Evidence against evolution isn't Evidence for God

Micro-evolution, macro-evolution — it's just a matter of degree. At least, that's what I've always understood. The distinction between species is often described as a question of breeding. Males and females of different species can't interbreed (and produce fertile offspring). But I also understand that the difference between species isn't necessarily that clear cut. In fact it can be almost arbitrary, as a visit to the Natural History Museum's Darwin Centre and Cocoon will confirm.

Chapter 16 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God is titled "Limits to Evolvability" and is written by Ray Bohlin. It's all about how evolution cannot account for different species, how mutation cannot introduce additional genetic information, and how natural selection cannot produce all the different forms of animal life. It's all pretty tedious stuff that I've seen before in creationist literature, and I hardly need to go into why it's all mostly nonsense.

The fact that Bohlin has written this chapter, and it's in a book that purports to provide "evidence for God", really shows the creationist's hand. We have several lines of argument that attempt to show why evolution by random mutation and natural selection is impossible, which spawns the inevitable question: why are creationists so dead set against evolution? The answer is that evolution, if correct, removes the need for a sustaining creator god. Evolution shows how the complexity of organic life on this planet came to be, and it didn't require a god to do it. The creationist's god, who was once thought to be actively engaged in constant tinkering and routine maintenance, has nothing left to do. He's superfluous. The Earth — indeed the Universe — can get along quite nicely without an interventionist god. But the creationist can't let that be the case — evolution can't be right!

So presumably that's why we have creationists. Evolutionary theory contradicts scripture, therefore in the mind of a creationist it must be incorrect. The creationist must therefore work backwards from this conclusion to disprove evolutionary theory — hence this chapter. The irony is that even if Bohlin could disprove evolution he wouldn't have proved God.

But what I want to know is this: if Intelligent Design proponents evolved from creationists, why are there still creationists?

---

4truth.net
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952921

"Tippler's Bane" — Evelyn Wang's creepy mushroom story now available

I'm famous again (at least a little bit). A new horror short story by Evelyn Wang, entitled "Tippler's Bane", is now available at Pseudopod, the weekly horror podcast. It's narrated as a two-hander by Eve Upton and me.

If you'd like to hear a creepy horror story about twenty minutes long, go and take a listen. At the time of this writing the version available may have some issues with Eve's part of the narration, but I understand Pseudopod have anticipated this and will post a revised version if enough people go over to the Pseudopod discussion forum and encourage them to do so.

It's only the second time I've shared narration of a short story — the other was "Are You Ready For the End of the World?" by Danny Adams, which I narrated along with Tee Morris in March 2006, for Escape Pod.

Incidentally if you're at all interested in short genre audio fiction you really should subscribe to the three Escape Artists podcasts: Escape Pod (science fiction), Pseudopod (horror) and PodCastle (fantasy) — for all of which I've narrated at one time or another.

---

UPDATE 2011-06-01:
An alternative version of the story is now available from the Pseudopod website (the mushroom lady is now more audible):
http://media.libsyn.com/media/pseudopod/Pseudo231a_TipplersBaneAlternate.mp3

Burnee links for Thursday

I was wrong: BioLogos promotes Jesus, not evolution « Why Evolution Is True
There are many who think Templeton is a corrupting influence on science. Jerry Coyne is one of the fewer who are prepared to say so in unequivocal terms.

Bollocks! « Carmen Gets Around (II)
Carmen d'Cruz articulates a growing dissatisfaction with the media's shallow treatment of the Harold Camping Apocalypse affair.

Wrong, root and branch; wrong at every cell and molecule; wrong to the core : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers points out that the (regrettably ongoing) Camping affair is but a symptom of the unjustified weight given to theological nonsense.

Temple of the Future : Unbelievable – When Morality Becomes Literary Criticism
In the light of a recent Premier Christian Radio Unbelievable? discussion James Croft examines the difference between religious and secular morality.

British Centre for Science Education: Creation Watch - Richard Fangrad in Oxford - Creation Ministries International
This talk was in a church, so was Richard Fangrad preaching to the converted? Not entirely, otherwise this report wouldn't exist. But I suspect that the majority of the audience believe the Bible is true to a degree, and some of them might welcome the idea that the Genesis story is confirmed by science. (It isn't.)

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: How the New Rapture Date Was Calculated
I've already stated how I think things went down, but Crispian Jago has a more likely explanation.

