Arel's Atheist Assumptions Pt. 2

Part One can be read here:  Arel's Atheist Assumptions Pt. 1


It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus



Zero? Does Arel actually expect his readers to take these comments at face value? The hyperbolic language he employs ("zero" and "absolutely no") tells us more about his personal disdain for creation than anything substantial against it.

Perhaps he should read Biochemist Grant Lambert's “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)


Or he could check out Willem J. Ouweneel's article “Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics,16 [1976], 179-248).


There is also Siegfried Scherer's “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 104 [1983]: 289-299)


It's kind of like the old Tootsie Pop commercial..."Mr. Owl, how many papers does it take to dismantle Arel's bald claims?" Mr. Owl (leafing through his stack): "Let's see that's one, two, three... Three."
Actually it only takes one. He did say "zero" after all.


As you may have noticed, the above articles aren't exactly fresh off the press. There are plenty more out there for those willing to look. Arel is either not willing to look, or is so snowballed by the Evolutionary narrative that he has failed to even try.

If we put Arel's emotional ranting bald claims to the side for a second we might ask the obvious question here- What interest would secular journals have in building the creation model? News Flash- They are committed to Darwinism! Arel's "objection" is analogous to wondering why a U.S. Army Ranger doesn't sign up to be a deacon at the local Quaker church. The reason is simple- it doesn't make sense boys and girls.

The reason that ICR and other creationist organizations have their own peer-reviewed journals is for the simple reason that they have an interest in developing a scientific model of creation, which secularists ardently oppose. How much more obvious can this get?





and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

I don't know if this is laugh out loud funny or extremely sad, or both. At the very least it is ironic. It's as though Arel is Wile E. Coyote bringing about his own demise (You know, the episode with the dynamite and the rocket). We might rightly ask Arel just which aspects of the evolutionary model are testable? Where are these tests and where might we find the results?

The difference between people of faith who happen to be rational, and well, the dogmatic Darwinists is that the former understand the issues at hand, while the latter either a) don't understand or b) they do, but fear any real criticism or open dialogue.

Most creationists know and understand science well enough to place creation in the category of a scientific conceptual model for the reason that Arel mentioned above- it cannot be repeated, tested, or observed. It is a truth claim about the unobservable past. And they have the intellectual honesty to say so. That doesn't mean the creation model is shot to shit, or that it is "unscientific" as Arel implies. It simply means that as a conceptual model, it makes use of historical-science methods. It involves utilizing theology, philosophy, science, and history in a careful and thoughtful way to understand the past as well as the present. As Dr. Phil Fernandez has pointed out, creation science is very much analogous to forensic science. It involves interpreting evidence, and that involves philosophical assumptions and biases.

The key here is that Evolution is also a claim about the unobservable past, and thus in the same boat as creation- at least in a methodological sense. The qualitative difference is that despite the incessant cheers from the throngs of zombified evolutionsists, the central claims required for evolution to even possibly occur aren't there. And unless we find that our collective understanding of various scientific laws is mistaken, those claims aren't going to get anywhere.

From my limited experience, biblical, honest, and humble, scientific creationists are open to critiquing their colleagues as well as revising their own theoretical framework. That is what good science does.

Dogmatic Darwinists do just the opposite when it comes to their precious meta-narrative of Evolution. Darwinism is to atheism what the ring of power is to Gollum. Just try to take the ring of Darwin from them and they will not hesitate to bite your finger off to get it back. Yes, they are even fine with falling into the fires of Mount Doom if need be.

My...PRRRREEECIOUS!!!

Arel's Atheist Assumptions Pt. 1

The recently publicized debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye has generated the attention of many people, including myself. One interesting response to this debate comes from those in the evolutionary community who share Bill's view. Many seem to loathe the fact that Bill has agreed to the debate, stating that it is a bad idea. One such view comes from Dan Arel via the Richard Dawkins Foundation:


Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham


Arel's response reveals the agenda that atheists have- to suppress the reality of God. This is usually manifest by an attempt to suppress those who would speak His truth into the culture. Since atheists often like to fashion themselves as the rational innovators who alone dwell within the realm of science, I've decided to do something novel, at least for me anyways. In addition to responding to some of his claims I will attempt to quantify and analyze Arel's response in a mathematical and philosophical fashion. I will count his propositions in their entirety and then pull some statistical data concerning fallacies, bullshit, and outright bald assertions in his brief article. Let's see how this plays out. Go.




Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.


