"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Gerry Rzeppa]

So your own program established the possibility of evolution, and you, as you surely would agree, are not nearly as intelligent as God.  Imagine what his program, his laws, could accomplish.

I was convinced of the possibility before I wrote the program; the simulation simply gives me further insights. Insights that still leave me ambiguous regarding a firm conclusion, but also still leaning toward special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration).

Why would God put together a universe that operated this way?  Maybe building in this struggle for life is the best way to develop beings such as us who have a moral sense.  "In this world you will have tribulation."  Maybe God enjoys observing the elegance of his own program.  Time is not an issue for him.  Watching a program develop for 13.5 billion years is the same to him as 6000 years, right?  "A day is to the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

And maybe that's all true. I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't consider doing it that way, and I'm (according to Christian theology) made in the image of my Creator. The 25 verses of the first chapter of Genesis that lead up to "Let us make man in our image" strike me more as a description of special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration) than of a grand evolutionary scheme. And the hard evidence that I've seen leans that way as well: lots of examples of so-called micro-evolution, nothing substantial to support macro-evolution.

So, if the vast majority of scientists today accept evolution and an old universe, why should that be an obstacle to the existence of a creator God?

Careful, Bruce, or somebody here will be jumping on you for "appealing to the majority" But while we're on the subject, I'd like to say that I'm very skeptical of the today's "mainstream science". Two books that were exceptionally helpful to me in this regard -- both written by non-Christians -- were Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743488288) and The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer by Hilton Ratcliffe (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419695568). Both of these books document how today's scientific establishment is driven more by money, peer pressure, and politics than by a search for actual facts. Curious how we're allowed to be skeptical of everything but mainstream science.

If you really wanted to find common ground, you would accept the elegance of Darwinian evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and maintain your faith in a creator God.

In my mind, the jury is still out regarding the extent of overlap between the creationist and evolutionary perspectives; I think firm attachment to either paradigm alone is certainly premature and most likely an error. I think young-earthers and those who believe in a worldwide flood make a lot of good points and that at least some of the evidence seems to point their way. On the other hand, even just based on my own little study of evolutionary mechanisms above, I have to admit the possibility of an entirely different interpretation of the data.

But I think it's important to keep some perspective here. It seems to me (as a believer in a good God who wants to reveal Himself to his creatures using both that which is within them, and that which is outside of them) that He wouldn't require us to become experts in archaeology or have to invent the electron microscope before we could reach the proper conclusions on matters of faith and morals; on the existence of God; etc. For example, I like it better when Behe talks about mousetraps than microscopic motors (though I have to admit those "positronic engines" are cool). In short, we should be able to discuss the stuff I'm concerned with here using only data and faculties readily accessible to "the rest of us".

Note, however, that either way -- whether we discuss in microscopic detail or with obvious analogies -- I think proof will elude us. I think, in the end, God wants each of us to reveal the kind of people we are and wish to be by making our best guesses and living accordingly. How the creation/evolution of the universe progressed doesn't significantly affect those kinds of choices; whether the universe was created or not, however, does.

Evolution, an old earth, and an old universe have nothing to do with the gospel or Jesus or the resurrection.

Yes; I think I just said as much.

The only thing you have to adjust is your interpretation of some scripture.  And the scripture is flexible enough to accommodate evolution, as long as you are not hyper-literalistic with your hermeneutics. Evolution is not a necessary "hill upon which to die", and you are compromising nothing by accepting it.

Again, I see your point. But in my personal case, I would be compromising my intuitions regarding the matter; intuitions that are based on 60-some years of first-hand experience. I'm not as willing as Dawkins and Crick to simply set aside the "illusion of design" that is so striking everywhere we look. And again, while it's true that "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts," I don't think (on the grounds that we were created in His image) that His ways and thoughts are necessarily or utterly different in kind than ours; I believe it has to be more a matter of degree in any subject that is essential to us.

