Piltdown Man, Yahya and Dawkins - The God Delusion?
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2008
by Mark Parsec
Wordcasters
One of the greatest embarrassments to the proponents of evolution began in 1912 when they embraced the fossilized remains of the legendary Piltdown man as one of the missing links in the human family tree. The fragments of skull and jawbone were shamelessly flaunted by the evolutionary community as Eoanthropus dawsoni for over four decades before being exposed as the most famous archaeological forgery and hoax in history.
In a similar vain, Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, an eccentric Turkish
Creationist Muslim, has recently challenged the eminent evolutionist Richard
Dawkins to a public debate. Yahya maintains that Dawkins' position on,
"…Darwinism is a false theory and… the greatest deception of the world's
history." Dawkins argues that Yahya's position ignores the "facts" and that his
reference to the Piltdown Man hoax is irrelevant.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins
Muslim Creationist Harun Yahya
Yahya is so serious about his opposition against Dawkins that he is
currently using Turkish blasphemy laws to prevent the publication of Dawkins'
book: The God Delusion. Despite this, Dawkins' has declined to participate in
Yahya's challenge to debate, citing Stephen Jay Gould's famous premis, that what
creationists crave is, "…the oxygen of respectability in the world of real
science."
So begins another chapter in the decades old debate between Creationists
and Evolutionists. The twist in this story, however, is that Evolutionists
are now facing increasing opposition not just from Christians, but also
from Muslims.
This Article has been viewed 1,129 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)Hi Mark, interesting information. Thanks for sharing it. Have you ever been to the creation museum? It's on my list of things to do.Congrats on your ranking!! Wow! Good job on your writing and sharing a lot of different kinds of information. You are gifted, Mr. Preacher man :-)Lots of love and friendship, keep them coming! I sure enjoy them, I just have a hard time keeping up :-)Hi Teresa! It's good to hear from you. You've been pretty busy yourself. I hope everything is well with you. Michelle says hello. God bless you.All is calming down, Art is almost done with the floors. We are both taking the day off on Friday and are going to spend some time together. No working!!! Hi back to Michelle.Have you had a chance to read my last couple of articles? I haven't seen a comment from you :-)I haven't had a chance to read them yet... but I will. I promise. Hope you and your husband have some good quality time together.
I think Dawkins is quite right not to debate Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya).Not only is Yahya a convicted criminal (sentenced to 3 years in prison in 2008 for, among other things, "engaging in criminal threats"), his book "Atlas of Creation" included pictures of fossils and (supposedly) contemporary living creatures to demonstrate that they aren't different (haven't changed over time). However, many of the supposed "living creatures" turned out to be fishing lures..the hooks are clearly visible in many of the images! As if that wasn't bad enough, I recall it was said that the pictures were used without permission!Dawkins is quite right not to waste his time with this individual.... religious Creationists might be well advised to do the same, as his criminal record and seeming inability to distinguish living things from fishing lures severely undermine the credibility of the creationist side.Hi Ben,Thank you for your comments on this article. The ardent evolutionist that you are, I thought that you would have something to say.I am still, of course, firmly in the Creationist camp.Blessings,Mark
I would have to agree with Dawkins in this case, any Creationist bringing up Piltdown is making an irrelevant point. And debating Creationists is a rather pointless public exercise that may give the public the false impression they have scientific credibility. If Creationism really does want scientific credibility, all it needs to do is science.Another point to bring up about Piltdown is that it while not necessarily suspecting fraud initially, some evolutionary scientists had their doubts about its validity from the beginning because it never fit with an evolutionary view of the fossil record. And it was evolutionary scientists who eventually found and exposed it as a fraud. With this in point, Creationists have little reason to believe it is a fraud in the first place, except for one reason - an attempt to make evolution look bad. I also find it curious why Christian Creationists would want to appear to be empathizing with fundamentalist Muslim Creationists.Ultimately, the only reason to reject evolution is for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Evolution is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence, so much so that even many religious people have no problem with accepting it while still keeping their faith. This includes scientists, like Francis Collins for example. I too also find it strange to reject reality on account of religious faith, for to do so seems to place limits on a supposedly all-powerful God. What would prevent one from using evolution if it so wished? Nothing that I can see. Unless that is, if one prefers to stick with a literal interpretation of ancient religious texts.I would also like to quote a Young Earth Creationist (also a scientist) on what he thinks of evolution. While I disagree with his position, I do respect his honesty, and wish more Creationists were like him rather than Harun Yahya. His name is Todd C. Wood, and he had this to say:"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."Hi PigletI appreciate your comments and your insight on this very controversial subject. I would point out, however, that there are plenty of Creationists that do maintain a scientific approach to their theories.Once again, I would also like to point out theat evolution is a theory. As such, it is not science until it can be conclusively validated through experiments or laboratory work. To my knowledge, there is no conclusive information on evolution.Evolution is a theory, but specifically a scientific one (and in the stronger scientific sense of "theory").To say it is not science is simply false. The theory of evolution has been validated through experiments, verification of predictions and through lab work.As well as being a theory, evolution is also a fact - it is something that has been observed.Ben,Are you telling me that we have concrete evidence of one SPECIES evolving into another species?
I am unaware of any Creationist theories, however I am aware of Creationists who are scientists who maintain a scientific approach to their respective fields. But what you do not seem to be aware of is that in science, "theory" is the highest accolade one can get. They do not get upgraded to become "laws", although this is a common misunderstanding among laypeople. "Laws" are explained by theories. And evolution has indeed been validated countless times via experiments and lab work. It has been this way for over a century, and continues to be today. Theories are never "proven", there is always the potential for falsification and the possibility that new evidence may be discovered that requires a currently accepted theory to be modified (or in rare cases discarded completely). This is the strength of science, as new evidence comes in, knowledge increases.An example of this would be plate tectonics. When first proposed, no-one took it seriously. But after some time, the evidence won out in favour of plate tectonics until it became the accepted standard as it is today. Some may claim that it was "scientific dogma" that kept the facts from being accepted, but that would be an unfair characterisation. When new alternative scientific ideas are put forth they will be tentative, and if one has a current theory which works then it would be unwise to discard it in favour of a new theory or hypothesis which hasn't yet acquired as much evidence to back it up. This is why the acceptance of new theories can take time. Gravity is another example (also not a "law" either) which was eventually succeeded by Einstein's theory of relativity. But so useful is Newton's theory that it is still taught today as it still works at certain scales. As it now stands, evolution is currently the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth. No scientific alternative has been proposed thus far.Excuse me, Piglet, but is not Intelligent Design a scientific theory?I was also under the impression that according to the rules of scientific investigation that a hypothesis needed to be validated for its integrity through tests that could be reproduced by others. So, I ask you, what test has been conducted that shows one SPECIES that has evolved into another SPECIES? Maybe I'm missing something here.