1. Loaded Statement & False Dichotomy- If you're a scientist then you are not a creationist, and if you're a creationist* then you are not a scientist (naturally). This is built upon the Assumption that believing in God and some doctrine of creation somehow renders you unable to do science, or perhaps that science somehow requires a rejection of God and thus creation. Okay, so his first thesis is a loaded statement containing a false dichotomy that completely ignores the history of science. No biggie.

*(In this context I am using the term "creationist" to refer only to serious, credentialed scientists who are Christians, and who hold the creation model to be worthy of exploring and developing.)

But just to be sure we're on the right track thus far let's reverse the claim:

Scientists should not debate with evolutionists. Period.

I would wager a healthy amount of dinero that Arel would take issue with that statement. Yep, we're trackin.


This may sound harsh but let's start by looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

This is a bad idea and here is why.

Debating creationists offer their position credibility

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate.


That's odd. Another instance of question-begging- a question-begging epithet. Who knew? Let's reverse it to be sure though:

Creation vs. evolutionism however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate.

Attaching the "ism" only to creation and not to evolution is only an admission of his bias, not an argument. Until is is argued in a rational way it remains dogma and nothing more.



Evolution is a scientific fact,


Wait, let me guess... like gravity?

It appears that evolutionists believe that saying "evolution is a scientific fact" over and over will somehow make it so. And maybe they are on to something. After all, repetition and dogmatic assent have been used rather effectively in the past-both in the realm of religion and politics. I mentioned gravity because I've heard it used as an analogy to evolution on a number of occasions, including that one Friends episode.

Most of us understand scientific facts to include things like gravity. Though we cannot see "gravity" itself, its effects are observable, making it observable indirectly. It is repeatable- you can drop a rock on your foot all day if you like and it will keep falling every time. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is testable. If you like you can make predictions involving it and test them out to see if they work to any degree of success.

That is what makes science such an awesome endeavor. We can start from a foundation of things that are knowable and logical and build off of them. That is really what science and technology is about. Constructing applications based upon previous knowledge and applications. Observable, Testable, and Repeatable. That is the scientific process in its essence.

Evolution is none of these. We don't observe it now- it is a claim about the unobservable past. It is certainly not repeatable, though Stanley Miller tried to repeat a very small portion of it. And evolution is not testable in any reasonable sense, other than of course to falsify its claims- which evolutionists avoid like a smelly hippie does Abercrombie.

What this means is that despite the ardent dogmatism of Arel and others, evolutionism is an attempt at constructing a scientific model- not a theory, and sure as hell not a scientific law or fact. And whether its adherents like it or not, evolutionism is a rather poor model given what we now know of the laws of the universe. When given the choice between any scientific model and well-established, testable laws, the outcome ought to be obvious. Laws win. Every time.



backed by mountains of evidence,

This is where evolutionists make linguistic use of the clout they have managed to amass in the previous decades. We might first note that evidence must always be interpreted. Thus this claim is dubious as it stands. Both creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence and arrive at sometimes completely different conclusions. Of course those holding to Arel's position would likely say that this is due to the stupidity of creationists.

But to those of us who are willing to think through the issues critically, without being dismissive, it appears that the two camps have different underlying assumptions / presuppositions that in turn shape how they interpret evidence.

Of course, when creationists bring forth evidence (if you are willing to look there are well developed, scientific arguments out there) that flies in the face of evolutionary dogmatism what happens? They are marginalized and dismissed. They aren't engaged and debated, and for good reason- that would bring evolutionary claims out in the open more. But it is not just the creationist wackos that feel the wrath of the dogmatic Darwinists, anyone who dares to question evolution in any way shape or form gets ousted immediately. Will Hart's article on the BrainPolice is well worth the read for some examples of how this plays out, as is the film Expelled.



peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon


To the moon?!!! HOLY BLUE NEUTRONS BATMAN!!! No wonder evolution is on such firm ground! Maybe Arel knows something else the general public doesn't.

Let's see...Depending on measurement force, uncertainty, and of course the average thickness of the grade of paper used- let's assume approximately .114mm / sheet average thickness- the cumulative sheet total of those peer-reviewed papers would need to number around 3.36 trillion to reach the moon, which averages out to 21.69 billion sheets per year since Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859. If each journal article averaged 12 pages in length that would equate to a mere 1.8 billion peer-reviewed publications a year since Darwin's publication.

Hmm...I'm guessing hyperbole?

Still, my sarcasm aside- How many peer-reviewed papers directly supporting evolution are there? While I certainly don't know scientifically, I would wager that a larger portion of scientific papers out there have little to do with evolution and a lot more to do with, I don't know, actual science. Perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance here but what does evolution have to do with any advances in science? Really? What are the top ten discoveries and or advancements that can be directly attributed to evolutionary thinking and or "theory?" Anyone? ... Anyone?



and an incredible scientific community consensus.


