A Fresh Look
Next: Invitation For Tea Prev: Thoughts
on Passing of Mandella TOC
From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Casey Luskin
Subject: A Fresh Look
Hello Casey,
Without us talking very much, I suspect I know you way better than those evolutionary scientists you are tangling with. .
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: It’s funny, because this e-mail has convinced me that you don’t hardly know me at all, and that like many atheists, you are stuck on false stereotypes and assumptions. You really have no idea who I am. And the funny thing is that you keep inviting me to “get to know” evolutionary scientists, when you are prejudging me without getting to know me!
Scott 2/1/14: Atheist is your label for me, not mine. Getting to know you is impossible if you don’t respond to anything I say for six weeks.
I raised my kids in the Christian church. I went to Monday morning men’s prayer, Wednesday evening bible study (where the pastor told me the limit of God’s domain was the orbit of Mars), Friday evening group. I performed with my trumpet at the July 4th church celebration. I performed again at the Christmas celebration. “The World” is the place we do not want to be “of” when we are going to church and living right.
Casey’s reply: Yes, you definitely don’t know me. Yes I’m involved in my church but I grew up in a NONRELIGIOUS FAMILY and went to PUBLIC SCHOOLS from kindergarten through my masters degree. My college roommates—who I sought out and became friends with were atheists. I’ve had numerous NUMEROUS atheist friends over the years—people who I love and have loved dearly. My wife and I make a deliberate attempt to be friendly with nonchristian people and neighbors. I have known people who live in the “Christian bubble” and I have never wanted to live that way, and have made deliberate choices in my life to avoid such a lifestyle. You think you know me, but you have no idea who I am.
That perspective creates a we/they outlook that is not helpful. We are all sitting on this blue ball. If we increase the temperature too much, we’re all going to die. If we don’t detect the next killer asteroid. If we don’t predict the next caldera… there will be any number of us [who] to go to extinction. I know we Christians expect the apocalypse. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying to prevent the next extinction event. Perhaps it won’t be the one that God intended!
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I’m not against working to prevent extinction. If you’re trying to paint me as a Christian who doesn’t care about the environment, then again, you don’t know me. I’m a lifelong lover of the outdoors, I’ve participated in PRO-ENVIRONMENT protests, and during law school spent hours working pro bono on pro-environment lawsuits in a legal clinic. All of grows out of my Christian worldview which tells me we are stewards of what God has made. I know far more Christians who care about the environment than ones who don’t.
Scott 2/1/14: But it comes down to how we vote.
Your world is court. There’s the “we”. There’s the “they”. You win they lose. They win, you lose. That is not the best model. Sometimes it’s best to just work things out with the other guy before you get to the judge. To do that, you really have to get to know him or her.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Wow, you’re really hitting home runs here Scott. Although I’m an attorney, I’ve never appeared ONE SINGLE TIME in court. And I have 5 years academic training as a scientist, as opposed to only 3 in law. My job is far more science-focused than law-focused. For example, in 2013 I probably read about 15 legal decisions. But I probably read over 500 scientific papers—no exaggeration. So I am immersed far more in science than in law.
And for the record, in the couple of lawsuits I’ve been involved with in the past few years (typically when ATHEISTS who were pro-evolution were discriminating against CHRISTIANS who were pro-ID), I’ve always advocated “working things out” rather than going to court.
Again, you don’t know me. You’re prejudging me based upon stereotypes. Isn’t it interesting how atheists can be so judgmental and use so many stereotypes?
Scott 2/1/14: You’re writing in a manner completely at odds with the tenor of this email. And I don’t think you understand the machine you feed when you produce literature that attacks science and seeks to bully teachers to place religious dogma in the classroom and remove or soft pedal evolutionary theory.
