Comments on Blag Hag: Video of my Creation Museum presentation

Brent, Just getting back to this blog and found y...

2009-11-25T23:32:35.575-06:00

Brent,

Just getting back to this blog and found your response.

I'm not up on all of the theories about variation in the speed of light. Some do, I am aware, suggest that some "fundamental constants" may not be so constant. But the changes being suggested are infinitesimal. The effect would be to change the speed of light by a billionth of a billionth of a percent. There's no serious suggestion about the speed of light having been a billion billion times faster in the past.

I did enjoy the humor of Jen's presentation. What you say about treating people with opposing viewpoints with grace and dignity is right on. The world could use more of that.

Paul

Paul, I thought the particular stereotypes of the ...

2009-10-26T13:29:11.346-05:00

Paul, I thought the particular stereotypes of the elite, intolerant, academia mindset to which you refer in the “Men in White” video were not very professional. The characterizations can be needlessly offensive. In my opinion, however, I believe that this mindset does exist among some scholars—just as an elite intolerant mindset exists among some religious individuals. Additionally, I do not believe that AIG is mocking all scholarship as you suggest. I would prefer that neither “side” would use condescending mockery to characterize individuals holding opposing views. Having said that, I think humor used judiciously is appropriate—especially when we make fun of ourselves. I really liked Jen’s closing picture of Darwin’s Night at the Creation Museum. I have attempted to use some humor in my several posts here.

You might want to email AIG and ask them to explain the apparent contradiction you observed between subsequent museum displays about the Marsupial fossil formation. See what they say.

As far as the variable speed of light (VSL) issue…
I am not “up to speed” on VSL, but maybe you are aware that secular scientists have recently postulated VSL as a possible solution to the horizon problem in the Big Bang model. VSL would therefore be an alternative solution to inflation theory. VSL has not been widely received by any means. But, creationists are not the only ones curiously exploring possibilities like VSL to push the boundaries of cosmological understanding. Do not many discoveries come when we begin to push the boundaries of what we once thought was not possible. Darwin anybody? (from your perspective ; ) Furthermore, my understanding of AIG’s assertion about VSL was that it was only one of several possible theories being explored. VSL may result in a dead end.

VSL…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf

Jen - Pastor Aucoin clearly interpreted your meet...

2009-10-25T18:41:56.808-05:00

Jen -

Pastor Aucoin clearly interpreted your meeting as a gathering of people much like those teachers and professors characterized by the "Men In White" video at the museum. I hope that you can see how the audience reaction and your glib presentation might have reinforced those stereotypes in his mind.

I just visited the museum. Apparently it was "Creation Day" which your presentation told me was October 23rd, 4004 BC. I wonder why they weren't having a celebration.

My impression is that the museum is mocking scholarship in general. A more scholarly explanation of your reaction to some of the displays might have been more appropriate.

You missed something about the part about how we find marsupials after the dinosaurs died in the flood because they somehow migrate faster. That display is making a case for where the the marsupials appear in the fossil record. But the entire room before that was claiming that the entire paleontological record was formed in the flood. How could marsupials be fossilized if there was not another flood to cover them in hundreds of feet of sand and rock?

You also missed the planetarium presentation though I understand that would have meant giving more money to the the museum. In there they suggested that the speed of light might have been different in the past. It's a funny circular argument. The speed of light can be equated with the "speed of time" ... if that makes any sense. The speed of light determines how mater interacts via the electromagnetic force. That is, all nuclei, atoms, and molecules are bound together and interact with each other via electric and magnetic fields (and the weak and strong forces, yes - but mostly it's electromagnetic). If you try to muck around with the speed of light you loose all reference to a time frame. You might just as well throw out 24-hour day and substitute it with billion-year day. If you can change the speed of light you can define time however you like.

It's a nice talk. You handled the Q&A very well.

Paul

This weekend, Ken Ham posted my "report" on Jen's ...

