I see that John Loftus tried to score points with the NZ earthquake. Since he’s intellectually challenged on this issue, let’s explain it to him. If a Christian has a theodicy that accommodates natural evils, then he doesn’t need to reopen the issue each time a natural disaster strikes. For his theodicy already accommodates that type of event. Repetitions of the same kind don’t require a special explanation every time they occur. For the theodicy furnishes a general explanation.
At least give John Loftus the proper credit and admit that he is not "intellectually challenged" (aka stupid) on this issue. Is he blunt? Yes. Is he aggressive on this issue? Yes. Does he hope to "score points" for his side on this issue? I'm sure. But he's no dummy, and neither are you, so please keep that in mind.
ReplyDeleteCredit for what?
ReplyDeleteFor using his hardened heart and warped intellect to subvert the truth?
The proper credit to give John Loftus would take the form of an overdraft notice.
ReplyDeleteBYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete"At least give John Loftus the proper credit..."
I realize that you sympathize with Loftus. At this point you're two of a kind, so you take an attack on him as an oblique attack on yourself.
You've chosen to walk through a door that locks behind you into a small, windowless room. So I appreciate your desire for company. But at the end of the day, you're all alone in that dark little room. You've locked yourself away. Unseen. Unheard. While the world moves on.
Byron, anyone who thinks God should have made us with wings and gills and tusks has a few screws loose, at least admit that.
ReplyDeleteWhat credit does Loftus deserve here? Pretty much stating the problem of evil? Acting as if this is news, or a topic many, many believers - not recently, but over centuries - haven't addressed?
ReplyDeleteThe man simply doesn't do much to deserve credit. Intellectually he's kind of a Madelyn Murray O'Hare on a shoestring budget.
My whole point was to not call John Loftus intellectually challenged on this issue (and by extension, any other). This is simply common courtesy. You may despise the person, despise what he believes (or doesn't), but don't play fast and loose with the facts, and make emotional assertions without factual support. That's all we ask.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter what Loftus is called? He's here today, gone tomorrow. The universe doesn't care, and there's no naturalism based reason why we should. If the physical world is all there is, then he's just a bag of chemicals passing through until his demise.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply common courtesy.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Loftus explicitly rejects common courtesy. He calls people 'deluded' and worse on a regular basis, without much prompting.
Second - so even if Loftus is intellectually challenged on an issue, he shouldn't be called that because what? You consider it rude?
There's plenty of factual support for a claim that amounts to 'Loftus is out of his league and largely bluffs about the state of argument on these things'. It may make John look bad to point it out. If that disturbs you, I suggest finding a more thoughtful, intellectually disciplined spokesman.
OK, just ignore everything I said. Carry on. Be happy.
ReplyDeleteByron, no despising, serious question, Repeating yourself doesn't help you. Why do you think Loftus isn't intellectually challenged given criticisms like his saying God should have made us birds with gills and tusks?
ReplyDeleteAll I meant was that as far as mental faculties are concerned (independent of whether or not he understands or deals intelligibly with the issues), he is not intellectually challenged in any basic, factual sense. I'm not asking any of you to agree with his positions, morals, world views, character, or style of presentation. It was just a simple request, on behalf of common courtesy. It's not like I'm asking any of you to join his fan club, or be put on his mailing list if he had one. But with attitudes in responses like some of these, I can understand not only a defensive posture but even a belligerent one. That doesn't excuse him for that if so, as it's his choice and your freedom to agree or disagree with it. That's it; all I was asking was that. If I had known I was going to get the response I got, I wouldn't have bother, and won't in the future.
ReplyDeleteWe're just saying that he's a few wheels short of a go-cart. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteSo, when someone says things you don't like, call them idiots. OK, I understand now. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteNo when people say something dumb, we call them idiots. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteAnd dumb is anything that doesn't fit in the box of your theological understanding and/or world view. Right. Got it.
ReplyDeleteWhile Christianity (and religion, in general) indeed offers plausible explanations of why suffering occurs, it doesn't really give us any information about why we, in particular suffer, does it?
ReplyDeleteThat is, none of us can know whether we suffer because God is chastening us, granting us an opportunity for virtue or simply because he is punishing us for our sins or the sins of others.
In the end, we're still left with "why". It doesn't make the suffering now any less miserable, does it?
Well, when a man complains about how evil God is while simultaneously claiming that nothing is intrinsically evil, he's certainly going that extra special mile, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Loftus argues in that sense, but probably he means the theistic concept of the Christian god has actions attributed to him that we in our culture and values find evil, while there exist no moral absolutes in general. Evil can exist in more than one category of being.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's just generous speculation on your part. Why not look up what he actually said?
