Latest blog entries Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:15:26 +0000 Joomla! - Open Source Content Management en-gb Are we nothing but atoms or are we something more? Stinson Beach


Atheist philosopher and writer Alex Rosenberg answers the question, “Is there a soul? Is it immortal?” with the retort, “Are you kidding?”1 Along with other prominent atheists like Dawkins, Dennentt, Harris, and Hitchens, he disdains even the notion that there is anything beyond the material universe, and questions concerning an immortal soul are categorized as myths and fairy tales. But the question is do we have any good reason to accept physicalism? Is there any evidence against physicalism? J. P. Moreland has given a number of lectures on why physicalism is false and what follows is some of the arguments against physicalism.

There are two different views opposed to physicalism. First, there is least property dualism which holds to the existence of mental properties which are not identical to physical states of the brain. If brain states are not identical to mental states, then they cannot be the same thing. Leibniz's Law of Identity militates against them being the same. For example, you can have a mental state that believes Obama is President of the United States. This belief can have the property of being true or false. However, physical states of the brain cannot be true or false, they simply are. This means we have a brain state and mental state that have different properties. If they have different types of properties they are different things.

Another example is mental states do not have properties of size, shape, or location. However, the brain has properties of size, shape, and location. What we think in our brains cannot be seen if we open up someone’s brain and start looking around. If you do, however, you will see the brain matter! This demonstrates that at the very least property dualism is true. However, we have another option.

The second opposing view is called substance dualism. The idea here is that we are made up of two different substances. First we have a physical substance, which is our bodies, and second we have a spiritual or soul substance that is immaterial. People cannot describe a brain and hope to describe the person. If you take out part of someone’s brain are they now only part of a person? Many people have surgery removing brain tumors. We do not consider the person to be less a person because of it.

If we as human beings, have a free will then physicalism is most likely false. If our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, those chemical reactions are going to be governed by natural laws. If we have a free will, which is something most people take as being self-evident, than that will must exist outside of the physical unbound by those natural laws. Of course, many Atheists embrace the implications of their worldview and take the next logical step to deny humans have a free will.

J. P. Moreland isn’t the only one that sees the problem with strict physicalism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel in his book, Mind & Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, agrees that strict physicalism is an untenable position. We therefore need not assume a Christian bias influences our determination. After all, a thoughtful atheist sees the problems with it and is willing to state it is almost certainly false.


  1. Rosenberg, Alex (2011-10-03). The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions (p. 3). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
  2. Video by J.P. Moreland
]]> (Donald) Metaphysics Sun, 17 May 2015 18:06:35 +0000
In Memory Ken Leverich Mt. Vernon



When we found out he and his wife were going to be missionaries in Chad and take their love, kindness and faithfulness to help others in desperate need, my wife and I were eager to assist. We wanted to express the same love, kindness, and faithfulness that was demonstrated to us all those years ago. We supported them from day one, and faithfully until their mission was complete.

About a year ago we found out our dear and faithful friend was diagnosed with ALS. It didn’t hit me as hard then. After all he was right there, we could see him and talk to him. The idea that someday soon we would not be able to see him or even share a meal with him again had not yet fully set in.

And now we fully grasp what would could only before speculate. I will never forget our last meal together. We had BBQ ribs, salad, and ciabatta garlic toast. At the time what we ate may have felt trivial, today it seems and feels so final. The fact that we will never have moment like that again, leaves us with a noticeable and very real hole in our lives.

I know that “this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.” At times it sure doesn’t feel light and doubts of an afterlife or loving God are entertained. I think doubts at times like these are a natural thing. Especially given we don’t truly or fully understand the weight of glory that awaits us. So we often feel as if we are left holding an empty bag.

Surly trying times as these can test our commitment. I would even go further, times like these can be devastating for those with a blind faith based upon nothing more than emotional commitment. When those doubts rear up in my mind, I dismiss them by reminding myself of all the evidence I have researched for a Creator and for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is on this solid rock I stand and although the waves my beat down on us, the foundation is ever sure.

Because I can know the resurrection is true, I can trust that there is a God who loves us, who sent His son to reconcile us back to Himself and that His promise that one day we be with Him sharing a meal beyond all others that we cannot possibly bear the weight of that glory. “I know that my Redeemer lives! What comfort this sweet sentence gives.”

After losing his wife As C. S. Lewis wrote in A Grief Observed. “You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth of falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it?”

Ken's life exemplified such a trust. He was faithful to his calling and put Christ's kingdom first. His commitment inspires me.

Ken, thank you for all you have done for me and my family.  Your love, kindness, and faithfulness have shaped me and my family.  Yes there is still pain, but I KNOW we will be together again sharing a meal beyond any of the greatest joys here on Earth.  It is my prayer that all our friends will be joining us.  Till we meet again…

A note on my feelings about close friends and meals together.

