Home

Another excellent indictment.

Long may this oxymoronic house of cards stand as a trembling warning to all who seek truth. And long may ambassadors of Christianity like you, Rob, remain on hand to steady its teetering walls, proving all of our points in one fell swoop.

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

With comments like these, I need an interpreter…

Hi Rob,

I’ve just finished reading ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’.

I’m wondering what your explanation is for the the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its elongated detour, as discussed by Dawkins in Chapter 11?

Or the vas deferens in human males, the backbone or the blind-spot in the eye?

All can be easily explained by Darwinian evolution, do you have an alternative explanation?

Prominent antitheist and self-styled “atheist” Richard Dawkins

Why the need for quote marks around the word atheist? Dawkins is an atheist. The word exists, it’s a non-belief in god(s), putting it in quote marks is not helping your case.

Ironically, he admits about all his previous pro-evolution books…

There is nothing ironic about it, if you understood the science in, and read, his previous books. Did you?

As a sneak peek, to show that we are indeed rebutting Dawkins’ claims…

Are you? Are you really? In order to rebutt claims one must have grasp of the subject at hand. Somehow, I don’t think anyone who writes By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible and thinks we were “designed” has understood Darwinian evolution.

The appendix was designed? The prostate gland was designed? The inverse retina image was designed? The larynx? The coxcyx? All designed?

I’m sure Dawkins is running scared.

Hi Gary,

I love your comment, “All can be easily explained by Darwinian evolution…”

It’s all just so easy — posit a process that we all agree occurs on a micro scale and extrapolate it out as far as you like. This is plainly fallacious don’t you think?

You could convince me Gary IF and only IF you can show me how genomic information is GAINED. I think we all agree that it is easily to lose information, but gaining information is what this debate is all about, right?

I see molecular machines carrying bundles of carbohydrates along actin filaments within a biological nanotube like a complex production line, and it just stinks of a designed system to me.

Now, if you had taken any notice of the scholars debating the question of imperfect design (e.g. the eye), you would know that engineers are always making less than perfect designs because the design process is about optimal design, not perfect design. e.g. there are always trade-off to be made. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has also written on the design of the eye I believe.

http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati

There is a debate coming up between Michael Shermer (atheist) and Stephen Meyer (Christian, ID scholar) on life’s origins.

http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/debating-the-origins-of-life/
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=184759894536&ref=share

Alternative explanation? Yes, these appear to me to be designed systems since all other complex systems I have ever encountered also appear to be designed.

Regards,

Rob

Hi again Gary,

I think you have missed that fact that I did not write the piece above. I posted it here from the source listed above.

Dr. Sarfati I am sure has read all of Dawkin’s books numerous times — he is a scholar and intellectual genius according to my sources, and a top reader on Amazon so is widely read I guess. So I wouldn’t take him for a fool. Personally I would not debate him as he would turn me into mince meat :-)

If your questions about the human appendix and so on are genuine, then you could buy and critique his book when it comes out.

Regards again,

Rob

You could convince me Gary IF and only IF you can show me how genomic information is GAINED.

May I refer you to the Lenski long term bacterial evolution experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment) (also mentioned in Dawkin’s book) where E. Coli bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, a huge advantage in the environment in which they were living, which was naturally selected (the E. Coli that could grow faster by utilising a new food source) and then dominated the population.

Because this population was seperate from the other populations of E. Coli (which all started as the same one, but were then seperated by keeping them in seperate jars), this trait is shown to be completely unique and not at all guaranteed to occur in all populations of E. Coli.

This experiment also shatters and “Irreducible Complexity” argument, because the genetic information required to metabolise the citrate comes in the form of two independant mutations, which both happened, despite the fact that one on it’s own has no beneficial effect for the bacteria.

So, Rob, I take it you’re convinced now?

You could convince me Gary IF and only IF you can show me how genomic information is GAINED.

Duplicate a gene. Change one copy.

Are we done then?

@ david

also look up the lizards that were transplanted and evolved “new” valves in their digestive tract and larger jaws for eating plant matter instead of insects..

So now that you have the evidence of a “new” gene! we will expect your conversion to evolution now.

thanks for playing science Vs religion

some other pointers

Then they shortened, which caused lower stability but greater maneuverability, and they evolved advanced sensory equipment to stabilize by fast reactions (e.g. larger semicircular canals in pterosaurs or halteres in flies).

Your fallacy lies in a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “and”. It may but need not mean “and then”. They did not have to wait until they had evolved lower stability before they could begin to evolve the advanced sensory equipment that makes greater manouverability possible. It would be advantageous in any case.

Michael and David, thanks for your comments. Have you read:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.html

I quote from the article:

Dawkins doesn’t even offer a hint to his readers about this, but Behe dealt with this research from Lenski when it was first published back in 2008. Dawkins states that “if only a mutant could ‘discover’ how to deal with citrate, a bonanza would open up for it. This is exactly what happened…” (pg. 127) but according to Behe, that ‘isn’t exactly what happened’:

(Michael Behe, Amazon Blog, “Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli,” June 6, 2008)

I would appreciate it if you guys who probably know more biology that I do could read it and tell me what you think of the twin mutation occurrence.

If the number of bacteria required to produce such a dual-mutation is so large, how then do you think that mammals for example could have evolved given that the mammalian population would be orders of magnitude less, even given millions of years.

Thanks guys.

Rob

Mark, with due respect, I have watched these videos but think that they are a bit cheap. I’m not really interested in this sort of stuff. If you have the experts, then count me as interested.

Thanks.

Rob

Hugh, you make evolution sound like a fast-paced science fiction thriller — quite exciting really, speculating how things may have happened (underline the word “speculating”) :-)

Hi Rob,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I saw your name on the blog and thought it was your personal critique.

This is plainly fallacious don’t you think?

Not if the question can be easily explained by Darwinian evolution. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its elongated detour, which Dawkins discusses (and explains) at length in TGSoE.