[Recusant]

I didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly... The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

I do not believe they are what they are claimed to be; I may be wrong. But there are too many assumptions that precede the conclusions reached for me to even get interested in the subject.

Okay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about? You say that you can't get interested in the subject because of those assumptions. Given the fact that scientists who have actually studied this field in depth consider these fossils to be from our very close relatives (and therefore of genuine interest to most thinking people), you must have very clear ideas about the assumptions, and be able to state them in a coherent manner. Please do so.

Let me put it this way: my interest in scientific investigation ends with that which can be experimentally reproduced and verified; the rest is not science in my mind, but historical and/or philosophical speculations disguised as science.

It appears to me that you're saying we can never have reliable information about the past--it's all speculation. You say you "may be wrong," but your other statements don't jibe with that. You seem to be thoroughly convinced that you're right, otherwise you'd be willing to consider the evidence. How then can you be so sure that your ideas about the past are correct? What verifiable support do you have for holding that position? You believe that the fossil evidence is only good for "speculation"; is your position any different?  If so, in what way?

The only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong.

And the people who promote evolutionary theory are, by and large, people who also have an axe to grind: specifically, that God does not exist. So (a) the issues are hotly contested, and (b) both sides are obviously biased. Which is why I don't argue those points.

That's not correct. You've tried to deflect from the actual issue, but I will pursue it. The fact is that many Christians (I'd say the majority of scientifically literate Christians) do not consider the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth and the universe to be dubious at all. Surely you must be aware of that fact, yet you ignore it and instead promote the view of the zealots who refuse to accept the evidence. Atheists are by no means the only ones who accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe. In fact, given the reality that believers are still by far the majority, it's extremely likely that most of the people who accept that evidence are religious.

There are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe.

There are also multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support a young Earth, and a young universe. The interpretation of the data depends on one's initial assumptions. Which is why the issue is contested, debated, and anything but settled. So I don't use that kind of thing -- either way -- to support my positions. I'm arguing from direct personal experience; stuff we all know and do every day.

Please present this "empirical, verifiable evidence" which supports "a young Earth," or at least direct me to a reputable source which does so. Reputable sources do not include the deceitful charlatans at Answers in Genesis, nor the duplicitous mountebanks at the Institute for Creation Research, nor the medacious grifters at the Discovery Institute, though if you can show that specific evidence they present is empirical and verifiable, it would be of interest.

...if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

We've been over that. Think of God as an artist, not a mechanic, and the problem vanishes. When I write a book where one character is older than another, but the younger character actually existed before the younger in my universe, I'm not deceiving anyone in the story's universe, nor am I deceiving the reader. That's simply how creation sometimes works.

You've attempted to hand-wave away this issue, but that doesn't mean the problem has "vanished." There is strong evidence which contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible on any number of points, and specifically regarding the age of the Earth and the universe. If the Bible's chronology is true, then your god created evidence which leads those who engage in honest inquiry to a false conclusion. In this context, "an artist" is the same thing as a liar. What you're saying is that your artist god created a "work of art" that misleads those who examine the evidence it contains. How is that honest?

This sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

No, it's the difference between a scientist who prefers to work empirically, on subjects where lots of tangible data and working simulations are available, and those who prefer to imagine possible origin scenarios that can never be conclusively established.

The scientific evidence (in the form of fossils and artifacts) for the existence of various species of hominins predating anatomically modern humans may hold no interest for you, but it's still very significant. It corresponds with genetic evidence which situates Homo sapiens within a cladistic framework that includes the still living great apes, and in a larger context, the primates. Any scientifically valid "possible origin scenario" must take both these lines of evidence into account. Using the excuse that it holds no interest for you, you've chosen to ignore relevant data, and therefore your argument loses any semblance of credibility.

Ignoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility.

That's a very loose use of the word "empirical". I'm ignoring hypothetical historical scenarios based on scant evidence and an assumed philosophical perspective, not repeatable empirical evidence.