I value time with my good friends pared with good food and drink. I think the times that make me the happiest are times with good conversation and good friends, over food and drink. In fact, my memories of people typically of meals shared. If I could pick one last thing to do before I died, I would pick having a good meal with my friends and family. Sometimes I posting on facebook that we are eating at some restaurant. For me it is like trying to hold on to those moments and possible reflect on them later. I know this make me sound like a big dork. ;-) But I have come to realize we only have a very short time here on Earth. I don't want to forget the times we have shared together.

]]> (Donald) Theology Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:37:47 +0000
The Carpet Bombing of the Hot Tub Underwater Lego Minifigure


Last week during one of my typical brief stays in the hot tub, I was talking to one of regular morning folk. He is an Italian-American gentlemen who is prone to discussing unconventional topics like the Bermuda Triangle or near death experiences. This morning he was talking about the tragedy in Kenya and was comment on how the fanatics are spreading out of the Middle-East to Africa because of the recent wars in the Middle-East.

As we were talking, another regular stopped by and immediately wanted clarification on what we were discussing. I have had discussions with him in the past about the new Cosmos series and how people know things (epistemology). From those discussions he has made it abundantly clear that he is an atheist. Interestingly enough he comes across as a know-it-all to most people at the gym who often make such remarks when he is not around. He can also monopolize a conversation very easily if you let him.

As he came into the hot tub he heard my Italian-American friend say something to the effect that the terrorists were being kicked out of the Middle-East. He then asked, who is being kicked out. The other gentleman did not understand what he was asking and started talking about the tragedy in Kenya. I interjected and explained what we were talking about as I could see our new guest did not understand the context and my other friend did not understand the question.

His comment, once he understood the context, was something that caught me completely off guard. It was one of those statements you don’t think people would say in polite company. It stunned me because of it sure audacity. He had said, “Who cares what happens in Kenya? It is just the toilet of humanity. We should just wall it off and keep them away from the more evolved people.” It is not often I am at a loss for words. As he went on I was quickly trying to figure out how to politely respond that his comments were beyond insensitive. However, he continued like a machine gun to the point that I lost my wits to the point I did not know what to say.

Before I could come up with an appropriate response he went on to dropped another bombshell. He stated that religion is just a means to gain power over other people. I hadn’t even worked out my response to the last comment and here he is dropping bombshell after bombshell. I should call this the carpet bombing of the hot tub.

The problem with this often made assertion is that religion in and of itself, is not a means to gain power over people. This idea confuses causation with pretense. Religion is not the ‘cause’ of some people trying to gain power over other human beings. It is in the human nature, for Christians we understand this to be our fallen nature, but you don’t need to be a Christian to see people perverting anything in order to gain an advantage over their fellow human being. Just because someone uses religious pretext as a means to control their fellow human being it does not mean that some or all of the truth claims of religion are false. Nor does it mean religion is the cause of said attitude. Of course there is a glaring problem with this line of reasoning, it neglects the horrific atrocities of institutionalized atheism (like Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot etc…) that have left tens of millions dead.

I am of course not say that religious people are better. I am simply point out that “religion” cannot be the cause because when it is removed you still have people trying to gain power at the expense of their fellow human beings. What is interesting is the tendency, for many of the New Atheist crowd, to completely ignore this or completely gloss over them. When people have the tendency to ignore facts that defeat their position, it is called, confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive illusion that blinds them to self-evident conclusion. You see people have a tendency to only look at the evidence that supports their position and not treat evidence against their position, with the same level of scrutiny. This is a tendency of all people and something you have to guard against. (Yes Christians do this too).

I don’t think my atheist friend fully appreciates both of his statements taken as a whole. He says religion is an evil, but he is the one who said Africa is the toilet of the world and that it should be walled off from the rest of the world, to protect “us” from the less evolved. It seems like his “enlighten” view is far more dangerous. Instead, his view is based on his view that people are just a chance assortment of molecules that happened to evolve by chance, and that some are more evolved. With a worldview that see human beings as nothing more than a chance assortment of molecules, I guess it is easy to have such a callous response to a major tragedy. I have to give him this much, he is consistent with his worldview.

He went on to say that, “we must crush religion here before we end up like them.” I was trying to figure out a way to break into his sermon, when I caught the time and realized I needed to go shower so I could get to work. With his monopolizing of the conversation and me being dumbstruck by his blunt statements, I never got a chance to ask him some questions about his statements. All I can do is reflect on them here and hopefully next time be prepared to ask him some hard questions about his assertions.

The three of us ended up in the hot tub again at the same time the following week. Although the topic was food, so I did not bother bring up his previous comments.


    Over 148 people were killed by Shebab [Muslim extremists] in April of 2015. Christians were targeted and either shot or decapitated. News Story
    For information on Confirmation Bias see chapter 4 of Cognitive Illusions edited by Rüdiger F. Pohl
]]> (Donald) Religion Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:01:19 +0000
Philosophy the basis for all other knowledge DEH_2218


Do you know what PhD stand for? Doctor of Philosophy of (fill in the blank). To truly understand any field of study, one must understand the philosophy that undergirds that discipline. This is why the highest degree in any given field is the philosophy of that field of study. What is truly unfortunate is that today many PhD programs do not have a hint of philosophy in the curriculum. This is especially true in the sciences, however, overall the study of philosophy proper is down.

