It is unfortunate that the conflict in this issue has been promoted as faith (specifically Christian faith) vs. Science. In fact this is a created conflict inconsistent with historical or informed Christian teachings. This issue was addressed by St. Augustine 1600 years ago.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures. For example in the new testament Christ constantly uses metaphor to explain his teachings to his disciples.
This is well articulated 1600 years later at this website http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
Further there is nothing in the Great Commission or any other part of the Christian New Testament that impells or directs Christians to reject evolution.
Perhaps persons of sincerity can move beyond conflict to respect and tolerance.

'Dawkins hasn't discounted an intelligent agent for creation of life on earth. "

Right, he hasn't, still this intelligent agent he sees is personified as aliens as in his mind its more plausable than the supernatural alternative.

'Let's discuss why the conflicted Dawkins isn't 100% convinced that naturalism can explain all of life. "

Sure, as soon as you comment on my 2 vid links I left earlier. I comment on mine, I'll comment on yours.

agentorange;
Not everyone agrees with you. There are many more very intelligent scientists, philosophers and mathematicians that don't agree with you and your outspoken evolutionists leaders. They have satisfactorily established their theories and are winning converts.

"Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God."

Dawkins hasn't discounted an intelligent agent for creation of life on earth. He at least has a grasp of 'design inference' .
Antony Flew confessed he had to be intellectually honest to give up on Darwimian evolution and accept God as creator per the ID theory. He has a strong grasp of design inference as I do.

I suggest you try another tactic of attack rather than the tired dogmas used by the evolutionists. "since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.” Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty."

Let's discuss why the conflicted Dawkins isn't 100% convinced that naturalism can explain all of life. Let's discuss why an outspoken atheist/evolutionist Antony Flew converted when presented with the truth claims of ID.

HAWK/Parrot,

‘I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.”

You use it all day every day when it comes to discussing evolution or science in general. You know nothing of them and copy and pasting is all you can manage. And sure enough below you managed to squeeze another verbatim quote, well done.

“The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural.”

You know why don’t ya? B/c that is HOW Science works. Science isn’t allowed to invoke ‘god made it that way’ or supernatural answers to equations, as they’re not falsifiable. The natural and material world is ALL that science is allowed to use to explain things, this is why its basis is always a natural one.

“Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to”

Still valid, really which ones? I have seen Behe’s instances for IC been tossed aside after being gutted, but I’ve yet to hear a counter argument from the ID side on them. Here, watch Miller describe why IC fails. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A

"You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.”

Really, then what do you make of these? Let me guess, ‘da designer made it that way!’ Sorry, but that’s not a falsifiable answer and as such isn’t science.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

agentorange;
I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.
Try these for starters (they are part of the article I refered you to). Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht. Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine.

All science is interpretation from a worldview. All science evidence that I know of is material, energy and/or intelligence. The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural. That's why it comes up short for considering intelligence within design; there is no sound naturalism explanation for it (Dawkins highly intelligent space aliens designing life on earth is not in the realm of naturalism; Dawkins is truly conflicted).

"Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:"

Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to. I'll let the testimonies from DI and ICR and that of Antony Flew and others ride with that position.

It still comes down to differences of religious worldviews and the validity of the presuppositions; naturalism Vs creationism or ID. You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.

HAWK,

"what is wrong with copy and paste when it fits with the discussion or situtation? "

Are you kidding? simply copying and pasting shows how utterly little you truly know, if you write something and then source it, then that's different, you quoted word for word like you wrote it.

"naturalism (scientism) of evolution is one of those worldview issues and how it is used to interpret evidence"

You must be kidding again right? ALL SCIENCE evidence is directly the NATURAL kind, evolution is not the only one to refer to the natural, material world.

". Dawkins obviously is conflicted over this issue as well."

No he's not. Dawkinds finds ID personified by aliens (natrual mind you) as opposed to a supernatural ID is quite a difference.

"Creation science and ID also interpret the same evidence from their respective philosophical perspectives and obviously come to different conclusions many times."

Ok, I asked for some actual evidence for 'creation theory' as you so elequently put it, if the 1982 book by Morris is all you have, keep trying. any evidence for ID?

"Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America."

I'm in the UK, though I was watching Saturdays edition I'd recorded, 4th series is shaping up nicely.

BW

Steve

Hey Shu,
Not sure if you and Steve touched upon singularity from a naturalist point of view to the Big Bang, but Ravi Zacharias in Jesus Among Other Gods (pp 62-64) spends a little effort on this along with invoking David Hume and causality. Could be worthwhile to review. It jumps from philosophy at the singularity stage to physics once the 'big bang' occurs. Has the physicists stumped.

