Feedback archive → Feedback 2010

Polarized reaction to atheists’ refusal to debate CMI

Photo <www.expelledthemovie.com>

Our article Global Atheists reject debate challenge, by Dr Carl Wieland, certainly stirred up passions.

We’ll start off with the submission from Brenda A., United States, who wrote:

Carl Wieland’s responses are interspersed below:

[Carl W.] Actually, we provided the link to the blog which had both the picture and the purported reasons. In fact, we actually highlighted the link twice—the first time in the main text as follows …

For the whole response by PZ Myers, bearing all the warnings in mind for younger members of the family in particular, you can see scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php

… and the second time in the caption to the photo of PZ Myers (again with suitable warnings to our readers as to the nature of the content at his blog). We really wanted readers to see his comments, in fact, because they are a great demonstration of the vituperative emotionalism that so often substitutes for reasoned debate.

Yes, that is a way. But would they debate if the scientists chosen were balanced equally between those committed to an evolutionary paradigm of interpretation vs those with the opposite, and that they agree to resign their careers if they were to be adjudged the losers? Perhaps you could put that to them …

Once again, invective substitutes for reason. Sigh.

Carl W.

Australian correspondent Wayne R. was similarly forthright:

Carl responds:

Thanks for your email. Augustine (a young-earth creationist, by the way) has often been misquoted, misused, etc. But your last sentence is important from another perspective, too.

If if it were indeed so obvious from science as you claim, why not take this opportunity to publicly demonstrate the alleged evidential superiority of the evolutionary position?

To someone who saw 800 participants in our January Supercamp in 2009 listening to PhD scientists as one after another they laid out reams of evidence from science over the course of a week, with plenty of opportunity for interaction/discussion/questions, looking at your last sentence leaves one with a surreal feeling.

Toni C., United States, wrote …

… to which Carl responded:

Dear Toni

Thanks for your feedback.

We’ve had that sort of response before, not surprisingly.

When the people concerned then have it pointed out to them that various members of the proposed creationist debating team have in fact published “worthy research”, the next phase is normally to hastily tighten the conditions further, e.g. by saying something like, “only if that research concluded in favour of the propositions you hold.” But given the heavily documented fact that articles that fly in the face of a dominant paradigm in science rarely get past the gatekeepers—let alone the additional documentation, such as in Jerry Bergmann’s book Slaughter of the Dissidents, that shows that creationists or ID scientists are positively discriminated against to an astonishing degree—that begs the question of how such a condition might ever be fulfilled, regardless of the scientific worthiness of the case.

In fact, in the flood of antagonistic email we have received, most of it heavily charged with emotion, there are many indications that the bulk of such email generators are not even aware of the arguments on our site, for instance. Perhaps it is easier to rely on caricatures of how creationists understand the evidence, rather than take the hard road of actually engaging with the evidence. The simple fact is that hurling epithets about ‘lying’ etc. as most of the correspondents are doing, or making it seem as if creationists who are scientists are just sitting on their thumbs quoting the Bible, as you wrote, may be an easy option, but leaves the onlooker with the distinct impression that the emperor does not have the level of clothing that his retinue would like one to think. It does your cause little good.

Kind regards,

Carl W.

Gregory Tingey, of the United Kingdom, wrote:

Gregory T.’s letter is reproduced below, this time with Carl Wieland’s responses interspersed:

OK, let’s see.

Let’s see if what follows turns out to substantiate your rather emotive accusation.

I have often said that I wish that there were more compulsory training in logic and philosophy in formal education (that includes my own in the past). It would not permit such misunderstandings to persist. When I was an atheist, I had to believe in some form of evolution, some way in which the world made itself with no interference outside itself. (Richard Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and what I understand him to be saying is that Darwin provided a plausible mechanism to do at least some of the intellectual ‘heavy lifting’ in such a grand claim.)

Now to hold that all of physical reality had generated its own order and complexity is a grand and audacious proposition. Obviously, though I believed it, I had no way of knowing it for absolutely certain. The gap between belief and total certainty is surely reasonably described as faith. That does not mean it is necessarily a blind faith or a dumb faith. Equally, a belief in the full Christian Gospel, though it involves faith, is not a blind or dumb faith, but a reasonable one. [See also Atheism is more rational? for evidence that atheism is an active belief system with a burden of proof.]

Only if you define it with equivocation, in such a way that the observation also fits a complete Genesis creation model. For example, if an evolutionist defines evolution as change in gene frequencies (CIGF), then points to an observation that demonstrates CIGF, it is utterly self-serving and scientifically bankrupt, if one is honest with oneself, to then say that, “Voilà, this shows that the whole sweep of ‘goo to you’ is thereby demonstrated.”

