Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • Misrepresenting Science in God’s Name

    The Smithsonian magazine online has an article Dinosaur Shocker, talking about the work of Mary Schweitzer who has found preserved soft tissues in fossilized dinosaur bones. The topic has been picked up by young earth creationists and used as an evidence for a young earth. This has already been discussed on the web, but if you have not read it, here are a couple of key articles:

    Though I was interested in the article, I was more interested in the way in which the material had been used and I want to comment on that briefly, because I have seen it done very often.

    The Smithsonian article made the follow comments on this use of Schweitzer’s material:

    Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.

  • A Step for Abiogenesis?

    In a short article, ScienceNOW Daily news discusses some new research that may shed light on how life first emerged on this planet. I want to call attention to the article for a couple of reasons, but primarily because this, in my view, is how real science is done, and how it sounds when announced. No, they don’t know that this is an element of the formation of life, no, they don’t have the rest of the process, even the next step, figured out. What they have done is provide one more option, and filled in one more blank in the unknown.

    Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box describes structure after structure and process after process, recounting how we have discovered new complexity as we continue to learn more about how the function. What is a black box at one point in the history of science will not necessarily remain so. Unfortunately, Behe uses all this skillful writing to produce an ode to ignorance, and complains that evolutionary pathways have not been found. He believes they never will be. But as things get more complex, one simply has to work harder to learn the details that are part of the complexity of nature. In this case, there is now a new reaction that opens up possibilities for study. Does it resolve the problem? No! But it suggests new research and provides more options for continuing the search. That’s how science works.

    Some may be wondering how I, a “theistic evolutionist” got onto the topic of abiogenesis. After all, the expected method of argument for theistic evolutionists is to distinguish evolution of life from abiogenesis. I do believe they should be regarded as distinct. But I also believe that abiogenesis will be solved, and an pathway for the origination of life will be formed. How then can I relate this to my belief that God is the creator of life? Actually, I believe God is the creator of everything. I believe God created the universe as a system, a system that works.

    Let me use the analogy of my car. I don’t regard periodic maintenance requirements for my vehicle as a sign of the wisdom of the engineers. Sure, they did well to warn me of those requirements, but I would be happier if they were less frequent, and if it were practical to produce a vehicle that never required maintenance, that would be even better. I also don’t look at the simple parts of my car and determine that they did not require an engineer, while the more complex parts must have been designed. I know that each element was put there as a part of the design strategy of the car. That they work together (mostly) seamlessly, and that I cannot find parts that are “more designed” than others is not a defect.

    Now as all analogies, this one has it’s limitations. My car is very little like a universe. But I think it does illustrate my point. If God designed the universe correctly, then it should work. If it requires periodic maintenance, like my car, it gives evidence of manufacture by a less-than-perfect creator.

    I don’t like the idea of tinkering, whether it comes at the time of speciation or when life first came into existence. I creidt life to God whether intervention was required or not, but I suspect a competent God of getting it right the first time (A “fully gifted universe” to borrow Howard Van Till’s phrase).

    So folks, I think this one will be solved in the next few years, and if you hooked your faith in God to the impossibility of life being formed from non-living matter without special miraculous intervention, you will be disappointed.

    But make no mistake, no matter how thick the gloves are on God’s hands, no matter how many processes supposedly separate him from his handiwork, it is still God that does it. An omnipresent God is not less present when working through process (and consistent processes at that), than he is working directly. The evidence suggests that he prefers working through consistent processes.

  • An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds

    One of the key issues in the creation-evolution controversy is the extent to which Genesis 1-2 should be understood as narrative history, and whether its statements with regard to the physical world should be taken as scientific statements, or at least as statements that carry some scientific content.

    I was just reminded of the importance of this issue by an essay by Alvin Plantinga, “When Faith and Reason Clash” in the collection Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pennock. In answering the question of what we do when our scriptural position and that of science clashes, Plantinga says (p. 121), “. . . I don’t know of any infallible rule, or even any pretty reliable general recipe. All we can do is weigh and evaluate the relative warrant, the relative backing or strength, of the conflicting teachings. We must do our best to apprehend both the teachings of Scripture and the deliverances of reason; in either case we will have much more warrant for some apparent teachings than for others. . . .”

