Radio Freethinker

So David Buckna, a creationist who showed up to the Imagine no Religion conference in Kamloops has apparently continued his efforts to convince us we’re wrong. He started out sending PZ Myers a bunch of emails and we can all imagine how that worked out.

Watching Buckna “debate” with PZ was sort of like watching a fly try to fly a window over and over and over again. His arguments aren’t arguments. They’re quotes he’s managed to life from a verity of sources which he thinks proves evolution is wrong. He then hurls these quotes at you, “well what about this”, “Ok but what about this?” You can debunk each one as he throws them out there and he’ll pause for a second, look at his note and start from the top of the list again.

Anyway, I figured that was the last I’d hear from him until I started getting emails from him. I guess I should be flattered that I’m included with PZ in the list of people I need to convert. Nevertheless its quickly gotten annoying.

Here was the first mind blowing email:

Hey Ethan:

I recently watched:

PZ Myers – Global Atheist Convention 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc

(29:42 to 30:08)

Meyers: “Or, if you think evolution would be a little bit too deep for
these Iron
Age goat herders, God could have at least told them: ‘Wash your hands.’
Three words.
A very basic useful bit of hygienic information. They would have saved
many lives.”

—
God did tell them about handwashing:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+15&version=NIV

Leviticus 15: 11

11 淘Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands
with water
must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean
till evening.
—

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/hygiene.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2024

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp

The earliest evidence we have of public health and sanitary practices is
found in
the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.

In these writings, the Israelites were instructed to isolate, and if
necessary
quarantine, those who were sick.1 They were to destroy contaminated
objects,2 to
burn used dressings,3 and to bury fecal waste outside of the camp.4 The
Israelites
were prohibited from eating animals which had died of natural causes.5
They were
also admonished to practise personal hygiene by hand-washing and keeping
clean, and
to take certain precautions when touching the infected or deceased.6

So the Israelites washed their hands. Ok, now what? Non sequitur anyone?

Here’s the second email I got. Just a note if you’re actually reading them, this is basically the first email with more stuff added to it.

Catholicism and evolution: Are they contradictory?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/121486989.html

*

P.Z. Myers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

Ken Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

PZ Myers – Global Atheist Convention 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc

26:07 to 26:20

Meyers: “What we’ve got here is a world that is often counterintuitive to
our brains, and we need a method to overcome the biases that we have, and
that’s science.”

Note: University of California (Berkeley) law professor Phillip Johnson
["Darwin on Trial"] says naturalists define words like “evolution” and
“science” in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. Johnson
commented in World magazine: “Evolutionary science is based on naturalism
and draws philosophical conclusions to that base. That’s why any theistic
evolution is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic
thinking, and they don’t realize it.” (Nov. 22/97, p.13)

(29:42 to 30:08)

Meyers: “Or, if you think evolution would be a little bit too deep for
these Iron Age goat herders, God could have at least told them: ‘Wash your
hands.’ Three words. A very basic useful bit of hygienic information. It
would have saved many lives.”

—
God did tell them about handwashing:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+15&version=NIV

Leviticus 15: 11

11 淘Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands
with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be
unclean
till evening.
—

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/hygiene.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2024

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp

The earliest evidence we have of public health and sanitary practices is
found in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.

In these writings, the Israelites were instructed to isolate, and if
necessary quarantine, those who were sick.1 They were to destroy
contaminated objects,2 to burn used dressings,3 and to bury fecal waste
outside of the camp.4 The Israelites were prohibited from eating animals
which had died of natural causes.5 They were also admonished to practise
personal hygiene by hand-washing and keeping clean, and to take certain
precautions when touching the infected or deceased.6

*

PZ Myers – Global Atheist Convention 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc

13:18 to 17:34

Myers: Ken Miller [a theistic evolutionist] is an American scientist. He’s
a cell biologist, and trust me, he’s a really smart guy, okay. I’ve read
his work. He knows what he’s doing. He’s also an excellent speaker and
he’s been a hard-working asset in combating creationism in the United
States. I’m going to criticize the fellow very strongly here, but let me
emphasize, I want Ken Miller to keep doing most of what he’s been doing
because he is a real benefit to the cause of science education…. So Ken
Miller is a biologist. He’s familar with the evidence for evolution, and
fortunately, Catholicism has no official complaint with evolution, because
Ken Miller is a Catholic. He keeps on telling us he’s a Catholic. It’s one
of his–it’s part of his schtick, okay. So Catholicism has no official
complaint with evolution, and much of Miller’s popular writings are all
about why evolution’s a fact. And he’s very good at knocking down the
follies of creationists. See, he’s a smart guy. But then the problem of
his writings emerge whenever he tries to reconcile evolution, which is an
impersonal force, with some rather heartless and cruel implications, with
his Catholic belief in a loving God who intentionally created us. There is
absolutely no scientific evidence for such a being. There is no evidence
that we are the product of anything but chance funnelled through the
filter of natural selection. And Miller knows this. He knows there is no
scientific evidence for his beliefs.