How could it be anything else given all those peer-reviewed papers eh? ...Besides, how could so many be wrong? ... Right? ... I mean, that's never happened before in history.

This "incredible consensus" isn't shocking given that the behavior of some secular scientists resembles someone running a Russian Gulag. When it comes to their sacred cow of Darwinism you don't trifle. Don't agree with me? Well, we will pressure you to. We'll fire you! We'll bring a lawsuit! We will shout at you and mock and ridicule!...Or you can join us. Your choice.

The only thing incredible here is that people who claim to be rational act like snotty-nosed children who aren't getting their way. Except that in this case they largely have the power to do as they like.



Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith.


Creation is rooted in faith, but it is anything but blind, which is likely what he is implying by using the phrase "solely in faith." Does Arel (or any other militant Darwinist for that matter?) even have a clue about the history of science? Would he pretend to hold a candle to Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Blaise Paschal, or Louis Pasteur? Did these men stand around the campfire roasting marshmallows singing Kumbaya to get the insights? Did they call up Benny Hinn? Hardly.

These men and dozens of other "idiots" as Arel would likely call them, were absolutely genius in their scientific research, writings, and discoveries. They had a keen awareness of the image of God in them as they exercised their minds to understand the world around them that God created. They had no trouble glorifying him through the pursuit of knowledge (science) and in applying themselves to new discoveries and insights.

Many of them helped to lay the foundation of science and technology that we are now benefiting from today. All this from  those who believed in a supposed "debunked mythology?" What do you think good reader?

The Great Divide Pt. 2

Reverse Induction, Empirical Data, and Epistemic Constraints

Discovering the Great Divide

In the last post we began to look at some of the core issues Plantinga is dealing with in his essay. There is the issue of science and its definition(s), as well as the different sources of knowledge- empirical and revelational were the two we've dealt with so far. At the end we looked at Reverse Induction (RI) and gave a workable definition for it- taking empirical data from the present and extrapolating backward into the past.

Epistemic Constraints

Inductive arguments are by nature probabilistic. That is, their conclusion is never certain (e.g. eggplant jellybeans). This isn't a bad thing per see, it just is what it is. It's simply an admission that inductive reasoning has limits. It's no weakness that my son's Tonka truck cannot provide me with the ability to go for a drive around town. It's a toy. It has limits related to its design. If I expect it to get me to the store and back, I am simply not thinking clearly. I am expecting it to do something that is beyond its scope and capabilities.

The same holds true for inductive reasoning. It seems to work well enough, at least most of the time. And there are times where we have no other choice but to use it. In fact, if we reflect on it a bit, our minds are wired such that we probably make thousands of inductive inferences in a given day. That's just the nature of being human- of being finite. So then, we use inductive reasoning continuously, but at the same time we know that it can let us down. That is, it is fallible.

If inductive reasoning about the future can fail us, it is no stretch to say that RI can fail as well. What makes RI different from inductive reasoning about the future is that at least future contingencies have the possibility of being checked and verified to some extent. The past simply does not. The only way to have knowledge of the past is a) to have experienced it in some way, shape, or form or b) to know someone else who experienced it who in turn can communicate it to us.

It should become clear that when we compare these two types of inductive reasoning (past versus future), one is testable (at least to some extent) and the other, not so much. One is subject to being confirmed or falsified, while the other is automatically insulated from such criticism. Or at least it when nobody questions it.

Empirical Data

The use of empirical data and inductive inference in a testable, repeatable, and falsifiable way is a beautiful thing. Well, at least it can be anyways. While there have been many advancements in weapons and other destructive elements, a substantial portion of scientific achievement has been quite beneficial. I am thankful for Francis Bacon's efforts at kick-starting this whole process in a major way. This is what I and other like minded people might call Observational Science (OS)- using our powers of observation and logic in order to solve problems and come up real solutions. OS allows me to type this blog, to microwave some uber processed frozen food for lunch, to fly across the ocean if I like, or communicate in real-time with someone else halfway around the world.

Empirical data is formed from the stuff around us that can be tested, weighed, measured, and experimented on. Like the leftovers you "discover" were pushed behind the sauces in your fridge. You might try offering them to one of your friends when they come over and see how sick they get after eating them. You could catalog their experience and publish it on a philosophical blog page, that way anyone interested in philosophy would know to stay away from month old leftovers.

