The Warfare Is Mental

False Argument #8: Science Has Proven The Soul

May 17, 2008

The twentieth-century frontier experiments conducted by Duncan MacDougall M.D. of Havervill, Massachusetts are worthy of mention. As a skeptic, it should be noted that MacDougall approached his research from a methodological naturalist’s point of view, writing with detectable resentment towards the blind faith demanded from theologians and so-called metaphysicians regarding the existence of the spirit / soul. Thus his experiments suffer from confirmation bias in that McDougall set out with a specific goal, to disprove existence of a soul that transcends death.

His hypothesis was simple enough:

…the soul substance so necessary to the concept of continuing personal identity after death of the material body must still be a form of gravitative matter…”

Hence it must have weight.

False Argument #7: Omnipresence Incompatible With The God Of Scripture

May 16, 2008

A traditional definition of God includes the characteristic of omnipresence, or the ability to be in all points in the universe at once, while simultaneously existing independent of the universe. The standard argument has always been, "How can one being be both completely separate from, yet thoroughly immersed in, the universe?" These two traits are apparently contradictory and seemingly cannot coexist coherently within one being.

The subatomic particles that result when atoms and atomic nuclei get fissioned display a peculiar characteristic known as "nonlocality," and the strange ability to be at once corpuscle and wave. The original EPR experiment (Einstein, Boris Podolski, Nathan Rosen) shows conclusively that particles which at one time shared the same system of coordinates remain instantly and enduringly correlated. (*the atomic condition, not the general use of the word) This nonlocality is completely irreverent of space-time, and it exists whether the time that separates the particles is measured in fractions of a second or billions of years of time, and it exists whether the particles are separated by millimeters or light-years of space. Students of world religions may notice the striking similarities to the Vedic concept of the Akashic Records. Since science now generally claims the universe was once a singularity, does it not stand to reason that every particle in our universe might have once shared the same system of coordinates, and as such may remain enduringly correlated in a way that is accessible to God?

The nonlocality ascribed to quantum phenomena may or may not extend beyond our universe or be characteristic of God, and it can by no means be considered proof of any scripture because science cannot verify a religious claim. But does it not stand to reason that if God created the universe, that God might remain correlated to the particles created, i.e., might not God exhibit principles strikingly similar to nonlocality? Are not the terms omnipresence and nonlocality at least loosely interchangeable?

In my opinion, the argument that omnipresence is incompatible with the God of the Bible is not a very strong argument, if a remotely similar concept can already be found in nature.

False Argument #6: Impossible to Reconcile Flight to Egypt With Temple Presentation

May 14, 2008

In one of many arguments to establish the New Testament as unreliable historically, Mangasarian brings up what he feels to be a discrepancy between accounts of what took place during the time immediately after Jesus’ birth.

Matthew records that after Jesus was born, Magi from the east came to visit him and present gifts. Prior to finding Jesus, they approached Herod and asked if he knew where the newborn ‘king of the Jews’ was. (Matthew 2:2) Herod, disturbed, told the Magi to report back to him when they found the location of the newborn ‘king of the Jews,’ no doubt a political move. The Magi were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, while Mary and Joseph were warned in a dream to take Jesus and flee to Egypt. It is important to point out that the length of time the Magi stayed is not specified in Matthew’s account. Luke then records that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph took him to the temple to be presented as was the Jewish custom of the time. Are the two in conflict, as Mangasarian claims?

Mangasarian writes, “It is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple…Luke says nothing about this hurried flight. On the contrary, he tells us that after the 40 days of purification were over, Jesus was publicly presented at the temple, where Herod, if he really, as Matthew relates, wished to seize him, could have done so without difficulty.”

Luke indeed does write that after the 40 days of purification required by Jewish law were over Jesus was presented at the temple. So what exactly does Mangasarian contend? He is arguing that since Herod wanted to kill Jesus, there is no logical way in the world that Mary and Joseph would have presented Jesus in the temple, because Herod could have seized him. In theory it sounds logical. However, Mangasarian omits to mention Matthew 2:7,8 in which Herod originally told the Magi to report back to him to disclose the location of Jesus so he could worship him. However, the Magi never returned to Herod. It was not until two years later that Herod realized the Magi had ditched him. It was then that Herod “…gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (Matthew 2:16) Why, otherwise, would the edict include the detail of two years? In other words, I’m contending that the three could’ve slipped in for purification right under Herod’s nose, while he was waiting for the Magi to return.

So, at the time Jesus was being presented at the temple, 40 days after his birth, Herod was still waiting for the Magi to return and tell him where Jesus was. Herod may or may not have been engaging in an active search for the baby Jesus, his edict had not been decreed. Mangasarian forms an irrational conclusion from a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that ‘it is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple.’ This, as just demonstrated, is not true. At the time Jesus was presented in the temple, Herod was waiting for the Magi to return. It was not until two years after Jesus had been born that Herod gave his murderous orders.

So, the likely scenario is that Jesus was born and presented in the temple forty days later, and shortly thereafter, Mary and Joseph escaped to Egypt. Mangasarian’s faulty conclusion is that ‘this inconsistency is certainly insurmountable and makes it look as if the narrative had no value whatever as history.’

Mangasarian has made better arguments against the New Testament. The only inconsistency in this case Mangasarian’s inaccurate interpretation of scripture.

False Argument #3: Appendix Doesn’t Seem To Serve A Function

May 11, 2008

While reading a high school biology textbook written by two highly reputable science authors, I couldn’t help but feel resentment when I came across the following statement: “The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today.”