No, Intelligent Design is Creationism. Creationism works fine as a theological viewpoint, but it is not a scientific one.A simple DNA comparison test is enough to indicate common descent.Yes, Piglet, Intelligent Design is Creationism. I understand that. However, you seem to be missing the point that many reknown scientists have endorsed Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Do, you suppose, that since there is no material evidence for gravity, that we should consider it to be only a fine theological viewpoint?But the DI have been saying for years that Intelligent Design is not Creationism and nothing to do with religion. At least they used to, because they knew that Creationism is unscientific and they claimed that ID was scientific. The fact that many scientists endorse it does not automatically make it a theory. In order for there to be a theory, it must be falsifiable, present testable hypotheses, test them, retest them, and make successful scientific predictions. So far, there has not been anyone who has even come up with a testable hypothesis, much less performed any scientific research. Even the IDer's themselves have said there is no theory as of yet, like Paul Nelson for example: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a fully-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions … but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”And actually there is material evidence of gravity. Lots of it. I'm actually a little flummoxed as to why you would claim otherwise.I'm just curious... what is the material evidence for gravity?
Hi Mark, Darwin Year 2009 was an interesting year for evolutionists. The Ida fossil was at first presented as a potential human ancestor but soon shot down even in Science and New Scientist. Ardi or Ardipithecus ramidus fared a little better but many have critizised the value of computer-aided reconstruction of extremely badly crushed bones. Then scientists discovered that junk-RNA does not exist (junk-DNA was disposed of much earlier together with the old idea of humans being full of vestigial organs).
Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell basically put an end to the hope that the cell is not designed.
BTW, Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate creationists probably stems from his failure in 1986 in a debate Oxford University. He teamed with Professor John Maynard-Smith to debate professors A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews on creation-evolution and fared rather poorly. He obvious still has some sour memories of the event. So Dawkins still tries to avoid all formal debates.
Blessings,JoelHi Joel,Thank you for joining in on the discussion on this very important topic. It is difficult for many to discern between what is truth and what is fiction. Your comments are much appreciated.God bless you,MarkDid Stephen Meyer finally come up with a scientific theory of Intelligent Design? I'm curious then as to why he decided to write a book on apologetics instead of doing scientific research and publishing a scientific paper on the subject. Until that happens, ID remains an idea.If Intelligent Design is to be considered a scientific theory, then I have a number of questions to ask: What exactly is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What useful scientific predictions does it make? How is CSI quantified/measured? What mechanism did the designer use to do whatever it is the IDer's think it did? Where and when did it do this? What scientific observations can be made in regards to ID? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified? And one thing I've always thought was curious, why is the designer apparently incapable of evolution, and how was this limitation determined scientifically?Perhaps Mark will allow me to explain some concepts briefly. While I’m more familiar with creationism than ID, I’d like to point out that Signature in the Cell is indeed a science book. The London Times Literary Supplement (TLS) chose it as one of its books of the year in 2009 – as a science book.According to ID, “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”ID advocates do not claim that all biological systems are designed. They use an “Explanatory Filter” to decide whether something is designed or merely looks as though it is designed. Dr. William Demski, a prominent ID scientist, states that design can be detected if the thing or system investigated passes all three stages of the filter, viz. 1) Does a law explain it? 2) Does chance explain it? and 3) Does design explain it?This would thus allow ID to be tested and probably also falsified.ID does not take a stand on who the designer is. Actually, some scientists who take a positive view of ID still believe in the Darwinian concept of common descent, at least to some extent.Personally, I’m more at home with creationism or the view that the God of the Bible is the creator.Joel, thanks for your response.>>>"I’d like to point out that Signature in the Cell is indeed a science book. The London Times Literary Supplement (TLS) chose it as one of its books of the year in 2009 – as a science book."The London Times are not a scientific peer-review body.>>>"ID advocates do not claim that all biological systems are designed. They use an “Explanatory Filter” to decide whether something is designed or merely looks as though it is designed. Dr. William Demski, a prominent ID scientist, states that design can be detected if the thing or system investigated passes all three stages of the filter, viz. 1) Does a law explain it? 2) Does chance explain it? and 3) Does design explain it? This would thus allow ID to be tested and probably also falsified."But we still don't know what this 'test' is. Also, this is actually argument from incredulity. It is effectively a sciencey-sounding version of "If science can't explain 'X' then God did it." Another thing is that even if "chance" and "law" (as he terms them) can explain (whatever), that still does not rule out an intelligence ultimately being responsible. Perhaps the "designer" set up the rules and let the program run so to speak. Or perhaps the designer is actively involved every step of the way somehow. If those scenarios are considered not possible, then a limitation has been placed on the designer and we need to know how these limitations were determined scientifically.>>>"According to ID, “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” "There is a reason why I came to this out of order, which I hope will become apparent. Explained how? Again, ID posits itself as opposed to natural selection so once again we have this so far unexplained limit. As this statement stands, it is another negative argument against evolution, which even if correct does not support ID in any way. If evolution is wrong, ID does not automatically become the "better answer" by default. ID should stand on it's own merits. What exactly does it explain and how? And for the reason I came to this later, now ID is being invoked as an explanation for the universe. If that is the case, then every single thing that goes through the 'explanatory filter' tests positive for ID (although the details of exactly how this is done is still elusive). But if everything tests positive, everything is designed. So no comparisons can be made. Which again leaves ID with the falsification problem. If only certain features are designed, then we must know what specifically was designed and how.>>>"ID does not take a stand on who the designer is. Actually, some scientists who take a positive view of ID still believe in the Darwinian concept of common descent, at least to some extent."If ID can determine design, one must then be able to determine at least some attributes of the designer. But so far we are in the dark as to how to positively determine design.>>>"Personally, I’m more at home with creationism or the view that the God of the Bible is the creator."Yes, if the designer did indeed design aspects of the universe, (a) God would likely be the most popular suspect...Thanks, Piglet. You’re right that the TLS is not a science journal but it is a prestigious institution nonetheless. The choice of Signature in the Cell has caused much discontent in the Darwin-only society.I think god-of-the-gaps is not a good argument since often the ones using it resort to a similar explanation, only it is ”evolution of the gaps” For instance, according to a typical Darwinian story weakening lactose tolerance in adults is due to evolution (see my blog post on 30th July 2009). I think that evolutionists resort to this kind of storytelling more than anyone else.ID does not start with gaps. It looks at the evidence (e.g. the complexity of the cell) and draws conclusions from it. I have a brief YouTube clip on the issue on my blog, if you’re interested)As far as I know, ID does not deny the concept of natural selection – and neither does creation. Michael Behe has researched the issue in-depth and suggest that there are clear limits to what Darwinian mechanisms can do. While natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.Thanks for the opportunity for letting me explain these concepts. I’ve covered them in more detail on my blog You’re very welcome to have a look.Kind regards, Joel>>>"You’re right that the TLS is not a science journal but it is a prestigious institution nonetheless. The choice of Signature in the Cell has caused much discontent in the Darwin-only society."It has, but only in the same way that the medical community has to deal with anti-scientific statements made by the anti-vaccination crowd for example. But until any actual scientific research is done to support the claims made by Meyer in his book, it remains irrelevant in the scientific community.