So the Origins Conference sponsored by the Skeptics Society was held last Saturday, and a good time was had by all. Or, at least, a good time was had by most. Or, maybe the right thing to say was that a good time was had much of the time by many of the people.
More specifically: the morning session, devoted to science, was fun. The evening entertainment, by Mr. Deity and his crew, was fantastic. In between, there was some debate/discussion on science vs. religion. Ken Miller is a biologist who believes strongly that science should be taught in science classrooms — he was an important witness in the Dover trial — and who happens also to be a Catholic. He gave an apologia for his belief that was frustrating and ultimately (if you ask me) wrong-headed, but at least qualified as reasonable academic discussion. He was followed by Nancey Murphy, a theologian who was much worse; she defended her belief in the efficacy of prayer by relating an anecdote in which she prayed to God to get a job, and the phone immediately rang with a job offer. (I am not, as Dave Barry says, making this up.) And Michael Shermer and Vic Stenger represented the atheist side, although both talks were also frustrating in their own ways.
But all of that just fades into the background when put into the same room as the sheer unadulterated looniness of the remaining speaker, Hugh Ross. Despite warnings, I didn’t really know anything about the guy before the conference began. The taxonomy of crackpots is not especially interesting to me; there are too many of them, and I’d rather engage with the best arguments for positions I disagree with than spend time mocking the worst arguments (although I’m not above a bit of mockery now and then).
So I was unprepared. For those of you fortunate enough to be blissfully unaware of Ross’s special brand of lunacy, feel free to stop reading now if you so choose. For the rest of you: man, this guy is nuts. And he’s not even the most nuts it’s possible to be — he’s an “old-earth” creationist, willing to accept that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the conventional scientific interpretation of the fossil record is generally right. Still: totally nuts.
Ross’ talk took two tacks. First, he explained to us how the Bible predicted that: (1) the universe started from an initial singularity; (2) it is now expanding; and (3) it is cooling down at it expands. The evidence for these remarkable claims? A long list of Bible verses! Well, not the verses themselves. Just the citations. So we couldn’t really tell what the verses themselves said. Except for poor Ken Miller, who was trying to salvage some last shred of dignity for his side of the debate, and had the perspicacity to look up one of the verses on his iPhone. (Praise be to technology!) I’m not sure which verse it was, but that’s okay, because they all say precisely the same thing. Here is Isaiah 45:12, in the New International Version:
It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
What’s that? You don’t see the bold prediction of Hubble’s Law, practically ready for peer review? It’s right there, in the bit about “stretched out the heavens.” To the mind of a non-crazy person, this is a poetic way of expressing the fact that the dome of the sky reaches from one horizon to the other. To Hugh Ross, though, it’s a straightforward scientific prediction of the expansion of the universe.
Here is Ross in person, going through some of these same arguments:
(Yes, that video is embedded from “GodTube.com.”)
His second tack was to explain how our universe is finely-tuned for the existence of life. We’ve all heard this kind of claim, from real scientists as well as crackpots. But Ross and his clan take it to grotesque extremes, as detailed in the website for his Reasons to Believe ministry. Where, by the way, they don’t believe the LHC will destroy the world! Rather, it will “provide even new reasons to trust the validity of Scripture.” It would be nice if they would tell us what those reasons are ahead of time. Does Scripture predict low-energy supersymmetry? Large extra dimensions?
According to Reasons to Believe, the chance of life arising on a planet within the observable universe is only 1 in 10282 — or it would have been, if it weren’t for divine miracles. (Don’t tell them about there are 10500 vacua in string theory, it would ruin everything.) They get this number by writing down a long list of criteria that are purportedly necessary for the existence of life (“star’s space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest”; “molybdenum quantity in crust”; “mass distribution of Oort Cloud objects”), then they assign probabilities to each, and cheerfully multiply them together. To the non-crackpot eye, most have little if any connection to the existence of life, and let’s not even mention that many of these are highly non-independent quantities. (You cannot calculate the fraction of “Sean Carroll”s in the world by multiplying the fraction of “Sean”s by the fraction of “Carroll’s. As good Irish names, they are strongly correlated.) It’s the worst kind of flim-flam, because it tries to cover the stench of nonsense by squirting liberal doses of scientific-smelling perfume. If someone didn’t know anything about the science, and already believed in an active God who made the universe just for us, they could come away convinced that modern science had vindicated all of their beliefs. And that’s not something any of us should sit still for.
