Lesson 2/16: Science, Naturalism and Materialism

[ekpil2000]

I may not agree with everything but this is at least an interesting take.

[hugesinker]

One minor correction here, materialism is not necessarily a consequence of atheism. Some atheists are into new age pseudoscience and believe in things like spirits or astral projection.

[grits011]

This is one of the most compelling and lucid explanations of religious thinking I've ever heard on YouTube. I'm an atheist myself, and I've been in a lot of discussions with religious people who feel the need to argue against naturalistic science to support their beliefs. It's encouraging to see someone defending naturalistic science from a religious perspective. The materialism vs naturalism section was very enlightening. I'll be watching the rest of the series with great interest. Thank you.

[richardaberdeen]

And why this matters is, because ALL major historical scientists believed in God and they ALL mixed their beliefs about God with their beliefs about science. This is very clearly seen in the lives and writings of Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the living Francis Collins. Even modern atheist scientists like Dawkins and undecided like Hawking mix their beliefs about God and science within their writings. In reality, there is no such division.

[richardaberdeen]

And regarding predicting the weather, in the past couple of weeks here in Nashville, the weather people predicted rain every day for about two weeks straight, while it actually only did rain to any extent in the past two days. When I lived at lake Tahoe in the 1980's, some bright reporter compared the guesses of what the weather would be by an elementary school class with the actual weather "forecaster", and they kids had a higher percentage of accuracy over a several weeks comparison study.

[richardaberdeen]

There really doesn't exist any such divisions in either the historical record or the 21st Century reality. Newton, for example, freely combined his studies of astronomy, astrology, physics and alchemy, as well as like virtually all historical scientists, reely combined his beliefs about God with his beliefs about science. And in the 21st Century, scientists continue to try to synthesize and manufacture diamonds and various compounds and elements of nature, similar in goal to Newton's alchemy.

[Omnitrix12]

He failed to mention something important: to be true science, something must operate within the scientific method.

[notunskeptical]

LOVE the guy sitting outside his car if he accepts a supernatural explanation!

These are so good, Gordon. I'm finally making my way through each one.

[C0nc0rdance]

This is my second time watching this. I like how you phrase your statements. You are frank and open, reasonable but unashamed of your faith.

It strikes me that the great divide isn't science vs. faith, but reason vs. mythos, or logic vs. lore, lines that cross through faith positions.

I can respect anyone who arrives at their position with an reasonable, logical examination of the Universe, even if I disagree with their conclusions in the specifics.

[ThreeSixtydroid]

Good video. Too bad the Atheist majority won't see this.

[RhunDraco]

@ThreeSixtydroid You know why that might be? Because the creationist wackos aren't touting this as good examples of Christian education, thus we don't see it. Instead you've got con-men like Hovind pushing his babbling as "science." If you and other thoughtful Christians care about honesty and proper science education, do what you can to see that people like Hovind and the founders of creationist museums don't get the upper hand and continue teaching that people rode on dinosaurs.

[terryrozmus]

A good metaphor would be with a conductor of an orchestratra. Even though the conductor is separate and above the musicians, the whole orchestra plays in harmony when they follow his direction. In the same way the Universe may be always progressing towards its goal by following the direction of its composer/conductor.

[terryrozmus]

Oh yes, a good distinction between Science and Philosophy.

Would you also say that it is also a reasonable Philosophical possibility that God intervenes in all kinds of undetectable ways in the operation of the Universe in order to direct it toward particular goals he has for it? This may occur at the quantum level, or it may simply have been encoded into the laws of nature from the very beginning.

Beyond the tools of science perhaps, but a possibility none the less.

[glovergj]

Absolutely I think God interacts with his creation -- and quantum indeterminancy / complex systems provide an path that would definitely be beyond the tools of science to detect. But there stil lacks a material mechanism by which the immaterial can influence the material -- similar to the mind-body problem. In both cases, I think assuming that only an immaterial substance fits the bill is premature. What if these properties are inherent within the fabric of space / time / material?

[terryrozmus]

Is it possible we are asking the wrong questions here? It almost sounds like you are assuming that since God is Spirit he cannot directly interract with the matter of the Universe almost like he is some kind of cosmic ghost. Might it be better to ask what is 'Spirit'? If Spirit made matter, then it is possible that matter came directly from Spirit. Spirit then is the higher reality of which the material is only a part.

[glovergj]

That sounds like the same thing -- I think.

[terryrozmus]

Oh yes, maybe I just misunderstood your terms.

