On the Origin of Articles
You might think that someone wrote this article. But of course, you would be mistaken. Articles are not written by people. They are the result of chance. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that articles are written by people. But this view is totally unscientific. After all, we cannot see the person who allegedly wrote the article. We cannot detect him or her in any way. The claim that this article has an author cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have is the article itself, and we must find a scientific explanation for its origin.
Since no intelligent source can be empirically detected within this article, empirical science must look to the chance processes of nature for its formation. In other words, we must not allow ourselves to think that this article came about from a mind; for this would be unscientific. Since it is not the result of a mind, it follows logically that this article is the result of chance. The article has not been designed – it is not the result of some unseen conscious forethought.
Naysayers might suggest that this article bears evidence of design. They might point out that it has a logical flow, that its sentences are coherent, and that it contains creative information. True enough. But this is only evidence of apparent design at best. We must certainly grant that many articles appear designed, as if they had been planned by a mind and written with creative forethought. But to assume that the design came from some unseen, undetectable author would be unscientific.
What then is the true origin of articles? We know that articles can be copied. Articles on paper can be duplicated using a Xerox machine, and electronic articles can be copied from one computer to another. We also know that errors can occur in this duplication process. A simple glitch in the computer can result in a letter being changed, or a sentence or paragraph being duplicated or removed. Most of these random changes would make the article less readable than the original. But such variations would not be copied. (Who would bother to Xerox a bad article?) And so eventually they would be lost.
We must assume that occasionally, very rarely, a mistake in the copy would actually improve the quality of the article – making it more readable and more interesting. In such cases, the improved article would be much more likely to be copied than the original. In this fashion, articles gradually improve, often growing in length, complexity, and interest. It stands to reason, therefore, that all articles started out as a simple word, or perhaps even a single letter, which was gradually changed as it was duplicated due to errors in the duplication process and selection of the more readable variations.
It is also sensible to conclude that all articles have diverged from a common original article which itself consisted of nothing more than a single word. This is obvious by virtue of the fact that all articles have certain things in common. For example, all articles use words. And in all cases these words are organized into sentences. Many of the words used in many articles are exactly the same! For example, the word “the” appears very commonly in almost all articles. Are we to believe that this is just a coincidence? Clearly not. It is evidence that these articles share a common source. They have each diverged from a common article in the distant past.
Naysayers argue that articles are written by people. But would people use the very same words in different articles? The common words, common grammar, and common sentence structure clearly point to a common origin for articles. It is reasonable to conclude that articles which share more common words and sentences are more closely related than those that have fewer common words and sentences. Clearly this extends to larger works of literature – books for example. Books are the most advanced form of literary diversification, and so they must also be the most recent.
Critics of our position (“authorists”) might object that we have never seen one article transform into a completely different article. In other words, all observed changes have been only minor transformations. But is this really surprising? After all, it would take a very long time for an article to have accumulated enough changes to be classified as a completely different article. And people simply don’t live long enough for this to happen within our lifetime. But the fact that all articles share common words is positive evidence that it has happened, even though the process is too slow to see it in its entirety today. We do see minor transformations today. And it is reasonable to conclude that these minor changes will add up to major changes over long periods of time.
Some readers might be bothered by the fact that we do not have a complete record of how the simpler articles diversified into the wide variety of complex articles in our present world. But this does not in any way disqualify our basic thesis that articles do share a common original source. After all, considering the trillions of variations that must have existed and been destroyed in the vast time necessary for this process, we would expect that the record of links in the chain would be fragmentary at best. And we do know of some links. For example, there are several minor variations of the book “the Hobbit.” These are known to exist, and it is obvious they stem from a common original. So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that all works of literature share a common source.
Given the slowness of the diversification of articles, it is reasonable to conclude that articles are far older than “authorists” assume. The process of an article becoming longer and more interesting likely takes millions of years – perhaps even hundreds of millions of years. It may even happen in spurts, rapid diversification followed by long periods of relative stasis. This may account for the fact that we find so few intermediate forms in ancient libraries.
One objection to our position is the idea that some sentences in some articles contain a degree of “irreducible complexity.” This is to say that even a minor change of any kind would make the sentence unclear or unreadable. However, this notion fails to consider that multiple simultaneous changes – though rare – can occur in the process of time. The fact that we cannot conceptualize an intermediate sentence does not actually prove that no such intermediate is possible. The process by which articles diversify from a common source is still being studied, and so we do not have the answers to every detail yet. But this does not mean that such answers will not be forthcoming in the process of time. The formation and diversification of articles from a common source is a scientific fact and well supported by the evidence even though some of the details are not yet understood.
To assume that articles have an author is a faith position. It is a belief in something that cannot be perceived with the senses. As such, it is unscientific and should be rejected. If some people feel that they must believe in an author, that’s okay, but please remember that your view is religious and not scientific. Please don’t force it on others or teach it in school.
Just think about it. This very article which you are now reading is the result of countless copying errors which gradually increased its length and complexity over time. How amazing that such a process of nature has resulted in so many wonderful works of literature! Such literature is not the result of some mysterious, unseen, undetectable “author.” It is simply the inevitable result of the mindless duplication process working over unimaginable periods of time.
Jboy Flaga & Nick L have apparently detected a new, hitherto known mechanism for article mutation! That proves articles have no authors!
hahahaha (:
[…] Go to the page on Dr. Lisle’s blog and view comments and responses by Dr. Lisle. […]
@ Neil Yoder
Let’s see. I can’t see, smell, taste, or hear an author for this article. Therefore I must take the author by faith. But faith is not compatible with science, and so therefore I must throw it out.
