CalvinDude.com

Robert has responded to my response to his comments on why God doesn’t heal amputees. There are a few issues with his response that need to be sorted out, so I shall do so now.

I originally said:

If someone claims to be a Christian but produces non-Christian fruit, then we have reason to doubt that person’s claims.

Robert responds:

Great! Now we only need to determine what are “non-Christian fruit”. But wait, don’t all Christians sin? Yes, they do. So obviously, the question is not strictly the production of “non-Christian fruit”–every Christian does that–but just how much production of “non-Christian fruit” disqualifies one from being a Christian. Can you answer that, CalvinDude?

Robert’s response, however, completely misses the point. At issue is not whether or not we can know with infallible certainty another person’s salvation. We can’t. (Only God knows.) But we can judge by behavior, and the Bible itself commands us to do so. We look at fruit and make our judgements based on that.

This has nothing to do with a quantitative subject, as if you were measuring the mass of a rock with a scale. This is a philosophical and moral judgement. There are levels of uncertainty involved in the human process. But I never made a strict claim. Again, as I said, production of non-Christian fruit (and I can also add the lack of production of Christian fruit) gives us reason to doubt that person’s claims to being a Christian.

I note that this type of answer is no less acceptable than any other scientific behavioral claim. That is, biologists studying the mating habits of geese can make reasonable inferences from the observation of that behavior. That something is reasonable does not mean it is infallible nor even necessarily right; however, it makes it reasonable to form that conclusion.

Robert continues:

Well, now. It appears we have another qualification. The true Christian also repents of their sin.

Given that repentance is a Christian fruit, this is not “another qualification” but rather an example of the main point. See also Robert’s comment on forgiveness, which is equivalent here.

Robert says:

Suppose I sin every day (not a very hard thing to do), but repent and seek forgiveness. Is there a limit on how many cycles I can do this before I’m no longer a “true Christian”?

Now you’re changing the subject. We started with how I can make a determination of whether or not you are a Christian. That has nothing to do with your actual state.

Whether you are a Christian depends on your spiritual relationship with God. And if you are one of His, you will invariably return to Him regardless of how many times you fall.

However, I do not have access to your spiritual relationship with God. But God has not required me to have this knowledge; He has said that we are to judge by the fruit that is produced. Therefore, all I am required to do is make a valid judgment based on the evidence I see. God is not going to condemn me for not knowing your heart, but He would condemn me for making incorrect inferences and for not being reasonable.

Robert seems to think that this is an all or nothing thing. Either we have some metric whereby we can know for certainty that someone is or is not a Christian, or else we have no basis to say whether someone is or is not a Christian. It doesn’t work that way, though. Again, God Himself gave the commandment to judge each other’s works. If our judgment is based on works and ends up flawed because we do not know the heart of the person involved, we have not committed a theological error.

Robert continues:

Fair enough. Just how much more consistently? 50%? 75%?

Again, you’re trying to quantify what is unquantifiable. But I reject your premises.

Robert said:

In your original post, you suggested that church attendance and Bible study were markers of a true Christian. Again, how much? 10 hours of weekly attendance + study? 20?

No, in my original post I pointed out that those who attend church regularly are statistically more likely to stay married. Thus, the divorce rate in “Christianity” increases due to people who claim to be Christian but then don’t do what Christians actually do. Now you have extrapolated it out a bit here, but you’d have to ask Barna for the exact details of their question.

As far as determining a person’s salvation via church attendance, I refer you to my above points. Church attendence is evidence of a credible profession of faith, but it is not proof that faith exists. It merely is evidence that gives us a reason to consider someone a Christian.

Robert said:

You see, CalvinDude, what the problem here is that while your metrics of who a “true Christian” is sound good in the abstract, they break down in the details. There’s simply no good way of differentiating a true Christian from a fake one outside a declaration of identity.

Judging them by their actions is most certainly a “good way” even if it is not a perfect way. It is the only way we have available (after all, a “declaration of identity” from a species known to lie is pointless). I could stand on a football field with my arms raised in the air and say, “I’m a goal post.” But if I don’t fit the definition, I’m not a goal post nor could I function as one.

