Christian Researcher Sues after Being Sacked over Evolution [Archive]

View Full Version : Christian Researcher Sues after Being Sacked over Evolution

SILVERNAME

Dec 22, 2007, 04:57 PM

Senior fellow with Seattle's Discovery Institute criticizes researcher's firing

By Hilary White

WOODS HOLE, Massachusetts, December 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Christian post-doctoral biology researcher is suing Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution saying he was fired after he told his employer he did not believe that the theory of evolution was a scientific fact.

Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, who was a postdoctoral researcher at the prestigious Cape Cod research institute, has launched the suit in US District Court in Boston saying he was fired in 2004 for his religious beliefs. Abraham is seeking US $500,000 compensation.

Dr. Abraham is being represented by the Christian Law Association (***) of Seminole, Florida, that represents without charge "Bible-believing churches and Christians who are experiencing legal difficulty in practicing their religious faith". David C. Gibbs, Jr. President of ***, said Abraham "truly believes there was no conflict between religion and his job".

The Woods Hole Institute released a statement saying it did not discriminate on the basis of religious belief. "The Institution firmly believes that its actions and those of its employees concerning Dr. Abraham were entirely lawful".

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121006.html

attyatlast

Dec 27, 2007, 11:26 PM

Religous freedom is now being eradicated in the united states...It is one of the leading country wherein a person can get sued and made to pay hefty sum of money for expressing one's religous belief...Ironically the most oppressed in this part of the world are the christians specially the roman catholic church.......

it is practically an american version of talibanism....only this time the american "talibans" advocates a god less society.....

Lastly, USA was founded on the fact that it is a place where one is allowed to express his ideas, beliefs and creed free from governmental restriction , regulation, or punishment....
it would seem that USA had forgotten this policy....

n3X

Dec 30, 2007, 07:47 AM

Lady Chablis

Dec 31, 2007, 07:09 AM

Genesis vs Evolution. One could be right and the other wrong. I for one have my reservations about the theory of evolution. If evolution proceeds from the lowest to the highest forms of life why don't we find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to the most developed forms? On the contrary, developed species suddenly appeared in the oldest rock fossils; between every species there is a complete absence of intermediate fossils

Chairo

Dec 31, 2007, 10:07 AM

Evolution is an unproven hypothesis not a grounded theory. There's still the missing link. I would not accept as a fact that I am descended from monkeys. We humans are God's most intelligent design. I have watched in the discovery channel that there are evidence that humans descended from a single Y chromosome proving that "adam" really existed. The evolution hypothesis is a work of the devil.

n3X

Dec 31, 2007, 11:42 AM

Chairo

Dec 31, 2007, 05:51 PM

Correction to my earlier post, National Geographic aired the "Adam" documentary that proved that humans descended from a single Y chromosome. Sa Discovery Channel iyong "eve" na nanggaling sa africa.

FYI, To my delight my biology professor doesn't believe in the evolution hypothesis. I'd rather be a Christian fundamentalist than an ignorant atheist.

simmer

Jan 1, 2008, 03:09 AM

the influx of atheist from mainland chinese and new age hindu from india in the Us scientific community doesn't really help

la_flash

Jan 1, 2008, 06:19 PM

Lady Chablis

Jan 2, 2008, 12:13 AM

Before asking those questions, nag research na rin ba kayo? Or pinaniwalaan niyo lang mga doubts ninyo? Ang gagaling.

Lady Chablis

First of all, evolution doesnt proceed from "lowest" to "highest" forms of life. Change siya dun sa expression ng traits sa organisms. Second, as for the series of fossils, siyempre hindi laging merong naprepreserve na fossils. Yung process na yun ay halos accidental in occurrence, mas lalo sa prehistoric times. Hindi pinapapila yung mga present species sa isang time period tapos tatabunan sila ng whatever para ma-preserve. Laging merong missing links. One cannot ignore, however, yung rami ng discoveries na rin like yung dinosaurs and yung previous human species. We're lucky kung makahanap ng "intermediate" fossils.

Chairo

Singko ka na sa biology. hehe Kung magkaroon ka ng bird flu, kahit magdasal ka sa kahit anong diyos mo, di ka gagaling unless mas maintindihan natin yung pag-evolve nung disease from one species to the other. Goodluck sa unproven hypothesis na pinagsasabi mo tungkol sa evolution. Magsama kayo ng mga Christian fundamentalists sa ignorance ninyo. And common misconception yung humans descended from monkeys. We didnt descend from them, we only had a common ancestor. And wala akong naririnig na "adam" and single Y chromosome. Baka yan yung single Eve na nanggaling from Africa.

Dr. Nathaniel Abraham's firing because he does not believe in the theory of evolution as a scientific fact is not an isolated case. Many scientists question evolution but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job.

@ n3X:You didn't research hard enough. You touch on microevolution, but you miss macroevolution. Perhaps, intentionally? :) Microevolution is easily seen in any microbiology lab. Didn't we experiment it in high school? Like grow bacteria in a petri dish; destroy half with penicillin; allow the remainder to repopulate the dish, and so on and so forth. Over multiple cycles a new, resistant strain of bacteria would have evolved. While such small changes are well established (no proof that such changes lead to a new species), they are quite different from macroevolution. Nobody has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory!

At the height of man's arrogance and Science's demand for material explanation for everything, has there been successful experiments that duplicate how the building blocks of life originated from the scientist's Primordial Soup? Has there been experiments that prove true macroevolution? The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition---this evolve into this--- but there is no hard evidence. With paucity of proofs, I wouldn't take it hook, line and sinker.

It is totally uncalled for to taunt others for their belief in Intelligent Design (ID). In a sense, evolution has become a scientific religion. Many scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observation to fit in with it. Remember Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's experiment on "soup of chemicals" and Bernard Kettlelwell's colored peppered moths? Our own Milky Way is just a speck of dust in the grand scheme of the Universe. To quote Shakespeare's Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [Science].

attyatlast

Jan 2, 2008, 03:02 PM

hahaha you know, fine anybody's free to believe anything and merong right to religion mga tao. thats perfectly fine. di naman siya kinulong for believing that e, so walang problema dun.

but i wouldn't think twice about firing a BIOLOGY researcher who didnt believe in the theory of evolution just because it ran counter to his/her beliefs. thats just plain incompetence. established THEORY na ang evolution. secondly, if he didnt believe it was a scientific fact, what was his evidence? again, science ulet. To think na post-doctoral na siya. hay nako.

and in the first place, wala naman talagang diyos e.

kaya nga THEORY lang ang tawag sa Eolution ni Darwin eh.....Try looking up in the dictionary of the meaning of the word theory.....

secondly, each professor has academic freedom...which is legally protected.....akala nyo ba ang school lang ang pwedeng mag invoke nito.....so he can always refuse to teach a doctrine or principle for which he does not believe....

n3X

Jan 2, 2008, 03:28 PM

@n3x, wow, in the first place, there's no GOD. Speaking like you're very certain, yet I am sure you don't even know how life forms began in this universe. Gimme a break :rolleyes:

and for the record, a lot of christian philosphers belive that ToE is a fact. However, ToE does not prove that there's no GOD. Evolution does not necessarily make GOD superfluous. To all ignorant atheists out there, get your facts straight, will ya?

hahaha Ignorant atheists. :rotflmao: As if.

Id rather say that then to say na there's a God and I'm very certain. Hindi ba mas IGNORANT yun? At least ang origins ng life e merong scientific models. Get your logic and words straight muna. In the first place, you're not getting the flow of the arguments right. hahaha :rotflmao:

Dr. Nathaniel Abraham's firing because he does not believe in the theory of evolution as a scientific fact is not an isolated case. Many scientists question evolution but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job.

@ n3X:You didn't research hard enough. You touch on microevolution, but you miss macroevolution. Perhaps, intentionally? :) Microevolution is easily seen in any microbiology lab. Didn't we experiment it in high school? Like grow bacteria in a petri dish; destroy half with penicillin; allow the remainder to repopulate the dish, and so on and so forth. Over multiple cycles a new, resistant strain of bacteria would have evolved. While such small changes are well established (no proof that such changes lead to a new species), they are quite different from macroevolution. Nobody has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory!