There is a reason why all this is worth rehashing, as distasteful as it may be and as feeble as the arguments are. Namely: there is no reason whatsoever to invite such a person to speak at a conference that aspires to any degree of seriousness. You can invite religious speakers, and you can have a debate on the existence of God; all that is fine, so long as it is clearly labeled and not presented as science. But there’s never any reason to invite crackpots. The crackpot mindset has no legitimate interest in an open-minded discussion, held in good faith; their game is to take any set of facts or arguments and twist them to fit their pre-determined conclusions. It’s the opposite of the academic ideal. And it’s an insult to religious believers to have their point of view represented by crackpots.
Which, if you want to be excessively conspiratorial, might have been the point. Perhaps the conference organizers wanted to ridicule belief in God by having it defended by Hugh Ross, or perhaps they wanted to energize the skeptical base by exposing them to some of the horrors that are really out there. Still, it was inappropriate. If we non-believers are confident in our positions, we should engage with the most intelligent and open-minded exemplars of the other side. Shooting fish in a barrel is not a sport that holds anyone’s attention for very long.
Yes there is: zero plausibility, let’s otherwise check for the “existence” of the tooth fairy, or if the hidden side of the moon is made of green cheese, why not?
And how does this statement of yours squares with your previous one: I have never mentioned religion other than to say that I don’t believe in it?
It also seem that you failed to grasp my previous criticism that the existence of a God isn’t an “explanation” for anything: where does God came from then?
Another thing you failed to grasp (and probably didn’t even try to understand), I provided a detailed explanation of complexity buildup by iterated function systems without any plan or purpose and provided relevant links.
Actually I don’t give a shit about Darwin, he provides only a tiny piece of the puzzle and he is obsolete with respect to recent developments of biology.
Anyway I don’t need Darwin to reject schizophrenic mythologies.
prime examples of how false beliefs … Your belief in atheism … you don’t even recognize that atheism is a belief … your own religious beliefs in atheism, etc….
Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s an absence of belief in anything but everyday evidence that there are “various things” out there in front of our eyes, nothing more.
And then you wonder that I call you a numbskull?
Andyo : “What bothers me is that you’re not only going to religious “authority” for your science information. What bothers me further is that you are also going to these religious “authorities” to confirm or reject information coming from scientists.”
Well I am not a scientist and do not have the time to check with various scientists and then figure it out. Just 2 days ago, I bought a second hand book “The Real Book about STARS” by Hal Goodwin illustrated by Paul Wenck, a clear simple introduction to the skies with many illustrations and charts. 1951 Garden City Books. I read the 170 pages and marked in many places in the book. For example, at page 29- I drew in the margin, the Empire State Building and on top right side, placed a dot, and I gathered that our galaxy is the building and the ant/dot, is our solar system. This way I can put it in my head an image of what difference in size the solar system is to our galaxy, within which our solar system is situated. This book is a book club probably for junior high school boys but they suffice for me. Its 1951 and much would have been known and the book could be obselete, but I learnt when Jupiter was discovered and how and which came next. That gives me mental pleasure. I am no where near the intellectual brilliance of Kevembuangga nor the commitment to scientific excellence of andyo, nor the single mindedness of Mike Schuler to reason God’s existence in life through science and thus secure a framework for life and reason for living and purpose of his existence.
If as I know the Jesuit scientists will give me a scientific answer, and since the questions stem from issues related to God, I know they will favor me with a reply. They may also be keen to have the opportunity to have this question sorted out, even if not astrophysics, because of their commitment to discipline of science as well as to God. I like them, and is it not human, and ordinary when we have questions, we ask our friends, even if others think they are not experts, because we trust them.