Why things fall to the ground can be easily explained by Newton’s laws on gravity. Is that also “plainly fallacious” or are you positing perhaps another explanation for why things fall? Angels perhaps :)

Alternative explanation? Yes, these appear to me to be designed systems since all other complex systems I have ever encountered also appear to be designed.

This is the Argument from Design – which has been refuted time and time again. It may “look” designed to you but evolution states otherwise – the blind spot in your eye for example, simple, basic biology, no design. Otherwise, why would one “design” such a model for humans when one’s in nature are of better quality (the octopus).

you would know that engineers are always making less than perfect designs because the design process is about optimal design

This is nonsense. The inverse retinal image of the eye is not “optimal design” – it’s upside-down for goodness sake. Some design.

Now that others here have kindly explained how genomic information can be gained, you are now convinced, yes? :)

how then do you think that mammals for example could have evolved given that the mammalian population would be orders of magnitude less, even given millions of years

Well, we don’t “think” mammals evolved, we know thanks to fossil records, molecular biology, DNA sequencing etc. Mammals evolve due to the copying of DNA, quite a simple process really. Errors in the copying process give rise to mutations aided by natural selection. Environmental pressures are also a factor, as is time, which you mentioned.

The process is quite simple, the results quite complex, as one would expect within Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins or Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne can explain it in more detail.

Regards.

[...] recommendation of Rob Ward’s blog post, Sarfati reviews Dawkins’ ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’, has seen a deluge traffic arrive at the New Zealand [...]

[...] recommendation of Rob Ward’s blog post, Sarfati reviews Dawkins’ ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’, has seen a deluge traffic [...]

Dr. Sarfati I am sure has read all of Dawkin’s books numerous times — he is a scholar and intellectual genius according to my sources, and a top reader on Amazon so is widely read I guess…

You guess? Rob, science is not about guesswork. Dr. Sarfati is looking to rebutt one the world’s renowned and esteemed experts on evolutionary biology, you have posted his “draft section” here, and you guess Sarfati is widely read? Weak. Very weak.

Dr. Sarfati may well be a scholar but he is a chemist, not a biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist.

And when you say you are “sure” Dr. Sarfati has read all of Dawkins’ books “numerous times”, is this merely your opinion or based on fact?

Rob, look at the evidence, Sarfati clearly does not understand Darwinian evolution by natural selection if his confused criticisms of the origin of self-replicating molecules is anything to go by.

Here’s a question for you: what do other evolutionary biologists say about The Greatest Show on Earth?

I would appreciate it if you guys who probably know more biology that I do could read it and tell me what you think of the twin mutation occurrence.

It’s exactly the sort of thing Behe says is effectively impossible. And it happened.

Behe’s simulation studies don’t properly incorporate natural selection, standing genetic variation any population genetics or, in fact, protein chemistry. And even then you get new protein functions.

As for carrying such results over to mammals – the journey from the synapsids to the first true mammals took about 70 millions years and included sex – which allows mutations in different individuals to be brought together. There is no Edge for Evolution.

At very least I like the fact that Sarfati gets attention drawn to the issue of challenging Darwinism. For that matter, I’m sure plenty of Darwinists are, too. But what I don’t like is the way that because of works like this and the arguments and comments that they contain, any Christian who is happy tp harbour doubts about Darwin is likely to be lumbered with hwta Sarfati and others say.

I mean come on, “devolution”? There’s no such idea in biology. Evolution is about change, not progress. If a trait were an impediment to survival in one enviroment, that doesn’t mean it’s an impediment in all environments. Likewise if a trait helps survival for a while in history, it may become an impediment later. Neither of these are cases of anything other than “evolution,” since they are both cases of descent with modification.

Like others, I have to question the description of Richard Dawkins as a self styled “atheist.” The man believes that there is no God. he said so, and I have every reason to believe him when he says this about himself. If that makes him a self-styled “atheist,” then Obama is a self-styled “democrat.”

If you want to drum up sympathy for questioning Dawkins and Darwin, things like this are not the way to do it. I say this as a sympathiser who really does want people to stop worshipping the ground Dawkins walks on, so there’s certainly no antipathy to that cause on my part, I just wish there were fewer reasons to wince over the way that people choose to support that cause.

It amazes me how people still use the e-coli experiment, while ignoring that Behe has written responses to that and few more. Read http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

So, do any of Dawkins’ thralls want to admit that Darwinopterus undermines the Dawkins / Maynard Smith hypothesis for the evolution of advanced flying creatures … No, instead, it’s what about all the other evidence in the book?

Maybe Dawkins’ idolaters have an explanation for the following:

“Carbon has three naturally occurring isotopes. Carbon-12 is the common one, with the same number of neutrons as protons: 6. There’s also carbon-13, which is too short-lived to bother with, and carbon-14 which is rare but not too rare to be useful for dating relatively young samples, as we shall see.” (p. 94)

Yet here, Dawkins makes a crass blunder: carbon-13 is not “too short-lived” but stable! Did any of his worshipers even notice? If a creationist had made that blunder, Dawkins, true to form, would be using it as evidence of scientific incompetence—indeed, on p. 154 he mocks a couple of creationists (not associated with CMI) for some blunders.

And it’s really silly to see Dawkins still advance the old backwardly-wired retina nonsense. E.g. George Marshall, the Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science, stated in reply to Dawkins:

“The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.” More at http://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument

Same with the human spine: Dawkins failed to consult real experts like the late Dr Richard Porter http://creation.com/standing-upright-for-creation-richard-porter-interview

See also http://creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed and http://creation.com/appendix-a-bacterial-safe-house

It should be obvious that an honest and competent advocate would try to deal with the strongest arguments against his position. Yet both in his book and his Delusion knocked down lots of straw men. Dawkins hates it when opponents do that with evolution.

How much of Sarfati’s writings have you read Glenn?

Gary wrote:

“Well, we don’t “think” mammals evolved, we know thanks to fossil records, molecular biology, DNA sequencing etc. Mammals evolve due to the copying of DNA, quite a simple process really. Errors in the copying process give rise to mutations aided by natural selection. Environmental pressures are also a factor, as is time, which you mentioned.

