Bethell the Buffoon

Saint Augustine on Science and Scripture Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Some years back, Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, famously said (in a public lecture) that he didn't know of any evidence for evolution. He actually challenged an audience of evolutionists in Chicago to come up with something. "The only answer I got was silence," he told an audience at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. That was in 1981. Patterson, who died a few years ago, emphasized that he was an atheist.

Interesting quote from Derbyshire:

"Though what I think will actually happen -- I see signs of it already -- is that the creationists will soon dump paleontology altogether and head over to Consciousness Studies, where the pickings are richer."

Like, for instance, "The Spiritual Brain" by Mario Beauregard and .... wait for it .... Denyse O'Leary.

Bethell tells us that “Structures or signals of specified complexity permit an inference to design without any necessary recourse to the supernatural”

Washing machines and Clovis points exhibit Complex Specified Information. This proves they were Designed.

Biological organisms exhibit Complex Specified Information.
This proves they were Designed.

We have conclusive, irrefutable evidence of one Designer. Therefore, humans designed Biological Organisms.

It's really quite simple.

In all fairness to nbogard (who is now being moderated) anyone who thinks a design inference is warranted is in some sense a creationist. The argument I think hinges on conflating “creationist” with biblical creationist. One can be the former without being the latter.

Bob,

I think there is good evidence that humans designed the Designer.

-DU-

I expect you're probably right, David.

PvM,

Please get a thesaurus, find some synonyms for "vacuous," and use them once in a while.

Thanks,

Mickey

Please get a thesaurus, find some synonyms for “vacuous,”...

2. vacuous - devoid of significance or point; "empty promises"; "a hollow victory"; "vacuous comments" : empty, hollow

1. vacuous - devoid of intelligence : asinine, fatuous, inane, mindless

Doesn't Bethell *also* dispute that HIV causes AIDS?

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/tbethell.htm

It's quite interesting that John Derbyshire's opposition to ID is made much of.

This demonstrates the fundamentally political nature of ID.

I personally loathe the majority of his contributions to the general culture (just my subjectivie opinion folks, no need to argue with it; naturally if you wish to state that you feel differently that's your right).

I would not give him high marks for intellectual honesty overall. But he does have the intellectual honesty, perhaps combined with some intellectual vanity, to reject something as transparently worthless as ID.

Okay, but so do millions of other people, including organizations of clergymen and rabbis, devout Catholics, etc, as well as almost all mainstream scientists.

Why is Derbyshire's opposition to it considered worthy of special comment?

The implication, once again, as so often (for a recent example, the "evolution" question at the presidential debate), is that ID/creationism is for conservatives, and also, that conservatives had better kiss up to ID/creationism. It's considered a big deal if a "conservative" doesn't do so.

I guess that's bad news for those who respect science, but otherwise favor right wing public policy.

What percentage of self-identified "conservatives" do claim to endorse creationism/ID? Does any non-creationist conservative have a plan to deal with this?

Please get a thesaurus, find some synonyms for “vacuous,” and use them once in a while.

No one will be surprised to find that Bethell also thinks Relativity is wrong and that the Earl of Oxford is the real author of Shakespeare's plays. Just google Bethell and Tom Van Flandern....oh and yes, HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Bethell insists that creationism and intelligent design are as different as chalk and cheese. (Part 1 here; Part 2 here.)

Bethell tells us that "Structures or signals of specified complexity permit an inference to design without any necessary recourse to the supernatural" without bothering to mention that "specified complexity" is junk mathematics and doesn't permit an inference to anything at all, except that Bethell is rather gullible to accept William Dembski's assurances as gospel.

Bethell then goes on to repeat a common lie of the intelligent design movement: that the SETI Project (Search for Extraterrestrial Life) spends its time looking for things as a sequence of prime numbers". Sorry, Tom, that was the movie "Contact". You know, fiction?

In real life, SETI researchers look for look for narrow-band signals, because such signals don't appear to originate from simple systems, and because we believe intelligent beings, if they exist, would use a method of communication similar to ours. Repeat after me: SETI detection doesn't use prime numbers, "specified complexity", or red herrings.

Next, Bethell shows a profound misunderstanding of information theory when he claims, "Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA was asked how the all-important coding information found its way into the DNA in the first place. It's so complex that a reliance on random events will never get us there." Bethell apparently doesn't understand that in the Kolmogorov theory of information, complexity is the same as randomness. It's easy to get complexity; all you need is a source of random events.