So too, someone can claim to be a Christian. But if he’s not doing what the Bible says a Christian will do, I have no reason to believe him.

Robert said:

From the perspective of some Christians, there will always be others who are false. I’d wager even you are considered a false Christian by your fellows.

Which is irrelevant to the issue. Furthermore, you’re begging the question (after all, at issue is who is or is not a Christian in the first place, yet you’re using those terms as if that’s not what’s in debate).

I said:

Again, God never heals anyone because they are deserving.

Robert said:

Very well, we’ve covered why God does not heal someone.

This says nothing about why God does not heal someone. It says that “deserving” is not a reason that God would heal someone.

Robert said:

Now please answer why God does, and why the person is never an amputee.

1) Because God wants to.

2) How do you know an amputee has never been healed, ever? Even if there were widespread reports of one, you wouldn’t believe them. Which brings up:

3) You don’t believe God actually heals anyone in the first place, so the question is disingenuous from the get go.

Robert said:

Tortured to believe. Got it.

No, you don’t “Got it” because that’s not what I said. Nice try. Call back later.

FALSE HOPE, NY – Rob Meblin, an employee of False Hope Pre-Junior High School, was accused Wednesday of advancing religious views on public grounds when school officials found a mural displaying a cross on one wall of his classroom. In a brief filed by ACLU lawyers, Meblin was accused of “grossly forwarding dangerous religious views held by Jesus-followers” while “ignoring views expressed by non-believers.”

Principal Hans Ingloff said, “We run a public school. Learning is our goal, and we will learn if Mr. Meblin is a religious illiberal as soon as possible.”

ACLU’s brief was filed on behalf of an anonymous pupil of Mr. Meblin, whose guardians discovered similar religious murals in several classrooms besides Mr. Meblin’s. However, a year ago federal judges ruled briefs are only applicable for personal pedagogues of individual pupils.

Meblin claims his mural was belied by “unknowledgeable fools.”

“I used no religious symbols in my mural,” he claimed. “I merely gave a roll of symbols comprising our common English language. Now I am being crucified because one symbol I had no choice in and never desired anyway is in a similar form as Jesus’ crucifix! How am I blamed for such nonsense? If I had been in charge, Jesus would have been crucified on a Q. No one uses a Q anymore anyway! Besides, speaking is much harder if one is circumscribed from using a ‘Jesus symbol!’”

ACLU lawyer Nora Moreezan responded: “Mr. Meblin’s claims are obviously overblown. Our brief was legible and used his religious symbol in precisely zero cases! Americans need Meblin’s ‘symbol’ like we need cancer, guns, or religious freedom. We say, ‘No longer cave under pressure from wacky religious leaders. We declare war on all ‘Jesus symbols!’”

In response, False Hope Press Scribes were precluded from using a “Jesus symbol” as well, including here. We very much concur: “Jesus symbols” are unnecessary in English. And, as all pro-religious biases should be removed whenever possible, we will do so!

I just got home from Denver, where I witnessed a severe Avs-kicking of the Minnesota Wild. Avs won 5-1. Anyway, normally I’d just jump straight in bed since it’s after 1 in the morning and I have to get up for work in less than 5 hours. But today, I had to take a shower and scrub my head with steel-wool first.

That’s because I looked like this at the game:

I’m on the left, my brother-in-law is on the right. No, that’s not his real hair. And I’ve got a number 21 (for Peter Forsberg: “May the Forsberg be with you!”) on my head. The back of my head, which you cannot see, actually had a nice red “AVS” on it too.

I screamed my head off during the game, of course. When you’re dressed up like this, you have to do that :-) And we had several people ask to take our pictures, and even one guy offered to buy my brother-in-law and me a round of beer after the game. (I declined, stating that we had to head back to Colorado Springs, and of course my bro-in-law actually has to go further to get back to his house, but in reality I just wasn’t interested in getting a beer with some drunk guy whom I had never met before.)

Oh well. Now I need to get some sleep so I’m not a complete zombie at work.

Well, the Avs have gone to overtime three straight times against Minnesota this playoff series (and if you want to count the final game of the season, which was also against MN, that makes 4 straight OT games w/MN!). Tomorrow, my brother-in-law, sister, and I will be going up to watch game four of the series!