2009-10-03T13:16:42.373-05:00

This weekend, Ken Ham posted my "report" on Jen's presentation.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/10/03/anti-creation-museum-lecture-at-purdue-university/

Have a good weekend

I forgot... @ Anonymous Thanks for defending me. ...

2009-10-01T14:11:46.436-05:00

I forgot...

@ Anonymous
Thanks for defending me.

I am no stranger to being attacked for my beliefs and neither are our athiest friends here either.
;) So maybe we can find something in common!

; ) Okay, I think I finally get it with the natura...

2009-10-01T13:59:17.059-05:00

; ) Okay, I think I finally get it with the natural logic Stephan bought me from Wal-mart. See if this is correct for the overall sentiment of atheism … “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there is actually a gardener behind it also? Did I get the logic right? Or should I have said “fairy” instead of “gardener?” I always get those confused, I can’t remember which one is the straw man…you know, “God” / “Spaghetti Monster.” Who can keep this straight? Maybe I should have Stephan buy me some new improved natural logic from a better store than Wal-Mart.

:0 Seriously now, even Richard Dawkins begins to ever so slightly admit that a case could be made for a Deist (non-personal supreme creator) position….

“The deist god would be one that I think.. it would be….one could make a reasonably respectable case for that…not a case that I would accept. But I think it is a serious discussion we could have.” (Dawkins, Oxford Discussion; 4:30 mark; http://richarddawkins.net/article,3911,Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox-at-the-Oxford-University-Museum,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox)

“You could possibly persuade me there was some kind of creative force in the universe with some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything—the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You could possibly persuade me of that. But that is radically and fundamentally incompatible with the sort of god who cares about sin, the sort of god who cares about what you do with your genitals, the sort of god who is interested, who has the slightest interest in your private thoughts and your wickedness. Surely you can see that a god who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a (undecipherable ) cuss about what you are thinking about and your sins and things like that. (Dawkins, Oxford Discussion 37:00 minute mark; http://richarddawkins.net/article,3911,Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox-at-the-Oxford-University-Museum,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox)

I am wondering what evidence might lead Dawkins to be persuaded of a creative force in the universe?

; ) Is Dawkins still evolving?

Are we still having fun?

Regarding "Athiesm" as a "faith"... ; ) I’m sure ...

2009-10-01T13:55:13.993-05:00

Regarding "Athiesm" as a "faith"...

; ) I’m sure glad atheist don’t believe in atheism. That is one less “ism” I have to keep track of among monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, theism, deism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, evangelicalism, Catholicism, liberalism, rationalism, naturalism, Obamaism, conservatism, radical religious fundamentalism, skepticism, humanism, modernism, post-modernism…

: 0 Seriously, I understand that technically, “Atheism” is lack of belief in the existence of any god(s). However, that does not mean “atheists” are inherently faithless and are pure “objectivists.” If you know your cultural shifts, Post Modernism has moved away from the concept of pure objectivity that was characteristic of the Enlightenment era which resulted in the modernism of the last two centuries (1800’s ish to 1960’s ish). However, culturally, the Enlightenment era has been rejected and we are in new times. Post-Modern thought has gone so far as saying there is no possibility of objectivity. While I do not agree I do believe that everybody starts reasoning from non-provable starting axioms (accepted as self-evident or “faith”). Then the process of warranting the axioms begins. There is not one person in this world who can claim absolute objectivity and to be without bias and to be without any faith system. Atheists while not having a belief in theism do have a faith system that will fall into rationalism or humanism or secularism or materialism or naturalism or ….

@Mcbender ; )Thanks for instructing me about th...

2009-10-01T13:52:56.187-05:00

@Mcbender
; )Thanks for instructing me about the logical contradiction. In heaven, I am sure Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jesus, John, Luke, Peter, Paul, and Mary are all facepalming right now since they all seemed to have missed that—jeesh! …in the very first two chapters of the very first book of the Bible no less! Their intellect must not have evolved to the levels of ours today. Really, if you want a job done right …

: 0 Seriously --There are cohesive and consistent readings of Gen 1 & 2 which nicely harmonize, I would be happy to email mail you a compelling reading if you facebook me your email address. It is really not a problem. Only a perceived one.

