Theism Beats Atheism

Darwin's Black Box - condensed

2007-09-17T12:38:00.000-07:00

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - Selected quotes & page numbers

It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed.

There has been virtually no attempt to account for the origin of specific, complex biomolecular systems. (x)

"Evolution" means a process whereby life arose from non living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. (xi)

the story of the impact of biochemistry on evolution rests solely on the (biochemical) details. (xii)

For more than a century most scientists have thought that virtually all of life .. resulted from natural selection working on random variation.

The cumulative results (of biochemical research) show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines - machines made up of molecules! (p4)

In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.

if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines - the basis of life - developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life's foundation has paralysed science's attempt to account for it. p5

in the absence of evidence .. it is very difficult to prove right or wrong someone who asserts that stepping stones existed in the past but have disappeared. p14

Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however has not been forthcoming.

unbridged chasms occur even at the tiniest level of life.

It is the astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structures that has forced the question. How could all this have evolved? p15

Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were simple actually involve staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric.

That is not to say that random mutation is a myth or that Darwinism fails to explain anything (it explains microevolution very nicely)

The black box of the cell has been opened, and the infinitesimal world that stands revealed must be explained. p24

It is time to put the debate squarely in the open, and to disregard public relations problems. The time for debate is now because at last we have reached the bottom of biology .. and we have discovered a complex world that radically changes the grounds on which Darwinian debates must be contested. p31

Dawkins writes with passion because he believes Darwinism is true. He also believes that atheism is a logical deduction from Darwinism and that the world would be better off if more people shared that view. p33

But the burden of the Darwinians is to answer two questions: First, what exactly are the stages of ... evolution, in all their complex glory? Second, given these stages, how does Darwinism get us from one to the next? p34

Dawkins explanation (s are) is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy. p38

Darwin said " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would completely break down"

An irreducibly complex biological system would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have had to arise as an integrated unit. p39

Dawkins writes "If evolution is not gradual when it comes to explaining the existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation" p40

When we descend from the level a whole animal to the molecular level, then in many cases we can make judgement on evolution because all of the parts of many discrete molecular systems are known. p41

a system is irreducibly complex when it has no functional physical precursors p43

The "simplest" self sufficient, replicating cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules at different times and under variable conditions. p46

If a system (absolutely) requires several closely matched parts to function then it is irreducibly complex and we can conclude that it was produced (to function) as an integrated unit. p47

Richard Dawkins can simplify to his heart's content, because he wants to convince his readers that Darwinian evolution is "a breeze". In order to understand the barriers to evolution, however, we need to bite the bullet of complexity. p48

Modern biochemistry has shown that the cell is operated by molecular machines. p51

Proteins are the machines that build the structures and carry out the chemical reactions necessary for life. A typical cell contains thousands of different kinds of proteins to perform the many tasks of life.

Typically a protein chain has 50 to 1,000 amino acid links.

Proteins that work in a cell fold up into very precise structures automatically.

It is the shape of a folded protein and the precise positioning of the different kinds of amino acid groups that allow a protein to work. p52/3

The cilium is irreducibly complex requiring microtubules, connectors and motor (proteins for any function.)

Some evolutionary biologists - like Richard Dawkins - have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get any biological structure you wish. they also tend to ignore details and road blocks that would trip up their scenarios. Science however cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level, details become critical. p65

The question we must ask of .. indirect scenario(s) is one for which many evolutionary biologists have little patience: but how exactly? p66

Many people assume that somebody must know how the cilium evolved, but a search of the professional literature proves them wrong. Nobody knows. p69

Even though we are told that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no scientist has ever produced a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine. p72

As biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens, even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. p73

Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. p78

Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway. p87

Darwin's mechanism of natural selection would actually hinder the formation of irreducibly complex systems such as the clotting cascade.

The bottom line is that clusters of proteins have to be inserted all at once into the cascade. This can only be done by .... the guidance of an intelligent agent. p96

Blood clotting is a paradigm of the staggering complexity that underlies even apparently simple bodily processes. Faced with such complexity beneath even simple phenomena, Darwinian theory falls silent. p97

There is an elegant trick for making very many different antibodies without requiring enormous quantities of genetic material to code for the proteins. p126

Such a huge number of (necessary) antibodies would take up more that the available coding space in the DNA. p127

At conception there are a number of gene pieces (found in 4 clusters) in the fertilised cell that contribute to making antibodies. There are about 250 gene segments (pieces) in cluster one, 10 gene segments that form cluster 2, 6 segments that comprise cluster 3 and another 8 segments that make up cluster 4.

During the formation of a B cell (antibody making cell) the genome is rearranged and some of it is thrown away. p128

During the formation of antibodies from heavy and light chains, there are thus about a million different combinations of heavy chain sequences and about ten thousand different light chains combinations, giving ten billion different antibodies from just 400 genes. p129

The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. p138

Whichever way we turn, a gradualistic account of the immune system is blocked by multiple interwoven requirements.

complexity reaches down to the very bottom of the cell. p139

the cell is a machine (for example) the mechanism that the cell uses to make AMP is automated, ... and far from simple.

appreciate the complexity of the system, see the number of steps involved. The formation of biological molecules does not happen in some fuzzy minded ... way, it requires specific, highly sophisticated molecular robots to get the job done. p143

(In addition to requiring eight different raw materials) the synthesis of AMP takes thirteen steps and involves twelve enzymes, one of which catalyses two steps. All 13 steps occur to produce just one kind of molecule. ( intermediate chemicals produced along the way play no other independent role in the cell.) p149

AMP is required for life on earth... if only the end product of a complicated biosynthetic pathway is used in the cell, how did the pathway evolve by steps? On their face, metabolic pathways where intermediates are not useful present severe challenges to a Darwinian scheme of evolution. P151

(All proposed gradual evolutionary schemes involve the initial availability of the end product (say D), then the subsequent development by some organism, of the ability to manufacture that end product (D) from another existing available intermediary (say C) which is not in such short supply in the primordial alphabet soup. Schemes like these work backwards to end up with the known A-B-C-D scenarios.)

The fact is that no one ever puts real chemical names on any of these mythical letters in the A-B-C-D story. .. because when you put real names on the chemicals, then you have to come up with a real chemical reaction that could make them. No one has done that. p152

The source for the explanation of the development of biochemical pathways given by modern textbooks is Horwowitz in 1945. In the intervening years biochemistry has progressed tremendously, but no advance encourages his hypothesis. p154

It's unnerving to think that many of our important ideas about the way the world works were simply picked up unreflectively from the cultural milieu in which we found ourselves. p153

Origin of life workers have never demonstrated that the intermediates in the synthesis of AMP either would have or even could have existed in a prebiotic soup, let alone the sophisticated enzymes for interconverting the intermediates. p155

No one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed. p159

The reader is encouraged to borrow a biochemistry textbook .. and see how many problems for gradualism he or she can spot. p160

Papers concerning molecular evolution can pretty easily be divided into three separate categories: Chemical synthesis of molecules thought necessary to life (15%), comparisons of DNA or protein sequences (80%), and abstract mathematical models (5%). p166

Almost all of the 20 naturally occurring types of amino acids have been detected in origin of life experiments. p167

Klaus Dose "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance" p168

the involvement of some intelligence is unavoidable p169

(The hope in the proposed RNA world) ignores known chemistry and is hope struggling valiantly against experimental data.

undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube. p171

Through the efforts of scientists working on the origin of life we now have a clear idea of the staggering difficulties that would face an origin of life by natural chemical processes. p172

evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. Evolutionary biology is stuck in the fifties with ... imagination running wild.

Biochemistry has, in fact , revealed a molecular world that stoutly resists explanation by the same theory so long applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's starting points - the origin of life, and the origin of vision - has been accounted for by his theory. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life. p173

(Amino acid and protein sequence comparisons between species have shown evidence upon which) many researchers concluded that similar sequences strongly supported descent from a common ancestor. p174

comparing sequences cannot show how a complex biochemical system achieved it's function.

To say that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed p175

I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent. p176

No studies asking detailed questions of molecular evolution are to be found.

In fact, evolutionary explanations even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly complex, such as specific metabolic pathways are missing from the literature. p177

There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on the details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems. p179

Many students learn from their text books how to view the world through the evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biological systems that those texts describe. p183

(What we know, we learn from personal experience, or we accept from authorities we believe to be reliable, but much of what we think we know is not based on either personal experience or authority but has been absorbed some how) p184

Scientists are human too so we can ask how scientists know what they say they know. All scientists rely on authority for almost all of their scientific knowledge.

The nice thing about scientific authority is that it is easy to locate; it's in the library.

Scientific authority rests on published work. The published work must also contain pertinent evidence.

Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. p185

The theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not been published and so it should perish. p186

In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralysed. p187

Symbiosis theory (that some organelles in cells are derived from earlier organisms incorporated into later cells) may have important points to make about the development of life on earth, but it cannot explain the ultimate origins of complex systems. p189

Complexity theory ( a mathematical model) that states that systems with a large number of interacting components spontaneously organise themselves into ordered patterns has been described as "fact free science" p190/1

The straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about.

The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books. It requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the last 40 years. p193

Anything could have been purposely arranged .. we cannot know that something has not been designed.

When is it reasonable to conclude, in the absence of first hand knowledge or eye witness accounts that something has been designed? p194

There must be an identifiable purpose for the system, the purpose that requires the greatest amount of the system's internal complexity.

Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. We can know things were designed because of the ordering of independent components to achieve some end. p196

In some other cases we can say that like anything, it could have been designed, but we cannot tell for sure. p198

As the number or quality of the parts of an interreacting system increase, our judgement of design also increases, and can reach certitude. p199

The fact that biochemical systems can be designed by intelligent agents for their own purposes is conceded by all scientists, even Richard Dawkins.

The question of whether a given biochemical system was designed boils down simply to adducting the evidence to support design.

There are laws of biological reproduction, mutation and natural selection. If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed. (but it still may have been) p203

Might there be an as yet undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? We can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.

In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be (ridiculous)

We can conclude that at least, cilia, blood clotting and the immune system were designed by an intelligent agent.