More on the myth of objective morality

Earlier today I drafted a comment to post in a discussion at the Unbelievable? Group forum. But this evening when I went there to post it, the discussion had disappeared. I started a new thread and posted it anyway, but I'm including it here as well. The original discussion was started by Chris Baird, about whether "common sense" is a suitable basis for morality. The ensuing comments, including some especially insightful ones from James Croft, put me in mind of my recent post here about "objective morality". This is what I posted in the new thread:

What happened to Chris Baird's discussion about the "Is the Bible unbelievable?" show last Saturday? It seems to have disappeared. I was about to stick my oar in, and found the thread had vanished, which is a shame because the exchange between Chris and James Croft was getting interesting. Anyway, this is what I was going to post, prompted by Justin's brief but insistent quizzing of Leslie Scrace:

I agree with James. The theistic claim to transcendental moral knowledge is bogus. Its basis is in scripture, which is no more than "it's written in this book, therefore it must be true." The suggestion that this is some kind of superior "foundation" for morality doesn't hold up to inspection.

For instance, why this book and not some other? Is it a matter of personal preference that a Christian takes his or her morality from the Bible? If a Christian claims to have had a personal revelation that Christian moral law is true, is that anything more than a subjective feeling?

Christians are forever asking (as Justin did on last Saturday's show) for the atheistic "foundation" for morality, when their own "foundation" is nothing of the kind.

Sticking resolutely to an arbitrary list of rules regardless of the consequences is morally irresponsible. It's an abnegation of one's duty to do right by one's fellows. And before any theists ask me again why I have any reason to think that such an attitude — or indeed duty — is moral, I will simply say this: basing my actions on what appears to promote progress towards mutual wellbeing produces results that are on the whole beneficial to the human race. What more do I need?

There is an odd notion in theistic circles that morality must by definition be transcendent. The sooner we get rid of this erroneous idea the better for humankind. (More on my blog.)

We'll have to wait and see if the new thread gets as interesting as the one that vanished.

Camping: a good numerologist but a poor judge of divine character?

So, what happened? Nothing, actually. Wasn't that a surprise. Then, after the non-event, hours of silence from the Harold Camping camp. Until today, when he tells us that it did happen. It was a spiritual coming. Completely undetectable, with no visible or testable effects, but nonetheless it really did happen. The world is now "under judgement," he says.

Well, I'm skeptical. I think what happened is this: Harold Camping was right about the date of the Rapture. His numerological decypherings yielded the correct answer that God put in the Bible via his well-known method of divine inspiration, but Camping got carried away. He was so concerned to get his sums right he lost sight of why he was doing them.

It seems to me that shortly after the deadline there must have been an exchange something like this:

ALMIGHTY GOD: Camping! You old reprobate! What d'you think you're playing at?

HAROLD CAMPING: Lord?

AG: You know what I'm talking about! All these billboards!

HC: Lord, I spread the knowledge of your coming, so that —

AG: I never told you to do that!

HC: But the code, the seven thousand years...

AG: Precisely! The code. Did it ever cross your mind that I might have put it in code for a reason?

HC: I, er...

AG: A code, Camping. A code is supposed to be secret. And what have you done? Only spilled the beans to the whole world!

HC: But Lord, I thought —

AG: Never mind what you thought, Camping. It's clear to me that you didn't think. I've got limited accommodation up here. Do you think I want just anybody swanning about in Paradise? Heaven is supposed to be exclusive, you know.

HC: Well, I don't think there will be that many...

AG: Too late! Deal's off.

HC: Lord?

AG: You heard me. I've changed my mind. Nobody's going to be raptured. As for the world, I'll sort something out later this year, I haven't time to think about it now.

HC: But what am I going to say to —

AG: Tell them what you like. Not my problem. You got yourself into this mess, you can get out of it.

HC: Lord, if I could just —

AG: That'll be all, Camping. I don't expect to see you again anytime soon.

HC: That's a great comfort, Lord.

AG: Don't get me wrong, Camping. What you've done has displeased — nay, annoyed me intensely. Easily enough to revoke your ticket. So it's possible you might be seeing the other chap sooner than you think.

HC: Oh.

AG: Yes. So sort it out yourself. Now, if you'll excuse me — and you will — I've got to go and be ineffable for a while. [Almighty God effs off.]

HC: Of course, Lord. [a pause] Mmm, let me see. Ineffable...

Skepticule Extra — new episode now available

The fifth episode of three-paul-podcast Skepticule Extra is now available for your godless listening pleasure:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/05/skepextra-005-20110515.html

This time we have a rapturous discussion about monkeys in Basingstoke during an intelligently designed full moon, among other things.

Burnee links for Sunday

YouTube - The Rapture

Glad to see someone considered the practicalities.

Why out-of-body and near-death experiences don’t prove God « Why Evolution Is True
No mention of Gary Habermas, I note.

BioDundee - News : Homeopathy is ‘dangerous and wasteful’ says Abertay Expert
Clearly stated, but will it be enough for the Government to act? (Judging by what happened south of the border, it seems doubtful.)

New Humanist - Islamic creationism on tour
Hasn't this bunch already done the rounds in the UK?

How can we corral data to reveal the big picture? | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian
Maybe it's impossible to be truly objective about data...