If the prosecutor had made a reasonable decision to bring forth that witness, I think that would be a proper response on my part...>

I could be wrong, but I think this puts you in the minority among Christians who reject evolution. I think most of them do think there are religious reasons to oppose evolution.

So he is a person willing to dismiss any number of credible witnesses but will believe his own eyes? Remind me to have him on my jury if I ever go to trial. "Hey, I know that the entire convent of nuns and the AMA convention saw OCF robbing the bank, but I can't believe such an upstanding human would do that unless I saw it myself."

I will go a step farther with that and suggest that the only way for him to believe in the God of the Bible is if the God of the Bible makes a perosnal appearance to him. "I don't care if a 1000 people saw it, I don't believe it." is hardly intellectually honest. And in fact, I think the vast majority of people who insist on the personal appearance of God to them have no intention of believing in God and have set up this transparent excuse not to believe.

<So, you can work with that (although I don't see how a hypothetical about me being God can go very far). >

Does it relate to materialism, naturalism, adaptionism, the method?

Please illustrate the consensus and more importantly, why you support one ore several viewpoints found within it.

My final contribution (except potential responses to OCF and YouRang):

"Contemporary Biology has changed neo-Darwinian adaptionism beyond recognition. Many important discoveries and many important quotes from those biologists bear witness to this momentous change. I at times part company with these "distinguished Biologists".

Paraphrasing a famous quote by Karl Marx, we can say:

Biologists have changed neo-Darwinism in many ways; the point now is to subvert it."

And I research and compare, test, and research some more.

<OCF: So he is a person willing to dismiss any number of credible witnesses but will believe his own eyes? Remind me to have him on my jury if I ever go to trial. "Hey, I know that the entire convent of nuns and the AMA convention saw OCF robbing the bank, but I can't believe such an upstanding human would do that unless I saw it myself." >>

I don't see why the scientist would doubt the witnesses. Did you break any *natural* laws while robbing the bank?

Besides, if the scientist knew the things you've said about science, I wouldn't count on him to regard you as an "upstanding human". ;-)

<OCF: I will go a step farther with that and suggest that the only way for him to believe in the God of the Bible is if the God of the Bible makes a perosnal appearance to him. "I don't care if a 1000 people saw it, I don't believe it." is hardly intellectually honest.>

Well, I see that you are dragging out the "many witnesses" argument again. Only now you've made it much stronger because you have 1000 of them (before you only had 100).

Do we really have 1000 witnesses?

<OCF: And in fact, I think the vast majority of people who insist on the personal appearance of God to them have no intention of believing in God and have set up this transparent excuse not to believe. >

No, I'm not really so interesting in defending a particular stance on those related issues. Had this merely been a debate about evolution, etc, I probably wouldn't have bothered getting involved. I see lots of debates carried out on this site, and I usually don't get involved.

I thought I was clear on my motives, but I'll try again:

I'm defending the right of someone to disagree with certain Christian views (not that all Christians hold all such views) without being accused of being dishonest, or stupid, or unreasonable, or having evil motives, merely on the basis of those views.

Christians should treat these people, and their point of view, with respect. It's fine to challenge their beliefs, but Christians should not start by assuming a position of superiority. The reasons offered to support the Christian view must stand up to scrutiny just as the reasons offered to support the opposing view must.

Can you group the Christians and promote a say on behalf of them that represents the majority group?

Let me testify here and now that <no-one> is able to challenge you with evil motives, neither stupid nor dyshonest.

What - however - you DO have to take into account is the following:

we are both independent thinkers, both looking for reason and materialistic support, yet not in any way we ought to engage solely in those, even though we are co-dependant and potential accomplices and witnesses!

Check out epigenetics and axial time and Stuart Kauffman and his self-organization theories, and move on from there.

Hmm, I'm not sure I catch your meaning. What is whose first task?

<Can you group the Christians and promote a say on behalf of them that represents the majority group?>

No, my comments are not representative of any group of Christians other than those who agree with me, and I have no idea if they constitute a majority. Nor are my comments directed at any group of Christians other than those who make the sort of wrong-headed (IMO) accusations that I complain about.