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our ability to be confident about the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. p204

Because the functions depend critically on the intricate interactions of the parts, we must conclude that they are, like a mouse trap, designed.

The designing that is currently going on in the biochemistry laboratories throughout the world is analogous to the designing that proceeded the blood clotting system, and the work that was done to cause the first cilium.

It turns out that the cell contains systems that span the range from obviously designed to no apparent design, keeping in mind that anything might have been designed. p205

The idea of intelligent design, like the wheel, is a simple, powerful, obvious idea that has been sidetracked by competition from and contamination with, extraneous ideas. p210

Arguments to design based on the bare assertion of their rightness evaporate like the morning dew when faced with the least scepticism.

Until Darwin, the argument that the world was designed was commonplace. The strength of the argument reached it's zenith with William Paley who brought a wide scientific scholarship to bear in his writings, but, ironically set himself up for refutation by overreaching. p211

Paley's example of a watch is excellent because the watch was not a black box, it's components and their roles were known. p212

Paley is seen as a defeated enemy but exactly where was he refuted? p213

Despite many of his misguided examples, Paley's first paragraph concerning the watch is exactly correct - no one would deny that if you found a watch you would immediately, and with certainty conclude that it had been designed. The reason for the conclusion is just as Paley implied: the ordering of separate components to accomplish a function beyond that of the individual components. p215

His argument would have been greatly improved if he had said less.

Hume said in 1779 that the intelligent design argument is really something called an inference to the best explanation, asserting a fundamental difference between mechanical systems and living systems. This is out of date, destroyed by the advance of science which has discovered the machinery of life. p218

Dawkins rejects design and embraces Darwinism based primarily on an analogy to the random generation then guided generation of a series of letters to form a message. The analogy is transparently false.

Instead of an analogy for natural selection acting on random mutation, the Dawkins scenario is actually an example the very opposite: an intelligent agent directing the construction of an irreducibly complex system. p221

(The argument against intelligent design based on' imperfection' is flawed because it asserts that just) because something does not fit our idea of the way things ought to be, then it is evidence against design. p222

The conclusion of intelligent design for physically interacting systems rests on the observation of highly specified, irreducible complexity - the ordering of separate, well fitted components to achieve a function that is beyond any of the components themselves.

The argument from imperfection overlooks the possibility that the designer might have multiple motives, with engineering excellence oftentimes relegated to a secondary role.

the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are. p223

The scientific literature contains no evidence that natural selection working on mutation can produce either an eye with a blind spot, and eye without a blind spot, an eyelid, a lens, a retina, rhodopsin, or retinal. (Debaters reach their) conclusion in favour of Darwinism based solely on an emotional feeling of the way things ought to be. p224

(Arguments from vestigial organs neglect the fact that) both the functioning organ and the vestigial organ require explanation. p226

The conclusion that some features of life were designed can be made in the absence of knowledge about when the designing took place. p227

Design theory has nothing to say (with any certainty) about a biochemical or biological system unless all the components of the system are known and it is demonstrated that the system is composed of several interacting parts. Intelligent design theory can coexist quite peacefully with the panda's thumb (refer Gould)

Evolutionary biologists have recognised that a number of factors might have affected the development of life; common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects, genetic drift, gene flow, linkage, meiotic drive, transposition and more. The fact that some biochemical systems may have been designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common or important. p229

(Those in other fields than biochemistry) should not invoke design until the molecular sciences show that design has an effect at those higher levels. but researchers should also hesitate before claiming that a particular biological feature has been produced substantially by another mechanism, such as natural selection. Instead, detailed models should be produced to justify the assertion that a given mechanism produced a given biological feature. p230

The theory of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead end problems.

A rigorous theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the advancement of science in an area that has been moribund for decades. p231

The results of the cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "DESIGN". The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.

Why should science find it difficult to accept ..? p233

History makes some well meaning people think that the demilitarised zone ( between religion and science) should be maintained, with no fraternisation allowed. p237

I agree that evolution is quite compatible with religious views. The compatibility or lack of compatibility, however is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether Darwinian evolution of biochemical systems is true. p239

The giants of science were motivated by a thirst to know the real world. p240

(There is rule that only purely physical, material causes may be invoked in true science that teachers of science) wish to pass on to the younger professional generation.

The anxiety is that if the supernatural were allowed as an explanation, then there would be no stopping it. Is this a reasonable fear?

Like the comet theory for the extinction of dinosaurs, hypotheses for the involvement of an intelligent agent in the development of life or other historical events have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The scientific community is not so frail that it's healthy scepticism will turn into gullibility.

Science can observe a comet's lingering effects on the modern earth. Similarly, science can see the effects that a designer has had on life. p242

Many people, including many important and well respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. Like young earth creationists, they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts the kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behaviour. p243

Scientists such as Einstein, Eddington, and Hoyle fudged and twisted in their efforts to resist a scientific theory (the big bang) that flowed naturally from the data because they thought they would be forced to accept unpleasant philosophical or theological conclusions. They weren't; they had other options p245

no scientific theory can compel belief in a positive religious tenet by sheer force of logic p247

Designing life, it could be pointed out, does not require supernatural abilities; rather, it requires a lot of intelligence.

Most people, like me find scenarios (involving aliens or time travel) entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available to those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications. p249

Intolerance does not arise when I think that I have found the truth. Rather it comes about only when I think that because I have found it, everyone else should agree with me.. Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who denies evolution is either " ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked - but I'd rather not consider that)". Philosopher Daniel Dennett compares religious belief to wild animals and he says that parents should be prevented from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution which is so evident to him.

As the weight of scientific evidence shifts dramatically, this point should be kept prominently in mind. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". The failure of Darwin's theory on the molecular scale may cause him to feel less fulfilled, but no one should try to stop him from continuing his search. p250

Although the fact of design is easily seen in the biochemistry of the cell, identifying the designer by scientific methods might be extremely difficult.

The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design that it's long, hard labours have made manifest has no justifiable foundation. p251

Now it is the turn of the fundamental science of life, modern biochemistry to disturb.

The resulting realisation that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century. Other centuries had their shocks. Humanity has endured as the centre of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's black box. p253.

Charles Darwin's Origins of Species outlined!

2007-09-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

We found this faithful rendition of Charles Darwin's book. But, Christians must read Darwin's book in whole in order to refute it. Although we have an outline don't let that substitute your studies on Origins of Species.

