The Watchmaker - story

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Unfortunately the Short-Age Creationists do not have a coherent testable explanation of why almost any of the evidences for a long-age earth are wrong.

Again, an illustration of not understanding the creationist philosophy.

Quote:

In the past I have used the White Cliffs of Dover as an instance of this. There is simply no credible detailed short-age explanation for these megatons of dead animals.

As I recall, a workable explanation was given for the White Cliffs of Dover but those that think they know everything have have nothing to learn. I believe Bevin personally insulted the highly esteemed Dr. Elene Kennedy (who at one time was an old-earth evolutionist) and I certainly hope he has personally called or written to her to apologize for his conduct here. Real people have real feelings that really get hurt and she was one of them. Cyber bullies need to be held responsible for their reprehensible behavior online.

Those that are unwilling to let go of their naturalist assumptions will never be able to grasp the creationist philosophy. Since they cannot grasp it, they are in no position to criticize it. I, on the other hand, can step back and say, OK let's say there was no God, and look at the world as a naturalist sees it.

Quote:

We can conclude the Short-Age creationists don't understand the evidence, for the simple reason that their theory is incompatible with it and they have no credible way of making it compatible.

What is being said here is that creationists cannot prove the Bible is divinely inspired, which is their base assumption. That is true. However, naturalists can no less prove their assumptions are correct. Both sides are on the same ground. Origins is a philosophical issue. It is not operational science.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

When your basic assumption is supernaturalism, *anything* can be explained away as miraculous.

One of bevin's points was that if God created trees with more than one tree ring when they were only a day old, that makes God a liar. How dare God make a tree look 50 years old when it is only a day! Those that understand the creationist philosophy are obviously going to chuckle at such a concern.

This statement, "*anything* can be explained away as miraculous." Makes it sound like creationists are claiming God created rocks with fossils already in them. That simply isn't so. Creationist arguments are within the realm of how we see God working in the Bible.

For example, we see that God cursed creation after the Fall. As a result some of the animals that were vegetarians became carnivores and some plants began to grown thorns. That gives us an idea of how the curse impacted creation.

Creationists could claim that when God created the stars, He also created the light from the starts already in motion and that is why people on a young earth can see distant star light. That might fall into the "*anything* can be explained away as miraculous." However most young-earth creationists reject that explanation.

Like most things under criticism, I think most that criticize young-earth creationism do not understand it. They do not receive creationist journals in the mail. They do not watch creationist programs on TV. They do not read creationist books. They do not attend creationist seminars.

On the other hand, most creationists do watch naturalist programs on TV (PBS, Discovery, Science Channel). They do read naturalist periodicals and have been educated in schools that used naturalist textbooks.

So as a rule, creationists have a better understanding of what is being taught by naturalists than naturalists understand about creationism. I got the term "pseudo-science" from a naturalist describing the study of origins. Some naturalists are willing to concede their theories are based on assumptions that cannot be proven - most are not.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

when I again reiterate that the issue is the appear of DEATH on Earth for millions of years, the issue is so uncomfortable that they simply avoid the issue - usually by changing the subject.

Creationists do not avoid that issue at all. There is obviously a lack of understanding of the creationist philosophy on this forum.

[Bravus]

I should note that 'anything can be explained away' might have been better phrased as 'anything can be explained'. I did not mean to make any sort of value judgement of the creationist philosophy in trying to describe it. I simply saw an on-going argument that was in principle insoluble and tried to bring a little clarity.

(incidentally, since under general relativity space-time and matter-energy are so tightly intermingled, it doesn't make sense to think of God creating 'empty space' and then having light propagate through it. The universe would be created already filled with light and gravity. So there's actually no need for a supernaturalist to resile from what the text explicitly says, which is that God created the stars during creation week)

[bevin]

Quote:

As I recall, a workable explanation was given for the White Cliffs of Dover

You recollection is faulty. Provide a reference for such an explanation.

Quote:

I believe Bevin personally insulted the highly esteemed Dr. Elene Kennedy ...

That is a gross mischaracterisation of what happened, and any rate is also a prime example of trying to change the subject.

Quote:

One of bevin's points was that if God created trees with more than one tree ring when they were only a day old, that makes God a liar. How dare God make a tree look 50 years old when it is only a day!

Another prime example, this time matching what I wrote when I said You will notice that they try the "God made the world look mature - Adam looked old, right!" argument immediately, and then, when I again reiterate that the issue is the appear of DEATH on Earth for millions of years, the issue is so uncomfortable that they simply avoid the issue - usually by changing the subject.

DEATH. Not tree rings.