*w00t*

Yup, I’ll get to deck out in my playoff best. I shaved my head again tonight so that I can get Avalanche blue for my entire head, and then we’ll put some red on my face as well. It’ll totally rawk!

Of course, it’ll rawk much better if the Avs go up 3-1 in the series in that game….but first, they have to finish game 3 and THEN we can discover what will happen in game four.

And it would be really ironic if tonight’s game went into quadruple overtime or something. Cuz then both teams would be totally exhausted trying to play tomorrow. I think Colorado would have the advantage in that situation though, since they’ll be more used to the altitude. But we shall see.

Well, I’ve gotten a little better at Guitar Hero now. I’ve almost got gold stars on all the beginning and medium songs. (I’ve got five stars on the hard, and most of the expert, so I’m trying to get the gold stars now, which is a perfect song.) I’m pretty confident the rest of the medium will be fairly easy to get the gold stars on, but alas it’s getting late enough and I have to go to bed.

So why am I practicing so much Guitar Hero? Well, it’s not just because it’s fun. And it’s not just because it makes me pick up my real guitar and play more. But it’s also because I’ve challenged a bunch of my co-workers to come on over and jam on Guitar Hero! Yup, all in good fun, of course.

The thing is, at least one of them (this means you, Travis) has never played the game before. But I do know that some of the other guys have. Of course, I’m the only one who owns it (as far as I know) so I’ll have the advantage on that. *MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA*

In case you’re wondering, I don’t think it’s fair that I have this advantage over my co-workers. Bush should do something about that. I blame Bush for not making Guitar Hero accessible to those without rhythm, nor providing the means for those who cannot afford it to get their own copy of the game. If Bush wasn’t president, everyone would have Guitar Hero and the world would live in peace. The Saudis, Jordanians, Iranians, and Syrians that are infiltrating Iraq would lay down their arms and jam. The Palestinians would live at peace with Israel. The world would be in perfect harmony.

Except for that stupid Raining Blood song by Slayer that they had to put in the game. I blame Bush for that too.

Those who tried to access the site earlier today (and probaby part of yesterday too) noticed that it was down for a bit. But since you’re now reading this, you already know it’s BACK!

I blame Bush.

The past couple of days I’ve been thinking a bit about the fossil record. I’ve e-mailed a couple of people some of my thoughts, but today something finally crystallized in my mind and I’ve come up with a paleontology study to propose. Obviously, this study is beyond my capabilities to perform myself, but I wanted to throw this out there to see what other people thought about it anyway (and who knows, if a paleontologist reads it and decides it’s worth studying then maybe I’ll get an actual answer sometime!).

First, this study begins with two assumptions:

Assumption 1: Most (animal) organisms that die will be very young, very old, or infirm; the “ideal” specimen (i.e., the age when the species is, on average, the healthiest) only dies in the case of random accidents, which are rare. As anecdotal evidence to back up my assumption here, consider your local city’s closest graveyard. If you go through it and look at the various tombstones, you will see that the large majority of people buried there are going to be very young or very old. Furthermore, a detailed excavation of the graveyard would indicate many people there died of diseases. However, if you look at the number of graves of, say, people aged 15-30 years, the vast majority of those will be people who died of non-natural causes (e.g., suicide, murder, car accidents, drug overdoses, etc.).

We also have evidence from the animal kingdom. Most victims of predators are the young and defenseless, the old who have weakened, or those who are otherwise already disabled in some manner. It is rare that a healthy animal will be killed by a predator (it still happens, but statistically this would happen far less often than any other type of death of a species).

Assumption 2: Most living (animal) organisms have larger populations close to the “ideal” specimen age than in any other demographic. In the case of the elderly, since organisms have to pass through the younger ages to get to an advanced state and there is the possibility of death in those younger ages too, it is obvious that there will be fewer elderly people than younger people. However, it is also the case that given the high infant mortality rate of most species and the fact that only a few will survive past the first couple of months (and also the fact that the youngest age ranges are typically far shorter than the length of the “ideal” specimen), there will usually be more of the “ideal” organisms living than the young. Again, this is not a hard and fast rule, but it is an assumption I think has some validity in the animal kingdom).