Now let’s see what else have I not seen, smelt, tasted, or heard.
There’s the Big bang, the origin of Life, the origin of the Laws of Physics, the origin of the Universe, the first cell splitting into two, the first cell itself, the conditions of the universe at that time, the singularity, and then there’s all the money from the US government ( some of the money they took from my paycheck this week) that goes to the scientist, who do research on these subjects.
I take all of these things by faith. But faith is not compatible with science, and so therefore I must throw it out.
1. Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Keep the Faith. God is good!
On a recent archeological expedition in the dark recesses of my basement, I uncovered an ancient printing device containing a curious pair that I believe to be the origin of articles as we see them today. I’ve named them Jot and Tittle. The article posted here obviously descended from those warm little strokes and no real Scotsma..er, scientist would actually believe in an author.
Nice! 🙂
I had to respond to your last line. “no real Scotsma.er, scientist[…]”
Honestly I found that to be hilarious.
-I don’t know much about either one but I thought that this was definately a good start for me so thank you. Do I understand correctly that you are saying that both things require faith as of where they currently stand? I will say that it is definately still important to continue to research both sides thats for sure. I can’t help to think that niether of them will ever be proven or that either are suppose to be proven. Was the evidence that Dr. Lisle was referring to the bible? (The next question will show my inexperience for sure but im interested so I don’t mind too much) What if someone thought that the bible definately has a few things wrong here and there from all other types but other than that believed everything else completely? With all of these possible errors how do we know that everything is the way it is suppose to be? Im guessing you can’t do that but why?
-Also, out of curiosity, are you equating yourself to god or saying that you are devinly inspired by god (because we have to rely on faith that you actually wrote it)?
Thanks again guys this was eye-opening for me.
Hi “J”,
J: Do I understand correctly that you are saying that both things require faith as of where they currently stand?
Faith is having confidence in something that you cannot observe with your senses. So a belief in authors requires a type of faith. So does the belief that articles are written by chance. A belief in the Creator God requires faith. So does a belief that organisms have evolved over billions of years. None of these things can be directly observed, so they all require a type of faith.
J: I can’t help to think that niether [sic] of them will ever be proven or that either are suppose [sic] to be proven.
Faith should not be irrational. People should have a good reason to believe what they believe, even if it cannot be observed directly. Faith can indeed be provable.
J: Was the evidence that Dr. Lisle was referring to the bible?
No. I do believe that the Bible is authoritative and accurate. But that wasn’t the claim that I was defending in the comments above.
J: What if someone thought that the bible definately [sic] has a few things wrong here and there from all other types but other than that believed everything else completely?
In order to make the judgment that the Bible is wrong about something, a person would need to have a way of telling whether or not something is true. That is to say, he or she would need an epistemology. One of the things I have learned over the years is that only the Bible can provide a consistent, non-arbitrary epistemology that makes knowledge possible. It is impossible for the Bible to wrong because it is the standard of standards. I have written about this in a book called “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.”
Let me give a quick example. Suppose a person had the epistemology that “people do not exist.” He then judges that the Bible is wrong because the Bible indicates that people do exist. Has this person really disproved the Bible? Of course not. It is his epistemology that is in error, not the Bible. If the Bible really is what it claims to be (the Word of God) then it would not make sense for it to have errors. In fact, if this hypothetical person had thought more carefully, he would have realized that his epistemology is self-refuting. If people don’t exist, then he himself cannot exist, and therefore cannot make any judgments at all.
J: With all of these possible errors how do we know that everything is the way it is suppose [sic] to be?
According to the Bible, God is all-powerful. He controls the entire universe, and so it is no problem for God to ensure that the Bible is totally accurate, and has been accurately transmitted over the ages. We could consider the hypothetical possibility that the Bible is completely wrong. But we would find that it is impossible to obtain a working, consistent epistemology under such conditions (as explained in “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.”) But it makes no sense at all to think that the Bible is only partially true, because the God it describes is perfect and is sovereign over the universe; for such a Being to be unable to get a simple book right is not realistic.
J: Also, out of curiosity, are you equating yourself to god or saying that you are devinly [sic] inspired by god
No, nothing so bold. The point would be this: a belief that articles do not have authors is at least as reasonable as molecules-to-man evolution. If it is unreasonable to believe that articles can come about by a chance evolutionary process, then it is all the more unreasonable to believe that organisms (which are far more complex than articles) have come about by a chance evolutionary process.
J: Thanks again guys this was eye-opening for me.
I’m glad you are enjoying the discussion. Thanks for posting.
Very clever, Dr TempletonPrizeAspirant
A fresh twist on the tired, old unproven conjecture that everything is created by a Conscious Being — unproven and dispelled over centuries by Darwin, Wallace and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dedicated researchers
At least it was not quite as insulting and snobbish as the MenInWhite video in the Creation “Museum”
BTW i really enjoyed your planetarium presentation and was fascinated to learn that gravity (from no particular direction) can increase the speed of mass-less photons by 6 orders of magnitude and that when a blue star burns out, the photons it has sent out 1000s of years earlier simply stop moving or even cease to exist. I suppose your doctoral committee just assumed that you understood the physics of radiation — as you assume that your dupes doN’T
VERY CLEVER INDEED
ncc: A fresh twist on the tired, old unproven conjecture that everything is created by a Conscious Being
Unproven? Apparently you have not read “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.” In any case, no one is claiming that “everything” is created by a Conscious Being. I do claim that believing that articles have no authors is at least as rational as believing in evolution.