>>>"I think god-of-the-gaps is not a good argument since often the ones using it resort to a similar explanation, only it is ”evolution of the gaps” For instance, according to a typical Darwinian story weakening lactose tolerance in adults is due to evolution (see my blog post on 30th July 2009). I think that evolutionists resort to this kind of storytelling more than anyone else."You are welcome to your opinion, from which I noted you got from other Creationists. The problem is that they accept there's a mutation, but then simply dismiss the fact that it is part of evolution. There is some kind of "magic barrier" which prevents evolution from going so far. This leads to Behe's idea which you mention called Irreducible Complexity which I'll come to in a moment. Your sources also claim that mutation does not increase genetic information. This is a common claim made by Creationists which is patently and demonstrably false. It does not stop them from asserting it however, because they know their target audience don't know, and they know they won't check. Everyone is born with around 125 to 175 mutations which their parents do not have. This is why everyone is born unique. Contrary to popular belief, mutations are not mostly detrimental. They can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral, and they are neutral for the most part.>>>"ID does not start with gaps. It looks at the evidence (e.g. the complexity of the cell) and draws conclusions from it. I have a brief YouTube clip on the issue on my blog, if you’re interested) "I've seen videos like this before, and in actuality, they are starting with gaps. They look at how complicated the cell is and claim that evolution is not capable of this, then claim therefore God (or the designer) did it. And yet we still don't know how "complexity" is quantified, nor do we know what mechanism was used by the designer to do whatever it is they think it did.>>>"As far as I know, ID does not deny the concept of natural selection – and neither does creation. Michael Behe has researched the issue in-depth and suggest that there are clear limits to what Darwinian mechanisms can do."Actually Behe has not researched the issue in a scientific setting. I am aware of the claims he makes in his books but he hasn't done any scientific tests to support it, and if I recall, he stated he wasn't going to either. This is why he keeps writing books but he seems to have done little in the way of scientific research lately. In fact, I've asked this question of numerous IDer's - who is currently doing active research into ID today? Where are they doing it and what exactly are they doing? Certainly no-one from the Discovery Institute is doing anything, beyond writing books, engaging in PR campaigns and political lobbying. This seems to explain why I can't get an answer. Now, Michael Behe's concept is what he refers to is Irreducible Complexity, or IC for short. And it claims that if one takes away a certain number of components or "parts" of a biological system it will cease to function. Therefore, on the face of it, it would seem that evolution can't account (note the negative here) for the development of such a system gradually if all the parts cannot all come together at the same time. The problem is, that on its own, IC is simply an anti-evolution argument. And as such it provides no *positive* evidence for ID whatsoever. Examples he has used was the evolution of the immune system, but it turned out that he hadn't read the rather large amount of literature that specifically dealt with this very subject. Perhaps his most well known example was the bacterial flagellum. Often described as a 'motor' with a tail that provides propulsion, and if one takes away enough parts the motor will not function - which is true. But, the flagellum shares many of its exact same proteins with what could be described as a syringe found in bacteria that can cause the likes of bubonic plague. This has less "parts", and still functions, although it doesn't have the same function as the flagellum. This shows that what *look* like Irreducibly Complex biological systems can in fact exist with less parts because they are co-adapted from other systems which are capable of evolving. Note that none of this rebukes the possibility of a "designer", it's just that as it now stands, ID relies on negative arguments against evolution rather than positive evidence of an intelligence being involved.>>>"While natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."This is referring to Abiogenesis, which is for the most part what Meyer critiques in his book. Abiogenesis literally means 'the beginning of life'. Evolution itself is not reliant on abiogenesis and does not need to explain it. How life starts has no bearing on whether or not it can evolve. Life may have developed from non-life through some kind of natural process. Once this happens, life can evolve. Or perhaps aliens came from another world and somehow started it off. Then life can evolve. Maybe life was created from non-life by God. Then life can evolve. Maybe there's some other possibility we haven't considered that somehow produced life? Then life can evolve. Not one of these is a problem for evolution. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life is here. It evolves. It may well be that (a) God was responsible for starting it all off. But if so, the evidence most certainly shows that it used evolution.Hi Piglet, you bring up some interesting points in your very long reply. I’ll try to address some of them briefly.1 Darwinian evolution would need an amazing number of beneficial mutations in order to work (e.g. to turn an ape-like creature in a human), and those who are familiar with Haldane’s dilemma know that it will not work.2 In spite of rumours that deny this, ID scientists do engage in biological research. Actually, they even have an institute – the Biologic Institute – that specialises in it.3 Some will try to refute the concept of Irreducible Complexity of a biological system by saying that similar but more simple systems could possible have existed independent of that particular system that does not provide any conclusive proof of them.4 Yes, you’re right that technically, Darwinian evolution does not have to do with the origin of life, which remains a big mystery, but unless Darwinists rely on God or some other power, they have a hard time explaining chemical evolution.So thanks again, Piglet. It’s been an interesting exchange of ideas. I guess we will basically agree to disagree.Regards, JoelHi Joel>>>"1 Darwinian evolution would need an amazing number of beneficial mutations in order to work (e.g. to turn an ape-like creature in a human), and those who are familiar with Haldane’s dilemma know that it will not work."This is something which opponents like to cling to since it would appear to lead to the demise of evolution. The problem is that Haldane was simply making calculations, which he himself thought needed revision - and on that part he was right. He made simplistic assumptions which led to inaccurate results. The other problem is that quite simply his calculations didn't match up to observable evidence which undeniably points to evolution (keep in mind evolution had and still has been successfully tested in the lab and in the field). The conclusion of Haldane's dilemma meant that any given species reproduction rates wouldn't be able to counter detrimental mutations, eventually causing extinction. But do you remember those 125 to 175 mutations I mentioned that make us all unique? These still happen, they have been and still are observed, and don't seem to be a problem for the human race. So if Haldane's dilemma was correct, the human race would be dwindling. But as we know, the population of the world is increasing, even to the point that in some areas overpopulation is a problem. This is but one area that this negative argument against evolution is at odds with observable evidence (among many others).>>>"2 In spite of rumours that deny this, ID scientists do engage in biological research. Actually, they even have an institute – the Biologic Institute – that specialises in it."But the question here is what are they doing in the realm of ID research. I have yet to hear a falsifiable testable hypothesis for ID, much less hear what the theory actually is (my previous questions which pertain to this remain unanswered). Unfortunately the DI are unwilling to answer those questions (they too have their own labs). The Biologic Institute is reluctant to say exactly who is doing the research and what it is they are doing. They have also yet to publish anything with the results of their work. Perhaps they will eventually? Only time will tell.