Did you know that a recent poll taken among the Monkey community stated that 9 out of 10 simians agreed that Evolution was an insult to their intelligence?
Wow!! Finally a way to get these humans OFF OUR BACKS! Ha...Ha...Ha!
Wow!! Finally a way to get these humans OFF OUR BACKS! Ha...Ha...Ha!
CAN YOU DEFEND THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION {MACRO NOT MICRO} ? THE 250,000 DOLLAR CHALLENGE! Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist By: Ralph McInerny
Should one review the considerations and discoveries and breakthroughs that have been taken to render religious belief false, inane or pointless, the list could prove amusing. Greek atomism, disease and death, heliocentrism, electricity, the new physics or philosophy or psychology, have all been advanced as telling decisively against any belief in God. The point on which the refutation or rejection rests, for a moment the latest thing, is all too soon forgotten or refuted. Shouldn't this tell against atheism?
Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of themselves than they do for the claims of theists. The skeptic is always at Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world, and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he does.
Believers have recently gotten a little weary of being assigned research projects or intellectual tasks by the skeptic and have devised a number of versions of the tu quoque to stop the demands. No one is more adroit at this than my colleague Alvin Plantinga and I shall not attempt to steal his fire. (The phrase has nice theistic overtones but perhaps assigns Al a place more exalted than he himself would claim.) I simply refer to the structure of God and Other Minds. This book argues that it is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have no consistent way of objecting to theism.
In other words, So's your old man.
A later version of this is to counter the claim, one, that there are certain basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?
This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other, it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?
If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat. They agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.
My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.
Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.
This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of the recognition.
Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine of ultimate end. How not?
He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized. What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning, to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am. A vast variety of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may, misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man; physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.
No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and illegitimate diversity in action.
In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common noun, not a proper name.
Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that 'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.
Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.
Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.
The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from what anyone knows.
This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc. The distinction between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a continuation of the same sort of thinking.
It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles from the mysteries. Given the distinction, there would be no way in the world that the believer can respond to the nonbeliever's demand that he show that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.
Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?
Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that it is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of God.
It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism. From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous. There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.
The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.
It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications, that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less obstacle to accepting the grace of faith. The believer believes on the basis of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue another irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.
This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass, even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment to another's acceptance of the gift of faith. From the Web-site "ORIGINS" AT http://www.origins.org
Let me add here that I personally DO NOT NEED ANY PROOF OUTSIDE OF THE LIFE-CHANGING WORK THAT GOD HAS DONE INSIDE ME, BUT I SEE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT COME TO THE FAITH- DO NEED OUTSIDE EVIDENCES TO BRING THEIR MINDS TO A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN ACCEPT BY FAITH WHAT THAT EVIDENCE LEADS TO! For all the BIG TALK of people outside the Faith, all they want is HARD CORE, SOLID EVIDENCE SO THEY MAY TAKE THAT FIRST STEP! Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."Which included 99 other Scientists.
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." HERE IS A GREAT CHANCE FOR ANY SKEPTIC TO EARN A COOL 250,000 DOLLARS, HOW? PROVE EVOLUTION TO THIS VERY SMART MAN! Well what are you waiting for?
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification") is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word "kind". The Bible defines "kind" as those that are able to "bring forth" or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different "kinds" of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a "fact". Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with "change in gene frequency over time." All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?" They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST CHALLENGES TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION I'VE EVER SEEN, AND IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WE HAVE THE BETTER THEORY OF BEGINNINGS THAN THEY DO AND THUS ANOTHER PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD! Feel free to take this challenge {MAKE SURE YOU STAY WITHIN THE CHALLENGE, DON'T WASTE HIS TIME WITH SILLY EXAMPLES OF "MICRO-EVOLUTION"THIS IS NOT DENIED- ONLY "MACRO-EVOLUTION"UNDER THE GENERAL THEORY WHICH CAN'T BE PROVED.}
Should one review the considerations and discoveries and breakthroughs that have been taken to render religious belief false, inane or pointless, the list could prove amusing. Greek atomism, disease and death, heliocentrism, electricity, the new physics or philosophy or psychology, have all been advanced as telling decisively against any belief in God. The point on which the refutation or rejection rests, for a moment the latest thing, is all too soon forgotten or refuted. Shouldn't this tell against atheism?
Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of themselves than they do for the claims of theists. The skeptic is always at Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world, and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he does.
Believers have recently gotten a little weary of being assigned research projects or intellectual tasks by the skeptic and have devised a number of versions of the tu quoque to stop the demands. No one is more adroit at this than my colleague Alvin Plantinga and I shall not attempt to steal his fire. (The phrase has nice theistic overtones but perhaps assigns Al a place more exalted than he himself would claim.) I simply refer to the structure of God and Other Minds. This book argues that it is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have no consistent way of objecting to theism.
In other words, So's your old man.
A later version of this is to counter the claim, one, that there are certain basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?
This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other, it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?
If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat. They agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.
My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.
Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.
This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of the recognition.
Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine of ultimate end. How not?
He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized. What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning, to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am. A vast variety of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may, misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man; physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.
No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and illegitimate diversity in action.
In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common noun, not a proper name.
Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that 'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.
Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.
Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.
The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from what anyone knows.
This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc. The distinction between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a continuation of the same sort of thinking.
It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles from the mysteries. Given the distinction, there would be no way in the world that the believer can respond to the nonbeliever's demand that he show that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.
Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?
Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that it is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of God.
It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism. From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous. There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.
The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.
It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications, that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less obstacle to accepting the grace of faith. The believer believes on the basis of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue another irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.
This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass, even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment to another's acceptance of the gift of faith. From the Web-site "ORIGINS" AT http://www.origins.org
Let me add here that I personally DO NOT NEED ANY PROOF OUTSIDE OF THE LIFE-CHANGING WORK THAT GOD HAS DONE INSIDE ME, BUT I SEE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT COME TO THE FAITH- DO NEED OUTSIDE EVIDENCES TO BRING THEIR MINDS TO A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN ACCEPT BY FAITH WHAT THAT EVIDENCE LEADS TO! For all the BIG TALK of people outside the Faith, all they want is HARD CORE, SOLID EVIDENCE SO THEY MAY TAKE THAT FIRST STEP! Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."Which included 99 other Scientists.
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." HERE IS A GREAT CHANCE FOR ANY SKEPTIC TO EARN A COOL 250,000 DOLLARS, HOW? PROVE EVOLUTION TO THIS VERY SMART MAN! Well what are you waiting for?
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification") is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word "kind". The Bible defines "kind" as those that are able to "bring forth" or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different "kinds" of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a "fact". Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with "change in gene frequency over time." All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?" They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST CHALLENGES TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION I'VE EVER SEEN, AND IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WE HAVE THE BETTER THEORY OF BEGINNINGS THAN THEY DO AND THUS ANOTHER PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD! Feel free to take this challenge {MAKE SURE YOU STAY WITHIN THE CHALLENGE, DON'T WASTE HIS TIME WITH SILLY EXAMPLES OF "MICRO-EVOLUTION"THIS IS NOT DENIED- ONLY "MACRO-EVOLUTION"UNDER THE GENERAL THEORY WHICH CAN'T BE PROVED.}
No comments:
Post a Comment