Missing Links: Oct. 19, 2015

This week’s missing links: Abiogenesis, Ken Ham on reading the Bible literally, your evolution library, the changing story of human evolution, and the Shroud of Turin.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/missing-links-oct-19-2015

I think that you are too kind to Ham. His has built an organization -AiG, that sells lies about science. His organization employs writers who have backgrounds in various scientific disciplines who critique recent scientific results. They parrot the results but then, in each case, refute those results with blatant lies. They do this in astronomy, biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, geology and every scientific endeavor. He then packages those lies and sells them to children. This is psychologically damaging to children. It is child abuse when you tell a child that people and dinosaurs co-existed. And it is also child abuse to tell children that they are descendant from eight survivors from a global flood. Telling children scientific non-truths is as damaging as telling them that their friends will burn in hell because they don’t believe what their parents do.

Biologos should see that Coyne and Dawkins are closer to your views on science and Christian faith than Ken Ham’s.

I think you’re misreading the intentions of AiG. To be morally culpable for lying, you’ve got to be intentionally deceiving. I know enough of that crowd to judge with confidence that they really believe what they say. You’re not giving enough credence to the power of worldviews to shape one’s thinking and determinations of rationality (or at least perceived reasonableness).

No, we do not see that we’re closer to Coyne and Dawkins on the whole than to Ham. There is a lot of overlap of our science with Coyne and Dawkins; but some significant differences when it comes to their ideological spin on that science; and their take on religion puts us in different galaxies. There is a lot of overlap of our faith commitments with AiG; but some significant differences when it comes to teasing out the implications of their YEC ideology; and their take on science puts us light years apart. So when considering both science and faith, I’d say we’re equidistant from both camps!

So are you saying that to avoid being morally culpable you can defer to a worldview that views your actions as acceptable as long as you sincerely hold these beliefs? I don’t accept that as a human being. In today’s world, there are groups that have worldviews with vastly different morals, values, and ethics than your’s and mine. For example, ISIS, their morality is shaped by a warped reading of the Koran. They believe in their correctness of their beliefs and actions. To them they consider themselves good Muslims, in fact the only Muslims truly following the Koran and truly following God. Their morality, values, and actions are shaped directly by it. Certainly you won’t give them a pass because it is their deeply held religious beliefs, would you?

Certainly I don’t put AiG anywhere near the immorality of ISIS, but their blatant anti-science result’s rhetoric when directed at children, must at some point be considered an immorality, an abuse, a warped reading of the Bible. And their intention are ultimately to deceive and to sell their worldview can’t be considered moral and ethical because they believe in it sincerely.

There is no difference in the science between Biologos, Coyne, Dawkins as well as the Vatican Observatory, Francis Collins. None. The Genetics, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology is all the same to all organizations. I would say that on Faith commitments, Biologos is more moral than AiG as I have never seen any indication that Biologos would lie about the science to make it correspond more closely to its Faith. That’s what makes Biologos morals, values, ethics, and truthfulness to both science and their faith. Biologos is worth of praise from all people especially children coming to this website to learn.

I said, morally culpable for lying. Big difference.

That depends on your definition of science. Coyne and Dawkins think that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge, so for them questions about the existence and nature of God, free will, and morality are answered by their science. We profoundly disagree with their “scientific” answers to such questions. If you say, well that’s not really science, then I’d say, “persuade them of that and we could have a productive conversation!”

There’s a scientific way to test this. Post these exact quotes on Coyne’s blog right now, and see what happens.

Ok, I will do that and see what happens.

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.