Think of it this way. All fields of study rely on us, human beings, using our intellect and rational faculties. Logic and reason are in the realm of philosophy. Philosophy therefore is prior in the ordo cognoscenti and the prime base of all fields of knowledge. Furthermore, philosophy is a necessary dependency for all areas of knowledge. Without it, any other fields of knowledge don’t even get off the ground. To put is in common parlance, philosophy makes everything else it’s bitch.*

One corollary to this is the idea that if you philosophy is weak or lacking it will taint the rest of your research and studies in any given field of knowledge. Because philosophy comes necessarily prior, it is the foundation to the whole of the field of study. Therefore, getting our philosophy right should be our top priority.


Ordo cognoscenti means order of superior knowledge and understanding of a particular field.

* All areas of knowledge are like female puppies compared to the “Big Dawg” of Philosophy.

]]> (Donald) Philosophy Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:15:36 +0000
Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debate DEH_2247

Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate




In Bill Nye’s introduction he denies a distinction between observational science and historical science. He points to the CSI TV shows as an example. I find it odd that he equates CSI forensic science with observational science. Both are different and use different scientific methodologies. Ham quotes secular text books that talk about historical science to demonstrate he is not making up the category science.

In Ken Ham’s main presentation he makes a good point that both evolutionist and creationist use the same evidence. He points out they reach different conclusions from the same evidence because of their different worldviews.

I think Bill Nye had a number of good points in his main presentation. Especially concerning observation of the past which he rightly says is what scientists do in astronomy. He brought up a number of good points about dating methods for the Earth and Universe that do not support a young Earth.

Ken Ham does bring up a questions about the number of different dating methods and how they often contradiction, but does not give any specific information. He offers a slide that claims the 90% of the dating methods don’t support billions of years. However, I don’t know about the various dating methods. I am actually going to check this claim out and do some research on these dating methods.

Nye speculates on issues surrounding Noah’s ark. I think this tangent that doesn’t help move the debate along. Nye also equivocates on species with kind as used in the Bible. Ham brings this up in one of his rebuttals. Species is an arbitrary classification scientists made up and it is a leap to assume Moses meant species when he wrote ‘kinds’. Nye rebuts and questions the limited amount of time for the number of current species to have develop from Ham's limited number of kinds, given a young Earth and Ham’s orchard model.

Ham points out there are many accomplished scientists who are young earth creationists and Nye brings up there are many Christians that don’t hold to a young Earth. I like that Ham pointed out that if a Christian disagrees with the age of the Universe it does not make them a non-Christian.

The only person who made a jab was Bill Nye who made some statements implying that some states education systems are backwards and he makes Creationists out to be anti-science. He also appeals to fear (fear mongering) a number of times with the idea that if you don’t agree with him, it will be the end of any technological progress. Unfortunately rhetorical maneuvers like this may convince uncritical thinkers but it weakens your argument for the more critical thinkers. Throughout the debate Ken capitalizes on this fallacious logic and offers multiple examples of scientist who have contributed to major technological advances who are young Earth creationists.

Ken did say that that is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young Earth position. Nye points out that astronomy is observation and that we can use distant stars to determine distance and age of the Universe.

Ham says that if you don’t agree with him you have a problem with the Bible. Nye points out that the problem is not with the Bible but Ham’s interpretation of the Bible. Nye adds that religion and science are compatible.

Bill Nye flubbed on the issue of interpretation of the Bible. He makes it out that people pick and choose and that is not the case. That is not to say that the literary genre is always immediately apparent but in most cases you can determine the literary genre without much controversy.

The Moderator equated theistic evolution with intelligent design and Nye assumes that misrepresentation in answering the question.

]]> (Donald) Science Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:48:37 +0000
Captain America: The Winter Soldier DEH_0919



Since the events of September 11, 2001 this has been the question the world has been struggling to answer. Given the recent revelations of governments and corporations spying on individuals and our wiliness to share minute details with the world on social media, answering the question seems much more urgent. The stakes are definitely high.

This isn’t the first movie to address the issue of giving up freedoms for security. If you recall, from the Star Wars franchise, Chancellor Palpatine rested control of the galactic republic by creating fear and offering peace with the price tag of freedom. What of those who are unwilling to pay the price by giving up their freedom? Remember Order 66?

How much are we willing pay in order to avoid the pain and suffering? Is it truly better to have lived and lost, then to have never lived at all?

We have the same question in our spiritual lives. Are we willing to give up our freedom in order to avoid the pain and suffering caused by our freedom? For no pain and suffering, all we have to do is to not choose our vices and our selfish desires. The difference in our spiritual lives is we have the freedom to choose. We can continue to choose ourselves and our desires over the Creator’s will and continue in our pain and suffering. Or we can choose the Creator’s way for a future where we know the consequences our choices and we willingly choose the Creator’s way.