    He then proceeds to divide “evolution” into five claims, two of which are the Ancient Earth Thesis and the Common Ancestry Thesis. The reason I list just these two is that the difference between them is the focus of this short essay. I think also that the handling of these two elements by creationists of all varieties will emphasize the problems with any notion of “theistic science.” Plantinga regards the scientific evidence for an ancient earth to be so strong, and the scriptural evidence for a young earth to be weak enough that we can accept an ancient earth. Common ancestry, on the other hand, he interprets differently. He sees the scientific evidence as much weaker, and the Biblical evidence much stronger, and thus he feels justified in rejecting it.

    Let me note first that I don’t think that the Bible makes scientific statements, and thus there should not be an issue of conflict between what the Bible teaches and what one learns from science, since they are talking about different topics. Nonetheless I want to look at the difference between these two issues on the assumption that one might extract some scientific information from Genesis. Is the Ancient Earth Thesis or the Common Ancestry Thesis better supported scientifically? Is either of them more forcefully contradicted by scripture? How would one deal with this approach?

    Old earth creationists (OEC), and many intelligent design (ID) advocates see the evidence for an old earth as extremely strong, but in general they want to maintain some sort of historical and scientific truth claims for the early stories of Genesis. For a recent example, see William Dembski’s Christian Theodicy in the Light of Genesis and Modern Science in which he attempts to reconcile the idea that physical death is the result of human sin with an old earth in which death occurred prior to the existence of human beings. I hope to respond to that article some time soon. It’s really quite interesting. Here, however, I am simply noting that it takes the scientific evidence for an old earth seriously, seeing it as solid enough to effectively require that one deal with it, and thus requiring a somewhat complex interpretational solution.

    Ignoring Dembski’s new view for the moment, however, let me look at just how difficult it is to reinterpret Genesis so that it will support an old earth, based on previous claims. In this way I’d like to outline just how solid the Biblical evidence is for each position, since according to Plantinga we should apparently judge each of these elements and relate them to the validity of the scientific evidence.

    Read as narrative history, Genesis 1-11 teaches several things:

    • a young earth, in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old
    • special creation in the course of a week
    • a specific incident resulting in a fall of humans from their relationship to God which resulted in their expulsion from Eden, commonly interpreted as the source of all physical death
    • moral deterioration of humanity to a point beyond redemption except for a few
    • a universal flood that destroyed all those not in the ark, including all human and animal life, but apparently not plant life
    • the formation of multiple languages from an original universal language at the Tower of Babel

    In reinterpreting these elements, old earth creationists do the following:

    • In some sense regard the creation days as long periods of time. (There are multiple ways of doing this, but I’ll regard it as just one element of interpretation.)
    • Deal somehow with the sense of “special creation” in the passage, when this creation is accomplished over long periods of time and with significant detours (extinction events, for example)
    • Find a way to understand physical death before the fall narrated in Genesis 3. (Again, there are a variety of explanations, but they are all more complex than the narrative history reading of Genesis 3.)
    • Dealing with moral deterioration and the flood as one element, they need to restrict the range of the flood so that it does not completely disrupt the geological record, as a universal flood surely would.
    • Relate the apparent history of language and patterns of migration with the Babel story. (I have really never seen anyone address this issue, but I think it would come up if the others were to be solved.

    Note that I’m not particularly singling out any of these elements as wrong, or even extremely improbable. I’m simply looking at the weight of scriptural evidence that must be reinterpreted in order to accept an old earth view under Plantinga’s idea of theistic science. If one is to read Genesis as narrative history with scientific content, then I think the young earth folks have the inside track on straightforward exegesis.

    Now let’s turn to common descent. At the risk of oversimplifying, since I’m not a biologist, let me state this simply as the descent of all life from a single life form by descent with modification. To reconcile such a picture with Genesis we need to deal with at least two elements of the old earth scenario, time and physical death prior to the fall. But the reconciliation already provided by the young earth advocates already cover those points. In addition, we need to deal with the issue of reproduction after their kind. And that is where I would really like to discover what the great problem is.

    In the good old days of George McCready Price, whose books were part of my early education, creationists tended to believe that species were very closely fixed. A “kind” was a rather tight package and corresponded closely to species. Over time, that has changed, and with good reason. But creationists of all varieties are still trying to find the boundaries of “kinds.” Why are they doing that? Most importanly why are people who can accept an old earth hung up on the issue of kinds?

