Congratulations Australian Skeptics

Congratulations Australian Skeptics! You make Skeptics look like bone-heads.

If I was a Skeptic, I'd be very angry right now with Drs Paul Willis, Alex Ritchie and Ken Smith and their feeble mishandling of a debate with Answers In Genesis (now Creation Ministries International).

I used to think that Skeptics were basically men like me - men who loved reason, men who listened patiently and carefully to opposing views, even if ultimately disagreeing, and men who liked to focus on the issues instead of playing dodgeball. But if these three doctors were the best the Australian Skeptics could muster, my respect for the lot of them is substantially damaged.

The debate : "Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?" was held in three rounds and was published in full by the Sydney Morning Herald. To keep the articles relatively short for a newspaper audience, a limit of 1,500 words was placed per side per round. Read the debate for yourself : Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. UPDATE : These links have been pulled off the web! See details and alternate link at the end of this article...

But before you read it, let me warn you...

If you read just the Skeptics' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were grossly misguided and didn't have a fact to stand on.

If you just read the Creationists' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were raising some serious issues and you'd assume the Skeptics must be doing the same.

But when you read the two together, you see, as plain as the daylight sun, that the Skeptics are constantly ignoring the real issues and forever grossly misrepresenting their opponent's views.

If I was trying to be nice, and not hurt their feelings, I might chide them for intellectual dishonesty. At best, perhaps if they really were in a mad rush and had such terrible contempt for the Creationists that they just glanced at the Creationists' arguments instead of reading them properly, they might honestly have thought they did a good job.

But the evidence doesn't support such lenience. Indeed, when the Skeptics repeatedly and consistently misrepresent their opponent's arguments, one doubts their open-mindedness. And when they flatly ignore large portions of their opponent's arguments, pretending the arguments don't even exist, it becomes clear that these Skeptics aren't interested in addressing the issues - they're only interested in saving face. All they care about is making sure that a casual reader glancing inattentively through the debate (and let's face it - many readers will only give it that much attention) will be strongly impressed with the apparent strength of the Skeptics' position. It's all bluff and bravado. "If we sound confident and keep saying the Creationists don't have a leg to stand on, we'll minimise the damage that would be caused if people checked out the Creationists' claims for themselves." Wow! And these are the best the Australian Skeptics can muster.

I really don't want to dwell on Skeptic stupidity, but some concrete examples for those who won't bother reading the debate for themselves (in no particular order) :

i) The Skeptics claim that the Creationists don't offer any evidence for a young earth. In fact, the Creationists cite a range of evidence, including hard scientific evidence such as the presence of Carbon 14 inside coal and inside diamonds. Carbon 14 inside diamonds is just one of many things that by itself spells a death-knell to Evolution. The Skeptics ingenious response? Continue to insist that the Creationists haven't offered any evidence! Crikey! Are the Skeptics actually even reading their opponent's arguments, or just skimming for keywords so that inattentive readers won't notice the Skeptics constantly dodging the issues?

ii) The Creationists make a clear and valid point that it is not a debate of "Creationism versus Science", but rather "Creationism versus Materialism, with both appealing to science" (my paraphrase). Some Skeptic, who left his brain at grade school, responds with the preposterous claim that the Creationists are attempting to remove science from the debate. The Creationists never said such a thing, and their references to hard science reveal that just the opposite is the case. There is no way that you can jump to the conclusion the Skeptic did, based on anything in the debate thus far. The only reasonable interpretation? The Skeptics were deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting (in fact, ridiculing) their opponents in an attempt to avoid the real issues.

iii) The Creationists point to the woeful lack of "missing links" (that even Charles Darwin himself expected were Evolution true). "Not a problem!" exclaim the Skeptics, "look at horse and whale Evolution! The evidence is incontrovertible!" Of course, in what is beginning to appear to be a stark contrast to the Skeptics, I am open-minded, and am very eager to know of real "missing links" if they exist. And so of course I clicked through immediately to the link the Skeptics provided to a page on horse evolution. What struck me very quickly is that the majority of these supposed "missing links" were all, in fact, horses. Variations of horses! A horse getting bigger or smaller or stronger or leaner or whatever - what's the big deal? This is variation within existing genetic potential! It's a pity the site didn't have pictures. There was just a mountain of text with "just-so" statements of incontrovertible fact that this evolved into that evolved into the next thing and so on. Nice theory. But all this unequivocable certitude is sounding a lot more like a religious faith than anything else. And then of course when I read further into the third phase of the debate, the Creationists did a nice job of pointing out the paucity of the "whale evolution is incontrovertible" side of things that the Skeptics said in a just-so fashion earlier in the debate. [UPDATE : See for example The non-evolution of the horse]