I read Stephens Hawkings, 'Universe in a Nutshell' (sequel to Brief History of Time). In it he discussed one of the ideas which is being seriously considered for for a Grand Unified Theory: that reality we experience may actually be somewhat like a 4D hologram of a higher dimensional reality. If reality in total is somewhat like this picture it would allow a being outside of our time and space to act on the Universe without us being directly aware.

[mtheoryrules]

@glovergj

Would you suggest that their could be a meta material that can interact with the physicality?

And that this is perhaps the reason there is so much difficulty in interpreting the micro scale of QM?

[terryrozmus]

I have heard it said that Physicists are more inclined to accept the possibility of a God than Biologists are (I'd like to see stats on that one). Hugh Ross would be an example of a Christian scientific apologist who tends to point to the laws of Physics being 'just right' for life to become possible and point to a designer setting them up. Would you see this as a God of the Gaps view, or is it a legitimate approach?

[terryrozmus]

My personal view is that the 'cause' of the laws of physics as they exist is outside of time and space and therefore cannot be investigated by the naturalistic tools of science. Options might be offered for what the cause could be, but can never be proven correct. For this reason suggesting God as the 'first' cause is reasonable and cannot be proven to be non-valid option.

Do you agree, or again am I in a 'God of the Gaps' mode of thinking?

[glovergj]

Scientifically, I would say that is GOTG. But the qeustions is wide open to philosphical speculation, and I would agree with the argument from design there.

[MrZarniwoop2]

Becuase our brain is capable of conceptualizing it is pretty much inevitble for it to "notice" intellectually that it "exsits" and analyse all of its patterns leading to a *notion* of conciousness, which it can then use the speech centers to describe. We therefore need "proof" of self-awareness as much as we need of any other thought. Unlike us, the cosmos is (as far as we know) not intelligent, and isn't even "claiming" to have self-awareness. Furthermore, our behaviour mirrors self-awareness.

[glovergj]

You're probably right, and I don't claim to believe that the universe does have a conciousness, but if it did -- we wouldn't necessarily know unless we interacted with it. So again, personal experience would be our only evidence.

I've been reading some literature by atheists who seem to interested in this phenomenon and have suggested that the spiritual properties traditionally associated with diety are in fact emergent properties of our complex cosmos -- just as neurobiology is to soul.

[MrZarniwoop2]

I don't see why personal experience has to be the only evidence (for conciousness in us or the cosmos), if the universe had conciousness or intelligence it would be physically evident from its behaviour or in many other ways. There would have to be a "science" (psychocosmology or cosmoneurology if you like, XD joking) to explain how the complexity of the universe enables it to "think". Unless the cosmos is in some way brain-like, I don't even know what it having conciousness means.

[MrZarniwoop2]

Also, the idea of us being able to "interact" with the "conciousness" of the universe is kind of hazy. And more importantly, if this "interaction" would lead to "personal experience", that would be proof of the existence of some super-natural entity, as personal experience is *physically* existent in our brains. If this entity can affect physical reality, then it is not beyond the scope of science. Of course in reality any such experience may be imaginary or hallucinatory.

[MrZarniwoop2]

I apreciate your cause - to advance scientific literacy among christians and so on. I am an atheist-materialist (they are not inseperable btw) though, and I still see religion doing wrong in the world, and consider your education illegitimate as it assumes christianity is right and attempts to prevent people from becoming atheist - you even state materialism is "bad" as a fact... A logical person like yourself can easily reach the conclusion that god is imaginary. Nothing bad will happen to you.

[glovergj]

My philosopical beliefs are complex, but I had to simplify them to make this series. I would more accurately describe myself as a non-reductive physicalist Christian. I'd like to explore your suggestion, based on your own materialism, that God is imaginary. I assume that you believe, as I am inclined to believe, that the properties of the human mind which are traditionally ascribed to the immaterial substance of "soul" or "spirit" are in fact an emergent properties of our complex neurology?

[glovergj]

...and that these properties are capable of exercising top-down causality over the physical components by either direct (motor) or indirect (psycho-sematic) free agency? In other words, do you believe that your physical body is sufficient to account for your free will in such a way that no additional immaterial substances (ie: soul, spirit, etc..) need be hypothesized to fill in the gaps in our understanding of neuobiology?

