• God vs. Science

    I am in the process of writing a chapter for a collaborative book on God, atheism, and science / the philosophy of science. Here’s a list of things I want to include in the chapter:

    An overview of Basic Scientific reasoning.

    Intelligent Design: The arguments for it are no good.

    Evolution: it is evidence against the existence of god.

    Fine-tuning: not a good argument.

    Kalam argument: not a good argument. Furthermore, the big bang theory poses problems for the existence of God.

    Can you prove God with the “Argument from Quantum collapse”? No.

    Does science assume God exists (Presuppositionalism)? Not a chance.

    Dear readers, you have the greenlight to influence the writing of this chapter. What other topics should be covered? If you agree with my position: what evidence do you think best supports any of the above statements? If you disagree with me, what are the best arguments for your position and where can I find them?


    Category: Uncategorized

    Article by: Nicholas Covington

    I used to blog at Answers in Genesis BUSTED! I took the creationist organization Answers in Genesis to pieces. I am the author of Atheism and Naturalism and Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence, and the Resurrection of Jesus. I am an armchair philosopher with interests in Ethics, Epistemology (that's philosophy of knowledge), Philosophy of Religion, and Skepticism in general.


    1. How about a chapter siting the evidence that blind watchmaker evolution can be tested. Or a chapter telling us how the materialistic position of we exist just because of a series of improbable coincidences is scientific.

      At least Intelligent Design can be tested and potentially falsified. I bet that won’t be in your book.

        1. That doesn’t test natural selection. Do you even understand what natural selction is? It is differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in happenstance) mutation. It doesn’t do anything.

          1. The statement “Current plant and animal forms were produced by many generations of differential reproduction due to random variation” does indeed make predictions: it predicts we won’t find any genuine interspecies altruism (that’s what the link I gave you was about). It predicts that if we ran a computer simulation of random variation and differential reproduction, the simulation we ran would produce highly intricate and useful adaptations in the simulated organsim (it’s called genetic algorithms, and they work great!). Many other predictions have been made (such as “Darwin’s moth”).

            1. Umm genetic algorithms actively search for a solution. Natural selection isn’t a search. Genetic algorithms have nothing to do with darwinian evolution. Darwin’s moth- darwinian evolution can’t explain metazoans, so forget about moths.

            2. No, genetic algorithms do not “actively search” for a solution in any way different that how random mutations might be said to “search” for an adaptation in the natural world.

              “Darwin’s moth- darwinian evolution can’t explain metazoans, so forget about moths.”

              Logically fallacious. If a theory predicts a moth, it gets credit for predicting the moth, and you can’t ignore that prediction by trying to change the subject to something else.

            3. Genetic algorithms use a goal-oriented targeted search to find a solution to the problem they have been programmed to solve. Dawkin’s “weasel” is a prime example. That is how they work.

              The theory of evolution did not predict the moth anymore than Creationism predicted the moth or ID predicted the moth. The moth has nothing to do with random mutations. Nothing at all.

          2. Actually, no. Natural selection is the not-dying and subsequent reproduction of an organisms with beneficial traits, not mutations and most definitely not random. Also, we can already observe selection happening in non-lab environments (where do you think resistance from artificial antibiotics come from?)
            If natural selection does not exist why do animals have sex? To waste energy?

      1. @ Diego,

        Collins’ arguments from beauty and discoverability do deserve a discussion, or at least a mention. Quentin Smith has formulated several atheistic arguments from the Big Bang, only *one* of which I find truly convincing: that a perfect being like God would not create something as chaotic and messy as a big bang.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>