You are not going to convince my with speculation Gary. The fossil record as I understand it is weak — in fact I think I heard Dawkins recently use it as secondary evidence (or was it the Francisco Ayala debate?).

100 years ago the universe was understood to be static and eternal. And then … physicists were forced — against their wills — to accept a new theistic (God) friendly cosmogeny. The now-apparent complexity of biological systems — that even Dawkins admits look designed — is, I think, the beginning of the end for Darwinism. Who was it who said that we will look back on it in 100 years and realise that Darwinsim was The Greatest Con On Earth?

In reply to Glenn:

At very least I like the fact that Sarfati gets attention drawn to the issue of challenging Darwinism. For that matter, I’m sure plenty of Darwinists are, too. But what I don’t like is the way that because of works like this and the arguments and comments that they contain, any Christian who is happy tp harbour doubts about Darwin is likely to be lumbered with hwta Sarfati and others say.

Huh? John Polkinghorn or Alister McGrath write books too — does that mean we are all to be “lumbered” as theistic evolutionists? Surely not.

I mean come on, “devolution”? There’s no such idea in biology. Evolution is about change, not progress. If a trait were an impediment to survival in one enviroment, that doesn’t mean it’s an impediment in all environments. Likewise if a trait helps survival for a while in history, it may become an impediment later. Neither of these are cases of anything other than “evolution,” since they are both cases of descent with modification.

No such idea in biology, therefore it must be wrong? Do you really want to argue like that?

From a creationist perspective Glenn, devolution is very obvious — were we created “better” than we are now? What of the fall? Genesis 3? Do you think our new bodies will be un-devolved at the last day, or as broken as they are today?

Like others, I have to question the description of Richard Dawkins as a self styled “atheist.” The man believes that there is no God. he said so, and I have every reason to believe him when he says this about himself. If that makes him a self-styled “atheist,” then Obama is a self-styled “democrat.”

Well, perhaps we should ask Sarfati what he meant by this phrase…

If you want to drum up sympathy for questioning Dawkins and Darwin, things like this are not the way to do it. I say this as a sympathiser who really does want people to stop worshipping the ground Dawkins walks on, so there’s certainly no antipathy to that cause on my part, I just wish there were fewer reasons to wince over the way that people choose to support that cause.

What specifically are you so embarrassed about Glenn?

See http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist

As for “devolution”, it’s a reasonable term showing that the change is in the opposite direction required for goo-to-you evolution. And as Rob says, downhill change is consistent with the biblical Creation/Fall model, so it is disingenuous for Dawkins to use this as proof of evolution and disproof of creation.

Back to the article: I remind Hugh7:

“The great John Maynard Smith, who worked as an aircraft designer before returning to the university to read zoology … pointed out that flying animals can move in evolutionary time, back and forth along the spectrum of this trade-off, sometimes losing inherent stability in the interests of increased manœvrability, but paying for it in the form of increased instrumentation and computation capability—brain power.” …. But Dawkins grudgingly admits, “although, a touch disappointingly for the Maynard Smith hypothesis, they were large in Rhamphorhynchus as well as Anhanguera.”

So , a fortiori, Darwinopterus is even more of a problem.

Gary spruiks forth:

Rob, look at the evidence, Sarfati clearly does not understand Darwinian evolution by natural selection if his confused criticisms of the origin of self-replicating molecules is anything to go by.

Prove it! That is part of chemistry, in which I have expertise. I also quote from Dobzhansky showing that natural selection cannot explain the origin of the first replicators.

Of course, this would mean that Gary would actually have to read my work before spriuking forth grandiosely on it. See also http://creation.com/cairns-smith-detailed-criticisms-of-the-rna-world-hypothesis

I think you are all missing the point anyways. Evolution isn’t perfect, and may (however unlikely I think it is) not be true. There are problems we have yet to overcome with it and things to figure out. We are never going to know all the facts of our history from 160million ago, it simply isn’t possible. What creationists and the ilk do is find faults in evolution then say it must not be true, and it must have been a creator. How wrong is that? Because something looks designed doesn’t give you proof of a designer. We need something much more concrete.

I have a better idea, instead of picking holes in evolution, try to patch holes in it. But that’s not what your religion would want though is it?

You are not going to convince my with speculation Gary. The fossil record as I understand it is weak — in fact I think I heard Dawkins recently use it as secondary evidence (or was it the Francisco Ayala debate?).

Hi Rob, yes, it was Dawkins.

No, the fossil record is not weak, incomplete, yes, but certainly not weak. (Now that you mention it, what do you “understand” about fossils? what is your background? from what you “understand”, in this case, is wrong, ask any Paleontologist)

Dawkins used the fossil record as “secondary” evidence while making specific mention to Molecular biology in an interview, as in, we understand Darwinian evolution by natural selection much better since the use of Molecular biology has become standard.

This is not to say we now dismiss the fossil record, it still gives us a vast amount of information (for example, the recent Ardi find , a female Ardipithecus ramidus, uncovered in Ethiopia’s Afar desert).

Darwin was able to publish On the Origin of Species without any evidence of the fossils, and his theory is still shown to be correct today, that is the strength of his theory (predictive) and how useful the fossil record is to us (historic).

In other words, just becuase we now have GPS to navigate does not mean we need to dismiss regular Ordnance Survey maps as “secondary” for navigational use, maps are still useful. Just because we progress in science (moloecular biology or GPS) does not mean what went before (fossils or maps) is incorrect or simply thrown away.

Science builds on what went before, taking the best and correct aspects and improving on it. You could say science evolves like that :)

From Rob on November 13th, 2009 8:38 pm

From a creationist perspective Glenn, devolution is very obvious — were we created “better” than we are now? What of the fall? Genesis 3? Do you think our new bodies will be un-devolved at the last day, or as broken as they are today?

Hi Rob,

What does this paragraph have to do with the science of evolutionary biology? You’re quoting ancient religious myths and bible passages, and giving us “a creationist perspective” – why?

