A chat with a pastor (part 3)

Part 2 of my discussion with a pastor can be found here.

“I think that what gets creationists hot under the collar is that if you’re going to teach evolution in a classroom then teach creation as well – they both have the same credentials.”

From this comment I can conclude you think there is no evidence for evolution (or that is some kind of faith or religion), so the two “theories” are on equal ground?  This shows either a massive misunderstanding of what evolution actually is, or you properly understand the theory but do not accept the evidence supports it.  So I must ask – what do you think the theory of evolution says, and what would constitute as evidence that would support it?

Moreover, you are presenting a false dichotomy.  It’s not a choice between evolution and creationism.  Partly because there are many versions of creation we can choose from (each with exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them), but mainly because disproving one idea does not automatically prove another (except in strict mathematical senses).

Where is the evidence *for* creationism?  What predictions does it make that we can test?  Where are the experiments that conclusively show creation is the only viable solution?  You talk about creationism being science, so where is the research to back it up?

Furthermore, the veracity of the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a god or not.  There are many theists who accept the theory of evolution.  The two ideas are not mutually exclusive unless you adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis.

“Andrew I sat in uni lectures hearing lecturers state with straight faces that finless fish evolved into finned fish with absolutely no shred of evidence.”

Then that is a poor lecture.  I would not expect anyone to accept *any* idea without supporting evidence.  So again, where is the evidence *for* creation?

“When I finally fronted my lecturer in class about it she said she and science had no idea how it happened but I suppose if you leave out the existence of God you have to just say it happened and then you’re left with the rather lame answer – we’ll know some day.”

Perhaps you should look into the theory of evolution further before dismissing the idea.  I recommend “Why evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne as a starting point.

“Teaching evolution as fact in universities is the height of duplicity and badly damages the credibility of those who do.”

Evolution is both fact and theory – the two usages of the word cause much confusion.  We know organisms change over time – this is plainly evident from the fossil record and direct observation or organism today.  The theory of evolution explains who this change occurs.

“They don’t follow the rules that you set out above but are happy to make statements without a shred of proof. The very thing that they accuse God believers of doing.”

OK.  Here’s one example.  Do you know how they found the fossil Tiktaalik (an intermediate form between fish and amphibians)?  The scientists knew where amphibian fossils started to appear on the Earth due to their radial locations in the geological column.  They also know the kinds of features this creature should exhibit, and the age of the rocks it should be found (Devonian).  So they looked at the area (Canada) and located rocks of the correct age and started digging.  Low and behold, they found the exact creature they were looking for.  Where is the similar case of the predictive power of creationism?

Another – ALL oceanic islands (those which rose out of the oceans due to volcanic or tectonic events) have life similar to the continents near them, but not all the life – only that which could fly or float there.  Why is this the case?  God wanted it that way.  Oh sorry, creationism is about god, intelligent design is about designers.  Which one were we talking about again?

Continental islands (such as Tasmania) do have animals similar to the continents from which they split, but not identical.  As the populations of animals evolve in independent groups they diverge from the originally shared populations characteristics.  This explains why Tasmania has unique marsupials such as the Tasmanian Devil and the Tasmanian Tiger (although we seem to have lost this one).  It also explains why Australia has all the marsupials of the world, or Madagascar has all the lemurs.

What is the creationist/intelligent design explanation for this?  God/aliens/designer wanted it this way?  Where are the predictions we can test?

Should I start talking about genetics now, which would prove common ancestry without any of the other evidence we have?  Or have I made my point?

Once again, I have to ask – what do YOU think the theory of evolution says, and why do you consider it to be false?

“Andrew that’s what I did – I continued reading everything that Jesus said and didn’t just take a statement out of context. By the way the series of scriptures you quoted originally – there isn’t 19 chapters in Mark”

I better check my references again.

“Luke 18 is the story of the rich young ruler – Jesus was talking to one person not everyone – he then goes on to qualify what he was saying.”

“Lk 9:23 is about taking up your cross daily and following Him, it says nothing about selling everything you have”

You forgot the “let him deny himself” part.

‘And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me’ – Luke 9:23

“and come to think of it neither does Luke 12:33 – it just says sell your possession to look after the poor.”

‘Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth’ – Luke 9:23

“Lk 19:27 – Jesus wasn’t saying kill those who disobey us – he was telling the story of a king to illustrate a point.”

This is my favourite passage:

‘And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.’ – Luke 19:11

I assume a Kingdom has a King and I invite readers to read the passage and parable for themselves and ask “who is Jesus equating the King to?”, “Why take from those who do poorly and give to those who do well?”, “Does this fit with the compassionate God I know?”, and most importantly “Why kill those who will not bow down to the King?”

“Jesus didn’t speak of giving away everything you had many times. Or do you mean the same story is repeated in more than one gospel?”

As I listed (and I must check this again) the instruction was listed in Luke four times.  This is hardly the same story repeated in different gospels (although I also referenced Mark).

“You say that the bible is hard to understand but I had no trouble with it when I was a kid – my problem was with organised religion.”

I understood “Jack and the Beanstalk” when I was a kid too, but that does not mean it makes much sense as an adult.  However, my point was that we are told the book must be studied and cross referenced with itself multiple times to make sense of it.  Why?  If Jesus (God) really was who he says he was (assuming he actually existed) and was really concerned about the salvation of his creation, then why make the message difficult to understand?