: 0 Prove empirically for me logical axioms. And also see my comments for Stephan above.

@Stephan quoting Stephan, “Brent Aucoin…but you a...

2009-10-01T13:50:48.449-05:00

@Stephan
quoting Stephan, “Brent Aucoin…but you are wrong, I’m sorry to be so blunt.”

; ) Stephan, you above all have convinced me of macro-evolution. I never thought I would observe a new species of Homo sapiens mutating right in front of my eyes! —A skeptic who is absolutely sure I am wrong about a philosophical issues no less. We will call him Homo skepticusabsoluticus.

; ) I’m glad the axioms of logic are “natural” and not “super” natural, could you buy me some natural logic from Wal-Mart? I know you guys would agree that I need some. While you are at Wal-Mart, also buy me some natural “right” because I apparently have been infused with natural “wrong.” I don’t want anybody to be doing any facepalming because of me anymore.

: 0 Seriously, Stephan, the naturalistic worldview cannot account for absolute right/wrong, axioms of logic, truth/meaning (see Dawkins quote above). Furthermore it cannot find a mechanism for answering the fundamental question, “Why is there something and not nothing?” Nor can that worldview answer the question, “What at the most fundamental level sustains life? In other words, what keeps the chemicals firing in the brain to send the signals to the heart to keep beating?” --Thus, “Why is there life?” The naturalistic worldview not only does not know currently but has nothing inherent within its framework to provide an answer to the question on the origin of life. Richard Dawkins cannot answer the question either (Birhmingham Debate with Lennox and Oxford Discussion with Lennox where he admits this). I wonder if this is why Dawkins might be persuaded to consider some form of a deist type god. (More on that below)

Boy, a lot has transpired since I have been away f...

2009-10-01T13:48:34.303-05:00

Boy, a lot has transpired since I have been away for the weekend--exploding porn and popcorn dialogue, and blasphemy day (sorry I missed that ; ). Now, several folks asked me direct questions or responded directly about me or to me. So here are my responses.

@ Alec..Sorry Alec. I am a hic from Oklahoma—that’s probably worse than Kentucky.

@Anonymous: Yes anonymous, I was being sarcastic in my previous post--a little levity to lighten things up with a point behind each statement. I will mark my “levity” with a winking smile like this ; ) and my serious comment with a : 0 so that everybody knows my demeanor. I am going to post several responses and again, I mean no ill will toward anybody. And to prove it, any college student here in town, involved with this discussion, that doesn’t have a place to go for thanksgiving will be welcomed over my house to play some games and watch some football at thanksgiving.

Now here is my first piece of levity…
; ) Why so serious? I think we should all just dance! Don’t worry about truth and meaning and who is right and who is wrong! It doesn’t matter! Richard Dawkins says… “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replications, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it nor any justice. The universe we observe is precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good—nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (Dawkins, A River out of Eden, 133).

"I'm not some hic from kentucky" Yea, thanks....>...

2009-09-26T17:44:38.108-05:00

"I'm not some hic from kentucky"

Yea, thanks....>_>

-Alec
Freshmen at Eastern Kentucky University

Julie said... @Stephan, did you edit your comment?...

2009-09-26T00:15:58.744-05:00

Julie said...
@Stephan, did you edit your comment?

Nope, just one of those misreadings we all do from time to time. I read your comment like six times trying to figure out what you were objecting to...so they put in molars. Awesome. When I was there I didn't think much of the teeth until I started reading other people's mention of the evolution of the teeth in other parts of the museum. That place is so hilarious!

@Stephan, did you edit your comment? I could have ...

2009-09-25T15:41:28.579-05:00

@Stephan, did you edit your comment? I could have sworn it originally said: "They aren't molars, those are blunted teeth." Anyway, those were definitely molars. Camera zoom confirmed it.

@ Anonymous (12:56 PM): So, all beliefs have the ...