]]> (Donald) Movie Reviews Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:06:49 +0000
Book Review: Richard Carrier's Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable We started at the Redwood Gate and took Stream Trail to Skyline Gate then took West Ridge Trail to Orchard Trail to Bridle Trail back to Stream Trail.



I agree with Carrier when he says, “There is no good reason to treat these stories any differently than those we find in Herodotus…” (Kindle location 5635) Mike Licona and Gary Habermas agree that skeptics can take the New Testament documents as they would any other document from antiquity [1]. However, I think Carrier’s argument does not hold true to this principle. He treats Biblical stories and documents to a higher unattainable standard that he does not hold other historical stories and documents.

Carrier wrote, “…if we don’t believe Herodotus, we surely can’t believe the Gospels.” (Kindle location 5638) He equivocates here in the text. Early in his paper he starts by, specifically, rejecting only the “wonders” of Herodotus (Kindle location 5582 & 5589) and then later in the paper he writes he rejects Herodotus (in whole) and thus the gospels (in whole). He needed to leave the “wonders” out of his later statements otherwise he would have written, “If we don’t believe Herodotus’ wonders, we surely can’t believe the Gospels.” In context, clearly, this is what he means but, had he written it this way, we would clearly see the problem with his statement. In other words, he rejects the entirety of the gospel accounts because of miraculous claims but only rejects the miraculous claims in Herodotus and allows for the rest of Herodotus. This is the first example of treating Biblical stories and documents to a higher standard than other historical documents.

Would Carrier have us believe that he does not trust ANYTHING Herodotus wrote? Does Carrier conclude, then, that the people and places in Herodotus are complete myths? If not, why not? His conclusion of the Gospels and other New Testament writings is that they are complete myths [2]. Something skeptic Bart Erhman thinks is utter nonsense and fringe [3]. No serious scholar or historian rejects the complete works of Tacitus simply because he reports miracles by Vespasian (The Histories, 4:81).

Carrier wrote, “…we don’t get to interview any witnesses like this.” (Kindle location 5633) Then all of history will dissolve into nonsense. How does Carrier know Herodotus and what he said is not completely made up or if he actually talked to witnesses?

Carrier wrote, “…Or when or where he wrote or who his sources were” (Kindle location 5605). We don’t know exactly when or where Herodotus wrote or exactly who his sources are either. Again, do Historians completely discount EVERYTHING that Herodotus wrote?

Carrier wrote, “I see no relevant difference between the marvels in Herodotus and the many and varied tales of the resurrection of Jesus” (Kindle location 5585). First, Herodotus is a singular account while the New Testament is four gospels and other supporting documents and creeds. Second, the gospel accounts purport to be taken from eyewitnesses. Third, again does Carrier reject all of Herodotus as he does with the gospels? Fourth, then he should treat the gospels as historians treat all other ancient manuscripts.

Carrier wrote, “So why don’t Christians believe Peter’s Gospel anymore? Well, for many of the same reasons we don’t believe the marvels of Herodotus” (Kindle location 5589). Carrier makes it seems as if Christians just accept any old miracle claim that supports their belief. Then, why did early Christians reject the gospel of Peter? So, there must be a difference between the claims of the gospels and the gospel of Peter, at least from the view point of early Christians. Clearly, they didn’t just accept miracle claims.

Do the Gospels “contradict” in “countless details” or are they copied “almost verbatim?” (Kindle location 5604, 5612 & 5569) I don’t get it, which is it. Carrier is being slippery here moving his argument to whatever best makes his current point, even if it contradicts an earlier point in his argument. Carrier can’t have it both ways, either they are full of contradictions or they are copied almost verbatim. Or, better yet, it is possible that they are what the documents purport to be, eyewitness accounts. If eyewitness accounts agreed on every detail we would assume collusion. In eyewitness accounts we assume a great deal of similarity with contradictions in minor details

New Testament Documents
Carrier’s statement that the New Testament documents are dubious and of uncertain origins (Kindle location 5662) is patently false. We have more external evidence for the documents of the New Testament than we have for most other works of antiquity. Again Carrier is disingenuous in his application of his historical method.

Eyewitness Accounts
Carrier repeatedly states that we don’t have eyewitness accounts of the resurrection (Kindle location 5663) and yet the gospels purport to be eyewitness accounts or reports from eyewitnesses. He offer no arguments just assumptions and speculations.

Absence of Evidence
Carrier says we have no court documents relating to anything in the book of Acts (Kindle location 5664). That there are no inscriptions that confirm Biblical accounts (Kindle location 5664). That there are no documents from the earliest Churches (Kindle location 5665). That there is nothing written by Jesus (Kindle location 5666). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we know of no such documents does not mean they did not exist or do not exist and await finding. To claim Jesus never wrote anything is meaningless and poor scholarship. Many people in History never wrote anything. Does that mean they did not exist? Plus he is asking for 2000 year old civil records for a government long gone.