At the height of man's arrogance and Science's demand for material explanation for everything, has there been successful experiments that duplicate how the building blocks of life originated from the scientist's Primordial Soup? Has there been experiments that prove true macroevolution? The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition---this evolve into this--- but there is no hard evidence. With paucity of proofs, I wouldn't take it hook, line and sinker.

It is totally uncalled for to taunt others for their belief in Intelligent Design (ID). In a sense, evolution has become a scientific religion. Many scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observation to fit in with it. Remember Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's experiment on "soup of chemicals" and Bernard Kettlelwell's colored peppered moths? Our own Milky Way is just a speck of dust in the grand scheme of the Universe. To quote Shakespeare's Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [Science].

Are you kidding me? I-aask mo ako if I researched hard enough tapos ito sasabihin mo sa akin? Ikaw ba, have you even thought hard enough? Goodlord. Hindi ba evolution sa malakihang scale takes a lot of time? Actually merong chika ng punctuated equilibrium so puede ring medyo biglaan. Pero to expect a dog to turn into a cat in a laboratory?! Alam nyo kayo na lang mag-usap. I'm really done with this nonsense. Ang rami nang proofs! Kaya nga THEORY na siya e! Na-aappreciate nyo ba kung ano ibig sabihin or anong level na ang theory? You make it sound na yung thousands ng brightest minds ng human race e naloloko sa notion ng evolution, na yung top universities sa mundo e beholden sa isang "evolution religion" kaya meron silang departments on systems biology and paleontology. Bahala kayo na pagpilitan mga paniniwala ninyo. There's no use debating with closed minds. Sana'y magising na kayo para marealize ninyo na everything would fall into place outside your supernatural world view!

la_flash

Jan 3, 2008, 07:10 AM

whatever n3x, you speak like you're very certain that there's no GOD and you think that by thinking that ToE is a fact it will make God superfluous. Seems like the Dawkins virus have already spread in your system. I believe there's no hope for you. :lol:

la_flash

Jan 3, 2008, 07:20 AM

Lady Chablis

Jan 3, 2008, 11:21 AM

Are you kidding me? I-aask mo ako if I researched hard enough tapos ito sasabihin mo sa akin? Ikaw ba, have you even thought hard enough? Goodlord. Hindi ba evolution sa malakihang scale takes a lot of time? Actually merong chika ng punctuated equilibrium so puede ring medyo biglaan. Pero to expect a dog to turn into a cat in a laboratory?! Alam nyo kayo na lang mag-usap. I'm really done with this nonsense. Ang rami nang proofs! Kaya nga THEORY na siya e! Na-aappreciate nyo ba kung ano ibig sabihin or anong level na ang theory? You make it sound na yung thousands ng brightest minds ng human race e naloloko sa notion ng evolution, na yung top universities sa mundo e beholden sa isang "evolution religion" kaya meron silang departments on systems biology and paleontology. Bahala kayo na pagpilitan mga paniniwala ninyo. There's no use debating with closed minds. Sana'y magising na kayo para marealize ninyo na everything would fall into place outside your supernatural world view!

Chill out, Sweetie. Don't lose your cool over such trivial discussion (we aren't even into the nitty-gritty of evolution, yet). Why so defensive? It's not like your virility is in jeopardy over a discussion on a theory that won't even affect you in your lifetime. The discussion is over, yes sir! If those illustrious scientists can't convince me to totally believe in their theory, what made you think that a puny insignificant nonentity like you can?

Read Brandon Carter's "Large Number of Coincidences and the Anthrophic Principle in Cosmology" and Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence". Believe me, they won't make you a believer (heaven forbids!), but will rid you of your deep-seated religious bigotry. Send me a PM in case you find it hard to comprehend the highly technical terms.

When you have read Carter and Glynn and rid of your innermost angst and hostility, come to Lady Chablis. We'll talk about evolution and intelligent design coolly over a cup of coffee, tea... or me. Hah! :lol:

attyatlast

Jan 3, 2008, 11:24 AM

Apprently some or most people in these world believe that a THEORY is an absolute truth....Where in fact the reason why scientist or philosophers make THEORIES is because they themselves are in search of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH......Therefore the THEORY of EVOLUTION will remain as such and shall not be considered as an ABSOLUTE TRUTH....

Why erase the concept of a Supreme Being in the process of creation.....are there theories that negates this propositions on the first place?.....And as in the case of the said College Professor, WHY SHOULD A PERSON BE PUNISHED FOR BELIEVING THAT CREATION WAS DONE THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE SUPREME BEING.....

la_flash

Jan 3, 2008, 01:42 PM

Scientific theories are not absolute truths. They are just the best guesses about the phenomena in our world. Scientific theories cannot be proved, never! However, scientific theories can be falsified.

I would like to reiterate that ToE does not necesarily prove that GOD does not exist. Thus, I really wonder why some atheists like Dawkins claim that GOD does not exist because ToE is a scientific fact.

tyanak_soo

Jan 3, 2008, 07:00 PM

someone here talks about macro evlution like she understands it but is asking for experimental proof. :lol:

Lady Chablis

Jan 4, 2008, 11:07 AM

someone here talks about macro evlution like she understands it but is asking for experimental proof. :lol:

And a college grad, clueless of the figure of speech, takes it literally and ends up unwittingly laughing at his own incompetence. :lol:

n3X

Jan 4, 2008, 01:49 PM

There's a small number of biologists, Dr. Abraham is one of them, who don't believe in ToE is a fact. I believe their point of contention, as Lady_Chabilis mentioned, is on the macroevolution and not on microevolution. The glaring scarcity in fossil evidence is one of the problems they have. And of course, the missing links. ToE advocates say that there's exactly no specific intermidiate links as every species is a link to its ancestors. Hmmm....

From a unicellular organism, multicellular organisms came forth... they say after a billion of years. The problem is, how? (We leave the problem of how this unicellular organism, the first life form in this world came about from non-life... abiogenesis faces lots of problems as it is :lol:).

Nag-aral ba kayo? Naintindihan niyo ba? The fact na minority yung mga scientists ninyo and mas widely accepted yung ToE is because wala talagang credibilidad yung mga pinagsasabi ninyo. You guys are the ones who are really ignorant. Religious bigots. Extensive na nga evidence ng mga yan kaya na siya naging Theory. E di pagpilitan ninyo ignorance ninyo. Pero di ma-aaccept ng scientific community yung mga sinasabi ninyo dahil baseless talaga sila. Marami ng arguments na nagkaroon sa US dahil sa Intelligent Design na pinagpipilitan ng mga Christian Fundamentalists na kapareho nyo lang mag-isip.

Chill out, Sweetie. Don't lose your cool over such trivial discussion (we aren't even into the nitty-gritty of evolution, yet). Why so defensive? It's not like your virility is in jeopardy over a discussion on a theory that won't even affect you in your lifetime. The discussion is over, yes sir! If those illustrious scientists can't convince me to totally believe in their theory, what made you think that a puny insignificant nonentity like you can?

A theory that wont affect me in my lifetime? :rotflmao: And illustrious scientists cant even convince you? And I'm a puny insignificant nonentity? :rotflmao: Ang galing mo pala e. This goes to show how closed-minded, ignorant and bigoted you are. And ako pa sasabihan mo na religious bigot? Naiintindihan mo ba sinasabi mo? Hindi ako yung religious bigot dito. Kayo yun!

Read Brandon Carter's "Large Number of Coincidences and the Anthrophic Principle in Cosmology" and Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence". Believe me, they won't make you a believer (heaven forbids!), but will rid you of your deep-seated religious bigotry. Send me a PM in case you find it hard to comprehend the highly technical terms.

When you have read Carter and Glynn and rid of your innermost angst and hostility, come to Lady Chablis. We'll talk about evolution and intelligent design coolly over a cup of coffee, tea... or me. Hah! :lol:

Considering what you've just said, you expect na I'll consult you pa or learn from you? :rotflmao: You know, you're just all words, in the sense that you hide behind the forms of the words you construct into sentences, but they really dont hold any substantial meaning. You condescend but in reality you hold no ascendancy.