2009-09-25T14:06:01.355-05:00

@ Anonymous (12:56 PM):

So, all beliefs have the exactly the same validity, since none can be absolutely proven or disproven?

When you learn something new, how do you determine if it's right or wrong? By flipping a coin?

Julie said: As the resident animal scientist and v...

2009-09-25T13:07:21.097-05:00

Julie said:
As the resident animal scientist and veterinary technician in da house, I have to disagree. They were baby T-Rexes, but they did have several molars at the sides and rear of their mouths. To add insult to injury, they were even flat molars instead of the "mountainous" molars we see in carnivores.

I'm confused, where exactly do we disagree? I wasn't exact about the type of teeth because honestly I don't know that much about the teeth of baby carnivore dinos and I couldn't get that close to the robotic one in the Creation "Museum" to tell what they were.

Anonymous said: Science has never disproved that. ...

2009-09-25T13:04:44.051-05:00

Anonymous said:
Science has never disproved that. It's never proved it either. So you can't be 100% sure.

Strawman, table for one. When did I ever say anything about being sure, or 100% sure about anything? Science is never 100% sure about anything.

However, none of the evidence supports the supernatural claims (religion or otherwise) and any time we test claims that should leave evidence (psychic powers, prayer, the natural history as told by Genesis) the supernatural claims fail. Therefore we have a situation where the supernatural worldview has no evidence to support it and evidence against it, but by the description of the "supernatural entitites" we can't say with 100% certainty that they don't exist. However, with the evidence at hand, there is zero reason to accept supernatural claims.

You can want them to be true, or feel they are true, so you can keep testing them. I'm glad people are out there trying to prove this stuff, it is good for our collective philosophy. However, until they have some evidence to back them up, there is no reason to accept the claims. The supernatural is not 100% ruled out, but it is 100% ruled out of currently accepting it. Again, supply some evidence, and that number will change.

@ Anonymous (12:56 PM): I did not say I had no re...

2009-09-25T12:22:08.061-05:00

@ Anonymous (12:56 PM):

I did not say I had no respect for Mr. Aucuin himself; that is a misreading of my statement. What I said, specifically, is that I give his beliefs exactly the respect they are due, which is none. A person's beliefs and that person are not equivalent, and I shall stand by my prior statement.

Now, as to the substance of your reply.

I agree with you that 100% certainty is unrealistic, and I will concede that outside of pure mathematics and logic it is impossible. However, this is a pedantic point and does not imply the conclusions you draw from it. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur.

The burden of proof always rests on the affirmative claim. Given no evidence to believe something, we must default to the null hypothesis. This is the scientific method, as I am sure you already know.

The preponderance of evidence against "supernatural" phenomena suggests that the probability of their existence is extremely low. In practice, it is not unreasonable to take the limit and say that there are no such things, however when confronted about this I do not think you will find any skeptic who maintains absolute certainty of the nonexistence of any given phenomenon (Russell's teapot, invisible-intangible-inaudible pink unicorn, ghosts, Zeus, you name it) when pressed. The probability is simply so low as to be considered zero for all practical purposes, and there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis that there is no such phenomenon.

This is not "faith". "Faith" is the assertion an affirmative claim when there is no evidentiary corroboration to support it.

On the other hand (and Dan Barker has made this point spectacularly in his book Godless), it is possible to be 100% certain that something cannot exist if it is logically incoherent. He argues, quite convincingly, that the Christian god is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist. However, this is a quite different point and not immediately related to the above.

The "you cannot be 100% certain that there is no phenomenon X, therefore it is not unreasonable to believe X is true" argument is a strawman, plain and simple.

"Having "no belief" is a belief. " And "no hair" ...

2009-09-25T12:21:40.347-05:00

"Having "no belief" is a belief. "

And "no hair" is hair.

Bald is a hairstyle?

@pablo Having "no belief" is a belief. you have a...

2009-09-25T11:56:46.591-05:00

@pablo

Having "no belief" is a belief. you have a belief that there is nothing to believe in(which is kind of a paradox). But you have to have some faith in something, even if it's only a small fraction of something. Whether it be a flying spaghetti monster, pirates, or the people who collect scientific data.