Hypothesis: If fossils have more “ideal” specimen types than very young, old, or infirm types, then organisms that are fossilized are almost always killed by catastrophic and indiscriminate “accidents” rather than due to factors such as predation, illnesses, or other more natural causes.

Note that under these circumstances, the “catastrophic and indiscriminate accidents” would not necessarily be such things as mudslides (although depending on the extent of the mudslide, one could qualify). The reason being is that if you have two organisms of the same species and a mudslide is heading toward them, the one that is the fastest will have greater odds of escaping than the slower one (this is the unobjectionable—and trivial—aspect of Natural Selection). Therefore, the very young, very old, and infirm would have a greater likelihood of dying in that mudslide than would a healthy organism.

This would not be the case, of course, in a widespread mudslide that would kill everything regardless of the speed of the organism involved. As such, minor mudslides would not qualify as a “catastrophic and indiscriminate accident” whereas a major mudslide would. Note also that the “major” and “minor” aspect of the mudslide depends on such things as the size of the organism and the location of the organism too. For instance, a meter high mudslide has a good chance of wiping out an entire colony of trilobites, but probably wouldn’t kill a Brachiosaurus. Further note that there could be other things than mudslides too (I only use the mudslide illustration since fossils are often explained as having been created by rapid burial of animals, such as during a mudslide).

The reasoning for my hypothesis is: Since most natural deaths will be of organisms that are very young, very old, or infirm (assumption 1), then if the fossilization happens after a natural death there should be far more young, old, and infirm specimens than “ideal” types. However, since there will be more of the “ideal” specimens alive at any one time (assumption 2), then if a catastrophic and indiscriminate accident occurred to create the fossil, a random selection out of the entire population has a greater chance of landing on one of the “ideal” specimens than on any other demographic. Therefore, if there are more “ideal” types of fossils than the very young, very old, or infirm, most (if not all) fossils are caused by catastrophic and indiscriminate events instead of natural and common causes.

If that reasoning is valid, the question is: What does the fossil record show? Are most fossils “ideal” types? Or are most fossils very young, very old, or infirm?

While this study would be interesting just for the sake of knowledge alone, there’s another reason it might be important. Think about the large size of many dinosaur species. After all, we’ve already noted that a mudslide could be one of these catastrophic and indiscriminate events for a colony of trilobites; but many dinosaurs were huge. If there are more “ideal” types of these large dinosaurs, then there would have had to have been many large-scale catastrophes to hit these dinosaurs (especially since modern assumptions are that it is very difficult to make a fossil in the first place, let alone to find it after it has been made, so there would have been many more of these catastrophes that have occurred than we have found fossils). And that, of course, would lead to the question of whether it is more plausible to assume a score of major catastrophes or that our assumptions about fossil creation are false.

By the way, I’d also note that if someone responds that it would be impossible to tell this from the fossil record, then it would be impossible to tell anything relevant to evolution from the fossil record too. That is, if we cannot tell the relative age of a dinosaur or whether or not it was severely ill from the fossil record, how are we to tell the relationship of that dinosaur to other similar-looking dinosaurs? Could they not be similar looking because they’re identical species but one had scurvy, for instance?

Just some thoughts.

Suppose that you were an alien visiting Earth for the first time and someone asked you to put the following two organisms into a Darwinian cladogram. How would you do it?

Now obviously because most of us have a rudimentary understanding of Earth biology, we already know the answer on the above. Not only are these two organisms the same species, they’re actually the same individual (see http://lifecycle.onenessbecomesus.com/indepth.html for the full picture cycle (note that I don’t endorse anything on that site; just happened to find these graphics there).

Assume that you are an alien who has never before seen the Earth, however. Further assume that all you have are these snapshots. You do not have the ability to see these creatures in motion. You can’t watch the caterpillar turn into a butterfly. You only have the two pictures: one organism looks worm-like, the other looks moth-like. There is nothing morphologically-speaking that would link these two organisms.

The relevance to this topic comes when we study the fossil record. Just as the aliens in the example would not have access to a video of the caterpillar turning into a butterfly, so we do not have the ability to see fossils as they grow and change through life. We are left with “snapshots” and not only that, we only have snapshots of organisms as they died (not as they lived).