Apprently some or most people in these world believe that a THEORY is an absolute truth....Where in fact the reason why scientist or philosophers make THEORIES is because they themselves are in search of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH......Therefore the THEORY of EVOLUTION will remain as such and shall not be considered as an ABSOLUTE TRUTH....

Why erase the concept of a Supreme Being in the process of creation.....are there theories that negates this propositions on the first place?.....And as in the case of the said College Professor, WHY SHOULD A PERSON BE PUNISHED FOR BELIEVING THAT CREATION WAS DONE THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE SUPREME BEING.....

No one said na absolute truth siya. *** lang yun. Therefore therefore ka, mali mali naman logic mo.

Duh! In the first place, why put a concept of a supreme being in the process? May THEORIES na ba that puts it in the first place? And scientific theory ha, hindi yung personal theories. The researcher was NOT PUNISHED. Use your words correctly. Asan ba yung proof nung researcher for believing that? Wala. Did s/he present scientific evidence as a professional? Nope. Incompetence yun, dapat lang na they fired him/her. I wouldnt want a post-doctoral researcher na magsasalita about things na unproven.

And a college grad, clueless of the figure of speech, takes it literally and ends up unwittingly laughing at his own incompetence. :lol:

Asan yung figure of speech? Taken literally? San ito nangyari? Again, another incidence of condescension but no material substance.

tyanak_soo

Jan 4, 2008, 02:25 PM

It looked like an honest to goodness lapse. Moreso, considering what came before and after it: an unbroken sequence of "evolution" :rolleyes:, experiments to prove the prinordial soup (which incidentally, is just another one of those theories. scientists should be the first to admit they're not sure).

but i might consider the coffee, tea or chablis. love wines. :D

la_flash

Jan 4, 2008, 03:44 PM

Nag-aral ba kayo? Naintindihan niyo ba? The fact na minority yung mga scientists ninyo and mas widely accepted yung ToE is because wala talagang credibilidad yung mga pinagsasabi ninyo. You guys are the ones who are really ignorant. Religious bigots. Extensive na nga evidence ng mga yan kaya na siya naging Theory. E di pagpilitan ninyo ignorance ninyo. Pero di ma-aaccept ng scientific community yung mga sinasabi ninyo dahil baseless talaga sila. Marami ng arguments na nagkaroon sa US dahil sa Intelligent Design na pinagpipilitan ng mga Christian Fundamentalists na kapareho nyo lang mag-isip.

argumentum ad popullum. :rolleyes:

Having, let's say a million believers of ToE vs less than a hundred who don't believe it, is not enough to claim that those ToE advocates hold the truth or whatever truth that is.

You can do better than that, n3x. I am so disappointed.

cretinous00

Jan 4, 2008, 06:31 PM

la_flash

Jan 4, 2008, 07:45 PM

So it begs the question, why are there much much more adherents to ToE? Not so disappointing. You're just shunting his basic argument. It wasn't really about where most of the fair bets were going, it was about the odds-on winner.

pees man!

Fair bets? Basic argument? Where?

Geesh. It's not right to argue about a theory based on how many adheres to it. That's simple logic that I hope your philosphy instructors have taught you.

Pees :D

n3X

Jan 5, 2008, 04:01 PM

attyatlast

Jan 5, 2008, 06:04 PM

Duh! In the first place, why put a concept of a supreme being in the process? May THEORIES na ba that puts it in the first place? And scientific theory ha, hindi yung personal theories. The researcher was NOT PUNISHED. Use your words correctly. Asan ba yung proof nung researcher for believing that? Wala. Did s/he present scientific evidence as a professional? Nope. Incompetence yun, dapat lang na they fired him/her. I wouldnt want a post-doctoral researcher na magsasalita about things na unproven. .

Being fired from work is in itself a punishment...Ano ba ang concept mo ng punishment....Di pa ba parusa yung matanggal sa trabaho at mawalan ng pagkakakitaan....ang twag doon Termination....Na kung may idea ka sa Labor laws.....is a the worst punishment given by an employer to an employee....So I am using my words correctly.......

At kung alam mo rin ang constitutonal rights ng isang educator...The professor, to repeat, has the freedom choose the kind of lesson he want's to teach his student..specially so nasa tertiary level na yung tinuturuan mo...So the professor here is not incompetent....he is just exercising his legally protected right...

The issue in this case is not the substance of the theory of evolution BUT yung issu on the termination from work ng isang professor who does not believe in the theory of evolution....

All of us got carried away by the discussion of the theory of evolution....Which in itself is a very exhaustive topic.

The question being posed in the topic is the correctness of the professor's termination from work onthe basis of his belief.

GR8_GUY

Jan 6, 2008, 10:19 AM

In fairness to Lady Chablis, she's got substance and much more. I think her statements are intentionally picked and taken out of context.

She's right on microevolution and her reservation about macroevolution is legitimate---the rarity of transitional fossils. She proceeds with her line of thinking that if you can't show me fossilized evidence, show me experimental evidence. Then she audaciously drops an enigma: "Nobody has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory". It's an exaggerated but loaded statement said in a jest to drive a fact that her critics are unaware of--- i.e., knowledge about (i) the complete mapping of the human genome and the genome of less complex organisms, (ii) the advance technical knowledge and skills in genetic manipulation, and (iii) the possibility to fast-forward "evolution of species" through genetic manipulation. To the uninitiated, her statement would seemingly be ridiculous but not to those with the knowledge and foresight.

n3X

Jan 7, 2008, 12:16 AM

Being fired from work is in itself a punishment...Ano ba ang concept mo ng punishment....Di pa ba parusa yung matanggal sa trabaho at mawalan ng pagkakakitaan....ang twag doon Termination....Na kung may idea ka sa Labor laws.....is a the worst punishment given by an employer to an employee....So I am using my words correctly.......

At kung alam mo rin ang constitutonal rights ng isang educator...The professor, to repeat, has the freedom choose the kind of lesson he want's to teach his student..specially so nasa tertiary level na yung tinuturuan mo...So the professor here is not incompetent....he is just exercising his legally protected right...

The issue in this case is not the substance of the theory of evolution BUT yung issu on the termination from work ng isang professor who does not believe in the theory of evolution....

All of us got carried away by the discussion of the theory of evolution....Which in itself is a very exhaustive topic.

The question being posed in the topic is the correctness of the professor's termination from work onthe basis of his belief.

Hindi naman lahat ng natatanggal sa trabaho at mawalan ng pagkakitaan e punishment na kaagad e. Hindi punishment ang layoff, for example. Punishment is yung paglagay ng penalty as retribution dahil may offense. Walang offense yung researcher. Tama kayo, meron siyang academic freedom and constitutional right to believe whatever he or she wants. Dun nanggagaling yung conflict na sinasabi ng mga tao. What I am pointing out is tama lang yung pag-terminate sa kanya dahil kung ako rin yung administration ng isang prestigious research institute, I dont think its the best decision to get someone as a postdoctoral researcher na hindi naniniwala sa isang established theory--isang system of proven ideas to explain something--as a scientific fact considering biology pa siya. E di ano pa ba pagdating sa ibang established na scientific facts? Arbitrary na lang na di maniniwala yung researcher? Mahirap yun dahil may systema na nga ang science sa pag-establish ng facts and theories. May "punishment" ba na naganap? Walang wala. Dahil walang penalty. Hindi puedeng maging penalty yung pag-fire sa kanya dahil walang offense. Baka sabihin ninyo, yung penalty is yung pag-fire sa kanya. Ibig sabihin di nyo nagets yung flow nung requirements to say nga na penalty siya. Ngayon yung researcher puede pa rin sya magwork or i-express mga ideas na niya na yun. He could maybe work a Catholic university that would support his ideas and research. Hindi inaalis nung institution na nag-fire sa kanya yung right niya to his views, may right yung institution, in fact, to select yung mga magtratrabaho for it, para ma-maintain yung prestige and rigor ng study inside the institute.

In fairness to Lady Chablis, she's got substance and much more. I think her statements are intentionally picked and taken out of context.