ReplyDeleteWell, since you brought it up, why not provide the reference? I don't care enough (right now) to look it up for myself. I was just giving a possibility.
ReplyDeleteNevermind. Scratch that. I don't care.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok to say you have an aversion to grown men embarrassing themselves in public.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of grown men embarrassing themselves in public, why is your blog profile hidden? Inquiring minds want to know!
ReplyDeleteJames said:
ReplyDelete---
While Christianity (and religion, in general) indeed offers plausible explanations of why suffering occurs, it doesn't really give us any information about why we, in particular suffer, does it?
---
Yeah cuz Christianity NEVER talks about sin....
Because at the time, blogger.com required people to have a blog even if they didn't really want one.
ReplyDeleteOK, that's a good answer.
ReplyDeleteByron, if you want a classic example of Loftus's vast intellect, consider the exchange here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/he-done-got-punkd.html (note: because Loftus got banned, you'll have to actually go to where you could post a comment to read what he said in context).
ReplyDeleteHere's the relevant portion. Loftus said:
---
Peter, in my opinion you misled Touchstone, and other potential readers.
---
And immediately followed that up with:
---
I personally have not read through what you wrote....
---
So before you start thinking it's erroneous to question the man's intellectual integrity, bear in mind that he accused me of misleading someone while admitting he never read what I wrote.
Peter Pike writes: "Yeah cuz Christianity NEVER talks about sin...."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm talking particulars.
For the earthquake victims in NZ, is the proper response to tell them that they're suffering because God is punishing them for their sins? That is, they're getting their "just desserts"?
Peter, that's a different category than what I am talking about. Steve's use of "intellectually challenged" implies lack of intellectual ability, whereas the example you give would better be interpreted in an integrity context (perhaps specifically attention to detail at the very least). I won't argue your interpretation of that either way, as it's not my point. It's just a different thing than "intellectually challenged" which is what started my whole series of comments.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteYou've been corrected on here often enough that you really should know better already. But inasmuch as you continually criticize Christian beliefs and condemn us, why don't you just go ahead and write out the Christian response. It's really not that difficult. Surely you would actually know that which you criticize, right?
So demonstrate it.
Byron,
ReplyDelete"And dumb is anything that doesn't fit in the box of your theological understanding and/or world view. Right. Got it."
Are you suggesting that a smart, sharp, well-reasoned criticism of Christian we need to take seriously is that God is a failure for not making us birdmen with gills to prevent us from drowning and tusks to defend ourselves from muggers? If calling that dumb is to make me narrow, color me narrow, baby. What say you?
Paul, I have no idea. Humans aren't exactly optimal, so there are many configurations we could have come in conceivably which would serve as improvements compared to what we are now. It's more of a stretch to believe an omniscient, omnipotent deity designed sub-optimally than to theorize natural selection and evolutionary advance created the human form as we see it today. But that's just my personal opinion, and doesn't even cost you $0.02.
ReplyDeleteSuffering: God's purpose for man as a result of man's sin, in effect until God barbecues the world and man can't sin any more.
ReplyDeleteJohn Loftus said:
ReplyDelete"Only ignorant people (on both sides, by the way) think that whoever disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant and dumb. . . . In fact, since none of us has a corner on the truth (and there is disagreement among philosophers about what truth is) then even those ideas we thought of initially as absurd might be correct after all."
On the one hand, Loftus thinks we can't call anyone stupid, ignorant, or dumb just because he defends an absurd idea.
On the other hand, Loftus thinks no one has a corner on the truth.
(As an aside, according to Loftus' argument, something like Intelligent Design might very well be among "those ideas we thought of initially as absurd [which] might be correct after all.")
Loftus continues in the same post:
"I wish the ignorant Christians who comment here would understand this, but then to do so they must become educated. I can only hope that barring a good education they will listen to the educated Christians and engage us in respectful debates about theses issues, instead of name calling, slander and charges of stupidity, ignorance and of being dumb. This only reveals THEIR ignorance . . . ."
If it's true that "Only ignorant people (on both sides, by the way) think that whoever disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant and dumb," since Loftus is obviously disagreeing with "ignorant Christians" here and obviously calling them "ignorant," then according to Loftus' own argument it would seem he has proven himself to be "ignorant."
BYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Humans aren't exactly optimal, so there are many configurations we could have come in conceivably which would serve as improvements compared to what we are now."