Here's a funny one: early on, Bethell solemnly intones that "Science is not properly based on authority, however." Later, however, in discussing the RNA world hypothesis, he says, "But I'm told that the alternative, the "RNA world," has huge complexities of its own. It's all pure guesswork." Oh.

Mr. Bethell, meet your opponent, Mr. Bethell.

Altogether, a rather unimpressive performance for Mr. Bethell, who has been denying evolution for 30 years without learning anything about it. Funny -- he behaves just like a creationist.

EARLY IN MAY, the American Enterprise Institute held a debate about Darwinism, a faith embedded in many debates,

The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed,

for the well-publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.

It purports to explain how we got here without any need for God or gods.

Darwinism is best seen as 19th-century philosophy -- materialism -- dressed up as science,

and directed against a theological argument for the existence of God.

(The only one of St. Thomas Aquinas's "proofs" that resonates with us today is the "argument from design.")

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Richard Dawkins famously said that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

... The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more "fit," or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence.

If an animal exists, it is "fit" (otherwise it wouldn't exist).

It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness.

If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient-such as the peacock's tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag-the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation.

It "explains" everything, and therefore nothing.

It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason.

... Intelligent design is not like that. It is aggressive and therefore potentially dangerous. It says to the Darwinians: "You don't have the evidence to support your claims. Your lab results and fossils don't support your theory. Organisms are way too complex to have arisen by chance. Take all the time you want, it won't be enough. Even though we don't know how it happened, these critters must have been designed somehow."

[ID]... takes the war to the enemy, in other words. So it can't easily be ignored.

It is informed by science, not religion.

That is why it has made Darwinians angry, and why they try to identify it with creationism.

They have also imposed a rigid orthodoxy upon all whose hiring, credentialing, and promotion they can control. They are not interested in any debate.

I do think that there are notable differences between ID and creationism, which matter little to science, but which do matter to the IDists and creationists.

I do think that there are notable differences between ID and traditional creationism in America, which matter little to science, but which do matter to the IDists and creationists.

It wouldn’t really hurt to allow that there are differences between creationism and ID, however. That they both belong to Xian (and other “monotheisms”) apologetics without any obvious dividing line is certainly true, but I wonder if anti-IDists make themselves vulnerable when they deny the differences.

Indeed, if sequences of prime numbers were found in the genomes, without there being any explanation for them (like there is for the prime numbers involved with cicada cycles), I would be willing to consider them to be possible marks of design of some kind. Of course we don't find anything like that thus far, hence the null hypothesis is the only reasonable one regarding design at this point in time (whether or not MET explains life--which it almost certainly does, but it needn't to show that "design" is useless in explaining life).

— Glen Davidson

Indeed, if sequences of prime numbers were found in the genomes, without there being any explanation for them (like there is for the prime numbers involved with cicada cycles), I would be willing to consider them to be possible marks of design of some kind. Of course we don’t find anything like that thus far, hence the null hypothesis is the only reasonable one regarding design at this point in time (whether or not MET explains life–which it almost certainly does, but it needn’t to show that “design” is useless in explaining life).

— Glen Davidson

I am not so sure about this. There already is an example similar to the prime number claim by IDers – Fibonacci numbers in nature.

For all we know, the Fibonacci patterns in nature are the result of intelligent design, if one subscribes to ID.

But do IDers accept Fibonacci patterns as specified complexity? If not, why not? How is such a pattern different from receiving a signal of sequential prime numbers in a radio signal from space?

On the other hand, to the extent that Fibonacci numbers are shown to be the complex result of simple patterns, don’t they in fact lend support to the evolutionary perspective?

I'd be cautious about occurrences of prime numbers in DNA as irrefutable evidence for design.

There's a whole field of DNA computing that's active now, and one of the results is that under certain models, DNA is Turing-complete: you can compute anything that can be computed. Since prime numbers can be represented by a relatively small Turing machine, their natural occurrence wouldn't (at least to me) be completely convincing. In that respect, prime numbers aren't so different from Fibonacci numbers.

Although the properties of prime numbers are still mysterious, generating them with a short program isn't.

I'd be much more impressed with bases occurring in DNA that encode something culturally significant: the Ten Commandments, or the Declaration of Independence, say. Or perhaps an encoding of the solar system, with all the planets described accurately in their orbits. If human causation could be ruled out, that would be fairly convincing evidence of an extraterrestrial intelligent being mucking around.

I’d be cautious about occurrences of prime numbers in DNA as irrefutable evidence for design.