What a steaming puddle of hogwash. You're ignoring empirical evidence (in the form of fossils) for the existence of ancient hominid species because that evidence doesn't jibe with your apparently literalist biblical world view. You tried to duck and weave by referring to known hoaxes as if they were relevant, and since that didn't work, you're going to play Humpty Dumpty with the defintion of the word "empirical." This is an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.

Merriam-Webster : originating in or based on observation or experience

Oxford Dictionaries: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Oxford English Dictionary: That pursues knowledge by means of direct observation, investigation, or experiment (as distinct from deductive reasoning, abstract theorizing, or speculation); that relates to or derives from this method of pursuing knowledge.

Fossil evidence is empirical evidence, despite your assertion to the contrary. Scientists observe the location and surrounding material where fossils are found, and they observe the conformation of the fossils. As the correct definition of the term shows, empirical evidence is not just the evidence gained by performing experiments, but also that which is gained by direct observation.

It's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

I'm simply describing how I see things. Many others, in all walks of life, see the same things I do. And find them compelling. That's what the stories I've mentioned in this thread are all about. I don't expect you to adopt my point of view based on my say-so; but I do think you should be able to see that it is a rational point of view given the uncontested data that I'm working with.

What "uncontested data" are you referring to?

Living organisms are "already in the initial domain."

But not living organisms with the degree of complexity that is claimed to have evolved.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, empirical evidence shows that it's possible for more complex forms to arise from simpler antecedents through the process of evolution.

Natural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms.

So natural selection takes a domain that doesn't include, say, people, and narrows that domain to produce people?

The narrowing due to natural selection (while very important, it's only part of the process of evolution) merely eliminates less viable organisms, or those which for various reasons are less capable of reproducing. The process of evolution (there is no goal, per se) is survival and reproduction.  

Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow make it possible for new forms to arise, including people. People are not the goal of evolution, they're merely one of many results of the process.

The algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process.

The algorithm in question was designed to produce a certain kind of result. Both the so-called mutation process and the selection filter in that program were specifically designed and tuned to produce the desired result -- which was known ahead of time. There's nothing "evolutionary" in the program, and certainly nothing "evolutionary" in the way it was created.

The process used by the NASA scientists was never meant to be an exact replica of the process of evolution, it was a rough simulation of it. The only reason I brought it into the discussion is because you had asserted that "the [evolutionary] paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it." Despite your attempt to dismiss the NASA example, it refutes your assertion. The NASA scientists did not design the antennae, they were the result of a simulation of the process of evolution.

You attempt to dismiss this example because the scientists designed the process, and gave it a rubric to define viable results. But if we use those standards to eliminate the NASA example, then all examples of people using the evolutionary paradigm to produce something meaningful are automatically eliminated. Any simulation of evolution is ruled out, because any simulation must be designed. You've moved the goalposts from your original assertion to create a standard that is imposssible to meet. How convenient for you.

Your bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.

The example doesn't contradict my assertions, it supports them. The algorithm was clearly designed to produce antennas of a certain type; every line in the program was written with that goal in mind. And when it runs, it does what the designers intended it to do.

The NASA scientists didn't design the antennae. They designed a simulation of evolution which produced something meaningful (working antennae). Something you said had never been done. You were wrong.

[Asmodean]

That's not an example of creation; that's just inanimate stuff doing what it was designed and constructed and programmed to do. You've jumped in in the middle. The actual creation -- the design and construction and programming of the overall environment and the critical elements within it (time, space, matter, energy, physical laws, etc) -- took place before the events you describe and is the thing that needs description.

I think you have it slightly backwards here. We have laws of physics because matter and energy interact in certain ways. It's not the other way around.

I hope you can see that examples from nature aren't going to work here, because it's the origin of such natural things that is under dispute.