Feel free to propose a more optimal design. Engineering has tradeoffs. Trade up in one respect, trade down in another.
For instance, is a cheetah better or worse designed than a leopard?
So present your technical schematics for a better balance. Detail the mutual adjustments required by your proposed improvement.
Why can't your invisible sky tribal deity defend his designs to me, since I'm the one questioning them? I'd at least appreciate the response Job got, which was basically, where were you when I was designing all this stuff? Oh, that's right, you're one of my creations too (implied). Yes, I'm sure what we have now is quite optimal. Yes, indeed.
ReplyDeleteTailbones. External testicles. Nipples for men. At least god has quite a sense of humor, eh?
ReplyDeleteByron,
ReplyDeleteA sure sign that an atheist is on the back foot during an argument is when they begin using phrases like "sky tribal deity". The only purpose for doing that is to incite. Seriously you can't show proper credit by using "God". After all it's much easier to type.
I'm wondering if you are related to The Atheist Missionary because you are starting to bring up the same stock (and bad) arguments that have been answered over and over and over again.
If I has $0.02 for every time I've heard the nipples for men, external testicles line. really, that's the best you got?
Byron,
ReplyDeleteDon't you now believe that evolution provided men with external testicles and nipples?
If they are so bad and humorous, why hasn't evolution fixed those problems by now?
You have consistently been courteous and patient with other bloggers whom you thought to be rude (even in your Christian days over at Debbie's, for example), so I was surprised to see a different attitude in your last two posts (i.e. sky tribal deity and the testicles and nipples remarks).
Craig said:
ReplyDelete...why hasn't evolution fixed those problems by now?
Yeah, that's right. Evolution is Mr. Fix-It. The Blind Handy Andy.
Sorry, I had an extra second-helping of snarky today. No, I'm not the Atheist Missionary, or related to him, or anything at all (though I do like the name). I'm not a biologist or a scientist, so Steve's question, probably guessing this, is designed to shut down the conversation (which it does quite effectively). And a minor quibble, it's easier for me to type "god" than "God" because of the capitalization, but I guess typing "it" would be even easier. I'd almost rather use "Yahweh" rather than "God" since "God" could mean almost anything.
ReplyDeleteEnchanted Naturalist,
ReplyDeleteThe fundamentalism that I belonged to (YEC) asserted that there was no pre-Fall suffering of animals or humans, that everything bad came about because of Adam's sin. For whatever that is worth. It's something else I had a hard time believing in (that animals didn't suffer or eat each other before the Fall). So for awhile I became OEC.
Craig Dunning, yes, I was a lot nicer back then, you're right. I put up with a lot more than I am willing to now. But, I probably should strive to be that same way still. Anyways, as far as evolution goes, nothing it produces is necessarily optimal in all respects, as if it were some intelligent agent on its own which of course it is not. It's more like evolution keeps a constantly updated Exhibit A of what has proved to be the most successful in spreading genetically, by I suppose what would amount to chance. Unlike in Creationism, bodily forms and functions would not be expected to show perfection or "intelligent design" if I can borrow that phrase.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I am sorry for being snarky to you and others. I was not like this for the longest time. This is your blog, after all, not mine.
ReplyDeleteHi Byron,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Humans aren't exactly optimal, so there are many configurations we could have come in conceivably which would serve as improvements compared to what we are now. . . . Tailbones. External testicles. Nipples for men.
1. Okay, you've brought up examples of supposed "poor design" in humans. But citing examples doesn't mean you've proven that these examples are "poor" or "sub-optimal" designs which you could "improve" upon. All you've done is cite examples. What specifically would you change about tailbones, external testicles, and/or male nipples? How would you specifically improve on their current design? Please keep in mind that changing one aspect could effect other aspects.
For example, if you made the external testicles internal, then how would this effect spermatozoa production? Not to mention the hormones involved in spermatogenesis like FSH and LH? Changing the hormones could potentially have a domino effect which would effect our reproductive faculties down the line, given that FSH in turn would act on the Sertoli cells to stimulate adenylate cyclase which increases cAMP whereas LH would act on the interstitial Leydig cells to stimulate testosterone.
What's more, temperature is extremely important in spermatogenesis regulation. Actually, it's crucial. Spermatogenesis only occurs below the core body temperature which is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 37 degrees Celsius. That's why our bodies usually maintain testicular temperature at 35 degrees Celsius or lower via several mechanisms (e.g. the pampiniform plexus). In fact, that's a large reason why testicles are external, not internal. If testicles were internal, they'd arguably have a raised temperature, and having a raised temperature would significantly impede spermatogenesis. Men wouldn't be able to make enough sperm. Men would have a low or nil sperm count. Obviously this would effect our ability to reproduce. So much for the human race!