How much information do we need, that is necessary? We cherry pick. I enjoyed learning that Saturn (named after Greek god, is father of Jupiter). At the top of page 95, I wrote down Saturn (Father) / Cronos = Time —> Jupiter / Jove/ Zeus .
Sure, I could have written back to the Prof and mentioned that, if the 2 pairs of chromosomes of our common ancestor of man and ape, fused and became one pair, so that, we have man, born of the common ancestor parents, with 23 pairs, and if this event occurred once, we have either a male or female offspring, with 23 pairs, and for this progeny to reproduce, it needs another mate with 23 pairs ( presumably) so as to create a line of descendants. On the other hand, it might be that such occurrences of common ancestors mating and reproducing off springs with 23 pairs had become a common feature, so that there are plenty of 23 pairs male and females so that they can freely mate and reproduce the tree of man with 23 pairs. Out of concern for the sensitivity of the question posed, and the way they have chosen to refer to a scientist in the field, I just wrote back a nice thank you and I have learnt a lot. I am sure they would behind doors, discuss this and see how they bring this across to the flock through the proper channels. That is their task. We have just given them a head start. They in the know would like such reform, for then hinges survival in the long term. But for me, suffice to read and remember a bit that Jupiter is coated with ice and colder than ice. 200 degrees below zero. Then I pause is this celcius or fahrenheit.
So I am not in the big league in pursuit of science. Thus I am happy to accept the Jesuits confirmation of the answer than accept your link, andyo. Maybe if I had pursued a science career when young I might think differently.
I know it sounds bad as you rightly pointed out to me, hoping I would improve, “What bothers me is that you’re not only going to religious “authority” for your science information. What bothers me further is that you are also going to these religious “authorities” to confirm or reject information coming from scientists.” # I appreciate your urging me to excellence, andyo, but this brain does not want to run marathon nor need to. It likes movies of stars in skies, and an ant perched on Empire State Building.
Kevembuangga – “Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s an absence of belief in anything but everyday evidence that there are “various things” out there in front of our eyes, nothing more.
And then you wonder that I call you a numbskull?”
I think atheism is a belief. I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen. It is as if they have moved through the sliding door to another world another reality another dimension. So there are things in front of our eyes and then not in front of our eyes. Further if some ancient thinkers think the world is an illusion, and retreat into religion, and pursue a path of meditation to penetrate the illusion, and see the real reality, then if they did succeed, and if they did see real reality, then what is our reality we see? Two realities, real realities and realities of the world. So your belief that the realities of the world is the only and sole reality is then a belief just as there belief that there are two realities.
andyo- “There were two links (one under “two” and one under “links”). Go up and read them, it’s not a very hard read, and it’s very interesting, at least for someone asking the kinds of questions you asked.”
Yes after I had punched the hit button, I realised you hid one link under one word, and there being two words, there were two links.
I like to be excused from such extensive reading. I like to re read my star book and make notes like page 36- Copernicus liked the stars in the skies and he studied at the good universities of his time and became prof in 1499. After teaching earth was center of the universe for a few years, he realised it was wrong and resigned and became a priest and studied more for 30 years and then published his work that earth was not, and a few days later he died. What started him on the new track, was reading the work of ancient Greek scientists like Pythagoras. He also devised a new money system for his government. He found out the exact length of the year short of less than a minute.
Are you also “thinking” that your thinking is an argument?
LOL
Yeah, yeah, I had that happening to me too when I was drunk…
if, if, if, three strikes and you’re out!
“our reality we see” is the one EVERYBODY sees (when not drunk or otherwise deranged) and this is the main property of “this” reality, that it can be shared and agreed upon.
NONE of the so-called separate or different realities allows that, thus they are much more probably schizophrenic fantasies since they are NOT able to interact with everyday reality either.