Carrier doubts Peter’s epistle (Kindle location 5666). We don’t need this epistle as evidence for the resurrection and therefore this is a moot point. In addition, he gives no reason why or who are the scholars. Is he talking about John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar? Their methods and conclusions have been rejected by a majority of scholars (Licona) [1].

Carrier claims we are missing the author of John (Kindle location 5669) “they [the speculated authors of John] don’t confess to know his name, we can doubt that.” That is not a legitimate reason to doubt the authorship of John. We need to take all the evidence concerning the authorship and weigh it. He acts as if there is no evidence for John authorship and as if he is not aware of the early church fathers and their writings.

Missing Originals
“…we don’t have the alleged source-documents…” (Kindle location 5669) Is this a legitimated reason for skepticism? What other work of antiquity do we possess the originals? Again this is not appropriate methodology for history.

Cross examining witnesses
To say we can’t trust anything that was written if we cannot cross examine the writer today would make all of history meaningless. (This is the same claim Carrier makes.) Historians don’t discount accounts because they cannot talk to the purported witnesses (common sense tells us we would expect to be able to). Carrier often treats evidence inconsistently and this is one way in which he does this. Either all of history is out because we cannot talk to the original writers or it is not. You can’t have it both ways. I guess Kennedy was not shot because I can’t talk to any of the witnesses. Oh, I know you will say there is video of the event. No problem, we can’t really believe Lincoln was shot then.

[1] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel Publications 2004 (Kindle Location 360)
[2] Dr. Carrier's main thesis is, "Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to God, with whom some people hallucinated conversations. The Gospel began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on earth, as most myths then were." Dr. Richard Carrier, at UNC Greensboro on Feb. 21, 2013
Richard Carrier and Mark Goodacre, Did Jesus Exist? Unbelievable, Premier Christian Radio 15 December 2012
Mike Licona and Richard Carrier, Debating the Resurrection of Jesus, The Veritas Forum at UCLA 2006
William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Northwest Missouri State University March 18, 2009
[3] “I don’t think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money, who say Jesus didn’t exist. But I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.” Bart Erhman, The Infidel Guy Show
“…we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” Bart Erhman, The Infidel Guy Show (Available on iTunes)
See also: Bart Erhman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth Harper Collins, 2012

]]> (Donald) Apologetics Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:33:59 +0000
Book Review: By Design


Witham is a highly qualified author and a seasoned journalist who first honed his skills in the newsroom for the Washington Times for 21 years and then turned to writing and editing books. He was the editor of Science & Spirit magazine in 2007 and has authored 14 books. He has also been nationally recognized and has received awards from the Religion Communicators Council and the Templeton Foundation and been invited to speak to a range of organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of Secular Humanists.2

Before Witham addresses “the middle ground,” the triumphalism of materialistic Darwinists of the mid-20th century and the response to them from those who saw the cracks in reductionist scientific explanations are explored in “Rethinking Science.” The Darwinists’ 1959 declaration that man no longer needed to “’take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of divinized father-figure’”3 was was soon challenged. In 1966 the Wistar Institute involved skeptics who saw the mathematical improbabilities of naturalistic evolution. By the 1980’s many called materialism and reductionism into question and thinkers like Micahel Polanyi, Arthur Koestler and Thomas Kuhn had gained a growing audience.

In “Intimations of Design,” Witham turns to cosmology and astronomy. The Copernican Principle was challenged by Brandon Carter ‘s “anthropic principle” in 1973 and the discovery of cosmic background radiation proved that the universe is expanding and arose from a single point of creation, something revolutionary to philosophical thought. The modern framing of the science and religion dialogue is then discussed and two sources, Pope John Paul II and financier John Marks Templeton, are cited. The former promoted dialogue with science/theology conferences and the latter using his wealth to begin granting science-religion prizes beginning in 1990 as well as funding the Spiritual Quest Conferences I and II that were to be a place for scientists to share their personal faith with each other.

By the 1970’s the ID movement arose to answer the materialistic scientific world view. Among others, Charles Taxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen took the lead in publishing about ID. A newcomer Stephen Meyer was deeply influenced by this and went on to work with and head the Discovery Institute in Seattle that leads the way in ID theory. Others, including biochemist Michael Behe (irreducible complexity), Guillermo Gonzalez (anthropic fine-tuning) and William Dembski (mathematical perspective on ID) entered the fray and have set about trying to establish a more evidentially-based concept for ID.

In the “The Human Dimension,” the battle between those on the ID side and those on the naturalistic evolutionary side is explored. This most clearly seen in the battle over classroom curriculum and the brain/mind issue. Witham closes with the idea that the dialogue between science and religion will continue with design theorists having a much greater impact. But many will continue to see science as allowing for and pointing to only materialistic forces.

By Design is a fairly objective and concise overview of the rise of the ID movement and the religion and science dialogue. By introducing us to some of the leading proponents of scientific materialism on one side and ID theory on the other, the reader is made acquainted with those who either have figured prominently in published research and writings in the past and/or will do so in the future. As everyone has presuppositions and biases, it is helpful to understand the context or perspective from which the author is writing and Witham’s snapshots of the players gives the reader a more informed perspective.

