CalvinDude.com

Stephen Jay Gould, when dealing of consilience, said this:

Any honorable creationist, after suffering such a combination of blows, all implicating a history of evolution as the only sensible coordinating explanation, should throw in the towel and, like a beaten prizefighter, acknowledge Darwin as the Muhammad Ali of bilogy.

(Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (p. 111))

These are strong words.  Especially after you consider the “combination of blows” that supposedly fells creationism.

Let us look at them, in the same order that Darwin presented them (replicated by Gould, ibid p 109-111):

(1) The general paucity of endemic species on islands, contrasted with comprabale areas of continents; why should God put fewer species on islands?

The problem with this illustration is that it relies on a false understanding of Creationism (which will be echoed in later points).  Darwinists believe that Creationists believe God created all animals exactly where they live now.  But this is obviously absurd, as any example will demonstrate.  People, for instance, were not created in the New World; they were created in Eden (which is indicated as being in the Middle East).  There is no reason to think that God created species on every single island.  They could have all come from a central point, just as man did.

(2) The frequent displacement of endemic island biotas by continental species introduced by human transport.  If God created species for islands, why should species designed for continents so often prove supeerior in competition[?]

Again, this relies on the fallacy that God “created species for islands.”  Furthermore, I would think this indicates a strike against Darwinism.  After all, this is an admission that organisms in the specific island environment are not as well adapted to that environment as continental organisms.  That organisms are not as well off as continental species can easily be understood by the problem of dilution that comes from inbreeding.  (2) therefore does not hit against Creationism either.

(3) Taxonomic disparity of endemic species within groups records ease of access, not created fit to oceanic environments.  “Thus in the Galapogas Islands, nearly every land bird, but only two out of the eleven marine birds, are peculiar; and it is obvious that marine birds could arrive at these islands more easily than land birds” ([Darwin's Origin] pp. 390-391)

Again, this doesn’t speak anything against Creationism, since Creationism doesn’t require species created on each island.  They are allowed to travel there.  Likewise, animals that were able to travel to and from the continents would not suffer from the same inbreeding problems as other species that could not get “fresh” DNA.  This would result in fewer “peculiar” species by the fact that inbreeding is diminished between them.

(4) Biotas of oceanic islands often lack the characteristic groups of similar habitats on continents.  On these islands, endemic members of other groups often assume the ecological roles almost always occupied by more appropriate or more competitive taxa in the richer faunas of continents–for example, reptiles on the Galapagos, or wingless birds on New Zealand, acting as surrogates for mammals.

Firstly, this assumes that certain types of animals are supposed to act in a certain way.  But why should these roles be required in the first place?  At this point, Darwin is slipping into an argument from design without realizing it.  In order for this argument to succeed, there must be roles that species ought to perform.

Secondly, why should it be odd that different animals do things differently when there is no competition?  How would this violate Creationism?  In fact, it seems to fit the concept of a top-down design.  That is, nature was designed to function a certain way (by God), and when certain things are lacking other oganisms “take up the slack” so the overall system stays on track.  There is nothing anti-Creationist in this concept.

(5) In endemic island species, features operating as adaptations in related species on continents often lose utility when their island residences do not feature the same environment.

Again, that is something that could also be explained by the concept of inbreeding–the devolution of a species.

(6) Peculiar morphological consequences often ensue when creatures seize places usually inhabited by other forms that could not reach an island.  Many plants, herbaceous in habitat on continents, become arboraceous on islands otherwise devoid of trees.

Again, this can be explained by the top-down design view of nature.  On the other hand, I wonder how Darwinism can explain this.  What is it that would require the island to evolve tree-like plants, when trees are lacking?  Why is it that nature would select for such plants in the absense of trees?  Would that not rather indicate that trees are a necessary pattern of nature, something that is required by the over-all design?  (And, by the way, this fits even with the chaos theorists ideas of spontaneous order; but it doesn’t fit with Darwinism.)

(7) Suitable organisms frequently fail to gain access to islands.  Why do so many oceanic islands lack frogs, toads, and newts that seem so admirably adapted for such an environment?

Again, because to get to the island is difficult and God did not create them on the island during Creation.

(8) Correlation of biota with distance.  Darwin could find no report of terrestrial mammals on islands more than 300 miles from a continent.

Obviously they can’t swim that far.  This isn’t an argument against Creationism.

(9) Correlation with ease of access.  Creatures often manage to cross shallow water barriers between a continent and island, but fail to negotiate deep-water gaps of the same distance.

See answers to (1), (7) and (8).