I invite you to try to do that. Start with non-evolutionary scientists. Start with me. If it’s between me and my plane vs. gravity, gravity wins every time if I don’t obey its laws. Or better, start with people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He is really trying to understand the cosmos. There’s a wonderful interview of him I am listening to this morning. Seek to understand him. He speaks about scientists, the god of the gaps, his desire for people to not stand in the way of the development of science. I think you will see that he is a decent human being.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I never said Neil DeGrasse Tyson wasn’t a decent human being. I’m sure he is. In fact, I’ve watched him speak MANY times (online) and I think he’s a very gifted science communicator. I’d be happy to hear what he says about intelligent design, but in my experience he doesn’t understand ID very well. For example, he’s claimed that diseases and natural events which kill organisms and speciesare [sic] "counterintuitive to a design theory." But ID does not try to analyze the moral purposes of the designer. Indeed, whether we like it or not, guns and atomic bombs are all designed--designed to kill. Tyson seems confused about ID. But what really made me feel Tyson is confused on these issue was seeins [sic] his video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q reading the following rebuttal to Tyson:
Scott 2/1/14: That’s fair for you to perceive it that way. However, the clip above is a ten minute segment, taken out of context. And of course you would see something like that on a “Thinking Christian” web site. What else would you expect to see, “Scientists disprove Jesus”?
Tyson just asserts—without any evidence, and like a typical atheist supremacist—that being religious hinders science. I’m not impressed. [Scott 2/1/14: My emphasis.]
Scott 2/1/14: At last, you are being honest, Casey! Here you show your religious motivations.
The complete presentation is 41 minutes. In it, Tyson provides strong evidence that when scientists start invoking God, they become useless in the lab, Neil Tyson presentation about intelligent design.
And let us touch on this. I don’t know enough about you. So, I’ll talk about Bryan for a second. He thinks he’s a scientist. But his epistemology is such that the bible is his truth. It doesn’t matter what the evidence says. If there is disagreement, the bible is the ultimate truth. Therefore, he cannot follow the truth when it runs counter to his faith. And Bryan looks to the Discovery Institute. Many do, as you know.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I don’t know anything about Bryan. Who he is and what he thinks are 100% irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.
Scott 2/1/14: That’s untrue, Casey. Bryan is your product. He is your “fruit on the tree”.
The DI and others seek to place their thinking into the science classes in every classroom. And you are a prominent member of that institution.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Actually Discovery Institute opposes pushing ID into public schools (see: http://www.discovery.org/a/3164).
Scott 2/1/14: Dover Trial
It is my contention that you are on the vanguard of the opposition to science, Casey.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: OK, now you’re getting to the core of the way you feel about me. You feel I am in “opposition to science.” I don’t feel that way. I love science. And I love scientists—I know tons of them, and they’re generally great people. So how can you say I am in “opposition to science”? I might prefer minority scientific views in some cases, but that doesn’t mean I “oppose” science. If it did, then that would mean that Einstein too was in “opposition to science” because his views on relativity started off as a minority scientific view.
Scott 3/11/14: Einstein revolutionized science. ID obstructs science. There’s a difference.
You construct wonderful arguments and you miss key evidence that does not support your case. This works for attorneys. But, it is not the way to conduct science.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I’m not going to pretend to be inerrant for a second. But if you’re going to make an assertion that I “miss key evidence”, then I’m going to have to ask you to back it up. You haven’t made an argument here; you’ve made an unbacked assertion.
Ah yes, and then you play the old “attorney” card. Since when does the fact that I went to law school and became an attorney negate the fact that I have enough formal scientific education in evolutionary biology to almost have a degree in the subject?
Looking at the arguments I’ve sent you at the time you wrote this e-mail, I see dozens of references to scientific papers. If they’re wrong, then refute them. But don’t just accuse me of being an “attorney”—that’s a copout that doesn’t respond to my arguments….which, by the way, you haven’t.
Scott 3/11/14: There have been times where attorneys have been my best friend. For refutations, see TOC (chuckling). But, I’m not going to refute every paper. As Thomas Hood said, “You can’t boil the ocean.” I am going to challenge Casey’s arguments and evidence presented. And, as can be seen in “Pin!”, that’s enough.
I invite you to take some time to get to know the best scientists you can.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve done! Why do you think that I spent 5 years at a prominent public state university getting two degrees in science, studying under top scientists. Why do you think I own hundreds of scientific books by mainstream scientists? Why do you think I’ve chosen to work with scientists? Why do you think I read hundreds of scientific papers each year?