<What - however - you DO have to take into account is the following:

we are both independent thinkers, both looking for reason and materialistic support, yet not in any way we ought to engage solely in those, even though we are co-dependant and potential accomplices and witnesses!>

I dunno. I am looking for consistency. Like everyone else, I have in my head a bunch of beliefs that I think are defensibly true, and a bunch of principles that I think are morally right. I must try to logically reconcile all of these things with each other so that they dance together nicely and stop fighting. Where I fail, I must throw something out.

For the most part, I'm satisfied with the consistency of my positions, but there's so many things that I don't know, and no doubt some bias that I'm unaware of.

I started trying to answer, but then I decided that the question as stated is unanswerable.

Now you are asking me to say how God can to "reveal himself to men". It's as if I need to understand what that means from God's perspective, or start by doubting God's ability to do it. And who gets to decide constitutes a "successful revealing"? Not me. You?

God reveals Himself to men 1)in Scripture, 2)in nature, 3)by means of the Holy Spirit acting directly upon the individual soul, and 4)by preaching. These are not His only methods, but they'll do for discussion purposes.

I believe it's relevant that eyewitnesses to Christ chose to be put to death (usually in horrible ways) rather than recant their testimony. That isn't the whole argument, but is certainly part of it.

Okay, another question:

Yesterday you said:

<I thought I was clear on my motives, but I'll try again:

I'm defending the right of someone to disagree with certain Christian views (not that all Christians hold all such views) without being accused of being dishonest, or stupid, or unreasonable, or having evil motives, merely on the basis of those views.>

Thank you for being this candid. But I do not quite get that. Allow me to explain: I perceived things to be quite the opposite, and knowing from my experience here in Holland and from what I have read re the quite different dynamic on the other side of the pond with factions opposing each other much more energetic and hostile, in the US.

Aside from that notion which may be debatable, I can't really imagine me or you, personally, being bullied by some Christian movement, to choose say between God or the Devil, and receive the subsequent accusation or admonition that we are ignorant or stupid not to etc. ... Quite the contrary, eg Jehovah's Witnesses who are known for putting their foot in the door, are actually taught, just as the bible says, to <gently water> the plant or flower and wait for god to prepare that person's heart if he/she wants to know more about Him, his son and his plans for the future, and the meaning of the past and present in that context.

There is NO intimidation of any kind involved, no accusations of evil motives, stupidity.... and traditionally, here, people exercise their belief and faith without much noise and public alarm.

Quite contrary I have seen you not only defend the materialistic, naturalistic approach, but at several points in the past it was you who made the association and comparison involving <OCF> for him to be either not upto-date with basic science and logical reasoning, the sort you deam to be solid, methodical and scientific. Several jumped the boat and left the discussion as active participants in frustration of some kind, but you stuck to it, to this day, and remained, arguing quite vigilantly and tirelessly. That I admire.

But taking it one step further, you made it clear on several occasions (quite some time ago - perhaps months already now) that you thought, theorized, hypothesized, that - let's call it the Bible Belt - that they are compensating for being unnerved by scientific discoveries, progress and advancement in the last say 50+ years or so; and after a few leaps and jumps in a contorted way defending the fairy-tale miracle account and historical inaccuracy of the Bible, as a consequence producing the kind of non-arguments as seen in the ID movement and the young earthers.

I then at some point gave you the example of a Big Shot in evolutionary Biology and Chemistry, <Dean Kenyon>, who has indeed converted to YEC-ism, and following my surprise at such a turn-around, inquired as to your view on this type 180 ... I belief I did that at your forum - but you didn't respond then.... No probs btw. Of course the extreme psychology involved forces itself upon inquiring minds like yours and mine. Talk about paradigm shifts! ;)

Kenyon still is an Emeritus Professor at Cal State University btw, and one of the leading figures operating from the <Discovery Institute> - the home and inner sanctum of the ID movement - including Mr Irreducible Complexity, Dr Michael Behe.

At times it has been a mystery to me as well, or at least a source of wonder...

You worded something quite eloquent, honest and insightful here:

<For the most part, I'm satisfied with the consistency of my positions, but there's so many things that I don't know, and no doubt some bias that I'm unaware of.