And the difference between an adolescent organism and an adult organism are not the only things to consider. For instance, take this picture (from http://www.bluechameleon.org/Madagascar%20Photo%20Gallery%20(long%20Thumbnail%20Page).htm:

Is this a picture of Darwinian change, of an adult and an adolescent, or is it simply a picture of two of the same species after one has been mangled by a predator? The answer is none of the above. Instead, what this picture shows is the sexual dimorphism between male and female of the same species of (the rather interestingly named) satanic leaftails.

This example is particularly relevant since, unlike the first, these two organisms look similar to each other, and yet different enough to bring one to question whether they are the same animal. If we have only fossils of these organisms, there is no way to tell what their behavior would be. It would be easy to assume that we have proof of two similar organisms that obviously evolved from a common ancestor, when it’s really just the same species that naturally exists in two forms depended on the sex of the organism.

Again, we have the ability to view these organisms in their living habitat so we know that this is sexual dimorphism. But what if we can’t view the living habitat? What if we had to classify the following, for example:

Here we have three trilobites. These trilobites look similar, yet there are differences between them. The question is, therefore: are these differences proof of Darwinian evolution, sexual dimorphism, or the differences between an adolescent and an adult trilobite? Or is there another answer?

After all, we haven’t even dealt with environment yet (although mentioned obliquely in the question of the satanic leaftails when we questioned whether one had been mangled by a predator). In fact, when it comes to morphology, it is not simply DNA at work, but the environment plays a huge role too. For example, if you take identical Caucasian twins and raise one inside a cave and the other at the equator in the sun, the twins will have completely different shades of skin color. The one in the cave will be pale; the one at the equator will be tanned. This is a morphological difference caused solely by environmental changes that has nothing to do with Darwinian selection pressures or DNA mutations.

Another example is the fact that many Inuit’s have a different jaw structure from other Inuits for the sole reason that some Inuits use their teeth to pull at whale blubber and the skins of animals. Over time, this actually pulls their jaw out of alignment, but it’s gradual enough that the muscular structure can adapt somewhat to the new bone structures. If one compared two skulls, one of an Inuit who did this “teeth pulling” and the other who did not, the jaw structure would be morphologically different. Yet these would not be two difference species: they could be identical twins, after all!

So what about those trilobites? Scientists have a problem. We can’t view the original environment that these creatures lived in, and all we have is a snapshot of individual organisms in fossils. We don’t even have the context of those individual organisms in many cases. We only have isolated organisms sprinkled in the fossil record.

Given the magnitude of variations within the species we can see today, there is no reason to expect that all organisms of the same species must have looked nearly identical in the fossil record. And since we have many instances where only one or two organisms make up the totality of our fossil record of that species, it is fallacious to try to plug those into a cladogram with any sense of certainty. Polymorphism exists within the same species today, and therefore polymorphism cannot be proof of Darwinian evolution.

As a professional satirist (who has yet to be paid, but the check’s in the mail), I find our modern culture to be extremely disheartening. It seems these days that the only way the average person will understand that he is watching satire is if it says “Stephen Colbert” somewhere in the title. Personally, I think this has to do with the liberal mindset.

In fact, when I wrote Public Transit my goal was for Conservatives to roll in the aisle laughing at the irony while Liberals read it going, “What’s wrong with this? Sounds like a good idea to me!” In other words, I wanted my satire to be so realistic that those who believe the concepts that were being mocked wouldn’t even realize they were being lampooned.

Now whether or not I succeeded in that book, I have found something that has! It’s the Richard Dawkins Rap Video that Sinner & Saint first pointed us to a while back. When I first saw the video, frankly, I couldn’t see how anyone could miss the fact that this is a blatant anti-Dawkins video.

Then I read the response from the New Atheist front. They think that this video is pro-them!

Somehow, the atheists over at Richard Dawkins’s blog and PZ Myers’s blog (and many other dark holes) are convinced that this video is anti-Creationist and pro-Darwin. It’s actually quite revealing that these are the people who proclaim themselves to be the intellectual towers in the land…and they were sucked in by this.