The Argument of the Origin of Species

The Origin of Species is Darwin's best-known book and is widely available in modern reprints. It should be noted, however, that in response to numerous criticisms Darwin undertook constant revisions between the book's first appearance in 1859 and the sixth edition of 1872. The later editions thus differ considerably from the first, and the last edition contains an additional chapter (chapter 7) dealing with objections to the theory. These changes tend to obscure the original argument and the first edition is thus by far the clearest expression of Darwin's insight. A facsimile of this edition is available and also a concordance, although many modern reprints unfortunately follow the text of the sixth edition. All references below are to the first edition unless otherwise stated.
Introduction: This leads the reader directly to the question of adaptation which Darwin sees as the central problem of evolution. He argues briefly that Lamarckism cannot explain all cases of adaptation and points out that the simple progressionism of the Vestiges does not even address the question of how species become adapted to their environment. From the start Darwin makes it clear that he will be offering a new mechanism to explain the origin of species by adaptation,
The main text of the Origin of Species can be divided into three parts:
	Chapters 1-5 outline the theory of natural selection,
	Chapters 6-9 (6-10 in the sixth edition) deal with the many objections that Darwin foresees will be raised against his theory, and
	the concluding chapters (10-14 in the first edition, 11-15 in the sixth) show how a wide range of otherwise inexplicable phenomena can be illuminated by the theory of common descent by adaptive modification.
I.	Chapters 1-5: outline the theory of natural selection
	Chp1: Variation under Domestication: Chapter 1 begins by stressing that animal and plant breeders have been able to produce immense changes within domesticated species. Darwin was convinced that the analogy with artificial selection was the best way of helping his readers to understand how nature might be able to produce similar changes by an equivalent selective process. Almost immediately we encounter Darwin's pre-Mendelian theory of variation and inheritance. Like the notebooks of the 1830s, the Origin of Species is pervaded by a way of thinking about reproduction which is quite alien to modern biology. There is no direct equivalent of the modern belief that the population contains a reservoir of genetic variability, each gene being transmitted as a unit from one generation to the next. Instead, Darwin argues that individual variation is due to the direct effect of changed conditions on the reproductive process. This, he believes, will explain why domesticated species exhibit more variability than wild ones. Further details are given in chapter 5, "Laws of Variation," where he insists that all changes of structure are caused, even though we do not know the cause and speak of them as being due to chance (131-2). In this chapter Darwin admits a minor role for Lamarckism, although he insists that most of the variability is undirected. In his discussion of variation under domestication, Darwin moves from a general account of the "random" variation in domesticated species to the work of the animal breeders who exploit that variation to produce significant changes. He goes to some length to show that we cannot draw a rigid distinction between the production of new breeds by man and the appearance of new species in nature. Artificial breeds do not invariably tend to revert to some fixed "natural" form for their species. The diversity of pigeon breeds is enormous, and Darwin argues that, if the different breeds were shown to an ornithologist who did not know that they were domesticated, he would classify them as belonging to distinct species, perhaps even distinct genera. What, then, is the explanation of man's ability to produce such enormous changes in a species? "The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives incessant variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him" (30).
	Chp. 2: Variation under Nature: In chapter 2 Darwin asks whether the variation which serves as the raw material of selection exists in wild populations. He admits that there may be much less variation in the wild because--according to his theory--wild species exist under "natural" conditions which do not disturb the reproductive process. But individual differences do occur and even the most important structures are subject to variation, as evidence of which Darwin cites studies by John Lubbock which had demonstrated major variations in the patterns of the nervous system within a single insect species. "These individual differences are highly important for us, as they afford materials for natural selection to accumulate, in the same manner as man can accumulate in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions" (45). Much of chapter 2 is devoted to a very different method of demonstrating the variability of wild species. Darwin points to the fact that many species are known to form fairly distinct and permanent races or "varieties" adapted to the local conditions in certain parts of their territory. Naturalists had been quite willing to assume that such varieties were formed by common descent from a single ancestral form, yet there was often disagreement as to whether a particular form was a variety or a distinct species. Darwin argues that the confusion arises because varieties are merely an intermediate step in the production of new species: "a well-marked variety may justly be called an incipient species" (52). The term "species" is thus an arbitrary one: a species is just a strongly marked variety that the majority of experienced naturalists agree to call a species. Once this point is accepted the barriers supposedly separating species have been broken down and the way is cleared for transmutation to be used to explain the production of all new forms of life.
	Chp. 3: Struggle for Existence: Chapter 3 introduces this concept which arises from the tendency of all species to over-reproduce. If more are born than can possibly survive, there must be competition to see which individuals will get enough of the scarce resources to keep themselves alive. Darwin is quite clear that this idea has its origins in the "principle of population" that Malthus applied to human society: "It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage" (63). The force of this argument is based on numerical calculations designed to show the potential rate of population increase that must be checked by the shortage of resources. The struggle is most severe between members of the same species, or between closely related varieties, because here the individuals are competing for exactly the same resources. Many different factors determine who shall live and who shall die. Often the elimination takes place among the young; sometimes shortage of food is critical but often it is predators which keep the population down. Darwin emphasizes the complex web of interactions between species, each being held in check by others which prey upon it or upon which it preys. Many readers of the Origin of Species were impressed by his emphasis on the complex network of living relationships even if they did not accept the theory of natural selection. Darwin admits that behind 'the face of nature bright with gladness' there is a scene of constant struggle. Yet he was anxious not to create too harsh an image of nature. He wished to imply that his theory modified, but did not challenge, the prevailing belief that nature had been created by a wise and benevolent God. The last thing he wanted was for people to see his book as the basis for an amoral view of nature. He thus ends his chapter on the struggle for existence with the following words:
			When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply. (79)
	Chp. 4: Natural Selection: Chapter 4 contains Darwin's main description of his mechanism. After reminding his readers of the power of artificial selection and of the dependence of the wild organism on its environment, he goes on:
			Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. (80-81)
	Darwin contrasts nature's powers with those of mankind, stressing how much more effective will be the scrutiny of nature. He points out that natural selection acts only to improve the organisms' ability to cope with their environment and thus tries to persuade his readers that, whatever the apparent harshness of natural selection, we can nevertheless see it as a force promoting the improvement of living things. Reproduction rather than survival is the crucial factor of course, a point illustrated in the section on 'Sexual selection' in which Darwin argues that any character useful in obtaining a mate will become highly developed. The antlers of deer and the bright colours of many birds are explained by the fact that the mating habits of the various species allow those males with well-developed secondary sexual characters to attract more females. Darwin explains that the extinction of some forms will be inevitable in a world governed by natural selection. Species will often be exterminated by competitors, thus in effect leaving room for the more successful species to multiply. At the end of chapter 4 he includes a long discussion of the process of divergence by which a single original form can give rise to a family of descendants, each of which will become more specialized for its own way of life and which may itself subdivide. Natural selection will always favour increased specialization even in a stable environment. He gives a diagram to illustrate the process - a classic example of an evolutionary tree. Significantly, Darwin's tree has no central trunk or 'main stem' of evolution. No one branch can be singled out as the main line of development because each is adapting in its own way to the environmental changes it encounters in the course of its migrations. There is no way in which the human race can be seen as the goal towards which the evolution of the whole animal kingdom has been striving.
II.	Chapters 6-9 [6-10 in the sixth edition]: The many objections that Darwin foresees will be raised against his theory
	[6]: [Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection]: The additional chapter [6] added to the last edition includes Darwin's response to critics who had indeed expressed and extended the problems he had anticipated.
	Chp. 6: Difficulties on Theory: With chapter 6 [7] we move into the central section of the Origin of Species in which Darwin attempts to defend his idea against the objections he foresees will be raised against it.
		1) The first problem in chapter 6 is that of the lack of transitional forms between known species. This is an important point because it is often assumed that a theory of continuous evolution must imply that there are no gaps between species. Darwin argues that this is not the case if evolution is a branching divergent process. Divergence takes place through the continued extermination of the less specialized forms and thus the intermediates do not survive through to the present. In his view, "species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links" (177). 2) The next problem is the origin of species with peculiar habits or structures. How, for instance, could a non-flying mammal evolve into a bat--surely the intermediate forms would have limbs that were not well adapted either for walking or for flying? Here Darwin appeals to the existence of flying squirrels with varying abilities to glide from tree to tree. These confirm that the intermediate state between legs and wings is viable, thus illustrating the route selection may have taken in the creation of the more perfect wings of bats. Darwin notes that species do indeed change their habits, as witnessed by certain kinds of woodpeckers that do not live in trees and web-footed geese that do not live in water. These examples are inexplicable on the assumption that God creates every species perfectly adapted to its way of life, but are to be expected if species are constantly trying to find new ecological niches to exploit and if evolution takes some time to adjust a species to a new way of life. 3) Darwin also refers to the problem of explaining the evolution of a highly complex structure such as the human eye. He notes that in the invertebrates there are creatures with eyes of varying degrees of complexity, showing that intermediate stages in the development of vision can be of benefit to the species. He admits that, if one could find a complex organ for which no intermediate states were conceivable, his theory would have to be rejected, but insists that no such organs are known. Another problem is the existence of organs of little apparent importance. If natural selection works only by seizing upon advantageous variations, then surely all characters must be adaptive. Yet many naturalists were convinced that species possess useless characters. Darwin responds to this problem by suggesting that we may often underestimate a structure's usefulness. The giraffe's tail seems to be used as a fly-flapper, which appears rather trivial until one recollects that in some parts of the tropics the distribution of large mammals is critically determined by their vulnerability to insect pests.
	Chp. 7: Instinct: Chapter 7 [8] deals with, a topic of particular interest to Darwin because he was convinced that evolution must be able to explain animal behaviour. The Lamarckians had an obvious explanation of instinct as a learned habit that had gradually been built into the species' hereditary constitution. But Darwin notes that this will not explain the instincts of neuter insects. He was convinced that natural selection can act on instincts just as it can act on physical characters. There is variation within the instinctive behaviour of any particular species, as shown by the fact that man has been able to eradicate the dog's instinctive tendency to attack sheep. Thus selection will be able to enhance a useful instinct by seizing upon useful variations. The case of neuter insects is explained by the fact that selection can act on families as well as individuals: insects with a tendency to produce some useful but neuter types among their offspring would survive better as the founders of colonies.
	Chp. 8: Hybridism: In chapter 8 [9], Darwin deals with what many critics saw as a fatal objection to his theory. Varieties formed within the same species can be cross-bred with one another, but on the traditional view any attempt to hybridize distinct species will always fail. Darwin counters this argument by showing that the supposed absolute distinction between varieties and species is not as clear-cut as was popularly supposed. He cites extensive evidence to show that varying degrees of sterility are encountered in efforts to cross-breed different species of plants. If the species are closely related, there will often be a small degree of fertility in the hybrid offspring. His conclusion is that, far from being a fatal objection to his theory, a close study of hybridization confirms that there is no sharp distinction between varieties and species. As two related forms diverge further from one another in the course of evolution, their ability to interbreed gradually diminishes and eventually falls to zero, that is, absolute sterility.
	Chp. 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record: In Chapter 9 Darwin anticipates objections to his commitment to the belief that evolution always takes place slowly and gradually. He was aware that this did not seem to be supported by the fossil record which generally shows new species appearing abruptly with no sign of an evolutionary ancestry. He argues that the discontinuity is a result of the record's imperfection and not an indication that species really are introduced suddenly. He points out (280) that it would be a mistake to look for simple intermediates between two related forms; they will have diverged from a common ancestor that would not have been an exact intermediate between its later descendants. But even this more complex kind of relationship is seldom found in the record, and Darwin insists that we should not expect to find all the steps in evolution preserved in the rocks. Fossilbearing rocks are only laid down in certain circumstances, and thus long periods of time will have passed between the deposition of strata that now seem consecutive. Even when we have a continuous sequence of depositions, evolutionary changes may often have taken place in isolated parts of a species' range where fossils are not being laid down (a point amplified in the modern theory of punctuated equilibrium). A related problem concerns the abrupt appearance of whole groups of living things at certain points in the record. The most obvious example of this is what we now know as the "Cambrian explosion" the sudden appearance of all the basic modern types at the beginning of the Cambrian era. (Note that in the first edition Darwin places this in the Silurian--the geological nomenclature was disputed at the time.) Darwin argues that the imperfection of the record also accounts for these episodes. There must have been vast periods of time before the Cambrian when life was evolving but from which so far no fossils had been found. Perhaps the continents were positioned differently so long ago, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks from that age are sunk beneath the modern oceans. All that Darwin could do was to express the hope that some fossils from the pre-Cambrian rocks would eventuall~, be found to fill in the gap.
III.	Chapters 10-14 [11-15]: a wide range of otherwise inexplicable phenomena can be illuminated by the theory of common descent by adaptive modification.
	Chp. 10: On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings: Chapter 10 [11] continues the discussion of the fossil record but Darwin now moves onto the offensive so that his concluding chapters can present the positive case for evolution. Here he argues that, if we make allowances for the imperfection of the record, the known fossils are distributed just as one would expect on the basis of a theory of common descent. Palaeontologists were generally agreed that in any sequence of fossil formations the intermediate forms in time were intermediate in character. Owen and others had also shown that ancient types often seemed to 'fall between' the more distinct modern forms. Thus the pigs and camels could now be united into a single group by including fossils which were intermediate in character. To Darwin it was obvious that these ancient types were the generalized ancestors from which the more specialized modern forms had evolved.
	Chp. 11: Geographic Distribution: This and the next chapter deal some of the evidence that converted Darwin himself to a belief in evolution. In Chapter 11 Darwin insists that the differences between the Old and New World faunas cannot be explained in terms of climate since both areas share the same range of physical conditions. The ostrich of Africa and the rhea of South America are superficially similar, but when examined carefully each is seen to be characteristic of its own continent. The chief determinant of geographical distribution is the barriers which exist to free migration, of which the oceans are the most important in the case of land animals. Conversely, dry land creates an obvious barrier to the migration of marine forms. Darwin argues that a successful species will spread out as far as it can, adapting to the local conditions it encounters, until it meets an impassable barrier. Thus on his theory it is to be expected that major barriers to migration will define unique groups of species.
	Chp. 12: Geographic Distribution (Continued): In Chapter 12 Darwin also discusses the process by which oceanic islands such as the Galapagos are populated, bringing in his own studies of how seeds and eggs can occasionally be transported across wide stretches of ocean.
	Chp. 13: Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Chapter 13 allows Darwin to develop the explanatory power of his theory to the full. He picks out a number of phenomena encountered by naturalists in their efforts to classify species and demonstrates that they are explicable only in terms of a theory of common descent. The basic system of classification entails the grouping of similar species into genera, the genera themselves into families and so on. By uncovering these relationships naturalists were seeking what was called a 'Natural System' of classification - but Darwin now asks what this system is supposed to be. Is it the plan of the Creator, as many exponents of natural theology liked to claim? Darwin insists that to assume the existence of an underlying divine plan adds nothing to our knowledge of natural relationships. His theory alone can explain why species are grouped together: the natural system is an expression of evolutionary relationships, in effect a cross-section of the evolutionary tree. Darwin next turns to embryology, noting that the embryos of different animals often show a much greater degree of resemblance than the adults. This, he believes, can be explained on the assumption that adaptive modifications are produced mostly by changes in the later stages of growth, leaving the early pattern of development unchanged. For Darwin, the embryo represents the species in a less modified state and thus helps to reveal its natural relationships. In some cases the embryo may actually resemble ancestral forms that can be discovered in the fossil record (449-50). But this is a far cry from the so-called, 'recapitulation theory' in which the development of the human embryo is supposed to repeat the whole pattern of evolution revealed by the fossil record. Darwin had no interest in the idea of a linear pattern of development leading up to mankind as the goal of creation, and hence no interest in using the growth of the human embryo as a model for the "main line" of evolution. Finally, Darwin turns to the topic of rudimentary or atrophied organs. Many species have such organs, which are of no apparent use and which often never develop beyond a vestigial stage. Creationists must explain such structures as necessary "for the sake of symmetry' or ,to complete the scheme of nature," but Darwin once again insists that to invoke a divine plan of nature is no explanation at all. The evolutionist has an obvious explanation since he can show that the rudimentary organs are relics of once useful structures, now declining because the changing habits of the species have rendered them superfluous. Heredity preserves the structure to some extent but it gradually decays because natural selection will favor those individuals who do not waste their energy growing useless structures.
	Chp. 14: Recapitulation and Conclusions: In chapter 14 Darwin sums up the general implications of his new approach. He looks to the younger generation of naturalists in the hope that they will be able to throw off the prejudices that commit many experienced workers to creationism. He now reveals how far he is prepared to extend his theory. The basic similarities between all living things lead him to infer that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed" (484). The latter phrase seems to imply that the original creation of life was by divine miracle. It is not at all clear that Darwin really believed this, but he knew that biologists such as Pasteur had demolished the claim that life was now being produced by spontaneous generation. Perhaps conditions were different in the early periods of the earth's history, but Darwin had no interest in trying to explore the ultimate origins of life. Spontaneous generation was seen as an inherently materialistic hypothesis and he thus felt it safer to leave open the possibility of a supernatural origin. Darwin expresses the hope that evolutionism will bring about a revolution in natural history as scientists begin to explore the theory's applications. In particular he notes that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (488). This is not the only reference to changes within the human race in the Origin of Species, but it is the only absolutely unequivocal statement of Darwin's belief that his theory will account for the origins of mankind from a lower form. He was well aware that the extension of the theory to mankind would provoke controversy because it would threaten the traditional view that our mental powers lift us onto a higher plane than the animals. He hoped to minimize the resulting outcry by refusing to discuss human origins in detail but felt that he had to include at least this brief indication of his beliefs. To offset this dangerous implication, Darwin concludes with an effort to convince his readers that the theory can be reconciled with traditional beliefs about the relationship between God and nature. He argues that it is better to think of the Creator governing the world by law rather than by arbitrary miracles and suggests that 'as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection' (488-9) There can be no direct trend leading towards mankind, but we can be sure that the overall effect of natural selection is progressive and hence that the human race is the outcome of a process established by its Creator. Natural selection follows inevitably from the laws of reproduction and is thus the best way for God to ensure progress in so complex a world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. (490