    If we can accept a range of variation within a population and still call that reproduction “after their kinds,” then where in the Biblical text is this absolute warrant for a hard coded boundary? By shifting the distribution of characters in a population, you can move the population anywhere you wish without any single creature ever failing to reporduce “after its kind.” It seems to me that rather than being the most difficult element of the picture, “after their kinds” is actually the easiest one to deal with. Once any variation is permitted within the definition of such reproduction, there is no inherent limit on such variation.

    Thus with much less effort than is required to allow an old earth we have an explanation for common descent that is in accord with scripture. What is more, many of the difficulties inherent in spreading special creation over a period of time are removed. Many people question the idea of special creation that takes long periods of time simply because it hardly seems “special” any more. The OEC tells the evolutionist that God took the same amount of time, permitted the same amount of death and destruction, allowed the same number of species to become extinct, only the creation is more personal and special. The question is why? If, on the other hand, God was using variation and natural selection as the process of creation, then the time factor and the “after their kind” explanation make perfect sense together.

    It seems to me that there must be some other issue here, and with that issue we’re headed straight back toward the dreaded “God of the gaps” theology. The real point is that OECs can still see specific, identifiable acts of creation by God with an old earth, but if we allow creation of all life forms via descent with modification, this evidence for the existence and activity of God disappears. I think that is the real reason why there is so much greater resistance to common descent than there is to an old earth (though one shouldn’t underestimate remaining Christian resistance to an old earth). But I think scripture can be interpreted to support common descent with greater ease than an old earth. In fact, the greatest barriers have already been eliminated by the old earth argument, and indeed, common descent helps make some better sense of some of the difficulties that the old earth view introduces.

    I can’t leave this subject without noting that I believe that either set of interpretations, young or old earth, are misguided. We need only look at the nature of the “after their kinds” statement to see the problem with reading science from Genesis. There is no definition here to determine just how descent with modification would occur. There is no limit on the “kinds.” Evolution by this standard could wander anywhere. We know that in actuality, evolution is constrained in its pathways by the existing form of the creature. There is simply no statement in Genesis 1-11, and I would suggest in the entire Bible, that is defined in such a way that it could be used directly in science. Further evidence for this is provided by the large number of alternate interpretations applied to the text. I used just one general set, but any OEC could challenge me on any point and claim he has a better interpretation. But that would simply show that the original statement was not well-defined in a scientific sense.

    Theistic science is a non-starter, at least from the Biblical point of view. The Bible fails to provide such knowledge.

  • Uncommon Descent and a Bad Report

    I earlier commented (Christians and Defamation) on the behavior of the folks over at Uncommon Descent in their treatment of Eric Pianka. I still regard what was done as completely contrary to Christian principles. Nothing that developed in that story in any way justified their behavior.

    They, on the other hand, have started in on a new target: Kevin Padian, of the National Center for Science Education. Apparently it is not sufficient for them to consider him wrong; they have to be able to call him wicked. In a post titled Kevin Padian – The Archie Bunker of ID Critics, they accuse him of being a racist. Their basis for doing so is ridiculous. I cannot imagine from reading what they have written that they even believe the charge themselves. It appears that they prefer to start the rumor and hope they’ll get some people to believe it. In addition, they post A Suitable Image of Kevin Padian. To see the history of this, and the previous KKK related image they used, follow the link below to the Panda’s Thumb.

    Nick Matzke discusses the details on The Panda’s Thumb, here, and the comments get fairly humorous.

    Not content, however, with one rumor, these guys have to go and start another one, and this time they have a letter. This one’s most interesting because with the context provided one can tell without reading beyond the bounds of their own post that their charge is bogus.

    This behavior is not only morally wrong, it’s a good warning sign that we’re dealing with supporters of a theory without merit.

    (For the record, I’m providing a trackback, though based on prior experience, I doubt it will be posted.)

  • Does the Explanatory Filter Explain?

    I stopped by Uncommon Descent the other day and found scordova talking about Genetic-ID, which he thinks is an application of the so-called explanatory filter. This looked pretty unlikely to me, but I figured that surely someone more intelligent that I am had gotten to the issue first, so I looked around. Seek and ye shall find! Steve Reuland on his Sunbeams from Cucumbers had already dealt with it pretty thoroughly in a post titled How to Really Detect Design. In the process he reviews the explanatory filter. His post is worth a read.

    The only thing I have to add is that the explanatory filter, which does not explain and does remarkably little filtering, could actually be reduced a bit. The first two elements are instances of “I know how it happens,” while the final one is “I don’t know.” Thus the EF could easily be summarized by the question, “Do I know?” “Yes” means we exit the filter, no means we assume design.