No, it is not. The origin of the solar system is pretty clear, as is the origin of your left eye or a bandicoot. If you are looking for a "first cause" (Which I understand you are), there is no need to impose gods upon it.

My answer to all such examples will be the same: they were designed and constructed and programmed to operate as you describe by a Creator you haven't mentioned. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But more examples from an already operational nature won't help. What would help is an example where the creator (or lack thereof) and the means of creation were both known and undisputed. Then we could extrapolate from there.

Fine. I recommend A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Read that, then we can discuss it. I am underqualified to explain that stuff here.

But that's the problem, isn't it. Nothing we creators make is ever made the evolutionary way: it's always the concept-design-construction paradigm that we employ. Which means, as I've pointed out elsewhere, that you're asking me to believe that we work one way whenever we want to get something done, but nature works the opposite way -- even when "she" is unintentionally "creating" beings like us!

Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

I find that thought incredible (ie, unbelievable). That random mutations and unguided filtering could ever produce, from purely inanimate materials, conscious beings that specialize in creationist ways of getting things done -- beings who compose music, and write books, and paint pictures, and laugh, and love, and cry, and hope, and dream, and pray -- is simply fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"); and absurd (as in, absurd). You ask too much.

I ask nothing of you. What you believe has absolutely no impact on what is and what isn't and is, therefore, not my problem. However, I do find this leaping between the very simple "first cause" and the complex systems we see today in order to try and justify your highly problematic world view dishonest.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Okay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

From Wikipedia: "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud [of Turin] to a range of AD 1260?1390." We might assume, then, that the thing was at most 728 years old (at the time of the dating). And yet three labs could only narrow it down to a range of 130 years -- 17.8% of the total. If that's the best science can do dating things less than a thousand years old, I'm not inclined to put much stock in the conclusions of people who tell me they know what happened hundreds of thousands (or even millions and billions) of years ago.

Further, even those dates are disputed by other scientists (and this is where other assumptions start showing): some say the samples came from a part of the Shroud that was repaired; others that the samples were not representative of the rest of the piece; still others argue that the samples were contaminated by bacteria, cleaning fluids, even ashes from a fire; some say the way the Shroud has been recently stored produces false readings; some say "a determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old; others say "a reaction with carbon monoxide in the atmosphere could add additional fresh C14 to the sample"; and still others say they "identified statistical errors in the conclusions published." Etc, etc. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.

But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.

[OldGit]

. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.

Gerry, you are easily intelligent enough to understand the difference between carbon dating and the methods used to date fossils.  They are totally different, as you must be well aware, yet you are trying to project the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time.

Since I'm sure you know this full well, I'm afraid I must accuse you of wilful dishonesty.

[Dobermonster]

Gerry, do you think you are better at science than the vast majority of scientists, or that they are all conspiring to support a false theory?

[Tank]

Okay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

From Wikipedia: "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud [of Turin] to a range of AD 1260?1390." We might assume, then, that the thing was at most 728 years old (at the time of the dating). And yet three labs could only narrow it down to a range of 130 years -- 17.8% of the total. If that's the best science can do dating things less than a thousand years old, I'm not inclined to put much stock in the conclusions of people who tell me they know what happened hundreds of thousands (or even millions and billions) of years ago.

Further, even those dates are disputed by other scientists (and this is where other assumptions start showing): some say the samples came from a part of the Shroud that was repaired; others that the samples were not representative of the rest of the piece; still others argue that the samples were contaminated by bacteria, cleaning fluids, even ashes from a fire; some say the way the Shroud has been recently stored produces false readings; some say "a determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old; others say "a reaction with carbon monoxide in the atmosphere could add additional fresh C14 to the sample"; and still others say they "identified statistical errors in the conclusions published." Etc, etc. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.