The concept of “devolution” does not exist in evolutionary biology (as Glenn points out), yet you reply with religious dogma, not with an alterntive scientific explanation. How curious.

Jonathan -

How did you come to the conclusion that “the God of the Bible” somehow, ahem, “designed” life here on planet Earth?

Was it a special revelation made only to you, or just scripture, or did you undertake hours of research with “the God of the Bible”?

Why does it have to be this “god” in particular, and not one of the other 2,749 that humans have fabricated in their time on Earth?

I also quote from Dobzhansky showing that natural selection cannot explain the origin of the first replicators.

Oh dear. Are you confusing abiogenesis with Darwinian evolution? Seriously?

That is part of chemistry, in which I have expertise.

So? You can repeat that fact over and over all you like, it still does not mean you are a biologist, an evolutionary biologist or an expert on evolutionary biology. Why are you opining on matters in which you are clearly a non-expert?

Please explain why the human eye was “designed” with a blind spot.

“Huh? John Polkinghorn or Alister McGrath write books too — does that mean we are all to be “lumbered” as theistic evolutionists? Surely not.”

No, but I think that’s because those two don’t tend to make the kind of comments that I was complaining about, and which Darwinists (correctly, I think) have disdain for. If they did, then I think it would happen for them too.

“No such idea in biology, therefore it must be wrong? Do you really want to argue like that?”

Where did I argue like that? I didn’t even suggestthis. What I was pointing out is that “devolution” is actually not describing a different process from evolution. It merely describes inherited adaptations that turn out not to be so useful. It certainly doesn’t imply a process that is the opposite of evolving. Sarfati’s work is supposed to challenge those who are sympathetic to Darwinism. But if they encounter this sort of (what looks like) rhetorical trick, they just won’t be interested, and understandably so.

After looking at a couple of examples of what I think are generally cheap and unnecessary arguments, you asked me what, speciically, embarrasses me, Rob. It is specifically, examples like the one I cited that bother me. If opponents of Darwinism give reasons to the Darwinists for them to write them off as reactionary, confused at times and a little unfair, it is little barbs and tactics like this that will do it.

This is where I think that writers like McGrath – whatevr his actual beliefs about evolution – excels. Nobody on “his side” will ever have cause to flinch and say “ooo, I really wish he hadn’t said that, I can see how people are going to capitalise on this.”

I know, it’s probably bad form int he view of some to criticise authors on the Christian side of the fence. But pursuing a kind of excellence that can be admire by all is something that really drives me, and we need to be as hard on “our side” as on those on the “dark side.”

Gary:

“You could say science evolves like that :)”

Intelligently guided, one would hope! ;)

Abiogenesis = chemical evolution. This is accepted by faith, not fact. Natural selection can’t help, so all you have is chance. But if evolution can’t get started, then it can’t have occurred.

Answers to this “Gary’s” questions are in my book By Design, which also explains the identity of the Designer, and why the God of the Bible is the only reasonable candidate. See review http://creation.com/review-jonathan-sarfati-by-design

Glenn is just a whinger who doesn’t address my actual arguments. Surely most people can see there is a big difference between losing an ability and gaining it.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I come from a different perspective again. I met you Jonathan when you were here in NZ several years ago in a presentation you gave at a local church. I work in soil science. I challenged you after your presentation on your young Earth paradigm, as there is so much evidence of a much older Earth than just 10,000 years from a soil science perspective, but you were not prepared to enter into reasoned debate and dialogue over this and just walked away. We also disagreed as far as Biblical literalism and accuracy is concerned.

However I am at heart an ID advocate, as I see a lack of evidence of macro-evolution. If we consider the platypus for example. The oldest fossils of this enigmatic creature found only in Australia are 120 million years old, proving it coexisted with dinosaurs for a long time. If we didn’t have platypus around today and only fossils, would we describe it as a ‘missing link’, being part duck with a bill, webbed feet and laying eggs, but also being a mammal with fur and a mammary gland. Platypus fossils are not uncommon, yet they have no forbears. They just appear in the fossil record, and they remain similar to the platypus of today, having not ‘evolved’ over the past 120 million years. Their closest relative genetically is the also enigmatic spiny anteater or echidna, which eeks out an existence in a completely different environment to the platypus. In fact you could hardly find two creatures living such different lives, yet genetically being so close. Fossils of spiny anteater only date 15 million years ago, yet it is hardly an evolved platypus. They more resemble a cross between normal anteaters and hedgehogs, and live in similar environments to hedgehogs.

The fact that creatures just ‘appear’ in the fossil records with no forbears such as platypus, dinosaurs, flowering plants and honey bees together etc to me is proof of design. But the timeframe is obviously much longer than that espoused by CMI scientists and from what we read in the book of Genesis.

As for Dawkins, he is a very brilliant man, yet like Biblical creationists, is stuck within his own paradigm of ‘definitely no God’, and therefore views scientific evidence within that framework, even though he admits that living things have the ‘appearance of design’. Professor Antony Flew’s conversion to ID (though not Christianity)by going ‘wherever the evidence leads’ shows true candour, which I find lacking in both Dawkins and CMI who remain trapped within their own dogma.

I note that Einstein said “True religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge”

Whinger? Gee, awesome defence.

Jonathan, everyone agrees that there is a difference between losing an ability and gaining that ability. Was that ever in question? The issue is that both such changes meet the definition of evolution, and the former cannot sensibly be called “devolution” as though it represents the opposite of evolution.

Maybe your biological arguments are fine (I’m not qualified in evolutionary biology), but it’s the little rhetorical tricks like this that will almost certainly make those on Darwin’s side roll their eyes and assume that you don’t really have a handle on evolution. You just don’t need to give them that.

Creation Ministries! Home Schooling! Mass conspiracy! Heh, it’s hard to believe some people take themselves seriously!

Colby wrote:

I have a better idea, instead of picking holes in evolution, try to patch holes in it. But that’s not what your religion would want though is it?