She's right on microevolution and her reservation about macroevolution is legitimate---the rarity of transitional fossils. She proceeds with her line of thinking that if you can't show me fossilized evidence, show me experimental evidence. Then she audaciously drops an enigma: "Nobody has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory". It's an exaggerated but loaded statement said in a jest to drive a fact that her critics are unaware of--- i.e., knowledge about (i) the complete mapping of the human genome and the genome of less complex organisms, (ii) the advance technical knowledge and skills in genetic manipulation, and (iii) the possibility to fast-forward "evolution of species" through genetic manipulation. To the uninitiated, her statement would seemingly be ridiculous but not to those with the knowledge and foresight.

Hahaha Ikaw rin ba si Lady_Chablis? In any case, pareho lang kayo nagtatago sa mga words pero wala naman talagang substance.

Transitional fossils are rare, pero there is enough, in fact, sobrang rami na to establish na fact nga ang evolution. If we cant show you fossilized evidence? Marami na nga e. And walang sense and connection yung sinabi mo na yung "loaded" [as if loaded] statement and yung tatlong "fact" (sic).

And to those na meron talagang knowledge and foresight, I invite you to read this article on microevolution and macroevolution:

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm)

cretinous00

Jan 7, 2008, 07:39 AM

the horse shows a pretty good transitional record from a 5-toed quadruped the size of a rabbit to the big single-hoofed equus we know now.

it's stupid talking about the lack of transitional fossils when discussing the strength of the ToE.

la flash, i've had it with you. you can't even pick up my basic point. and i wouldn't make myself a prisoner of the UPCAT too much. there's life after failing that test.

la_flash

Jan 7, 2008, 07:45 AM

di nyo gets yung point e and yung underlying premises e. babanatan niyo pa ako ng argumentum ad popullum e napaka superficial lang nun (im not saying its not valid pero walang depth ng analysis, which still la_flash yung pagcondescend mo sa "philosophy" fails). Yung discussion ng ToE (as an ESTABLISHED THEORY) e nagaganap between experts, scientists na malawak ang kaalaman. Yung scientific process ay open and testable. Open, in that kung merong mas correct na explanation for a phenomena, walang sacred cows na imemaintain (unlike sa religion na napaka-rigid or dogmatic). Testable, na kung merong published findings for example sa isang journal, scientists in other universities and institutions could readily verify and test yung findings kung tama nga. Its not a matter of populist na vote kung ma-eestablish ang isang finding, and yung finding na yun i-cocombine with other findings to create an explanation, and yung various explanations gagawin sigurong law or theory. My argument rests HINDI doon sa NUMBER ng mga tao na nag-aadhere just because they believe or agree, pero dahil thousand times nang na-verify, na-correct and na-reevaluate yung understanding natin sa various phenomena ng mundo ng ibat-ibang tao sa maraming parts ng mundo, sa Japan, sa Netherlands, sa Italy, etc. Kaya yung ToE ginagamit to explain yung differences between two related species na, for example, body of water lang namamagitan sa kanila (Darwin), yung pagtransfer ng viruses from one species to the other dahil sa pagmodify ng genetic material nila (bird flu), pag-adapt ng population sa isang locality over time and yung changes sa expression ng genes, yung parts ng katawan natin na galing sa previous species kung san tayo galing like yung appendix natin and marami pang iba. Siyempre hindi pa full understanding natin nito in the same vein na hindi pa rin natin na-uunderstand origin ng universe, or kung ano ba talaga pinaka-perfect na form ng governance among other things. Pero nagkakaroon tayo ng progress, kaya today meron na tayong airplanes, iPods, computers, advanced machinery, vaccines, democracy, etc. Backward kung irereject natin yung progress ng understanding na natin ng mga things, katulad ng ToE. Ngayon yung proponents ng Intelligent Design or yung mga sariling lapses ninyo are borne out of ignorance or lack of understanding. Kaya discredited ang ID and mga taong di naniniwala sa ToE dahil for the lack of evidence or valid explanations, pinagpipilitan pa rin ninyo beliefs nyo. In fact, counterproductive kayo (research on Christian Fundamentalists and yung argument on Stem Cell research funding in the US).

So yeah la_flash, greater disappointment belongs to me. But time and again, sorry to say, I dont believe you could do better. Peace.

You didn't get it, do you? YOu appealed to the sheer number of adherents of ToE as opposed to the small number of those who think that macroevolution is problematic. Then again, you appealed to authority (saying that experts here and there who verified, corrected and so on and so forth), didn't you know that this is another form of bad arguments? :rolleyes: If you have full understanding of what ToE is, why don't you disscuss here to prove your so-called knowledge? eh?

For one, ToE rests on the so-called evidence around us. I don't have any problem with how those ToE adherents explain some of those evidence (microevolution), but I do find some of w/c as problematic.

I have left a question, and you didn't care to answer it. I wish you answered it so as I can know how 'intelligent' you are. How do you think different complex compounds go together to form DNA and form the first unicellular organism (this is abiogenesis, but I included it here anyways) and then form a complex multicellular organism? eh? Didn't you know that most ToE adherents (most of w/c were materialists-atheists) that it all happened by chance? Of course, they will explain away purpose and all for that will entail intelligence behind all of this. But for pete's sake, how it could have all happened by chance?

Can you explain away your 'conciousness' by mere chance also? That by luck, life forms became sentient? eh?

The reason why most atheists adhere to ToE is because they thought that it already killed 'GOD'. I believe that you're one of those atheists, eh? But here's a news for you. A lot of christian philosophers nowadays do believe that ToE does not prove that there's no GOD. Christians can live with the fact that ToE could be a fact after all (yes, even the macroevolution), but still believe that there's a GOD.

Lady Chablis

Jan 7, 2008, 10:13 AM

A Food for Thought

The Anthropic Principle, first suggested in 1973, says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common---these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life.

It refutes the Darwinist's claim that we are the product of mere chance. The universe is not so random as we thought. We have a universe with a beginning and designed for man.

Excerpt from the Collector's Edition of U.S. News and World Report: Why are scientists making the case for a Creator?

What made the discovery of the anthropic principle was the advent of the big-bang theory. By the 1970s, with big-bang theory firmly established, physicists began to think about alternative scenarios for the universe's evolution. Carter and other scientists would discover an increasingly daunting and improbable list of mysterious coincidences or "lucky accidents" in the universe---whose only common denominator seemed to be that they were necessary for our emergence. Even the most minor tinkering with value of the fundamental forces of physics---gravity, electromagnetic force, the nuclear strong force, or the nuclear weak force---would have resulted in an unrecognizable universe: consisting of helium, without protons or atoms, a universe without stars, or a universe that collapsed back in upon itself before the first moments of its existence were up. It raises fundamental questions about interpretation of Darwinism. It showed that Darwin's theory of "natural selection" [in a random universe] would no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation of the phenomenon of life. The notion that the whole process could be reduced to the working of a single, simple "blind" mechanism was fundamentally flawed. The point is this: The "death of God" has been based on the fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of the universe that science had come up with by the late 19th century. Now the picture is being replaced by a new one, vastly more complex---and decisively more compatible with the notion that the universe had been designed by an intelligent Creator.

la_flash

Jan 7, 2008, 10:53 AM

the horse shows a pretty good transitional record from a 5-toed quadruped the size of a rabbit to the big single-hoofed equus we know now.

it's stupid talking about the lack of transitional fossils when discussing the strength of the ToE.

oh that one... linking one fossil to another and saying that this could be the ancestor of this one by virtue of what? :rolleyes:

all i can see is that biologists 'guessing' (not the random guess that one m0r0n makes) that fossil A is linked with fossil B because of the presence of this and this characteristics. This is too far a jump.

Were there DNA tests done?

Another of case of 'same evidence, different interpretation', isn't it? :rolleyes:

la flash, i've had it with you. you can't even pick up my basic point. and i wouldn't make myself a prisoner of the UPCAT too much. there's life after failing that test.

Failing the UPCAT? WTF? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: I reckon if i do some battery of tests with you, i'll pwn you... yeah, that's how confident i am.