ncc: — unproven and dispelled over centuries by Darwin, Wallace and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dedicated researchers
Many have tried. None have succeeded (so far) in proving evolution, or disproving creation. But evolution is certainly a popular belief today. I take it you also believe that articles do not have authors – that they have evolved by chance replication errors guided by a selection mechanism?
ncc: BTW i really enjoyed your planetarium presentation and was fascinated to learn that gravity (from no particular direction) can increase the speed of mass-less photons by 6 orders of magnitude…
And this was in the planetarium program, where exactly? (Hint: it isn’t.) When a position is misrepresented to make it look silly or easy to refute, this is referred to as a straw-man argument. It is a logical fallacy, and is not an ethical way to argue.
ncc: and that when a blue star burns out, the photons it has sent out 1000s of years earlier simply stop moving or even cease to exist.
This is going in my top-ten “most extreme straw-man arguments.” I’ve never heard any creationist make such a claim.
djl> I take it you also believe that articles do not have authors
Just yours 🙂
djl> None have succeeded (so far) in proving evolution.
NOT to the apparent satisfaction of a minute group of scientist who are profiting from people’s desire to cling to dogma — but YES to the vast majority of biologists and biology teachers for all intents and purposes, not to mention geologists and cosmologists, eg Dawkins Hawking DeGrasse Tyson .. you know — oh and science Nobel laureates
Thank you for informing me that “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” does not posit that a Conscious Being is necessarily The Creator. I will move that book further down my list. And i am glad that we agree on this point
djl> And this was in the planetarium program, where exactly?
If you provide me a link to the transcript of your “Created Cosmos”, I will find your conjecture that gravity can account for a change in the speed of light. Of course you did not specifically say “6 orders of magnitude” which would have eluded the comprehension of your target audience, but that is what it would take to make a 6000 y.o universe appear 13,700,000,000.
You also did not specifically say that old photons could simply go poof when their source died. But that was the only way i could make any sense of your blue star argument. Again, if i can read the transcript, perhaps i can clear up any misunderstanding i may have on this
In the meantime, i will be reading your “Taking Back Astronomy” which i had some difficulty finding at Barnes Noble since they shelve it under Religion and not Science (silly me)
Apparently, i am not the only one bemused and amused by your conjectures on radiation, as evidenced by many discussions among those who put investigation ahead of revelation and logic over authority
See:
BTW i in all other respects (except the God stuff, of course) i found Created Cosmos very beautiful, informative, educational, well organized, professional etc. Congratulations
Thank you and Lightspeed
p s I would love to see your other 9 favorite straw man arguments
>> I take it you also believe that articles do not have authors
> ncc: Just yours 🙂
(Then it wouldn’t really be “mine” would it?) So you do believe that articles have authors? You don’t believe that they are products of chance mistakes guided by a selection criterion over time? Why? What is the evidence for your belief?
>> None have succeeded (so far) in proving evolution.
> ncc: NOT to the apparent satisfaction of a minute group of scientist who are profiting from people’s desire to cling to dogma
Dogma like evolution? Most of the people I know who are evolutionists hold to that belief with religious fervor.
> ncc:— but YES to the vast majority of biologists and biology teachers for all intents and purposes, not to mention geologists and cosmologists, eg Dawkins Hawking DeGrasse Tyson .. you know
You are confusing proof with persuasion. Many people believe in evolution; they are persuaded. What they lack is proof.
> ncc: — oh and science Nobel laureates
That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. In any case, yes, some evolutionists are very smart. But that doesn’t mean they have a good argument.
> ncc: Thank you for informing me that “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” does not posit that a Conscious Being is necessarily The Creator.
Another straw-man argument. I never said such a thing.
> ncc: I will move that book further down my list. And i am glad that we agree on this point
I’m not sure what your point is – if you have one.
>> And this was in the planetarium program, where exactly?
> ncc: If you provide me a link to the transcript of your “Created Cosmos”, I will find your conjecture that gravity can account for a change in the speed of light.
You can search all you like. It’s not there. Gravity affects the rate at which time flows. This was one of Einstein’s discoveries. But it doesn’t speed up light. Humphreys has used this as a basis for a cosmological model, which was mentioned very briefly in “Created Cosmos.” Perhaps that’s where you were confused. But it said nothing about speeding up light. In any case, I hold to the ASC model.
>Ncc: Of course you did not specifically say “6 orders of magnitude” which would have eluded the comprehension of your target audience, but that is what it would take to make a 6000 y.o universe appear 13,700,000,000.
The universe does not appear 13.7 billion years old. It has evidence of youth all over the place, from strong magnetic fields, excess internal heat, and comets to spiral galaxies and blue stars. So the question is: why does it look so young, if it’s really billions of years old?
> ncc: You also did not specifically say that old photons could simply go poof when their source died. But that was the only way i could make any sense of your blue star argument.
Blue stars are very luminous. They expend their fuel quickly, and as a result cannot last many millions of years, let alone billions. Yet, spiral galaxies have vast quantities of blue stars, particularly in their spiral arms. This suggests that all galaxies are quite young. (So, it really doesn’t have anything to do with the photons.)
By the way, secular astronomers will concede that blue stars must be young. But since secularists hold to an old universe, they are forced to conclude that blue stars must by constantly forming. But star formation is problematic from a theoretical perspective; in fact the stars that are the most resistant to any sort of spontaneous formation are blue stars. And it has never been observed, despite what you may have heard. The most straightforward explanation is that the universe was created recently with blue stars in it.