Just kidding. Don't do that.

The question before us now is this - Is Observational Science (OS) equivalent to Reverse Induction (RI)?

When it comes to using empirical data to formulate a hypothesis about our Earth's history, many scientists use RI. Who can blame them? What else do they have to go off of? After all, we can't in any genuine way expect them to consult something like the Bible, which of course is chalked full of contradictions and superstitious fiction. They are scientists for cryin out loud! They don't need a revelation that purports to tell them anything about the past. They can figure it out on their own thank you very much.

Now a humble man who uses RI would have to admit that, like the Tonka truck, it has its limits and is fallible. Thus his conlusions would be uncertain given the tenuous nature of RI. And that would be fine in my book. But is that what CNS does? Not exactly. Consider the following short interview with Bill Nye:

Note that Nye conflates OS and RI as being synonymous, even identical. He refers to a whole host of empirical data, but fails to admit that his interpretation of that data might just be mistaken. One example to gleam here involve his comments on radioactivity. Of course radioactivity can be measured and observed with absolutely amazing laboratory equipment. That is not the point in dispute. The question for Nye, and other ardent proponents of billions of years is this- How can we have any assurance that the ratios we observe now can be extrapolated backwards to give us an accurate measurement of historical time?

The simple answer to the previous question is that we can't. The problem here is not the empirical data itself, but rather the interpretation of that data. When it comes to the past, all of the data we have must of necessity be interpreted. What this boils down to is that billions of years may not be right at all. Worse yet, it may actually be bad science when we consider the wide array of evidence available that points in a much different direction.

Of course, being an evolutionist requires deep time, and therein lies the real motivation for the position in the first place. Billions of years is not only necessary, but it also makes Darwinian Evolution (DE) seem more tenable, at least as it is presented to the public. The problem is that for the narrative of DE to survive it must of necessity have millions and millions of years for the impossible to occur. Without it what would it be but just another superstition?

The Great Divide

The Great Divide then is this- we must either trust those who cling to RI as the only foundation for their claims of certainty or find someone who has experienced the past and can give us accurate information about it. If you are a Christian reader then hopefully you already know where to go. If you're not then I hope you at least give this topic some thought and not just casually dismiss it.

With all this said, I am in no way suggesting that their is a dichotomy between faith and reason. It is not as though you have to choose exclusively between purely rational methods of inquiry versus revelation. Honestly, I don't think there is much of a case for separating the two. Trying to divide the two would be akin to having a heart but no brain, or conversely a brain but no heart. You're not going to live long without them. The physical analogy holds true for faith and reason. Faith without reason leads fanaticism and numerous errors in thinking and action. In fact, I would go so far as to say many forms of "faith" that deny any use of reason aren't really faith at all. On the other side of the coin, Reason grounded in disbelief leads to a prideful arrogance that rejects God as the source of all good, and fails to give Him the honor due His Name. As people we tend to gravitate toward one extreme or the other. And as sinners who continually miss God's mark set before us that isn't all that shocking.

Augustine nailed it when he said "I believe in order to understand." Biblical faith seeks a much broader and deeper understanding of life and the world we live in than secularists would admit. Though many love to scoff and insult believers, their insults are hollow and without teeth. The question is, are we going to let them define the debate terms or will we be ready to give an answer in love and truth when the opportunity comes? Let us train our minds daily with that end in mind.

Bill Nye - Where's the Beef?

I while back I saw the now somewhat infamous YouTube video posted by the beloved Bill Nye the Science Guy via the Big Think. If you haven't seen it yet check it out here -  Bill Nye's "Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children" . In it, as you may notice from the title, Nye basically dismisses the Creation worldview as unscientific and essentially a backwards, irrational perspective on the universe. In other words, teaching it to children is uncalled for. While there are numerous things I would like to tackle, there is one in particular that gets overlooked more often than not in the noise of the debate over creation and evolution- and that is substance.

By the term "substance" I mean what one of my all time favorite fast food joints used as a marketing tool - "Where's the Beef?" . That is, when anyone makes a claim about anything- what are they really saying and how much is meat is really there versus a fluffy bun? Anyone of us can make any claim we want. Backing it up as objectively true is another enterprise altogether.

