Recommended resources

The internet is a hive of information and as such one can get a false impression of what is and isn’t scholarly. Trawling through pages and pages of information is fairly mind numbing and it can more often than not result in you reading some foolish nonsense about how Jesus didn’t exist or how Barrack Obama is most definitely the anti Christ. So, after spending a long time sifting through this information I have here a brief list of some of the top sites I like to use when doing research.

Christian Think Tank

Glenn Miller has been running this site since 1994. Miller has shown himself to be scholarly and (extremely) thorough in his research. I initially came across it when I was researching the arguments for early and late dates in the authorship of the book of Daniel. Miller presents a thorough case from the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls which raise questions about a late date. This was refreshing to read and I’d recommend it.

TekTonics

An outstanding apologetics site run by James Patrick Holding. Tons of articles on popular themes and rebuttals to skeptic’s questions. The major flaw of this site is JP’s tone which is often demeaning and rude to the likes of Achyra S, Farrel Till and other internet skeptics. There’s much here though.

Uncommon Descent

By far not a Christian site but the blog run by leading IDist Will Dembski where he critiques evolution and presents arguments for Intelligent Design. Sworn enemy of the Panda’s Thumb.

Plugged in Online

I’m plugging (I know, I know) Focus on the Family’s website as an excellent resource for movies and music reviewed from a specifically Christian perspective offering advice on content and themes of the latest flicks, albums and TV. The most compelling thing about this website is it’s focus less on critiquing the media but offering the content and empowering you to make a decision for yourself. Reviews of movies simply tell you how much violence there is, how much bad language there is, right down to the smallest of considerations such as people sitting in the background drinking vodka in the latest superhero flick. Non judgmental, very informative.

Answers in Genesis

OK, I’m being very careful with this one and I think you should be too. I used to be a huge fan of this organisation but have recently gone off them due to the arrogance and belligerent tone of much of their material. They present itl as though it is irrefutable and are scathing of those who do not agree with their position calling them “evolutionist propagandists” or “Biblical compromisers”. It doesn’t seem to cross their minds that some Christians have studied the Bible thoroughly and are totally convinced based solely on scripture that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. They also have an uncanny tendency to rub people up the wrong way and try to pass their reaction off as being convicted. In reality, calling a genuinely honest person a liar for teaching evolution is probably not the best way to engage. Still, not to throw the baby out with the bath water, there is some useful answers to common questions and some excellent resources for your own home.

That’s it for now.
Steve Heath

On accepting ID as science

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Of course we know that the scientific community does not accept ID as an alternative theory to Darwinism. One wonders what would cause ID to be an acceptable scientific alternative? First, let me state clearly that by the modern definition of science, I do not believe it to be a scientific theory, neither do I believe it to be wrong, just that it doesn’t fit into a uniformatarian naturalistic worldview. The fundamental issue holding back ID is fear. Fear of theocracy. Empiricism demands that a theory is not supported unless it is backed by independently, observable evidence. As it goes, there is lots of that for evolution whereas ID would prefer to leave it unexplained and mysterious. Because of this, ID is part of a sinister plot to introduce theocracy. Our experience of theocracy is not a good one. One need only look at the Salem Witch Trials and the rule of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to deduce that.

But I think the view that ID is not science is distorted by our perception of it’s ultimate motivations. In other words, our view of what it’s objectives are rules how we view the methodology. Thus, many hardcore naturalists mis-state the design argument, not because there is no evidence but because their underlying world view rules what can be accepted as evidence.

Ken Miller, a biologist at Brown University lectures campuses in the US on The Collapse of Intelligent Design. He spends two hours tearing down the arguments for ID in a witty and provocative manner, revealing the true intentions of it’s adherents. During the lecture he suggests that a Design proponent cannot explain the complexity of the bacterial flagellum and would simply say “The designer made it that way.” From the perspective of a Intelligent Design proponent this seems no different to the conclusion an evolutionist would come to. They would say “It was evolution that did it.” Miller seems to mistake what the empirical evidence actually is. His view of the scientific method employed by Behe et al is one which makes a leap in the testing area, one which administers no test and therefore produces no empirical evidence. I believe his mistake is not recognising that the design *is* the test and the inference is the empirical evidence. To lay the arguments out formally according to the scientific method Miller’s view of the evidence is thus:

1) Hypothesis: Blood clotting implies design. Study of the systems show it has mechanical requirements
2) Test: No test can be made for the designer.
3) Empirical evidence: none
4) Conclusion: It has been designed

The Design proponent’s actual test is:

1) Hypothesis: The blood clotting system shows elements of design
2) Test: Study for irreducible complexity
3) Empirical evidence: Cannot be reduced. Experience shows design
4) Conclusion: It has been designed

Design theorists are not proposing that their test can prove the designer but that empirical evidence shows that a machine has been designed because it is irreducibly complex.

Someone as erudite as Miller should be able to see this given that he is a theist yet baffingly, he mis-represents the Irreducible Complexity (IC) argument in his lectures. He claims that Behe’s argument from Darwin’s Black Box is as follows:

If a structure such as the Bacterial Flagellum (BF) were to be taken apart then the parts would be useless on their own. Therefore, devices such as the Bacterial Flagellum are Irreducibly Complex.

Miller essentially states that IC is falsified because parts of the BF can be used elsewhere. I will allow Behe to state his argument in full

“A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39

Notice how Miller has shifted Behe’s argument from the function of the machine to the function of the parts independent of the machine. Behe has never argued that the parts cannot be used elsewhere, only that in order for the current function of the machine, all the parts have to be there. Yet Miller continues to mis-represent the argument.

So then, what will make ID acceptable as science? I believe the mistaken notion that theocracy is the ultimate aim of ID and simply an alternative view to philosophical naturalism being presented to our children in the classroom. Otherwise, we’re telling them what to think and not how to think.

Steve Heath

Before we begin

It seems it would be good for me to introduce myself. My name is Steve Heath and I live in the UK. I am an educator who is particularly interested in the way we perceive reality. This blog is thus intended as a place to write down notes on my research into the Bible and the relationship between science and religion, especially the intelligent design movement.

I am not here to argue and debate with people although I do enjoy civil discussion with people who disagree. So if you have something to say which is sensible and respectful please leave comments and I will do my best to respond.

Please note that this is my blog and thus I reserve the right to delete any comment which does not add to the discussion. If you want to abuse me because you think I’m nuts please do not expect your comments to be approved. I am interested in discussion, not smear.

Many thanks
Steve