Dr. Hector Avalos to debate a Young Earth Creationist

The Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate is history. This coming Sunday, another debate on creationism will feature an atheist biblical scholar against a creationist apologist.  It will be interesting to see how different Bill Nye, mostly trained in science, and a biblical scholar, who is also formally trained in anthropology, approach such a debate.

Yes, I will be debating Reverend Juan Valdes on the question: "Is Genesis 1-3 a scientifically reasonable account of the origin of our world?”

The debate will take place at Indianola High School in Indianola, Iowa on Sunday, February 16, 2014 at 4pm CST.

You can tune in live on YouTube Countdown, where the countdown has begun.

Rev. Valdes is a Young Earth creationist, and he is associated with Reasons for Hope, an apologetics organization that has its own announcement of the debate. This is the mini-biography sent by Rev. Valdes:

Juan and his wife Daisy have been married for 25 years and have two adult kids Juan Elias and Jessica. Together they serve in multiple areas of ministry in Miami, Florida.  Juan is the Senior Pastor of a Spanish speaking congregation. He has also been the Middle School and High School Chaplain at Florida Christian School for the past 13 years, where he also teaches Bible and Introduction to Philosophy. Juan has a passion for youth and has worked with young people all of his adult life in addition to being a teacher for over 20 years. Juan also has a passion for Apologetics.  He has done graduate work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and holds Master’s degrees from both Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Logos Graduate School. He is currently a few months away from completing a Doctorate Degree in Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Juan is a veteran teacher of apologetics, and has taught Theology, Bible, and Apologetics at the seminary level in both English and Spanish. He is an influential promoter of apologetics in the greater Miami area and speaks regularly across the country and internationally at Pastor’s Conferences, Youth Conferences, Apologetics Conferences, and local church events. 

Beyond Belief: Conservative Religious Thinkers and Their Intellectual Crusades

LINK.

John Cleese Explaining Stupidity

I've written about this phenomenon before.

Are Christians Either Ignorant or Lying?

I found this comment online by an otherwise anonymous person who expresses what many atheists think. I'll quote it then comment on it below:

It's quite simple: to say that the bible is literally true requires that one be either ignorant or lying. Really. I know that's harsh, but that's what it boils down to. I suspect a very great many evangelicals are lying, including to themselves, bolstering the underlying absurdity of their belief by trying to convert others, 'good works' and so on. But there are plenty, including many high-profile ones, who are obvious untruthers.

It takes a truly spectacular degree of ignorance to actually believe that the universe was created in six days, 6000 years ago; and a level of duplicity that is almost incomprehensible to create a complete pseudo-science to support that; but of course we know why - all that lovely tax-free money.

I do not consider it possible for a person of decent education and sound mind to believe such nonsense. One or the other must be failing.

There is a great deal that needs to be said about this, so it would be too much of a bother to go into great depth here. Nonetheless, my point is that it is not that simple.

Another Former Christian Bites the Dust

Here's a man who changed from a Christian studying theology in a Seminary to an atheist. At about the 2:40 mark he mentions my book and my blog. It's more evidence people can be reasoned out of their faith:

Quote of the Day, by Papalinton On Debating Creationists

I have not been one to subscribe to any particular style of discourse, in this case debating, being proscribed as a form of public conversation because it is deemed inimical to progressing the truth of science and the scientific method. For too long scientists and science advocates have relied on the misperception that truth, fact and evidence alone, is sufficient enough in promulgating its message. In an ideal world that might be but it is not an ideal world and humanity is not obliged to 'know' the truth. The truth per se, whatever that term might mean, is not an imperative of humanity's survival instinct, any more than it is for any other animal on this planet. It is possible for all species, even Homo sapiens, to exist on this planet without the kind of scientific information and knowledge that we have accrued over time. The Dark Ages is one such historical example of a period of intellectual dormancy. Life would simply be different. And we are just as likely today as was at any time in the past to readily press the self-extinction button.