Indeed. And so does the creation model. Each, however, are very flexible major models that are capable of having auxiliary hypotheses added to protect the main paradigm from having to be abandoned (as shown by the philosopher of science Imre Lakatos). Science philosophers are also aware that incorrect models are capable of the occasional fulfilled prediction. That has to be the case, since both creation and evolution have had testable predictions fulfilled, and they are polar opposites.

Not correct. The expression ‘the world’ is obviously being used as a term for the ‘whole box and dice’, and under ‘evolution’ sensu lato it is quite legitimate to include the concepts (and their tenets) used to explain what are known, respectively, as geological evolution and cosmic evolution. You are choosing to narrow the definition to only biological evolution.

Running a crusade is understood by most reasonable people as a metaphor for running a campaign (in this day and age, normally a program of disseminating information, despite the fact that the word ‘campaign’ is a battle-derived metaphor) which is carried out with religious fervour and which involves overcoming a perceived enemy using tactics and strategy.

There you go—you have used the same battle-derived metaphor

Doesn’t this seem, even to you, over the top given that you yourself engage in the same metaphorical use of language? How absurd would it be if I accused you of lying about Dr Dawkins because campaigns in WW2 killed people, so he cannot be running an information campaign? Of course, if Bible believers are correct, then Dr Dawkins’ actions would be serving to help block access to the means to eternal life, which is surely serious

By now, one is growing used to the repetitive issuance of accusations lacking evidence.

I’ve yet to see you bring up any evidence of any ‘facts’ of science we are supposed to dispute. It’s fairly clear that you are not familiar with the arguments on our website, for example.

Actually, it’s not unhealthy as an intellectual exercise, if nothing else, to try to do so for the sake of the argument. I.e. assume that the Bible really is what it claims to be. What would you expect to find? And so on. There is nothing wrong with making a priori assumptions (axioms or presuppositions—all reasoning starts on such a basis) to see how the evidence fits the framework that arises from such axioms, which can be abandoned of course if they turn out to be so utterly and repetitively inconsistent with reality that it’s obviously a futile exercise. It seems clear to me (stated with respect) that you have never really bothered to do that, to calm down long enough to work through the evidence on that basis.

There you go again. Many of us in the creation movement have been ‘on the other side of the fence’, as it were, working with different presuppositions, and so are familiar with wearing each of the sets of philosophical ‘glasses’. Could I gently and respectfully encourage you to dip a toe in the water, as it were? To see why it is that reasonable, intelligent, educated people (many of whom are actively involved in doing real science) can come to a totally different conclusion about the same evidence. Jesus Christ Himself said that those who are genuinely seeking will find Him. My sincere wish is that you may be one of those.

Sincerely,

Carl W.

Correspondent Michael C. (United States) entered into a bit of back-and-forth with Carl Wieland. Michael first wrote …

… to which Carl responded:

Thanks for your email—your comment about pastor and services appears to have missed the point, though.

We were not expecting the atheists to interrupt or modify their convention—nor, from the official responses received, was it taken that way. The obvious point is that there they are gathered together in Australia, a unique opportunity to have a ‘team’ debate (whether before or just after the convention) that would otherwise be prohibited by the economics, the so-called ‘tyranny of distance’, for both sides.

Michael then replied …

… which Carl briefly acknowledged:

Thanks, Mike — same to you.
Regards,

Carl W.

It’s worth adding though, that every Christian ought to be aware of two key points to remember when answering the likes of Michael C.’s statement that “The Bible cannot be used as proof that the Bible is true”. See Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s article Using the Bible to prove the Bible? Also, far from Dawkins often debating creationists, as Mike seems to think, he has in fact stated clearly and repeatedly why he refuses to debate them.

Offsetting incoming comments from atheists were a number of contributions from Christian correspondents. Their comments were generally (though not universally) supportive.

Fiona S., Australia, wrote:

Justin S, United States, wrote:

Jeb S., also of the United States, wrote:

Tim W., of the United Kingdom, wrote:

Leon B., Australia, made an important point:

South African engineering student E. van Niekerk observed an interesting reaction from a non-Christian friend who was an admirer of PZ Myers:

Derek H., who was alerted to our article by a CMI Email News (“Infobytes”), wondered why we should concern ourselves with such “unsaved people”:

Carl’s responses are interspersed below:

That’s a pleasure.

That is because we are commanded to be concerned, and to ‘make disciples’ (Matthew 28).

Part of the reason we do this is to show those who do have a seeking heart, or are Christians needing encouragement, that they do not need to be afraid of ‘scientific-sounding’ reasons for not believing the Bible—because when push comes to shove, here are the world’s leading anti-Godders backing away from a scientific debate on the issue. So we see this as something very important to make known.

