Barry finally gets it?

Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.

He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.

Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.

Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design?  That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?

Sadly, it seems not.  Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point.  Here they are:

For example, consider this typical objection:  “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”

If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.

Yes, indeed, Barry.  It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID.  There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out.  And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle.  There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”.  I wonder where Barry found that quotation?

The point sailed right over REC’s head.  He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”

I doubt it sailed over REC’s head.  I expect it was the very point he was making – that there  is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.

But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC!  We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.

REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case.  But you are missing the point.  If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.

Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time.  That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant.   The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier).  The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious.  They don’t work.  Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology.  They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.

In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.

And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable.  That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon.  If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.

You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.

Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important,  But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory.  In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?

Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference.   Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.

That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.

What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID.  Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:

…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference.  Even if it’s true.

1,072 thoughts on “Barry finally gets it?

  1. William J. Murray: Elizabeth:

    Sure.How would you define “intelligence” as in “Intelligent design” William?

    In other words, what do you think ID proponents are actually claiming?

    I guess Moran and REC get a free pass when it comes to definitions and methodology, eh?

    No, not at all. But it seems to me that the onus is on ID proponents at least to define what they mean by “I” word in their theory.

    I expect REC and Larry were using the word in the sense in which they thought Barry meant it – an entity with a human-like type capacity to invent things, but I don’t know, and they aren’t here to ask.

    That’s why I’m asking how you would define it, in the context of the ID proposal.

  2. otangelo: Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA)

    Is reproductive isolation a requirement?

  3. otangelo: Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA)

    ToE doesn’t posit macroevolution by large “jumps”. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution that has accumulated over a longer time.

    What barrier prevents small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

  4. Elizabeth: Can you point to an example of a “jump to new species”?

    Just have a look at the tree of life. Jump does not mean saltation……

  5. Adapa: ToE doesn’t posit macroevolution by large “jumps”.Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution that has accumulated over a longer time.

    What barrier prevents small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

    That is one of the most common assertions i hear from proponents of evolution, that have imho no understanding beyond the superficial assertions they have been feeded with, and which they adopt without having a thought if these propositions are actually true.

    Darwins doubt (pp. 410-411)

    “This book has presented four separate scientific critiques demonstrating the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the mechanism that Dawkins assumes can produce the appearance of design without intelligent guidance. It has shown that the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan.”

    further reasons :

    http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/127739428119/a-leaky-faucet-why-darwinian-evolution-leads-to

    and of my own work :

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design?highlight=unicellular

  6. otangelo,

    Genesis two disagrees.

    nope.

    Let me see that bible you’re using. Hmm, that’s the problem. King James is so last millennium. Try this one on for size. It goes into detail on all that stuff that gets glossed over by your preacher.

  7. otangelo: Just have a look at the tree of life. Jump does not mean saltation……

    Well, can you say what you are referring to? What “jumps” do you think require “macroevolution”?

  8. Patrick:
    otangelo,

    nope.

    Let me see that bible you’re using.Hmm, that’s the problem.King James is so last millennium.Try this one on for size.It goes into detail on all that stuff that gets glossed over by your preacher.

    I believe God is the cause of the universe, our planet, life, and biodiversity.

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1642-creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1

    A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories…time, force, action, space and matter.

    Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning,” that’s time…”God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

    Now either you believe that or you don’t. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you’re left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

  9. Elizabeth: Well, can you say what you are referring to?What “jumps” do you think require “macroevolution”?

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

    Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity

  10. otangelo: That is one of the most common assertions i hear from proponents of evolution, that have imho no understanding beyond the superficial assertions they have been feeded with, and which they adopt without having a thought if these propositions are actually true.

    Darwins doubt (pp. 410-411)

    “This book has presented four separate scientific critiques demonstrating the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the mechanism that Dawkins assumes can produce the appearance of design without intelligent guidance. It has shown that the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan.”

    further reasons :

    http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/127739428119/a-leaky-faucet-why-darwinian-evolution-leads-to

    and of my own work :

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design?highlight=unicellular

    You cut and pasted a whole pile of meaningless dog poo that didn’t answer the question. Try again.

    What magic barrier keeps small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

  11. Lewontin’s statement is silly even in context. The fact that an omnipotent deity could potentially futz with our experiments doesn’t mean we have to assume that such deities don’t exist. After all, humans could futz with our experiments and we certainly don’t need to assume that humans don’t exist!