Three things Colby. No informed Christian, or other informed person I think, would disagree that “evolution” is a fact. Problem is, we have to define what we mean by evolution. If it just means “change over time” as often defined, then plainly it is a fact. If we mean Sarfati’s “goo-to-you” macro evolution, then Christians would generally reject this.

Next, given that many Christians (myself included) see Darwinism as more of an ideology or faith position, patching holes would be useless. We instead need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Third, your last sentence about religion comes across as rather pejorative. The very fact that we have a website up here and are wanting to discuss/argue with you, and why William Lane Craig debates people, and Stephen Meyer wanted to debate Dawkins, all show your statement to be rather silly. I could put it back on you and ask if you admire Anthony Flew for following the evidence where he believes it led, or whether you are just another lemming-like Dawkins bigot.

Hi again Glenn,

You wrote:

But what I don’t like is the way that because of works like this and the arguments and comments that they contain, any Christian who is happy tp harbour doubts about Darwin is likely to be lumbered with hwta Sarfati and others say.

and then followed up with:

No, but I think that’s because those two don’t tend to make the kind of comments that I was complaining about, and which Darwinists (correctly, I think) have disdain for. If they did, then I think it would happen for them too.

But Glenn, Polkinghorne and McGrath DO make statements about these things — simply by taking a contrary position. In addition, McGrath dislikes ID and writes in “The Dawkins Delusion”:

[ID is] not an approach which I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds. In my view, those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply — and needlessly — vulnerable to scientific progress.

Tell me if I am wrong, but what you are probably disgruntled about is that Sarfati is a YEC — BUT this book is not explicitly about YECism is it? It is a critique of Dawkin’s latest book. Genetic fallacy perhaps?

Then you wrote:

“No such idea in biology, therefore it must be wrong? Do you really want to argue like that?”

Where did I argue like that? I didn’t even suggestthis. What I was pointing out is that “devolution” is actually not describing a different process from evolution. It merely describes inherited adaptations that turn out not to be so useful. It certainly doesn’t imply a process that is the opposite of evolving. Sarfati’s work is supposed to challenge those who are sympathetic to Darwinism. But if they encounter this sort of (what looks like) rhetorical trick, they just won’t be interested, and understandably so.

But you DID argue as such as follows:

I mean come on, “devolution”? There’s no such idea in biology. Evolution is about change, not progress. If a trait were an impediment to survival in one enviroment, that doesn’t mean it’s an impediment in all environments. Likewise if a trait helps survival for a while in history, it may become an impediment later. Neither of these are cases of anything other than “evolution,” since they are both cases of descent with modification.

Devolution may not be used in biology, but why would we expect it to be? Darwinists are arguing “from the bottom-up” which is a fundamentally different model to a creationist model which surely top-down. Can I assume from your claim that you are in fact a closet Darwinist? If so, why would you be in 2009 when Dembski for instance says:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/getting-over-our-love-for-darwin/

Intelligent design supporters like me view Darwin’s theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life’s development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.

Finally you write:

This is where I think that writers like McGrath – whatevr his actual beliefs about evolution – excels. Nobody on “his side” will ever have cause to flinch and say “ooo, I really wish he hadn’t said that, I can see how people are going to capitalise on this.”

I know, it’s probably bad form int he view of some to criticise authors on the Christian side of the fence. But pursuing a kind of excellence that can be admire by all is something that really drives me, and we need to be as hard on “our side” as on those on the “dark side.”

But Glenn, if we all just agreed with everything secularism and materialism taught us, we too could attain the glorious place of never having to flinch. Basically this appears to be what McGrath has done, making his peace with Darwinism. Yet rafts of philosophers of science and scientists like Behe and Meyer and Dembski scoff at Darwinism, and therefore at what McGrath believes to be true and compatible with Christianity. From my perspective, the ID guys ARE seeking the “excellence” you mention, while McGrath has capitulated to something that may soon go the same way as the infinite universe less than 100 years ago.

Simon, if you continue to make comments that add nothing to the discussion, you will be removed from commenting.

Glenn, I was just talking to someone about “devolution” and it seems to me that, even if this word is not common lingo, it is in fact a recognized phenomenon.

Consider the founder of Plunket in NZ … apparently he was an advocate of eliminating the weak or at least stopping them from reproducing. In the USA there was of course social darwinism leading to tens of thousands of forced sterilizations. Why was this?

I think you could argue simply that people recognized that humanity was “devolving” — yes, the gene pool was being watered down and bad stuff was getting in there.

What do you think? Sure, you could call it evolution, but could you not also call it devolution, even from a darwinist pov?

Rob

Glenn the whinger:

Jonathan, everyone agrees that there is a difference between losing an ability and gaining that ability. Was that ever in question?

Apparently so, given your total inability to grasp the point.

The issue is that both such changes meet the definition of evolution,

Only if you play dishonest bait-and-switch games, as Dawkins does. The General Theory of Evolution aka goo to you via the zoo requires uphill changes. Downhill changes will not turn bacteria into biologists.

Downhill changes would be expected under the Creation/Fall model. Yet Dawkins presents them as if they prove his theory and disprove biblical creation.

and the former cannot sensibly be called “devolution” as though it represents the opposite of evolution.

That’s exactly what it is, when it comes to the General Theory of Evolution which is the point of debate. No one disputes that gene frequencies change over time, despite Dawkins’ bait-and-switch.

See also:

http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation#equivocation

http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#Definitions

Robin Boom, it’s pointless playing “he said, she said” about what happened at a meeting. I don’t mind reasoned dialogue, but your dogmatic faith in millions of years doesn’t make for that. Spouting claimed dates for things doesn’t make them so. I prefer to go with the eye-witness accounts of the Creator in the Bible.

See also 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Wasn’t “The greatest show on earth” a boast of P.T. Barnum? Then it’s appropriate that he is also often credited with the phrase “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Jonathan, you’re signalling loud and clear that there’s no good reason for me to try to reason with you, so I simply won’t. Way to confirm the worst suspicions about you.

Take care.