For too long scientists and science advocates have timorously shied away from debates. Science historically is a veritable babe in the woods in its level of experience and expertise in this most widely used format. The time is right, now, for scientists and like-minded to develop if not hone debating techniques and strategies that play to its great strengths as an explanatory tool. It is a misguided perception that the truth of science and the scientific method cannot be adequately served by and strongly promulgated through debate. If anything, science lends itself admirably to the formative debating process. Indeed debating is a central feature of the Socratic method of learning and teaching. The method of elenchus, or Socratic debate features cross-examination as a constituent technique for the purposes of refutation and testing the robustness of claims made. It is the fundamental technique of the Socratic method.

The truth and reality of science requires its advocates to confront superstition, magic ritual, supernaturalism and shamanic practice wherever and whenever it bubbles to the surface, head on. Debates provide that opportunity. Use it.

Dr. Matt McCormick On Motivated Reasoning

Oh Dear, I'm a "Union Buster"

I was told in response to this post regarding creation vs evolution debates:

We should be presenting a united front. I'm coming to see guys like you and Bill Nye as union-busters, the sort of people who will cross a picket line.

Well now, just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me a union buster. There are many atheists who agree with my arguments. Almost every atheist has a different opinion about an atheist consensus sometime, so we're all union busters, if there is a union in the first place. Apart from non-belief itself, and along with it the arguments against religion in general, name me one consensus among atheists and I could find some atheists who disagree with it. So? Majorities SHOULD listen to minorities to keep them honest. I do all of the time. But no one should adopt the position of the majority on any issue just because it's the majority. Moreover, as far as I can tell, scientists don't have any better expertise on what changes the religious landscape just because they are scientists than I do. That is a philosophical or strategic kind of question not based on science itself. It's a question about how we can best change the minds of believers, how to get them to trust science over their holy books, and I think I do have some expertise on that. It's my specialty.

On Evolutionists Debating Creationists, Wes McMichael Responds to PZ Myers

In the light of Bill Nye's routing of Ken Ham I had called for more creation vs evolution debates right here. <--- Read why I said that, please! Now along comes another creation vs evolution debate as I announced right here. PZ Myers offers a muted criticism of this debate saying:

Oh-oh. I hope these don’t become more popular. Debates are a great way to seduce a creationist audience into showing up to listen, but they’re awful for presenting a good analysis: you are publicly pitting a scientist up against a proven, expert liar, and committing to allowing lies to be told for half the time of the event. Sometimes they’ll pay off and you’ll get good exposure of the nonsense; sometimes you’ll find the slick fraud on the creation side getting more attention than he deserves.

Given that the debate will take place anyway, PZ offers a suggestion:

Just a hint, though. The title of this debate is “Creation vs. Evolution: A Debate on Origins and the Tree of Life,” which is hopelessly broad. Paul Nelson has carte blanche to babble on in a tuneless song of silliness trying to hit the one chord that will resonate with the audience, and that’s what you’re going to get, and it’s going to be really hard to pin him down on anything. Part of the art of doing these debates, I’ve learned, is to craft a decent structured framework for the discussion, so that you’ve got a clear question to answer and even an audience of biased Christian ninnies will notice when the creationist (or the evolutionist!) goes wandering off topic. I hope it’s not too late to refine the subject a bit.

I'll respond to the PZ's criticism against more debates like these, while Wes McMichael, the person putting this new debate together, responds to PZ's criticisms of this debate itself.

Another Creation vs Evolution Debate Coming Up

The creationist presenter, Dr. Paul Nelson, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (the world’s leading organization promoting Intelligent Design/Creationism), was involved in the Dover Trials in Dover, PA was instrumental in creation of the infamous “Wedge Document”, has been featured in several films about creationism, and is a widely published author on the issue.

Our evolutionist presenter, Dr. Joel Velasco, is the protégé of the world’s foremost philosopher of biology (Elliott Sober), has completed post-doctoral studies at Stanford and Cal Tech, was a visiting professor at Cornell, is currently an assistant professor at Texas Tech, has published very widely in the field, and is considered one of the most promising young professionals in the philosophy of biology.