I took MANY courses in evolutionary biology at the #1 public school for biology research in the U.S. – why? Because I wanted to understand it. That shows I’m the opposite of what you claim I am. And it show that despite your suggestions that I haven’t taken the time to “get to know” scientists, you haven’t taken the time to get to know me.
Scott 3/11/14: I remember pastor Wendell at City Church saying, “Standing in a garage won’t make you a car.”
For a moment, I ask you to suspend the belief that they are out to destroy you, me and everything we all love. Instead, for a time consider our common humanity.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I don’t assume people are out to destroy me. In fact, I generally assume the best in people, which is what I did with you until today. I only assume the worst when someone gives me reason to believe that, such as today when you sent a mean-spirited, triumphalistic e-mails to all of your friends cc’ing me. Time for you to consider our common humanity.
Scott 3/11/14: In engineering, we challenge each other and sometimes lambaste each other regarding our truth claims. You shouldn’t be in your line of work if you can’t take it.
Study science for the sake of fascination, rather than to buttress up some case. Get all you can from people like Tyson, Sapolsky. Get all you can from Karney on relationships and Mathew Lieberman on Social Psychology. These are absolutely fascinating people! Learn from string theorist Michio Kaku. What makes him tick? I don’t think it’s rebellion. I think it’s curiosity! Check out Professor Courtenay Raia’s lectures on “science and religion as historical phenomena”. Many of the lectures you can download to your hard drive by clicking on the “Show more” link.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: You have no basis for thinking I haven’t watched plenty of videos with those people. I [love] Michio Kaku and I enjoy his science lectures.
Scott 2/6/14: Michio Kaku is only one of many great teachers I mentioned. Are you cherry picking again? You think you can achieve immortality. Kaku needs proof. See Is God the Default?
And when you’ve done that, listen to some of the more strident opponents of religion: Daniel Dennett on the mind, Lawrence Krauss on something from nothing.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I attended a lecture of Daniel Dennett IN PERSON a couple months ago here in Seattle, and I’ve watched MANY videos with Lawrence Krauss, and even heard him speak live with Richard Dawkins a few years ago. I’ve read books by Dennett, Krauss, and Dawkins. Again, you have no basis for thinking I haven’t watched plenty of videos with those people, or that I don’t expose myself to views I might not hold myself. I suspect I’ve read far more by evolutionists, than you have by ID proponents.
Scott
2/6/14: Then perhaps you’re familiar with this lecture. In it, Dennett looks
very closely at what religion and the belief of it is really about. And he
discusses the concept of reverse engineering religion. I didn’t realize there
were preachers who don’t believe in God. But, Dennett discusses a pilot study
of 1 woman and 5 such men. It’s a fascinating trap they wind up in.
'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
Thankfully,
when I changed my mind about religion, I didn’t have to change careers. In the
first place, I always gave myself permission to believe in evolution even
though I believed in Christ. But now that I decided that ID is fully false, I
can still go out and design and test aircraft software. So, it’s easy for me to
make a switch… as long as I don’t mind the fact that I now realize I did my
kids a disservice by not teaching them evolution as children.
In contrast,
you have a conflict of interest. If you decide ID is false, you have to find a
new job. I don’t envy you, and I don’t know as I could be so intellectually
flexible if I was in your position. In fact, I know that when I was married to
a devout Christian and head of a Christian family, that it would be
catastrophic to deny Christ.
And if
you’ve seen so much of Lawrence Krauss, why are you completely familiar with
his topic of the entire universe coming from absolutely nothing? As a
theoretical physicist, he has shown how empty space is full of energy and
particles and anti-particles being created and anhialated
during every instant. Haven’t you listened to Lawrence M.
Krauss || A Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe
Institute? That’s about all he talks about, when he’s not talking
about how misguided IDers and creationists are.
We don’t
have to have a deity to create the universe… in fact if we have a deity, we
have to then ask where he/she/it came from. If you are so familiar with Krauss,
why do you not understand that? How can you be so well read and thoroughly
familiar of these great teachers and be so completely unschooled in the reality
in which we live? Please tell me!
And don’t start
telling me what a bad guy I am. We both know how competitive the good folks of
Seattle are and how well they know how to hit.