Apply the Vogon test.  In Doug Adams excellent series “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe” the Vogons came to destroy the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass.  They hovered over the Earth in giant space ships which hung in the air exactly the same way that bricks do not and broadcast a message to all of humanity that the Earth will be annihilated in 6 minutes.  There were no language problems, no interpretation difficulties, no study required.  Is your god less powerful, or less caring than the Vogons?

“You entertain evolution so why not? But you’re jumping ahead of what I was saying and confusing ID with creationists. My interpretation of ID is that it points to a designer behind the world we see today.”

I need you definition of evolution before I can address this properly.

Let’s stick with the broader category of ID for now and see of we can make a case in favour of it.  If that passes we will try and determine the nature, properties, and attributes of this creative force.  How’s that?

“Andrew if you said to me you had seen a lovely sunset would i argue with you and say no you didn’t?”

Probably not, but the consequences of accepting such a statement if it is untrue is trivial.  You say your name is Dermot?  OK – fine by me.  You might say you have $10 in your pocket and I would be willing to accept that with no evidence whatsoever because it makes no difference to me if it is true or not.  Now if you claim my house is on fire I will take it seriously and act upon that information.  If I went home and saw it was not on fire, I would have shown your claim to be false and shifted my position of your information and character.

If you claim my eternal soul is in grave danger, then that is also something to which I will respond.  Firstly, what is the soul thing you refer to?  How is it in danger?  Who from?  How?  What can I do about it?  If sufficient evidence for these claims is not forthcoming, why should I accept them as being true, much less act upon them?  (Pascal’s wager?)

“If you said you felt cold yesterday would I say it wasn’t cold yesterday so you couldn’t have been cold? No I wouldn’t – I would believe your experience.”

Because it makes no difference to you if I were cold.  Also, if I back it up and say I was working in a blast freezer all day and took you there, it backs up my claim.

“But when I say I had an experience of God or heard God speaking or saw a vision or had a dream you question it and say it was caused by emotional trauma or a chemical imbalance?”

I do not claim you did not have an experience, but there are rational explanations for them that do not involve the supernatural.  How can you rule these out without considering them?  Is that reasonable?  Is that (gasp) scientific?

“Taking your approach we wouldn’t believe anything that anyone shared with us unless we could personally corroborate it. The integrity of the one making the statement goes a long way toward us believing their claim.”

No.  As I outlined above there are many claims people make which I will accept at face value.  There is no downside to doing so, and it makes no difference, so why investigate these claims?

How do you determine the integrity of people?  I would argue that everything they had previously told you has turned out to be verifiably true.  You may be my best friend and everything you have ever told me has turned out to be 100% accurate and true, but if you came to me one day and said “I was abducted by aliens last night” I would still be sceptical.  These kinds of claims are extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

“I could line up doctors, scientists, teachers, uni students, young people, old people that attend my church and have each of them share their personal experience of God and you would still say that they are all wrong and there’s no evidence for the existence of God even though credible intelligent Tasmanians say there is.”

Firstly, I am not saying these people are not intelligent, fine, moral, upstanding citizens.  What I am saying is that I cannot share their inner feelings and experiences about what they saw (or think they saw).  Personal revelation is just that – personal.

Once again, if Jesus want to visit me like he did you friend and show me he was unmistakably real, then I should accept it.  However, I cannot expect to convince anyone else of that experience without something I can share to back up the claims.

Moreover, God has appeared to people in the past and convinced them he is real, even given them written commandments (and replacing them when they are broken).  Is it such a big ask that God grant me such direct and irrefutable evidence?  Isn’t this what you are claiming these people in your church have experienced?

“But we like to marginalize them and make them out to be red neck right wing extremists because then we can ignore what they’re saying. I’m not trying to be antagonistic here but there’s a lot more at stake than different world views.”

I am not trying to marginalise anyone.  I just want them to demonstrate their claims.

As for the world view comment – science deals with reality.  You can decide for yourself what religion deals with.

“You know me – how do you explain my beliefs?”

To be honest, I do not know you as well as I might like, but these conversations are helping.

“Am I just a product of my upbringing?”

Aren’t we all?

“I was brought up a catholic but when I left home and joined the army I didn’t want to have anything to do with religion.”

You want nothing to do with religion, but your a Christian pastor?

“Today I pastor a church because I believe with everything in me that God is real and people matter to Him.”

I understand you believe it, what I am asking is “why”?

“I’m not stupid, I ask questions. There are things that I don’t know or understand but I keep searching.”

Admirable, and exactly what I am doing also.  We have reached different conclusions (probably based on different experiences, arguments, and evidence).  Between us we have some truths, perhaps the total truths – the question is who and why?

“I could keep on going but it’s way late and you’ve already read enough :) BTW I’m only replying now because I went to see a late screening of Avatar in 3D and was too wired to go to sleep when I got home :)”

I plan to see Avatar shortly.  Just need to offload the kids for a few hours.  Don’t spoil it for me :)

“Nice chatting with you :)”

Likewise.  (Phew, that was a long response)

On to part 4.