God Bless

agentorangex...Wow! You found a copy! Yep. It's a bit of an old book but I do believe the Bible is a tad older. :-) It was to prove a point. We are more interested in "the latest and greatest" to believe instead of the never changing. People can argue about evolution vs. creation from now until the Lord returns and never reach agreement.

It's about faith. What do you believe? Do you trust the Bible? Do you trust evolution? Do you trust science? Do you trust the media? I worked in the media for over a dozen years. If you give me a subject and how you want the story to come out...given enough time I could make the story prove anything just about.

Neither evolution nor creation is about science. It's about answering to God. If creation is true then you must accept answering to God. If evolution is true then you don't have to (unless you believe in theistic evolution and that would just really make this whole conversation a bit more complicated....)

My position is simple. There will never be enough conclusive evidence to prove one position or the other. It doesn't hold to the scientific method and takes away valueable time from the classroom. Science class should be about the scientific method.

Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America.

"I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation."

Thanks I'll revisit my well thumbed Hume (I love him, he set me straight on so much)

Regards

Steve

Steve -

First, philosophy means "lover of wisdom" or "to love wisdom"; when I ask what philosophical explanations best fits the facts, I mean just that: what are the best and most truthful conclusions we come to when all is said and done.

<<I'll take matter before mind because there's lots we don't know, funny thing, you see that as an alternative but I see it as mainstream.>>

Well, I wish you good luck with that. When you can show how things like personality, love, thought, meaning, etc., come from mindless matter like a rock, let us know. I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation.

On other thought , the the very start of the universe is not a "normal event" in everyday speak so our everyday philosphy breaks down, it becomes meaningless ,all the philosophy you mention is "everyday" based on time and space as we experience it. I think that this is what many philosphers forget (many of them are stuck up there own back sides anyway-not all )
Steve

I'll take matter before mind because there's lots we don't know, funny thing, you see that as an alternative but I see it as mainstream.
Steve

Agentorange;
what is wrong with copy and paste when it fits with the discussion or situtation? Usually an authoritative author will say it better than I and I will only post those sections that fit my view.
My interests are in the various religious worldviews. The philosophical presupposition of naturalism (scientism) of evolution is one of those worldview issues and how it is used to interpret evidence. It is fascinating how many accept the naturalistic interpretations as the evidence.
Creation science and ID also interpret the same evidence from their respective philosophical perspectives and obviously come to different conclusions many times. One of our jobs is to determine which model works the best within our respective worldview.
Macroevolution is not as soldily proven as you profess it to be. Antony Flew is just one of the well known sceptics that has decided to follow the evidence wherever it lead him. He understands that there has to be an intelligent force who created life and abandoned naturalism only as the cause after reading the truth claims of ID. Dawkins obviously is conflicted over this issue as well. Shi V Liu is at least honest enough to state 'Whatever the degree to which Darwin may have "misled science into a dead end, we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists [win an] upper hand in fighting against the creationsits."
It is a battle of worldviews and their philosophical presuppositions; Our battle is not of science.

Agentorange;
I read the article you suggested. The one I used came from http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Polit/misconduct.html and it is somewhat different but carries the same tone.

They both agree with my statement that peer reviews are sometimes loaded with bias and bigotry. They are not 100% infallible and we should be aware of their potential faults. This aspect has nothing to do with "science"; just the humanity of a process. The two specific examples I listed are proof of the potential problems. Michael Mann and his infamous hockey stick along with Naomi Oreskes's consensus report are two more examples of peer review misconduct.

Steve –

<< Is It me or is this a deeply unsatisfactory, why does this explanation leave me wanting something better?>>

I would respectfully suggest you may be looking for a single, silver bullet – a eureka moment – that transforms you from skeptic to believer. Sometimes this happens, but most times it’s a combination of things. The cosmological argument for God is just one position. The teleological is another (which is really what this thread is all about), and the moral argument is an exceptional argument to consider.

You can pose endless “what if’s”, but after a while you need to ask yourself a couple of questions. First, ask yourself how much “faith” you must have to believe in your alternatives. A second, tougher, and probing question concerns itself with the real truth of “why” you believe those alternatives. I have to ask myself this question too. Do I just believe because, like Freud asserted, it is just a wish-fulfillment exercise; a mere fantasy? Or is it because my belief is logically consistent, empirically adequate, and existentially relevant?

However, this thread really boils down to this: either we are the product of mindless matter or there is a Creator. The logical law of the excluded middle reigns supreme here – there is no third alternative. Mind before matter or matter before mind. Which set of philosophical conclusions best explains the situation?