So he had to invent a loophole. He had to invent this contrived little
excuse to wedge his God somewhere in the whole process of evolution. And
he does it in a way that excuses the absence of evidence. So he… what he
likes to call explicitly scientific arguments that God is found in a
process called quantum indeterminacy. Okay. That is because–that is the
behavior of subatomic particles is not fully  predictable. There’s a lot
of slop in the behavior of what these things do at a very tiny level of
the universe. And what Miller likes to claim is that God can intervene in
subtle, undetectable ways. God is playing with loaded dice. And he’s
really good at putting in a fair set of dice whenever we try to scrutinize
the process. So basically he’s saying God cheats at physics. And of course
the operative word here is undetectable. He’s saying you cannot see this.
Now I have to cite a real authority here, Terry Pratchett, who once said “
‘Let’s call it Quantum’ is not an explanation. ” Now, can I disprove his
[Miller's] assertion? No. Miller has carefully crafted his explanation to
be completely untestable, and as anyone with even a passing familiarity
with science can tell you, untestable explanations with no supporting
evidence at all, are not scientific. They’re what we call in technical
terms–bullshit.”

[snip]
==============================

===========================

Marvin L. Lubenow, ‘Bones of Contention’, Baker Books, 1992; updated
edition 2004 writes:

“In the early 1970′s, when it became obvious that we had a more than
adequate sampling of the fossil record, the grim reality dawned that those
transitional fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria model
of evolution was then invented to explain why they were not found.
However, it is imperative to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria
model does not remove the need for transitional fossils. It just explains
why those transitions have not been found. Certainly, the punctuated
equilibria theory is unique. It must be the only theory ever put forth in
the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why
evidence for it cannot be found.”

Bones of Contention
http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Creationist-Assessment-Fossils/dp/0801065232

*

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

[snip]

But what hard evidence does punctuated equilibrium predict? With respect
to finding fossil evidence of the transitional stages of evolutionary
change, punctuated equilibrium predicts that direct fossil evidence of
these transitional morphologies will tend to not be found. The theory of
punctuated equilibrium may still predict certain patterns which may be
found in the fossil record, but as Steven Stanley explains, the theory is
untestable against special creation and leaves scant trace of Darwin’s
mechanism at work:
“Any claim that natural selection operated with great effect exactly where
it was least likely to be documented–in small, localized, transitory
populations–would seem to render Darwin’s new theory untestable against
special creation, and perhaps almost preposterous as a scientific
proposition.”17
Though it does make certain predictions, punctuated equilibrium provides a
poor vehicle for validating Darwin’s theory as the mechanism of evolution
and confirming Darwin’s strong prediction that transitional stages of
morphology existed.

==========================================================
Origins Perspectives

This list is by no means exhaustive.

ATHEISTIC NATURALISM  God does not exist. There is no real design  (only
apparent design) and nature is all there is. [eg. Carl Sagan:"The Cosmos
is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."]

AGNOSTIC NATURALISM  One is unsure whether God exists. Though nature may
not be all there is, nature is all that matters.

THEISTIC NATURALISM  God exists. He designed the natural laws. There is no
design in the strict sense, and although _in principle_ nature is not  all
that matters, _in effect_ it is.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION (WEAK DESIGN). God designed the natural laws so that
their ordinary operation would result in the intended outcome.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION (STRONG DESIGN).To ensure the intended outcome, God not
only designed the natural laws, but also determined their initial
conditions.

INTERVENTION To ensure the intended outcome, God not only designed the
natural laws and determined their initial conditions, but also intervened
in subsequent conditions.

SPECIAL CREATION [old universe/old earth/recent global flood] To ensure
the  intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined their
initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. God created
the universe billions of years ago. Although micro-evolution /speciation
occur, it is viewed as variation within created “kinds” (baramins) eg. the
cat “kind”. Macro-evolution has never occurred.

SPECIAL CREATION [young universe/young earth/recent global flood] To
ensure the intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined
their initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. God
created the universe only thousands (not billions) of years ago. Although
micro-evolution /speciation occur, it is viewed as variation within
created “kinds” (baramins) eg. the cat “kind”. Macro-evolution has never
occurred.

* Note: some creationists prefer the term micro-variation to
micro-evolution because they say there’s no “evolution” occuring in
micro-evolution, just variation within a created “kind” (baramin)