  12. Lizzie,

    But whatever, the principle is clear; you can’t test a theory that doesn’t make predictions, and you can’t make predictions if your putative causal agent can act without constraint.

    The issue isn’t whether your causal agent can act without constraint. It’s whether your causal agent does act without constraint, according to your hypothesis. Constraints can be self-imposed, after all.

    Most theists would say that God doesn’t punish people for praying to him, for example, though he certainly could punish them if he wanted to.

    That’s a hypothesis, and it implies a statistical regularity in God’s behavior: controlling for other variables, those who pray to God do not tend to be punished more than those who don’t.

    You and Sal argue that any statistical predictability in God’s behavior would mean that he really isn’t God at all, but that makes no sense. If that were true, then total randomness, irregularity and capriciousness would be his essential characteristics.

    That isn’t how most theists (including Sal) see their God. Not by a long shot.

  13. petrushka: Prove it.

    http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer09/archivesummer09/chatterjee.pdf

    One of the most striking features of macroevolution is the apparently sudden appearance of genotypic complexity leading to new body plans and morphological innovations such as
    organelles and nucleus in eucarya, multicellularity in plants and metazoans, flowers in plants, development of head and jaws in vertebrates, mobility of premaxilla-maxilla in teleosts, placenta
    in placentals, flexible joints between pterygoid and palatine in neognaths, and plethora of many other innovations in these lineages.

  14. Humans have futzed with experiments. My AtBC name is a dishonorable tribute to the most famous example in experimental evolution.

    Human futzing is detectable. No malign human could sabotage all replications of a phenomenon. A malign magic being could in theory, sabotage the workings of “nature.”

  15. Adapa: You cut and pasted a whole pile of meaningless dog poo that didn’t answer the question.Try again.

    What magic barrier keeps small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

    Do your homework. Study actually the links provided, and you will learn.

  16. otangelo: Do your homework. Study actually the links provided, and you will learn.

    Even better, be a Christian, and explain yourself.

  17. otangelo: Do your homework. Study actually the links provided, and you will learn.

    This is a discussion forum. You’re suppose to discuss in your own words, not just vomit up huge walls of text you C&Ped from the usual IDiot websites.

    Now please answer the question.

    What magic barrier keeps small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

    I’m betting you can’t because such a magic barrier exists only in the minds of ignorant Creationists.

  18. petrushka,

    A malign magic being could in theory, sabotage the workings of “nature.”

    Sure. But how do you get from there to “we must assume, when doing science, that supernatural forces and entities do not exist”?

    How does the logical possibility of your “malign magic being” make it illegitimate to investigate the supernatural hypothesis “God often answers intercessory prayers”, for instance?

  19. otangelo: http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer09/archivesummer09/chatterjee.pdf

    One of the most striking features of macroevolution is the apparently sudden appearance of genotypic complexity leading to new body plans and morphological innovations such as
    organelles and nucleus in eucarya, multicellularity in plants and metazoans, flowers in plants, development of head and jaws in vertebrates, mobility of premaxilla-maxilla in teleosts, placenta
    in placentals, flexible joints between pterygoid and palatine in neognaths, and plethora of many other innovations in these lineages.

    Typical Creationist to dishonestly quote-mine a science paper. Why did you cut these words off the part your copied?

    “One of the most striking features of macroevolution is the apparently sudden appearance of genotypic complexity leading to new body plans and morphological innovations such as organelles and nucleus in eucarya, multicellularity in plants and metazoans, flowers in plants, development of head and jaws in vertebrates, mobility of premaxilla-maxilla in teleosts, placenta in placentals, flexible joints between pterygoid and palatine in neognaths, and plethora of many other innovations in these lineages. Macrogenesis is a causal evolutionary theory that explains macroevolution by increasing genome size, which could be modulated adaptively in response to cellular and organismal needs. I propose acquiring new genomes by macrogenesis is the proximate cause for triggering the macroevolutionary pulse, the origin of a higher clade; its effect or aftermath cascades into two sequential regimes: stabilization and explosive evolution.”

    Most people consider quote-mining to be a form of lying.

  20. Adapa: This is a discussion forum.You’re suppose to discuss in your own words, not just vomit up huge walls of text you C&Ped from the usual IDiot websites.

    Now please answer the question.

    What magic barrier keeps small genetic and morphological changes from accumulating over time into large ones?