Quote:

Makes it sound like creationists are claiming God created rocks with fossils already in them.

Creationists have claimed this, and they have also claimed the Devil puts them in there.

Quote:

I think most that criticize young-earth creationism do not understand it. They do not receive creationist journals in the mail. They do not watch creationist programs on TV. They do not read creationist books. They do not attend creationist seminars.

I have been following the Creationist literature and programs for decades. They are consistently repeating old and refuted arguments.

Quote:

Creationists do not avoid that issue at all.

The issue is "Why did God create a world that appears to have had millions of years of large animal death on it" - and you keep saying you aren't avoiding it, but you never address it.

[David Koot]

You recollection is faulty. Provide a reference for such an explanation.

[John317]

Quote:

BEVIN: I have been following the Creationist literature and programs for decades. They are consistently repeating old and refuted arguments.

Quote:

SHANE:

Creationists do not avoid that issue at all.

Quote:

BEVIN: The issue is "Why did God create a world that appears to have had millions of years of large animal death on it" - and you keep saying you aren't avoiding it, but you never address it.

Have you ever posed this question to the scientists working at Geoscience Research Institute or to other scientists supporting creationism? If so, what have they said?

I think the question is, Did God in fact create the world so that it appears that large animals have been dying on it for millions of years?

Do you have any objection to beginning with that question rather than with the one you posed? If you ask, Why did God do it rather than whether God did it, isn't it similar to asking an evolutionist why God originally made humans a distinct species from apes on the sixth day of the week?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The issue is "Why did God create a world that appears to have had millions of years of large animal death on it" - and you keep saying you aren't avoiding it, but you never address it.

First, and let me be clear, I do not have a PhD after my name. I, in no way, can speak as an authority for the creationist world view. However I can make reference to what those in such positions teach and they are clearly not avoiding this issue. Those that are familiar with their philosophy know that.

The Geo-Science Research Institute (GRI), Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) are all good resources for learning about the creationist philosophy. Of course, being an Adventist, I prefer the Geo-Science Research Institute.

Quote:

Creationists have claimed this, and they have also claimed the Devil puts [fossils] in [rocks].

Another example of not understanding creationist philosophy. I seriously doubt GRI, ICR or AiG teach anything like this. I certainly have not come across it if they do.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I have been following the Creationist literature and programs for decades. They are consistently repeating old and refuted arguments.

It is also important to remember that just because a naturalist claims that a creationist position has been refuted, doesn't make it so. Many naturalists believe the Watchmaker analogy has been refuted while it continues to expose naturalism's weakest area - the complexity of life.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I went to look for her comments, which I had posted in the Origins forum at the time, but could not find anything in 'Search.'

I believe the Origins forum is hidden at this time. It would be nice to have a forum where creationists could discuss different theories, like starlight, without being attacked and insulted as being stupid and not understanding the evidence. However that is what happened with the Origins forum. Perhaps someday in the future we can have an Origins forum where people can play well with others.

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

I believe Bevin personally insulted the highly esteemed Dr. Elene Kennedy ...

Indeed it happened. Very demeaning statements, to which Dr. Kennedy responded very directly and wondering why there wasn't a moderator on the forum.

I deliberately did not say more above, because I was not wanting to reopen this wound. Since David has picked up this item, I will say this...

Actually what happened is that David Koots took some remarks of mine OUT OF CONTEXT and then he REMOVED PART OF THEM and then he sent these editted out-of-context comments to Dr Kennedy with a misleading wrapper.

Doctor Kennedy was indeed upset based on the incorrect information she had been supplied, but she ALSO stated that she did not think God had given her the job of explaining the White Cliffs of Dover, although she did make a few observations about the topic.

I put David on my "ignore" list immediately after I found out what he had sent her. I was extremely upset by how badly he had misrepresented me - it was months before I un-ignored him.

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

Makes it sound like creationists are claiming God created rocks with fossils already in them.

Some creationists have, yes. I don't know of any who who are making this argument today.

Of course those very few creationist who have made that argument are not arguing anything which most other creationists would agree with.

Does anyone know if Harold Clark, Frank Marsh, Harold Coffin, Peter Hare, or George McCready Price ever made such an argument? Has anyone ever seen such an argument made by anyone who has ever worked at Geoscience Research Institute?

[David Koot]

Actually what happened is that David Koots took some remarks of mine OUT OF CONTEXT and then he REMOVED PART OF THEM and then he sent these editted out-of-context comments to Dr Kennedy with a misleading wrapper.

