The Rzeppa game show

A while back I wrote about Ray Comfort's challenge to Richard Dawkins. I made a similar challenge to debate creationists, even though I did not offer any money like Comfort did. Or Gerry Rzeppa. Gerry Rzeppa has also offered Dawkins money ($64,000) to meet, and because I mentioned that, Rzeppa said that he would not let my challenge to debate creationists go unheard. You can see here how it all started. A rather lengthy email exchange followed, and I will attempt to share the most interesting parts here.

But first, I'll wonder out loud how one could ever benefit from such an exchange. What could I possibly expect to learn by debating a creationist on evolution? Rzeppa is a grown man, and there were several indications that he was not at all new to the discussion between evolutionists and creationists. Also, previous experience told me that it would therefore be foolish to expect him change sides when presented with evidence for evolution. A younger person who is not yet married to either position might be responsive to reasoning, but someone with half a brain who has thought long about it, is not a likely candidate for intellectual metamorphosis.

What one can expect to learn, however, is something about how creationists think. Who are these people, and why do they believe in these crazy things? Babu Ranganathan, for example, I have found to be a ninny who really is unable to understand the biology, while at the same time professing that no amount of evidence to the contrary could shake his faith (not an altogether unheard of position among the creationists, I regret to say).

The first part of the exchanges between Rzeppa and me proved strenuous for both of us. Loads of really long emails dealing with many issues at once, and it was hard for either us to really get through to the other, and left us both with a feeling that the exercise was futile.

Gerry initially gave me permission to share any and all of what he would write me, which really was a very generous and refreshing offer. That's not always how it goes. After a couple of weeks of correspondence, I had a deadline (an abstract for the 74th Symposium at the the CSHL), and turned my mind to other things for a while, which resulted in silence for about ten days. Then I received an email from Gerry asking if we were done, I answered that I was not just busy, he complained that I apparently wasn't busy enough to blog about other things, and then he proceeded to demand that I post on my blog everything that he had written to me thus far. In toto. Why? Yeah, I wondered that, too. At this point, he was frustrated that I was proving to be someone he could not trust you to fairly edit and/or summarize the transcript. Additionally, when I refused to post all email content, he retracted his offer and forbade me to post anything he had written up until that point. I was moderately unhappy about this whole state of affairs; I really felt bad that things were going on in this fashion.

However, then one day Rzeppa sent me this email:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Thu 3/12/2009 3:54 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject:  A Modest Proposal

Dear Bjorn,
 
I'm going to assume, at this point, that a public debate on your blog is out of the question. Yet you nevertheless appear interested in my opinions on various matters. The problem, as I see it, is that you'll never come to an understanding of my position by fencing with me, jabbing at targets you think vulnerable. I need to paint picture for you, and swordplay simply gets in the way. In short, you'll never understand what I think until you first understand how I think.
 
Now I'm persuaded that my beliefs are consistent, reasonable, and practical -- moreso, in fact, than your beliefs are -- and I think I can make that case, to an unbiased person, in relatively short order. Unfortunately, you are not such an individual! Hence my (disappointed) desire to have our exchanges published for the benefit of others. But take heart -- I think I've devised a plan whereby you can become, at least temporarily, the kind of audience I need. Here's the deal.
 
I will tell present you with a series of short, descriptive propositions, one at a time. Each post will conclude with a simple yes-or-no question summarizing the essence of the matter and asking whether or not you agree. If you answer with an unqualified "Yes", I'll deposit five greenback dollars in your account and we'll move on to the next proposition. When you answer in any other way, we'll stop to deal with your objections until we either overcome your mental hurdles or we give up.
 
Questions & Answers:
 
Why five dollars? Because I think I can give you a good understanding of my position in a hundred propositions (or less) and I'm willing to invest five hundred dollars, at this time, in a scholarship to "round out" your education. In other words, I'm willing to pay you about a hundred bucks an hour just to listen with an open mind. Further, I'm quite sure by the time we make it through this exercise, you'll find almost all of your other "pointed" questions answered: you'll know me well enough, by then, to anticipate how I would respond, parry and reposte, to you your various thrusts, lunges, and flicks. We will thus be able to avoid a lot of tedious and confrontational posts.
 
Why no remuneration for negative responses? Primarily, to discourage contentiousness and nit-picking; to encourage open-mindedness; to give you an incentive to allow me "the benefit of the doubt" so you don't make superficial and premature judgments about a system of thought that you haven't fully grasped; and to make the gist and the flow of the argument all the more apparent.
 
What's in this for Gerry? A couple of things. I'll be motivated to formulate my philosophy in simple and concise terms, which I've wanted to do for some time. I may even publish the results in the form of a short treatise -- the text having been reviewed for content and consistency at the bargain rate of just five dollars a page! And I may even end up with a new friend; something worth much more than five hundred dollars! Who knows which way the Wind may blow?
 
What's in this for Bjorn? Several things. A deeper and broader understanding of Christian thought, straight from the mouth of an experienced Christian workhorse. And answers to your detailed questions, in seminal form, as described above. A change of pace from the treadmill of quote-mining and sarcastic criticism that characterizes your blog. And perhaps a new friend. Not to mention a fistful of dollars!
 
When will payment be made? At the end of the exercise, by PayPal or other convenient means.
 
What do you say? (This is a practice question. But a simple and unqualified "Yes" will get you your first five dollar bill!)
 
Gerry

I was stunned. And elated. How cool is that? Not only do I get to forego discussion (mostly) and instead hear what he has to say in a style that suits him (making for a better discourse, I thought), I would also get to earn some cold cash. Much needed cash, as it were. Supporting three dependents on a Ph.D. stipend is not a recommendation I will be making, I foresee. I ruminated over the matter for a short while, and earned my first $5 by answering yes.

The following is the full email exchange of the propositions that Gerry put to me:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:54 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal

"Yes"

Bjørn

P.S. Questions:
May I have permission to quote you?
If we can't resolve a question so that I can answer yes to it, do we just skip that one question, or forget about the rest of your questions too?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 12:15 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject:  The Game is Afoot!

[Bell dings] Congratulations! You've earned your first five dollars! Well done.
 
And yes, you may quote me all you wish. But you may want to wait until we're done! See Proverbs 18:13.
 
Regarding unresolved questions, I'm hoping this won't be a problem. I think all of the propositions I will be advancing are things that any reasonable man would assent to. I won't, for example, be asking you to agree that "It is sensible for a man to be afraid of the dark." But I may ask you to agree that "It is sensible for a man who believes in malicious nocturnal spirits to be afraid of the dark." And please keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I simply want you to see that when a man begins with a different set of axioms, he can end up with a significantly different set of conclusions -- conclusions that are not different due to ignorance or faulty logic, but due to the initial choice of axioms. (By axiom I mean "a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof and whose truth is assumed to be self-evident.")