Richard Dawkins caught on the hop

2007-09-08T20:28:00.000-07:00

Skeptics choke on Frog:
was Dawkins caught on the hop?

First published in:
Prayer News (both Australia and UK) p. 3, November 1998

Our new video From a Frog to a Prince (right) is having a beneficial effect. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution requires.

One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins¹ by the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’

If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

Dawkins is a hero of the Australian Skeptics, who helped bring him to Australia (showing their anti-Christian bias contrary to their professed religious neutrality — see How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?). It was obviously too much for the Skeptics that their hero was stumped. In their magazine The Skeptic, the editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic article accusing the video of deception, as well as smearing creationists in general.²

These tactics should surprise no one familiar with the Australian Skeptics. To us, allegations from the Australian Skeptics have a big question mark over their credibility. After all, their leading light Ian Plimer in his book Telling Lies … bragged about blatantly deceiving creationists, and that book has the full support of the rest of the Australian Skeptics (see The Ian Plimer Files)

Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the end (combatting creationism) justifies the means (lies, deception and slander), how can anyone be sure that anything else they write is not deception for the good of the ‘cause’?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God’s written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral basis for refraining from lies.

Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered the question!

The producer of the video, Gillian Brown of Keziah Video Productions, has submitted the following response to The Skeptic (slightly edited for our Prayer News), which thoroughly refutes their charges.

Gillian Brown’s letter to The Skeptic

You have written an article in The Skeptic, which claims to ‘demonstrate the depths to which the creationist movement will stoop in order to try to discredit its critics’, in which you denigrate my character and work, and that without having spoken to me at all.

Your article recounts Prof. Dawkins’ recollection of an interview, which is included in the video From a Frog to a Prince, which I produced, in which Dawkins is seen to pause for 11 seconds, and evade a simple question. As you yourself say: ‘It beggars belief that someone of Richard Dawkins’ stature in the field would have been stumped by such a simple question or would have evaded it.’ So, you conclude that Dawkins was ‘set up’, with ‘malicious intent’, in ‘a piece of crude propaganda’, ‘deliberately manipulated’ with ‘deceitful intent’.

First, if you are going to publish a libellous attack against someone, it is responsible journalism to inquire into both sides of the story. And in this case, before making accusations about the circumstances of an interview, it would have also been wise to have viewed the unedited tape. That way you could have presented a serious investigation of the matter, and avoided making ill-informed and false assertions.

You state: ‘perhaps it could be argued that Prof. Dawkins’ memories of the events might have deteriorated with the passage of time since the interview …’ In fact, whether from memory lapse or for other reasons, the recollection of Dr Dawkins is riddled with inaccuracies and some downright untruths. Following is an accurate account of the interview, which may be confirmed by viewing the unedited video tapes.

Dr Dawkins makes a number of incorrect statements [marked with RD — Editor] as cited by Mr Williams to which my replies are interspersed and marked with GB.

RD: ‘On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house …’

GB: I was accompanied by a former geologist, Philip Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.

RD: ‘… I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask …’

GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.

RD: ‘The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house.’

GB: At no time did Dr Dawkins ask us to leave his house. A second camera (newly purchased, which we were testing) was inadvertently not switched off until later, so it recorded most of the ensuing conversation. This remains on record to clarify supposed ‘lapses of memory’.

RD: ‘As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (“The Genetic Book of the Dead”) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November, 1998). That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians.’

GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off, Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement, but refused to take more questions from Philip.

We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.

After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.

Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to confirm my account.

RD: ‘If I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about ‘The Genetic Book of the Dead’. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?’

GB: Whatever he may have been thinking about I don’t know, but it is clear that he did not answer the question.

[From here, Gillian responds to Barry Williams’ article in The Skeptic² (his comments are marked by BW) — Ed.]

BW: ‘If it had been left at that, it might merely have been evidence of professional incompetence on the part of the producer and editor of the tape …’

GB: Before making charges of ‘incompetence’, the original tape should be viewed … The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and that’s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.

The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and Dawkins’ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is Dawkins’ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.

BW: ‘Certainly this is by no means the first occasion on which the creation ‘science’ movement has sought to misrepresent the words of eminent scientists to bolster their own inept grasp of scientific matters, and to mislead their own unfortunate followers.’

GB: This accusation is beneath contempt now that your willingness to make accusations without doing your homework has surfaced. Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the Internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:

‘… I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable — Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.

I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’

References

For scientific refutations of Dawkins’ works, see:

G.H. Duggan, ‘Review of The Blind Watchmaker’, Apologia, 6(1):121–122, 1997.
R.G. Bohlin, ‘Up the River Without a Paddle — Review of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(3):322–327, 1996. See online review.
J.D. Sarfati, ‘Review of Climbing Mt Improbable’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):29–34, 1998. See Online review.
W. Gitt, Weasel Words, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):20–21, September–November 1998 refutes Dawkins’ computer ‘proof’ of information arising by mutation and selection. Dr Gitt shows that the information was pre-programmed, something Dawkins admitted but glossed over. See online version.

Royal Truman, The problem of information for the theory of evolution: Has Dawkins really solved it? ((Technical) — refutes Dawkins’ belated subsequent attempt to answer the question he couldn’t in the interview).

Return to text

B. Williams, ‘Creationist Deception Exposed’, The Skeptic 18(3):7–10. This article has also been widely circulated on the Internet. Return to Text.

Atheists suck at interpreting the Bible

2007-09-08T20:15:00.001-07:00

Friends, how many times have you been confronted with an atheist who deliberately takes a Bible verse out of context? Usually, when you tell them that they do the ol' rolling-eye routine and say, "It's always context, isn't it? You Christians just can't accept the fact that your Bible is full of contradictions!" People like Pharaoh Till and Dan Barfer are masters of taking the Bible out of context yet they can't accept the fact that they do.