Anyway, I don't think this is anything special -- I believe we all do the same thing to some extent. Maybe I'm more conscious of this effort than some people, or maybe that's one of my biases talking. :-)>

That is a good point, and it makes me realize that in my response yesterday, I neglected to state my deeper motive, even though I have stated it a number of times earlier in this forum:

I am not so concerned with scientists being "bullied" (although that was certainly a bigger problem in past years).

I am more concerned that such attempts at bullying (e.g. accusations) have a damaging impact on the reputation of Christianity. I don't know about Holland, but here Christians are routinely portrayed as ignorant, stubborn, arrogant, hypocritical, and gullible. I wouldn't mind negative portrayals such as these so much, except that there is a large body of evidence to suggest that those portrayals are justified!

Thus, my deeper motive is to defend Christianity by attempting to disassociate Christianity itself from what I believe are unchristian and reputation-damaging activities that some Christians engage in.

<Quite contrary I have seen you not only defend the materialistic, naturalistic approach...>

Yes. To be clear on this point, I am arguing that the naturalistic approach is defensible and may be the point of view of an honest person with good motives, whether or not that person believes in God.

Personally, I accept most scientific views of natural science, including cosmology (old earth) and biology (evolution) as strongly defensible, and in doing so I do not deny the existence of God nor his involvement.

<...but at several points in the past it was you who made the association and comparison involving <OCF> for him to be either not upto-date with basic science and logical reasoning, the sort you deam to be solid, methodical and scientific.>

Yes. On a couple of occasions early on, OCF said that he was willing to provide an intellectual defense of his position.

I took this to imply a debate following logical principles. For instance, if side A refutes a claim made by side B, then side B should not continue to make that claim until first countering that refutation. If side A accuses side B of using an illogical argument, then side A is obligated to state what argument that was and explain why it was illogical. If side A poses a question to side B, then side B is obligated to answer. Both sides are obligated to read and process the statements made by the other, and neither side should engage in a debate without being credibly familiar with the subject matter (e.g. science and religion).

In these (and other) respects, I think I have held up my end. I don't think OCF has held up his so well, and you can find my reasons for this claim stated on numerous occasions all across these pages.

<I then at some point gave you the example of a Big Shot in evolutionary Biology and Chemistry, <Dean Kenyon>, who has indeed converted to YEC-ism, and following my surprise at such a turn-around, inquired as to your view on this type 180 ... I belief I did that at your forum - but you didn't respond then.... No probs btw. Of course the extreme psychology involved forces itself upon inquiring minds like yours and mine. Talk about paradigm shifts! ;)>

My apologies. All I know of Kenyon is what I've read on Wikipedia. Evidently, he is a convert to YEC-ism after at some earlier being an old-earth evolutionist.

Is it that surprising? I don't know. When he was an old-earth evolutionist, was he a conservative Christian? If so, he might have felt a desire to reconcile his scientific beliefs with a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. Or, maybe he really has strong reasons to refute all the evidence that seems to demand an old earth. Either my reason or my bias casts doubt upon the latter case.

<OCF: FWIW, I think you have a greatly inflated view of your debate skills.>>

Actually, I only said that I "held up my end". That is, I think that I abided by the reasonable standards of logical debate. That is no great boast.

You, on the other hand, did not abide by those standards on several occasions. And this is not a baseless accusation -- as I said, whenever I've accused you of using fallacious arguments, inconsistency, failure to process, failure to respond, etc. etc., I cited the instance and provided the explanation. It's all on record.

<OCF: In any case, the floor is yours to explain how you can reconcile Genesis with an old earth. You now have had 3 people and about 15 posts asking you to do so. I am undecided why so many issues seem to get ignored, but that is my fault for not calling you on it before.>

Regarding how Genesis might be reconciled with the old earth, perhaps you didn't see my post here: OhioChessFan chessforum

Now, you've accused me ignoring "so many issues". Will you produce a list of all these ignored issues? Or shall we add another one to your list of unsupported accusations against me?