> ncc: In the meantime, i will be reading your “Taking Back Astronomy”
I hope you enjoy it.
> nnc: which i had some difficulty finding at Barnes Noble since they shelve it under Religion and not Science (silly me)
Silly them, actually. And yet they put books on the big bang under “science.” So inconsistent!
> ncc: Apparently, i am not the only one bemused and amused by your conjectures on radiation, as evidenced by many discussions
It’s actually Einstein’s “conjectures on radiation.” He wrote about non-isotropic synchrony conventions some time ago, and so have many other physicists. I’ve simply pointed out that this eliminates any perceived distant starlight problem.
> ncc: among those who put investigation ahead of revelation and logic over authority
That’s an interesting sentence from someone who appealed to authority just a few sentences earlier: Dawkins, Hawking, Tyson, Nobel laureates. In “the Ultimate Proof of Creation”, you will find that logic has no rational justification apart from the Christian worldview, and neither does scientific investigation. I actually think you would enjoy the book.
> ncc: BTW i in all other respects (except the God stuff, of course) i found Created Cosmos very beautiful, informative, educational, well organized, professional etc. Congratulations
Thank you. Much appreciated.
> ncc: p s I would love to see your other 9 favorite straw man arguments
I may post something on that at some point.
djl> So you do believe that articles have authors?
: Authors who have evolved over billions of yrs X millions of square kms,
not by pure chance but by scientific processes which we are still learning about
djl> Most of the people I know who are evolutionists hold to that belief with religious fervor.
:”religious-LIKE enthusiasm” but certainly not “biblical blind faith”.
I certainly follow wherever evidence and logic leads me (e g I used to believe in Hoyles’s steady state universe )
and actually enjoy discovering my misconceptions, fellow-contrarian that i am
djl> You are confusing proof with persuasion.
:OK i will elaborate: THEY have been persuaded to the point that THEY believe
it has been proven as much as it could be
djl> That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. POINT CONCEDED
djl> You can search all you like.
: So you will send me a transcript? or a link to it? THANKS i won’t have to travel back to KY with a recorder
djl> The universe does not appear 13.7 billion years old.
Well, not to you, i guess. You must be wearing Ken Ham’s biblical glasses
djl> Silly them, actually. And yet they put books on the big bang under “science.” So inconsistent!
: I infer that you think the big bang theory derives from theological conviction — WOW
djl> …. logic has no rational justification apart from the Christian worldview, and neither does scientific investigation.
: Perhaps that might explain the Old Testament 🙂 , but if you mean that the 4,000,000,000+ peeps — 2/3 of the world’s population, who are Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist/Secular/other, have NO rational justification for their logic, DOUBLE WOW!
i think i’d better peek inside this book at amazon.com. before buying it
Later… OK your book is a training manual for would-be christian apologists (which i stopped being 55 years ago), and you are taking me nowhere when you posit “scientific evidence by itself will not settle the matter” on page 18.
And “… the laws of information science tell us the all information comes from a mind. But the information in DNA ….”
seems to confuse information SCIENCE with information THEORY. And instead of delving into a proof of your #1 theorem on that page, you immediately state theorem #2 (p. 19) and then wander off treating both as axioms.
Then you bring up the old debunked irreducible complexity argument.
The first 22 pages of this one is pretzel logic to me, so i am not interested in the next 200.
If you want to convince me of theological creation, you can’t begin by positing divinity
djl>I actually think you would enjoy the book.
Only the fable/parable of the man who thought he was dead.
It perfectly describes my idea of a typical christian apologist.
Thanks for that much and may The Force be with you, ncc
p s I’m sorry I took away so much time from your research — unless I AM your research
>> So you do believe that articles have authors?
> Authors who have evolved over billions of yrs X millions of square kms,
not by pure chance but by scientific processes which we are still learning about
Wow! So you actually believe that articles are written by some outside “author” that is not even within the article? Really? I asked previously what your evidence for this position is. You didn’t provide any. It sounds like you have a blind religious belief that articles have authors. Wouldn’t it be far more scientific and rational to conclude that articles have descended from a common source over millions of years? They have diversified by chance duplication errors, culled by a selection mechanism. It seems far more scientific to ascribe articles to this scientific process which we are still learning about, than to invoke some unseen, magical “author.”
I’ll forgo all the other issues for now, and will simply ask once more: do you have any actual scientific evidence for your belief that articles have authors?
A response to this thread got trapped in the spam filter, presumably because of external links or questionable language. Here are the main points, along with my response:
>> Wow! So you actually believe that articles are written by some outside “author” that is not even within the article? Really? I asked previously what your evidence for this position is. You didn’t provide any.
> And YOU have yet to provide me with a Created Cosmos transcript or a link to it.
Ethically, since you are the one making the claim, it’s on you to do your homework. It’s inappropriate to make a false claim without appropriate research, and then ask the person you spoke/wrote against to provide you with support. I don’t have a transcript, and I’m not sure it would be legal to send you one anyway. However, you can get the video at http://icr.christianbook.com/created-cosmos/pd/309216
> When we think of articles as compositions of words, they are CREATED by authors, as blueprints (or whatever their digital equivalents are) are CREATED by engineers.
(1) You still haven’t offered any evidence of this position. And this is what I have explicitly and repeatedly asked for you to do.
(2) Nonetheless, I will accept your claim that blueprints have authors: that they are created and have not evolved. But I will hold you to it, and ask you to reason in a consistent and logical fashion.