From the opening, this video demonstrates how arrogant Dawkins is. “We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid. After all, we are scientists much, much smarter than you.” (By the way, am I the only one who thinks the Dawkins voice actor in this video sounds a lot like the guy who did the Dawkins Delusion parody?)

Immediately following this, you have two scientists examining a test tube. The Darwinist comments that “Natural Selection creates that sort of thing every day” and the other responds, “I think there’s something else going on here.” At which point, the Darwinian scientist makes a call: “Big Gadget, this is Little Tool. We’ve got ourselves a situation.” (Obviously, then, the Darwinians are “tools” of the machine, and now the atheists have edjukated us that being called a tool is a good thing instead of an insult!) The non-Darwinian scientist is then ejected from the lab with “Expelled” stamped on his forehead.

Obviously, this video was not done by the producers of Expelled. I mean, it totally doesn’t fit the theme of their movie at all…

Most of the atheists have simply managed not to view this entire section of the video. Instead, they respond: “The rap lyrics are pro-science!” In other words, they ignore the prologue that sets up the context to the video in order to claim the video is on their side.

It’s amazingly similar to the way Darwinists do science, too. Ignore all the evidence that doesn’t fit with their theory, and then claim that science agrees with Darwinists. They must have gotten used to skewing reality so often they didn’t even realize they’d done it here.

The lyrics of the song are hardly flattering either. And it’s certainly not “pro-science.” Instead, you have Dawkins claiming science while arguing solely from a position of authority. The chorus of the rap is:

He’s the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree.
Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree.

The second time through the chorus it changes (evolves!) to:

Yo, he’s the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree.
Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
He’s still smarter than you, he studied biology.

Yet every good scientist ought to know that degrees don’t matter to science. Science is science if it’s testable and repeatable, not if someone with a degree says it’s science. So the lyrics are hardly “pro-science.” At best, one could claim they’re pro-Dawkins…IF you ignore the fact that 99% of people who hear someone say, “I have a PhD therefore I’m right” experience this negatively. But it can’t be good for science to rest on laurels instead of evidence.

That’s what makes it scary. Atheists who claim they want science to be the standard are saying this is what they mean by “science”. Makes one feel all warm and tingly inside, don’t it?

So to sum up how this video goes, it begins by portraying Darwinism as an out of control “machine” that stifles intellectual thought and expels those who disagree with the Darwinian orthodoxy; it shows Dawkins is one of the most arrogant people on Earth (a true statement, by the way); it shows that the Darwinists argue on authority, not science; and it ends with Dawkins admitting he’s a rabid atheist:

Now the machine of our makin’
Sees culture ripe for the takin’
Cuz I’m the rapinest rabidest atheist too*
Unlike the Catholic, the Muslim, or even the Jew
Believes that no god but Science could ever be true.
[Heck] if I was dyslexic, I’d even hate dog too.

* That’s my best guess as to the last word in that line. It actually sounds like he says “atheist Sue.” Interestingly enough, none of the atheist’s versions of the lyrics that I read said “rabidest” there. The one on PZ Myers’ site, for instance, just says: “Cos I’m the rapper thats rappin the ….” (the “….” at the end shows I’m not the only one who can’t figure out that last word!) But if you listen to the video at the 3:12 mark, he definitely says “rapinest rabidest atheist”).

Now, in what way could this possibly be construed as a pro-Darwinian piece? Well, because:

it’s far too smart to be pro-creationism. Whoever made it is on the side of the atheists…

I get the feeling that the video is meant to poke fun at both sides of the evolution/ID debate, albeit I agree with the commenter who said that it seems too clever and hip to be the work of a creationist.…

This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side….

The quality of the work was relatively high (except for a talent for blustering…and whining craetionists have never shown that they are capable of anything artistic, unless directly aping [heh!] another source.)…

No wonder these atheists thought it was pro-them. They’re just as arrogant as Dawkins!

I just got back from Denver watching the Avs win their final game of the regular season. Now they just need 16 more wins to hoist the cup high again.

Earlier this year, my dad came with my brother-in-law and I to watch the Detroit “game.” I mentioned at the time how the Avs didn’t even look like they’d shown up. All that to say, this is the game my dad should have seen instead :-D

Oh well. Since I have no time machine….