>>>"3 Some will try to refute the concept of Irreducible Complexity of a biological system by saying that similar but more simple systems could possible have existed independent of that particular system that does not provide any conclusive proof of them."Actually I already provided it with the flagellum example. Was the viral syringe the definite ancestor to the flagellum? Difficult to say for sure but it seems likely. But the claim was made that the flagellum could not have evolved because it wouldn't work if parts were taken away. A plausible pathway is all that's needed, and it was found - a biological structure that shares the exact same protein types (parts) in the exact same configuration but with less proteins. And still functioning. Behe made the claim and his claim was debunked. He hasn't done any lab work to support ID and doesn't want to. Perhaps the Biologic Institute are working on it? Not that it matters. As I pointed out before, IC is only a negative argument against evolution, not a positive one for ID. If ID is to stand as a plausible scientific theory it needs to forget about evolution and stand on its own merits.>>>"4 Yes, you’re right that technically, Darwinian evolution does not have to do with the origin of life, which remains a big mystery, but unless Darwinists rely on God or some other power, they have a hard time explaining chemical evolution."Darwinists (as you call them) don't have to explain it, as I said. Abiogenesis comes under the banner of biochemistry. It's not so implausible as it may initially sound to the layman, as biological organisms you and I are essentially walking talking bags of biochemical reactions from head to toe. I don't doubt that it is a complicated area of study but it is currently being researched as we speak, at the likes of Harvard and such. Despite Creationist claims to the contrary, results so far have been quite promising (though no doubt there is still a long way to go). They've managed to get amino-acids and RNA, the trick is getting from RNA to DNA. It may take years or decades even, but at one time I thought the origin of life would be something we'd never be able to find out, since it happened so long ago and the evidence would have been long wiped out by geological activity. Again, time will tell. However invoking (a) God is not really an explanation. It gives us a "who" but not a "how", and does so based on an assumption. It makes no useful predictions on how it did it, and there is no way to test it. Again, even if scientists are successful with abiogenesis research it still does not rule out (a) God's involvement. This is why many people, including many scientists working in the field, have no problem with believing in God and accepting evolution.Hi Piglet,Yes, Haldane continued to be an evolutionist despite his calculations which basically indicated that the cost of change was too great (and that species would not change into other species as "rapidly" as supposed. )BTW, I wrote a blog post on 16 November 2009 on professor John Sanford’s (he’s a geneticist) views on how humans are getting less fit because of mutations.The problem with trying to publish papers supporting design in mainstream journals is that the peer review process will stop them – not because they might be of poor quality but because they do not pay homage to the ruling paradigm (you know what it is).Do remember that a plausible pathway is not a synonym for something that is known to have happened.Finally, the interesting thing about origin of life research is that they almost always are intelligently designed experiments. They choose the right ingredients and conditions and so on. However, scientists should really begin at the beginning and design their own dust first (yes, I’m referring to Genesis).Kind regards, JoelHi Joel>>>"Yes, Haldane continued to be an evolutionist despite his calculations which basically indicated that the cost of change was too great (and that species would not change into other species as "rapidly" as supposed.) "And as was pointed out he got his calculations wrong, mostly due to the fact that he made oversimplified assumptions. Another problem is that maths is not a science, but can help with developing scientific models. Maths can have its own internal consistency, but not necessarily match up to reality. For example, we can model the universe as an expanding 2 dimensional ring to show how the universe can be finite but without an edge. This is internally and logically consistent within its own parameters. But as we know the universe is not 2 dimensional, so this particular mathematical model is just a tool to explain a concept. Likewise, Haldane's equations did not match up to evidence observed in the lab and the field. Haldane's Dilemma is ultimately, only Haldane's dilemma.>>>"BTW, I wrote a blog post on 16 November 2009 on professor John Sanford’s (he’s a geneticist) views on how humans are getting less fit because of mutations."Unfortunately his claims have yet to be backed up by the scientific community. If they are to be accepted, he needs to do more work on the subject. He also had a spiritual epiphany when he decided to reject evolution. This lends credence to the fact that ultimately, those who reject evolution do so purely on theological grounds rather than a scientific one. And by doing so, they place limits on the "designer". If the designer is incapable of evolution (an idea I personally find absurd if this same designer is also responsible for the universe itself) I am still curious as to how those limits were determined scientifically.>>>"The problem with trying to publish papers supporting design in mainstream journals is that the peer review process will stop them – not because they might be of poor quality but because they do not pay homage to the ruling paradigm (you know what it is)."Ah yes, the evil atheistic Darwinist conspiracy. I've heard of it but I don't take it seriously either. Remember, the the fossil find Ida (a scientific public relations mess up if ever there was one in my opinion) was exposed to be not what it was originally hoped to be due to the scientific peer-review process. As for Intelligent Design I am unaware that any potentially falsifiable experiment has been proposed as yet, much less them being at the stage to be able to publish a scientific peer-reviewed article.>>>"Do remember that a plausible pathway is not a synonym for something that is known to have happened."Yes, but remember that just because a theory is incomplete doesn't make it useless. The Big Bang still does a pretty good job even though it has problems when one gets closer to the singularity. Likewise evolution does not need to give a step-by-step, organism by organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life on Earth. That would be impossible, and it is an unreasonable demand. But this is exactly where opponents attack it, not because it is reasonable to do so but because they simply want to portray it in the worst light possible. However, evolution CAN provide many steps, so much so that it makes successful, valid predictions. Does ID predict a lack of rabbits in pre-Cambrian rock strata? What does it have to say about the possibility of a fossil with three middle-ear bones and feathers? How would it predict fused chromosome 2?Irreducible Complexity is a claim which so far has zero scientific support. Sure it's cited in lots of ID books, but nothing's been done in the lab. Therefore the claim we don't know exactly how every single organism evolved holds no weight. Not only does evolution provide plausible pathways, it has mechanisms, and has lots of evidence to back it up in the form of the fossil record, DNA, nested hierarchies, fused chromosome 2, orthologous ERV's (to name but a few). As yet, ID doesn't have a plausible pathway. It has no mechanism. No predictive power. No actual theory.>>>"Finally, the interesting thing about origin of life research is that they almost always are intelligently designed experiments. They choose the right ingredients and conditions and so on."This is true. But just because we can grow plants ourselves in a tray, doesn't mean they don't occur naturally all over the Earth. What scientists attempt to do is recreate what they think the environment was like during early Earth conditions and let the environment take its course. They don't deliberately combine amino acids to get RNA, they let the ingredients do what they do naturally. I have heard the argument made by IDers that even if scientists are successful in abiogenesis research that they will only have proved ID because the experiment was "intelligently designed". I've just shown why that line of argument is fallacious. But they also show ID to be unscientific this way, for if they were right, abio proves intelligent design. But if abio is unsuccessful, then (the logic goes) that means life must have been created. Which means ID is unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientific.>>>"However, scientists should really begin at the beginning and design their own dust first (yes, I’m referring to Genesis)."I do like that quote from Sagan: "In order to create an apple pie from scratch, one must first create the universe!"Hello Piglet, seems you are going to continue this correspondence ad infinitum. Great points, once again but I feel that they are tainted by your presuppositions. In other words, you only have one set of glasses for interpreting the facts and disregard anything that falsifies your viewpoint. We have the same facts but yet our conclusions are light years apart. Pro-Darwinists, if I may use such a term, nearly always believe that scientists (especially they) are objective seekers for the truth.Alas, the history of science has shown that this is not at all true. Science often has its ruling dogma, such as naturalism ( as Richard Lewontin famously put it, it keeps the Divine Foot outside) which abounds with just-so stories that can never be verified. Calling them plausible pathways does not help, either.BTW, if we leave ID for a while and discuss the soft tissues found in T. rex bones etc., their preservations for 68 million years does seem rather miraculous, doesn’t it? ”Everyone” knows that collagen cannot last that long but since the textbook dates for the age of dinosaurs are inspired (pardon the irony), ad hoc explanations are needed to save the day and face. Evolution surely did not predict anything like it.Nor did it predict the recently found 400-million year old footprints that make the fated Tiktaalik into a has-been.Regards, JoelHi Joel>>>"Great points, once again but I feel that they are tainted by your presuppositions. In other words, you only have one set of glasses for interpreting the facts and disregard anything that falsifies your viewpoint."I could say the same.>>>"We have the same facts but yet our conclusions are light years apart."Except that valid conclusions come about via making successful predictions and performing experiments. You can claim that people interpret the facts based on their preconceived biases, but I am unaware of a better explanation than evolution for the placement of orthologous ERV markers in the genome of the great apes. Or the fusion of chromosome 2. Or DNA similarities. Or nested hierarchies. The key difference is falsifiability.>>>"Science often has its ruling dogma, such as naturalism ( as Richard Lewontin famously put it, it keeps the Divine Foot outside) which abounds with just-so stories that can never be verified."And how would "super"naturalism help in practical scientific investigation? Should the germ theory of disease investigate the possibility of demons being responsible? How would one investigate this scientifically? Should weather prediction consider the possibility of Thor's involvement? Should we consider a supernatural cause for gravity? But for some strange reason, the charge of "naturalism" is leveled almost exclusively at evolution. And if naturalism is "abound with just-so stories that can never be verified", I am left to wonder how *super*-natural stories can be verified even more objectively. Also I find it ironic about naturalism keeping the "Divine Foot outside", when those opposed to evolution are guilty of the exact same thing when they claim their "designer" is incapable of evolution.>>>"Calling them plausible pathways does not help, either."The point being is that the claim that the pathways are implausible are based on a false premise - that if evolution can't explain everything, then it must be wrong. Evolution claims common ancestry and provides a bounty of evidence to support it. ID proponents attempt to put up roadblocks, evolution proponents point out why they are inadequate. At this point the IDers have no choice but to say that we don't know everything therefore you *could* be wrong. They could also be right, and since evolution works, the theory is kept.>>>"BTW, if we leave ID for a while"There's been lots of anti-evolution arguments, but nothing proposed for ID yet. What exactly is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What useful scientific predictions does it make? How is CSI quantified/measured? What mechanism did the designer use to do whatever it is the IDer's think it did? Where and when did it do this? What scientific observations can be made in regards to ID? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?>>>"and discuss the soft tissues found in T. rex bones etc., their preservations for 68 million years does seem rather miraculous, doesn’t it? ”Everyone” knows that collagen cannot last that long but since the textbook dates for the age of dinosaurs are inspired (pardon the irony), ad hoc explanations are needed to save the day and face. Evolution surely did not predict anything like it."Okay, back to anti-evolution. ID didn't predict this either. Proteins do last longer than DNA and it may well be that they can last a lot longer than previously thought. The Rex is not the only fossil it has been found in, there are others as well. It is a field of study which is debated within the scientific community, and is currently being researched. My guess is that long term molecular preservation of proteins in this fashion may be possible when it's inside fossilised bone, where the elements can't get at it. Indeed there is some evidence that it may be endogenous in nature. But this is a laymen's guess. Though while curious, this is hardly enough to falsify the entirety of evolution as yet.>>>"Nor did it predict the recently found 400-million year old footprints that make the fated Tiktaalik into a has-been."How is finding evidence that more clearly defines a timetable for tetrapod life an issue? You forget that Tiktaalik was a successful prediction made by evolution using the fossil record. A transitional form that shared characteristics with both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. Not only that, but it was found in the correct layer of strata. Not only that but they went to the correct place to go and find it (North Canadian mountains if I recall). No-one claimed that Tiktaalik was a *direct* ancestor of other fossils - it likely had many contemporaries. And when Tiktaalik was found, no-one claimed it was the earliest of its type, just the earliest *known* example at the time. It is not at all surprising that further discoveries result in a refinement of the fossil record timeline, and this in no way poses a problem for evolution. I am aware of the DI's spin on the subject, and I am aware that (as usual) they are looking for any perceived weakness that their audience will buy to deflect away from the fact that ID doesn't have anywhere near this kind of predictive power. Did ID predict Tiktaalik? What predictions can it make regarding the fossil record? Does it predict a lack of rabbits in the pre-Cambrian? What does it have to say about the potential of fossils with three-middle ear bones and feathers?So far the only reasons to reject evolution are based in theology, not science.Piglet,Your comments are a good example of polyploidy. In other words, you seem to think that by making your answers extremely looooong, the information content also ”evolves”. Repeating the same ideas by using slightly different words does not increase the content value of your posts, however. Ever heard of Epulopiscium fishelconi? It’s a ”superbacterium” with up to 85,000 copies of one of its genes. Think about it. I'll let you guess what I mean.Piglet, since your views of the predictive powers and omnipotence of Darwinian evolution are outdated by some 40 years or so, this discussion has just become extinct. Es tut mir leid. Lo siento mucho.But it was interesting while it lasted. Thanks for the correspondence,JoelJoel>>>"Your comments are a good example of polyploidy. In other words, you seem to think that by making your answers extremely looooong, the information content also ”evolves”. Repeating the same ideas by using slightly different words does not increase the content value of your posts, however."I'm sorry, but this is usually a natural result of conversing with someone who is engaging in the Gish Gallop.>>>"Ever heard of Epulopiscium fishelconi? It’s a ”superbacterium” with up to 85,000 copies of one of its genes. Think about it. I'll let you guess what I mean."Yes, it's yet another anti-evolution argument.>>>"Piglet, since your views of the predictive powers and omnipotence of Darwinian evolution are outdated by some 40 years or so, this discussion has just become extinct. Es tut mir leid. Lo siento mucho."Actually it's creationists which tend to use arguments which range from 40 to 150 years old. I on the other hand have brought up evolutionary discoveries from the 21st century. However I understand if you find it tiresome to keep moving the goalposts rather than dealing with evidence for evolution directly. I guess I'll have to wait a little while longer to find someone who will tell me what the "scientific theory" of ID is. Take care.PS. Closing one’s eyes to all but naturalistic explanations can hardly be anything but dogmatic. A paradigm shift is going on in science, nonetheless. It began in philosophy several decades ago, and it is moving into the natural sciences, slowly but steadily.