(...)
 
I will now compose the first proposition and send it to you shortly in a subsequent post.
 
Gerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent:  Fri 3/13/2009 2:30 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #1

One way we know things is by experience. I know, for example, that I like orange juice, because I've tasted it. And I know that boiling water is hot, because I've been scalded. I remember, as a child, that I would go out of my way to experience new things. And that I would often try to guess what might happen before I dove in. "I bet Mom will be mad if she catches me smoking!" (She was.) Anyway, when I grew up, I put away childish things and exchanged my haphazard guesses for precise hypotheses, and my spur-of-the-moment experiences for elaborate experiments executed with a persnickety attention to detail: I became a scientist. But I knew in my heart it was the same old thing. Learning from experience.
 
Bjorn: Do you agree that the experiential evidences acquired and remembered by ordinary people in the course of their everyday lives are essentially the same kind of thing as the experimental evidences collected and cataloged by scientists?
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:17 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #1

Yes.

May I say yes, and qualify?

Both are essentially based on observations with our senses, and are therefore similar in kind, but different in degree (since scientific experiments are rigorous, repeated, and have controls, etc.). However, that doesn't give them equal validity in terms if science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent:  Fri 3/13/2009 11:57 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject:  Re: Proposition #1

[Buzzer sounds]
 
A curious response indeed: A qualified unqualified "yes". Judges?
 
[Audience waits in hushed anticipation]
 
Yes! The judges are going to accept that qualified "yes" as an unqualified "yes" because there appears to be fundamental agreement on the basic premise that the everyday experiences of ordinary people differ from the laboratory experiments of scientists only in degree (of rigor, precision, control, etc) and not in kind. But the judges caution the contestant to refrain, in the future, from remarks that attempt to anticipate the argument that is being presented: specifically, in this case, the tangential issue of the relative merits of informal experiential evidences versus formal experimental evidences, which is not at issue at this point in the discussion.
 
[Bell dings]
 
Five more dollars for Bjorn, making a grand total of ten dollars so far!
 
[Audience cheers]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 1:04 PM

To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #2



It seems to me that what we think we know by experience may not be quite as
certain as we think it is. Why? Because the things we know by experience are
based on at least one fundamental but unprovable assumption: that tomorrow
will be a lot like today. Sure, that first sip of orange juice was tasty,
and so was the second and the third; but do I really know that the next sip
will be the same? No. I can only claim such knowledge within the tacitly
assumed framework of my belief in a consistent and intelligible universe.
I'm not saying, of course, that there isn't abundant evidence to support
such a belief, nor am I saying that it would be practical to deny such a
belief. I simply want to establish that my conviction that the next pot of
boiling water will scald my hand, and the knowledge that the previous pot of
water actually did scald my hand, are not quite the same kind of thing.



Bjorn: Do you agree that individual and unprovable axiomatic beliefs precede
our experiences and therefore bias our understanding of those experiences?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:06 PM

To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #2



Yes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 3:34 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject:  Re: Proposition #2

[Ding Ding Ding]



Right again, for another five greenbacks, bringing the total to fifteen
dollars -- so far!



[Whistles and whoops from college buddies in the audience]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 4:28 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #3

Imagine a highly educated and articulate group of scientists who truly believe that baker's ovens, given enough time and material, are capable of producing, in the normal course of operation, magnificent works of doughy sculpture -- comparable in quality to Michelangelo's David. These men, spurred by their convictions -- and undaunted by the jibes of itinerant oven repair technicians -- travel back and forth across the country for most of their adult lives, visiting every Sara Lee factory in operation (liberal support being provided by various baking conglomerates who don't necessarily agree with the theory, but who consider the "research" to be good advertising for the industry.) At each stop they diligently examine and rigorously catalog every roll that emerges from the ovens, including dozens of precise measurements and full-color photographs from various angles. Then, one day, after years of futile searching through thousands of unsupportive specimens, they stumble upon a particular bun that bears a remarkable but rather vague resemblance to Mother Theresa.

Bjorn: Do you agree these scientists and oven-repair technicians, each with their own preconceived notions, will probably interpret this extraordinary find in diametrically opposed ways? that the former will claim that they've discovered, if not an outright proof of their theory, at least a significant piece of evidence pointing to the ultimate tenability of it? while the others will admit only that a curious anomaly has turned up -- an anomaly of no consequence when considered in the light of the myriad contradictory specimens and the significant artistic gap between the vague image of the sainted nun and the precise stone carving of the ancient Israeli shepherd-king?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:37 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #3

No. If these scientists take statistical analysis seriously (which they should or they wouldn't be good scientists), then they should, at the point when they find the Mother Theresa bun, not give it greater weight than all the other finds they made that do not support their hypothesis. I don't know who would think like those scientists you describe, but they should be thinking like those technicians. Since I want to answer yes: Yes, those very bad scientists who are emotionally invested will perhaps make this glaring scientific error. But they would never be taken seriously by the rest of the community.

Are you then going to rephrase your question, or what happens?

Bjorn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 7:12 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #3

[Buzz; audience groans]

Judges?

[Crowd murmers]

The judges have decided that the question stands, but that the contestant should be given another opportunity to answer, keeping the following points in mind:

1. Most scientists, like most doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs, are rather mediocre at their work -- very few approach the lofty ideals of competence and integrity that you seem to think permeates the scientific community. You may consider the scientists in this particular scenario, if you wish, to be a below-average bunch, attracted to this particular field of study because its "pure research" character requires little in the way of tangible proofs, prototypes, working models, and designs that can be implemented in any practical sense. You should also consider that the need for constant travel has skewed the project roster: young and unattached neophytes abound, as do middle-aged individuals of moderate skill who have found life on the home front, well, shall we say, unsatisfying.

2. The scientists in this particular scenario are all presumed experts in either art, baked goods, or both -- not mathematics -- and cannot be expected to understand all the intricacies of statistical analysis. They frequently defend their position when questioned, however, by insisting that statistical analysis is not helpful in their field because (a) the total number of pastries (artistic and otherwise) is quite unknown, and (b) the majority of the remaining samples are of recent origin and are not, therefore, representative of all pastries ever baked (most of which have been dipped in coffee and eaten).