I'm reminded of the trailer of the movie The Shining, starring Jack Nicholson. Now some of you know that this movie is actually a horror film based on a Stephen King book. The Shining is filled with profanity, nudity, and graphic violence. But you wouldn't get that impression after watching this parody trailer:

Get the picture? Just like the editors that edited this horror film to look like a G-rated family movie, so the atheists are good at editing and manipulating the Bible to mean whatever they want.

I've decided to play the same game on an atheist who is notorious at taking the Bible completely out of context. In particular with my pal Brooks Trubee. You see, Brooks not only takes the Bible out of context but he took me out of context. In a forum [where I ("trubeeisalwayswrong") whip Brooks ("MrKrinkles") badly] he quoted me as saying: "God may be a more prolific torturer than Hitler, but I think its because God has the moral justification and credibility for doing so..." Seems like I believe that it's a good thing that God is worse than Hitler doesn't it? Ain't true. You see, you should all know that Brooks forgot to put quote-unquotes around "prolific torurer" and he didn't add the rest of what I said in the paragraph from whence that quote came from. Fighting pretty dirty, isn't it?

But that's so typical of atheists. They've learned well from Capaldi's book it seems. You see, they can make God look like Woody Allen if they wanted to! Just by taking one single verse out of a whole Bible completely out of context.

(see, obviously, Brooks Trubee is a skinhead)

Fair game! I decided to take an atheist "in context" the atheistic way: you guys should know that Brooks Trubee is a Nazi sympathizer who hates Jews and believes Hitler is god. Don't believe me? Here I quote him in our debate. Here's what Brooks Trubee says:

"I wanted... to admit that... Hitler was... god..."
"Well, that is... funny... Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust..."

Here Brooks just gets weird:

"I don't believe your god is real. I don't believe that hell is real. Therefore I don't think..."

I could've told him that. Anyway, seems like Brooks hates Pharaoh Till:

"Farrell Till... is demented."

Also, Brooks believes God is perfect:

"...I don't think there is a problem with God..."

*Rolling eyes* Now, you atheists don't really believe I'm taking you guys out of context, do you? I was quoting him as honestly as an atheist

Here, I'll quote Dan Barfer the same way he quotes the Bible:

"Atheists claim god... exists."
"...atheists feel... meaningless..."
"Atheism is... human sacrifice, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration and incest..."
"All atheists are... unhappy, immoral, angry, arrogant, demonic, unfeeling wretches who have no reason to live."
"...theism... remains the only rational position."

There you have it. And I used Dan Barfer's own words too!

I'll put Pharaoh Till in context the Pharaoh Till way:

"I'm... a... Chicken"
"...I never responded to... James Patrick Holding..."
"...I am going to make... pigs... fly..."

You should know that Pharaoh Till believes that Josh McDowell is right too. See for yourself:

"I will concede that... the Bible is the Word of God."
"... I certainly... consider Josh McDowell... with more intelligence than... me... "

I'll take atheist Dougie Krueger in context the atheist's way:

"Some time ago I roasted... Nietzsche, Kant, and evolution."
"... my review... of Zacharias' A Shattered Visage... and... Zacharias' book Can Man Live Without God?... were... bad..."
"... I... commit horrific acts... commit bad deeds to deserve damnation... commit genocide..."
"... Hitler was an atheist."
"... there is... evidence that atheists lead lives less meaningful than those of theists..."
"Atheistic ethical systems are... rapine, cruelty, and murder."
"... I... deserve eternal torture."
"... Christian... morals... are... good..."

To turn the steering wheel the other way, I'll take agnostics like Ed "with the rotten mouth" Babinski in context the agnostic way:

O.K. folks, here's my... fundie story in a nutshell... In college I was elected... most... difficult... to think... deeply.

Yet atheists just can't accept the fact that atheism (and atheists) is full of contradictions! It's always context, isn't it?

Our webpages on:
oBrooks Trubee
oDan Barfer
oPharaoh Till
oDougie Krueger
oEd "stankin' breath" Babinski

How atheists are encouraged to debate

2007-09-08T20:08:00.000-07:00

The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi (Prometheus Books, New Rev edition, December 1, 1987)

This book is published by Promethus - possibly the leading publisher in atheistic literature. If you like reading stuff by atheists the chances of having a prometheus book in your home is 99%!

Anyway, Art of Deception can be found in any major bookstore. It is made by atheists for atheists and it encourages dishonest discourse, discussion, and debate. Here are some appalling quotes from the book that speaks for itself:

Never admit defeat... Refuse to be convinced. Even if you feel that he has a good argument and that your case is weaker, refuse to be convinced of your opponent’s case... There is one thing you should always claim no matter what the opposition has said, namely, that the opposition has misstated your case. No matter what the opposition has said, you should make this claim. (p. 131-132)

Appeal to Ignorance... act as if you are absolutely right. Keep harping upon the fact that some of the things you said, even if they are trivial, are right and that the opposition cannot disprove your case. (p.133)

Quoting Out of Context. Like any other charge, this one should be denied and continually denied. Keep insisting that the words you quoted are exactly as you said they were, that is, you ignore the charge that you quoted out of context and pretend that you were charged with misquoting. (p.138)

Inconsistency. If you are accused of being inconsistent, deny it! Deny it! ...there may be times when inconsistency is not a bad thing. After all, is not a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds? All right, then, I am inconsistent. So what of it? (p.139)

Red Herring.... what happens if you feel that your defense has not been strong enough or that there are lingering doubts in the minds of the audience? At this point you should avoid sticking to the point... draw attention to a side issue where you feel particularly strong. This will give the impression that you are still in charge of the course of the discussion. (p.140)

Ad hominem. Instead of attacking the specific points of an argument, you attack the man... You tell your audience how someone falls into the trap of believing such nonsense. (p. 148)

True by definition. You can always save your position by making it true by definition. (p.151)

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Many atheists have been following these fallacious tactics forever!

Art of Deception even takes its stab at Christian theism and states that some believe that God exists just because the Bible says so (p.114). It’s no wonder many atheists use deceptions so eloquently stated in this book, because even when they know they are wrong, they tell their audience that they are right! Deception at last!

Was Jesus a Liberal?

2007-09-08T19:51:00.000-07:00

In Alan Colmes' Red, White & Liberal and Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them they both claim that Jesus was liberal. But, was He?

Red, White, Black and Blue

On Alan Colmes and Jesus as a "Liberal"

by J. P. Holding

Recently we received a request to check out a book titled Red, White and Liberal by Alan Colmes (television partner of Sean Hannity) and a chapter therein titled, "Jesus was a Liberal". As one with mixed political views, the title alone had me salivating; I expected (and got) a thorough decontextualization of the New Testament, which is inevitable when anyone of any political (but not moral) persuasion tries to drag Jesus into the fold. The arena of the first century simply isn't the arena of ours -- period. Trying to turn Jesus into a Republican or a Democrat or even a Green Party member is a counsel of despair.

In that light, what of what Colmes has to offer? It is hard to gather how he arrives at some positions, given that they are made in soundbite format often; we have also been told that he claims to have done much of this tongue in cheek. However, here are some points:

Jesus is liberal, we are told, for these reasons:

He "ate with prostitutes" -- I don't see how this is a particularly "liberal" position, but anyone can explain who wants to. Given Clinton's shenanigans, I'd be cautious here.
"threw out the money changers (capitalists)" -- I am sorry, but the moneychangers were employed by the Temple and were NOT individual entrepeneurs. There is no "capitalism" here as an economic system.
"believed the rich should give to the poor" -- I don't see how this is particularly "liberal" either; I know of few on any account who don't like charity. Some do object to government sponsorship of redistribution of wealth, and if that is what in mind, we won't find that with Jesus. Of course in his day, the rich constantly gave to the poor, as it happens: It was part of the natural patronage system, but I don't think Colmes would approve of a return to that.
"preached the golden rule" -- again I need to ask how this is particularly "liberal". It isn't explained.
He "had a problem with the conservatives of the day, the Pharisees" -- all right. So "liberalism" means religious liberalism? This makes no sense in showing that Jesus was a political liberal.
"opposed their stoning of sinners" -- not exactly. Colmes is not educated in the fact that the Romans held the right to execute; the challenge to stone the woman was a trap of the "render unto Caesar variety," an attempt to make Jesus choose between sedition or adherence to the law. It is not an opposition to the death penalty.
"[opposed their] quoting from Scripture" -- I do not see where Colmes gets this one, and Jesus quotes Scripture far many more times than his opponents.

So Colmes' quick list is in pretty shabby shape, with little justification and even less scholarship. What else?

"The love Jesus offered during his short life was not dictated by economic status, religious belief, racial background, racial background, or sexual identity. Jesus was a champion to all." Colmes seems to be making a clumsy effort here to create this syllogism:

Jesus "championed" persons despite these states.
Liberals "champion" despite these states.
All people who "champion" for others despite class are liberals.
Therefore, Jesus was a liberal.

The breakdown occurs when we ask the critical question, "What did Jesus champion these on behalf of?" Colmes makes some effort above, and beyond, to link Jesus to "liberal" causes, but his efforts involve serious decontextualizations, such as saying of "Love thy neighbor as thyself,": "So why do some conservatives insist on being less than loving toward neighbors not like themselves?" Apparently "loving" to Colmes means following some (unspecified) agenda, but if it does not fit the contextual meaning of agape, it doesn't work. (One thing it did NOT mean was, "not correcting moral faults" or "setting others up on welfare at your expense".)

A section follows in which Colmes burns a straw man that conservatives would "have you believe Jesus was the world's first advocate for the white man and that he looked like David Duke." [211] Aside from a single person who wrote him a letter, however, he provides not one quote to justify this as a "conservative" position. Someone perhaps needs to have a word with the (even liberal) Hollywood producers who continually cast Jesus with actors of clearly Anglo-Saxon (in some cases blue-eyed!) descent. Ted Neeley of Jesus Christ: Superstar sure looks more like David Duke than I do.