[MrZarniwoop2]

I'm not seeing a comment of mine here so I'll write it again - in case you see it twice. Yes, I believe everything about us can be explained materialistically, and doesn't require immaterial substance. however, as many would point out, I cannot answer the question "how can atoms feel?" - in other words how do we experience being human (in all its *physical* manifestations like self-awareness etc.). problem is, neither can any immaterial substance answer it. I may ask: "How can the soul feel?"

[glovergj]

Right. And you know from EXPERIENCE that since you have free will, that you can make concious decisions and choose this or that, that your material self has these emergent properties. Properties that don't exist at the level atoms of which you are made. So somewhere along the way, as you move up from atoms to chemicals to proteins to cells to tissues to organs to organism, these sentient properties emerge -- properties that the superstitous might attribute to an immaterial substance. Agree?

[MrZarniwoop2]

Yes, agree. I don't see atoms btw as any less (or more) "capable" of having those properties than anything else you mentioned. Also, this may be a little beside-the-point, but despite "experiencing" having free-will, I believe free will to be a logical impossiblity. It's more accurate to say I'm feeling the sensation of having free-will created chemically by my brain like other sensations (my cognitive brain "remembers" it is capable of "commanding"). But for now I can say free will "exists".

[glovergj]

Let's agree then, for the sake of argument, that man is purely physical. Why does free will have to be a logical impossibility? Do you believe in Laplace's demon? Do you think that, if we had sufficient knowledge and compuing power, we could predict, based on the current state of the universe on 1 Jan 1900 @ 1200 a.m. what color of pants you will chose to wear this morning? Or can you accept, as many scientists do, that free agency is a reality--an emergent property of our complex neurobiology?

[MrZarniwoop2]

Laplace and determinism are probably wrong (as is revealed by the heisenberg uncertainty pricinple) but that is irrelevent. Regardless of determinism free will is impossible because: whatever choice you make relies on your "personality" (the sum of your charecteristics) which was not chosen by yourself. If your intelligence, morals etc. caused you to make a certain choice, than whoever or whatever (including randomality) "shaped" your personality is what "sealed your fate" to make that choice..

[MrZarniwoop2]

Nevertheless, my sensation is of having the ability to "command" my body, and to live I sort of need to "pretend" I can, while in actuality it is whatever has predetermined (again, including non-deteministic things like god/randomality) the exact personality of what I am (whether its brain soul or anything else). Free will is existent in the sense that the cognitive brain commands certain aspects of the body, That is the scientific "proven" free will, but not in the philosophical sense.

[glovergj]

Agree that our choices are influenced by phsical environment. No matter how hard I will to fly, my choice can not overcome the physics of the situation.

So let's focus on agency, which is -- as you describe -- your ability to command your physical body to do certain things. I agree that this is real. So here we have an example of top-down causality. The properties of a system, that only exist at the highest levels of organization, can influence the individual parts of the system....

[glovergj]

Given this example, would you say that this top-down causality (ie: the cognitive brain commanding certain aspects of the body) is real or imaginary?  Obviously at the lower levels of organization (ie: cells, tissues, organs) there is only bottom-up causality. But at the cognitive level, would you agree that I can "decide" to walk through my office naked if I so chose?

[glovergj]

And that this choice is free and real? Let's agree that the laws of nature acting ordinary matter plus stimuli from the environment are all necessary to explain my choice (materialism), but my qeustion is: are they sufficient to account for my choice (reductionism)? In other words, could you predict my walking through the office naked if you had enough information about my physical state 1 hour prior to my choice?

[MrZarniwoop2]

Firstly, I agree the top-down causality of the brain over the body is real (environment and DNA dictate the brain though, but still its brain over everything else).

I may not be understanding you well, but your second question seems to me like the "Laplace's demon" question. Scientifically, I can predict with the best information to great accuracy (not perfect - due to the uncertainty priciple), though I do not know wether in this example the uncertainty is such that I won't manage to predict.

[glovergj]

Let me put it this way: I agree that physics rules in the brain and there needn't be any immaterial component to our consciousness, but when Beethoven writes a symphony, is it strictly the outcome of a bottom-up process in such a way that if one had complete knowledge of the physical world, one could deduce the the existence of the musical piece from physics? Is Beethoven's choice in the composition an illusion, or does he really exercise top-down causality and freely create the music himself?

[MrZarniwoop2]

Umm... Again this seems to me like a "Laplace's Demon", and I've given the scientific answer. I believe this is an entirely scientific question. Regarding choice, I've given my view - scientifically his choice is real - his brain is responsible for it and it mirrors the uniqueness of his brain. For all practical purposes - He has free will. But philosophically - It is an illusion as he didn't decide having the exact traits that would lead him to compose as he did.