Mark: "I'm just curious... what is the material evidence for gravity?"Would a bomb suffice?Not quite sure what you mean. How does a bomb provide evidence for gravity?The theory postulates that objects with mass attract other objects with mass. This is observed and can be measured with great accuracy. So much so we can use ballistic information to aim artillery, send probes to explore the solar system, put satellites in orbit, etc. The point being is that gravity produces an observable and objectively measurable effect. Our observations can be tested repeatedly, and give consistent results. Fact - drop a bomb or a ball and it will fall to the Earth. Theory - objects with mass attract each other, the strength of the attraction is proportional to the mass of the objects. Test - send identical probes around the moon and the Earth at the same speed and angle. The theory predicts the one going around the Earth going at this certain speed and angle will end up in orbit, while the one going to the moon will not enter orbit and be flung away. Prediction turns out to be successful.
The facts indicate evidence of gravity. The theory explains the facts.Piglet, thank you for responding to my question about the "evidence" for gravity.The problem, however, as you should well be aware, is that physicists have not been able to identify any tangible material which they can call gravity. Is it a particle? Is it a wave? If so, of what?The problem with gravity is that science can only produce, (as you said so well) "an observable and objectively measurable effect." You can see and feel the "effects" of gravity but what it itself is, nobody knows.Now, I would like to quote a portion of what you said in your response to Joel, above, when you said:"ID is being invoked as an explanation for the universe. If that is the case, then every single thing that goes through the 'explanatory filter' tests positive for ID (although the details of exactly how this is done is still elusive). But if everything tests positive, everything is designed."That, my friend, is exactly the point. Either everything is designed, or nothing at all has been designed.However, man in his infinite pride would like to think that if he does not possess the omniscience to comprehend something or the tools by which to measure it upon his own standards of "reality" then surely it does not exisit. Certainly, you must see the folly of such erroneous logic.I could just as easily say, that since there is no "material" evidence of gravity... only an observable and objectively measureable effect, therefore it must not be real... you would think I was absurd.However, if one is to apply this same standard of science of gravity to the concept of God as the Intelligent Designer, you, and others in your camp would immediately dismiss the theory for lack of evidence.Some so called scientist would argue that there is no "objectively measurable effect" for the Intelligent Designer/God.However, the evidence for such is just as adequate as the evidence for gravity. For thousands of years untold millions of people have had specific answers from God to specfic prayers. Obviously, there is a cause and effect that is certainly measurable here. Some scienticsts, however, choose to ignore this phenomenon.Throughout history there have been vast numbers of people who have received miraculous healing as a result of prayer. Some scientist choose to ignore this too.I personally had an experience, at which time I was praying for a man in a hospital who was on life support in a coma from e-colli infection. Upon inquiring with the medical staff as to his chances to recover I was informed, "IF he lives after he is taken off of the life support equipment he will be a vegetable for the rest of his life." Well, the man did live and gave a very interesting account of his Near Death Experience, which I shall not go into, however it further substantiates the evidence of divine intervention. But, more significantly, for the scientist, is that the physician documented the event on hospital stationary where he categorically stated that there was no medical explanation for the man's recovery and that it was nothing short of miraculous."The point being, Piglet, there are observable and measurable effects here, to the existence and nature of God, that some scientist choose to ignore.Theoriticians extrapalate from the evidence that we live in a multi-dimensional universe, yet at the same time deny the probable implications of the same.Nearly two billion people such as myself, have come to accept that the observable effects which I have been discussing are clear evidence of the Intelligent Designer whom we know as God. We believe also that this Intelligence has communicated with our lesser life form, but people choose to deny His existence. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."So, in essence, even science is limited by the limitations of the human senses and mind.I hope this clarifies my thoughts on this subject a bit for you.If I might use your closing line, modified from my perspective:The facts indicate evidence of God. The theory explains the facts.