  • Is Theistic Evolution a Bad Term?

    I have a serious problem with the term “theistic evolution.” I’m a theist. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for how life diversified on earth. I also accept the theory of gravity. I’m not a theistic gravitationist.

    Now I do understand the difference here. Evolution has become the center of a theological debate, and many people are accused of being atheists because they believe in evolution. The term “theistic evolutionist” makes it clear that someone believes in God and also accepts the theory of evolution. Then there is the additional confusion introduced by the term “desitic evolution” or “deistic evolutionist” which would technically refer to a person who is a deist and also accepts the theory of evolution. Since deism refers to a God who does not intervene in creation, there is the suggestion that deistic evolution differs from theistic evolution. Presumably deistic evolution would refer to unguided evolution, while theistic evolution would refer to some sort of guided evolution. Guided evolution could take on quite a number of forms, including potentially intelligent design (ID) theory. But that is not what is normally meant by theistic evolution.

    My mind was brought back to this subject by a discussion on Dispatches from the Culture War. Ed Brayton got into a discussion with one poster in particular on whether theistic evolution and ID are compatible (ID and Theistic Evolution). One poster has apparently “discovered” that they are, despite the fact that practically everyone who claims either title holds that the two views are not compatible. There really isn’t any kind of controlling body that can tell us who is a theistic evolutionist and who is not, thus the confusion grows.

    I would like the term “theistic evolutionist” to refer to someone who is a theist and accepts the theory of evolution. For example, I accept essentially the neo-darwinian synthesis (to the extent that this has meaning for someone who is not a scientist), and I’m a theist. I can be properly called a theist because I believe that God intervenes in the universe, though in a very limited sense. (For details, see The Hand of God, and its two succeeding essays.) I don’t believe God intervenes in the universe because it isn’t working properly. In other words, I hold that such miracles as occur are in the nature of communication, which can involve incidental physical effects, but that they are not a correction to the functioning of natural law.

    The evolution that I accept is no different than that which an atheistic evolutionist would accept. It is my theological position that theology does not provide the tools to study origins, nor does my own discipline of Biblical studies. These disciplines are simply not equipped to provide that information. I do not and cannot contribute to the development of the theory of evolution. I can work what other people discover into my own worldview to whatever extent that is necessary. So the “theist” and the “evolutionist” are substantially separate. I’m simply a theist who accepts a particular theory. The use of the combined term suggests that my theism is in some way an element of evolutionary theory, but at least for me it is not.

    Because of the problems I listed at the beginning of this post, I still use “theistic evolutionist.” It’s much more convenient than “theist who also happens to accept the theory of evolution.” But at the same time I find the need to make it clear that my theism is never an explanation for any natural process. Natural processes are to be studied naturally, and as of now, that’s via the scientific method.

    There are many variations between an old earth creationist position, and my own variety of theistic evolution. I see old earth creationism as starting with those who see the days of creation as long periods of time and thus phases of God’s creation. Such old earth creationists need to explain the boundaries past which they believe variation and natural selection cannot take changes (baraminology, in young earth parlance). Views then move through various types of progressive creationism to guided evolution. Those who believe that the correct answer to a science question is “God did it” do indeed hold a theory compatible with intelligent design. But that is not my position, nor is it the position of most theistic evolutionists I know or have read.

  • Creation by Command

    In my earlier post on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation, my second element of a Biblical doctrine of creation was that God creates by simple command, in other words, God’s word and will is reality.

    This is commonly used as an argument against theistic evolution, and even in some cases against old earth creationism. Duane Gish used it against Hugh Ross in debate by questioning the continuing process of stellar evolution, something that Hugh Ross acknowledges. The transcript that was on TalkOrigins is currently unavailable online, but there is a copy at ASA.

    There are some Biblical points, however, that I believe overturn this argument. There are multiple creation accounts. We have a simple command in Genesis 1:27, but is described as a process in 2:7. Then we have a description of the constant creative activity of God in Psalm 104. Even futher, God states that he created Israel (Isaiah 43:1). This is both the accomplishment of his word and his will, but it is also a very long process. Again, God’s word in prophecy promised and predicted the Messiah, and the fulfillment is the accomplishment of God’s word. Nonetheless there was a lengthy process involved.