Rob, sure you could call it “devolution” if all you mean is “evolution where abilities are lost” or something like that. The problem arises when we use the word, secretly knowing that it’s a type of evolutuion but not actually stating this, while saying out loud something like “Look, it’s not evolution, because it’s really DEvolution, which is something else.”

And inr egard to Mcgrath et al, no, in fact they do NOT engage int he kind of rhetorical tricks that I’m complaining about. The quote you gave didn’t seem to do anything of the sort as far as I can tell.

In rgeard to your other comments about McGrath, your concern there is with what McGrath believes about creationism. That is not the kind of concern I am raising.

And for the record, I didn’t complain about “the ID guys.”

But I am in no position to tell anyone who to endorse. If this sort of thing appeals to you and you’re OK with people using this sort of argument, go right ahead and promote it. I think the response to comments like these will be predictable. I wil chalk it up to “well you really had it coming with tactics like those,” others will chalk it up to “those unbelievers are just mad at the truth.”

Jonathan Sarfati said:

I prefer to go with the eye-witness accounts of the Creator in the Bible.

Oh dear. Using religion in a debate about science, again. Epic fail.

Any scientist will tell you that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Robin Boom said:

As for Dawkins, he is a very brilliant man, yet like Biblical creationists, is stuck within his own paradigm of ‘definitely no God’

Robin, where does Dawkins say this? Can you please show me the source for that exact quote from Dawkins, thanks.

No scientist would say ‘definitely no God’ for evidence could be forthcoming in the future that would change the current mindset on such matters. Dawkins has said the dearth of evidence for any god would make it improbable, but he never said ‘definitely no God’.

Dawkins is a scientist, so he follows the evidence, what’s your point?

Jonathan Sarfati said:

That’s exactly what it is, when it comes to the General Theory of Evolution which is the point of debate.

Jonathan, there is no “General” Theory of Evolution as published by Darwin. What are you talking about?

Or are you confusing this with General Theory of Relativity (the geometric theory of gravitation) as published by Albert Einstein in 1915?

Gary, the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionary biologist Gerald Kerkut of Southampton University as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ (Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.) He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’

Glenn, your persistence with bait-and-switch aka equivocation shows that you’re either dishonest or illogical.

Uhgh…this post is saddening.

The worst part is that it’s more evidence that even in NZ evolution has become an issue tied up with religion, and that for some of the more intellectual and philosophical Christians ID is seen as some sort of more appealing alternative answer.

I can understand perfectly why of course, and figures like Dawkins pushing evolutionary theory in this way don’t help.

Simon, I cannot even understand what point you are trying to make? Care to clarify?

If you think that evolution and Christianity are completely unrelated, then why not share with us why you think that to be the case.

You sound like you just want a world where everyone agrees upon everything, and with you too of course :-)

Hehe Rob…that world would be sweet ;)

I was making the point that evolution and the evidence for it don’t need to involve any notion of the supernatural. They are all based on observation of the natural world. They’re a domain of science, and need not impact on the domain of religion.

The Catholic Church, at least in its leadership, has seemed to grasp this concept and has moved forward with science. It’s a pity the US fundamentalists, and sadly some even in NZ, have not.

Now I’m not saying evolution and religion are completely unrelated in general, as that is obviously not the case…and the reason why we have ideas like creationism/ID. Evolutionary ideas changed dramatically the thinking of our species and our position in the world/universe, and as religions also tend to have explanations here, there can be conflicts.

Religions that are not hooked on a fundamentalist literal view of scripture/dogma can incorporate these new scientific findings – not with ease – and probably with a lot more effort required than for non-believers – but it is possible as we see in the world today. Just like religious ideas have evolved to incorporate a round earth that isn’t the center of anything (well, most religious ideas have).

Simon, I think you are missing the point. It is not that religion can or cannot accommodate “Evolutionism” — rather it is that many of us flat out don’t believe the goo-to-you evolution is true. This is not a feeling or personal preference issue — it is one of truth.

Of course, this cuts to the very heart of this enormous debate. Can we indeed get 3,000,000,000 genetic letters ordered sufficiently — by natural-only processes — to make stuff like us, and all the other stuff that goes into building biological systems and making them work together. I just don’t have the faith to say yes :-)

Heh OK. I personally don’t want to get into a debate on the specifics of evolutionary mechanisms here. It’s pointless – ends up being a competition of who has the best web link. Hardly a way to discuss a complex scientific topic no? Besides, one needs a large body of background knowledge to even begin to discuss with any meaning the details.

Otherwise, to use an example you may relate to Rob, it’s like people such as Deepak Chopra jumping on theories of quantum physics and going to town on how they reveal supernatural energy and link to ancient eastern philosophies.

I find personally that forums such as this are more suitable to discussing the politics around the edges.

I’m alluding to one of the big issues with the theory of evolution here: it’s complex and difficult to conceptually understand. Moreover, it has been communicated poorly overly the years, especially where it touches sensitive topics – no wonder there is a strong “those scientists are just telling us what to believe!” sentiment in the general populace.

Quantum is good like that. I think Feynmann said that “nobody understands QM except Deepak Chopra” :-).

My understanding is that Bohr and Heisenberg reduced the atom to mathematics, much to Einstein’s disgust (I’m with Einstein on this one). This seems to be to be a bizarre feature of nature, (i) that the atom CAN be understood and modeled so well in such terms, and (ii) that maths can even be the toolkit to do this. What this does for the definition of science, I am not sure right now :-) Sure we can make predictions and test them, but what are we ultimately testing???

Jonathan Sarfati said:

The ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionary biologist Gerald Kerkut of Southampton University

Jonathan, there is no ‘General Theory of Evolution’.

Gerald Kerkut was a neuroscientist, Emeritus Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry at Southampton University not an evolutionary biologist as you claim.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-gerald-kerkut-549750.html

There is no Special Theory of Evolution or General Theory of Evolution – microevolution and macroevolution are all part of evolution as defined by Darwin, and expanded by Coyne, Dawkins, Ridley, Gould et al.