[glovergj]

I agree that the brains works by chemistry/biology/physics, and that only physical factors determine who gets what brain, etc... But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you believe that: if we had complete knowledge of the every particle in the universe, and complete knowledge of all the forces of nature governing those particles, and sufficient computing power, could we theoretically deduced one of Beethoven's symphonies? (cont...)

[glovergj]

If yes, then that is classic reductionism. The higher level properties can be completely inferred from the lower level properties. Free will is an illusion. If not: is the problem simply because of quantum indeterminancy, which drives complex systems and makes them unpredictable? Or do the complexities of Beethoven's physical being actually have properties (such as free agency / top-down causality) that can't be inferred from complete knowledge of the lower properties?

[MrZarniwoop2]

Scientifically, only quantum indeterminancy prevents us from perfect inferrence of higher level properties based on lower level properties. It is the only randomness science has so-far discovered in nature.

[glovergj]

So Beethoven's 5th is a consequence of quantum indeterminancy + classical physics working on ordinary matter? There is some reasearch that suggests our conciousness is highly dependent on quantum indeterminancy at the lowest levels of our neurobiology. I don't have a problem with that being the means by which humans (and other animals) become sentient. But is that what you are in essence saying?

[glovergj]

Also note that scientifically speaking, other systems, such as the weather, are chaotic / unpredictable and are not necessarily quantum-dependent. So there are examples, other than quantum indeterminancy, where higher-level properties can't be inferred from lower-level properties. In fact, there is an entire field of study (complex/nonlinear dyanmics) that has cropped up to study this phenomenon.  But for now, I'm happy to simply focus on quantium indeterminancy.

[MrZarniwoop2]

I'm aware of chaos theory, but chotic systems aren't truly random, just excruciatingly difficult to predict due to butterfly effect and such. I don't know the extent to which quantum mechanics affect sentience (the idea of this effect being great sounds suspiciously new-age, but nevermind). I'm inclined to think conciousness is a concept in our cognition. Our brain can analyse patterns and create concepts and so it is "aware" intellectually of its authority over us, that "notion" is conciousness

[MrZarniwoop2]

In that case, explaining conciousness is no different than explaining any complex thought. I'm inclined to think this because conciousness isn't very survival-necessary (so it may be just a by product of our cognition - which it is if it is a "notion") and because we always feel as though we "are" our cognition the most, with emotions or instincts often "taking control" in our place.

[glovergj]

If the cosmos is just as, if not more, complex / indeterminate than a single human mind, how can we confidently say that it does not also have consciousness? Is too absurd to ask if at some point, the cosmos became aware of itself? And can even excercise a limited form of top-down agency over its constituent parts? Not in a new-age spiritual sense, but in a purely material sense -- analogous to the human brain / human consciousness.

[MrZarniwoop2]

Complex is a bit of a shady term, in other ways the cosmos may be called simple.Regardless, not all complexity is alike, what you are suggesting is that the cosmos behaves like some computer. The way I see it conciousness arises from thought - Why should the universe have thought? What is the meaning of cosmic "conciousness" - what is it scientifically? What evidence or reson is there for us to believe the cosmos has intentions and means of carrying them out? merely it being "complex"?..

[glovergj]

All true, but you could say the same thing about the human condition -- except that we experience consciousness and self-awareness first-hand in our physical being, and we interact with others who do the same. But still, the only evidence for this is experience. At the quantum level, the cosmos often exhibits intelligent behavior: quantum entanglement, foreknowledge (such as in the young's double-slit experiment), and interaction with other beings (such as decoherence upon human observation).

[glovergj]

I'm not implying that any of this means that the universe must be self-aware, but it seems arrogant and presumptive to discount this when we allow for the same phenomena to occur in our being.

[MrZarniwoop2]

Regarding the quantum level - There seems to be indeed a kind of intelligence exhibiting itself in Young's experiment and such (unless wer'e misunderstanding it somehow), but this intelligence is abstract to say the least, so it would be strange to assume it "belongs" to the cosmos, or that it is in any way similar to human intelligence. in order for it to have self-awareness it must be capable of conceptualizing, and in some way "sensing" its existence - percieving something. it is intriguing.

[pang00lin]

It's an interesting concept, but don't you think that such a view is likely to reflect more the human capacity to imagine other minds, whether or not they exist, than the nature of reality? It might be useful to conceive a self-aware universe; it might be exciting; it might be beautiful. But I think we should distrust such thinking. After all, some of our ancestors would have thought the same thing about the sun and moon, or a source of water, or the rain...