>>>"That, my friend, is exactly the point. Either everything is designed, or nothing at all has been designed. However, man in his infinite pride would like to think that if he does not possess the omniscience to comprehend something or the tools by which to measure it upon his own standards of "reality" then surely it does not exist. Certainly, you must see the folly of such erroneous logic."True, but claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. After all, just because we do not know everything doesn't mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.>>>"I could just as easily say, that since there is no "material" evidence of gravity... only an observable and objectively measureable effect, therefore it must not be real... you would think I was absurd."Um, well yes to be honest. Because there is plenty of material evidence of gravity. I just provided you with some. What causes it is another matter, but the fact that we have observable and objectively measurable effects shows we have definitive evidence of its existence.>>>"Some so called scientist would argue that there is no "objectively measurable effect" for the Intelligent Designer/God. However, the evidence for such is just as adequate as the evidence for gravity. For thousands of years untold millions of people have had specific answers from God to specfic prayers. Obviously, there is a cause and effect that is certainly measurable here. Some scienticsts, however, choose to ignore this phenomenon. Throughout history there have been vast numbers of people who have received miraculous healing as a result of prayer. Some scientist choose to ignore this too."That's because they are not objective. Personal anecdotes are not evidence. Every single one of these experiences is SUBjective. Not a single one of them can be objectively verified by anyone else, no scientific tests, no repeatable predictable results, not a single documented medical report of an unequivocable undeniable miracle performed by God. Otherwise it would have been all over the media all over the world by now. Also, Muslims make the same claim. Hindus make the same claim. There anecdotes are just as valid as yours. Not to you of course, since you do not share their beliefs. Same with them to yours. If you could provide a way to scientifically test miraculous healing in n objective medical setting, make valid predictions and produce repeatable reliable data, then maybe you'd have something. However, scientific tests *have* been done on prayer. The results? Unsurprisingly they are inconclusive, and produce no verifiable medical benefit beyond the placebo effect.>>>"I personally had an experience, at which time I was praying for a man in a hospital who was on life support in a coma from e-colli infection. Upon inquiring with the medical staff as to his chances to recover I was informed, "IF he lives after he is taken off of the life support equipment he will be a vegetable for the rest of his life." Well, the man did live and gave a very interesting account of his Near Death Experience, which I shall not go into, however it further substantiates the evidence of divine intervention. But, more significantly, for the scientist, is that the physician documented the event on hospital stationary where he categorically stated that there was no medical explanation for the man's recovery and that it was nothing short of miraculous."The point being, Piglet, there are observable and measurable effects here, to the existence and nature of God, that some scientist choose to ignore."The only measurable observable effect here was that the patient recovered. Near Death Experiences are always subjective, because unless people can read minds, only the person experiencing them knows what they saw. Also, how can one successfully predict the outcome, as we can with gravity? The man could have easily not recovered or even died. It happens. God doesn't save everybody. The man could have been saved by Vishnu. Or Zeus. Perhaps the treatment the doc thought probably wouldn't work did work. Or the man could have recovered naturally. The capacity of the human body to repair itself is remarkable, and while sometimes recovery may seem to be medically improbable, in a world with more than 6 billion people, even highly unlikely events can happen. I'm not claiming that (a) God was not responsible, just pointing out that there's nothing concrete to suggest it. Certainly nothing scientific. As I said, God is a matter of faith.>>>"Theoriticians extrapalate from the evidence that we live in a multi-dimensional universe, yet at the same time deny the probable implications of the same."I must confess I'm not a great fan of the multi-universe ideas either, however this is high-end cutting-edge physics stuff involving String Theory and a few other possible alternatives. These aren't as accepted as more established theories like gravity, evolution and the Big Bang for example. But multiverse theories do have some scientific and mathematical backing behind them. If you are interested in knowing more, I'd go and seek a good physicist who could explain things better.>>>"Nearly two billion people such as myself, have come to accept that the observable effects which I have been discussing are clear evidence of the Intelligent Designer whom we know as God. We believe also that this Intelligence has communicated with our lesser life form, but people choose to deny His existence. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." "Which means over 4 billion haven't. Also, of those 2 billion, they still disagree over the details. As for those of different faiths, I doubt a Hindu has ever seen Allah during a Near Death Experience, but they will have seen Shiva. And I'm sure I don't need to explain the contradiction of "clearly seeing invisible attributes.">>>"If I might use your closing line, modified from my perspective: The facts indicate evidence of God. The theory explains the facts."And yet it is not objective. It cannot be tested scientifically. It is not falsifiable. It doesn't tell us where certain fossils can be found where. It doesn't help chemical analysis. It doesn't give any clue as to the true nature of gravity or help predict the path of the planets around the sun. It doesn't help us predict whether the terminally ill man in the hospital will recover or not. It CAN provide people with a feeling of well-being and a sense of purpose. It can provide valid reasons for faith. It works best as a matter of faith.Piglet, in your last response to my comments you stated...>>>If you could provide a way to scientifically test miraculous healing in n objective medical setting, make valid predictions and produce repeatable reliable data, then maybe you'd have something. However, scientific tests *have* been done on prayer. The results? Unsurprisingly they are inconclusive, and produce no verifiable medical benefit beyond the placebo effect.Below, for your purusal, I provide, in length an article of just one such "repeatable" study. Hundreds of such studies, no doubt, could be provided. However, sometimes, even in science, there are those who wish to ignore certain evidence and tenaciously hold on to their own predetermined conclusions of how things should be... call it what you will, belief system, preferred scientific theory, faith... whatever.Source: GodScience dot orgScientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of Godby Rich DeemIntroduction New Prayer StudyThe newest prayer study is a meta-analysis that takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer (17 major studies). The new study showed that according to American Psychological Association Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer is classified as an experimental intervention that, overall, shows a small, but significant, positive effect.1Rich DeemWhat scientific evidence do we have that God exists? Most skeptics would say "none." A crucial doctrine of Christianity is that God listens to and answers prayers. So why not test this doctrine scientifically, using a double-blind, clinical trial? This is the exact premise that groups of medical doctors used in double-blind "drug" studies of the efficacy of Christian prayer on healing. Papers are available online.A Report on the Papers:1."Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"22."A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"33.Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.41. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"MethodsCardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:1.Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:352.Led an active Christian life on the basis ofa.daily devotional prayerb.fellowship in a local Christian churchThe "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.ResultsStatistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.TABLE 2. Results of Intercessory PrayerStudy Variable IntercessoryPrayer ControlGroupPDays in CCU after entry 2.0 ± 2.5 2.4 ± 4.1 NSDays in hospital after entry 7.6 ± 8.9 7.6 ± 8.7 NSNumber of discharge medications 3.7 ± 2.2 4.0 ± 2.4 NS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------New Problems, Diagnoses, andTherapeutic Events After Entry% (No.)