[Dr. Shane]

When I offended a high-profile Adventist by something I posted here, I too felt I was misunderstood. I personally apologized to him and sent a generous offering to his ministry.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Of course those very few creationist who have made that argument are not arguing anything which most other creationists would agree with.

Of course there are crackpots out there. There are a handful of creationists that believe the earth is flat but it would be dishonest to use their claim to say that creationists believe the earth is flat.

[John317]

Quote:

Of course those very few creationist who have made that argument are not arguing anything which most other creationists would agree with.

Of course there are crackpots out there. There are a handful of creationists that believe the earth is flat but it would be dishonest to use their claim to say that creationists believe the earth is flat.

Some well-known comologists have advocated the view that humans may be the result of garbage left here from a visit by beings from a different planet. Others are currently and seriously suggesting a similar view to account for the beginning of life on earth. But I am sure most evolutionists would resent anyone's arguing that these views genuinely represent "the evolutionist viewpoint."

These views, while not representing all evolutionists, do point up the fact that even some evolutionists are not convinced by the typical evolutionary explanations for the existence of life on earth. If the evidence for life's origins is as conclusive as some like to argue, why would there be books published by respected scientists about life being transplanted to earth from another planet? For me it is just another piece of evidence showing that there is still a great deal of room for reasonable disagreement and debate over the interpretation of the data.

[Bravus]

I don't know of any way to find and bring back the old posts on the Kennedy/White Cliffs issue. I am no more objective than anyone else, but I think I can state these things as fact:

1. David Koot did quote bevin's comments to Dr Kennedy in an e-mail message, and that message did not include the enirety of bevin's post or the context in the thread.

2. Dr Kennedy was upset by the comments as she read them, and much of the discussion ended up being about that point rather than about the White Cliffs.

3. She did not give a detailed geological explanation for their existence, but did provide basically personal testimony that she found the evidence consistent with rapid deposition.

Frankly, I think there was bad behaviour on all sides, and that the issue was not well handled. I apologised to Dr Kennedy on behalf of the Origins forum, but the way the issue was handled precluded any serious discussion with Dr Kennedy of the specific scientific phenomenon of interest.

I've been content, in CA, to just completely ignore this issue, because I feel it has been 'spoiled' for discussion. So let's put it to bed and find a different issue to discuss.. it's not as though there's a shortage.

[Dr. Shane]

If Bevin would like to prevent the issue from coming up he might want to quit bringing up the issue of the White Cliffs. He asked a question. A response was given. He didn't like it and insulted the one that gave it. If he doesn't want people to remember his bad behavior he might want to stop bringing up the issue.

The point is that creationists do have workable explanations for various phenomenons. However their explanations are based on their assumptions. To the naturalist that has his or her own set of assumptions, the creationist theories will never seem workable. The naturalist then criticizes the creationist's theories based on the naturalist's assumptions and thinks he or she has refuted the competing explanation. He or she has done no such thing. The title of this thread is a classic example. Thousands of naturalists in the scientific community believe the Watchmaker analogy has been refuted. Yet in order to accept their rebuttal, one has to accept their assumptions which means until they can prove their assumptions, which they cannot, the analogy has not been refuted.

So when Bevin, or any other naturalist/theistic evolutionist (I don't want to label Bevin) says they refuted an explanation for a given situation, one must bear in mind that their rebuttal was based on their assumptions.

Different assumptions = different philosophies = different conclusions

[David Koot]

1. David Koot did quote bevin's comments to Dr Kennedy in an e-mail message, and that message did not include the enirety of bevin's post or the context in the thread.

Did you see my email message to Dr. Kennedy? If you are going to refer to an email from me, then it would be important to cite it. I think it was from my old email provider, and I don't have it any longer. If you still have it, let's see it, rather than talk about it. I do disagree with your assertion that it was out of context. I think what I shared with Dr. Kennedy was very fair and even-handed. Can you provide actual evidence to dispute or refute that?

[Bravus]

You posted your message along with Dr Kennedy's response in the forum, as I recall. I am going on my recall.

In terms of whether it was 'out of context', my carefully worded factual (though based on recall) statement was that it was part of a larger document. Does 'out of context' just mean that, or does it mean 'shorn of specific context with the intent to mislead'? I absolutely did not allege the latter. The former is pretty uncontroversial, if we accept the 'context' of those sentences to be either (a) the entirety of a particular post or ( the entirety of the containing thread.

As far as I know there is no independent textual evidence available any more, and we're all cast back on our (faulty, biased and partial) recollections.