3. The project is liberally funded by the baking conglomerates (as the story says) for reasons that have nothing to do with the advancement of knowledge. These second-rate scientists are some of the most highly paid researchers in the scientific community. Their yearly budget is huge -- second only to "Global Warming Studies" -- and even the merchandising of spin-off products (such as plastic dinosaur-shaped buns) has become a multi-million dollar concern. No one wants to see this project fail.

4. All of the other samples do not necessarily contradict their thesis; they
simply don't provide any obvious suppot.

And now, for your re-considered response...

[Trite music plays in the background: Doo doo doo doo; doo doo doo; doot da-doo-doo doo, doo, doo.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Fri 3/13/2009 9:01 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #3

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 12:24 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #4

[$20 in the pot so far]

A caged monkey, desiring some out-of-reach bananas, gets a sudden gleam in his eye and begins to stack boxes so he can climb his makeshift staircase and retrieve the fruit. President Kennedy looks to the sky and exhorts his fellow Americans with the words, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth." Mozart composes a symphony; Dostoyevsky pens a novel; I write a compiler on my computer. My neighbor builds a barn. In each of these cases, it seems to me, the idea of the thing is first formed in someone's mind (however primitive or advanced) and then the thing imagined is brought into being.

Bjorn: Do you agree that in every instance where the origin of a thing is undisputed, the concept precedes the reality?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:14 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #4

What does this mean? "where the origin of a thing is undisputed"
What is not disputed? That it has originated, or how it has originated (i.e. by someone who thought about it, or nature did it)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 9:25 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #4

Bjorn: Do you agree that in every instance where the origin of a thing is undisputed -- ie, where all agree about how the thing came to be -- the concept precedes the reality?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:15 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #4

How about a snowflake? It came to be by natural processes, without anyone having the concept. Is this not what you mean?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 10:45 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #4

[Buzz! Audience sighs] Judges?

The origin of snowflakes -- ie, how they come to be -- is under dispute. Many reputable scientists believe that the marvelous machine that assembles snowflakes with such precision (by applying weak and strong nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational, and other forces to the elements hydrogen and oxygen at specific temperatures) existed in Someone's Mind before it was assembled. Others think this machine always existed, while a third group argues that it assembled itself from little or nothing at all. In any case, the matter is clearly disputed.

[Audience, shouting: "Ask him again! Ask him again!"]

Bjorn: Do you agree that in every instance where the origin of a thing is undisputed -- ie, where all agree about how the thing came to be -- the concept precedes the reality?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 5:38 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #4

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 6:52 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Propositions #5

[$25 accrued so far]

I now offer a "sloppy syllogism" for your consideration:

Major premise: In every instance where the origin of a thing is undisputed, the concept precedes the reality.
Minor premise: The universe is a reality.
Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to think that the universe existed as a concept before it existed as a reality.

Bjorn: Do you agree that the above argument is sound?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 7:31 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Propositions #5

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 8:07 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #6

[Ding Ding Ding] $30! [Audience applauds]

Another "sloppy syllogism" for you:

Major premise: It is not unreasonable to think that the universe existed as
a concept before it existed as a reality.
Minor premise: A concept exists in a mind.
Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to postulate a Mind that is apart from,
and preceding, the universe.

Bjorn: Do you agree that the above argument is sound?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 8:44 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #6

Yes, this syllogism is sound, given the premises.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 9:52 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #7

[Ding!] $35! [Admiring Ooohs and Ahhhs from the Audience]

And now we come to the heart of the matter. I think a couple of diagrams (in the spirit of John Venn) will help at this point:



In each diagram the innermost white oval contains those undisputed Created Things that we've just finished discussing (things that were first conceived in a mind and then constructed). Everything from safety pins to space shuttles.

The mid-sized ovals, in light gray -- the shade of gray symbolizing that things are not quite as certain at this level -- represent the rest of the Universe (of which Created Things are an obvious part). In the left diagram, it is assumed that this Universe is also a creation, and that it's origin is analogous to the origin of the other Created Things (ie, it was conceived in a mind and then constructed). In the right diagram, the Universe is considered uncreated.

The large dark-gray ovals represent the ultimate source of the inner ovals. On the left, it is presumed that an Uncreated [bear with me] Mind created the rest in the "usual" fashion -- conceiving and constructing. On the right, we have a Question Mark which you may replace with "Nothing" or "A Singularity" or whatever you wish. (Some, like Sir Fred Hoyle, have suggested that we should delete this outermost circle altogether and presume that the Uncreated Universe is simply eternal -- but I'm under the impression that you are not a believer in the generally discredited Steady State theory and so I will not discuss this alternative further at this time).

Now it seems to me that there is at least one mystery in each diagram.

On the left, I'm faced with the mystery of an Uncreated Mind. But note that the difficulty ends with the adjective: I have no direct experience with uncreated things, to be sure, but I am familiar with minds (having one of my own) and I am also familiar with the conceive-and-construct process of creation. In other words, once I get past a single unique attribute, at the very beginning, the rest is quite comprehensible. Curiously enough, even this "anomaly" is familiar to me: the Fibonacci sequence, for example (0,1,1,2,3,5,8...) where each succeeding number is the sum of the two preceeding numbers, is simple enough once you make an exception for the initial "1". And that "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question that has plagued mankind for time immemorial is also not a problem, except at the very beginning. So the idea of a single exception, at the very beginning, is something I find myself well able to cope with.

On the right, however, I'm faced with several difficulties. In the first place, there is no agreement regarding exactly what the question mark represents. Secondly, whether it's "Nothing" or "A Singularity" or something else, it is still something (or nothing!) utterly foreign to me. An uncreated mind, after all, is still a mind. But I have absolutely no experience, first hand or otherwise, of "Nothings" and "Singularities". And then there's the problem of mechanism -- exactly how do created things (or worse, creators of created things!) emerge from Nothing? or even from Singularities? Without plan or purpose! I have to admit that such ideas are also utterly foreign to me. There are, after all, trillions of undisputed examples of creation all around me (this very post included); but I do not know of a single uncontested example, simulation, or prototype of spontaneous emergence anywhere. It's an impressive-sounding term, to be sure, but like perpetual motion machines, uncontested working models are nowhere to be found.

So I choose the model on the left. It is simpler (fewer undefined terms and fewer mysteries), it is more familiar (undisputed examples of the mechanism are everywhere), and -- as we'll discuss in future propositions -- it has positive philosophical implications for everyday life that the model on the left cannot possibly support.