I’m not saying you’re completely and totally ignorant of Darwinian evolution by natural selection but… I can’t think of a way to finish that sentence.

Okay Gary, Dawkins may not have used the phrase ‘definitely no God’, but he certainly alludes to it in the last sentence of chapter 3 in the God Delusion where he states ‘…God, though not technically disprovable, is very very improbable indeed’.

The next chapter is entitled ‘Why there almost certainly is no God’.

Even the title of his book “The God Delusion” exhibits an arrogant ‘There is no God’ message.

The point I was making was that Dawkins ‘No God’ paradigm makes him dismissive of ID, even though he admits to the appearance of design in nature. A ‘no God’ paradigm is as tunnel-visioned in my view as Biblical Creationism. Science is about repeatable observation. The ‘appearance of design’ is a repeatable observation.

One could assume from Dawkins dogma, that he has never encountered the spiritual realm, and is like a blind man petullantly saying to the world that “colour is a delusion!”.

The point I was making was that Dawkins ‘No God’ paradigm makes him dismissive of ID

Robin,

Dawkins is dismissive of ID because it is not science, it’s religion – “goddidit”.

A ‘no God’ paradigm is as tunnel-visioned in my view as Biblical Creationism.

Dawkins is a scientist, show him evidence and he will change his mind, that’s what we scientists do, it’s how progress is made. Based on all the evidence presented so far, Dawkins has said “god” is “very improbable indeed” – What evidence do you have to disprove the “No God” paragigm?

The ‘appearance of design’ is a repeatable observation.

This appearence of “design” does not mean there is a “designer”, we as humans seek design, i.e. a pattern – our brains are hard-wired for this through evolutionary reasons (safety, purpose, routine etc). We see the abundance of green in nature due to chlorophyll, this is not “designed” for our needs or purpose, it just happens to be a green pigment found in most plants, algae, and cyanobacteria that we find pleasing to the eye.

This does not mean anything is “designed” – do you honestly think the plate tectonics on which the continents drift were “intelligently designed”? We get earthquakes and volcanic eruptions due to the moving plates; people die; devastation and destruction reigns – some “design” eh?

TO ALL WHO KEEP SAYING ID IS NOT SCIENCE, PLEASE READ…

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci

This tired boring oft-repeated anti-ID mantra is a cheap-shot that imo ruins the credibility of those who use it.

Rob

Gary wrote:

This does not mean anything is “designed” – do you honestly think the plate tectonics on which the continents drift were “intelligently designed”? We get earthquakes and volcanic eruptions due to the moving plates; people die; devastation and destruction reigns – some “design” eh?

Gary, have you heard of the Christian doctrine of the Fall? Do you really think that we are so stupid that we have never noticed entropy and death and decay and cancer and earthquakes…

The God I believe in is under no obligation to keep me safe. He, as the creator, is free to take my life whenever He pleases. We do not believe in a cotton-wool god but a sovereign creator God.

Cheers,

Rob

Gary wrote:

This appearence of “design” does not mean there is a “designer”, we as humans seek design, i.e. a pattern – our brains are hard-wired for this through evolutionary reasons (safety, purpose, routine etc).

This is pure question begging Gary, and shows your bias. You observe design in nature and immediately attribute it to random processes.

All design (other than life) that I have observed WAS designed — by people. Therefore I perhaps should infer that life — with the appearance of design — was not created by a designer???

Also, your claims about us being hard-wired for survival reasons is pure speculation and totally unfalsifiable. For if it were different, you would also attribute that too to evolution: “evodidut” :-)

Hey, I could “evolve” that…

evodidit … evoididit … evoidiodit … evoidioit … evoidiot :-)

That’s not very nice is it … but keeps me amused :-)

Regards,

Rob

Rob, mate…

Re-read what you’re writing here. Think about this concept of “design” – it is a uniquely human cognitive construct – we infer design when we see anything that seems to “work”. That in no way means that thing was designed in an active sense by a designer for that purpose.

And your “evodidit” analogy doesn’t work. The point of “goddidit” is that it evokes a mysterious designer to solve problems and relieve cognitive dissonance. Evolution is a natural process driven by mechanisms such as natural selection – it is no thing in and of itself that would be capable of performing an action on something.

It is what happens when, for example, we split a species of animals up onto separate islands and they develop and evolve separately to their respective environmental conditions. There is no “thing of evolution” that does this, the theory merely describes the forces at work that shape the different populations.

You have to distance your thinking from ideas of design, purpose and intention. Or at the least, invoke God to be the prime mover that sets these natural forces in motion.

“we infer design when we see anything that seems to “work”. ”

No. That is definitely not the basis of the design inference that ID theorists make. That, unlike some things, is a denial I can make with absolute certainty.

Rob,

You’re using Dembski as a refernence in order to support ID? Seriously?

ID is not science. This has been shown in court Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688 in 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Closing_arguments

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

Not a scientific theory. Proven in a court of law. ID is religion, not science.

ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980′s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

Here’s the full text:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/3:Disclaimer#Page_43_of_139

So Gary, it is quite funny how you use a court of law for your justification. Are you saying that whatever a court rules is the truth?

Do you think it is possible to actually refute the topic? If so, please do.

The topic: Is it possible to take any object or occurrence and deduce from that alone, that some intelligent source was behind the existence of it? You are most emphatically telling me that “No, you can’t! The courts ruled that this is religious.” Please excuse me for not being convinced. I am going to hold up Stonehenge, an ancient artifact and SETI as examples that you can take something, without knowing the actual source, and say, “This was designed!”. Shall we just leave it to intuition? That doesn’t sound very scientific me.

Jonathan said:

I am going to hold up Stonehenge, an ancient artifact and SETI as examples that you can take something, without knowing the actual source, and say, “This was designed!”. Shall we just leave it to intuition? That doesn’t sound very scientific me.

Hi Jonathan,

What are you talking about?