With regard
to your statement about my diligence in looking at ID, you obviously have
missed every statement about my motivations and my history that I have made.
Further, anyone reading this web site will see that I have taken a good look at
ID.
What about Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens taking on a Rabi and a Priest? Or enjoy Hitchens debating four Christian pastors and theologians. Hitchens said dying is like knowing there’s a party going on, but you’re just not invited.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I’ve read Harris and Hitchens and watched them both speak. In fact I attended a debate between Hitchens and William Lane Craig a few years ago and wrote up a response. I was not impressed with Hitchens emotional, non-intellectual style—it wasn’t convincing. See: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/logic_vs_emotion_discovery_ins019171.html
Scott 3/15/14: I loved his passionate arguments against those who mistreat others because of religious persuasions. And yes, he is a prickly pear. I was able to get beyond his cranky and pompous demeanor to see that he really was, prior to his passing, a champion for the weak. I discuss some of these authors below on 3/14/14.
I also love that you put your positions out there and that you do it with gusto. I will say that I think you were unfair. You abrogated Hitchens’ arguments to emotion rather than simply presenting them. Every point you discuss I cover somewhere in this web conversation I have constructed. So, I won’t repeat my arguments.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: He might be a champion for the weak. That’s great if he is. I actually agree with Hitchens on a lot of issues that don’t have anything to do with religion. I know a lot more about his views than you think I do, and I am generally far more informed than you think I am. So I agree with you that he has some good things to say. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, he’s all emotion and not logical. See my link above reporting on his poor showing debate with William Lane Craig. (Yes, I attended this debate in person.)
You don’t have to agree with them on everything. They don’t even always agree with one another! But see if you can at least get to where you understand them.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: On what basis do you make the false assumption that I haven’t studied the ideas of these people in detail? You are stereotyping and judging me where you have no evidence.
Scott 3/15/14: I think your above link shows your bias.
Maybe they will give you new ideas even if you don’t fully agree with them. After doing so, maybe they won’t seem like such a threat.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: They aren’t a “threat.” They just don’t make good arguments. I’m allowed to have an opinion on why these atheists are logically wrong without being accused of being close-minded and ignorant.
Maybe they could even seem like part of the same team, just trying to figure it all out. If you have any time where you are doing chores or driving, perhaps if you have broadband wireless, you can get these videos going on in the background. Videos are great. You see more of the person than what comes off the written page.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Um, again, I’ve watched plenty of videos of these people and read their books too. Can you say the same of Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells, or William Lane Craig? Again, I think I’ve studied those I disagree with far more than you have studied those who you disagree with. Yet you judge and stereotype me: Why do atheists do this so much?
Scott 3/11/04: Hmm, sounds like you can stereotype as well. Here’s my take on Behe. In short, he is completely unimportant. Few reference him. He’s delusional. That tells me a lot about your abilities, Casey.
I think Craig defeated Harris. I agree with Craig. Without God, there is no objective morality. The Philosophy community seems to have long since rejected Harris’ utilitarianism and consequentialism. In Craig vs. Krauss, Craig schooled Krauss on philosophic principles. But I think Krauss’ science trumped Craig’s philosophy. And I think Krauss makes a good case that the universe doesn’t need a god. Ehrman destroyed Brown in a debate on human suffering.
Now I’m watching Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans Whole Debate on "Does the New Testament misquote Jesus?" That’s a better match. I really like Craig. I’m sure he would be fun to have a picnic with. As you know, my sweetheart and I are social dancers. I’m sure it would be fun for him to dance with Toni and me to dance with his wife. But discussions would probably drive me crazy. He appears willing to use whatever arguments he needs to win a debate. But after you watch a few of his debates, you realize two things. First, he is earnestly believes what he is saying and very much believes in Jesus. Second, he doesn’t take the implications of debate one and applies them to debate two. If he could do this, he would realize he has a deep circularity in his reasoning that precludes arriving at truth. I think he’s honest. But he was caught claiming that Ehrman is not a historian. Ehrman teaches university classes in history and thinks he’s a historian. So, this is a solid datapoint that nails my suspicions about Craig. Though he’s a brilliant and charming man, Craig has trouble getting to truth.