BTW, I'll remind you that you've accused me of this before:

<May-01-10 OhioChessFan:><...As for you getting silent, when push comes to shove, you do the same thing. I could predict which posts you won't respond to.>

And when I challenged you to produce the evidence, you backpedalled (notably without actually apologizing for the false accusation):

I didn't see the link. I guess if I did the same, you'd brush it off by my just believing what I read on some website. I'm not sure why that works only one way. I do apologize for not having seen the link, and the personal affront that I deleted, though not before you saw it. I always read over posts and try to give it one last look over and that one seemed to be inappropriate. It was an honest assessment, though not necessary. I understand the feeling to be mutual.

Okay. We have a scientist who doesn't believe in God. She (or he) is a mature adult who has reasoned, based on centuries of scientific observation and study, that natural laws are unbreakable and thus miracles are impossible. Since it doesn't matter to you, I'll assume that she has a cursory knowledge of the Bible (which is certainly not something to be assumed for all such scientists).

Why couldn't this scientist come to believe in God?

You seem to assume that her disbelief in miracles is a huge obstacle to her believing in God. I don't see a necessity for that assumption.

We know that sometimes unbelieving mature & rational adults do come to belief in God. How many of them do so simply because they read the Bible and say: "Look! This book says that miracles occurred 20+ centuries ago! Well, I guess there must be a God then!". I think this happens *very* few times. Zero times would not be an unreasonable guess.

No, it is far more likely that our scientist will first, by some other means, come to believe that there is a God, and she may come to realize that this God is the one revealed in the Bible. *Afterwards*, she may find it reasonable to accept the reality of the Biblical miracles, given her new belief that the personal God of the Bible exists.

So, how might this unbelieving scientist come to believe that the Biblical God exists? The short answer is that she might come to believe in God for any reason that any other mature, rational adult might do so. This is pretty obvious once you stop regarding scientists as anti-Bible drones, and regard them instead as regular people, and grant them due respect as such.

Here are just a few possibilities:

== Perhaps as a scientist, she is struck by the wonder that life and consciousness exists at all *no matter how* it came about. That is, even if she accepts abiogenesis and evolution, it does not make it any less wondrous (in a way, it might make it more so). She may decide that there must be a God behind it. Knowing that the Bibles credits creation to God, she'll look to the Bible to learn more...

== A deep sense of guilt regarding things she has done in her life: She desperately wants forgiveness, but sees no way -- except that since she has some knowledge of the Bible, she may remember that God's forgiveness is a key theme of Christianity. (I think you know that people who don't believe in God will never-the-less turn to him during times of distress.) She asks God for this forgiveness, and the sense of relief she subsequently feels leads her to faith in God...

== She sees the living witness of some Christians. She sees things in them lacking in her own life: e.g. love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Or maybe she is moved by seeing a Christian perform a magnanimous act of forgiveness toward another, or an act of selfless loving devotion to another. She recognizes that what she sees is good, and senses that she wants her life like that...

== On a more intellectual level, perhaps she is presented with prophetic evidence in the Bible. As she contemplates the volume of this evidence and how specific it is, she may realize that her opinion that God doesn't exist isn't as easy to assume as she thought...

Again, once she concludes that the God of the Bible is real, the issue of miracles will take care of itself. Or, perhaps she will always harbor some doubts about the actuality of the miracles. Does that get her kicked out of heaven? It's not for me to say.

<OCF: I didn't see the link.>>

No problem. I assumed that you probably overlooked it.

<OCF: I guess if I did the same, you'd brush it off by my just believing what I read on some website. I'm not sure why that works only one way.>

My earlier complaint about your use of websites wasn't merely that you believed what you read on some of them. My complaint was that your use of websites is so one-sided.

You seem to visit the creationist sites regularly and absorb their commentary quite freely, while making no apparent effort to balance that by visiting websites that represent the opposing viewpoint. Thus (as I said before), you end up letting your creationist sites present both sides of the argument to your mind -- a practice that produces a biased and misinformed view.

<As for the link, by what reasonable accounting can we believe God created an earth intended to be inhabited by man, and then left it uninhabited for millions of years? I can't even get out of the starting gate with that.>

What makes you think God's intentions and purposes need to be made "reasonable" to you?

I see. Been reading my online history now?

<What makes you think God's intentions and purposes need to be made "reasonable" to you?>