of these I think the Christian worldview is actually quite strong and also provides hope and resolution. 

People are wrong - Ideologues

You'll notice I'm not the most prolific blogger. Right now I'm taking a brief break from writing my doctoral thesis to type out this brief rant.

Something I've noticed increasingly in recent years (though perhaps it just escaped my notice before) is the amount of do-gooders , ideologues and moralizing. Much of this happens around politics, but also discussing issues of the day and the way to address the worlds problems. 

So what's the problem with the aforementioned. I would say it's that they have elevated good intentions over reality. That is, it doesn't matter what the outcome is, only the feelings involved. Well that's my assessment, since the reality of the situation is ignored in order to wave the flag of ideology. John Lenon's Imagine is their anthem. Nothing wrong with the song, but seeing as people are largely the source of problems and not systems (for the most part) it will remain illusive. 

There's this suspicion of individual success, especially in any financial sense, that it's not deserved. On the flip side that poverty or disadvantage, automatically makes someone a victim. They love to disconnect any sense of personal responsibility for one's situation in favour of assigning privilege or victim status, with broad brush strokes. Are there privileged people and people who are victims, absolutely, but I don't think this is the rule.

The political solution is ever increasing expansion of government to chase the dream. Equality will be mandated from the level of government. But it's not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. The funny thing about this is it involves treating people unequally, since outcomes will always be different, since people are all different.

Right now we are essentially taxing success and rewarding dysfunction. Lets be honest, alot of poverty springs from dysfunction, which believe it or not free money doesn't solve. Australia has a robust welfare system that pays out an awful lot of money to fund people's laziness, drinking, smoking and drugs. High crime rates are also associated with welfare hotspots.

How can a society that does not encourage individual responsibility hope to break free from this? I'd ask the ideologues, but we know they don't have any answers.

Why I raise my Children without God - A response

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282 - Here's the article in question

The problem with this article lies firstly is that its critique is largely of a superficial religious version of God and not the Christian God as many understand and that the bible reveals. Its not a version of God I would teach my kids. 

It also doesn't really address the moral problem - what is the objective grounding for the moral system she teaches her kids. It doesn't give you any more than subjective moral relativism.
 

Here's a point by point response: 

If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others.

God is not simply just a parent he is God. We are not simply children, we are created in his image. I don't think God simply allows people to do wrong either.

God is not logicalHow many times have you heard, “Why did God allow this to happen?” And this: “It’s not for us to understand.” Translate: We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue. Take for example the senseless tragedy in Newtown. Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God.

Who's deferring responsibility to God? Is why did God allow this to happen really the pressing question. That's more of a philosophical question. Ultimately as believers we don't understand why each event happens but our worldview does give us a frame work for why bad things happen.

I think the author misunderstands what is going on here. Who's deferring responsibility to God? I think its telling that the humanist answer to the problem of evil is to ban guns. Guns aren't the problem, people are. The humanist response to all these tragedies is to imagine we are on a trajectory to some sort of Utopia if only we try harder. I don't see any evidence that things are getting better.

A vague pointing to God is not the answer, but addressing Godlessness is. Do you think someone believes in human dignity and worth and accountability of their actions before God commits these acts? Certainly not someone truly convicted of these things. That we have told God to get out of our schools is not just a cute little anecdote. We have literally rejected God and evil is the result.

God is not fair.

What the author is saying is life is not fair therefore God is not fair. It does not follow that God is not fair if bad things happen to good people in this life. I believe God does offer redemption, hope and strength.

Mark 10:29-30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel" will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.

God does not protect the innocent.

     He does not keep our children safe. As a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot. We protect our little ones as much as possible. When a child is kidnapped, we work together to find the child. We do not tolerate abuse and neglect. Why can’t God, with all his powers of omnipotence, protect the innocent?

Do we really speak up for those who can not? 50,000,000 aborted babies in the US suggests otherwise. Why do you think God sent judgment against Canaan (they sacrificed children to baal). 
And where do you think this desire to protect innocence comes from? 


Again it is humans that perpetrate harm to innocent children and Again I say that the atheist has on answer other than to shake their fist at the idea of God and moralise about trying harder next time.

God is not present.

Oh yes he is.

God Does Not Teach Children to Be GoodTelling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will be externally focused rather than internally structured. It’s like telling a child to behave or Santa won’t bring presents. 

Who teaches their kids that God is like santa. Even a junior sunday school class will teach better theology than that. 

When we take God out of the picture, we place responsibility of doing the right thing onto the shoulders of our children. No, they won’t go to heaven or rule their own planets when they die, but they can sleep better at night. They will make their family proud. They will feel better about who they are. They will be decent people. 

Umm in what way does belief in God remove personal responsibility from someone? Teaching about God instills accountability not diminished personal responsibility.

God Teaches Narcissism     “God has a plan for you.” Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness.

Well according to a study I read recently, narcissistic personality traits have been on the rise in modern times, you know as we become more secular. We live in a completely individualistic society, accept we like a nanny state to look after us so we don't have to take responsibility for our choices.

There is nothing in the bible that suggests that because God has a plan the world is at your feet. Its about having faith no matter what happens that God can use all things for good (Romans 8:28).

When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine–whether that machine is nature or society–the influence we have is minuscule. The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.

A true sense of humbleness or pitiless indifference? If we are no more special than the next creature does that not result in the behavior we are increasingly witnessing. Also the "truth" that there is no God is an assertion.

There in lies the problem with this whole article. It doesn't really come close to addressing the moral problem and it furnishes its argument with a bad conception of God.