[glovergj]

Yes, but their notions would have no material basis, and were merely superstition. But the science of emerging properties and complex systems is causing some to investigate possible material mechanisms for things that were previously dismissed as occult phenomenon.

I think the universe is a much stranger place than we understand it to be.

[pang00lin]

"I think the universe is a much stranger place than we understand it to be."

Well I can agree with you there. But I wonder which 'complex systems' you mean.

[glovergj]

I read two books recently that messed with my head: "Intelligent Universe" by James Gardner and "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd - both atheists. They both argue that the universe is akin to a gian compture processing "reality". As the laws of nature grind away at the grist of quantum indeterminancy, Plank time by Plank time, spacetime unfolds. As such, complexity, creativity and agency emerge. Along similar lines, I also recently read, "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman.

[terryrozmus]

I'd just like to point out something a friend of mine said in reponse to a similar question. In a free country parents have the right bring up their children any way they please within the limits of what is legal. If Christian parents wish their kids to be educated in a school that shares their worldsview and values, nobody has the right to tell them they cannot do so. This might be what you consider indoctrination, but any upbringing is indoctrination, even if it is benevalent.

[MrZarniwoop2]

Not really.. Education can be objective and encourage everyone to think critically and choose what is right for them. That is the way I've been educated, and when the time came I simply didn't see reason to pick a religion, so I wasn't really "indoctrinated" into atheism. Of course complete objectivity is impossible, but saying "Materialism is bad" or "Atheism is bad" is VERY unpluralistic. As long as a child is aware that he can and should critically choose his philosophy, christian edu is OK.

[terryrozmus]

I have found this video series very helpful in helping me work through issues of how Christianity relates to science. I think it's ashame that discussing these things gets Christians so uptight with each other. It seems although we have got past parts of our history like the Spanish Inquisition, we still have the Inquistion of Christian Public Opinion to contend with.

[Chuichupachichi]

Throughout most of history, there was no distinction made between Astronomy & Astrology. Telecommunications & scalar radiation can't hardly be distinguished one from the other either. Chemists can concoct a deadly poison as well as an Alchemist. Forecasts from a Meteorologist? Ha Ha, as if large breasts can truly predict the weather. Perhaps, much shade can be expected today..... by short guys. Shamans can influence the weather? So can HAARP.

Glover said - "the supernatural is not included as

[glovergj]

What is your point?

[Chuichupachichi]

"Point"?

I don't have a point.....nor points!

The weather girl, excuse me, I meant "meteorologist", she has the "points". Every time I watch, I'm certain she says it going to rain milk

As for a "point", you have the point. Just let your hair grow and maybe nobody will see it

I better quite now. I think the highly offensive, insulter to Christians' intelligences is going to get offended. One last thing, what kind of contact lenses are those? Sumerian Snake?

Too many vids 2 comment = vid reply

[Chuichupachichi]

part of the scientific discipline". Also - "The pseudo scientists (anyone believing in the supernatural) are not actually capable of adding anything useful to the scientific data". Its actually the other way around. Science, as useful as it is, is not capable of being applied beyond the natural world. Thus, science is not included within the entirety of mankind's knowledge. I'm not in favor of pseudo science. I simply know that Glover considers things like I.D. to be a pseudo science.

[terryrozmus]

I have read Michael Behe's book, 'Darwin's Black Box,' which promoted ID and at the time I was persuaded by it. To me now, however, 'Irreducible complexity' is just a fairly sophisticated example of God of the Gaps theology ('we don't understand it, so God did it'). I watched a video of a lecture from Richard Dawkins where he convincingly argued for a series of evolutionary steps which could lead from a light sensitive spot on an animals skin (which some animals have) to a fully functional eye.

[terryrozmus]

Now, I agree that Richard Dawkins goes to far in suggesting that science has got so far in its understanding of the world that there is no room for God. However, ID proponents hold up things like the eye and say what good is a half formed eye? if someone like Richard Dawkins can suggest fully functional intermediate stages for the development of the eye, then the whole ID argument falls flat on its face.

The lecture series is called 'Growing Up in the Universe', which I just found on YouTube.

[Chuichupachichi]

Glover said - "most pseudo sciences r rooted in pagan philosophies". That perfectly describes the pseudo science of evo thats rooted in Sumerian paganism. As are extremely tricky deceptions, such as the ones in this video series. Glover separates "philosophical materialism" from "scientific naturalism". The problem is that all of the evo scientists don't. I have yet to hear of a scientist whom happens to be a Christian that believed his keys were raptured. The eyes still look strange?