Wisely choosing a number of areas that most clearly reveal the divide stemming from different world views, Witham researches cosmology, astronomy, origin of life, common descent (the tree of life) and brain/mind research. These are areas that have metaphysical implications regardless of whether the researcher addresses them or not. His prose is fairly engaging in this midst of describing the issues and his journalistic background is obvious in the use of citations and quotations, intended to hold the reader’s attention as well as to maintain objectivity. He also helps the reader see the human side of the academic and not just their cold, intellectual reasoning.

However, By Design could possibly be better ‘designed.’ Witham tends to skip back and forth chronologically so that it is sometime difficult to know in which era the scientist lived and published. Although he does seek to identify the particular academic’s contribution to the on-going debate, he is not always successful in making his case or in explaining how they influenced the dialogue.

Although Witham opens with the very intriguing story of the Leakys’ ‘East Africa Man’ and the colorful portrait of the Darwin Centennial, he is not able to maintain this level of story-telling. As a result the book descends to more of a journalistic report that neither takes on a mantle of serious scientific reporting nor continues to draw the reader’s interest in the overall narrative. He tends to focus more on anecdotes and opinions and not to dig very deeply into the actual evidence for or against naturalistic materialism, Spinozan materialism and ID. In this regard as well, he interviews and refers to so many different persons that the reader can find it hard to remember the credentials and positions of the person being referenced.

It would be helpful to have a chart of the players involved and their positions. And a time line of persons and events, possibly at the beginning of or end of each chapter, would serve the reader well in being able to correctly view the flow of thought and events. In addition, Witham could improve the book by more precisely delineating the arguments for and against different positions by asking the participants to clearly explain the evidence and reason for their particular position.

However, with this in mind, the book is both useful and informative. It serves as a good introduction to someone who is not acquainted with the dialogue/debate between materialistic Darwinists and ID theorists. It is also helpful even for those of us who have already had some exposure to literature on both sides as it fills in some of the possible holes in the history and roster of players by giving a broad overview. The journalistic approach makes the book’s main thesis of exploring the “middle ground” accessible to readers regardless of their level of scientific understanding. Therefore By Design: Science and the Search for God is a book that should be on the shelf of anyone who has an interest in the ongoing discussion about the relationship of faith and science.

Larry Witham, By Design: Science and the Search for God (New York: Encounter Books, 2003), v-vii.

“Larry Witham: Profile,” February 12, 2014, accessed February 12, 2014,

Witham, By Design, 5.

]]> (Brooke) Book Reviews Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:16:55 +0000
The Galileo Affair Portrait of Galileo Galilei 1636 by Justus Sustermans


The Galileo Affair


However, today Galileo is known less for this contributions to science and known more as a poster child for what is called the Conflict Thesis.2 The Conflict Thesis posits an irreconcilable difference between religion and science. Although the theory continues as a popular belief, it is not widely held by historians.3 As historian John Hedley Brooke puts it, "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited." If this theory is discredited and not widely held by historians, where does it originate, and how has Galileo been roped into this conflict?

"In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science."4

The conflict thesis had its origins in the 19th century by two men, Andrew Dickenson White and John William Draper.5 Draper, the son of an English Methodist minister, wrote A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science in 1874. According to Lawrence M. Principe, the book is not good history and many of the facts are twisted to the author’s purpose. It is clear Draper was anti-Catholic, seeing the Catholic Church as responsible for almost everything bad in western civilization, while Protestantism is seen as the rational sister of modern science. Draper vividly proclaims, “But in the Vatican—we have only to recall the Inquisition—the hands that are now raised in appeals to the Most Merciful are crimsoned. They have been steeped in blood!”6 Professor Principe sums up Draper’s contribution to modern thought on the conflict thesis this way, “Although Draper’s work is easy to dismiss as cranky and ahistorical, his name and many of his anecdotes have entered the common consciousness, where they have remained hard to remove.”7

White wrote The Warfare of Science in 1869, and updated it in 1876. He later wrote a two volume work based on the previous work called A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom in 1896. White popularized three ideas that are still often cited as examples of the conflict thesis. Frist, he popularized the idea that the Church thought the world was flat before Columbus and Magellan. Second, the notion that the Church forbade human dissection. Third, the medieval Church viewed science as being from the devil. White’s simple, central thesis is that theologians and scientists were in two separate camps and, that throughout history, the theologians have imposed their will on the scientists. White put it this way, “…modern science in general has acted powerfully to dissolve away the theories and dogmas of the older theologic interpretation.”8

All of these claims are baseless and fallacious arguments that are based on a foundation of suspect or bogus sources. Professor Principe sums up White’s contribution to modern thought on the conflict thesis this way, “Despite the shoddy character of these publications, they were (and continue to be) widely influential. Their influence stems in part from their success in creating a myth for science as a religion, embraced ever since by science advocates.”9 John Hedley Brooke notes that the relationship of religion and science is one of rich complexity that defies these generalizing it into a simple conflict.10 "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science."11

Although discredited, the Conflict Thesis is alive and well in the minds of the New Atheists. By far, the most cited example of the conflict thesis between science and religion is the Galileo affair. Dawkins claims that Galileo was unwise to admit that his work had cosmological implications that went against the teachings of the church.12 The church, he claims, was not tolerant of freethinkers. The Church’s intolerance of freethinkers like Galileo is seen as impeding scientific progress.