Even Someone As Conservative as Pat Robertson Says Ken Ham is a Joke

Earlier I had predicted that many Christians will see just how extreme Ken Ham's views are: "The debate will marginalize Ham to some extent among Christians themselves. I'm sure of this. So he will lose some respect among some Christians and perhaps even some supporters, even as he gains more respect from others along with their support. I suspect the net gain for Ham at best will be zero, and at worst it will be in the negative column." Link. I think with Robertson's comments Ham's net gain is going to be in the negative column, to say the least.



Since I've written so much on so many topics I'm finding all ideas are but footnotes to Loftus. ;-) So here are some links for Pat Robertson:

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved.

Why Creation Science is Pseudoscience With No Ifs Ands or Buts About It.

See also:

God and Evolution Don’t Mix, by Dr. John Shook.

Robert M. Price and Edwin Suominen's book, Evolving out of Eden.

Ken Ham’s ‘Creation Science’ Sham.

Ken Ham’s ‘creation science’ has nothing to do with actual science (which seeks a deeper understanding of the way our world and the universe works).

I mean, think about it.  What recent discoveries have been made by ‘creation scientists’?  

Medical breakthroughs in treating diseases and preventing human suffering?

Technological advances which better our lives?

A deeper understanding of the human mind enabling better treatments for mental illness? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can’t think of any. 

Zero.  

Viewers Poll by Christian Today: Bill Nye Slaughtered Ken Ham

Link

Bill Nye Won His Debate Against Ken Ham: More Evolutionists Should Debate Creationists

After watching Bill Nye beat Ken Ham in his recent debate I would like to see more evolutionists debate creationists. Let's go to them. Most of these Christians live within cloistered cathedral walls within Christian communities. They only hear what their parents, preachers and Sunday School teachers tell them. They do not trust science. They do not trust scientists. They only trust the Bible. They are so indoctrinated they will never read a book on evolution. The only time they might consider thinking outside of the Christianity they were indoctrinated to believe is through a debate like this. The evidence is so overwhelming in favor of evolution it can only be a win for us. Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers are all wrong. I call upon them to change their minds. Yes, evolution is a fact. It is beyond dispute. But if we want to change the minds of deeply imbedded Christians within their communities, who will never consider evolution, then we need to go where they are found. And debates on creation are the perfect solution. We must do it for the children. We must do it for the youths in the grip of this religious indoctrination who can see for themselves when watching a debate. Consider it another way to educate the American youths of the future, so we can be a leading nation in the science of the future. If you still refuse to debate creationists then stop hindering other evolutionists like Bill Nye who buck the social pressure you provide. Stop discouraging evolutionists from debating creationists, please!

Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham in Their Debate! Wow!

This is the headline I want to write. But the debate hasn't taken place yet. It's going to take place tonight at 7 PM Eastern Standard Time and you can watch it live at debate.org. Then comment as it takes place in real time back here. If you're early you might want to read the all-time number 1 post at Debunking Christianity on the debate itself. Remember, this debate won't settle the issue. The issue has already been settled in the laboratories, peer-reviewed scientific journals, scholarly books and college classrooms. Evolution is a fact. So relax and enjoy. Watch the gerrymandering, the nonsense, the buffoonery, the idiocy of Ken Ham in action. You will learn something about the deluded mind. That's for sure. [Edit: Bill Nye did in fact beat Ken Ham. Read this for more.]

A Christian and an Atheist Discuss the Reality of God Here at DC

Simon Brown:

Dear Harry H. McCall please please stop blaspheming God. For your own sake. I was once told about two people who did a similar thing. one person kept blaspheming God and eventually died of throat cancer. Another person was also blaspheming God and laughing at his friends for believing in Jesus. He then got on his motor bike and had a head on collision with a lorry. He was decapitated from his head. Please for your own sake have some respect.