You're the one who didn't get the point. Maybe it because you don't know philosophy that much. :glee:

cretinous00

Jan 7, 2008, 12:46 PM

so you reject the sequence from miohippus to holohippus (today's horse)? well if you reject such a nice transitional sequence just because it lacks the systematic DNA test results which you require, then there's no helping you. i know most scientists, especially the really good ones, takes the horse's evolution practically solved. if i remember right, it's only paleo hippus that's missing. pre-historic colorado, where it evolved, was underwater at the time. you have to be trained in geology to understand fossils. barking for missing links and using the lack of it against ToE is for amateurs.

n3X

Jan 7, 2008, 07:47 PM

Ewan ko sa inyo. Eto I'm pasting the document para sa inyo.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm)
From Austin Cline,

Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species.

In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

Lance F. contributed information for this.

la_flash

Jan 8, 2008, 07:45 AM

cretinous00

Jan 8, 2008, 07:32 PM

Didn't you read my post, as in have you fully comprehended all of it? :rolleyes:

Most scientists, especially the good ones, eh? - poisoning the well aren't you? ::rolleyes:
I did read your previous post. I hope you're not suffering illusions that people are obliged to respond intelligently to everything you write. It's so easy to accuse a scientific conclusion as mere guesswork, especially if you don't even bother to understand the metrics. Just because a biased writer decides to dismiss all accumulated scientific data and analysis (yes, analysis of incomplete data plays a huge role) doesn't mean his supporters should play the proverbial parrot. I've just given you qualified proof of evolution though the availabiity of fossils that are deemed transitional by the most qualified minds. don't tell me you'll refute it as mere guesswork.

Lady Chablis

Jan 9, 2008, 10:43 AM

Here’s an interesting insight into the complexity of the universe we live in. It’s a bit long but it provides an easy reading.

God: The Evidence
Why some scientists are now making a case for a Creator?

By Patrick Glynn

In the fall of 1973, the world’s most eminent astronomers and physicists gathered in Poland to commemorate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. Assembled for the special symposia were some of the most illustrious scientific minds of our time: Stephen W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, Robert Wagoner, Joseph Silk, and John Wheeler, to name only a few…

Yet of the dozens of scientific lectures presented during the festivities, only one would be remembered decades later, echoing far beyond the hall in Krakow where it was delivered, indeed far beyond the field of astronomy or even science itself. Its author, Brandon Carter, was a well-established astrophysicist and cosmologist from Cambridge University. … The tile of the paper was technical sounding and the tone of the presentation highly tentative. “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” Carter called it. Yet there was nothing merely technical about the paper’s implications. For the insights he presented, 500 years after Copernicus’s birth, spelled nothing less than the philosophical overthrow of the Copernican revolution itself.

Carter called his notion the “Anthropic Principle”. Carter’s definition of the idea was highly technical. The anthropic principle consisted of the observation that “what we can expect to observe [in the universe] must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.” In plainer English, the anthropic principle says that all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common---these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. …

This discovery, already percolating among physicists in the early 1970s, came as something of a surprise, to put it mildly. For centuries, scientific exploration seemed to be taking us down precisely the opposite road---toward an ever more mechanistic, impersonal, and random view of the cosmos. Twentieth-century intellectuals had commonly spoken of the “random universe”. The predominant view of modern philosophers and intellectuals was that human life had come about essentially by accident, the by-product of brute, material forces randomly churning over the eons. This conclusion seemed to follow naturally from the two great scientific revolutions of the modern era, the Copernican and the Darwinian. With his sun-centered model of the planetary system, Copernicus showed that humanity was not in any sense “central” to the universe. “Before the Copernican revolution, it was natural to suppose that God’s purposes were specially concerned with the Earth, but now this has become implausible hypothesis,” the atheistic scientist Bertrand Russell wrote in his 1935 classic, “Religion and Science”. Darwin, moreover, had demonstrated that the origins of life and even of the human species could be explained by blind mechanisms. In the wake of Copernicus and Darwin, it no longer seemed plausible to regard the universe as created or humanity as a creature of God. “Man” should rather be understood, as Russell expressed it, as some kind of unfortunate accident or sideshow in the material universe---a “curious accident in a backwater.”

The philosophical, cultural, and emotional impact of this conclusion would hardly be overstated. It explained the tone of despair and angst that came to characterize modern culture, the desperate feeling that humankind was alone and without moorings, and above all without God. It was this random universe cosmology that underpinned all the atheistic modern philosophies--- from [Bertrand] Russell’s own positivism, to existentialism, Marxism, even Freudianism.

But then the unexpected occurred. Beginning in the 1960s, scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics. It turns out that many mysterious values and relationships in physics could be explained by one overriding fact: Such values had been necessary for the creation of life. The physicist Robert Dicke was the first to draw attention to this relationship. The scientist John Wheeler, one of the most prestigious practitioners of cosmology, became interested in the idea in the 1960s. Then, at Wheeler’s” urging, Carter presented the observation in full blown form at the Copernican festivities.

The anthropic principle offered a kind of explanation for one of the most basic mysteries of physics--- the values of the fundamental constants. Physicists had never been able to explain why values of the so-called fundamental constants--- for example, the values for the gravitational force or the electromagnetic force---were as they were. Moreover, there were certain mysterious mathematical relations among some of these constants. For example, the forces binding certain particles seemed to be mathematically related to the number for the age of the universe. Why should these forces be related to the age of the universe? In the past, physicists… had come up with rather esoteric theories to explain these coincidences.

But there was a simpler way of explaining them, as Carter pointed out in his lecture. If one examined closely the evolution of the universe, one would see that these precise values or ratios were necessary if the universe was to be capable of producing life. In a certain sense, this finding was no surprise: We would not expect to be observing a universe that had not produced us in the first place. Still, the number of strange “coincidences” that could be explained simply because they were necessary for producing life in the universe was surprisingly large.

That was where Copernicus came in. People had interpreted Copernicus’s theory to mean the humankind had no “privileged central” place in the universe, as Carter put. But the explanation was not so simple. Too many values had seemingly been arranged around the central task of producing us. So, as Carter stated (in a somewhat hair-splitting fashion), even if our position in the universe was not “central,” it was “inevitably privileged to some extent.”

Few people at the time seemed to be thinking deeply about the philosophical implications of this discovery. But they were nothing short of astounding. In effect, the “random universe” was out of the window. There was nothing random at all about the arrangement of the cosmos as physicist began to see. The vast, 15-billion-year evolution of the universe had apparently been directed toward one goal: the creation of human life.

The anthropic principle raised fundamental questions not only about the modern interpretation of Copernicanism, but ultimately about Darwinism as well. It certainly showed that Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” could no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon of life. The notion that the whole process could be reduced to the workings of a single, simple “blind” mechanism was fundamentally flawed.

The point is this: The “death of God” had been based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of the universe that science had come up with by the late19th century. Now that picture was being replaced by a new one, vastly more complex---and decisively more compatible with the notion that the universe had been designed by an intelligent Creator.

Indeed, what 20th-century cosmology had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a universe with a definite beginning, expressly designed for life. Ironically, the picture of the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced 20th-century science is closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis that anything offered by science since Copernicus. The irony is deepened by the fact that modern cosmology is the result of extending the concept of “evolution”---an idea once viewed as inimical to faith.

What made the discovery of anthropic principle possible was the advent of the big-bang cosmology. At the time Russell wrote Religion and Science, nobody knew in a scientific sense how the universe had begun, or whether indeed it had a beginning. In the late 1920s, the physicist Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe had originated in a primeval atom, but this was a highly controversial idea. Then in 1945 came the explosion of the atom bomb. Shortly thereafter the physicist George Gamow (who had worked on the bomb project) proposed that the universe had originated in a similar original cataclysm. But for roughly 20 years, scientists were divided between Gamow’s theory that the so-called steady state universe, or the argument that the universe had always been there. It was Fred Hoyle, the leading proponent of the steady state theory, who coined the derisive term “big-bang theory” to describe the position of his opponents. The label stuck.