Internet Atheism

This blog is based on some general observations of the new atheist movement on the internet, which I've followed for a few years. 

The first thing about this movement is that a significant proportion of its presence is online and as such brings aboard many of the negatives of an online based community. 

Internet atheism brings aboard aspects of internet culture - the anonymity, the trolling, the adhominem, liberal use of the strawman, and a general lack of substance. The whole meme culture of sites like reddit fuel this brand of atheism. A brand of atheism characterised by abrasiveness and general social ineptitude and a tendency to think that Richard Dawkins is a good philosopher.

Far from being intellectual it relies on catch phrasing and ideas developed in a vacuum. There is a pretense of skepticism and rational thought that is not even there in many cases. People rally around celebrity atheists on sites like freethoughtblogs and youtube, particularly those who like to give religion a good bashing, whilst often avoiding dealing with the issues in a honest and meaningful manner.

Besides the fact that cutting and pasting insults against a being you insist does not exist is not indicative of mental and social health, for all its bluster the new atheism has failed to demonstrate their charge and failed to adequately rebut the arguments of those such as William Lane Craig, who make a strong case that faith is reasonable.

That which has fostered an atheist community has created something by its nature sure to dwindle. Making lots of noise on the internet has limited possibilities. Its not something that can be sustained, especially in the face of the resurgence of apologetics and Christian philosophy and the fact that the internet brand of atheism doesn't translate well to the real world.

Anita Sarkeesian Is Wrong - Feminism

Anita Sarkeesian is a "media critic" who created an internet shitstorm when she launched a kickstarter to tackle sexism in video games titled 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'. She received quite a backlash - the video was spammed on troll haven 4-chan and abusive comments followed on the pitch video.

Whilst the abuse is regrettable, Anita had no problem selecting out the abusive comments and using them to promote herself as a victim to anyone who would listen, meanwhile ignoring legitimate criticism which she received.  She went on to raise 150,000 dollars.

A number of factors play into how this project has been received. First and foremost being that Anita is not much of a critic. Certainly not one deserving much attention. Her channel feminist frequency on youtube presents what is largely nit-picking and lacking in substance, her presentations are extremely one-sided with a feminist agenda driving the content, for example her bayonetta video. She took the video down, but a number of users have mirrored her video, which can only be described as a hatchet job. There's little doubt that Anita intends to whine about female characters designed to appeal to men. Of course we know that the reverse is never the case for predominantly female centric media.

Gamers are generally sick of their hobby being stigmatised by outsiders like Sarkeesian. Of course she claims to be a gamer, but that seems doubtful. She had to buy a whole heap of games with the kickstarter money to do "research". Ie. She hasn't played many games. Though the notion that she might actually do some research for this video series is refreshing. But having said that she's already made comments on Bastion complaining about the female character, which suggest shes rushing through the games since Zia is actually a really interesting character. She also tweeted about how ICO is the most sexist game she has ever played, which is an indication of what to expect.

One thing I don't expect her to notice is that game characters do tend to be a little one dimensional regardless of gender. Many games in her pile there are primarily action orientated and the character is not much more than an avatar.  Nor do I expect her to recognise that games are escapism and tend to present a hyper or idealised reality.

It could well be there is something to be said on the issue but Anita Sarkeesian is not the person to do it. She has already concluded that everything is sexist so I don't have high hopes here.

Atheists are Wrong - The Problem of Evil

You may have seen this quote floating around the web:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


One of the things New Atheists love to do is moralise about different topics including the suffering in the world. They themselves don't have any real answers, but they attack that provided by a Christian world view of a good God. This quote seems to be a favourite of theirs.

This quote is typically seen as a knock down argument, for which there is no objections. But that is really only true if God must conform to the atheist expectation, which tends to lean towards humanism. If God is good then he would act according to humanist principals. But there is a short-sightedness to this view.

Their objections seem to ignore that Christianity answers the problem of evil in the first few chapters of the bible.They also ignore the fact that Christians believe in eternity of the soul, which puts things in a different perspective. To atheists death is the ultimate offence, especially that of one seen to be innocent or undeserving, nevermind the fact that the atheists worldview doesn't really have an objective basis for their moral outrage.

Take the biblical account of the flood for example. The atheists would deny God has any right to take life, especially not if he is to be considered 'good'. But this is merely an assertion appealing to an objective morality in which the taking of life is always wrong. The atheist also denies the right of God to judge sin, which if you ask me is mighty presumptuous.

Here is a question I would like to pose:

-Do you believe in the dealth penalty as a punishment?
-Would you say that there is 'evil' in the world?
-Would you shoot someone dead if they broke into your house and threatened your family?
-Should God intervene to stop evil?

See there seems to be a double standard at play here: The atheist objects to Gods intervention in the bible for example sending the flood, but then they ask where was God when insert bad event here happened.

Do you want God to judge evil or not? The world was full of evil so God sent the flood. He saved - as an act of Grace Noah and his family.

He has also saved the nation of Israel and sent his son to die on the cross to overcome evil. But Gods direct intervention has been limited since he gives us free will. In order to prevent the evil that man does to one another then he would have to take away our free will. He did however show us the way through his word. The principles Jesus gave us to live by are truly beautiful and transforming.

Free will has a big upside: we are free to live and love, and express. We aren't just God worshipping automatons.

Is it good that people experience suffering at the hands of others they do not deserve. Absolutely not, but suffering in this world will fade in the grand scheme of eternity; an eternity free from suffering.