Archives for February 2014

The creationism versus evolution debate

[Hat tip to my good friend Hiro for sending me the link to the Beliefnet article that inspired me to write this post.] Dr. Steve McSwain looks like a nice guy with a friendly smile, if the picture I procured from his website serves as any indication. Professor of communications at the University of Kentucky, Dr. McSwain is promoted as a former Baptist preacher, a spiritual teacher and motivational speaker with "respect [for] all spiritual traditions" at his website. That courtesy has apparently not been extended to certain members of his own religion, in particular Ken Hamm and those Christians who advocate Young Earth Creationism, often referred to as YEC. To be fair, I'm not particularly keen on Mr. Hamm's apparent position that YEC beliefs are mandatory to be considered a "true" Christian. But Dr. McSwain doesn't even pretend to hide his scorn and disdain for these creationists. He writes of "religious quackery" taught in Sunday School by "misinformed Christian zealots" blithering about like "a bunch of intellectually-bankrupt nitwits." Dr. McSwain is so embarrassed by the very idea of creationism that he wrote, That there are still Christians promoting Creationism is actually more unbelievable than the illogical nonsense in Creationism they wish everyone would just believe. I am reminded of the famous plea from Rodney King who asked, "Why can't we all just get along?" In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention before going any further that I believe a form of supernatural intelligence called God is directly responsible for my … [Read more...]

Watchmaker fallacies

William Paley's rather famous teleological "Watchmaker" argument advocating Intelligent Design goes something like this: [S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1). Okay, it goes exactly like that...so what's the problem with the argument? An obvious one. But Paley's mistake was both simple, and an easy one to make. He assumed the possibility of an eternal universe, where a rock could have conceivably existed forever. We now believe that we cannot assume the stone was always there, any more than we can assume the watch always existed. In his defense, insufficient scientific evidence existed during his lifetime, for William Paley to assume that the universe once had a beginning and the stone could not have always been there. However, contemporary scientific evidence called "red shift" and "cosmic background radiation" allows modern day scientists to assure us with some degree of certainty that … [Read more...]