    I’m betting you can’t because such a magic barrier exists only in the minds of ignorant Creationists.

    keep dwelling on the superficiality of pseudo science…. Keep deluding yourself. You deserve what you want.

  21. Adapa: Typical Creationist to dishonestly quote-mine a science paper.Why did you cut these words off the part your copied?

    “One of the most striking features of macroevolution is the apparently sudden appearance of genotypic complexity leading to new body plans and morphological innovations such as organelles and nucleus in eucarya, multicellularity in plants and metazoans, flowers in plants, development of head and jaws in vertebrates, mobility of premaxilla-maxilla in teleosts, placenta in placentals, flexible joints between pterygoid and palatine in neognaths, and plethora of many other innovations in these lineages. Macrogenesis is a causal evolutionary theory that explains macroevolution by increasing genome size, which could be modulated adaptively in response to cellular and organismal needs. I propose acquiring new genomes by macrogenesis is the proximate cause for triggering the macroevolutionary pulse, the origin of a higher clade; its effect or aftermath cascades into two sequential regimes: stabilization and explosive evolution.”

    Most people consider quote-mining to be a form of lying.

    now explain how what you added refutes what i quoted.

  22. otangelo: keep dwelling on the superficiality of pseudo science…. Keep deluding yourself. You deserve what you want.

    OK, you’re going to run from the question because you have no answer.

    Since you’ve now admitted science has a mechanism for producing macro-evolution what other Creationist PRATTs will you be regurgitating?

  23. petrushka:

    Suppose you found a strong correlation between prayer and recovery.

    OK. How does that answer either of my questions?

  24. petrushka,

    How would you proceed?

    The same way I would for any scientific hypothesis. Figure out the entailments, test them, compare to competing hypotheses, formulate new tests to distinguish between the competitors.

    How would you answer my two questions?

  25. keiths: The issue isn’t whether your causal agent can act without constraint. It’s whether your causal agent does act without constraint, according to your hypothesis. Constraints can be self-imposed, after all.

    I would agree with this.

    What we would need to do is look for a stated constraint of some kind. Here is the one I would focus on

    quote:
    making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
    (Eph 1:9-10)
    end quote:

    Here we have the stated purpose for a particular deity. I would think a purpose could serve as a constraining factor.

    I see no reason why we could not test to see if the evidence supports the hypothesis that God is about fulfilling this purpose.

    keiths: The same way I would for any scientific hypothesis. Figure out the entailments, test them, compare to competing hypotheses, formulate new tests to distinguish between the competitors.

    I think that this reasonable as well. It’s just important to start with the right hypothesis.

    The one you are kicking around seems to vague to me you would have to precisely define “punish” and describe exactly what efficacious prayer looks like. You have not done that yet.

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman:

    keiths: The issue isn’t whether your causal agent can act without constraint. It’s whether your causal agent does act without constraint, according to your hypothesis. Constraints can be self-imposed, after all.

    I would agree with this.

    What we would need to do is look for a stated constraint of some kind. Here is the one I would focus on

    quote:
    making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
    (Eph 1:9-10)
    end quote:

    Haha. Here we have fifthmonarchyman — who is constantly whining that we don’t talk about “the science” — coming into a thread that actually is about the science, and deciding that his role in this is to puke up another bible verse.

    Oh, marvelously done, fifthmonarchyman. You fill your role so well! A fellow of infinite jest …

  27. petrushka,

    I notice that you’re avoiding my two questions:

    petrushka:

    A malign magic being could in theory, sabotage the workings of “nature.”

    keiths:

    Sure. But how do you get from there to “we must assume, when doing science, that supernatural forces and entities do not exist”?

    How does the logical possibility of your “malign magic being” make it illegitimate to investigate the supernatural hypothesis “God often answers intercessory prayers”, for instance?

  28. hotshoe_: Here we have fifthmonarchyman — who is constantly whining that we don’t talk about “the science” — coming into a thread that actually is about the science, and deciding that his role in this is to puke up another bible verse.

    keiths brought is up.

    I see nothing wrong with testing theological claims scientifically. It’s just important that test an actual claim. Not some strawman of the atheist imagination. If you are looking for a Christian theological claim scripture is the place to start.

    peace

  29. fifth,

    The one [hypothesis] you are kicking around seems to vague to me you would have to precisely define “punish” and describe exactly what efficacious prayer looks like. You have not done that yet.