A brief synopsis of Nye's stated points of argument:

1) America is still a leading innovator due to our general understanding of science.
2) a portion of our population doesn't believe in science and thus we are all held back as a result
3) Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology
4) a denial of Evolution is analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates, you're not going to get the right answer, you're whole world is going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
5) he occasionally gets people who don't believe and he says "Why not?"  ...here are these ancient dinosaur bones, fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars, the idea of this deep time (billions of years) explains so much of the world we live in
6)  if you try to ignore all of the above then your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, self-inconsistent
7) grownups, don't make your kids learn what you believe (contra evolution that is) because we need engineers who can build stuff and solve problems
8) in a couple of centuries that worldview just won't exist; there's no evidence for it

Obviously the brevity of this video doesn't allow for any detailed arguments. Still, I find it curious how one can comb through literature, debates, and videos such as this and find the same things repeated over and over. Just what are these same things that you are bound to run into? Assumptions, assumptions, and more assumptions. In argumentation this amounts to question begging, question begging, and yes, more question begging. Calling the above points an argument is actually not even accurate, because, well, it isn't one. It is more or less a laundry list of assertions.

Consider the first two points above. A passive, uncritical viewer of Nye's video might come away with the belief that Darwinian Evolution (DE) is science in the same way that say, electrical engineering is. Thus the viewer might infer that somehow our scientific prowess and progress somehow hinges on our acceptance of DE. But Nye doesn't say this directly, it is implied from two of his statements. It is this implied point that is in my experience the single most avoided point of DE- showing how it is science as opposed to say, a belief system.

Nye compares DE to tectonic plates. In what way are they analogous? We can empirically study and measure the plates in the here and now. While their history is one thing, their actual existence and reality are empirically established. Where is that done with DE? The answer is that it isn't.

Here we have ancient dinosaur bones, fossils, radioactivity, and distant stars... Even if we would grant all of these things as invariably proving deep time (which they don't), how does that get us to DE? Deep time is merely a necessary condition for DE to occur, it is hardly a sufficient one. Perhaps Nye is suggesting that those things are also indisputable facts of science, not subject to any interpreting or worldview bias. In which case he would be further insulating DE from any criticism. But this is only to sandwich question begging in layers. It doesn't give us any substantial answers. Where's the Beef Bill?

Consider his use of the phrase "ancient dinosaur bones." How does one scientifically establish that they are ancient? Or maybe, how has their antiquity been established scientifically? During the nearly 100 years of early geology and paleontology prior to Carbon dating, thinkers such as Hutton and Lyell had already laid the groundwork for paradigm of an old earth. Thus, dinosaurs were already "ancient" before we even got to Carbon dating. The current appeal to C14 and other forms of radiometric dating to prove dinosaur antiquity is much more fashionable than the prior geological axioms, which were logically circular (using fossils to date the rocks, and rocks to date the fossils). And while C14 and other radiometric methods actually contain solid, scientific elements- they still must rely on untestable, non-empirical assumptions.

If we add to this that modern secular geology is finally letting go of dogmatic uniformitarianism in favor of neo-catastrophism (see for example, Reed's "Untangling Uniformitarianism"), then the pillars that upheld the idea of dinosaurs necessarily being ancient are no longer there.

Lastly, point #7 above contains the most devastating seeds of DE's own destruction. If we need engineers who can "build stuff" and "solve problems," where do those things come from? The answer is that they come from the application of intelligence and logic to the world around us, not from uncritical dogmatism.

Did any of the pioneers of scientific discovery use Darwin's ideas to accomplish what they did? Did Francis Bacon use them to lay the ground for the scientific method? Did Louis Pasteur use them in his discoveries? Do you hope your physician studied the evolution of whales so that she can properly diagnose and treat your physical condition?

Here is the question that people like Nye should answer for us backward individuals- What scientific discoveries or advancements can be attributed in part or in whole to Darwin's idea of Evolution?

I think we know what the answer to that one is.

The Great Divide - Pt. 1

Equivocation and Our Key Term - Science

At this point we need to clarify a few points and begin to define some key terms. I mentioned previously that I get the sense that Plantinga's argument may lapse into equivocation at points as it develops. If it does it is because he is taking for granted the opposition's definition of science, which relies exclusively on the fallacy of equivocation.

A definition from the Philosophy department at Texas State University states that

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."


Basically it's the old bait and switch. In my limited experience, equivocation has often been used to a devastating extent, mostly because it is easily overlooked. But there is a solution to this problem- A simple way to uncover this fallacy can be found in Aristotle's wisdom:


"Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions."

At the outset of any investigation we should ask ourselves what the foundations are for any given claims, and most importantly what terms are used to construct that foundation. Regularly asking the question  "What do they mean by _____ ?" at the outset of any discussion or dialogue can help to ferret out equivocation.

The problem and solution proposed in Plantinga's argument turns on the definition of science itself. If he or the opposing side use multiple definitions for the key term "science" without clearly stating what is meant, then they are equivocating. 