And how would you even achieve this? How would you make the external testicles internal? You'd have to change specific embryological processes and developments. The testes descend via the inguinal canal beginning around the 7th week of pregnancy. Although it's more accurate to say that the testes remain where they are while the rest of the body moves upwards around it. Sort of like how an anchored ship remains in place while the moving river and everything else on the river flows around it. Anyway, point being it'd be quite the embryological challenge to make the external testicles internal in the first place without at the same time effecting other embryological processes and developments. How would you propose to overcome these challenges?
BTW, all this is just scratching the surface too. Much more could be said. We could look in more detail at hormones and temperature. Further we could look at a series of variables from the molecular level all the way to the gross anatomical level and everything in between. We could look at this from an interdisciplinary perspective by including not only hormones and physiology but also, for instance, pathological processes, and ask how changing this or that might influence risk factors for certain diseases. And so on and so forth.
2. I think one of the assumptions you're making is that Christians need to have some sort of an adaptive explanation for everything. But why does everything in the human body have to have an adaptive explanation?
ReplyDeleteOn Christian grounds, we live in a fallen world and we ourselves are fallen creatures. That needs to be said at the outset.
Also, on Christian grounds, what is truly beautiful reflects God. So God could've just made humans the way they are because he delights in the way he has made us look or feel or what not, in our aesthetics, which reflect him.
In any case, we don't necessarily have to live in the best of all possible worlds.
But even on atheistic natural evolutionary grounds, scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have argued against the need for an adaptive explanation for everything. See their famous spandrels paper.
3. If we don't currently know what something is for, it doesn't necessarily mean we'll never know. Or if we think we know something, what we think we know could very well change in the future. Take the cecal appendix. For years many medical scientists thought the appendix was a vestigial organ. But these days many medical scientists believe it does have a functional role. Or take "junk" DNA. Anyway, you can Google for more info about all this stuff if you like. No need for me to recite the debates.
4. Christians have responded to the various arguments from poor design. For example, just check out some of the footnotes in the Wikipedia article cited above. Or check out the work of the ID crowd over at the Access Research Network, Uncommon Descent, ID the Future, Design Inference, or the Discovery Institute. Or check out this article (PDF). Anyway, there are so many debates over this. But without specifics, I can't respond specifically. I can only respond generally, which is what I've just done.
5. If, arguendo, something is badly designed, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's not designed. Say someone has built their own computer. Say it works but not perfectly. Or maybe it runs an old version of Ubuntu Linux rather than the latest one - say Feisty Fawn instead of Natty Narwhal. Or maybe it runs a version of Windows without the latest Service Pack. Or whatever. Does this mean the computer wasn't designed? No. In fact, it was designed. Just designed sub-optimally. But what's wrong with designing the computer sub-optimally? Maybe the user doesn't need the latest and greatest. Maybe the sub-optimal computer does all the user needs. Maybe the user doesn't need the latest security features because he never goes online. Maybe it's a computer he lets his kids play with.
BYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Tailbones. External testicles. Nipples for men. At least god has quite a sense of humor, eh?”
i) In the words of Richard Dawkins, isn’t that response a “cop-out” or “science-stopper”?
ii) Do you think male nipples are maladaptive? Are they disadvantageous to survival? If not, then how are they suboptimal?
From what I’ve read, male nipples are a remnant of embryonic development. Is it your contention that it’s maladaptive for the human body to retain traces of earlier stages of development? Is the naval maladaptive too?
iii) Do you think external genitalia are maladaptive? Most mammals seem to survive and flourish just fine with this “design defect.”
Have you considered the engineering complications of internalizing male genitalia? What other adjustments to our internal anatomy would be needed to accommodate that “improvement”? Would those be beneficial, or would there be downsides? Isn’t cryptorchidism a birth defect?
Since puberty triggers the enlargement of male genitalia, wouldn’t that be a sign of sexual maturity? Aren’t secondary sexual characteristics a signal that members of the opposite sex are now of mating age?
From what I can tell, adolescent males tend to be rather proud of their endowment in this particular department. They don’t seem to view that development as maladaptive.
Enchanted Naturalist,
ReplyDelete“Steve, come on now. There are plenty of examples of suboptimal human design.”