iv) The Skeptics claimed a few times that "Creationism is not testable and is not falsifiable, and thus is not scientific" (paraphrase), despite the Creationists mounting a superb demonstration of the stupidity of that claim. In fact, the Skeptics repeated this "point" in their closing arguments in phase 3, without bothering to respond to the Creationists' valid criticism of the point! Just one more thing which leads me to believe the Skeptics either a) weren't even reading the Creationists' arguments; or much more likely b) were deliberately and maliciously intent on misrepresenting their opponents. (If you think I'm being too harsh, take half an hour and carefully read the three pages of debate for yourself!)

I could go on.

My issue is not that the Skeptics disagree with Creationism. My issue is not that they think they have evidence to support their beliefs. My issue is not that they are haughty and arrogant (although the ones in this debate most certainly are!). My issue isn't even that they derisively dismiss almost everything the Creationists have to say, without seeming to pause long enough to even understand what they're dismissing. All of the proceeding could be done as an honest mistake - albeit an ugly mistake.

Until today (when I read this debate) I had thought many times of going along to a Skeptics meeting and hearing what they have to say. Doing them the justice of treating them like rational men who may have something of value to contribute.

But illusions of fairness and impartial open-mindedness have been stripped away. The Australian Skeptics have proven themselves willing to say anything they want, even directly in the face of the evidence, grossly misrepresenting their opponents and ignoring serious claims, as if bravado was the only measure of truth.

Congratulations, Australian Skeptics. You have lost my respect.

---

UPDATE Sun 10-Jun-2007 : Ladies and gentlemen, the game continues! The Sydney Morning Herald website has removed it's copy of the debate! One wonders if they did so under pressure from Skeptics, who are intent on ensuring only their side of the story is told. For example, Google for "did the universe and life evolve, or was it". Include the quote marks. Then click the "show all results" link. What do you notice? A HUGE number of matches on Skeptic websites. Go to the websites and what do you find? The Skeptics have published copies of their side of the debate, instead of publishing the debate in full. They're terrified of looking like morons if both sides of the debate were presented side-by-side.

I have been criticised for the strong language I have used to describe the actions of the Skeptics in regards to this debate. But an unbiased reading of both sides of the debate show the Skeptics to be consistently and deliberately misrepresenting almost everything they can. They're interested in tactics, not truth.

But enough pondering Skeptic censorship and their hatred of well-reasoned free speech that disagrees with their position. At least CMI, in contrast to the Skeptics, has been kind enough to present both sides of the debate, and they've made it available in PDF here.

Good Slavery, Bad Slavery

There's a lot of talk about slavery going on right now, and many Christians are campaigning (and many Christians have very successfully campaigned in the past) against slavery.

But in our zeal for righteousness, let's not be completely Biblically illiterate. Yes, pretty much everything we know as modern slavery is a sinful practice condemned in the Bible (and punishable by death to the slave traders).

But did you know that there was a Biblically-prescribed form of slavery, very different to anything we've seen in recent centuries, that resulted in dignified labour and a faithful slave's inevitable rise in social status? Wow! Imagine a welfare program that permanently improved the social status of it's recipients! I suppose we shall have to find some word other than "slavery" for it. In practice, it was a fixed-term employment contract, at the end of which, the 'slave' would be given a share in the profits he brought to his 'master'! Wow! Almost sounds like some of the sophisticated employee-reward-schemes used in the corporate world! :o) What's more, it offered guaranteed employment.

I could go on and on about the God-given scheme of "slavehood" and it's benefits and peculiarities, but for now, I just want to remind you that it exists. With the superb movie "Wilberforce" hitting our screens this year (I for one am waiting excitedly for it to hit Australian shores!), and for those of us with a commitment to thinking Biblically not just pseudo-Christianly on every topic, let's not fall into the trap of denouncing all forms of slavery as inherently evil.

However, since most of us don't have a clue what the Biblical version of "slavery" looks like, let me mention a few stark contrasts from the sinful slave trade that pervaded England and the USA :

Under God's law, kidnapping was a capital offence. Let me spell it out : kidnap someone, you die. Biblical slavery was an honourable institution to help the destitute get back on their feet financially. The guaranteed income was so attractive that many voluntarily spent time as a slave, without financial necessity forcing them to do so. In contrast, the English and U.S. slave trades were fueled by mass kidnappings.