In a generic and etymological sense, "science" means knowledge. So then, what kind of knowledge does science give us access to? Is it unique from other types of knowledge? -(I am assuming that there are other types). Are there any constraints on the knowledge science gives us access to? Is science self-referential / self-supported? If not, then what supports it? Can other sources of knowledge overlap or be brought to bear on science?

These are just a few of the many questions we could ask, and there are probably tons more.

The Empirical, Revelational, and My Personal Favorite - Reverse Induction

Let's get down to it. And while we're at it, why not use the scene from the Cohen brothers' film again?


After Pete discovers Everett stole from his brother...
Pete: You stole from my kin!
Everett: Who was fixin to betray us
Pete: You didn't know that at the time!
Everett: So I borrowed it til I DID know
Pete (confused): That don't make no sense!
Everett: Pete, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart...

If you've seen the movie (if you haven't you're missing out) and can remember some of this scene you may remember that Turturro's character (Pete) reads the back of the watch - inscribed with his brother's name on it - and hears Clooney's character (Everett) describe when and why he took it. At that point in the film most of us ordinary folks would say that Pete "knew" that Everett had stolen his brother's watch. The philosopher might be willing to say that Pete had a justified true belief that Everett stole his brother's watch. The empirical facts were there- Everett had pulled it out of his pocket and threw it to him. The revelational facts were there- Everett told him where and why he stole it. So even Pete, as dull as he was, had to do what was rational- he formed the belief that Everett had stole from his kin!

The two types of facts, empirical and revelational, are a good starting point for our discussion on science. Consider the outcome of Pete's belief concerning the watch if Everett had only thrown it to him but said nothing about taking it- what would Pete think? No doubt he might infer something similar to what Everett had taken it. What if the watch were not inscribed with his brother's name? Would he still be able to make the inference? He might. Or let us take away the empirical all together. What if Everett confessed to stealing the watch but didn't show it to him? In each case Pete's "knowing" might have a different level of warrant depending on a number of factors. I would venture a guess that most of us would say that the combination of the empirical facts and Everett's testimony- revealing what he did - serve as the strongest basis for Pete's belief that Everett had in fact stolen from his kin.

When someone's testimony is in harmony with observable facts it is fairly easy to formulate a belief and be comfortable with it. But what about when someone's testimony seems to conflict with what we observe? What would Pete do if Tim Blake Nelson's character (Delmar) had piped up and said that he stole it and stuck it in Everett's pocket at an earlier time? And where would he be if Delmar and Everett both claimed to have stolen it? Now he has competing revelational "facts" to try and work through if he wants to arrive at a belief. We could complicate things even more by throwing in conflicting empirical facts, which often have the same effect- confusion.

Everett's response to Pete's hostility is hilarious, and, at the same time has some gems to glean. His ad hoc argument to try and justify his stealing parallels something in science that I call - "reverse induction." There are other names for it - like "uniformitarianism," but they don't roll off of the tongue quite as nice as... "reverse induction."

Street Racing and Deceptive Sight

If you are setting at a stoplight and someone pulls up next to you, revving their engine hard and looking over at you- you might infer that they want to race. So you shift to 'R' for "Race" and slam on the gas!...Whooooooooooo!... After the tow truck, police, and ambulance come you now know that R does not stand for "Race," it stands for Reverse- going backwards.

How about induction (inductive reasoning that is)? In a broad sense, induction of any sort (predictive, generalizing, causal or what not) takes one or more events from our experience and extrapolates outward away from our experience. There are many good examples of how we do this in our everyday life. Suppose someone brought me a jar full of jelly beans and I grabbed two red ones and ate them one at a time. They both taste like a cherry to me. I grab another red one. At this point my mind has made an inductive inference and I am anticipating another bit of artificial, cherry-flavored goodness to greet my tongue. But lo and behold this one is eggplant flavored! After cleaning up the puke, I toss the rest of them in trash. I'm not taking any chances. So what happened? There was even a dead give away too- the shade of red was seven thousandths off (toward the red side of the spectrum, naturally) compared to the previous two (they were identical in color of course).

Reverse induction then is simply the process of reasoning about the past by using any number of data / empirical facts from the present, and then extrapolating backwards. We could also call it - "historical induction." So what's the deal with this process of reasoning. We will look at in more detail next.

Plantinga's Essay - Part 3 (The Great Divide)

"...reason is one of the chief features of the image of God in us. And if we are enthusiastic about reason, we must also be enthusiastic about contemporary natural science, which is a powerful and vastly impressive manifestation of reason. So this is my question: given our Reformed proclivities and this apparent conflict, what are we to do? How shall we think about this matter?"