Here’s a basic rule of thumb. Before listing rote objections to the Christian faith, it’s incumbent on you to familiarize yourself with preexisting Christian responses to your objections, and present a serious counterargument. Drive-by attacks will not be permitted.
For instance, Jonathan Sarfati has discussed “design defects” in The Greatest Hoax on Earth as well as By Design. If you disagree with his explanations, present a counterargument.
And the fact that you resort to Wikipedia as your scientific authority speaks volumes.
BYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete“The fundamentalism that I belonged to (YEC) asserted that there was no pre-Fall suffering of animals or humans, that everything bad came about because of Adam's sin. For whatever that is worth. It's something else I had a hard time believing in (that animals didn't suffer or eat each other before the Fall).”
That’s exegetically dubious:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/animal_death_before_fall_print.html
Byron,
ReplyDelete"Paul, I have no idea. Humans aren't exactly optimal, so there are many configurations we could have come in conceivably which would serve as improvements compared to what we are now. It's more of a stretch to believe an omniscient, omnipotent deity designed sub-optimally than to theorize natural selection and evolutionary advance created the human form as we see it today. But that's just my personal opinion, and doesn't even cost you $0.02."
First, his point wasn't optimality, it was so that we wouldn't slip and fall to our deaths and die. But you can see this get absurd and silly real quick. I can shoot a bird. So should God had made us with Kevlar skin? And would that be light enough of a body for our wings to carry? We would need to have either massively large wings or hallow bones. Really, Byron, you can't see the silliness in all of this?
Second, you move the goal posts for John and bring up other points li, "optimality." Well, "opitmal" for what? "Improved" for what? To what end? If man's cheif end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, how are we sub-optimally designed to acheive that end? And how does a naturalistic evolutionist talk of optimality?
How can you even propose "improvements"? Aren't they only "improvements" if they have survival value? But you can't know that just by picking things from your favorite comic book superhero and adding them to humans.
You then mention a couple of examples, but Patrick Chan showed you in how much more detail you need to go to float your argument. Moreover, are you arguing that because you don't know the purpose of those things, they don't have or never had one?
So, you moved the goal post for John to avoid the utter silliness of his argument, you then floated a half-hearted argument that is so far from plausible or intelligible it's not even funny. Now, do you care to present something serious, or will you admit the intellectual bankruptcy of internet atheologians, like Loftus?
Thanks for your responses. Since I am not a scientist, I cannot interact with what you have presented. So instead of giving a cop-out answer, I will just admit I do not know.
ReplyDeleteI do have a question, has John Loftus been banned from posting here?
I. Byron, God could have made us invulnerable to bullets, fire, drowning, extreme cold/heat, spears, bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, broken bones, cancer (et cetera, etc.,etc.) and even to death.
ReplyDeleteBut that would prevent God's providential HIS-story from unfolding. God has purposed that in our universe there would be a 1. Pre-Fall world, a 2. post-Fall world and finally a 3. Redeemed world. It's in the redeemed world when (redeemed) humans will be impervious to all of the above.
II.
Possible evidence for macro-evolution doesn't disprove the existence of the Christian God. For all you know, theistic evolution or even progressive creationism is true. That is, God actually used evolution to bring about man. Though, I'm personally not convinced that this *is* the way God did it. This could possibly account for the tailbone.
III.
God isn't obligated to design "optimally". Also, unless and until you know the purposes of the designer you cannot know whether something is or isn't optimally designed. Sometimes aesthetic considerations trump optimality. For example, balloons on top of a car or a hood ornament aren't efficient aerodynamically. This answers both the testes and male nipple objections. Finally, there's anecdotal evidence that in extreme situations males can breastfeed infants.
http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXp_See_Bs&feature=player_embedded#at=98
Finally, if men didn't have external testes or nipples there'd be less humor in the world. Heh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTiUPR-sVcs&feature=related
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat's a great article. I left YEC for some of the same reasons given in that article. I merely meant to say that the fundamentalism I came out of embrace a very literal view of Genesis (the church where I attend would still hold to this). But I read somewhere that Psalm 104 is possibly older than Genesis, and could represent an opposing opinion redacted by a later editor. But, incidentally, have you heard of the Answers in Creation website? Their position as best I can recall is OEC, though I believe they may also have evolutionists in their number, but it is a very interesting website.
BYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete"I do have a question, has John Loftus been banned from posting here?"
Loftus was banned from commenting here when he crossed a line of no return by irrelevantly and scurrilously dragging Paul Manata's family into the debate. Attacking one of us through our family is a ticket to Siberia.