Now to some issues Colmes tries to draft Jesus into:

"Blessed are the peacemakers" -- you can guess, Colmes says, "Evil dictators like Saddam Hussein aren't getting blessings here, but neither are those who would initiate war against them. And I'm guessing Jesus is endorsing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Guess again. Rome gave the name Pax Romana to a period that had peace because they made it so with military force. Keener (Matthew commentary, 169) notes that this rare word was used most often of the Roman Emperors; it refers to those seek reconciliation of enmity, and using war to do so is not excluded on that basis contextually.

"Blessed are the meek" -- Colmes says that "right-wing talk-show hosts" won't make the grade here, but news flash again [Handbook of Biblical Social Values, 130-1]: "meekness" as defined in the NT means humility coupled with gentleness, by one who can readily obtain and use force -- it is a renouncing of force in order to communicate something to others (including insults, or good messages) and an open and confident acceptance of others. Sorry, no application to talk show hosts from any side, unless they have brass knucks too.

"If you help the poor, the needy, and the infirm, you are doing it for Jesus" -- not quite. Colmes is abusing Matthew 25 in the usual way. It's not "the government" doing this, either, and whatever worth there is in programs like Head Start, Colmes is in error to think Matt. 25 can be used for it.

"Jesus encouraged us to sell everything we have and give the money to the poor" -- no, Jesus told ONE rich young man to do this, and THEN follow him. Is that liberalism? If it is, it seems quite limited in scope. In any event Jesus did not tell Zaccheus, a wealthy tax collector, to do the same. Any guesses why? (And needless to say, it's no support either for government estate taxes. The "poor" in America are as a whole also nowhere near as "poor" as people in the ancient world; this is one of the only countries where the "poor" own TV sets and DVD players. If you want to see poverty in reality, head to Bangladesh.)

"He who asks, receives" etc. is posted as something favoring "affirmative action." The explanation for why seems to be missing but may probably be found at the bottom of a prescription for psychiatric medication. I do wonder whether non-minorities ever ask for jobs or college support.

"Jesus was antigun" we are told because he said, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Observe rather the contextual lesson here. Sorry, but at best Colmes could say Jesus would disapprove of those who use guns to make a living robbing people. This was a specific warning against appearing to be a pseudo-messianic military movement, not a general advisement against possession of weapons.

In a section following Colmes warbles somewhat over Christianity in American history. I don't have anything readily available on most of this for reply, but that Colmes appeals to the Treaty of Tripoli is enough to tell us that he needs to retake American History 101 before speaking again.

Another section following concerns us little. Colmes critiques those who say that God put George W. in the White House and asks, in light of Romans 13, whether Bill Clinton was put there by God as well. I'll give Colmes a better answer than James Dobson: Either one may or may not have been put there for whatever reason -- we just don't know -- but whether direct divine action was taken or not, God remains sovereign. (The same goes for a section following on the subject of whether September 11 was a specific judgment by God. I happen to think not -- if God had something in mind, He can do things a lot more comprehensively than something that kills only a fifteenth the number of people who die in auto accidents alone every year.) We're also not worried about whether Islam is or is not "evil" as Franklin Graham said. We're more concerned about whether or not it is true. Colmes' politically correct "we each find our own way" stance does not resolve the problem of contradictory traits between the deities of Christianity and Islam. One or both must be wrong; both cannot be right. That's simple logic.

Little remains of interest to us as Colmes veers into matters of Pat Robertson and modern personalities. There are brief comments on homosexuality borrowed from Alan Gomes (see here for a correction on Lev. 18, and here on Gomes' absurd attempt to make an issue of laws against i.e., tattoos as a parallel!) Colmes offers an ironic comment about how easy it is to "pull a quote from the Bible and use it to justify your view" -- that is so, and Colmes has provided evidence of it. However, it is NOT easy to do so when contextual and historical data is at hand. Despite Colmes, there is no way to say, "Jesus was a liberal" -- one may as well say that Julius Caesar was a Free Soil candidate.

Discuss this article here.

=========================================

Was Jesus a Liberal?

By Gary DeMar

Alan Colmes sits on the ideological left side of the nighttime talk show Hannity & Colmes. On your screen, he's the guy on the right. Unlike so many loudmouth liberals, Paul Begala and James Carville come immediately to mind, Colmes is a civil liberal. Although I rarely agree with him, I can listen to him. His non-combative approach has not been generally accepted by other liberal antagonists. He is described by one critic as Hannity's "supposedly liberal counterpart." Other epithets are less kind: "an on-air punching bag," a "runt," "wishy-washy," "a milquetoast," and "a conservative at heart." But if you think these are bad, consider this email Colmes received from a self-described liberal:

When you talk I fantasize about shooting you. I pretend I have a pistol in my hand and shoot you all over. I pretend to shoot you in the head and in your torso. . . . If you died I would celebrate.

Ah, the Tolerance of Liberals

While Colmes' "fight fire with water" style has not endeared himself to rabid, fire-breathing leftists, it has placed Hannity & Colmes at the top of the point-counter-point talk show heap. FOX has pulled way ahead of CNN's Crossfire, an irritating verbal slugfest that I no longer watch.

Capitalizing on the popularity of the show, Colmes has followed Sean Hannity's publishing success by writing Red, White, and Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong. I suspect that it is not doing as well as conservative books since it has been discounted 50% in some stores! At that price, how could I resist getting a copy after I learned that the title of one chapter is "Jesus Was A Liberal"?

I'm thankful that Colmes claims to take the Bible seriously. But like so many liberals, he reads into the Bible his own liberal ideology. Consider the following: "Jesus ate with prostitutes, threw out the money changers (capitalists), believed the rich should give to the poor, and preached the golden rule. He had a problem with the conservatives of the day, the Pharisees, and opposed their stoning sinners and quoting from Scripture" (210).

Misquoting Scripture

Let's take his last claim first: Jesus opposed "quoting from Scripture." This is nonsense. Why would Jesus condemn in others what He Himself did? Jesus often confounded His critics by quoting Scripture. He answered the devil by citing three passages of Scripture (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). This was not an unusual practice. Paul commended the Bereans because they "searched the Scriptures daily" to see if what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). Jesus objected to the misquoting and misapplication of Scripture. In fact, Jesus would have objected to the way Colmes uses the Bible.

Colmes has turned Jesus into a pro-homosexual, socialistic, religious pluralist (210). Where Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6), Colmes has Jesus accepting all religious beliefs. Since "homosexuality doesn't come up in the four Gospels of the New Testament," Colmes argues, "Jesus wasn't that concerned about it" (230). Well, Alan, rape, having sex with animals, and tripping blind people don't come up either! The Word of God is more than the words of Jesus in red letters (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16–17).

"The Woman Caught Having Unprotected Sex"

It's true that Jesus sat down with sinners, prostitutes and tax-gatherers. But for what purpose? Colmes seems to imply that Jesus was not bothered by their lifestyle choices, that He had manifested a "live-and-let-live" ethic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, there were those who criticized Jesus for being in the same company with these social outcasts. But notice how Jesus responds to His self-righteous critics: "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are ill. But go and learn what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt. 9:12-13).

Liberals continually tell conservatives, by under-quoting the Bible, that Jesus said, "Do not judge." The in-context version is "Do not judge lest you be judged yourself. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you" (Matt. 7:1–2). Jesus was not rejecting the act of judging. He was calling on those who judged to be consistent, to use the same standard for everyone, including themselves. Jesus judged on a regular basis. He described those He sat down with as "sinners." They had a spiritual illness that needed a spiritual remedy that only Jesus could administer. He didn't call for a new government program or higher taxes to solve personal and social problems, and He didn't accept any excuses for their sinful behavior.

Liberals fail to recognize that there is nothing wrong with "righteous judgment" (John 7:24), the very thing Jesus was doing and enjoins His followers to do (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1–2). Jesus expected the people He encountered and forgave to make a lifestyle change. Jesus intervened in the execution of the woman caught in adultery because of the misapplication of Matthew 7:1–2. The woman's accusers were not applying the law to themselves, a clear violation of the law (Deut. 17:17). She had been caught "in the very act" (John 8:4). Where was the man? It's obvious that the woman was used to set up Jesus, and the guilty man was probably one of their own. Jesus called them on their duplicity. Even so, Jesus did not let the woman off the moral hook. Notice what He said to her after He took on her unrighteous and hypocritical accusers:

And straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).

How would a liberal have acted in the same situation? What instructions would he have given to the woman caught "in the very act" (John 8:4) of adultery?: "From now on make sure your partner wears a condom and please get checked regularly for HIV. I'm not here to judge your lifestyle choice. What takes place between consenting adults is none of my business. Go in peace my child." The reason Jesus was not a liberal is because He believed in sin, labeled it as such, and expected people to change their so-called lifestyle choices when their sin was pointed out to them. Jesus confronted the Samaritan woman and her immoral lifestyle (John 4:17–18, 39).

"Don't Be a Capitalist Pig"

Talk about misreading and misinterpreting the Bible. Colmes claims that Jesus' condemnation of those buying and selling in the temple is a wholesale indictment of the free market system called capitalism. Jesus' judgment of the temple money changers is about where the buying and selling were taking place not the fact that they were supplying a valuable economic service. Notice the Scriptures Jesus quotes (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11) to justify His actions against the temple moneychangers and their customers: "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a 'robbers den'" (Matt. 21:13). Jesus isn't condemning buying and selling or making a profit. Later in the same gospel, Jesus condemns the person who had been given a talent by his master and hid it in the ground (Matt. 25:25). Jesus describes him as "wicked," "lazy," and "worthless" (25:26, 30) because he did not invest it. Jesus commends those who made a profit (25:16–23).

If Jesus is teaching an anti-capitalistic message, then we would have to ask Mr. Colmes if he and his publisher hope to make a profit on the sale of his book. Why isn't he giving it away, and why is the copyright for Red, White, and Liberal in his name? These are very pro-capitalist actions.

"Conservative Christians Are Today's Pharisees"

Colmes equates today's conservatives with the New Testament Pharisees. He gives the impression that the Pharisees were considered the best people of their day because of their meticulous application of the law; and yet they were the biggest hypocrites. The Pharisees were not "the best people of their day." The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:33), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord" (Luke 1:6).