Bjorn: Do you agree that view I hold is neither unreasonable nor superstitious?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sat 3/14/2009 10:32 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #7

Please explicitly state what that view of yours is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 12:46 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #7

Perhaps I tried to pack a little too much into a single propostion. Sorry. I'll try to sum things up below. The idea, at this point, is to discover the model of reality that, as Einstein might say, "is as simple as possible, but no simpler"; to promote the model that, as William of Occam might counsel, "does not multiply entities [and especially unknown entities!] beyond necessity." And so...

Bjorn: Do you agree that it is neither unreasonable nor superstitious to postulate the existence of an Uncreated Mind as the primary axiom of one's philosophy (thus providing for a uncomplicated and familiar model of Reality, while avoiding both infinite regress and the various aspects of alternative models that are utterly without precedent in uncontested human experience)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 12:50 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #7

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 2:09 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #8

In the "Uncreated Mind > Created Universe" model of Reality, there is plenty of room to postulate about absolute moral standards, providential care, and even life-after-death scenarios. One need not stretch his imagination too far to suppose that a Mind capable of creating a functioning Universe probably has very definite ideas about good and evil (ie, what works and what doesn't). It is also reasonable to suppose that One who bothers to create something so huge and intricate probably cares about that Work of Art and what happens to it. Nor is it difficult to imagine that One who can create life, can also restore it. And so forth.

On the other hand, materialistic models of Reality typically insist that the Universe is without plan or purpose; that the end of our brief invidivual lives is unavoidable and often premature and/or painful death without significance or appeal; and that the final end of the whole will be utter oblivion in one inescapable form or another (violent collapse, maximized entropy, whatever). It seems to me, therefore, that a consistent materialist must eventually reach the conclusion that life has no ultimate meaning.

Bjorn: Do you agree that a creationist can believe in the ultimate significance and value of individual human lives without contradicting his model of Reality, while a materialist, logically speaking, cannot?

[Note that I'm well aware that most materialists do not act in strict logical accord with their model of Reality -- most do not despair and commit suicide, nor do most take full advantage of the license that their world-view affords them. I attribute this apparent discrepency between the dictates of the model and the actual behavior of the individuals who claim to subscribe to that model to several factors, including: (a) what people say they believe, and what they actually believe, is hardly ever the same thing -- actions speak louder than words, as it is said; (b) people don't develop a consistent philosophy, and then set out to live by it; people live in accord with who they are at any given moment, which typically includes bits and pieces of a wide variety of overlapping, conflicting, and half-baked philosophies; (c) people don't live by reason alone -- emotions, poor digestion, and even the weather can make a person act suddenly and even repeatedly out of character; and (d) that atheism is foreign to the normal human mind -- it is not something that is easily accepted and assimilated, and therefore truly consistent atheists are conspicuously few in number.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #8

Could you replace "significance and value" with "meaning and purpose"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 11:46 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #8

I chose the words "significance" and "value" to suggest objective qualities. In the creationist view, an individual life may be significant and valuable (or insignificant and worthless) without regard to the individual's subjective evaluation because the judgment that matters will be made by a Higher Authority and not a mere individual (or others like him).

The gist of the matter is that the creationist can reasonably believe he is playing a serious match, for keeps, on Someone else's field and in accord with Someone else's rules; the materialist can reason his way to no such conclusion, but must eventually realize that he is playing solitare with an incomplete deck while waiting for the uncaring and irresistable bully Nature to kick over the table.

I'll reword the proposition.

Bjorn: Do you agree that that a creationist can believe that individual human lives have ultimate and objective meaning and purpose without contradicting his model of Reality, while a materialist, logically speaking, cannot?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 11:58 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #8

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 5:53 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #9

[Ding!] $45. [Audience leans forward, sensing that an especially important question is about to be posed]

Given then, that (1) it is neither unreasonable nor superstitious to postulate the existence of an Uncreated Mind as the primary axiom of one's philosophy, and that (2) by so doing we can readily formulate an uncomplicated model of Reality that (a) builds upon common, ubiquitous, and uncontested human experience (while avoiding the various aspects of materialistic models that are utterly without precedent in undisputed human history), and that (b) offers additional practical and emotional benefits by allowing for objectively and eternally significant individual lives in the context of a universal standard of morality (which materialistic models have no basis to offer)...

Do you agree, Bjorn, that the general disdain shown for the creationist model by the typical materialist is unjustified, and that the typical materialist's insistence that his model is the only one worthy of study is unwarranted?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:04 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #9

Please qualify the general disdain shown by the materialists. Also, I think "the creationist model" should be explicitly termed "dualism" or something like that, since creationism is so much more than that.

What does it mean that something is worthy of study? I agree that they are both viable philosophical positions, but that in studying nature dualism doesn't work because postulating that a creator did it means that no further hypothesis testing is possible.

Also, "uncontested human experience"? You mean the creationist dualism? It's hardly uncontested.

I am very interested in reading your thoughts on these matters, and am inclined to answer affirmatively in order to proceed.

Bjørn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 12:23 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #9 (revised)

I think we could easily demonstrate "the general disdain shown by materialists" for the creationist model simply by asking ten bloggers whose home pages sport the big red "A" what they think of the primary axiom of our philosophy as expressed in the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In fact, I recall one such blogger writing to me recently and threatening to expose me as "the usual quote-mining creationist fool who fails to understand the evidence put before him because it contradicts his dogmatic beliefs in a book written by goat herders." If that's not disdain, I don't know what is. It seems to me, that if the creationist model we've been discussing is "neither unreasonable nor superstitious" -- as you've agreed (albeit for a price!) -- then the statement, "In [or "at"] the beginning [of time in our Universe], God [ie, the Uncreated Mind] created the heavens [ie, space] and the earth [ie, matter]" may be one of the most profound statements ever penned, especially when it appears as the opening line of such an ancient and well-preserved document (whether written by goat herders or not).

It think introducing the term "dualism" at this point is premature -- the technical makeup of Man is not yet under discussion (we're still considering Genesis 1:1!). But since you bring it up, I find it hard to resist sharing an idea from C. S. Lewis, who says it's curious that humans find both corpses (ie, bodies without souls) and ghosts (ie, souls without bodies) uncanny. He suggests that we somehow "know" that body and soul ought not be divided and the fact that they can be (by death) indicates that human death is not indigenous to the universe but is an intruder, an enemy here. If you and I ever make it as far as St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, you'll see that he also proposes this view -- but that day is many, many five-dollar propositions in the future!

Something is "worthy of study", in my mind, when one can anticipate that, with reasonable economy, advances in understanding and/or practical applications of theory can be derived from the study of that something.