Agentorange (part 2):

My overarching claim to you is you’re relying on the wrong systematic discipline to support your belief system and therefore have both feet firmly planted in mid air. By rejecting God via biology, you’re trying to saw down a tree by hitting it with a sheet of glass. You’re using the wrong tool. Operational science won’t work as God doesn’t fit under your microscope and He sure doesn’t submit to anyone’s prideful demands.

There is an important difference between the scientific and legal methods for determining truth. The legal method doesn’t ignore testimony or facts because they are not reproducible or testable. By a process of elimination and corroboration, the legal method allows history and testimony to speak for itself until a verdict is reached beyond a reasonable doubt and the balance of probability is achieved. I did not witness various battles that occurred through history and I cannot reproduce WWII so I must rely on documents and independent testimony to determine its plausibility. Certain kinds of tests are appropriate for different realms of thought. Operational science deals with the operation of things, how things function, present regularities, secondary causes, and is based on observation and repetition. Forensic science deals with the origins of things, how things came about, past singularities, primary or secondary causes, and is based on causality and analogy.

You see, your ERV obsession serves no purpose when examining the historicity of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or any real claim the Bible makes. It’s the wrong tool for the job. At best, it could challenge the literal creation of the first human being, but even then, there are least 7 orthodox approaches to the book of Genesis (literary framework, day/age, etc.) that do not cause one single doctrine of the Christian faith to be undone. Your operational science approach is the proverbial square peg in the round hole. That’s why I feel no need to explain ERV’s.

You may wrap your biological blanket around you to keep warm, but you’ll still be shivering because you lack answers to all the big questions of life – your ultimate origin, your ethics and morality, your purpose/meaning in life, and your destiny. I don't believe you have objective answers for any of them; biology won’t help you at all. At some point in your life you’ll need to grab another tool to work on them, or end up like the atheist Provine who says you’re simply goo, have the morals of your culture, have no meaning / purpose / free will in your life, and your destiny is to be worm food.

Ultimately, you and I both want the truth and believe (at least I think you do) that believing lies has bad and harmful consequences. If evolution is true and the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, then we need to believe that, embrace it, and live accordingly. If the reverse is true, however, then we need to all be Christians. Agree or no?

Agentorange:

You’ve made a lot of comments, but I’ll do my best to respond as briefly as I can, but I will likely take two posts. As I’ve said, matter/energy aren’t proven to be eternal; the first law of thermodynamics is really a philosophical claim.

<< why can’t the very Universe be equally self-created via matter/energy? >>

I would respectfully draw a distinction between “self-caused” and “uncaused”. Self-caused is a contradiction but uncaused is not. The ignoring of this distinction caused some philosophers like Spinoza ( I think it was him…) to go astray.

<< You can’t on one hand say, ‘ o my I was created instantly and by an omnipotent being and then ignore all the evidence which counteracts this assertion, if you do it’s called being delusional.>>

Not delusional I believe, just conservative in my view of not knowing/understanding everything. The original/perfect design was wrecked, which is something that can be traced back to when you think hard on it. My favorite example of this was Mary Shelly’s monster speaking to this fact in her Frankenstein book.

<< under closer inspection instances of IC fall flat and actually are explained via evolutionary mechanisms. This is how a scientific process can evaluate and determine if something is genuinely designed, or if it arose naturally like via evolution.>>

So let’s say that you visit a car factory that’s completely automated by robots – no humans present at all. Everything rolling off the assembly line appears to be the process of these machines churning things out, perhaps with them even building other robots that work the floor. No design or is it just one step removed from what you see?

<< Sure there is a cause, but that doesn’t mean the ultimate cause is a supernatural one>>

No, but it must match its effect and a mindless, matter-only world doesn’t contain the juice to cause what we have (personality, order, etc.)

<<Yes, ALL strawman talking points, and you know what I do to strawmen, I burn them down!>>

I don’t see how I am committing a strawman fallacy as I don’t see any of my points really exaggerating the claims you or other evolutionists are making. However, you might want to check your own logical fallacies (genetic fallacy, chronological snobbery, prestige jargon, appeal to the future and authority) before coming after me… You may be lighting a fire, but like Moses’ bush, my points aren't burning away… :-)

sorry about spelling, I really should not type and watch Doctor Who on the BBC at the same time.

schumacr

I can't help but agree that you can't have an infinate regress of causes but we really can't say anything about the universe we exist in before Planck time, we can't say what happens to time etc..under extreme conditions so maybe in some sense the idea of time and cause and effect completly breaks down at a universe that size and temperature, who knows wahtcondictions it originated from. "What we can't speak about we must pass over in silence"

I can't help but think that your god/gods is one of the gaps. Beacause we can't explain the origin of th universe (at this time) then god must hae been the cause of it.

Is It me or is this a deeply unsatisfactory, why does this explanation leave me wanting something better?

Kind regards

Steve