The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They "nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition" (7:9). Jesus did not come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17; cf. 23:23). It's the liberals who set aside God's commandments regarding marriage, sodomy, and abortion in order to keep their liberal tradition. If conservatives have harsh words for liberals who support immorality in the name of God, we are in good company. James B. Jordan sets the record straight on the true character of the scribes and Pharisees:

The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and fragrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus' condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken "in the very act" of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone "without sin" (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.1

It was Bill Clinton's deeds that shocked Christians, and they would have shocked Jesus. Like the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have told Bill Clinton, "from now on sin no more." Instead, the former liberal president, whom Colmes describes as "Our Greatest President," split hairs over the definition of "is" and justified his actions with Monica Lewinsky as "not having sex" because intercourse did not take place.

"How to Enable the Professional Paupers"

Colmes claims that Jesus "believed the rich should give to the poor." Let's assume that Colmes' analysis of Jesus is correct on this point. This is a far cry from saying that rich people should be taxed and that the government should give indiscriminately to the poor even though they might be sluggards, lazy, and thoughtless about the future (Prov. 6:6–11; 13:4, 18; 19:15; 20:13; 21:25-26; 24:30-34; 28:19). A person who refuses to work is not to be assisted: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess. 3:10).

The Gospel narratives do not call on the Roman empire to help the poor except by limiting the State's power (Luke 3:13–14; Matt. 22:21). He makes it clear that it's an individual and collective responsibility of the believing community to help the poor. David Chilton's comments are helpful on this subject:

The local administration of charity is crucial. It ensures that funds go to those who are truly needy, rather than to professional paupers. The charitable aspects of the tithe did not mean simply a handout to everyone who lined up. Charity is to be dispensed by responsible leaders of the covenant community who are in daily contact with the needs of the people. The general principle still holds: those who won't work don't eat. Those who attempt to live by a welfare ethic are quickly exposed in a locally-administered program, and will be unable to get away with "mooching." Even in charity, God's law teaches responsibility.2

Governments rather than individuals are most often responsible for oppressing the poor since they have the legal means to set up and enforce obstacles. Liberals like Colmes believe that redistributing wealth by taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor will create an equitable society. This is the great liberal myth. Taxing policies designed to create social programs inhibits economic expansion in the business sector. Without an expanding economy, businesses can't grow. If businesses can't grow, they cannot hire new workers.

Liberals believe that the remedy for economically displaced workers, a condition their policies created, is to raise more taxes and subsidize the unemployed. This is state-sponsored slavery under the guise of compassion. It has the effect of squelching the incentive to work and creates a perpetual underclass that is constantly appealed to by liberals so they can stay in power. Those dependent on the State most often vote to increase the power of the State out of self-interest. Murray Rothbard observes:

State poor relief is clearly a subsidization of poverty, for men are now automatically entitled to money from the state because of their poverty. Hence, the marginal disutility of income foregone from leisure diminishes, and idleness and poverty tend to increase further, which in turn increases the amount of subsidy that must be extracted from the taxpayers. Thus, a system of legally subsidized poverty tends to call forth more of the very poverty that is supposedly being alleviated.3

Private charity eliminates the political empowering of a poverty class. The incentive of governments is to keep people dependent and grow the base by classifying more people as below the poverty line. There is little motivation of the poor to abandon dependency because the initial rewards from employment are minimal. Why put in an eight-hour work day, travel to and from a job, pay Social Security, federal, and state taxes for only a little more than what can be gotten by sitting at home and receiving a check at your subsidized apartment?

Since the implementation of the "Great Society" program in the 1960s, the number of those designated as poor has increased. What have we gotten with the infusion of more than two trillion dollars of tax-payer money to help the poor? Charles Murray's analysis shows that "Progress [against poverty stopped coincidentally with the implementation of the Great Society's social welfare reforms. . . . Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress."4

Conservatives, many of whom are Christians, understand that a free economy, private property rights, and substantially reduced tax liability are the best remedy to help the poor. Those who can't work and take care of themselves can be cared for by the generosity of the people through churches and private agencies. With less money taken in taxes, more money can be given to charity work.5

Conclusion

Alan Colmes is a nice guy, but he knows very little about the Bible. One wonders if he is equally misinformed on the other topics he addresses. Liberals tend to use the Bible only as a club against conservatives. Verses are taken out of context to make points already held by liberals. No doubt conservatives can share in this guilt, but at least we believe the Bible and see it as a comprehensive standard. There's much more that Alan Colmes says about Jesus and ethics, but I'll save my comments for another time.

Notes:

1. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.

2. David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider, 3rd rev. ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), 55.

3. Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (New York: New York University Press, [1962] 1975), 818.

4. Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 63.

5. See John Jefferson Davis, Your Wealth in God's World: Does the Bible Support the Free Market? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984); Robert H. Bremer, American Philanthropy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1960] 1982); Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992).

=========================================

Chapter 37: The Manipulations of Supply Side Jesus...

Friday, October 17, 2003
Blog by Dan Ewert

You probably knew that, Al Franken, that terribly clever guy, came out with his book, “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” a couple of months ago. But did you know that it had comics in it as well? Yes, for the semi-literate in Al’s constituency or for those readers who can’t stomach a book without pictures, there are short comic strips in the book. You can find one of them here; it’s the story of Supply Side Jesus. It argues several different things. Among them that supply side theory is wrong (not that it doesn’t do what it claims to, but that it’s immoral; see pages 1-4), that conservatives are against helping the poor and sick (pages 4-6), that work ethic is wrong (pages 4 and 6), and that Christian evangelists and Christians in general are money-grubbing hypocrites (page 7). So let’s look at these one by one.

Interestingly, even though the strip repeatedly criticizes supply side theory that putting more money in the hands of consumers instead of the government increases the overall economy and betters everybody’s financial situation, it never says anything that would lead you to believe it doesn’t work. In fact, it pretty much admits that it does indeed work. Through consumer spending, people in the comic got jobs, average income went up, and social mobility increased. And the only thing Franken can say against this is that supply siders are “hucksters.” Uh-huh… great retort. It’s a little difficult to be a mere huckster when such easily measurable improvements are actually borne out by the theory. And if supply-siders are just selling snake oil, how can you criticize them when the snake oil is working and doing exactly what it was claimed to do?

Franken also portrays conservatives as not wanting the help the sick and poor. Supply Side Jesus refuses to feed the lepers because that would make them lazy and he refuses to heal them because that would exonerate them from their own personal responsibility. This also relates to the Christian hypocrisy claim. Nobody ever claimed there isn’t a place for helping the less fortunate in society. However, the government shouldn’t be involved in it. And that’s the big disconnect here. Franken wants the government to dole out all the money in a more socialized system. Conservatives think welfare should be in the realm of private charities that are far more responsive to the poor’s needs and are vastly more efficient than government bureaucracies.

The point that a good work ethic is bad is probably the most surprising. Franken again alludes that the rich are just hucksters. Never mind that they likely put in a great deal of honest effort to get where they are. No, instead everybody should be entitled to the exact same stuff. It doesn’t exactly work out that way and nor should it.

The last criticism about some Christian evangelists is probably the only one that has a little bit of truth to it. And when I use that term, I’m referring to a few select ministers of gigantic churches. They actually do have policies where those who donate a lot of money to their ministries get special treatment and special access to the preacher himself. That’s wrong in many different ways and can unfairly color what may be an otherwise upstanding organization. You get no special treatment from God for having more money and a church should be equally blind to it.

Now as for Christians in general, they should adhere to a gospel of good works, compassion, and generosity. Again, though, this is a matter for private entities to engage, not the government. Liberals like to use this as a guilt trip against Christians if they oppose a growing welfare state. They’re criticized for not wanting to help the poor when this is what Jesus commanded. Now me, I’m all for helping the poor and downtrodden and that’s exactly why I don’t want the government involved. Under the current system, my money is involuntarily taken away from me and used to fund programs that are unresponsive, ineffective, and eye-poppingly inefficient. Scant little of what I put into the system actually makes it to the people who need it. Since modern welfare is run by the government, then it’s a bureaucratic monopolistic colossus that faces no competition, no threat of being dissolved, and is guaranteed an almost unlimited supply of income whenever it needs it. Under those conditions, the majority of the money it receives is eaten up in administrative overhead. I’d far prefer to take that same money and give it to organizations that will use it wisely and efficiently. Yes, absolutely, the poor should be helped, but Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what it God’s. Under the liberal notion, we should give everything to Caesar and let him sort it out.

=========================================

From Planet Franken

"Shouldn't you feed the lepers, Supply Side Jesus?"
"No, Thomas. That would just make them lazy."
"Then shouldn't you at least heal them, Supply Side Jesus?"
"No, James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy."
-Al Franken, from Lies...pp. 316-317

It pains me that I even have to write an entry entitled "Al Franken on Jesus Christ." I mean, it's bad enough that Mr. Franken has to constantly make a mockery of followers of Christ, but to go after the big man himself? That's just petty. Now, as always, Al Franken can do no wrong. He would argue that his unflattering and blasphemous depiction of our Lord is meant to challenge our conservative perceptions in light of His teachings. The Supply Side Jesus comic is a sick joke; it's The Last Temptation of Christ without the empathy.

When Jesus first makes his appearance in the comic, he proclaims that ten craftsmen were able to feed their families because of the purchase of his luxurious robe. Apparently, Pastor Al is trying to illustrate the absurdity of the trickle down theory. Jesus goes on to say, "The goldsmith who made the trim and the filigree was able to hire an apprentice because I had paid him so handsomely." Then Jesus boasts about how people benefited from his haircut, manicure and pedicure. This rubbish is nothing new for Pastor Al, though. He has been griping about supply-side economics since his first political screed was released in 1996. Here he is implying that conservatives are hypocrites for proclaiming faith in Christ while endorsing an economic theory that, in his opinion, favors the rich. Jesus, after all, was poor, right?