Furthermore, detaining a kidnappee was a capital offence. You couldn't be holding someone against their will and claim "well I wasn't the one who actually kidnapped them, therefore I don't deserve as harsh a penalty". No, under Biblical law, the kidnapper, and anyone found participating in the kidnapping by detaining the kidnappee, are all guilty of a capital crime. England and the U.S.A. could not simply turn a blind eye to the source of these slaves and say "Well, we don't actually do the kidnapping so it's irrelevant where these slaves came from".

But if a person voluntarily sells themselves into slavery, and assuming the slave-owner is fulfiling his God-given duties of care towards his slaves, nothing inherently sinful has been done. So whilst the modern slave-trades are thoroughly evil, let's not naively fall into the trap of labeling everything that looks like slavery a sin.

Recommended links :

o Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero by Jonathan Sarfati.

o Zach Hunter: Fighting Modern Day Slavery - Awesome! Zach is 15 years old, and is fighting the remnants of slavery that are alive and well today.

Where Are All The Men?

Every now & then I write an article which, years later, still brings a smile to my face. This is one of them... (First published on 100thousandyouth.com, Friday 8th April 2005, 5:25pm EST)

UPDATE Thu 31-May-2007 : Lightly edited to be more suitable for non-Australian readers.

Where are all the men?  Yes, where are all the men?  That’s what I began asking myself, oh, I suppose ten years ago.

Where are all the men? No, I don’t just mean “any male who's turned eighteen”. A true man would be a “father”, not just a “dad”, and the makings of a man can be seen – equally well the absence of the makings of a man – in any male long before they were ‘of age’.

What is manhood?  Are we chasing a pipe-dream, like the long-promised but ill-defined “revivals” that were to have swept our nation a hundred times by now?  I wonder where are all the men, but what am I even looking for?  Who can tell me?

I once met a young lass born on the same day as myself – same day, and same year.  With such a precious piece of history in common we spent a good deal of time getting to know each the other.  Not timid was I, and having thought much on the topic, when asked by this maiden who was I and what did I do, I replied that I was, simply, a man.  I further informed her that it was my opinion that I had been a man since my thirteenth birthday, and that our society encourages men to put off manhood for a good many years beyond the time they ought to have claimed it for themselves.  She was clearly amused.  But did that matter?  I was not a man because she bestowed manhood upon me.  It was mine to keep.

I hear it all around now – “We need real men!” they say, and little (and not so little) groups of males spring up here and there to, well, be men, I suppose, or at least, so they intend.

But does anybody really know what they’re looking for?  And have they realised that it, “it”, the realisation of manhood, may come at the cost of many long-cherished and comfortable ways of living?  “Aha! That’s the answer!  Comfort!  Bah comfort!  The essence of the masculine spirit is wild adventure!  Get muddy!  Go bush!  Be uncomfortable!  Let us glory in pain and sweat and scars, for therein our manhood is found!” 

Or are we just noisy boys throwing sand to the wind and thinking overly grandly of our estate?  We enjoy our time outside, but is that all there is?  Manhood is outdoor-ism? 

Who can tell us? Where are all the men?  What is a man?  Who can tell us?

Only He who invented manhood can tell us with total certainty what it’s all about.

Sure, many are convinced they've found the answer, but most are guessing, and any success they seem to have comes from the fact that manhood is so poorly understood that almost any change to the modern western idea is an improvement!!!

At the end of the day, God makes us a man or a woman.  The first man epitomises God’s plan for manhood – work, creativity, communication, companionship and replication.

The only way you can stand there and say “I am a man” with full confidence and due humility, at all times and in all circumstances, is to realise that it is God who has made you a man, not your parents in giving you an 18th birthday party, not society nor legislation.

“If God says I am, then I am.”  This must become the fullest confidence of a man’s life, or else he will always wonder, “Am I man enough?”.

What is a man?  Work – he has responsibilities and he bears them.  He’s not found making excuses.  And when the work needs to be done he’s not lounging around.  Words like disciplined, focused, and diligent come to mind, although each of these is a study in itself (and we hasten to add that only in a fuller study would it be apparent that we are not advocating here a man who is always driven and can never rest!).