Are you joking when you say, "postulating that a creator 'did it' means that no further hypothesis testing is possible"? One might as well say that Sir Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell never formed and tested an hypothesis because they were believers in Creation! Or that the moment I concede that my computer is a human artifact I can no longer learn anything about it! Hypotheses that attempt to answer the who, what, when, where, why and how of things are not only not precluded by the assumption of a maker, but are encouraged by it. Why? Because the study now becomes a study, not only of the thing, but of the maker of the thing. When we study the architectural works of Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, or the literary works of Shakespeare, or the musical compositions of Mozart, or the compiler written by the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers, we find ourselves striving to understand not only the masterpieces, but the masters -- and these two concurrent lines of investigation help, not hinder, one another. That's why the proper definition of Theology (and, incidently, all science) is not "The Study of God" nor "The Study of God's Works" but rather "The Study of God and His Works.

By "uncontested human experience" I mean only, at this point, and as discussed in Proposition #4, the agreed-upon fact that "in every instance where the origin of a thing is undisputed -- ie, where all agree about how the thing came to be -- the concept precedes the reality." I do not mean that the creationist model as a whole is uncontested; only that there is a great deal of uncontested human experience that makes the model reasonable, straightforward and familiar.

I'll reword this proposition in light of the points above.

Do you agree, Bjorn, that (1) the general disdain shown by the typical materialist for the primary axiom of the creationist model (ie, "In the beginning, God [ie, Uncreated Mind] created the heavens and the earth") is unjustified, and that (2) the typical materialist's insistence that the only models of Reality worthy of study are models which disallow the possibility of God [ie, Uncreated Mind prior to, and outside of the Universe] is unwarranted?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:15 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #9 (revised)

Since this is supposed to be an especially important question, let's clear up a few things before I give my answer:


Ten bloggers with the scarlet A will object to the creationist model you have described as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" on a scientific basis. However, we're not yet discussing the heavens and the earth, but the origin of the universe, right? Isn't that what you meant in proposition #7 with the two figures? Disdain yes, but for what directly contradicts science (at least that what it is on my part). The creation of the universe is not. But, since you here redefine haven to mean space and earth to mean matter (which I honestly have not seen before), then I guess we can take this to mean "the universe". Bu tI wish you would say that, then, instead of "heaven and earth".

While I know that dualism refers to mind/body, I thought it also meant natural/supernatural. Doesn't it?

"Worthy of study": Are you saying that it is possible to study God ("The Study of God and His Works.")? You anticipate that advances will be made that will allow us to know him? I'm a little confused.

What I mean by "postulating that a creator 'did it' means that no further hypothesis testing is possible" is that if you say that the cell is irreducibly complex, and only God could have made it by direct intervention, then we give up trying to find a way that nature did it. Then, there are no natural laws by which it could have happened. This is of course very different from what Newton and Maxwell studied. If no scientific sense could be made of, say, gravitation, because God controlled it in a non-consistent fashion (divine intervention), then that is what I mean.

Preliminary answer: (1) Philosophically, I have no disdain for the model that says that God created the universe (space and matter - though I would like you to say this explicitly, instead of "heaven and earth" - not that I won't concede that that's what could be meant in Genesis 1), and would say it's unwarranted. (2) I think it's worthy of study to find out what the logical possibilities are, but I have trouble understanding what you mean otherwise.

Bjørn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 3:46 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #9 (revised)

When Shakespeare speaks of "The singing masons building roofs of gold" in Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2, and we realize that by "singing masons" he means "honey bees", we're not redefining what he said -- we're understanding it. Likewise, when I recognize "the beginning" and "the heavens" and "the earth" in Genesis 1:1 as poetic references to time, space, and matter, respectively, I'm not redefining the the terms, but understanding them. Oh, that today's scientists would prudently refrain from criticizing that which they don't yet understand! Not all books read like math books.

The term "dualism" means a variety things in different contexts: mind and matter, mind and body, good and evil, yin and yang, etc. I'm not sure it's helpful to us. But regarding the natural and the supernatural: Some argue, and I think convincingly, that every time a contingent human thought is enacted through a human nervous system, the supernatural has invaded the natural -- something has happened that the mundane laws of nature cannot fully account for. I believe it is impossible, for example to explain this particular letter to you in terms of nothing but weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces operating on inert matter. This post was willed, by me, for reasons of my own, and would not otherwise appear in the universe. In this sense, the supernatural works miracles in the natural universe all day, every day -- every time we choose to do something. For a complete dissertation of this argument, see C. S. Lewis, Miracles, Chapters 1- 6 (I'll be happy to buy you a copy).

Yes, I do believe that it is possible to study "God and His Works" and that we can come to know Him better. If, for example, I accept the fact that the Rosenbaum house in Florence Alabama was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, I can deduce -- just by looking at the thing -- that Mr. Wright was fond of sweeping horizontal lines and panoramic arrays of windows. Likewise, if I accept the primary axiom that God created the Universe, I can tell, just by looking around, that God probably has an IQ greater than 125. So again, yes, we can learn a great deal about a maker by studying what he has made.

If a researcher is convinced that a particular kind of cell is irreducibly complex and must have been created with that irreducible complex design in mind, I agree: he will not try to figure out how such a thing might come to be through the mere interaction of physical and chemical forces. And rightly so, if that's his conviction. Most librarians, for example, would consider it a waste of time to try to figure out how the collected works of Shakespeare -- an apparently irreducibly complex document -- came to be through physical and chemical processes alone. But that doesn't prevent our researcher's associate, who thinks that kind of cell is not irreducibly complex, from attempting the study. This second man may even believe that "God created the heavens and the earth" via a handful of (very clever) laws and (remarkably pliable) materials that, by interacting over a long period of time, are destined to form apparently irreducibly complex systems; and he may spend his life attempting to dissect that process along the same lines that you do. How much funding he gets, of course, will depend on someone else's judgment regarding how "worthy of study" the matter is. But surely you agree -- even if funds are not, in our fallen world, fairly allocated -- that some lines of research are more promising than others. The notion of irreducible complexity is just one of many tools that we can use to decide -- like a bright child taking apart a radio -- that we've gone as far as we can with that device and are better off turning our attention to taking apart the toaster.

You say that "no scientific sense could be made of, say, gravitation, [if] God controlled it in a non-consistent fashion (divine intervention)," and I agree. But it must be remembered that an occasional intervention does not categorically preclude scientific study. Something that behaves consistently almost all of the time is still a proper object of scientific investigation. In fact, if things didn't behave consistently almost all of the time, we'd never be able to spot a miracle!

So let me reword this proposition.