    The key is that God’s word “does not return empty” (Isaiah 55:11). Even now Christians hold to just such a promise. Jesus promised to return, and yet he is not here. Much time has passed, yet we still wait. Why? Because we believe that ultimately God’s word is sure.

    Thus I would suggest that all of the views of origins that I have described in this series fulfill this doctrinal requirement for a Biblical doctrine of creation. Each has its own view of the way in which God’s word is fulfilled in creation, but each is certain that God’s word is and will be fulfilled.

    I would note that if God’s word is certain, and if we can see God’s word in action when we observe the processes of evolution, we are justified in deriving some of our understanding of the character of God from these observations. Theology may not make science, but by virtue of the fact that it is so good at collecting data, science can impact religion.

  • Creationist Boilerplate

    I was reading the entry The Ignorant Credulity of Creationists on Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where Ed Brayton quotes the following from a creationist response to Tiktaalic roseae, and then comments:

    . . . or those who are more of a six-day creationist stripe, the finding poses no threat either. Discovery Institute scientists have observed that Tiktaalik roseae is not an intermediate, but rather, “Is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics–these fishes have advanced fully formed characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features. Paleontologists refer to such organisms as mosaics rather than intermediates” It is simply not evident that this find is even an evolutionary link. I guess the “missing link” is still missing. (From The Latest Fossil Find: Fact or Fiction — HN)

    Here McDowell credulously repeats this idiotic argument from the ID without giving it a thought. Any thinking person would recognize that the DI’s statement above is simply gibberish. What on earth do they think an intermediate form would look like if you found one? It would have a combination of features from the ancestral group and a combination of features from the descendant group, and it would be found in rocks that date to the time such a transition was believed to have taken place. When those things are present, as they are here, the distinction between a “mosaic” and an “intermediate” is totally meaningless.

    Now while I might tend to use slightly gentler forms of expression, the point is pretty clear. In order to be viewed as an intermediate form, this creature must have some characters from the forms it is intermediate between, yet in this paragraph, Sean McDowell claims that this mix of characteristics doesn’t make it transitional. This is some pretty remarkable reasoning. When I read that comment, the terms and “logic” sounded so familiar that I just had to look up some material about Archaeopteryx. I immediately found the following quote from Answers in Genesis. Does any of the logic look familiar?

    In summary, it may be said that Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. It seems to have been suited to a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees, and those features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. . . . (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp, note that the omitted portion discusses bats and the platypus as examples of a “mosaic of characters.”)

    What’s really remarkable here is the demand that a transitional form show specifically the halfway point between scales and feathers. It is not enough that there is a mix of characters in the creature, we want to catch one specific character in transition. Now I’m not saying that would be an impossibility, but it is definitely not a requirement in order for a form to be transitional.

    But let’s not stop there. ICR also has a comment on Archaeopteryx, and lo and behold, they don’t agree with Answers in Genesis.

    It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. . . . (As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won’t Fly (Impact #195))

    So what would it take to convince a creationist that a form is transitional? They really don’t say. If being found in rocks of the right age, based on a prediction that such a form should be found, and falling into a good sequence of transitional forms is not good enough, what is?

    The response to Tiktaalik has amply demonstrated the simple fact that creationists are not interested in doing science; they are simply spinning the work that others do in any way possible to make it appear not to damage their case.

    I’d be interested to hear two things from creationists. First, I’d like “scientific” creationism to specify just what it would be that they would accept as a transitional form, as a disproof of the special creation of each species. Second, just how many species were there simultaneously in the antediluvian world?

    I don’t think I’m going to get anything resembling answers to those questions, because I think that creationists know precisely what they will do; they will reproduce the spin that they have used with each new discovery. That is because they have a prior commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture. I suggest they just admit it and quit trying to claim they are doing science.

  • Appeal to Numbers and Supposed Authority

    When I was in the U. S. Air Force, I had to attend a human relations training program. The instructor was enlisted, but very proudly informed us of his two master’s level degrees. During the course of his presentation he brought up a particular bumper sticker, which happened to be one I had on my car. Of course my buddies made sure he knew I had one, and so he starts to make his point about how I should not have such a bumper sticker. When I disagreed, and pointed out that nobody was obliged to obey my bumper sticker, he became quite annoyed. During a break he came to me and said, “I have a master’s degree in management and one in human relations. Don’t you think I know what I’m talking about?” He had no way to know that I also had a graduate degree, though I possess only a meager one of the same, but he was very shocked when I said that I too had one of those pieces of paper and so was in a good position to know what it was worth.