Then in 1964, a couple of scientists at Bell Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson, stumbled on what was later known as the cosmic background radiation. Penzias and Wilson, who were working on communication satellites, were annoyed to find low-level “noise” emanating from every direction in the sky. Physicists quickly realized what this noise was---an echo of the big bang billions of years before. It became apparent that the big-bang theory was almost certainly right.

By the 1970s, with the big-bang theory firmly established, physicists began to think about alternative scenarios for the universe’s evolution. …Carter and other scientists would discover an increasingly daunting and improbable list of mysterious coincidences or “lucky accidents” in the universe—whose only common denominator seemed to be that they were necessary for our emergence. Even the most minor tinkering with the value of the fundamental forces of physics---gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear strong force, or the nuclear weak force—would have resulted in an unrecognizable universe: …consisting entirely of helium, without protons or atoms, a universe without stars, or a universe that collapsed back upon itself before the first moments of its existence were up.

As recently as 25 years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. The burden of proof has shifted. The barrier that modern science appeared to erect to faith has fallen. Of course, the anthropic principle tells us nothing about the Person of God or the existence of an afterlife. But it does offer as strong an indication as reason and science alone could be expected to provide that God exists.

From God: The Evidence by Patrick Glynn, Copyright © 1997

Patrick Glynn is the associate director at the George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. He has written widely on religion, politics and foreign affairs for such publications as the New Republic, Commentary, the Washington Post and National Review. He is a former atheist with a Ph.D. in Harvard.

cretinous00

Jan 9, 2008, 02:45 PM

We actually took up the AP in college calculus (and that was YEARS AGO.) The tendency is fro people to think that math theorems, axioms, or even constants are invented. They are not. They are discovered. They've been enforcing the attitude of the universe and everything in it since the universe began.

But then, the AP had to give way to the GUT, GUTT and what have you. It's an interesting discussion but no that pressing as far as research is concerned. Well, that's my opinion.

n3X

Jan 9, 2008, 03:07 PM

Patrick Glynn's God: the Evidence (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/glynn.html)
Michael Martin

Patrick Glynn, a former atheist with a Ph.D. from Harvard, argues in God: The Evidence[1] that new scientific discoveries in cosmology, psychology, and medicine add up "to a powerful--indeed, all-but-incontestable--case for ... the existence of soul, afterlife and God (p. 2)." Written in a breezy popular style without nuances or subtle arguments and with a dust cover displaying glowing endorsements from Michael Novak, Robert Bork and Hans Kong, Andrew Greeley, Sir John Templeton, and George Weigel, Glynn seems completely unaware of the recent philosophical defenses of atheism by Antony Flew, Kai Nielsen, Keith Parsons, Quentin Smith and me.

In this review I will concentrate on Glynn's appeal to evidence from cosmology, mental health and medicine, and out- of-body and near-death experiences to support his belief in God and the soul. In a brief final section I will consider Glynn's reflections on reason and spirituality. I will show that Glynn presents no persuasive evidence for God and the soul. The evidence he puts forth can be faulted at every step, his arguments are weak, his presentation of alternative views is unfair, and his knowledge of the relevant literature is inadequate.

Evidence From Cosmology

Glynn's main thesis in Chapter One is that recent findings and thinking in cosmology point to the inescapable conclusion that life is not accidental but is the result of design.[2] The Universe, he says, has been "fine tuned" to support life. His argument is based on the Anthropic Principle, according to which "seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--they are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe with life (p. 22)." Even the slightest deviation from these constants would make life impossible, says Glynn. Accordingly, this principle provides a teleological explanation of these constants and is an embarrassment to the prevailing mechanistic view of science.

There are four questions to ask about Glynn's use of this recent evidence and thinking in astrophysics. Does the use of the anthropic principle commit one to some Cosmic Purpose? Does the existence of a narrow range of physical constants that are compatible with life show that human life would be extremely improbable without a Cosmic Purpose? If the answer to the second question is yes, is there any reason to suppose that this Cosmic Purpose is connected with God? Are there any nonteleological explanations that are as good or better than an explanation in terms of God?

Regarding the first question, it can be admitted that some scientists use the Anthropic Principle in an explicitly teleological way;[3] for example, they argue that the Universe has certain properties in order to produce intelligent human life. However, this kind of reasoning does not necessarily entail a commitment to some Cosmic conscious purpose. Thus, for example, the statement that the heart beats in order to circulate the blood does not necessarily imply a conscious purpose; it can merely mean that the function of the heart is to circulate the blood. Similarly, statements in astrophysics of the form "X is Y in order for W" can be understood functionally.[4] In addition, it is possible to use the Anthropic Principle in a purely methodological way. For example, the statement: "The universe is isotropic in order to produce intelligent life" can simply mean, "The universe's being isotropic is a necessary condition for intelligent life."[5] Although here there is not even the suggestion of a functional analysis, there is an obvious anthropomorphism in the sense that the focus of attention is on human life. However, this anthropomorphism entails nothing about the metaphysical makeup of the universe and seems to be justified on purely heuristic grounds.[6]

With respect to the second question, Glynn's argument is not clear, but a plausible reconstruction of it is this:

1. There is an extremely large number of possible values for the physical constants in the Universe.
2. Only a very narrow range of possible values is compatible with human life.
3. All of these possible values are equally probable.
________________________________________________
4. Hence, it is extremely improbable that human life occurred by chance.

It is important to note that although this argument requires premise 3, no evidence is provided for 3 and it is difficult to see what support could be given it. Of course, one might attempt to justify 3 a priori via the Principle of Indifference (PI):

Assume all possibilities are equally probable unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.

But although Glynn may tacitly assume PI, there is no reason to embrace this principle and, indeed, without careful restrictions it leads to a paradox.[7]

One could instead attempt to justify 3 empirically in terms of the frequency interpretation of probability. On this construal the claim that life in the Universe is improbable would amount to saying that the relative frequency of universes with human life relative to the class of all universes is low. Since, however, we have only knowledge of one universe--this one--the frequency theory is not applicable. In short, Glynn's rationale for supposing that life is extremely improbable without a Cosmic Purpose fails since he does not seem to realize that judgments of probability are possible only when we have certain kinds of information. This information is lacking in the present case.

However, let us suppose premise 3 in my reconstruction of Glynn's argument is true and that the conclusion follows. This brings us to the third question. Glynn assumes that recent cosmological evidence and reasoning establish the existence of God, but how does one derive the existence of God from (4)? Glynn seems to be tacitly assuming a further argument that can be formulated as follows:

4. It is extremely improbable that human life occurred by chance.
5. If it is extremely improbable that human life occurred by chance, then the best explanation of human life is that it was created by God.
_____________________________________________________
6. Hence, the best explanation of human life is that it was created by God.

But why should one accept premise 5? God, as usually understood, is by definition a being that is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. Nonetheless, human life could have been created by many gods or by an evil being or by a finite god or by an impersonal creative force.[8] Why is God in the traditional sense a better explanation than these alternative accounts? As I have argued elsewhere, the traditional concept to God is incoherent[9] and an incoherent idea has no explanatory value. Moreover, even if I am mistaken and the concept of God is coherent, several unanswered questions connected with God as a explanation of human life detract from its explanatory value. Consider:

1. How could God create the Universe out of nothing?
2. According to the standard Big Bang interpretation, anything that comes from the Big Bang singularity is impossible in principle to predict. So even if God caused the Big Bang, how could He have fine tuned the Universe to make it compatible for life?
3. Since a cause exists prior to its effect, how could God be the cause of the Universe since, according to Big Bang cosmology, time came into existence at the beginning of the Universe?
4. Why did it take billions of years for human life to evolve if it was designed by God?
5. Why does human life have so many problems if it was designed by God, e.g., disease, natural disasters, etc.?