New Atheists, like Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, continue to popularize the theories of White and Draper as if they are unaware their theories have been since discredited. They will often take this Galileo, as their saint that was persecuted by the Church. Often, with vivid language and righteous condemnation, Galileo is placed in one corner. He is the pinnacle of rationality relying on the solid foundation of science. In the other corner, we have the power hungry Church that seeks to keep people enslaved to irrational dogmatism and fanciful myths. The bell rings and Galileo, using science and reason strikes the first blow. The Church recovers and strikes back using its massive authoritative weight. Imagine David and Goliath where David loses. The big Church comes down hard on little Galileo, making him the skeptics’ martyr.

Unfortunately, reality is never so simple or so grand. The story of Galileo is not nearly as simple as many people think.13 As professor Principe puts it,

“Although often presented as a simple “conflict” of religion against science, it is actually extremely complex, involving intellectual, philosophical, political, social and personal clashes that far transcend in scope, interest, and importance any simplistic (and usually propagandistic) science-verses-religion readings.”14

In 1615, the priest Foscarini published a book that reinterpreted the Bible in a way that was compatible with Copernicanism. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino had read the book and praised it and Foscarini for not teaching it as absolute truth and that if, undeniable proof came forth demonstrating the Earth motion, then scripture would have to be reinterpreted carefully. Galileo was a committed Christian and he agreed with the Copernicus’ heliocentricism, and that if science and the Bible seemed to have a conflict, it was a conflict between interpretations of the Bible.15

Galileo was first criticized by Friar Tommasco Caccini in 1616 as being heretical. An inquisition (a trial) was held and Caccini’s accusations were found to be groundless. However, the inquisition examined the geocentric thesis and found it to be bad philosophy and heretical theology. The inquisition took no action but the Index suspended Copernicus’ book and Foscarini’s book until they were corrected. Cardinal Bellarmino warned Galileo not to teach Copernicanism as literally true and Galileo agreed.16

Bellarmino concluded that sound evidence of the Earth’s motion would lead to reinterpretation but found that Galileo had no proof. Galileo had two proofs of heliocentrism. The first was a telescopic evidence comparing the phases of Jupiter’s satellites with that of Venus. However, this proof was inconclusive. It did not prove the Earth revolved around the sun, only that Venus revolved around the sun. Galileo’s second proof was that the Earth’s motion was the cause of the tides.17 However, this was inconclusive then and has been proven to be false today. In short, Galileo was right about heliocentrisim but he did not have scientific proof for it and Bellarmino knew the evidence was not conclusive.

Like any good soap opera, there needs to be a little drama. First, all of Galileo’s accusers were Dominicans and Galileo was on good terms with their rivals the Jesuits. The Dominicans and the Jesuits were in a power struggle and Galileo was in the middle of it. Not only that, Protestants were claiming that scripture was open to personal interpretations which forced the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1551–52) to hold that interpretation was not personal and could not be contrary to consensus. Galileo’s interpretations were obviously not in the consensus at that time, and had he been around before the reformation his theories might have met with less resistance.

It is also important to realize that one of the underlying contentions was between scientific realism and instrumentalism. Although these terms were not developed until later, you can see the controversy between realism and instrumentalism in its embryotic stage. Scientific realism presupposes that scientific theories are true depictions of the world, while instrumentalism presupposes that scientific theories are simply tools for providing plausible explanations. Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were proto scientific realists. Bellarmino and Pope Urban VIII were proto instrumentalists.18 The debate between realism and instrumentalism continues to this day. This, of course, adds nuances of complexity and depth to the Galileo affair and drives a deep wedge between the affair and the simplistic idea that this was simply a conflict between science and religion. In the Galileo Affair, there are two different presuppositions of science in conflict.

In 1624, Galileo went to Rome to visit his friend who had just been elected Pope Urban VIII. He convinced the Pope to allow him to write a book about his theories and the Pope agreed if Galileo would present both sides of the argument. Galileo agreed and set off to write his book, A Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, which is a dialogue between to fictions people discussing the two theories. The book was completed in 1632 and, at first, received praise. However, Galileo had not given fair treatment of both sides of the issue and only presented the Pope’s view on the final page and in the mouth of a fool. Later the Pope then found out that Galileo had an agreement with Bellarmino not to write on the subject again that he forgot to mention to the Pope when he made his request. The Pope felt doubly deceived by Galileo. This lead to another inquisition that was not about the doctrine of heliocentrism, but on Galileo’s violation of the agreement with Bellarmino. He was convicted in 1633, however, strangely his conviction was never signed.19

Thomas Dixon notes the complexity of the affair and highlights the political goals as he sums it up, “Historians have shown that the Galileo affair, remembered by some as a clash between science and religion, was primarily a dispute about the enduring political question of who was authorized to produce and disseminate knowledge.”20 It is fairly evident that the issues weren’t a conflict between science and religion as much as it was a conflict of personalities, scientific presuppositions and a struggle between different political camps that had aligned to either an Aristotelian concept of the cosmos, or heliocentrisim.