> But articles as ideas — memes — evolve, like DNA or religions (e g from primitive superstitions).
This seems to contradict your previous claim. Are articles created by people, or did they evolve by chance and selection? Are you taking a hybrid position that original articles were created by people, and then have diversified by chance and selection?
> And if I am correct to infer that the main objective of your satire is to prove that everything has to have a Conscious Creator…
I have explicitly stated that this is not the point. So why do you keep repeating this straw-man fallacy?
> So, at this point i can’t even figure out what … you are trying to convince me of.
I’m just asking you to reason consistently, and provide evidence for your claims, rather than just arbitrarily assuming them and stating them as if everyone should believe them. A rational person has a good reason or reasons for what he or she believes. Do you?
>> It sounds like you have a blind religious belief that articles have authors.
> How anyone could conclude that I have RELIGIOUS BLIND faith knocks my socks off…
It shouldn’t. You haven’t provided any actual evidence at all for your position despite repeated requests from me for you to produce some. It seems you don’t have any. If that is true, then your belief is a “blind faith” – by definition.
> …even if by RELIGIOUS you mean COMPULSIVE
No, I’m using the ordinary Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices” or even better (4) “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” This seems to describe you perfectly.
> The only faith i have is in evidence and logic; it is not blind and absolutely not religious but based on 6 decades on observation and analysis.
Actually, in an evolutionary worldview, faith in logic and (scientific) evidence is necessarily blind, because there is no rational justification for logic or science in an evolutionary worldview. This is shown here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science and here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational.
> People who say that when evidence contradicts any particular bible then there MUST be something wrong with the evidence or its analysis, people who say we must wear “biblical glasses” when we look at science, THEY have blind religious faith.
This reminds me of when evolutionist are exposed to evidence for creation, how they simply assume that there must be something wrong with the evidence or its analysis, people who say we must wear “evolutionary glasses” when we look at science. Such people have blind religious faith. In reality, everyone has a worldview, a set of “mental glasses” through which they interpret the evidence. However, most people are not aware of their own worldview. They are not “epistemologically self-conscious” and have not thought through the consequences or consistency of their own worldview. The main difference between an evolutionary worldview and a biblical one is that the evolutionary one would make science and logic unwarranted and irrational. It is self-refuting, whereas the biblical worldview is self-consistent and provides the preconditions for scientific inquiry and logical analysis.
> [comment about mis-educating children]
But if children were really just chemical accidents of evolution, why not lie to them if it benefits your survival value? I am strongly in favor of educating children properly, giving them a rational, biblical worldview, and teaching them truthfully, because children are made in the image of God and deserve respect. Moreover, the Bible teaches that lying is sinful, and that God holds us accountable for our actions. However, the idea that it is wrong to lie to children makes no sense in an evolutionary universe. It would be like saying it’s wrong to lie to an oil spill – another chemical accident. Your comment shows that deep down you really do believe that God created.
One more question for you. You stated earlier that you believe that blueprints are CREATED. It is well-known that DNA is the blueprint for life-forms on Earth. Do you believe that DNA was created?
I have drunk 6 cups of coffee getting through this amazing comment thread this morning!
Thank you Dr. Lisle for this!
It’s amazing seeing people arguing for a “super-article-author” while dismissing the solid scientific evidence that this article had no author!…..it’s unbelievable the lengths people will go to protect their religious system (articles-have-authors-ism) ….they are obviously dumb “sheeple” who’ve been brainwashed by someone because they can’t think for themselves!
Now on a more serious note, I will say 3 things:
1.) How in the world did you keep this all straight in your head…lol…?
2.) C’mon…you PAID these guys to spar with you right?…the scripting was too good…there is no way they argued so dogmatically for an author all this time without realizing what they were illustrating.
3.) Thank you so very much for “FINDING AND REPOSTING” this article and everything else you spend your time doing; it is so very much appreciated.
God bless you and all at ICR.
bob
Hello Dr. Lisle
I have a question. (Maybe this is very basic but I’m not sure with the answer)
With the definition of arbitrariness you gave above – “not having a reason” – is someone’s “favorite color” still arbitrary even if he has a reason like “my favorite color symbolizes purity” or “it is attractive” ?
Thanks.
Hi Jboy,
No, if they provide a reason, then it’s not arbitrary. Although some “reasons” may not truly be such. “It is attractive” might be viewed as another way of saying “I like it,” which is not really a reason to prefer one color over another. So that one is iffy. But a symbol of purity, etc. would be a perfectly good reason, making the choice non-arbitrary.
Thanks Dr. Lisle
Will one be considered illogical if he has no reason for choosing his “favorite color’?
I think that question answers itself, if by “favorite” you mean that someone “likes it the best”. That is a reason. Now, if you want to ask “why?”, that’s another story. 🙂 …But the implications of their answer are the same. A reason is a reason is a reason.
You might think that this Earth is resting on the backs of 4 giant elephants which are standing on the backs of giant turtles (all the way down). But of course, you would be mistaken. Planets are not supported or stabilized by giant animals. They are supported and stabilized by invisible forces between them and other bodies with mass. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that planets are supported and stabilized by giant animals. But this view is totally un-biblical. After all, we do not see the animals who allegedly support planets. We do not detect them in any way. The claim that they support planets cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have are the planets themselves, and we must find a scriptural explanation for their stability.