The Inconvenient Truth About Death

I know a friend who lost a loved one and her pastor came over to offer her some comfort, the same one who preaches the unsaved will be condemned to hell. It seems pastors can't get it straight. They condemn to hell the unsaved but comfort people with false hopes when it's convenient. They preach only a few will be saved but turn around and comfort their parishioners by telling them they will see all their loved ones again. Which is it?

Lighting the Fuse

At a recent atheist meetup, I was talking with a former Muslim, and asked him what had led to his deconversion. He said that he had come to the United States from Pakistan and was working as a taxi driver while attending college. One night, after his shift ended, he asked a fellow driver to give him a ride home. As they were talking, the other driver, in a passing remark, said:

“You know, all religions are man-made.”

There was no discussion on the topic, just that simple statement, but it stuck with him, nagging at his thinking. Approximately two years later, he rejected religion and became an atheist.

Are You An Honest Christian?

A church member where I preached when I was a believer is trying to convince me to believe again, but will not read any of my books. So I said: "You really should crack open one of my books if you really are an honest person and really want to know the truth. It might not convince you but when shopping for cars don't you want another opinion? That you don't shop for gods like you do for cars is very telling. 95% of Christians will never do this." --Two choices: Am I right or am I right? ;-)

Quote of the Day, by Dr. Victor Reppert, and My Response

You can't have miracles unless you have an order of nature for them to stand out from. A Presidential pardon is only possible because there is a stable system of laws that require punishments for certain crimes, yet our system of laws allows the President to alter the penalty and release someone from those penalties. There is no inconsistency in a system of laws that permits Presidential discretionary pardons.

My response:

Exactly Vic! That's one of the reasons I do not believe ancient testimony about miracles. It's precisely because they had no understanding that there were natural laws. Without that understanding everything was a miracle. From the rising of the sun to a bumper harvest to the birth of a baby boy it was all miraculous. Since miracles happened everywhere they were seen everywhere and it was quite literally impossible to properly evaluate miracle claims. They were a dime a dozen.

With the advent of scientific understanding that would allow for miracles we've learned how to test miracle claims based on natural law. It raises the bar for what we can accept. So while I have no reason to believe ancient testimony, now I must judge them from the standard of natural law. I no longer can believe the miracles in the ancient world twice-over. LINK.

Humanity Is Becoming Increasingly Less Violent, with One Exception -- Religious Violence

This is due to recent findings from the Pew Research Center. Check it out.

Victor Reppert Again, On What Would Convince Us God Exists

Many of the things that it is supposed that God could have done to make his existence perfectly evident could be passed off as the work of powerful (but evolved) aliens. And no matter how much evidence God provides, there is some additional piece of evidence that an atheist could say God didn't provide, and if God really cared for us, he would have provided. The amount of evidence God could have provided has no intrinsic maximum.

Vic made this comment in this discussion. Like other apologists who have an invested stake in being apologists he won't be convinced otherwise, but since there are Christians who want to be honest with their faith I'll respond.

A Serious Question From a New Deconvert

How does someone know that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, absolute truth, perfect word of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, perfect God?

Stephen Law On Playing the Mystery Card (from his book, Believing Bullshit)

This seems pertinent from recent discussions with Victor Reppert. Enjoy.

Victor Reppert On What It Would Take To Convince Me Christianity Was True

Vic links to my original 2007 post so you can see what I said for yourselves. He asks if I'm arguing for the god of the gaps right here: "Isn't [Loftus] just saying here 'Gosh, I wish the gaps were bigger?'" It's an interesting question I'll admit. But we need to see what's going on. In my original post I had said:

But let’s say the Christian faith is true and Jesus did arise from the dead. Let’s say that even though Christianity must punt to mystery and retreat into the realm of mere possibilities to explain itself that it is still true, contrary to what my (God given?) mind leads me to believe. Then what would it take to convince me?

I would need sufficient reasons to overcome my objections, and I would need sufficient evidence to lead me to believe. By “sufficient” here, I mean reasons and evidence that would overcome my skepticism.