@ strinka

Exactly. I think you got it. Nothing can be proven 100%. You can't prove this isn't a dream or hallucination. Therefore, you can't prove there is or isn't a God. And so people shouldn't be wagging their fingers at Christians or athiests. Why can't we all just be friends?

@ mcbender

Your lack of respect for Aucion shows you have no class.

@ stephan

Yes. Evidence for a naturalistic universe abounds. No one is disagreeing with you on that. We all believe in a nature and laws. However, there is no science that disproves the possibilities of anomalies or a God that causes them. If natural law causes the laws of nature. Could there be a different cause that disobeys them? Science has never disproved that. It's never proved it either. So you can't be 100% sure.

...
If we as people are to say one way is the way, we are in fact taking some sort of faith because science and reason can't prove it's 100% true. Isn't it a little hypocritical to mock others for having some?

It's all lies! lies i tell you! it's at 51 minutes...

2009-09-25T10:55:57.869-05:00

It's all lies! lies i tell you! it's at 51 minutes that the angel of the Lord God Herself came down from heaven and told Jen (and I quote) "right, that's quite enough of that! Knock it off!"

Sadly, the glory was too much and it MELTED THE TAPE.

Seriously, the whole thing was great enough I watched it all the way through to past the facepalm.

One question - can we get the slide set too?

and also, how freakin' awesome is it that you've managed to scare AiG so much they won't even mention your name? You're like the female version of a blogging Voldemort.

@Stephan: " 1) the children at the beginning are w...

2009-09-25T10:35:34.574-05:00

@Stephan: "
1) the children at the beginning are with a baby Tyrannosaur, not a velociraptor. Additionally, it had blunted teeth."

As the resident animal scientist and veterinary technician in da house, I have to disagree. They were baby T-Rexes, but they did have several molars at the sides and rear of their mouths. To add insult to injury, they were even flat molars instead of the "mountainous" molars we see in carnivores.

I have a very simple question for you, Mr. Aucuin,...

2009-09-25T08:07:18.099-05:00

I have a very simple question for you, Mr. Aucuin, with all due respect (by which I mean, none whatsoever) to your beliefs.

You say that you were involved in the genesis of the Creation Museum. Perhaps, therefore, you can clarify something for me: on which chapter of Genesis is the museum's account based? Genesis contains two discrepant accounts of the creation, one in Chapter 1 and another in Chapter 2, and these accounts contradict one another in many details (to the point where it is logically impossible for both to have been true). Which, by your reckoning, is the true account, and how was this determined?

"If you can't prove 100% either way, don't both vi...

2009-09-25T07:25:54.495-05:00

"If you can't prove 100% either way, don't both views take a little faith?"

By that reasoning, every belief requires faith. I can't prove that all this isn't just a dream or hallucination. Nothing can be absolutely proven 100%.

Er, that last post should read "You can not accept...

2009-09-24T23:52:41.640-05:00

Er, that last post should read "You can not accept the supernatural claim and still say you are making a rational decision."

This is what I get for commenting in a clean room with two pairs of latex gloves on while using a tough book keyboard. Argh.

Anonymous said... Has anyone on here taken any ph...

2009-09-24T23:50:43.914-05:00

Anonymous said...
Has anyone on here taken any philosophy classes at all? What about philosophy 206, the most basic? In there, you learn it's rational to believe either way. Can you non-theists prove 100% that there is no God? Can you theists prove 100% there is a God? If you can't prove 100% either way, don't both views take a little faith?

It seems a little illogical to say one view is not rational or logical. Also, it may or may not make you look like an arrogant jerk.

Perhaps you should re-take your philosophy. Evidence for a naturalistic universe abounds, evidence for a deity or any other supernatural claim is non-existent. Since one claim has positive evidence and the other does not, then one claim becomes more likely than the other. You can rationalize anything, but any critical analysis of the data means you can not accept the supernatural claim and still make a rational decision.