We need only examine Genesis 1:1-19 for a clear understanding of how this aimlessly wandering planet (Earth) in the waters under the firmament* and the billions of trillions of aimlessly wandering planet’s in the waters above the firmament* (all created on the 1st day) were stabilized by our Loving God on the 4th day through the creation of the Sun and other stars, which provided stable masses for them to orbit, not to mention sources for all the light He created on the 1st day.
The fact that the LORD our God withheld this information from the ancient Chinese and others — allowing them to wallow in the ignorance of their elephants-turtles myths and others, for centuries — is further evidence that we Jews are indeed His Chosen People and that the ‘Palestinians’ have no claim to our land.
Thank you Dr. Lisle for you tireless efforts to interpret modern astrophysical evidence in clear scriptural terminology.
And God Bless you for being such an inspiration to me and my fellow rabbinical students, Zoe Watt
* see verse 7
Hi Zoe,
I’m curious. What was the point of your post? It was cute. But if there was a point, I missed it. A satire is only effective if it accurately applies principles for one view to an analogous view.
> this aimlessly wandering planet…
I’m not sure where you got that idea. There is no suggestion that Earth was “aimlessly wandering” before day 4. It may not have been in orbit. But it would certainly not be aimless.
> …(Earth) in the waters under the firmament* and…
Yes, Earth is under its own sky and has oceans of water. I’m not sure why that seems to bother you.
> …the billions of trillions of aimlessly wandering planet’s [sic]…
No, the planets were never “aimlessly wandering,” and were not created until the fourth day.
> …planet’s [sic] in the waters above the firmament*…
No, planets are not in the waters. But they are in the sky (“firmament”) – the “second heavens”, i.e. outer space.
> …(all created on the 1st day)…
No. The waters were made on the first day, but not the planets. The celestial objects were made on the fourth day. The Hebrew word translated “star” (kokab) includes planets (Genesis 1:16)
> …were stabilized by our Loving God on the 4th day…
No. There is no reason to believe that such things were ever “unstable.”
> The fact that the LORD our God withheld this information from the ancient Chinese and others…
No. God hasn’t withheld this information from anyone (Romans 1:19). People suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). All people groups are descended from Adam and Eve, and therefore had knowledge of the living God at one point in their history. Most cultures chose to reject God’s revelation, and make up their own origins stories. People still do this today.
> is further evidence that we Jews are indeed His Chosen People and that the ‘Palestinians’ have no claim to our land.
Rabbi Paul explains that not all Jews are God’s People. See Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-8, 10:12-13, 11:1-36.
re: my post above
SORRY, my ‘font color=blue’ tags do not show up on your website.
I will remedy to problem tomorrow. Meanwhile you can go to cherjoe.com/
to view it properly
[…] from the Front with No comments Tweet How are fossils formed? We recently came across a comment about one of our blogs, Gaining Weight In The Grave, that was brought up on a blog of a […]
[ The comment 2 posts above here is not clear, because my blue-font HTML tags do not work on this site. I apologize for my over-sight. This revision replaces the 2 posts above if they are still appearing. ]
Dr.Lisle:
What was the point of your post? It was cute. But if there was a point, I missed it.
zoe watt: ( You are about to make it for me. )Dr.Lisle:
A satire is only effective if it accurately applies principles for one view to an analogous view.
zoe watt: There you go; I could not have phrased it better myself.
The analogy implied by your satire
— that complex things (articles) require conscious designers (authors) — is not “effective”,
because it does not “accurately” apply to CS’s claims of ID, as you yourself suggested above, on July 9:
Dr.Lisle: no one is claiming that “everything” is created by a Conscious Being.
zoe watt:
And if you should retort “But complex things do require it”, then who designed/created God
(the presumptive Creator here)? Mary?
And should you claim “He has always existed.” or “He exists outside of time and space.”,
then I would use Occam’s razor to make Him = Multiverse, which probably spawned the “Big Bang”, making the Jewish creation myth as unnecessary as it is implausible.
I do not mean to put words in your mouth — just to expedite the dialogue, if that’s where it is going.
zoe watt: So my satire is a satire of yours.
zoe watt:
As for my second part, I infer that you accept the probability that there are billions of trillions of planets
and that you believe that — amazingly — God created only Ours on the first day. Correct me if I am wrong. My confusion comes
when you claim “The waters were made on the first day, but not the planets”(emphasis mine).
But you said Earth was made on the first day. I would appreciate your clarification on this point before I continue this thread, re: waters above the firmament and re: radiation(light)
being created days before its most probable sources were created.
zoe watt:
As for part 3, I concede that we are not God’s Chosen.
I always did think that Uncle Shlomo was a bit of a blow-hard on that issue, anyway.
I can’t wait to argue with him on that after he gets a New Testament from me for his birthday.
I plan to yellow-highlite all those Romans references. Thanks
SHALOM
Hi Zoe,
>> A satire is only effective if it accurately applies principles for one view to an analogous view.
> zoe watt: There you go; I could not have phrased it better myself.
The reason your post didn’t make any sense is because it didn’t apply principles for one view to an analogous view. The original article was much more effective because it made the same type of arguments that evolutionists make to defend their position.
> The analogy implied by your satire…
Who said it’s “my” satire? Surely you don’t believe that someone wrote that article! If so, what is your reason?
> …that complex things (articles) require conscious designers (authors) — is not “effective”, because it does not “accurately” apply to CS’s claims of ID, as you yourself suggested above, on July 9:
It’s not a satire of Creation Science or Intelligent Design, if that’s what you mean. It’s a satire of evolution. The arguments used by evolutionists to support evolution can be applied with equal legitimacy to demonstrate the evolution of articles.