The statement is misleading. Now it’s not as much the first half of this statement I wish to contest as the last, although I have a few non-traditional opinions about the first half as well. The official position on vestigial organs here is that we don’t claim them any more favorable to the atheist, evolutionary worldview than the faith-based, creationist worldview, and that all participants in the debate need to understand clearly what constitutes a vestigial structure. The point of this post and why I think it belongs on the site is that even accomplished biology textbook writers holding Ph.D degrees and better occasionally succumb to confirmation bias and perpetuate errors and misconceptions concerning the human body. With the textbook editors I will be less forgiving, first for not catching the error in the editing process, and second for not explaining anything else about the matter of vestigial organs at all. For example, what concrete point of reference do we have upon which we might reason the current state of affairs in the appendix is reduced or in any way rudimentary? Can we say with surety that the appendix did more for Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago or at any other point in time? Or is our conclusion reached on account of more functioning appendices in other species?

The English vestigial derives from the Latin vestigium, meaning among other things an imprint or trace. Definitions of vestigial organs vary from source to source. My personal, off-the-cuff definition as I write this today is "the remnant of a superior, fully functional organ thought to have once existed in an ancient ancestor, based on the theory of linear descent from a LUCA. Generally characterized by reduced function, it is important to note that not all vestigial organs are claimed to be useless and there is nothing about the term that demands non-utility. German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1893 included approximately 85 structures in his original list of vestiges, and it was later said that man possessed nearly 200 vestigial organs including the appendix, coccyx, pineal gland, the tonsils and the pituitary gland. Of course as science and understanding of human anatomy have progressed, the number of vestigial organs has dwindled, and there is of course ongoing debate about the subject. Medical professionals have demonstrated bona fide functions of many organs classified as vestigial, supported among other documented evidences by the observation of drastic changes in patient physiology noted upon removal of the organ in question. For example, the extensive work of the Calderoli brothers details this occurrence in tonsillectomy patients.

More accurately described as a gland than an organ, the modest vermiform appendix sits in a crucially important location, located just below the ileo-cecal valve at the beginning of the colon or large intestine. Other animals have larger appendices such as the Koala bear and we know rather specifically what some of the functions of the appendix are. Among other things it has an active relationship with the hypothalamus gland, and one function of the hypothalamus is to regulate body responses in a manner conducive to its protection. With an average length around three inches, this tube-like cluster of lymph and glands is responsible for secreting a germicidal fluid that is automatically injected into the colon in the event that waste matter coming from the small intestine is determined to be toxic for the individual.

Poor eating habits add to the burden of our faculties and when maintained over a significant duration of time, the appendix will eventually tire from overexertion. Appendicitis is a typical result descriptive of a worn and inflamed appendix. Too much toxic waste for too long causes the appendix to work overtime and once the limit of inflammation has been reached, the poor gut has no choice but to burst, causing considerable pain and privation to the sufferer. Among other things your appendix is a built-in detector and neutralizer of certain toxicities and poison, a seemingly fitting feature congruent with many other self-maintenance mechanisms our bodies possess.

Especially in the context of the argument, Miller and Levine’s statement that the appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today" is an inaccurate and misleading claim, one that nutritionists and health experts have been known to take issue with. As stated the claim does not belong in a high-school textbook, especially in the absence of further information about the appendix or the phenomenon of vestigial organs in general, and the claim is of the caliber one might expect from an irresponsible tabloid newspaper, cheap YEC tract or the machinations of science-fiction. In fact, thinking back I do recall that Isaac Asimov makes this very same claim in his Words of Science: "The appendix is thus the useless remainder of a once useful organ…"

Now I normally don’t have too much of a problem with assumptions provided they are supported by sound logic, observation or scientific principle. However, when an assumption is not only unfounded and unscientific but also demonstrably wrong, I do have a problem, and when such assumptions are pawned off onto unsuspecting school kids in the name of science, whether in defense of creationism or evolution in my such tactics are certainly reprehensible. The error of calling the appendix an organ as opposed to a gland is really just a technicality and is, of course, both arguable and forgivable. However, the error of claiming the appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today" reveals ignorance regarding nutrition and anatomy.

Another enigma is why those militant about the quality of science education in this country don’t seem to apply the same level of stringency when an error is unrelated to creationism. What’s further interesting is the special pleading of individuals who embrace vestigial organs as suggestive of Darwinism while harshly criticizing those who embrace life’s complexity as being suggestive of intelligent design, when both conclusions are in fact arrived at via identical means. Isn’t declaring an organ vestigial on account of the fact we haven’t identified its function yet the very same error ID gets charged with for declaring the universe a product of intelligent design because we haven’t discerned a natural cause for it yet?

However it arose, the appendix is a useful feature of human physiology.

False Argument #2: Genesis Chronology Violates Law Of Photosynthesis

May 10, 2008

One common but flawed argument against a literal interpretation of Genesis states that the chronology violates biology by listing the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation before the creation of the sun. Now if we are taking Genesis literally, this is in fact what Genesis incontrovertibly appears to say; however, the argument proposed to refute this is typically based on a singular claim, namely that seed-bearing plants and vegetation need light and photosynthesis to have arisen. From everything we know from the Enlightenment until now, this also is in fact what science incontrovertibly appears to say; however, what the argument fails to account for is that light is recorded as being present in the creation process much earlier in Genesis 1:3 and concurrent with the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation. Thus the rebuttal to this argument is at least twofold: 1) Yes, it is true that seed-bearing plants and vegetation would need light to grow on Earth, however 2) Genesis records that light was in fact present prior to the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation.

Note this is not the same as implying the sun was created before the other stars. Scripture simply states that light was present, and we know life needs light to exist, evolve and flourish. Of the many arguments against creationism, this is one of the demonstrably weaker claims.

False Argument #1: Science Is Incompatible With Religion

May 8, 2008

The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which translates literally "to know," and humans want to know the answers to the fundamental questions of our own existence: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?

← Newer Posts