In 1979, Pope John Paul II ordered an investigation into the Galileo affair which, in the end, exonerated Galileo. Some viewed this as a tacit admission of guilt on the part of the Church. In fact, reviewing the Catholic Church’s statement seems to give us that impression:

“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....”21

Again, it seems this popular myth continues to trumps historical facts. Historically, the affair was more about scientific presuppositions, political power and interpersonal relationships. The truth is far more complex and defies the simplistic Conflict Thesis. Most importantly, it is vital to remember that Galileo, like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins and Owen Gingerich, among others, saw their scientific work as part of the religious enterprise and not in conflict with it.


1 Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16226-5. Page 1

2 Ronald Numbers, ed. (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. p. 3. ISBN 9780674057418.

3 Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind."

4 Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195.

5 Principe, Lawrence M. Science and Religion (Recorded Class). Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2006. Lecture Two.

6 Draper, John William (2012-05-12). History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (Kindle Locations 82-83). Kindle Edition.


8 White, Andrew Dickson (2011-03-30). History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Kindle Locations 14200-14201).

9 Principe, Lawrence M. Science and Religion (Recorded Class). Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2006. Lecture Five Church, Copernicus and Galileo.

10 Brooke, John H. and Numbers, Ronald. Science and Religion Around the World (New York, Oxford University Press 2011).

11 Russel, C.A. Ferngren, G.B., ed. Science and Religion. (Johns Hopkins University Press. 2002) p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.

12 Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. (Kindle location 4691)

13 Drake, Stillman. Galileo: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (New York, Very Short Introductions, Oxford University Press, 2001) [Kindle Edition]


15 Dixon, Thomas. Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (New York, Very Short Introductions, Oxford University Press, 2008) Kindle Locations 580-582.

16 Principe, Lawrence M. Science and Religion (Recorded Class). Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2006. Lecture Six Galileo’s Trial.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Dixon Kindle Locations 633-635

21 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

]]> (Donald) History Sun, 16 Feb 2014 02:17:07 +0000
Nye v Ham Questions and Answers Cold Winter Cat





6) "If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?"
“But "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science. It leads to asking more questions, which leads to more exploration, which leads to more understanding.” 

I could not agree more. As some of us have been arguing, this is the correct answer. To say, “we don’t know HOW X happened, but naturalistic processes or evolution or natural did it,” is the issue we are arguing against.

8) "Where do you derive objective meaning in life?"

This is a long answer on his part. But I would simply say that evolutionary explanations for morality are deficient. Even if they account for some morals like cooperation, they do not account for many types of self-sacrifice and acts of mercy towards the infirm, weak and dying. Darwin actually lamented about how humankind acts in opposition to natural selection in aiding the weak and infirm.

9) "If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?"
“This is an excellent question. It was partly by chance, but it wasn't random. Chemistry shows us that atoms and molecules are like puzzle pieces, fitting together a certain way. This means some molecules can have astonishing complexity, including the ability to replicate.”

This is an observation of secondary causes and not an explanation. Yes, molecules, particularly proteins fit together and have to fit together in absolutely amazing ways for life to be possible. However, this does not explain how this happens, especially when it comes to also creating and transferring information, or why.

“And I might turn the question around. Who created God? If you say He has always been, then why not say the same about the Universe (or more properly, the multiverse)?”

That is an accurate description of the choice. Either God is eternal and the uncaused cause or the universe (or some sort of force or elements) is eternal. Nothing comes from nothing. Hawking and others have made the mistake of calling forces or elements “nothing” in their attempt to explain naturalistic ex nihilo ‘creation.’ 

14) "If Evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as a fact."
“Second, evolution is a fact and a theory.” 

Actually no. Mutations and microevolution are observable and testable facts. Common descent and macroevolution are inferences drawn somewhat from observable evidence and somewhat from historical sciences. This amounts to theory, not fact. I will not argue here for or against the probability of evolutionary theory being true. 

22) "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"
“The answer is that evolution is not a line from one species to the next. Different species branch off from earlier ones, they don't replace them.”

Although I can easily see why monkeys still exist as well as humans is evolution is true. The author is negating Darwin’s original argument as he indeed did write a new species replaces the old. In fact evolutionists do use the argument about the new species replacing the old to explain why species become extinct. So, maybe there is something to the ‘monkey argument.’

]]> (Brooke) Biology Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:52:46 +0000