> And if you should retort “But complex things do require it”, then who designed/created God…?
God isn’t complex.
> then I would use Occam’s razor to make Him = Multiverse, which probably spawned the “Big Bang”, making the Jewish creation myth as unnecessary as it is implausible.
That’s about as opposite Occam’s razor as can be stated. Occam’s razor is to prefer the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data. A multiverse is horrendously complex, and cannot account for (1) laws of logic or their properties, (2) laws of nature or their properties, (3) ethics, (4) human rationality. The biblical God makes perfect sense of all these things. The book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” explains this in detail. http://icr.christianbook.com/ultimate-proof-creation-resolving-origins-debate/jason-lisle/9780890515686/pd/515686
So if you’re going to abide by Occam’s razor, biblical creation is your only option. Would that be so bad?
> zoe watt: So my satire is a satire of yours.
It didn’t work because it didn’t capture the arguments of the original. The original satire was so effective because it made exactly the same arguments that evolutionists make to a situation that they normally would reject. It exposes inconsistent reasoning.
> As for my second part, I infer that you accept the probability that there are billions of trillions of planets and that you believe that — amazingly — God created only Ours on the first day. Correct me if I am wrong.
That’s correct. Did you have some logical objection to this: some reason why God couldn’t or wouldn’t do it that way?
> My confusion comes when you claim “The waters were made on the first day, but not the planets”(emphasis mine). But you said Earth was made on the first day.
Would it help if I had said, “the other planets were made on the fourth day”? Yes, Earth was made on the first day. Although, I suppose there is some question as to whether or not it should be classified as a planet until the sun was created.
> re: radiation(light)being created days before its most probable sources were created.
The stars and sun are definitely light sources, but only after they are created. God used a temporary light source for the first three days.
> As for part 3, I concede that we are not God’s Chosen.
You can be. As Rabbi Paul explained in the verses I sent you, salvation is not a matter of race, but a matter of repentance and trust in Christ. See Romans 10:9-10.
I am beginning to see how this article might not have been written by an author — at least not by Dr Lisle.
In the last post, above, I read: ‘God is not complex.’
I can only infer that this refers to the god of Abraham, the omnipotent god that cannot drive out valley-inhabitants who have iron chariots (Judges 1:19) — the omnipresent god who has to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see(find out) what is going on (Genesis 18:21)– the omniscient god who has to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see(find out) what is going on (ibid) — the omnibenevolent god that unnecessarily permits untold suffering and has commanded multiple genocides — the eternal god who raped a human woman (I have not seen any references to her consent) so that she could become his own mother — the god that works in mysterious ways and divides his worshipers into tens of thousands of disagreeing sects (or if you prefer to say ‘stands by while they divide themselves … ‘) and cannot be explained by scores of volumes on apologetics. It would be easy to dispute various details of my characterization above. But this GOD IS NOT COMPLEX?!
It is easier to believe that a chimp in a back room thoughtlessly pounding on a keyboard generated: ‘God is not complex’
or that Dr Lisle has a middle school intern wearing Ken-Ham-style bible blinkers who wrote it, than to believe that such a rational person as Dr Lisle did.
I meant to post this yesterday, but I was too busy ROFLMAO.
All joking aside, if Dr. Lisle’s line of reasoning in supporting Intelligent Design in a Young Earth comes around to ‘God is not complex’,
then I rest my case ( that CS’s arguments for ID, implied by Lisle’s opening satire, are baseless ) !
At this point I feel I have learned enough about CS/ID/YEC apologetics for now. So I plan to just toss my half read copy of Taking Back Astronomy into the recycle pile, finish watching the excellent WDPLAC series on YouTube and then get back to my main project.
And if you are reading this, Dr. Lisle, thank you for your civility in conducting this forum. I only hope you can find a way to put your considerable talents to more positive uses in future by way of actually promoting true understanding of science, instead of obstructing progress in education by re-enforcing people’s beliefs in ancient absurdities.
I totally concur with Voltaire that: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
You won’t be wasting my time in future, so I don’t expect you to waste yours in replying.
Goodspeed [sic]
Wow… Zoe ended that with a hit and run. I’m sure Jason will reply to this with greater detail since Zoe’s responses are generally fallacious. It seems Zoe has taken the time to research supposed problems in the Bible but didn’t research further to see if the problems are actual problems. It’s all yours, Jason. haha
Zoe seems to not want to reply anymore – which is fine. But I wanted to respond anyway for those who may be reading, to expose how critics of the Bible often misrepresent the Christian position, and commit errors in reasoning in their arguments.
> In the last post, above, I read: ‘God is not complex.’
Hi Zoe. That is correct. Unlike biological organisms, God is not comprised of trillions of tiny machines that work together in an intricate and complicated fashion to achieve a common goal. Instead, God is a spirit (John 4:24). A spirit is not comprised of complex parts; a spirit is not comprised of matter all (Luke 24:39). Did you actually have a reason to believe that God is complex? Or was this simply an arbitrary (and thus irrational) assertion? https://jasonlisle.com/2012/08/03/arbitrariness-and-inconsistency-the-opposites-of-rationality/
> I can only infer that this refers to the god [sic] of Abraham, the omnipotent…
So far so good. But now the straw-man arguments begin:
> …that cannot drive out valley-inhabitants who have iron chariots (Judges 1:19)
Does the Bible say that God could not do this? Of course not. It says that Judah could not. God gave them only a partial victory, because Judah was only partially obedient.