    His was an argument from authority, and at least it came from an area in which he could claim some authority. He might even have had a point about my bumper sticker. 🙂 But today I’m interested in the argument from authority when one has no authority, and the argument from numbers when one is in the minority. Religious debates, and particularly creation-evolution debates, are often characterized by these types of claims.

    Recently in an online debate I observed someone arguing in favor of a young earth brought up a paper on ocean sediments and their evidence for the age of the earth. When another correspondent questioned the report, the first individual called him an undergraduate student critiquing a paper by a PhD in geology. We get various forms of the argument from authority and the argument from numbers in creation-evolution debates all the time and it’s really quite a humorous process. (You can find this discussion on The Religion Forum.

    Before I go into this just a little more, let me give you relevant links on this topic. The ocean sediment argument is one of those that is so simplistic and so bad that there really aren’t that many detailed refutations online, so let me give some links. First, the source article is ICR’s Impact #8, Evolution: The Oceans Say No!. Note that while the author’s credentials right now are listed as an MS degree, since this document was written, he has received a PhD. Now in case anyone is interested in the basic refutation to this, try the following article from the US Geological Survey: Developing the theory. It gives some of the basics and should lead you to some answers. In addition, Glenn R. Morton’s article Young Earth Arguments: A Second Look and the following article, The Age of the Earth from the Talk Origins Archive expands on material that may not be fully obvious from the more general article.

    Note that there are many people who are quite thoroughly qualified in the field who challenge the views of this “PhD in geology.” And this is the thing that got me thinking about this particular blog entry. Let me give another example. I was debating a Seventh-day Adventist about the proper interpretation of Daniel 8:13 & 14. (I’m ex-SDA, so I occasionally get into these debates.) This individual cites some SDA authorities on the subject, which happen to include my uncle Don F. Neufeld, editor of the SDA Bible Commentary. When I do not accept these individuals as authority (my late uncle would have been appalled at the notion that I would accept his position on authority, but that’s beside the point), he asked how I could hold my opinion against “all those experts.” He suggested I was alone in my opinion. Now I’m not particularly concerned about being alone on an issue, but I found that very interesting, because the interpretation I was proposing is, in fact, one that is either supported or offered as an option by practically every commentary on the book of Daniel. Those who hold the “investigative judgment” position that is held by many SDAs are in a distinct minority. And that is not relevant. I would never use the argument that the SDA position is a minority position as a refutation of that position. It’s perfectly possible that a minority position can be right.

    But it again is an example of someone in a position of weakness trying to use the appeal to numbers. The idea is to convince the person holding a minority view that their view is untenable because it is a minority view. But the argument from numbers when one is in a minority position already is a peculiar form of deception, or even of self-deception. I think the two arguments–from (false) authority, and from (false) numbers are closely related, and they are a favorite of creationists of all stripes, from young earth to intelligent design advocates. The number of fake degrees among young earth creationists is one good example (see Some Questionable Creationist Credentials). The fact that they spend a good deal of time talking about the number of people who support them is another.

    If you have the evidence, talk about the evidence. If you don’t you have to have something to talk about. But why talk about numbers and authority when those are precisely the things you don’t have? For every PhD that creationists can claim there are thousands in opposition. For examples of the argument from numbers see Project Steve, a satire of lists of people in support of some position or another, when that position is actually supported only by a tiny minority.

    Please understand that I am not in any way advocating that one simply accept the real majority position. Sometimes one has to accept authority simply because one is not well enough informed on a particular subject. But those competent in that subject should be able to propose new, minority positions and have them judged on the actual evidence.

    I am not certain just why the appeal to (supposed) numbers and the appeal to (alleged) authority are so popular. I can only think of two options. 1) Someone has such a narrow frame of reference that they simply do not comprehend the numbers. I think my SDA friend falls into this category. He was simply unaware of the numbers involved. 2) Someone knows that he has no solid support, but is using deception to convince people who don’t know any better that their position is better than it really is.

  • Do you know these things?

    From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune: Why is the sky blue? Facts you should know.

    The quiz doesn’t provide scoring, but the answers are at the end. Bar that I must say I mentally fudged the amount of water (thinking “about 3/4” instead of the precise 71%), and the “sky is blue question” when I just thought “diffusion,” I knew the answers to these, and I’m no scientist.

    What about you?