Bjorn: Do you agree that there is a wee bit of undue animosity toward the creationist model of reality in the scientific community? and that, in spite of this wee bit of undue animosity, the creationist model of reality is worthy of further study -- if only by you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 10:26 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #9 (revised)

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 11:21 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Proposition #10

[Bell sounds] Fifty dollars! [Audience stands and cheers]

[Unexpectedly, bell sounds again; audience looks to host for an explanation]

Let's take a break for a question from the audience. You are Sharon Rzeppa, from Franklin, Kentucky, Right?

[Audience member nods]

And your question is?

Bjorn: Since scientists are supposed to keep an open mind on unresolved matters, and since you've agreed that it is neither unreasonable nor superstitious to postulate an Uncreated Mind that created the Universe, doesn't it reveal a rather unscientific bias when you post the big red "A" on your blog next to your scientific commentaries?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:17 PM

TO: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #10




No, it does not. That I am an atheist is a belief. I believe there is no creator. I do not know that, and I cannot prove it either. C.f. Russell's teapot.



What I blog about (science as well as not) has no bearing on this. How do you think I am biased, exactly?



(I hope this is not one of the questions that I am required to eventually answer affirmative to, in order to proceed.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 4:38 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

[Audience member Sharon listens intently to Bjorn's response -- then giggles. Sorry, Bjorn, but that's what she did. She then takes a moment to reformulate her query, and says:]

What we get out of our experiences depends on the philosophy we bring to those experiences. I think you boys agreed to something like that earlier.

My husband, Gerry, is a biased scientist. I know it, and he admits it. He sees the "exact" or "physical" sciences only as subordinate contributors to the larger philosophical and theological study of God and His works. And because his first premise is that "In the beginning, God created..." his interpretation of the available data is typically colored by concepts like plan, purpose, design, function, etc -- sometimes, even, when a plausible mechanistic explanation is available!

You, Bjorn, appear to be biased in the opposite direction. Your interpretation of the available data seems to consciously and scrupulously avoid any connotation of plan, purpose, design, function, etc -- even when the appearance of design is overwhelmingly obvious to any ordinary person.

So it seems to me that the only unbiased scientist -- the true scientist -- is the agnostic. The man who withholds judgment on all issues until proof positive is available. I think that such a man will, unfortunately, find himself eternally unable to decide on a wide variety of fundamental issues -- but at least he won't be coloring his interpretations and going off on wild goose chases like you and Gerry sometimes do.

And so, Bjorn I will rephrase: Do you agree that the big red "A" on your blog would indicate greater scientific objectivity if it stood for Agnostic instead of Atheist?

[Sharon then turns to the audience member beside her and suggests starting a big GRAY "A" campaign for agnostic bloggers who are undecided about coming out!]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:13 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #10

No, I will not agree to this. That I believe there is no creator doesn't matter for the discussion we've had so far. The origin of the universe may be caused by something or nothing, but that doesn't change the previous propositions. I study what nature does, as does any other scientist. That's the business.

That I don't believe in your God does not change how I do science. The Christian who does science also doesn't do it differently because he doesn't believe in Allah or Odin. The question just never enters in science - this study of nature.

I do see design in nature. Just not design that needs a conscious mind with a plan behind it. Whenever we see something that looks designed, someone who is wont to look for evidence of a creator will conclude that that's what it is. But a proper scientist (including one that believes in a creator) will keep looking to see if natural law alone can explain the observed. Many thing have been discovered this way, and many still are pending. Nothing has been learned whatsoever about nature by saying that it God did it. And science studies nature, not God.

Also, I am both agnostic and atheist. Agnostic because I admit that we cannot know either way, whether there is a God or not. Atheist because my belief is that there isn't.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

These are not mutually exclusive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 12:54 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

I appreciate your frankness and honesty on this point. I'd like to pursue the matter, just a bit, if you don't mind.

I believe that deductive reasonings (syllogisms, mathematical proofs, etc) and inductive or intuitive insights ("Aha!" or "I've got an idea!") are two significantly different things. Artificial intelligence researchers, for example, have been able to program computers to deduce geometrical theorems, including theorems that haven't previously been noticed by men; but they have not -- and I think will not -- be able to program computers to make "intuitive leaps" into the unknown, as men do; to "have new ideas", so to speak, of their own: the deterministic nature of the Turing machine precludes it.

I also believe that there is much more intuitive insight in the so-called scientific method than most scientists care to admit. Paradigm shifts, brilliant ideas, ingenious experimental apparatus -- in fact, every hypothesis ever formulated and every plan for the testing of an hypothesis ever devised -- fall into this latter category. So while I agree with you that a good scientist should be able to perform experiments and interpret the results consistently without regard to his personal beliefs, that, in my mind, is not the critical aspect of scientific endeavors.

The truly important parts of the scientific enterprise are (1) the magnificent (and perhaps supernatural) "Aha!" moments when a hypothesis is conceived, and (2) the lesser (but still possibly supernatural) "Aha!" moments when experimental plans are devised to test an hypothesis. The rest is grunt work, as I suspect you know. Yet it is at these two points that a scientist's personal beliefs exert unavoidable influence on the process.

This influence, unfortunately, is hard to quantify because it reveals itself, not in a measurable form, but only in certain general "tendencies" and "emphases". For example: given the spectacle of a bird in flight, a creation-minded researcher will tend to assume that the various components of that bird were designed for efficient flight and, with the origin question thus settled, will proceed to emphasize the practical aeronautical "whats" and "hows" of flight in his research; he will spend his time and energy and budget trying to figure out what makes that design work and how men might benefit from imitating it. The evolution-minded researcher, on the other hand, will categorically and emphatically deny that the bird was designed for flight and, having said so, will feel compelled to spend (or squander) his time, energy, and budget in a (probably futile) attempt to describe how such a creature might have emerged, with a (decidedly negative and manifestly obsessive) emphasis on the exclusion of prior plan or purpose.

In short, creation-minded scientists tend to take a very broad and philosophical view of their mission, emphasizing the practical applications of their research. Newton and Maxwell, mentioned in an earlier post, are good illustrations of these "tendencies" and "emphases". Scientists like Darwin and Gould, on the other hand, strike me more like one-trick ponies -- and whenever a philosophy tends to narrow one's interests, or to make one more pedantic and legalistic, I become very suspicious of it.

I'm not sure what kind of proposition to put here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:59 AM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #10

Bjorn, do you agree that while a creationist can indeed do lots of science, they do so exclusively on the "whats" and "hows" because their creationist assumption prohibits them from asking questions about the origin of species, while scientists who avoid any such assumptions about origins are able to do research on the "whys" and "wherefroms" as well as the "whats" and "hows", as we know that they in fact do.