The Shroud of Turin was dated 'accurately'; given the sample they took. There is a fascinating program about it. The sample was taken from the very edge of the shroud. It turned out it had been repaired there. So the sample was a combination of new and old material. The original results turned out to be spaced in exact proportion to the proportions of new and old material. This was discovered because only parts of the original sample were tested so they could go back and check them again. A later test took material from around the scorch marks from the fire, this area had to be original material. The big problem now is that a while ago the case was doused in an insecticide which contains modern C14 so we'll can't carry out more tests. It looks like the shroud is a lot older than the scientists first thought. And the combination of old and new material was the cause of the initial wide variation. So the problem was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

Radiometric dating comes in many different forms Gerry, not just C14. And of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics. Yet we don't see you claiming your computer doesn't work do do we. Gerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

You need to consider and understand Radiocarbon Calibration. This page is produced by the University of Oxford a far more reliable source of information than any political and agenda driven organisation like The Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis. If you don't trust me Gerry trust these scientists, they know infinity more about the subject than you do.

Contributions by:

    Dr Tom Higham, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Prof Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Dr Alan Hogg, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
    Dr Fiona Petchey, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
    Dr Richard Cresswell, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Group, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

The issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.

[Tank]

Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.

But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.

Gerry how are fossils formed? Do you understand the processes involved? Your comment about the cars is a false analogy, cars are not living creatures so they won't fossilise in the same way an animal carcass would. However, as cars developed they contained a higher and higher proportion of plastics. And one of the characteristics of plastics is they don't degrade. So 100,000 years from now they'll still be plenty of plastic car parts buried. More than enough to draw conclusions from. 

[Tank]

If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.

[xSilverPhinx]

Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, written by a Christian and a   scientist, Kenneth Miller.  

[Asmodean]

We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.

Wrong, actually. Every new idea that was implemented, but was not a response to a problem in regard to the general purpose of the vehicle is in this case a random mutation. There have been thousands of the damned things over the years. In fact, the standard controls in a car are the way they are because of that process.

Natural selection is precisely what killed off LandRover in Africa and filled the place with Toyotas.

Who thought up what concepts is irrelevant with regard to the tech as a whole.

But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.

Barring the Sun going nova, yes, they certainly will.

[Recusant]

Okay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

[jumbojak]

So, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.

Yes, I've read lots of Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul, etc; Henry, Chaffer, Chesterton, Lewis, Bevan, McCosh, Mansell, Sayers, etc; Newton, Brown, Berlinski, Dembski, Batten, Knuth, Carter, Catchpoole, Hartnett, Harwood, Mason, Sarfati, Silvestru, Walker, Carter; and many, many others, all the way through. What's the point?

The point was to work out the contradiction in what you said here, in this thread, and your statements in your original thread on common ground. Clarification was all I was after.

The reason I ask is that, at some of my other online haunts, I see people every day who claim to have "studied" a particular person's work, and yet have almost zero understanding of what that person was actually trying to say. They can parrot one-liners but and excerpts but are lost whenever anything that contradicts their views are presented.

Lenin provides an excellent case study: there is a segment of the left which takes the concept of Leninism to dogmatic extremes. These individuals tend to come in two flavours 1) old school party hand-raisers who can't get past their chosen organization's particular reading of Lenin and 2) young people drawn to the left who view Lenin's body of work as a step-by-step instruction manual.

Both flavours are seemingly incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what Lenin probably got right because they fail to look past his prescriptions for the RSDLP or his analysis of early 20th century politics and gain and understanding of why he thought the way he did. What's the reason for this? By and large it's because they haven't "studied" more than a few excerpts. Or if they have, anything that might contradict their view is ignored.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.

I don't see how that helps. First you (not some unguided selection process) narrow the field to "combat aircraft, specifically fighters" -- leaving out all non-military aircraft, not to mention lots of military types (like bombers and transports and drones). Then you expect me to equate the various observations of intelligent pilots, designers, scientists, and engineers -- and the subsequent actions they consciously take as a result of those observations -- as the equivalent of an unplanned and unguided "survival of the fittest" mechanism. Sorry, don't see it.