(10) Taxonomic affinity of island endemics–perhaps the most obvious point of all: why are the closest relatives of island endemics nearly always found on the nearest continent or on other adjacent islands?

See (1), (7), and (8) [and (9)].

The only thing Darwin has been boxing here has been the mythical Darwinist view of Creationism.

Let’s see…

Monday, we were supposed to get an inch of snow.  We got…none.

Tuesday, they said we’d get 2-3 inches.  We got…none.

Today, they say we’ll get 3-5 inches.  It hasn’t started yet (although for once the sky looks dark and foreboding…it might actually snow today).

I wish in my job I could be as wrong as often and as catastrophically as weathermen are….

…but what the heck.

Uproar Over White Party Mocking Blacks

Now, I’m not black.  But perhaps someone can enlighten me as to just why it is that malt liquor is mocking blacks?

That’s right.  We read in the article:

…white students mocked blacks by drinking malt liquor and at least one student wore black face.

I can understand the “black face” being possibly racist (of course, I would want to know why the student did this before just assuming s/he’s racist).  But how is drinking malt liquor racist?

This ranks up there with the racism found in fried chicken and watermelon, two foods I enjoy to eat.  I don’t get it.

Is it not possible that the black community in America is so hyper-sensitive that they assume everyone is racist against them without actually meeting the burden of proof?  Indeed, I fear that is the case.  And I know full well that this blog entry could be misconstrued as being racist because I dare to point it out.

I am not a racist.  I never have been.  A person’s ethnicity doesn’t even register with me when I speak with them.

Nor am I prejudiced.  (And I should note that the difference between prejudism and racism is largely ignored today.)  No, I am an apologist; what I am interested in is a person’s arguments not their race.

And I frankly cannot see how the argument that malt liquor, fried chicken, and watermelon being consumed by white “crackers” (which is another food I like, by the way) constitutes racism.

Perhaps someone can inform me as to why this would be the case.  Because as far as I can tell, the people obsessed with race here are in the NAACP, not the picnicers.

We now have the ISBN for Public Transit!  The final proofs are on their way as I type this.  Once I make any final revisions, Public Transit will be available to purchase from the usual suspects (Amazon, Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc.).  Hopefully, this will be by mid-February.  We’ll keep ya posted :-)

UPDATE: For those interested, the ISBN will be (as in future tense, so don’t look now) 978-1-4303-1996-2.

…sometimes I wish they didn’t try so hard to make Public Transit a documentary instead of social, satirical commentary….

Let’s have a U2-charist!

That’s right…U2 songs instead of hymns, fancy lights that match the beat, total inclusivism!  What could they possibly be missing at this service.

Other than God, I mean.

Over on this Triablogue post, I’ve had a bit of an interesting discussion.  It’s about to drop off the main page (which is the equivalent of blog purgatory), so I wanted to put some comments on my own bog.  The post itself is on the strawman aspect of the Problem of Evil.  In the comments section, I noted that atheists (such as Daniel Morgan and John Loftus) never bother to define evil when they bring up the Problem of Evil.  If “evil” is undefined, then there is no “problem of evil.”

Ironically, a fellow named Doubting Thomas made the claim that the Bible itself never defined what evil was.  I pointed out that, if such a claim were true, then it would be impossible to argue that there is a problem of evil for the same reason as above–if evil is undefined, there is no “problem” of evil.  To his credit, Tom agreed with this assessment, but continued to insist that the Bible never defines evil.

But is that the case?  Obviously Scripture is not a “dictionary.”  That is, it is not a list of words with definitions after them.  This does not mean that Scripture leaves its key concepts undefined in the least though, anymore than the fact that I do not define every single word I use in a blog post means I don’t have any meaning in mind as a write.

The problem here is the idea of postmodern deconstructionalism.  Ultimately, it’s the belief that words don’t actually have any meaning at all, not just that the Bible doesn’t.  This, of course, becomes self-refuting (for how can you use words to argue words have no meaning?).

But let us look specifically at whether or not Scripture defines evil.  I gave specific examples in the comments (click on the link to the Triablogue post to read them) where the Bible said, “X is evil.”  X can be either a behavior (e.g. supressing the truth) or a specific action (e.g. killing a man).  It doesn’t matter; the Bible describes many different things as being evil.

As a result, we can say that “evil” is defined by the Bible as a list of those behaviors, actions, thoughts, etc. that are specifically called “evil” (or one of the synonyms of evil, more commonly used in Scripture, such as “unrighteousness” or “sin”).

The Bible, therefore, does provide a bare-bones list of what is evil.  Thus, we have the context to determine what “evil” is when the Bible uses the term outside of specifically linking it to something.  In other words, when the Bible says, “The soul that sins shall die” we know what “sins” means because the Bible has elsewhere established what behaviors, ideas, etc. are sinful.  This statement does not need a “sins are X, Y, Z…” definition.