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wed 3/18/2009 12:41 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

Thanks for the help with the proposition, but I wouldn't propose such a thing because I don't believe a creationist assumption prohibits a scientist from asking questions about the origin of species. Some creationists believe, for example, that God created some kind of information-packed singularity (and perhaps a few basic laws) and then "let the program run." These scientists study the fossil record, etc, for the same kind of evidences you do. And even those creationists who take a more traditional view on the creation of species do not doubt that there are many potential "evolutionary" connections worthy of study between, say, primitive wolves and modern-day collies and poodles. Such a one might argue that Noah took only two genetically rich canines on the Ark (rather than thousands of different breeds) and that the canine community as we know it today is the result of intentional and unintentional breeding together with natural and unnatural selection filters. These scientists, like the others, would pursue many of the same lines of inquiry that you would. Have you forgotten that it was a Christian monk, working with pea plants, who did the earliest significant work in genetics? Seems to me that he wanted to know not just what and how but why some of those flowers were purple and wherefrom the white ones came!

[Buzz] No cigar.

Perhaps you could clarify something for me so I can attempt to make a paying proposition out of it. In your previous post you said, "I do see design in nature. Just not design that needs a conscious mind with a plan behind it." Yet every definition for "design" in my dictionary includes at least one of the following words or phrases: plan, purpose, scheme, conception, anticipated result, etc -- things that I can't imagine existing without a conscious mind in the picture. Exactly what do you mean by "design" in that statement?

Gerry

PS. I showed Sharon the picture of you and your kids that is posted on your blog and she wanted me to ask if your wife is also an atheist. As a mother, she finds it impossible to believe that mechanisms capable of transforming 810 submarine sandwiches and 1015 glasses of milk into a living breathing baby boy with eyes and ears and cute little fingernails could ever arise by chance, even allowing for some kind of "natural selection" filter; and she was wondering what your wife thought about the matter.

PPS. Sharon also suggested that an "A-squared" logo -- with the red fading into gray -- might be appropriate for atheist/agnostics like yourself -- if only to distinguish yourselves from the more extreme and dogmatic atheist camp. Something, perhaps, like this:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:23 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #10

"Thanks for the help with the proposition, but I wouldn't propose such a thing because I don't believe a creationist assumption prohibits a scientist from asking questions about the origin of species."

But you also said this:

"For example: given the spectacle of a bird in flight, a creation-minded researcher will tend to assume that the various components of that bird were designed for efficient flight and, with the origin question thus settled, will proceed to emphasize the practical aeronautical "whats" and "hows" of flight in his research; he will spend his time and energy and budget trying to figure out what makes that design work and how men might benefit from imitating it. The evolution-minded researcher, on the other hand, will categorically and emphatically deny that the bird was designed for flight and, having said so, will feel compelled to spend (or squander) his time, energy, and budget in a (probably futile) attempt to describe how such a creature might have emerged, with a (decidedly negative and manifestly obsessive) emphasis on the exclusion of prior plan or purpose."

The origin question settled or not?

Design: yes you're right, the way you describe it is how people think of it, so I acknowledge that me using the word like that is confusing. There is one definition under which it could work, and this is the one I am using (but I will stop in this discussion):
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design)
In this meaning the "design" of an organism is just the way it is put together. An architectural plan of it can in principle be drawn. But none of this play with words changes anything in nature. There is plenty of evidence that things that look designed can evolve.

"PS. I showed Sharon the picture of you and your kids that is posted on your blog and she wanted me to ask if your wife is also an atheist. As a mother, she finds it impossible to believe that mechanisms capable of transforming 810 submarine sandwiches and 1015 glasses of milk into a living breathing baby boy with eyes and ears and cute little fingernails could ever arise by chance, even allowing for some kind of "natural selection" filter; and she was wondering what your wife thought about the matter."

My wife is Japanese (can you tell from my boys?). She is an astrophysicist. She knows the question of a creator cannot be settled with scientific evidence (agnostic), but she does not believe in any god (atheist with respect to every religion she has heard of). She doesn't care about the whole debate, though. She also agrees with me that absence of understanding does not make it possible to conclude anything, except we don't know (yet). The God of the gaps argument is invalid.

"PPS. Sharon also suggested that an "A-squared" logo -- with the red fading into gray -- might be appropriate for atheist/agnostics like yourself -- if only to distinguish yourselves from the more extreme and dogmatic atheist camp. Something, perhaps, like this:"

I don't actually know any atheists who say that they know for certain that there is no God. Only "quite" certain." If there are any (which I don't deny), then I'd rather change their view and keep the scarlet A for sensible atheists. Incidentally, Dawkins himself admits that God is not technically disprovable, though "very very improbable indeed." (The God Delusion, p109.) This is my view too. Note that when I talk about this Creator, I explicitly mean the one that we have been talking about so far, who created the Universe. If we extend the discussion to his actions following that event, then I do think we can scientifically asses those interventions. In fact, this is what science has done again and again. Examples: origin of stars, origin of species, origin of eyes, all of which have been directly or indirectly observed, and theoretically understood.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wed 3/18/2009 1:38 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

Is the origin question, for the creation-minded researcher, settled or not? Settled, in the sense that no creation-minded researcher postulates incredible notions like "something emerging from nothing" or "order arising spontaneously from disorder." But not settled in the sense that the detailed whys and hows of the matter remain open for investigation. One such scientist (like genetisist Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., and recent leader of the Human Genome Project) will understand Genesis 1:5b -- "And the evening and the morning were the first day" -- to refer to "Phase One" of the creation process, possibly billions of years in duration; another (like mechanical engineer Walter Brown, Ph.D. from M.I.T.) may take it to mean a familiar 24-hour Earth-day; yet another (like nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. from M.I.T) will suggest that both views can be reconciled by considering the effects of relativistic time dilation in a rapidly expanding universe). In any case, I hope you can see that a belief in creation does not squelch, narrow, corral, or hinder scientific investigation in any significant way.

Regarding design. Obviously a plan drawn up after the fact, and a plan drawn up in anticipation of the outcome, are quite different things. You are right to abandon the use of the word in the former sense, since it will be almost certainly misunderstood. Perhaps "structure" would be a good alternative for you. But am I to assume that you see absolutely no evidence of prescient design anywhere in the universe (excepting, of course, as we've discussed, in human artifacts)?