[dmarvin811]

DSouza said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

I was trying to resist making any comments until seeing all 16 lessons, but I just wanted to say that you have some excellent points stated here very clearly. I'm looking forward to the remaining lessons. For now, the problem seems to be that the scientific educational and media communities have been allowing (not to say encouraging) the public to blur the distinction between scientific naturalism and philosophical materialism. You may touch on this later, so no more for now.

[sweetbilly]

Very elegantly said, however, at what point does it become impossible to follow the evidences in the "natural" world to explain the natural world? This is an egg before the chicken scenario. And do we keep looking, even irrationally and illogically, for naturalistic causation? Eventually with increasing technology etc natural science will be forced to step out of the natural world to seek the natural beginnings of a physical world and that's where you will find God.

[sweetbilly]

If we can not convince those with a limited world view to willingly step out of the safety of their world view to scientifically investigate that which they can not see touch or feel simply based upon faith, that there must be something beyond the natural world, science will eventually stagnate ...I maintain that we are at that point now in cellular biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc.

In this case, God is unbelievably self evident to any intellectually honest person!

[jimmo42]

and your evidence to support that statement is what?

[terryrozmus]

If said to a non-Theist they are likely to call it God-of-the-Gaps Theology - Theology in which God is invoked to explain anything we don't yet understand. Also, you only need to pick up any popular level science journal like Scientific American to see the very fields you listed above are very vibrant and active without invoking supernatural causes. God is so much more creative than us. We could spend ten lifetimes and never get to the bottom of all he has made.

[adamredwine]

Scientific American is not a scientific journal, it is a popular magazine.  You are right however that the scientific world is extraordinarily active.

[sweetbilly]

Sure Scientific American is a scientific journal, as long as the sources cited are scientifically accurate it qualifies as a journal. Believe me anything not accurate will be scrutinized by the other side. Wikipedia, however, is not considered an good source to quote as it can be edited by any person that comes along and is not always accurate.

[terryrozmus]

adamredwire is right. In the strictest sense of the word it is not a journal because it is not peer-reviewed by others working in the same fields. However, it reports news to the public on scientific research and its findings. If science were stagnating as you originally suggested, scientific american would soon go out of business! They are showing no sign of that happening.

[adamredwine]

Scientific American is not peer-reviewed. Scientific journals are publications that disseminate the results of research to specific scientific communities.

[sweetbilly]

Very well said, if your religious and believe in God the evo's claim it the "God of the gaps" theory, because they refuse to believe or investigate. But the truth is there are no gaps unless you are looking at it through evolutionary eye glasses. To Christians the science is complete, while we have many more things to learn, God is infinite, we can no longer research our beginnings unless we are willing to drop our pre-conceived beliefs and research what isn't seen. Believe through Faith

[adamredwine]

Do you think that your worldview is not limited? Are you willing to step out of yours? Did you not understand the point about the scientific naturalism? It is not possible to investigate things that are not physically manifest with science. That isn't what science does.

[sweetbilly]

No actually I don't see myself as limited anymore, I was at one time an atheist like many of you. I now consider myself to be the most educated, I know both the science and the theories of both claims evo and creation and evo doesn't hold water scientifically.

I agree science investigates the physical, but if that's all science does why are you researching the "THEORY" of evolution given that none of it's beliefs have been physically manifest?? In this light evo is just as much a religion.

[glovergj]

evolution doesn't hold water scientifically? Really? And this assertion is based on what?  Why don't you watch #10-#14 and we can talk more about how evolution physically manifests itself in the fossils, rocks, and genes of every living thing on earth.

[adamredwine]

This is what I was upset about earlier. sweetbilly used to see him/herself as limited (as we all are) and now thinks s/he is "the most educated..." S/he believes that "evo doesn't hold water scientifically."

Religion causes people to stop asking questions. I asked my missionary aunt why ostriches have pneumatic bones and bats have solid ones and she replied that "we weren't meant to know" the answer and posted a verse from Job where God is berating him for asking questions. The anatomy ...

[adamredwine]

of ostriches and bats perfectly matches the predictions of evolution and exactly contradicts the predictions of animals created for their function. It was her religion that told her we didn't need to know why this is.

[glovergj]

....and that's why I made these videos. Not that they will sway the close-minded, but many Christians are capable of critical thinking. Once they understand the evidence, they make some adjustment in their theology and keep moving forward.

