untitled
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:52:57 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: [Snip]'s book [Creation: Remarkable Evidence of God's Design
by Grant R Jeffrey]
To: [Snip]
Well, last night I started reading the book you sent. I have only
read the intro and the first chapter. I'd like to thank you very
much for sending this to me, and I know your intentions were to share
something you found interesting, if not compelling.
First off if you find this email offensive I apologise. It's not
my intention to offend - just to offer a critical eye and opinion on
what I consider to be a fascinating and emotive subject. I
recognise that my opinion is a minority one - but that does not mean it
is wrong.
Unfortunately, while I do find parts of the text interesting, I find
the arguments thus far posed extremely weak. More
disappointingly, I have a lot of misrepresentation and straw man
arguments for positions that are non-Christian. FYI a straw man
argument involves building a deliberately flawed or misrepresentation
of a position in order to destroy it with your superior argument.
If I may be so bold, I'd like to attempt to summarise what I have see
thus far. The introduction basically says that evolution is wrong
and creationism is right. He repeats this message many times as
if that makes his case stronger. Unfortunately statements like
"The real agenda of many of those scientists and educators who embrace
evolution is to use it to destroy man's faith in the Word of God,
divine creation, and the Christian faith" (p15). Do nothing to further
his argument and a lot to minimise his credibility. To make such
a statement, with no evidence or research to substantiate it, and
expect the reader to accept it without question requires a very
gullible audience.
The intro also employs the old tautological argument that goes
something like 'Christianity is the one true religion, and this is a
fact because the bible tells us so'. I'd encourage you to read
some Thomas Paine, in particular The Age of Reason - you can find it at
this address. http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm
The remainder of the intro and most of chapter one seems to boil down
to the following:
Life is very complex
Complexity cannot happen through random chance (evolution)
Therefore there must be an intelligent creator
.... and if I may add his unwritten conclusion - The Christian god must
be that intelligent creator
because the bible tells us so.
I would to address some of these points. Complexity is
relative. Any life form is as complex as it needs to be in order
to survive long enough to reproduce. Being overly complex in a
given environment is biologically expensive in terms of gestation and
development time. Being underly complex in a given environment is
dangerous because elements in that environment are likely to kill you
before you can reproduce.
So successful life forms (those not extinct) are sufficiently complex
(not overly or underly) to survive and reproduce in their environment -
humans included. Could we be more complex? Absolutely. But we do
not need to be - so we are not.
Complexity can happen through random chance - but is as likely as
a monkey typing a Shakespearean play. But evolution is NOT random
chance, This is another mischaracterisation. Evolution is
gradual change through natural selection. To illustrate, take the human
population. We are all different. Fat, thin, tall, short, black,
white, yellow. (Should we not all be the same if we are made in
the image of the creator?). Some of us also have genetic
abnormalities like epilepsy and colour blindness (epilepsy might not be
a genetic abnormality - but I wanted to make my point relevant to you
and I). So let's think about colour blindness - more accurately
an abnormal colour perception. The female carrier of this gene
does not exhibit abnormal colour perception but does has the ability to
perceive deeper into the infrared spectrum than people who do not carry
the gene. If we accept this as fact (I do not have references to back
it up - but could probably find some), then let's think about it from
an evolutionary point of view.
Perhaps in the past extra infrared perception allowed a woman to see
danger earlier in the near-dark. Perhaps abnormal colour
perception allowed the man to see camouflaged prey more easily. That
the majority of the population exhibits neither of these traits
probably tells us that this is not a beneficial trait. That some
of the population does exhibit these traits tells us that it probably
isn't a detrimental trait. Or perhaps abnormal colour perception
is the vestigial remains of the dominant colour perception of humans
many many generations ago. 'Normal' colour vision being a genetic
change that was in someway beneficial (perhaps less expensive).
It is conceivable that abnormal colour perception will eventually die
out in generations to come. This would be an example of trivial
evolution. Small changes over long, long periods of time.
To think about the same thing from a creationist point of view is
difficult for me to do in an unbiased manner. But to my way of
thinking there are some problems. First, from a Christian point
of view we are told that we are made in the creator's image. So
does the creator have 'normal' or 'abnormal' colour perception?
Can it have both? I guess but then we would not be created in
it's image. I am using 'it' rather than he or she because I don't
really know how to ascribe it a gender. Once again if we are made
in it's image is it male or female? It could be neither -
or both, but then again we would not be made in it's image. And
why would a creator create people with genetic differences such as
abnormal colour perception? Because it can? Is it a test of
faith? Are we not supposed to question?
I think you can see that for me Grant R Jeffery has fallen far short of
a convincing argument that would discard the possibility of change
through natural selection and adaptation to environment. Unfortunately
he relies on the this absolute to support his alternative conclusion -
that of an intelligent creator.
I'd also like to comment on his misrepresentation of atheism. On
p14 and in several other places he characterises atheism as the
rejection of a Christian god and providing an climate for the espousal
of the theory of evolution. Atheism is not the rejection of a
Christian god per se and has absolutely nothing to do evolution.
The following is a definition from Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) an
online free encyclopedia.
"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of
actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity,
Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from
the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained
influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism
re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious
status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the
philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century,
atheism had become the most common position among scientists,
rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of general scientists and
72.2 percent of top scientists, Nature 386:435-436)".
An atheist considers the Christian god no more or less likely than any
other god that we care to name, past, present or future. To
choose one god over another seems to be arbitrary, or an accident of
birthplace or birth time. To be born in current day India would make
you more likely to be a Hindu, worshiping Hindu gods. In Iran you
would likely be Muslim, looking towards Allah in the east. To be born
in NZ a mere three hundred years ago you would be worshiping Tane and
his ilk. A couple of thousand years ago it might have been Zeus
and his family, or Thor and his. The list goes on and on.....
An achiest would consider this pantheon of gods and might consider
their combined reality a little less likely than Big Foot, the Loch
Ness Monster, and Unicorns.
Finally I'd like to comment on discussion f the human body and the
parts therein. His thesis is that the human body (and all other
life) is designed by a super intelligent for whom perfection is
routine. Mr Jeffrey discusses the wonders of the eye and it's
perfection. I'd like to ask: Wouldn't a zoom function be
handy? Wouldn't it be great to see at night? Why not
incorporate these features in the 'perfectly designed' eye? And
while we are on the subject why do so many people need glasses?
Surely a supreme being that designs universes can design an eye that
won't require the owner to wear glasses? And what of glaucoma and
cataracts? Why build these flaws into the design? Could it
be that the eye is only as good as it needs to be in order for the
owner to fulfill their biological duty? (sorry - I'm getting
sarcastic). And what of diseases, cancers, bacteria, viruses,
epilepsy. Why not design a body that is impervious to
these? Is it too hard? And why have diseases, cancers, etc
at all? If the intelligent creator designed these lives too. is
it not killing by proxy?
On a nicer note I did enjoy some of the descriptions and facts
concerning the function of the human body and it's organs. I
certainly learned a few things there.
Sorry to rant some, but I don't like Mr Jeffery's pseudo-science, nor
his glib presentation and dismissal of 'facts' and 'theories'.
I will try to keep reading the book but I really think it's intended
audience is the Christian who wants to reinforce their religious
righteousness .
bravenet.com