> the omnipresent god [sic] who has to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see(find out) what is going on (Genesis 18:21)
Does the Bible say that God “has to go down” in order to know what was going on? Of course not. In fact, if you had read just the previous verse from the one you listed, you would have seen that God already knew about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. He visited Sodom physically, perhaps as a final act of mercy to allow them to repent if any should have chosen to do so.
>…the omnibenevolent god [sic] that unnecessarily permits untold suffering and has commanded multiple genocides…
That’s such an ironic statement. In an evolutionary worldview, people are just chemical accidents. So why would you have a problem with death or suffering? In the Christian worldview, death and suffering make sense; they are a partial taste of the punishment we all deserve for our high treason against God. It’s a wonderful example of justice. A better question would be, “Why is it that only some people suffer only some of the time, when we are all wicked sinners?” The answer involves God’s mercy. Remember, God only punishes the wicked (with one exception – and He volunteered).
> — the eternal god [sic] who raped a human woman…
I’m not sure this ridiculous claim actually deserves an answer. But I’ll give one anyway. No, God didn’t do that. It was a miraculous conception. Read the text.
> …(I have not seen any references to her consent)
Mary was given a tremendous blessing and honor because of her favor with God. And she rejoiced in it (Luke 1:46-49). Again, read the text.
> the god [sic] that works in mysterious ways and divides his worshipers into tens of thousands of disagreeing sects
Does God “divide his worshipers”, or do people do it themselves? The basics of the Bible are clear. It is people who distort it, and twist it so that they can believe what they want, rather than what God says (2 Peter 3:16). Your own statements demonstrate this.
> (or if you prefer to say ‘stands by while they divide themselves … ‘)
God respects human freedom. He doesn’t force us to obey Him, as if we were a bunch of robots. Instead, He allows us to rebel against Him, and to reap the consequences of our actions. It is strange that you’re upset at God because He has given you freedom. Some gratitude!
> …and cannot be explained by scores of volumes on apologetics.
It’s not clear what you mean by this. The Bible does give us the basics to understand who God is. He is an all-powerful, all-knowing, spirit who has created all things. What do you not understand?
> It would be easy to dispute various details of my characterization above.
Yes – very easy, considering how inaccurate it was!
> But this GOD IS NOT COMPLEX?!
You haven’t made an argument that God is complex. You’ve simply stated that God does things that you don’t understand or like. But how is that relevant? There is a difference between what God does, and what God is. A pencil is relatively simple, but it can be used to generate things that are very complex. Likewise, God is a spirit, but He has created things that are very complex. It doesn’t follow that just because you don’t like or understand some of what God does, that God is physically complex.
To say “God does complex things” is not the same as saying “God is complex.” Those are two different claims. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for the latter claim? You haven’t provided any.
> It is easier to believe that a chimp in a back room thoughtlessly pounding…
Well, this is just a question-begging epithet fallacy. It’s not an argument.
> All joking aside, if Dr. Lisle’s line of reasoning in supporting Intelligent Design in a Young Earth comes around to ‘God is not complex’, …
If Zoe claims that “God is complex”, but provides no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim, then we can dismiss it as arbitrary and irrational.
> …then I rest my case ( that CS’s arguments for ID, implied by Lisle’s opening satire, are baseless ) !
Actually, that doesn’t follow logically. The satire is independent of whether or not God is complex, just as it is independent of whether or not authors are complex.
The rest of your post didn’t seem to make any specific claims; it was more along the lines of a question-begging epithet. So there is no reason for me to do a point-by-point response.
Thanks for posting.
Wonderful. No one has come close to proving scientifically that the article has an author, but everyone who has tried has (without realising it) successfully shown the irrationality of an evolutionary worldview.
I have considered the facts and have chosen to assume the faith position that the article does indeed have an author – one Dr. Lisle. (I use faith in its proper sense of having a very strong conviction about something that I have not seen with my own eyes, not “blind faith”.) This is really the only sensible conclusion. For the same reason I have evaluated the world around me and have reached the faith position that the world has a creator. After considering the evidence of the Bible, I have concluded that the creator is one Jesus Christ, and I have put my trust in him and taken up his offer of forgiveness and eternal life. I would encourage others to do the same!
Wow, This is great. It was sort of disappointing to reach the end of this dialog, that’s how much I enjoyed reading it.
Thank you Dr. Lisle for all you do in the battle for human minds. I have been following your work for about a year now. The lord has led me to many great resources and he is expanding my understanding of his universe, his nature, and my faith. I have been finding myself defending the faith more and more and its no coincidence that your resources are among those I have been led to. I thank our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for his guiding my growth, but brother to brother I want to thank you for your willingness to submit to Christ, stand firm, and proclaim the truth as you do. I appreciate how you allow God to use you.
May the Lord continue to bless you such that your ministry and work can expand.
This was absolutely genius!
Dr. Lisle, Thanks so much for suggesting last night at Glenview take we take a look at this article and string of comments. It’s hilarious! Or is it? Or did you? Were you actually at Glenview last night? Was I? Am I really asking these questions? AAAHHH! 😉
Great stuff Jason!
All I could gather from all of the “detractors” was that they all were demonstrating their image bearing to the Christian God in that they all
1. Are seeking truth(we are truth based beings created in His image) John 14:6
2. Are desiring logic(The biblical God is the source of all logic and knowledge)Prov 1:7 & 9:10
3. Are desiring certain behavior for the “right” thing(a moral prescription that could only come from the Creator God; Exodus 20
All revealing their likeness to the God they deny Romans 1:18