This brings us to the last question. Given the problems in connection with an explanation in terms of God it is hardly surprising that nonteleological alternatives have been suggested by atheists. Two of these are considered by Glynn and they are mistakenly dismissed. Glynn discusses the theory that order can be generated from disorder, a view which has been powerfully argued by Victor Stenger.[10] It is well known that order can be created by chance on a computer programmed to produce random dots on as screen, and that complex structures can be created by computer models from very simple rules.[11] Apparently unaware of arguments against his position, Glynn simply dismisses this idea (p. 47). Glynn also discusses the hypotheses put forth by cosmologists that there may be an extremely large number of alternative universes. It has been conjectured that what we call our universe--our galaxy and the other galaxies--may be one among many alternative worlds or universes. On this view THE UNIVERSE as a whole is composed of a vast number of such worlds or universes, the overwhelming majority of which are lifeless because the various requirements for life as we understand it are not met in them. According to this theory, however, given enough universes it is very likely that in some of these the complex conditions necessary for life do exist. Curiously, Glynn objects to this hypothesis on the grounds that these universes are "purely speculative, undetected, and undetectable in principle (p. 50)." Why he thinks his explanation in terms of a transcendent God does not have these problems is not made clear. In any case, the alternative universe explanation does not possess the problems that are connected to an explanation in terms of God.

In short, since Glynn has failed to address these four questions in an adequate manner, he shows neither that life is improbable without God nor that God is the best explanation of life.
The Evidence From Mental Health and Medicine

Glynn devotes Chapters Two and Three of this book to arguing that belief in God is conducive to mental and physical health. In them he cites studies that purporting to show that people who do not attend church are four times as likely to commit suicide as those who attend it frequently. Similar studies are adduced to show that religious commitment is related to overall happiness, freedom from depression, stress, and alcohol abuse. However, Glynn makes no attempt to analyze this evidence, but even if it is accepted, it shows at most that belief in God is advantageous to one's health--not that belief in God is epistemologically justified. Indeed, Glynn at one point acknowledges that certain kinds of illusions are conducive to happiness (p. 73).

But should one accept the kind of evidence Glynn supplies ? One basic problem with it is that the studies he cites do not control for various relevant causal factors. As a case in point, the suicide study finds a correlation between lack of church attendance and suicide. However, many people who attend church go for social, not religious, reasons just as many people who do not go to church have a deep religious faith. Thus, the correlation may be a function of the social support and community feeling provided by regular attendance at churches or church surrogates and may have nothing to do with religious belief. Empirical research comparing the rate of suicide among regular attenders of humanist groups, Unitarian Churches (where most members are nonbelievers), the North Texas Church of Freethought and so on to the rate among regular attenders of Christian churches is needed. If such research showed that nonbelievers had a higher rate of suicide than believers, then some interesting conclusions could be drawn about the advantages of religious belief for mental health. However, such research results are not now available.

Similar problems arise in connection with the medical evidence cited by Glynn. He claims that lower blood pressure, is associated with higher church attendance, but if this is true, it shows very little since the correlation may have nothing whatsoever to do with religious belief.

Methodological flaws also cast doubt on other studies Glynn cites. For example, he argues that religious believers report greater overall satisfaction and happiness with their lives (pp. 64-65). However, as psychiatrist Wendell Watters and psychologist Albert Ellis have argued, Christians' self-reports of mental health and happiness are likely to be misleading. Since they are taught to believe that just because they are Christians they should be happy and better adjusted, they may unintentionally falsify their true feelings and states of mind.[12]

In addition, Glynn is selective in the evidence he cites. To mention two obvious examples: although he argues that people who did not attend church frequently are four times as likely to commit suicide as those who do, he fails to mention the large group suicides occurring within religious cults--consider Jonesville and Heaven's Gate--and seems to be unaware of the mental health problems affecting born-again Christians.[13]

Another dubious aspect of Glynn's argument is his thesis that immoral living--by which he seems to mean sexual promiscuity in particular and rampant hedonism in general--is conducive to unhappiness and psychological ill heath. As I have argued elsewhere, absolute moral standards are compatible with atheism.[14] Here let me just say that Glynn wrongly assumes that atheists would have a problem embracing the thesis that uncontrolled hedonism leads to unhappiness and psychological ill health.
Evidence From OBE and NDE

Glynn uses out of body experience (OBE) evidence and near death experience (NDE) evidence to argue for the existence of an after-life and a soul. In OBE a person experiences herself as floating free from her body while seeing her body from a third person perspective--usually from an elevated position. The crucial question is whether such experiences are veridical. Glynn's most impressive argument for the veridical nature of OBE rests on the evidence of anesthetized patients who later accurately describe their surgical procedures--apparently perceived from a position above the operating table. Can the patients' reports be accounted for without supposing that their souls have left their bodies and are observing their operations? Glynn naively accepts the patients' denials that they never saw such procedures on TV and were not acquainted with them in other ways (p. 111, p. 115) and only considers the hypothesis that the patients were deliberately lying (p.115). However, they could have simply forgotten what they had seen and have constructed their stories from the depths of their unconscious. Glynn also seems to assume that anesthetized patients are completely unaware of what is going on around them, yet we know that this is not always true.[15]

However, let us suppose that Glynn is correct that the patients' knowledge about their operations could not be achieved in normal ways. Does it follow that their souls temporally departed from their bodies? No, for there is a simpler hypothesis, namely, that some patients have ESP. If so, they could have gotten their information from their powers of telepathy or clairvoyance. ESP is a simpler hypothesis than Glynn's soul hypothesis because it postulates fewer entities. In order to account for the evidence Glynn must assume disembodied souls as well as ordinary objects and human beings whereas the ESP hypothesis does not assume disembodied souls. True, it might be argued that on Glynn's soul hypothesis one does not have to assume the existence of ESP. However, since according to the soul hypothesis souls "perceive" the surgical procedures and this cannot be accomplished by human vision, souls must also have some sort of ESP.

NDE is a special case of OBE. According to the standard account, in a typical NDE a person sees her body on a bed with the resuscitation team gathered around it, but her vantage point is outside and above her body. The person feels herself being drawn through a long tunnel. She catches sight of dead relatives and friends and encounters a 'being' of very bright light, a 'loving, warm spirit'--often interpreted as Jesus. The spirit helps her to review the events of her past life panoramically.

In fact, NDEs are more varied than this. Some studies report no tunnel experiences and no panoramic reviews, other studies report hellish experiences, and in the context of nonChristian cultures NDE are given nonChristian interpretations. Further, many people who are near death have no such experiences. What are we to make of this? Naturalistic explanations have been given for NDE that range from hallucinations to anoxia (oxygen starvation) to hypercarbia (elevated level of carbon dioxide in the brain) to temporal lobe involvement. Glynn briefly reviews the evidence for these explanations and finds them all wanting. Whether his specific criticisms are valid is difficult to determine and, in any case, is beyond the scope of this review. However, the general thrust of his discussion should be noted. Glynn admits that anoxia, hypercarbia, temporal lobe involvement and so on produce symptoms closely related to NDE. Indeed, hypercarbia produces experiences that by Glynn's own admission are striking similar to NDE and artificial stimulation of the temporal lobe produces OBE and the feeling of another "presence". But Glynn objects to the hypercarbia theory on the grounds that there is no reason to suppose that people with NDE have elevated carbon dioxide levels and to the temporal lobe explanation because NDE includes "language, body image, narrative lines, even smells--factors that are known to involve other parts of the brain (p.127)." However, in the light of these suggestive bits of evidence one would have thought that, although at the present time the exact mechanism is not completely understood, NDE can probably be explained in terms of brain physiology. Reason surely does not dictate Glynn's leaping to a supernatural account. In addition, Glynn also neglects to inform his readers that empirical studies have shown that there are significant psychological differences between people who have experienced OBEs and those who have not (OBE-ers and non-OBE-ers) which are relevant to whether a leap to the supernatural is justified. In particular, studies indicate that OBE-ers are less likely than non-OBE-ers to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy.[16]

Glynn does leap, but to which supernatural account he jumps is not altogether clear. Glynn seems to think that heterogeneous NDEs can somehow be harmonized to support a type of generic religious belief and he speaks glibly of a core moral vision common to all major religions (p. 130).[17] But if there is one thing that the comparative study of religion teaches us, it is how different the moral --not to mention the metaphysical--visions of reality are in different religions. There is no generic religion. NDE cannot support Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism at the same time for in important respects these religions are inconsistent with one another. Independent of Glynn's misplaced hankerings for a generic religion, one thing is clear: he wants us to think that NDE supports belief in an afterlife. However, the belief in an afterlife is dubious on independent grounds.[18] So even if the evidence for naturalistic accounts of NDE is problematic, Glynn's account of NDE is just as doubtful.
Reason and Spirituality