    I just offered that hypothesis as an example. The point is that methodological naturalism is unnecessarily restrictive and that science can tackle supernatural hypotheses as long as they are testable.

  30. otangelo: Well, thats what Behe said :

    Michael Behe’s “Evolutionary” Definition — “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations).The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.”(A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, 2002)

    And this definition is very much different from yours. Yours is nonsensical and attempts to prove a universal negative.

  31. keiths: The issue isn’t whether your causal agent can act without constraint. It’s whether your causal agent does act without constraint, according to your hypothesis. Constraints can be self-imposed, after all.

    OK, that’s fine. If you are hypothesising constraints, you can test the hypothesis. My point is that what you can’t test is a causal agent without constraints.

    But ID proponents say this is out of court – they pour scorn on the arguments that “God wouldn’t have done it this way”. But you can only test hypotheses that your putatitve God would have done whatever it is this way and not that way. You can’t test that some god did it any way that god chose for any reason and by any conceivable or unconceivable method.

    Most theists would say that God doesn’t punish people for praying to him, for example, though he certainly could punish them if he wanted to.

    That’s a hypothesis, and it implies a statistical regularity in God’s behavior: controlling for other variables, those who pray to God do not tend to be punished more than those who don’t.

    Sure. So testing the efficacy of intercessionary prayer can be, and has been, tested.

    You and Sal argue that any statistical predictability in God’s behavior would mean that he really isn’t God at all, but that makes no sense. If that were true, then total randomness, irregularity and capriciousness would be his essential characteristics.

    Quite. And that is what follows from the ID hypothesis, if ID proponents continue to refuse to admit positive predictive tests as valid.

    That isn’t how most theists (including Sal) see their God. Not by a long shot.

    I’m well aware of that.

  32. Scene in scientist’s lab.

    Two people sit opposite other at a desk. On the desk is a large jug full of water and a smaller stone jar. A notepad, pencil and stopwatch lay in front of a balding, middle-aged man [exp.] dressed in a shabby lab coat . The other [sub.] is younger, around thirty, middle-eastern appearance, dressed in a long tunic.

    Exp: So you can do this at will, the water into wine?

    Sub: (Fills jar from jug, leans back, waves at jug) See for yourself.

    Exp: (looks closely in jar, sniffs, raises to lips and tastes) Wow, that’s just amazing… and instantaneous. No poof – no flash – just instant! Does it cost you any effort? Can you repeat it?

    Sub: No, there seems to be no limit.

    Exp: So, in theory, you could turn a large vat of water into wine as often as it could be emptied and refilled?

    Sub: I believe so. Would you like to experiment further? Examine the process of transformation more closely?

    Exp: Hell, no! I think we should get into the wine business!

  33. otangelo,

    Me: You want an audit of every step in those million million or so generations?

    otangelo: No, just describe the mechanism which provokes macro change and the evidence to back up your claim would be enough.

    I don’t know what claim you think I need to back up; you are evidently confusing two separate issues: selection and size of change. You previously asserted that every change must be advantageous. Evolution is not, however, restricted to changes that increase fitness. Neutral and disadvantageous traits can spread, and therefore be steps in a series. However big or small those steps themselves are. It’s not about ‘macro’ evolution, however you might define that.

  34. Seriously, this [we should be open to the evidence] reminds me of Upright Biped and his conflation of SETI with ID. SETI are looking for data. They have the resources to scan large parts of the sky at frequencies that are least absorbed by interstellar material. If they ever find a signal that is not explainable by some phenomenon like a quasar or a pulsar, they will then have the task of hypothesizing on other possibilities, alien intelligence among them, for the source.

    ID proponents need to find their signal before we need to explain it.

    ETA “First find your foot!”

  35. otangelo,

    Genesis one. The only rational view.

    Only if God is devious and deceitful. Why would God create organisms with all the appearance of substantial lineage age and of universal common descent, and fossil successions to go with? How come only religionists fail to be fooled by this deceit?

  36. fifthmonarchyman,

    I see nothing wrong with testing theological claims scientifically. It’s just important that test an actual claim. Not some strawman of the atheist imagination. If you are looking for a Christian theological claim scripture is the place to start.

    Haha! Good luck with ‘testing’ a theological claim.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: I see nothing wrong with testing theological claims scientifically.

    Can you give some examples where that’s been done in the past? What was the outcome?

Leave a Reply