Gerry

PS. Yes, we noticed traditional oriental features in the faces of your sons. Very cute. Sharon spent two years in Japan teaching English and has many fond memories of that time and place. Our best to your wife.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:43 PM
To: Gerry
Subject: RE: Proposition #10

"Is the origin question, for the creation-minded researcher, settled or not? Settled, in the sense that no creation-minded researcher postulates incredible notions like "something emerging from nothing" or "order arising spontaneously from disorder." But not settled in the sense that the detailed whys and hows of the matter remain open for investigation. (...) In any case, I hope you can see that a belief in creation does not squelch, narrow, corral, or hinder scientific investigation in any significant way."

Then it truly makes no difference which of your two models one assumes as a scientist.
[Btw, take a look at this interview with one of the scientists at the Creation Museum, Georgia Purdom. This is an example of someone who is blinded by her beliefs, and who's scientific investigation is significantly squelched.
http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/17/a-skeptic-in-creation-land/]

"Regarding design. Obviously a plan drawn up after the fact, and a plan drawn up in anticipation of the outcome, are quite different things. You are right to abandon the use of the word in the former sense, since it will be almost certainly misunderstood. Perhaps "structure" would be a good alternative for you. But am I to assume that you see absolutely no evidence of prescient design anywhere in the universe (excepting, of course, as we've discussed, in human artifacts)?"

Yes, I see no evidence of prescient design anywhere. But I am willing to look at examples.

How about the propositions? The thing is, as much as I am naturally inclined to say what I believe, I also do want to hear the rest of your long line of thought (and I do also like the cash, though I'd agree to listen to the rest of it without it, too). If that from now on means answering yes to something that I am not totally in agreement with, the I am willing to do so.

Bjorn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wed 3/18/2009 4:39 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

Bjorn says, "Yes, I see no evidence of prescient design anywhere. But I am willing to look at examples."

Well, then, look about you. When I see a hawk spot its prey from half a mile up, the work of a remarkable Optical Systems Expert is apparent to me; and when that hawk swoops silently down on its unsuspecting victim, I find it hard not to marvel at the Aeronautical Engineer who designed it. When an hundred-foot oak tree defies the storm that bends but does not break it, I see Structural Engineer Supreme etched on each and every leaf. And when I see submarine sandwiches quietly transformed into a fully-functional baby boy, I see the Handiwork of God.

It seems to us that if you cannot see even an inkling of such things, then we're faced with a problem that results, not from a lack of data, or even from faulty logic circuits, but from an inability to perceive that which has been and is readily perceived by billions of past and present individuals, of every race, creed, and occupation, the world over. We're faced with an obstinate, willful blindness that can't be healed with more examples or further argument; a blindness that can be overcome with supernatural assistance only (see 2 Corinthians 4:3-5 and 2 Timothy 2:25). And while it is true that we "sighted ones" have a responsibility to do what we can for others, there comes a point when the time and energies of both sides are being wasted. We think we've reached that point, and that the best thing we can do for you and yours is to simply pray that God will open your spiritual eyes to the wonders about you. Let us know if He does.

So let's wrap this up, hopefully on a cordial note. Let me know where to send your proceeds -- $50 (plus a $10 consolation prize that Sharon insists upon for time spent on her unresolved Proposition #10). PayPal is the simplest and quickest (I'll need your PayPal email address if you've got one), but a snail-mail address will do, as well.

Gerry and Sharon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: Proposition #10

"Well, then, look about you. When I see a hawk spot its prey from half a mile up, the work of a remarkable Optical Systems Expert is apparent to me; and when that hawk swoops silently down on its unsuspecting victim, I find it hard not to marvel at the Aeronautical Engineer who designed it. When an hundred-foot oak tree defies the storm that bends but does not break it, I see Structural Engineer Supreme etched on each and every leaf. And when I see submarine sandwiches quietly transformed into a fully-functional baby boy, I see the Handiwork of God."

And I see things evolved, based on both evidence and theoretical understanding.

"It seems to us that if you cannot see even an inkling of such things, then we're faced with a problem that results, not from a lack of data, or even from faulty logic circuits, but from an inability to perceive that which has
been and is readily perceived by billions of past and present individuals, of every race, creed, and occupation, the world over. We're faced with an obstinate, willful blindness that can't be healed with more examples or further argument; a blindness that can be overcome with supernatural assistance only (see 2 Corinthians 4:3-5 and 2 Timothy 2:25). And while it is true that we "sighted ones" have a responsibility to do what we can for others, there comes a point when the time and energies of both sides are being wasted. We think we've reached that point, and that the best thing we can do for you and yours is to simply pray that God will open your spiritual eyes to the wonders about you. Let us know if He does."

Seems to me that you are the one blinded to how evolution works, and that's why you apply a God of the gaps argument to infer design.

(...)

Bjorn

P.S. If yo should later write down the rest of your propositions, I'd be interested in seeing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 8:42 AM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

Bjorn,

The rest of my propositions have been expounded, in language more eloquent than I can muster, by C. S. Lewis in the opening chapters of his essay "Miracles" (mentioned earlier) and in the first several chapters of his short treatise "Mere Christianity". If you'd like copies, just include a mailing address when you send your PayPal information and I'll see that you get them.

Gerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 7:29 PM
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re: Proposition #10

So a Russian and a Czechoslovakian go camping. A huge she-bear and her mate come upon the camp and gobble them up. Several days later a rescue worker discovers the camp, tracks the bears, and shoots them. The medical examiner finds traces of the Russian in the she-bear. He turns to the rescue worker and says, "You know what that means."

In the end I was somewhat surprised that that was the end of the game. The question came from the audience, so I wasn't sure if it really counted. Also, compared to the rest of them, this question seemed really lame to me, and there was just no way I could answer affirmatively to any of the ways it was worded. So Gerry called it, and that was the end of that. Notice that it was only at this point that I became aware that the rule of the game about answering yes meant that the game would be completely over at that point, and that we wouldn't just let this one question go.

Since all the rest of Gerry's propositions were already made by C.S. Lewis in his books Miracles and Mere Christianity, and more eloquently at that, I wonder about Gerry's benefit of the exchanges. It seems to me there really was no need for him to write down these things if C.S. Lewis had already done it.

A few days later I received payment together with the two books. Perhaps I will get around to reading them. In return, I'd like to recommend two books that I am reading right now. Daniel Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007) is a thorough look at the fossil evidence for evolution, in addition to a continuous debunking of creationist claims (which only works if one is willing to be persuaded by evidence in the first place - the "faith method" is anathema to the scientific one). To become familiar with one of the core concepts of evolutionary theory, Speciation (2004) by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr walks the fine line between being too technical for the layman, and too eclectic for the specialist. It's a very good start for those who want to understand evolution in a serious way.