[terryrozmus]

I assume your aunt is not a scientist, huh? Most people are not in fact and so rely on knowledge which is second-hand for their understanding of current scientific thinking. This is natural. After all I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but it doesn't stop me from getting on a plane even though I don't understand all the finer points of aerodynamics. Its not so much people's religion which stops them asking questions, but how interested they are in investing time in the topic being discussed.

[adamredwine]

@terryrozmus - To a certain extent you are right that it is a person's interest that compels them to investigate. However, if it were just her lack of curiosity that was preventing her from answering don't you think a more appropriate response would have been "I don't know but I expect ... might have the answer." or "I'm not sure, but if we investigate it we might be able to tell." She knew full well that the answer was not one she wanted to hear, so she tried to unask the question.

[terryrozmus]

Yes, I understood what you were saying. I am not defending people who are dogmatically opposed to free investigation of origins by Science. Such people are arrogant. People do have a right though to admit there are some things they don't know and may never know. Admitting this to ourselves is necessary for our own peace of mind.

I admit that I have some theological questions which I don't yet know how to answer in light of evolution, but I try not to let it trouble me while I work it out.

[sweetbilly]

Actually evolution can not manifest itself in anything simply because evolution didn't happen. The earth is not millions of years old. There is a major misconception today as far as evolution and science goes, evolution is not synonymous with science. If you think small biological changes over a few years is evolution, yes I might accept that. But as far as non-biological evolution, earth science, there is no evolution and the facts support Creation more than evolution, it doesn't hold water.

[glovergj]

You're right, the earth is not millions of years old -- it's 4.55 billion years old. But if what you say really is true, why are there no secular scientists who think the earth is young? And what about all of the Christians who agree with old earth and evolution? If the facts so clearly support young-earth, why is that the only people who believe these obvious facts are fundamentalist Christians who think that the Bible requires them to believe in a young earth? Hmmm....

[terryrozmus]

sweetbilly, I am a trained professional geologist and a Christian. I disagree with you and others like you. In fact I have been afraid to talk openly with most other Christians about what i think on this topic because experience tells me I could be crucified for it (metaphorically speaking). Christian love goes out the door immediately when anyone suggests anything which challenges their worldview assumptions. How about giving some actual evidence to support your position as others have asked?

[Chuichupachichi]

You believe that the earth is billions of years old & in biological evolution? Bio-Evo is incompatible with Christianity. You can't have your cake & eat it too. "he which made them at the beginning made them male & female" - Jesus. Single cell organisms have no gender.

Also, the Geologists whom know most of the Grand Canyon, have given up on the idea that it was carved by the river. Since to believe such, is "Flying Linguini with Monstrous Feathered Clams" territory where water runs uphill.

[glovergj]

It is well-established in the community of professional geologists that the Grand Canyon is best explained by erosion of strata that was laid down over long periods of time. The only people who believe differently do so because they think the bible requires a 6,000 year old earth and a recent global flood event -- of which there is absoltuely no evidence for. If there were, you should have at least one secular scientists who supports them. But there are NONE.

[Chuichupachichi]

WOW! You certainly speak completely different now from the way you do in the videos. Its like 2 entirely different people. In fact, in the video there's this "I'm in your Christian camp" kind of guy. But in these comments, you speak exactly the same as do countless atheists that I've debated. Why don't you just come clean already? It would be understood since evo has a long history of deception. Piltdown, Pig Tooth, Java, Lucy Grinder Pelvis, Chinese Dino-Bird, Haeckle's embryos, 4 legged whales

[adamredwine]

Sorry to break it to you, but Christianity has a much longer history of deception than does evolution. In fact, you're taking part in it right now... geologists "have given up on the idea that it was carved by the river." Hmmm... I thought you guys had a commandment about not lying.

[Jer0mmel]

Christianity has been hijacked by institutions that call themselves churches.

Find a church that upholds the bible and you'll find they have a peaceful record.

It's a bit shallow to blame the bible and / or God for he crimes committed by Rome and the like.

[adamredwine]

I'm not blaming the bible and/or God for anything. When someone says that evolution has a history of deception, they lump every evolutionist together. If everyone who believes evolution is an accurate description of natural history is guilty by association with the few deceivers, than so are all Christians guilty of the sins of the inquisition and countless other pogroms throughout history.

[Jer0mmel]

Well, let us both try not to lump things together then.

[adamredwine]

I agree... good call.