So does supply side economics conflict with the teachings of Jesus? Of course not. It isn't based on the teachings of Jesus, but it does not contradict them, either. I deal with supply side economics in another entry, but I'll stick with the spiritual message here. Jesus easily could have made himself the man in Al Franken's comic. He could have been wealthy and powerful, with legions bowing before him. In Matthew 4:9, the devil said to Jesus, "All these things I will give thee, if thou will fall down and worship me." Jesus replied by saying, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'"

One of Jesus' central teachings was the danger of greed, not wealth. The supply side Jesus of Pastor Al's comic proclaims, "It is easier for a rich man to enter Heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle." Obviously, this is a bastardized rendition of Matthew 19:24, where Jesus states that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, this is a warning against greed, not wealth. People like to quote the famous cliche, "Money is the root of all evil." Well, biblically, that quote is incorrect, because the entire verse reads that "The love of money is the root of all evil [emphasis added], which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10). Money has the power to corrupt those who allow themselves to be enslaved by the selfish pursuit of it, and it is from that corruption that the evil arises.

According to Supply Side Jesus, "If you are prosperous on Earth, that means that God is rewarding your rugged individualism. If you are poor, it is a sign that God frowns on your reliance on handouts." Now does anybody honestly believe that that was Ronald Reagan's message? Does anyone believe that to be George W. Bush's message? Only irrational liberals who want to believe it in order to fuel their predisposed hatred.

Al Franken doesn't want you to believe that the lower classes benefited from supply side economics under the administration of Ronald Reagan, but they did, and the evidence for it is overwhelming (again, I deal with that on my Reaganomics page). Al Franken doesn't want you to believe that lower classes are benefiting from George W. Bush's tax cuts, but they are, and the evidence for it is overwhelming (I deal with that on my George W. Bush page).

Let's go back to Supply Side Jesus' stance on lepers (see top of page). On PlanetFranken, the Republican Party is a big country club where thousands of Ebenezer Scrooge clones get together and discuss how they can serve their interests by screwing the poor. During the time of Jesus, leprosy was the epidemic in Israel, and Jesus extended his hand to those inflicted. Then if Pastor Al's implication is correct, our current Republican president should be ignoring whatever epidemic is plaguing us right now. Thank God Al Franken is dead wrong on this one.

The biggest and fastest-growing epidemic in the world right now is the AIDS virus. You can sort of call it our modern day leprosy. People are dying from AIDS every single day, and it has been reported that one in every nine people in Africa carries the virus. So is President Bush sitting on his throne, saying "AIDS is a matter of personal responsibility," and "If people knew I was trying to cure AIDS, there would be no incentive to avoid AIDS?" Absurd! Let's do something that Al Franken doesn't do often enough. Let's look at the facts:

From whitehouse.gov:
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year, $15 billion initiative to turn the tide in combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. This commitment of resources will help the most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean wage and win the war against HIV/AIDS, extending and saving lives. Specifically, the initiative is intended to:
-Prevent 7 million new infections.
-Treat 2 million HIV-infected people.
-Care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans.

Wow. Supply Side Jesus would be disgusted.

I particularly love the frame where Supply Side Jesus is throwing coins into the enthusiastic crowd and declaring, "Twenty shekels for anyone who votes for me!" Wasn't it Pastor Al's hero, Bill Clinton, who offered people overnight stays in the White House in exchange for political advancement contributions? I believe I read that in Ann Coulter's book, Slander, and Al Franken certainly hasn't objected to it. Just a thought.

To sum it all up, I'm not trying to dispute Al Franken's views on the effectiveness of supply side economics (at least not in this particular entry). He has every right to disagree with that particular approach. The thing that upsets me is his representation of our cherished Lord and Savior to create a spurious connection between economic conservatism and religious hypocrisy. It's garbage! It's an insult to all of us who actually choose to live our lives by biblical principles! Al Franken cannot stand the fact that the majority of God-fearing Christians support the Republican Party (as polls reveal time and time again), and so he has decided to attack us by using our Lord in a metaphor that desecrates the political affiliation we hold dear. Not only is that completely infantile, but it gives us strong insight into Al's true motivation behind such books as Lies and Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. As he declares on page 107 of Lies, "I F---ing Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf---ers!" Now tell me, is this a man who genuinely cares about the poor? Is this a man who is motivated by compassion for the oppressed? A regular Oscar Schindler? Let the evidence speak for itself. This is a man who is motivated by spitefulness and hatred. Truly compassionate liberals should be ashamed that such a man is speaking on their behalf. At the risk of being audacious, I can't help but liken Pastor Al's intentions to those of Judas Iscariot:

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
-John 12:4-6

I know that's very harsh, and I may grow to regret making the comparison, but it's important to consider. Like Judas Iscariot, Al Franken has feigned a concern for ordinary people in order to camouflage his true, self-serving intentions. Jesus (the real Jesus) said in Matthew chapter 7, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Think about that. If you are a fair-minded person, and you want to understand Al Franken's intentions, just look critically at his work and what he is trying to accomplish. It's sad, really.

=========================================

Does the Bible promote Communism?

Al Franken thinks so:

Acts... is Luke's account of the formation of the Church after Jesus' death. The book is almost a socialist tract, full of admonishment to the rich to share their wealth with the poor. The communist motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is derived from Acts 4:32-35. Here's the whole passage:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great ppower gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.[Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them (Plume, 2004), 222-223.]

After quoting the verse above and Acts 2:44-46, theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem explains:

...it is a great mistake to call this "early communism," for (1) the giving was voluntary and was not compelled by the government, and (2) people still had personal possessions, because they still met in "their homes" (Acts 2:46), and many other Christians later still owned homes, such as Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), Jason (Acts 17:5), Titus Justus (Acts 18:7), many Christians in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8), Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16, in Jerusalem), Priscilla and Aquila in Rome (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:9), Nympha (Col. 4:15), Philemon (Philem. 2), and other Christians in general to whom John wrote (2 John 10).
Immediately after the description of such amazing enerosity in Acts 4, there is in chapter 5 the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about the sale price of some land. But Peter tells them there was no need to do this:
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? After after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God" (Acts 5:4)
It is significant that this story occurs immediatley after the paragraph that says "they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). It reminds us that all of that generosity in Acts 4 was voluntary and was not intended to nullify the ideas of individual ownership or inequality of possessions. When Peter says,

"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?"
he affirms the idea of private property and keeps us from the mistaken idea that the church was establishing a new requirement that Christians give up all private property, or that Christians all had to have equal possessions. Acts 5:4 guards against such misunderstandings. [Wayne Grudem, Business For The Glord Of God (Crossway, 2003), 54-55.]

I should note that Franken admits he "grew up knowing zip about the New Testament and still know next to zip." [p. 222] Well said, Al!

More on Communism and the Bible: Should Christians Have All Things in Common? and Red Bible?

Anti-Franken Links:
oFrankenlies.com
oPlanet Franken
oSpinsanity on Franken
oThe Smoking Gun on Franken

Atheism and Sex

2007-09-08T19:46:00.001-07:00

Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin' horny now

~"The Bad Touch" by The Bloodhound Gang

According to Neo-Darwinian evolution, all sex is natural. Sex between two people of different genders is natural as sex betwen two people of the same gender. Heck, lately sex between adults and children is seen as natural too (ever hear of NAMBLA?). That's what evolution does though, it destroys taboos and sexual mores. And it's sure to break the taboo of man having sex with animals. Evolutionist Peter Singer complains that sex between a man and a dog is still taboo. He's actually complaining that it's taboo?! I guess Singer couldn't blame Cory Williamson for having sex with his neighbor's dog!

In a evolutionistic worldview where naturalism is... well, natural, and everybody's free-will is useless due to a deterministic world, can you blame anybody for having sex with anybody? or anything? No! Pretty sickening, eh?

However, in a Christian worldview where sex is met with dignity and absolute morals one can at least abhor bestiality or pedophilia or homosexuality or any number of deviant forms of sex. Unfortunately you can't do that in an evolutionary worldview because what one animal does to another is morally irrelevant in a mindless and random chance universe.

Atheism and your emotions

2007-09-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

According to evolution, your emotions are genetically determined by your genes. In a deterministic viewpoint where man has no free will can you really blame people for acting emotionally weird or inappropriate (by the way, that means this viewpoint in of itself is deterministic)? Of course not! After all, we're just animals reacting to our environments. So, if you feel the need to laugh during your best friend's funeral then go ahead. Anything sad can be equally funny or visa versa. All of that is purely subjective so laugh your butt off! Or you can be sad. Either way, it's meaningless. Seems like this baby found this out.

Atheism and Love

2007-09-08T19:36:00.000-07:00

According to evolution ideas like "love" and "romance" are nothing more than byproducts of the mind brought by chance in a materialistic universe. In other words, ideas don't have any real meaning at all (which is a self-contradiction by the way). Dan Barfer would agree to this (as much as he would try to deny it); after all this is what he said in his debate with Butler:

MICHAEL BUTLER: So, rationality, let's just talk about logic, can be reducible to physical processes?

DAN BARKER: Yeah, but that's meaningless.

Oh, well... so much for love then. Speaking of which, this reduces love to a rather shallow and mindless task. As Christian philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, once said, "The unbeliever will insist that man is nothing more than a complex of biochemical factors controlled by the laws of physics -- and then kiss his wife and children when he goes home, as though they share love with each other."

Icons of shallow-minded Atheism

2006-11-23T13:47:00.000-08:00

These are some of the more unsophisticated atheists we easily whipped. They're not exactly worth anybody's time but we had fun taking them on. We left better known contemporary atheists on our website or blogsite. Anyway, here are some of the shallow minded atheists we debated:

Brooks Trubee

Brooks Trubee is going to hell!
The Sick Mind of Brooks Trubee
I whipped Brooks Trubee on the issue of slavery

Jake
(co-creator of atheistnetwork.com)

Ask Jake about Chairs

Mark Smith
(creator of the popular "Contra Craig" website)

Contra Smith
An Email with Mark Smith

Reginald Finley

Tino Huggins VS Reginald Finley
Infidel Guy VS Me... sort of.

Welcome!

2006-09-18T20:11:00.000-07:00

Checkout our website: Atheism Sucks!