Hitchens vs. D’Souza was interesting. Dinesh seemed nicer than Hitch. However, he brought out Hitch’s indignation and outrage against the sins of the Christian church. This discussion resonated with my study of history. Why the church can’t tell us about it’s indiscretions and moral outrages in unclear to me. It loses credibility when I have to learn these things from secular sources. There was Hitchens against four Christians. There was Hitchens vs. Lennox in Is God Great? Lennox is the nicest man. He’d be a great father figure to listen to around an open hearth fire. But I can’t escape from my opinion. It is what is is. Lennox should be analyzed by neuroscientists and cognitive scientists and psychologists. How such a brilliant logician can be so deluded is a complete mystery to me. (One thing I like about not going to church anymore is that I no longer have to pretend people aren’t off their rockers. I now have freedom of thought and expression. Praise Jesus!!)
More recently, there was Nye vs. Ham on Ham’s Creation Model. People like Ham used to embarrass me when I was a Christian. Palin and the Tea party embarrass me to this day. Christians keep coming up with the wrong answers. There was Tzortzis vs. Krauss on Islam vs. Atheism. Tzortzis had a lot in common with Craig. I think they’re both more scholarly than Krauss and I think they’re both wrong. But they understood philosophy. I would love to see them debate each other. After agreeing on philosophy, they would confront one another with their dogma. The two are really cut from the same cloth. And, I would love to see them debate John Searle. He is a world class philosopher and is plugged into science (unlike them). Another fascinating debate would be with Searle and Krauss. I think Searle would “school” Krauss a bit and give him more of an appreciation of philosophy. But on the topics of science and history they would harmonize. Then, Krauss would learn more about consciousness and history while Searle would learn more about the beginning of the universe. Until then…
I look for a story that fits within the narrative I learn from science and history. Krauss, Hitchens, Nye, Harris, Ehrman largely fit. Craig, D’Souza, Lennox, Ham, Tzortzis largely do not. All truth must fit.
I attended a Creation Science meeting in the ’95-2000 timeframe and bought a book. This was before they rebranded the thing as ID. Oh… and I went to church for 35 years… 25 as an adult.
As I mentioned earlier in this conversation, Thomas Hood at Verocel said,
You don’t have to boil the ocean.
Once you have determined the falsehood of a position, you don’t have to continue examining every aspect. If the argument fails, it fails! If there is insufficient information, the argument is unproven! I won’t assume an argument is true by default and then challenge someone to prove it wrong. That’s not how science works!
And then, if you have finally shown yourself these people are not demons,
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I never thought they were demons. And I never suggested they were. You don’t have the right to assume I think like this. I just didn’t find their arguments persuasive. No crime in that. By suggesting that I think they are demons, I think you are trying to demonize me unfairly.
Scott 3/15/14: You’re a Christian… and you don’t believe in demons… Isn’t that contradicting the bible? (Ok ok, yes, I’m baiting you. Go for it! :^)
but people trying to learn as best they can, take a fresh look at evolution.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Yikes Scott! I have almost enough undergraduate and graduate coursework in evolution to have a degree in the topic. I own (and have read) HUNDREDS of pro-evolution books. I read pro-evolution scientific papers all the time. What more can I do to avoid your judgments and stereotyping?
Scott 3/15/14: Do you read them or do you just search them for targets that you can take pot shots at? There’s a difference. And in the end, you have to hang your new facts on your background skills and abilities… Per John Searle, this will mold your perception. So if you never get it, I understand. Take a look at Searle 25 at the 29.5 minute marker to see how the brain can be fooled by perspective.
Try to dispense your “ID glasses” for a bit and just take a look at a good solid lecture series [on evolution]. The one referred to here is a wonderful series that examines it from the bottom up without burying one in the minutia. After all. You agree that organisms do inherit traits if one or 2 gene modifications are passed on due to some advantage. You don’t believe the earth is only five thousand some odd years old. You and the scientific community have tremendous common ground right there!
I’m still processing your emails. Wow, you are thorough!
Best regards,
Scott
Next: Invitation For Tea Prev: Thoughts
on Passing of Mandella TOC