[David Koot]

Well, I happened to locate my email to Dr. Kennedy. The 'search' function didn't find it, but I did, manually. Here it is:

"On 5/19/06, David Koot wrote:

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

Thank-you so much for your response. I shared your thoughts with others who are interested, on the Adventist Forum online. I would like to share with you a response which I received. I don't know if the person who posted this knows you personally, or is speaking for you, but I would very much hope that you might find time to respond. Thanks! Here is the post:

"Ms. Kennedy has retired after a career facing the emotional weight of knowing that the science she understood and her religious beliefs were not easily reconciled.

Personally, I do not wish reawaken that conflict in her. There are things in my past I would rather leave behind, this may well be one of hers.

She did not propose a solution for them, within the short-age flood model, nor did she have an scientific reason for why they would be a problem for the long-age model.

I think it is reasonable to assume she saw the Cliffs, realised how big a conflict she was facing, found a couple of hooks to hang her preconceptions on, and gave up on the issue.

She would have become famous if she could have shown that the White Cliff's must have formed quickly. They presented a huge opportunity - and apparently she walked away with a hand wave.

Like I say, she faced a huge conflict between two things that both appealed to her - science and and overly literal interpretation of Genesis."

-----------------------------------------------

As you can see, that is quite a post! I look forward to your response, if you find it convenient.

David Koot

[David Koot]

Oh, and I should post Dr. Kennedy's response:

"Just so you know, I retired because I have a genetic disorder that has resulted in physical disability and I am unable to work.

Apparently, the writer of the post disregards the purity of the deposit as empirical evidence supporting rapid, nearly instantaneous deposition of the coccoliths. Sedimentologists agree that such purity is remarkable and possible only in a catastrophic event.

There are long age arguments for the chalk promoted by a small group of individuals in England; however, their arguments relate to diagenetic alterations post deposition.

I was under the impression that the Adventist Forum was moderated. The writer's assessment of me and my motives was an insult to the Lord I serve. He never laid a burden on my heart to make the White Cliffs a project. An apology would be appreciated.

Yours in Christ,

Elaine G. Kennedy, Ph.D.

Geology

website: http://origins.swau.edu

email: ElaineGKennedy@gmail.com"

[David Koot]

In terms of whether it was 'out of context', my carefully worded factual (though based on recall) statement was that it was part of a larger document. Does 'out of context' just mean that, or does it mean 'shorn of specific context with the intent to mislead'? I absolutely did not allege the latter. The former is pretty uncontroversial, if we accept the 'context' of those sentences to be either (a) the entirety of a particular post or ( the entirety of the containing thread.

What I quoted above is EVERYTHING--repeat, EVERYTHING said by Bevin in response to Dr. Kennedy's statement. My post to which he had responded, contained that statement. Bevin followed with a post which addressed other issues, then he quoted Dr. Kennedy's statement, THEN he responded to her statement. My email to Dr. Kennedy, which I quoted above, contained the ENTIRETY of Bevin's comments about Dr. Kennedy and his response to her statement, UNEDITED.

I do not do snippets. That is bush league, and not the way I do business.

As for your ideas about 'out of context,' I think that is a term of art, with a specific meaning. I do not believe your suggestions about a broader meaning of the phrase are consistent with the definition of the phrase as a term of art.

[Bravus]

Settle, my friend: I was trying to be fair to everyone. If you think I was not fair to you, I'm sorry about that. I called it as I saw it. As I said, I think there were unfortunate things that happened on both sides: taking someone's text from a web forum and e-mailing it to a third person is poor netiquette (i know you disagree on that point.)

The points, from my perspective, are two:

1. Dr Kennedy was dragged in, against her will, and already in an upset state, into a discussion she had not asked to be involved in. She made some comments in that situation.

2. To me those comments do not constitute a definitive professional statement on the geological origins of the White Cliffs: others differ with me on that point.

As I've said, I'm looking to put this issue to bed, not prolong it. You have set the record straight, with the original documentation, Dave, which is excellent, because it means everyone can read the evidence and make up their own minds about it. I commented when I thought such evidence was unobtainable, and wouldn't have commented if I could have brought the original evidence.

I don't have anything further to say on the White Cliffs or the unfortunate incident with Dr Kennedy.

[David Koot]

Dr Kennedy was dragged in, against her will, and already in an upset state, into a discussion she had not asked to be involved in.

That is not accurate. She was not 'dragged in against her will' at all. She was contacted through GRI I believe, and responded of her own free will. Nor did she give any indication of being in an upset state, UNTIL she found out what had been said about her on this forum. And, indeed, fundamental fairness would call for her to be made aware of such things being said about her under color of authority--i.e., in an authoritative manner. Fair is fair.

Dave