Hello, Steve? I was curious as to what your opinion was of Answers in Creation.
ReplyDeleteFrom what little I know of it, it tends to go after easy targets like Ken Ham and Henry Morris.
ReplyDeleteIn my comment above I wrote, "For all you know, theistic evolution or even progressive creationism is true. That is, God actually used evolution to bring about man.". I should have reversed "...theistic evolution or even progressive creationism" to "...progressive creationism or even theistic evolution.." since most Progressive Creationists reject macro-evolution yet the very next sentence implies that both affirm macro-evolution. If written the correct way, it wouldn't have implied that.
ReplyDeleteSome versions of Progressive Creationism can account for why the fossil record may appear to support macro-evolution without macro-evolution actually being true.
Byron, FYI the premier Old Earth Creationism ministry and website is the one by Hugh Ross at www.reasons.org. Reasons To Believe also has a page where one can access archives of their radio podcasts of Creation Update which ran from 2001 to 2009 http://www.reasons.org/resources/radio-broadcasts-and-podcasts
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
ReplyDelete"...Jonathan Sarfati has discussed “design defects” in The Greatest Hoax on Earth as well as By Design. If you disagree with his explanations, present a counterargument."
Sarfati?! And you have the gall to critique me for referencing a Wikipedia article for scientific information? By your standards I might as well go to a witch doctor the next time I have a stomach ache.
Feel free to compare your resume with his:
ReplyDeleteHe obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.
He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads, and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969–1972, in a tournament game (those interested in the game score and ‘post-mortem’ (i.e. post-game analysis) photograph can see this chess site). In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (See an example at the Croydon Chess Club). Twelve is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right.
http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati
It was probably because of people like him that the phrase "brilliantly wrong" was invented. ;)
ReplyDelete"Feel free to compare your resume with his."
ReplyDeleteSteve, honestly, why would you say such a thing? Should I respond by asking you to compare your own resume with Richard Dawkins'? Clearly I'm not questioning Sarfati's scientific credentials next to my own. I'm questioning them relative to his peers in the professional scientific community--especially those specializing in biology. (Evolution is first and foremost a biological theory, after all.)
And the fact that he has to pad and punctuate his resume (heavily I might add) with chess accolades is quite telling.
One doesn't get to be a national chess champion by being stupid. So that's hardly padding.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is an interdisciplinary theory.
As to being judged by one's peers, that cuts both ways. Since he is their peer, he's in a position to judge them. And he's not alone.
BTW, which of his peers wrote the Wikipedia article you referenced? Is the Wikipedia article peer reviewed?
ReplyDeleteSteve, I linked specifically to a list of examples of suboptimal design contained within a broader Wikipedia article, and the numerous sources of those examples are expanded upon through hyperlinks in each example as well as notated through footnotes at the end of the article. With which of the particular examples and references listed thereafter do you take specific issue as illegitimate or unsupported and why? I might even concede that some are weaker than others if you actually care to substantiate your assertions.
ReplyDeleteEnchanted Naturalist said:
ReplyDeleteSteve, I linked specifically to a list of examples of suboptimal design contained within a broader Wikipedia article, and the numerous sources of those examples are expanded upon through hyperlinks in each example as well as notated through footnotes at the end of the article. With which of the particular examples and references listed thereafter do you take specific issue as illegitimate or unsupported and why? I might even concede that some are weaker than others if you actually care to substantiate your assertions.
Yes, and that's all you've done. All you've done is cite a single Wikipedia article. You yourself haven't made any arguments.
You might wanna read what I wrote above: "Christians have responded to the various arguments from poor design. For example, just check out some of the footnotes in the Wikipedia article cited above. Or check out the work of the ID crowd over at the Access Research Network, Uncommon Descent, ID the Future, Design Inference, or the Discovery Institute. Or check out this article (PDF). Anyway, there are so many debates over this. But without specifics, I can't respond specifically. I can only respond generally, which is what I've just done."
Better yet, here's what Steve said: "Here’s a basic rule of thumb. Before listing rote objections to the Christian faith, it’s incumbent on you to familiarize yourself with preexisting Christian responses to your objections, and present a serious counterargument. Drive-by attacks will not be permitted. For instance, Jonathan Sarfati has discussed 'design defects' in The Greatest Hoax on Earth as well as By Design. If you disagree with his explanations, present a counterargument. And the fact that you resort to Wikipedia as your scientific authority speaks volumes."