% (No.)PAntiarrhythmics 9(17) 13 (27) NSCoronary angiography 9 (17) 11 (21) NSVT/VF 7 (14) 9 (17) NSReadmissions to CCU 7 (14) 7 (14) NSMortality 7 (13) 9 (17) NSCongestive heart failure 4 (8) 10 (20) <0.01Inotropic agents 4 (8) 8 (16) NSVasodilators 4 (8) 6 (12) NSSupraventricular tachyarrhythmia 4 (8) 8 (15) NSArterial pressure monitoring 4 (7) 8 (15) NSCentral pressure monitoring 3 (6) 7 (15) NSDiuretics 3 (5) 8 (15) <0.01Major surgery before discharge 3 (5) 7 (14) NSTemporary pacemaker 2 (4) 1 (1) NSSepsis 2 (4) 4 (7) NSCardiopulmonary arrest 2 (3) 7 (14) <0.01Third-degree heart block 2 (3) 1 (2) NSPneumonia 2 (3) 7 (13) <0.01Hypotension (systolic <90 torr) 2 (3) 4 (7) NSExtension of infarction 2 (3) 3 (6) NSAntibiotics 2 (3) 9 (17) <0.01Permanent pacemaker 2 (3) 1 (1) NSGastrointestinal bleeding 1 (1) 2 (3) NSIntubation/ventilation 0 (0) 6 (12) <0.01--------------------------------------------------------------------------------NS = P > .05; VT/VF = ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation2. "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"MethodsCardiac patients from the CCU at the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI), Kansas City, Mo, were randomly chosen and assigned to control or prayer groups. In this study, patients were not told about the prayer study and doctors did not know which patients were assigned to which groups. According to the paper, "The intercessors represented a variety of Christian traditions, with 35% listing their affiliations as nondenominational, 27% as Episcopalian, and the remainder as other Protestant groups or Roman Catholic. Unlike the Byrd study, the intercessors of the MAHI study were given no details about the medical conditions of the patients, but were only given their first name.ResultsThe main table of results, reproduced from the study appears as Table 3 below. Because of the small sample size of each individual component, only one of the individual components reached statistical significance. However, the overall effect was statistically significant, with a P value of 0.04, meaning that the result was likely to occur by chance in only 1 out of 25 times the experiment was repeated.Table 3. Effects of Intercessory Prayer on Individual Components of the Mid America Heart Institute–Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) Score* No. (%) of PatientsMAHI-CCU Score Component Usual Care Group(n = 524) Prayer Group(n = 466) PAntianginal agents 59 (11.3) 47 (10.1) .62Antibiotics 82 (15.6) 77 (16.5) .77Unstable angina 4 (0.8) 1 (0.2) .38Arterial monitor 42 (8.0) 32 (6.9) .57Catheterization 180 (34.4) 162 (34.8) .94Antiarrhythmics 56 (10.7) 50 (10.7) .94Inotropes 76 (14.5) 69 (14.8) .96Vasodilation 78 (14.9) 59 (12.7) .36Diuretics 112 (21.4) 97 (20.8) .89Pneumonia 10 (1.9) 12 (2.6) .62Atrial fibrillation 17 (3.2) 12 (2.6) .66Supraventricular tachycardia 6 (1.1) 2 (0.4) .29Hypotension 7 (1.3) 8 (1.7) .82Anemia/transfusion 66 (12.6) 50 (10.7) .42Temporary pacer 16 (3.0) 13 (2.8) .95Third-degree heart block 1 (0.2) 2 (0.4) .60Readmit to cardiac care unit 22 (4.2) 25 (5.4) .48Swan-Ganz catheter 172 (32.8) 123 (26.4) .03Implanted cardiac defibrillator 6 (1.1) 10 (2.1) .32Electrophysiology study 15 (2.9) 10 (2.1) .61Radiofrequency ablation 8 (1.5) 2 (0.4) .11Extension of infarct 2 (0.4) 0 (0.0) .50Gastrointestinal bleed 12 (2.3) 5 (1.1) .22Interventional coronary procedure 155 (29.6) 121 (26.0) .21PTCA alone 69 (13.2) 62 (13.3) .95PTCA with stent and/or rotablator 86 (16.4) 59 (12.7) .10Permanent pacer 21 (4.0) 12 (2.6) .28Congestive heart failure 17 (3.2) 19 (4.1) .60Ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia 12 (2.3) 10 (2.1) .95Intra-aortic balloon pump 20 (3.8) 12 (2.6) .36Major surgery 76 (14.5) 51 (10.9) .11Sepsis 7 (1.3) 7 (1.5) .96Intubation/ventilation 27 (5.2) 26 (5.6) .88Cardiac arrest 6 (1.1) 5 (1.1) .84Death 46 (8.8) 42 (9.0) .99* PTCA indicates percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.3. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.This study involved 3393 patient subjects whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital from the years 19901996. Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group. Results were measured through mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever. Mortality was reduced in the intervention group (28.1%) compared to the control group (30.2%) although the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, length of stay in the hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). According to the author of the study:"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice."Implications of the studiesObviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. No other religion has succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that prayer to their God has any efficacy in healing. In fact, studies that have used intercessors from multiple religious backgrounds have failed to prove the efficacy of prayer.6 The Bible declares that Jesus Christ has power over life and death and sickness and is able to heal us, both physically7 and spiritually.8 He gave this power to His disciples and those who follow Him.92006 American Heart Journal studyA widely publicized study from 2006 failed to show the efficacy of intercessory prayer. However, the design of the latest study was somewhat unusual.10 The researchers used three patient groups. Two groups were advised of the study, but were not told whether they were in the prayer group or placebo group. The third group knew that they were being prayed for. The study was performed at six hospitals. Out of 3295 eligible patients, 1493 (45%) refused to participate, which is very high, although they did not explain the reasons for non-participation. The intercessors were composed of three groups. Two were Roman Catholic and one was a Protestant group (Silent Unity, Lee’s Summit, MO). Unlike in previous studies, the intercessors were not allowed to pray their own prayers. The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to "standardize" the prayers. The discussion section of the paper suggested that at least some of the intercessors were dissatisfied with the canned nature of the prayers. In attempting to standardize prayer, I believe the study introduced a serious flaw, since most intercessors tend to pray as they are led by the Spirit, instead of praying prepared scripts. Jesus told His followers not to pray repetitiously, since God would not hear those kinds of prayers.11Ultimately, the results showed that groups 1 (prayer) and 2 (no prayer) were identical, whereas group 3 (those who knew they were being prayed for) did worse than the other two groups. The lack of efficacy of intercessory prayer in this study could be due to theological problems with the study design.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Related Pages •Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health - Not Convinced? Public and private religious activities significantly improve health and extend longevity in dozens of scientific studies.•Online Paper: Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population•Rich Deem's radio interview on Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayers from The Things That Matter Most show•Prayer and Faith vs. Doctors and Medicine]•Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health--------------------------------------------------------------------------------References 1.Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.2.Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829. [online paper]3.Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278. [PDF version]4.Leibovici, L. 2001. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451 .5.Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)6.Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet 366:211-217.7.And Jesus was going about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. (Matthew 4:23)And Jesus was going about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. (Matthew 9:35)8."But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," He said to the paralytic. (Mark 2:10)and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)9.And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to heal diseases. And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, and to perform healing. (Luke 9:1-2)10.Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.11."And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. (Matthew 6:7)
Man, I am all about this piglet character. One very knowledgeable person who knows how to explain. Whoever you are piglet, you've got my attention.Thanks Gregory, I'm glad you enjoy it.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.