Rob (author) said:

Gary, have you heard of the Christian doctrine of the Fall? Do you really think that we are so stupid that we have never noticed entropy and death and decay and cancer and earthquakes…

Ok, I will say this for the last time, I am ex-Catholic. So I know all the Bible stories/Christian doctrine/myths that you know. If I have to repeat that fact Every. Single. Time I post here, you will end up banning me for spam!

Rob, we know why earthquakes happen: movement of the unstable tectonic plates upon which the continents of planet Earth sit. Why are you bringing in religious myths (The Fall?) to a discussion about science?

The fact you think cancer exists due to “The Fall” (stop laughing Gary, stop laughing) only shows your ignorance of science and biology; your intellectual laziness to learn; and your gullible and utterly naive thinking.

How are you supposed to learn anything of the world around you and progress humanity forward (e.g. why cancer exists and how we can cure it) if you think everything is “God’s will”?

How very childish. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Gary,

To be honest I am wrestling with the “science” issue. I have read enough to think right now that what is and is not science seems to me to be a tricky problem

I love your quote here:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

Ok, if it really is that easy Gary, you could help me out by providing a definition of science that we all agree upon. Or if that is to hard, a definition that your supporters agree upon.

From my meagre knowledge of history of science, there have been numerous situations where a large group of scientists have strongly opposed one or two other scientists, even leading to death (Boltzmann), only for the one or two rebels to be later vindicated.

Science thrives on revolutions, but you seem to think like some group-think-scientists sometimes have, fighting that alternative testable ideas should just be ridiculed and ignored.

So, I await your definition… :-)

Regards,

Rob

Jonathan,

You may believe that Stonehenge was designed.

You may look at it and see design — but that is just an evolutionary hangover.

It wasn’t designed — rather, the stones just happened to be there and random earthquakes and natural erosion led to what we have today.

It may look designed, smell designed, and we may even know that it is designed, but these are mere appearances. We, like biologists, have to look at these things and just keep telling ourselves that the may appear designed, but aren’t.

The problem is Jonathan, people like you are “either ignorant, or stupid … or even wicked, but I wouldn’t want to say that.” (~Dawkins)

:-)

Rob

Gary,

The doctrine of the fall is a vital part of the understanding within the Christian worldview. Given your dismissal of this probably tells us that you have no grasp on this.

Wow, and ex-Catholic. Most Catholics I know have less theological understanding than several 10-year old children that I know. And I mean that seriously.

The rest of your post has deteriorated into the sort of thing we see on Richard Dawkin’s website. Pouring scorn on something that you don’t understand cheapens you Gary. Sad, because so far I had quite enjoyed our interactions…

Let’s stick to the science eh?

Regards,

Rob

Thanks for the illumination Rob :)

Gary

I too work in science and have done for some 30 years, both in research and consultancy capacity, and am presently running two scientific trials for different companies. In trial data it is important to get repeatable patterns. If there is no repeatable pattern, then the trial results become a failure for the particular hypothesis being investigated. As a scientist I don’t know why you are dismissive of this repeatable pattern, as all of the research I have been involved we look for this. Why bother having replicates if this is not the case.

Our understanding of genetics has increased dramatically over the past decade or two. I am stepping outside my field of expertise here, but as I understand it, when studying genetics you look for repeated patterns. The examples I gave earlier on of platypus and echidna being closely relatived is seen in the genetic codes of both creatures. However where is the evidence that echidna evolved from platypus, when the former has only been around 15 million years compared to platypus which have been around 120 million years? Their habitats and way of life are completely different.

Darwins observations and the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that certain creatures have common features with others, and therefore are related.

Within ID there are many different camps. For me, there is evidence that God is not ‘omniscient’, a theological belief common among Christians. It seems the creatures ‘God’ (there is no hard evidence this is the Christian God or pagan gods, alien superminds or whatever) are becoming more complex over time. For 2 billion years there were only procaryotic creatures, and eucaryotes have only been around a little over 0.5 billion years. If the most complex piece of organic matter in the known universe is the human brain, and we humans may be Gods latest experiment.

However we humans who pride ourselves in intellect, can’t combine basic chemicals to make any sort of living creature. Sure we can spice together different bits of DNA together, but these building blocks are already in place for us to work with. I am not saying that one day we humans will not be able to create some form of new life from basuc chemicals, but if we did, there will have been much intelligence and manipulation of matter and chemicals to produce this. ID to me takes a heck of a lot less faith to believe in than some huge series of cosmic and chemical flukes which defy belief.

Ardent opponents of ID such as Dawkins and his Australian mate, scientist Robyn Williams whose book ‘Unintelligent Design’ uses the most pathetic arguments. Williams best shot was criticising synases for being upside down and sexual organs also being used for urination.

Arguments for design in life and the universe I find immensely compelling, but trying to squeeze the design arguments into a Biblical paradigm is fraught with huge hurdles. Genesis 1 is an ancient creation story, and this should be remebered. It is a lot more meaningful and realistic than other creation stories of similar vintage such as the Hindu story of the world being on the back of a giant turtle swimming around in celestial soup.

Within the first few chapters of Genesis however there is another story interwoven, which is a spiritual story of God relating to mankind. This is a wonderful mystery, which Christians take heart in its culmination with the story of redemptive salvation through Jesus. As an ex-Catholic you may find this story childish or possibly even bizarre. However this spiritual side which Dawkins et al have never experienced is something that differentiates us from other creatures.

I finish with a quote from Einstein who although dismissing the God of his Jewish heritage, stated “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion…He who has never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind”.

Rob – “Most Catholics I know have less theological understanding than several 10-year old children that I know. And I mean that seriously.”

To be fair, that’s true of most Protestants I know, and it’s not true of many Catholics that I know (and I’m a protestant). It really depends on who you know. :)

Fair comment re Catholics and Protestants Glenn :-)

Wow, and ex-Catholic. Most Catholics I know have less theological understanding than several 10-year old children that I know. And I mean that seriously.

Rob,

I was born and raised in Ireland, being Catholic had nothing to do with me, it was a decision my parents made, take it up with them if you wish.

Such arrogance on your part, only your particular splinter group can understand such theological complexity. It’s not that difficult Rob.