Words are primarily defined by their usage.  These meanings are nearly always more general, with lots of room for variation and nuance.  The specific context of the author who uses a general word will provide us with the specific nuance the author intends.  Using this principal, we can indeed understand what the Bible speaks of when it speaks of evil.

In other words, there is a Biblical definition of evil.  It’s defined by the entirety of the Bible and the scope it is used within the pages of the Bible.  There is no specific, short-sentence form, but such a form is rarely found outside of the dictionary (and then, only in pedantic philosophical books that seek to look at one specific nuance of a word, or an explicit technical term).

So, if you want to know how the Bible defines evil…read the Bible.

John Kerry Slams His Own Country At Davos.

No way!  The guy who helped lose Vietnam by bashing the troops who did real fighting would slam the US?  This is impossible to believe!!!

Recently, I’ve been working on getting Public Transit ready for its ISBN so it can have its official “debut” as an actually published book.  This has involved heavy editing, which (as a writer) is not so much fun.  But where I work, we have a writers group and one of the members brought up some contests we could enter some shorter works in.  As a result, I’ve also been polishing up one of my old short stories.

All this has got me thinking about creativity in general.  Sometimes, writers are asked where their ideas come from.  For many, this is one of the most frightening questions that could be asked!  Indeed, it is doubtful that many writers know where their ideas come from.

I have sort of a split personality on that issue.  The story itself–who the characters are and what motivates them–is almost always something that comes out of “nowhere.”  My characters will often surprise me and do things that I did not expect them to do, but which make perfect sense within the logic of the scene.  On the other hand, the overall structure of my writing is always set in stone.  It’s like having an over-arching worldview in place, and then coming up with characters to that would either go with or compete against that worldview.

I am always coming up with story ideas, by which I specifically refer to plot devices, types of characters, situations, and events.  But writing is not interesting to me until after I develop that necessary worldview.  As such, I don’t write anything until after I’ve gotten the philosophical point of the piece.

Because the philosophy is the important part (since without it, I don’t even begin to write anything), my stories only come about after I get to that position.  So I always have stories in my mind; I only take the time to flesh them out when I have a purpose to do so  And I’ve discovered once I’ve got my philosophy, all the story concepts that bounce around my head can plug in almost instantly.

So where does my mind get its creative impulse from?  Half of it is that nebulous place that all authors point to–the part I cannot define.  But the important half is found in my doing exactly what I do on this blog or on other blogs I visit.  It comes from debating people, understanding worldviews, coming up with distinctive philosophical concepts, and from hashing out presuppositions.  Ultimately, my characters are designed with those presuppositions in place, with an overarching objective worldview, and then they behave according to the rules set in place.

In the end, somehow, a story comes out.

I’m currently reading through The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.  One thing that should be noted is that Gould was not a Darwinist.  Of course, he would argue that he was one, and it is certainly true that Darwin was his ideological idol.  However, Gould himself repeatedly points out errors in what he calls “strict Darwinism” (one of the biggest ones being that Gould believed in catastrophism, while Darwinism requires uniformitarian gradualism).

But this is not the time to critique Gould.  Instead, because I’m reading this book and have read others recently on the subject, I have been thinking about evolution.  Nearly all of Darwin’s scientific ideas that he used to formulate his concepts of Natural Selection, competition, and so forth have now been shown to be erroneous.  Yet, the core logic (as Gould puts it) of Darwinism remains the same.

I can think of no better argument that Darwinism is a philosophy instead of science.

After all, Darwin’s arguments were of the kind, “The occurance of X is evidence for my theory Y.”  Scientists later jettisioned X as being incorrect or unfounded, yet the theory Y remained.  Instead of X, they proposed a different explanation as to why Y was still true (we’ll call it X’).  If X’ is shown to be wrong, then we stipulate X”, etc.  At no point is Y questioned.

That is because the philosophy of Darwinism doesn’t change.  It is merely an idea that is in search of scientific evidence.  When the evidence seems to be there, the evidence is claimed to be proof; yet if that evidence is later shown to not imply Darwinism, why that doesn’t change the truthfulness of Darwinism.

Darwinism remains while science changes precisely because Darwinism is philosophical, not scientific.  But philosophy isn’t granted as much esteem these days as the hallowed term “science.”  This is why neo-Darwinists (there are no practicing scientific Darwinists anymore) continue to claim Darwinism has been scientifically “proven” even if the mechanism of how it occurs is still in question.