Now Plantinga moves us toward the crux of the discussion. He states that being enthusiastic about reason is a sufficient state of affairs for being enthusiastic about contemporary natural science (CNS). He touches on a definition, but is more indirect than anything else. It seems like CNS is to be taken as a catch all- Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Physics, Engineering, and the like are lumped together. If this is the case then I think his argument is going lapse into equivocation at different junctures. We will just have to see.

The question- "How shall we think about this matter?" is crucial. If as Christians we let our minds be taken captive by any avenue of broken thought- take your pick, there are plenty out there- we will find ourselves opening the doors to unbelief, both for ourselves and our sons and daughters.

I think there is a Great Divide that needs to be examined and clarified. It is an epistemic one that, I believe, dupes many Christians into following (or at least partially agreeing with) whitewashed, hollow philosophies.

Plantinga's Essay- Part 2 (Enthusiasm)

"Now we Reformed Christians are wholly in earnest about the Bible. We are people of the Word; Sola Scriptura is our cry; we take Scripture to be a special revelation from God himself, demanding our absolute trust and allegiance. But we are equally enthusiastic about reason, a God-given power by virtue of which we have knowledge of ourselves, our world, our past, logic and mathematics, right and wrong, and God himself;..."

I have to admit here that I’m a bit confused. I whole-heartedly agree with Plantinga that we Reformed Christians place the highest value on Scripture, holding tightly to the inerrant word as our standard for truth- or at least we should. I'm less sure about what follows. How can we be “equally enthusiastic” about reason? What does Plantinga mean by this? I love reason- but I'm not sure I can hand over my absolute trust and allegiance to it, not even my own reasoning. I don't take Plantinga to be advocating something that extreme, but then again I'm not sure yet how he means for his readers to take what he is saying. Maybe this will be cleared up later on in his argument.

If you've seen the Cohen Brother's masterpiece "O Brother Where Art Thou?" you may remember this scene with Clooney and Turturro:

After Pete discovers Everett stole from his brother...
Pete: You stole from my kin!
Everett: Who was fixin to betray us
Pete: You didn't know that at the time!
Everett: So I borrowed it til I DID know
Pete (confused): That don't make no sense!
Everett: Pete, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart...

Hidden in this hilarious scene is something philosophical to chew on. Is there something about us that goes deeper than reasoning itself? Something that defies logic? Or something that can ignore logic? I tend to think that there is. And if you happen to be Reformed you may also think so too.

I believe Scripture teaches that our reason, which Plantinga has defined, can be powerfully shaped by something else- the heart. If we want to put it in simple, non-philosophical terminology the heart is the core of every person where desires are born, fed, and brought to flower (I'm just throwing an ad hoc definition out here). I haven't decided whether this is part of our being is purely "spiritual" and therefore an "immaterial" aspect of who we are as people. Whether it is or it isn't may not be relevant for this topic. What does seem to matter for this discussion is that there is such a thing and that it affects how we reason.

I also tend to believe that thinking and reasoning also in turn affect this place of desire, making their relationship with one another fluid. If this is true then it gets kind of murky to navigate just where things start and end. This complexity may just be another confirmation that we are indeed made in God's image. When we set out to uncover just what makes us who we are we are often left scratching our heads. Sure it can be frustrating but would we really want it any other way?

I'm probably already in way over my head on this one...

But then again, that is philosophy in a nutshell- for the most part.

Back in the Saddle Again

I really should be listening to some Aerosmith right now, but I'm not. I could say that it's been a rough three years of writer's block but who would believe me. My advice to anyone reading this is- don't start a blog unless you can reasonably expect to have time for it. Anyway, I'm glad I started things off with Plantinga and the issues he has raised in this essay. So...

And if you are reading this and you know how to get rid of these ridiculously annoying commercial links that randomly attach themselves to words in the text body (Yes, I just used reification there), I would welcome the input on that.

Plantinga's Essay- Part 1 (The Simple Question)

When Faith and Reason Clash:
Evolution and the Bible.

Alvin PlantingaUniversity of Notre Dame
Notre Dame IN 46556

Christian Scholar's Review XXI:1 (September 1991): 8-33.

My question is simple: how shall we Christians deal with apparent conflicts between faith and reason, between what we know as Christians and what we know in other ways, between teaching of the Bible and the teachings of science?