There are NO RELIABLY WITNESSED MIRACLES and where there have seem to be some they were later debunked as natural phenomenon or fabrications (ever heard of James Randi?)
I am not at all “believing” in a sole and only reality but I have never seen any other.
Show me some other and I will “believe”.
Like evidence that baptizing the dead has any effect other than upsetting another group of morons.
Likely due to silly CSS the links don’t show as links. http://exiledonline.com/mormon-baptism-of-the-dead/
Kevembuangga Says: Show me some other and I will “believe”.
I cannot show, but I can tell you the way they went about it to ‘see it’. Last time, we engaged on this, I suggested you take 10 days to attend a free meditation course. That will be the tip of the ice berg to the viewing. It is said the likes of the historical Gautama Buddha saw it through such approach. I have not walked the full path so I have to go with the “three strikes IF” but I would support the preservation of such ancient pathway for humanity. By the way it has nothing to do with miracles. It is direct perception of reality, versus conventional reality (realities of the world. Seeing is by the analytical mind, OR the intuitive mind. Discursive thought is use of the former and meditation is use of the latter. To use the latter, one has to for that period temporarily cease use of the analytical mind. I cannot show you that which only your intuitive mind can see for itself (subject to your three strikes IF disclaimer) when in use by yourself.
me: “I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen.”
you: :”Yeah, yeah, I had that happening to me too when I was drunk…”
me: That actually was a science observation, if you care to check it out seriously. I have not used the science words as I have forgotten them.
Most of what is contained in this post is nothing but logical fallacy – appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, and poisoning the well. After that, you left out about 98 more parameters for their to be viable life on this earth. I noticed you aren’t threatened by other speakers but what a knee jerk reaction to Hugh Ross! Why is that? Why do you feel the need to attack him personally and call him a crackpot? I think you know why.
Your post is as biased as mine is.
Vera
Vera wrote: blah, blah, blah… misuse of fallacies… blah, blah… Your post is as biased as mine is.
You mean that bias against crackpot ideas is a bad thing?
Wow this Hugh Ross has you really rattled. Not bad going for what you call a cracpot.
How about if he is right.
JB
Sean Baines
How about if he is right.
Sure, How about if the moon is made of green cheese?
For more see Secular Right.
British journalist Bryan Appleyard has written an article on Darwinian evolution for The Sunday Times which is straight out of the creationist textbook:
http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/01/bryan-appleyard-and-creationism.html
The article quotes appovingly from creationists, and reprises the familiar creationist arguments that evolution cannot explain the eye, that there aren’t enough genes to explain human complexity, and evolution caused Nazi eugenics and other social ills.
Pingback: The Grid of Disputation | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Pingback: Sean Carroll’s Handy Grid - Science and Religion Today
Hugh Ross is exactly right about what he said. The author of this article has refuted 0% of Ross’s assertions. This article is just blather couched in a personal attack.
Ross makes a perfectly reasonable argument. The problem isn’t that Ross takes an ancient manuscript and shares his attempts to qualify it publicly. The problem is the utter shamelessness with which evolutionists {e.g. those adhering to speciation [red and green algae into dinosaurs; whales into humans; etc…]) callously slam the door shut on their own peers, the many scientists and philosophers who find serious scientific and philosophical problems with the theory. Actively supporting institutional censureship in what is supposed to be a democratic independent media of opinions from some of the world’s leading scientists (as time goes on the list gets longer) in an effort to maintain a political strangehold on all serious inquiry of speciation theory is not scientific nor desirable to the scientific enterprise.
These evolutionists operate in the 21st century like the Roman Catholic Church did in medieval Europe. I believe if they had the power to conduct formal inquisitions upon the populace to force recantations of non-evolutionary scientific dissent they would take up that “cross” with exactly the same fervor. As it is they are limited to censuring, persecuting, and ruining the careers of your own peers who find a scientific basis to question speciation theory.
It’s maddening and unacceptable in a free modern society to see this situation but it exists because of people like the author of this article.