In the final chapter of his book Glynn argues for the limitations of reason and science and the need for spirituality. Although the reasoning is rambling, unfocused, and unclear, three aspects of Glynn's views deserve brief comment. First, in an important respect Glynn's argument seems to be self-refuting. In so far as reason and science are questionable, so are the thinking and appeals to science that Glynn has used throughout his book to support his belief in God and immortality. How can he have it both ways: how can he use science to try to prove his religious case and then plead for the limitations of science? Second, his portrayal of contemporary moral philosophy is at best one sided, at worst grossly unfair and distorted. Citing Richard Rorty as his only example, Glynn attempts to show that contemporary philosophy is following in the relativistic footsteps of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Glynn seems never to have heard of contemporary ethical philosophers William Frankena, Richard Brandt, and David Brink who advocate views of morality very different from Rorty's. Third, Glynn takes a completely uncritical view of religious ethics in general and of Christian ethics in particular and seems completely unaware of the problems of basing morality on belief in God and on the New Testament.[19]
Conclusion

In summary, Glynn's God: The Evidence presents no persuasive evidence for God and the soul. His evidence from cosmology, psychology, and medicine do not add up to an all-but-incontestable case. Indeed, the evidence he puts forth can be challenged, his arguments are deficient, his presentation of alternative theories is unjust, and his grasp of the relevant material is defective.
Notes

[1] Patrick Glynn God: The Evidence (Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1997). vii1 + 216 pp. $22 (hardback). Page references to this book will be placed in the body of the text.

[2] Although Glynn does not rely heavily on alleged problems with the theory of evolution to support his belief in God, he cannot resist exploiting the recent controversies among evolutionary theorists to try to help support his case. According to Glynn, Darwin's theory is now fraying at the seams (p. 47). In order to support his view he refers to the controversy between Stephen Jay Gould on the one hand, and Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins on the other. However, such internal controversies within evolutionary theory provides no more support for a teleological interpretation of evolution than for creation science. See Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, (Open University Press, 1983), pp. 142-151.

[3] See J. Wheeler, "Genesis of Observership", in R. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.) Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1977). See also John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 21-22 for a discussion of the Strong Anthropic Principle.

[4] George Gale, "Anthropocentrism Reconsidered", in A. Donagon, A. N. Perovich, Jr. and M. V. Wedin (eds.) Human Nature and Natural Knowledge (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co. 1986), p. 237.

[5] See Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p.16 for a definition of an uncontroversial and nonspeculative formulation of the Anthropic Principle (the Weak Anthropic Principle) which says basically that the values of physical and cosmological quantities are restricted by the requirement that there exist locations where carbon based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe is old enough for this life to have already evolved.

[6] George Gale, "Whether Cosmology: Anthropic, Anthropocentric, Teleological?" Current Issue in Teleology (ed.) Nicholas Rescher (Lantham, My.: University Press of America, 1986), p. 105.

[7] See Marguerite Foster and Michael Martin (ed.) Probability, Confirmation, and Simplicity, (New York: The Odyssey Press, 1966), pp. 22-26.

[8] See Leslie, "Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design", American Philosophical Quarterly, 19, 1982, p. 141.

[9] See Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990), Chapter 12.

[10] See Victor Stenger, Not By Design (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988)

[11] Doug Krueger, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction (unpublished), pp. 34-5.

[12] See Wendell Watters, "Response to Shumaker," and Albert Ellis, "Are Atheists Really More Psychologically Disturbed than Religionists?" Free Inquiry, 13, 1993, pp.17-19.

[13] See Edmund D. Cohen, "And Now--Psychiatric Wards for Born Again Christians Only," Free Inquiry, 13, 1993, pp. 25-30.

[14] Martin, Atheism, Introduction; Michael Martin, "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape," July 23, 1997 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html

[15] See Terrence Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), p. 70

[16] See Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, p. 72.

[17] The exact nature of this core is never made clear.

[18] Michael Martin, "Problems With Heaven," July 22, 1997 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html

[19] See note 14 and Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity, (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990), Chapter 6, Appendix 1.

Lady Chablis

Jan 10, 2008, 07:23 AM

As expected, someone predictably chooses to bring up Michael Martin's argument. After all, that's one of the many pros-and-cons articles in Google among other sources that are written concerning Glynn's book. That's just the kind of response I want for a closing comment because it brings to the forefront the age-old, never-ending argument about the existence of God and how it has polarized humankind including scientists and intellectuals into believers and unbelievers.

When all is said and done, we still are modern species of humans called Homo sapiens. Some of us believe we are the creation of God's magnificent genetic engineering; others happily believe that they are the by-product of a "curious accident in a backwater" of a random universe [in the words of atheist Bertrand Russell]. I think we can all abide by that and live peaceful coexistence despite our vastly opposing beliefs.

cretinous00

Jan 10, 2008, 12:48 PM

Russel has long been proving wrong. It wasn't an accident. Why the hell do most creationists keep saying that?

adhd

Jan 11, 2008, 07:21 PM

Lady Chablis

Jan 12, 2008, 09:06 PM

At least the arguments of the unbelievers are logical unlike yours.

That's what the atheists always say, especially the mediocre ones. :)

Lady Chablis

Jan 12, 2008, 09:19 PM

Russel has long been proving wrong. It wasn't an accident. Why the hell do most creationists keep saying that?

Really? Oh, you sound so heavenly. :)

boy_wonder

Jan 13, 2008, 08:18 AM

adhd

Jan 13, 2008, 11:06 AM

That's what the atheists always say, especially the mediocre ones. :)

Argumentum ad hominem!!! It's so sad that a person like you who claim to be a believer behave like that just because you can't keep up with our logic. Tsk tsk tsk...

cretinous00

Jan 13, 2008, 01:17 PM

But you must admit, Lady Chablis has mastered the theist technique of escaping real scientific debate.

n3X

Jan 13, 2008, 07:51 PM

Charles Darwin, the very person who proposed the Theory of Evolution, remained a theist all his life, believing in the existence of God as the First Cause.

And he actually said this:
"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence..."

Sabi rin niya:
"...a man can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist"

He therefore theorized the Evolution not to deny the existence of god. :)

galing ng logic. :rotflmao:

ToE explains the phenomena of evolution, walang kinalaman ang mga diyos doon. :rotflmao: nakakatawa talaga kayo.

What we are all waiting for is a Theory of God that proves its existence. Doesnt that make sense to everybody? Kung may diyos talaga na omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent dapat walang kahit anong doubt. Diba? Asan na siya? Bakit sa ibang mga kultura wala siya dun? Feeling ninyo people are denying the existence of god? In the first place, asan yung proof ng existence nya before we deny anything? Nag-eexist lang yung diyos sa mga utak natin. Hoy gising! :lol:

boy_wonder

Jan 14, 2008, 07:56 AM

galing ng logic. :rotflmao:

ToE explains the phenomena of evolution, walang kinalaman ang mga diyos doon. :rotflmao: nakakatawa talaga kayo.

What we are all waiting for is a Theory of God that proves its existence. Doesnt that make sense to everybody? Kung may diyos talaga na omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent dapat walang kahit anong doubt. Diba? Asan na siya? Bakit sa ibang mga kultura wala siya dun? Feeling ninyo people are denying the existence of god? In the first place, asan yung proof ng existence nya before we deny anything? Nag-eexist lang yung diyos sa mga utak natin. Hoy gising! :lol:

Lumalabas po kasi na ginagamit ng ibang mga tao ang Theory of Evolution upang sabihin na "God doesn't exist" when in the first place, ang nag-theorize nito e walang purpose na ganun. In other words, there's no point arguing ToE for god's inexistence dahil, as you said, wala ngang kinalaman ang diyos dun.

Hindi ako religious. But I know "god" is all about possibilities. :)

tyanak_soo

Jan 14, 2008, 12:26 PM

Attention halfwits: the Theory of Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin came into controversy for something else.