I believe they are the words of Paul, quoting the prophet Isaiah, in Romans 9:27. Scripture also says (2 Peter 3:9), “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

We agree that our human efforts alone are not enough. In that sense, this debate matter and the seminar mentioned is part of the seed-sowing. However, it should be remembered that, in His sovereignty, God has chosen to use earthen vessels and the ‘foolishness of preaching’ to be part of the process by which He brings people to Himself.

A minor correction—the 2^nd “a fool says in his heart that there is no God” scripture is not in Proverbs but appears earlier in the Psalms (Psalm 14). Re the Proverbs reference to debating fools, Proverbs makes two seemingly contradictory statements on the subject, the resolution of which may be of interest to you—see The enemy revealed.

Having shown that they are unwilling to debate, we’re not exactly wasting much effort on them. Our efforts in showing that their arguments are baseless will obviously only benefit those whose hearts are receptive. By doing so, we do not discount God’s work in salvation.

The reformer John Calvin believed that getting people saved was totally God’s doing. Yet Calvin sent out missionaries, in obedience to the biblical command to take His message of salvation to people. Calvin did not see his belief in God doing the saving as in any way contradictory to him doing his best to get the message out there. Equally, part of the God-given mandate and command to get the message out, as realized by the Apostles (2 Corinthians 10:5) is to engage in the marketplace of ideas, which very much involves using arguments. As Paul says of their activities (2 Corinthians 10:5a): “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God”. It is very much a part of our mission to help people overcome roadblocks to faith. That is not the same as ‘arguing people into heaven’, which we would agree cannot be done. If God chooses to use some of these feeble human efforts, we are pleased, but we recognize that the glory and credit is His at all times.

Sincerely in Christ,

Carl W.

Canadian correspondent J.S. stated:

United States correspondent Joseph F., though supportive of CMI, felt that Carl’s choice of words was unhelpful:

Carl responds:

Dear Joseph

Thanks very much for your feedback—I really do appreciate it when someone takes the trouble to respond, especially when they are not afraid to express constructive criticism. I will try to avoid the ‘knee-jerk’ tendency to defend one’s choice of words, and assure you that I am not reluctant to take it on the chin as appropriate.

I was a bit puzzled, I admit, even on rereading it, but I think part of the different perceptions may be cultural; an Australian like Nicholls would, I think, understand the subtle touch of Aussie larrikinism that is taken for granted in many such interactions. I’ve had a lot of interaction over the years with some of Australia’s leading ‘anti-Christians’, including Skeptics leaders, and the interactions are cordial and they respect me [and vice versa]—each of us has those little ‘Aussie digs’ at each other’s position in a spirit of ‘friendly opponents’. Having spent some time in the States, I understand that down-under style can often come across differently, and it looks like I should have kept this in mind for a global audience.

Thanks for your kind words, and for your willingness to make helpful comments. It doesn’t look likely for there to be a debate now, but one never knows. [Note that by now there is insufficient time for either side, of course—note added 26 February 2010]

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Carl W.

Robert D., of New Zealand, wrote to say we’d missed an important point:

Reminder: The special Melbourne creation event at the same time as the Global Atheist Convention

In Melbourne, Australia, on the same weekend as the Rise of Atheism convention featuring Richard Dawkins and other atheist ‘stars’ who refused CMI’s offer to debate, we will instead be presenting a special multi-session Countering the Rise of Atheism seminar:

• Find out the arguments the atheists didn’t want to face up to.
• Meet Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of the world’s bestselling creation book (Refuting Evolution) and of the newly-released book The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution (a response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution).

We would ask for your help in making this event widely known, e.g. by email. People outside Australia can contribute to this effort, too—e.g. by mentioning the link below in an online creation/evolution forum, or in various blogs. Even if only one of the people reading your contribution is in a position to attend the Melbourne creation seminar, it can have a life-changing effect.

[Melbourne residents in particular; why not write a calm, ultra-brief letter to your local or state paper pointing out e.g. that the scientists whose challenge to debate the world’s leading atheists while they were down under for the Melbourne global convention was turned down, will be presenting their arguments free to the public instead. This will be on the same weekend as the global atheist convention (March 14, 1 pm at Life Ministry Centre in Chirnside, a 900-seat venue). One of the 3 presenters, a Ph.D. scientist, has just released a book powerfully refuting point by point the arguments in Richard Dawkins latest book, “Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution”. This is the chance for people to be able to say that they have heard the other side of the issue firsthand, rather than relying on the all-too-common media and antitheistic caricatures about scientists who believe that the evidence supports Genesis creation. (WTTE)]

For seminar details: see Countering the Rise of Atheism: the evidence for creation