[Chuichupachichi]

with land going ancestors, the scientifically empirically proved thoughts of Richard "Stumppy" Dawkins, the 20th century scientific discovery of where humans can draw the line to avoid inbreeding, oh... no no wait, 2nd cousins was discovered by the Bible centuries ago. oops sorry, my bad! Since were now on Genetics-DNA-Molecular Biology, might as well mention how that science's annihilation of evo is what warranted that the "theology" expert, Dawkins needed to go literary delusional. BTW you

[Chuichupachichi]

really need to check out my "dedicated to Dawkins" videos. They're grrrrreat, like Frosted Flakes. Also, you're going to love how I brutishly boot the brightly blistered, brilliant baboon butt of none other than the amazingly heroically mutated, morpholobotomized Athevolutionist, Super Simianite......"BLUNDERF00L". I've got a brand new Brutal Blunder Beat'n video, soon to be released in a computer near you. A real "Boonbuster". Oh yea, you said no evidence? What, do I have to repeat it?

[terryrozmus]

Floods and slow sedimentary processess leave two completely different kinds of physical evidence. We know what a slow sedimentary process looks like because it still happens today and of course we also know what evidence a flood leaves because they also still happen. It is easy for a genuine sedimentary geologist to sort out one from the other when presented with layers of sediment to analyse.

[terryrozmus]

Also, why is Evolution incompatible with Christianity? What is your specific theological basis for that statement?

It seems to me that the centre of what Christianity is about is how we see Jesus. If we believe he is the incarnated son of God and his death and resurrection restored us to right relationship with God, then we are Christians - end of story.

[Chuichupachichi]

Believing in feathered clams is also not a good explanation for the countless clam fossils found at the tops of mountains throughout the world. Including the top 3,000 ft. of the Himalayas. Considering that 600 ft. of strata & canyons 1/40 the size of Grand were made in 1 day at St. Helen's. Both Mnt. Clammy & Grand Cyn. are better explained by catastrophe, such as a really big flood. Such is the logic of observationally based science, sorry!

[glovergj]

Relly? And yet, nobody believes this but fundamentalist Christians who don't care about the evidnece... Hmmm... You really should take a break from the YEC propoganda and look at what the scientific community believes and why. Once I did that, I realized how wrong these Young-Earth ideas really are. There is a book called, "The Bible, Rocks, and Time" written by two professors at Calvin college (a Christian university) that explains this very well. And the authors are both Chrisians.

[Chuichupachichi]

(written by 2 professors at Calvin college (a Christian university) that explains this very well. And the authors are both Christians)

Is that right? You don't say? WOW! I've never heard of such an amazing book. Hey, the two Christian authors names wouldn't happen to be Reverend Barry "The Fairy" Lynn & Reverend Al "Not Too" Sharpton would they? Maybe Reverend Jesse "Shake Em Down" Jackson? Say, remember when Hillary went deep down south to "twang" talk to the Baptists? You kinda look like her

[terryrozmus]

In a different field, the head of the Human Genome project for fifteen years was a Christian Geneticist called Francis Collins. He said the Genetic evidence points strongly to a common ancestor with mice. He maintained a strong Christian faith at the same time.

Now, there are two ways we can handle this,

1. Reject his claims without giving them a fair hearing, even though he is a respected expert.

2. See if they hold up to scrutiny, and if they do then work out the implications for our faith.

[terryrozmus]

Actually, you could add two more:

3. Bury our heads in the sand and try to ignore the fact he said it.

4. Accept that what he says should be taken seriously even though we may not be qualified to understand the details because he is highly respected and world-renowned expert in the field of Genetics.

[terryrozmus]

Using a volcanic process (Mt St Helens) to prove your view on a sedimentary process is like trying to understand the book of Revelvation by reading the Song of Songs.

The most widely held view on how fossils come to be on top of mountains is that the continents move by a process called plate tectonics. We know this process has occurred because it is still happening today. India was an Island, but the collision with Asian led to uplift and formed mountains. This is collision is still happening.

[adamredwine]

You might be surprised that I also accept the THEORY of gravity and the germ THEORY of disease. By the way, when you say that "none of it's beliefs have been physically manifest" you are wearing your ignorance on your sleeve. Try typing "observed instances of speciation" into google; you might be surprised. If that isn't enough, try looking up "ring species."

[glovergj]

Very good points! Miracles, for example, do not submit themselves to scientific inquiry. If you hang in there, I'll talk about this.

[cheeseit126]

great job on making this video