My first question is- What does Plantinga mean by “what we know as Christians” and “what we know in other ways”? I hope he clears this up, because as it stands it is unclear what he means by this. Is he advocating a fragmented Christian Epistemology of some sorts, like a Jenga tower, built by its individual blocks? Or perhaps something like an epistemological stew, where the whole is made up of its parts (special revelation, empiricism, reflection, …and so on).

The paradigm of the Bible vs. science is so entrenched in modern thought that I wonder if we are even allowed to question its accuracy. Is there really a wall dividing the two?

I should point out here that one topic I am bent on pursuing on this blog is the nature and limits of scientific inquiry. Without going into too much detail, it should be pointed out that the teachings of the Bible are encountered through the senses, but their origin lies with God and His divinely appointed message to us as his creatures. Science, on the other hand, is rooted in the senses and has its origin in the employment of rational principles (logical deduction, induction, and the like) and methodologies (testing, observing, measuring, and other empirical avenues) to determine aspects of the universe and ourselves. This is a point that, in my opinion, many Christian philosophers, theologians, and everyday men and women miss in this whole discussion. The nature of these two "sources" of knowledge is vastly different. Their reach will be constrained by their nature. That is a point worth and returning to many times over.

As a special case, how shall we deal with apparent conflicts between what the Bible initially seems to tell us about the origin and development of life, and what contemporary science seems to tell us about it? Taken at face value, the Bible seems to teach that God created the world relatively recently, that he created life by way of several separate acts of creation, that in another separate act of creation, he created an original human pair, Adam and Eve, and that these our original parents disobeyed God, thereby bringing ruinous calamity on themselves, their posterity and the rest of creation.

According to contemporary science, on the other hand, the universe is exceedingly old-some 15 or 16 billion years or so, give or take a billion or two. The earth is much younger, maybe 4 1/2 billion years old, but still hardly a spring chicken. Primitive life arose on earth perhaps 3 1/2 billion years ago, by virtue of processes that are completely natural if so far not well understood; and subsequent forms of life developed from these aboriginal forms by way of natural processes, the most popular candidates being perhaps random genetic mutation and natural selection

So, Plantinga has placed the question before us- What are we to do with the apparent conflict between faith and reason? And has now started with a specific problem: What do we do with the biblical story of creation and contemporary science’s take on things? The contrast is obvious of course.


I find it interesting that most people who study the topic of evolution and the Bible admit that Genesis (written as historical narrative) sure seems to relate an account of special creation by God himself in an understandable and clear manner. Note Plantinga’s own words- “Taken at face value, the Bible seems to teach that God created the world relatively recently, that he created life by way of several separate acts of creation…” This is seems to be a tacit admission that the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position is based upon a solid exegetical understanding of the text.


With that aside, Plantinga has laid out the dilemma before us. Contemporary science (CS) paints a picture that seems to be squarely at odds with biblical teaching. It seems that we as Christians are in dire straits. We either hold to biblical teaching and become ignorant fideists, or we embrace the teachings of CS, and thus become foolish in wanting to still hold on to the Bible as truth.

Plantinga's Essay: When Faith and Reason Clash (Intro)

After reading through Alvin Plantinga's essay on Evolution and the Bible and listening to a recent lecture he gave on the subject, I thought I would analyze his argument, if only to help me understand what I hold to as a Christian and a philosopher. Since this is a substantial essay I am going to approach it in sections (not sure how many). I will also use some abbreviations, so be on the lookout.

Plantinga's entire essay can be accessed at:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html

A few cautions first…

1) I will try to “think” along with Plantinga’s essay as it progresses, so if he clears something up later then hopefully I’ll get it at that point.

2) I am a Reformed Christian philosopher

3) I try to be charitable, but I don't always play nice either

4) I might use sarcasm (maybe)

5) Numbers 3 and 4 are logical consequents of number 2.

Where to Start

After reading some internet posts on epistemology in general I wanted to start my own exploration in the realm of knowledge and its justification. As Christian philosopher I am particularly interested in the types of questions we start off with when it comes to knowledge.

The big question of epistemology is- "How do we know?" The interesting thing is that when we attempt to answer that question in any way shape or form we have already answered another important question- "What do we know?"

Roderick Chisholm stated the importance of this situation in his formulation of "The Problem of the Criterion," which he laid out in his work Theory of Knowledge. Other philosophers and theologians have recognized this difficulty as well.

So, my opening question for this blog is this- Where does the Christian philosopher fall in all of this? Does he answer the question "How do we know?" first? Or perhaps he starts with the question "What do we know?" Is there a possible way to answer them both at the same time and in the same way? As of now I'm not sure.