He has responsibilities.  Where did he get them?  Some by birth.  Some by choice.  But regardless, he lets the full penalty of failure fall on himself, and of course works to ensure that failure of responsibility does not occur. Without the acceptance of responsibility, a male will forever remain a boy, hiding behind a finger of blame or hidden by overly protective parents or friends.  In either case, he misses the opportunity to grow.  By attempting to remove the possibility of failure, he also removes the possibility of success, and necessarily lives a most unfulfilling existence.

Creativity.  Not all men will be singers, dancers, sculptors, painters, or poets, but latent in most men and present in all is a God-given capacity to invent, to conceive of things never hitherto seen.  This does not define manhood but is a reality of manhood.  Those who accept before God that they are a man ought equally to realise God has given me a capacity to create.  Adam in the garden chose – invented – names for many dozens or hundreds of animals.  “Made in the image of God” – this means we can choose (hence responsibility) and that we can create.

Communication.  Man was not made to be alone.  He was not even made to be alone with his wife, well, not forever at least.  Man had daily fellowship with God, but even from the first it was intended that he and his wife have children, and more men and women would fill the globe.

Man was designed to communicate with other men – and not just the transaction of business.  Communication is not a mere tool for getting one’s way or winning an argument.  Communication is designed to fill the soul with relief and comfort and happiness, for all parties involved!  A whole book could be filled further on this topic (and many books have been) but suffice to say, one who recognises himself as a man before God should seek to communicate with God, with his wife, but also with other men, even if for no other reason that God has so designed him.

Companionship.  And here I speak of that most intimate – or so it should be – companionship of a man with his wife.  Again, not a mark of all men.  Many men choose to live their days without this, and are equally blessed with those who claim the pleasures of companionship for themselves.  Equally blessed, I say, but not identically blessed. One has one blessing, the other has a different blessing, but both, I say, are equally blessed.

This is not merely a blessing of sexual pleasure – those unfortunate souls who have entered marriage thinking it little more than a sex-fest have been quickly disappointed – but a blessing of knowing and being known, in the context of which a sexual relationship is invigorating and fulfilling.  Of course this one major topic of marriage is so vast as to have dozens of sub topics, each of which has filled a multitude of books, so I touch no further on it here.

Replication.  Without a doubt, the most satisfying thing a man can do is impart something of lasting value to another in a younger generation.  He may physically father a child.  He may invest his hours and energies in training future men and women.  From the beginning man was designed to reproduce physically, and along with that, to reproduce philosophically in the training of children.

I have seen dozens of aged men in my time, and I cannot think of a case where wealth or fame is their motivating force, but I can think of dozens of men who now seek opportunities to pour their knowledge and experience into the younger generations, and find therein greater pleasure than any other thing they have done in their days.

In Lebanon I stayed with a most remarkable man of God, whom I will now simply call Suheil.  He epitomised everything a man should be.  He is in his late fifties, or maybe even early sixties now.  One day he said to me, “Jonathan, how could the apostle Paul say ‘Imitate me in the same way that I imitate Christ’?  Why do so many of us live afraid that others might imitate us?  As for me, I want to live a life where I can say, ‘Imitate me, even as I imitate Christ’.  I don’t believe I’m there yet, but I believe I’m getting close.”

Wow!  That was exciting for me, to find a man willing to step up to the plate, to take responsibility for his own life and commit to following God’s ways so closely!  To be honest, I thought he was already a pretty good role-model, but he obviously felt his own weaknesses much more than I had been aware.

Notwithstanding, could you invite others to imitate you, or would you be embarrassed?

Every man should be seeking to find God’s answers, God’s ways of doing things, to learn wisdom, to have a life so worth the living that they can happily say “Imitate me” and “Taste and see that the Lord is good”.  Let your life show that devotion to God is possible.  And let it show that such devotion is desirable.  And you may well be surprised at the ways and opportunities you get to help impart that wisdom and depth of experience to others.

So where are all the men?  I began asking many years ago, and frankly, back then, I doubted there were many.  I knew I was one.  And I knew a few others.  But masses of folk walk past, engaged solely in the pursuit of their own pleasures, not taking responsibility for anything much. I’d visit churches and feel that the youth there hadn’t even thought about what it is to be a man of God – they were just having a good time and that was the main thing.

But every now and then God would delight me by introducing one man here, another man there.  Often country folk would strike me with their sense of personal responsibility, their openness in communication, their resourcefulness (a form of creativity) and their proactivity (another evidence of a well developed sense of personal responsibility).  Young Will was one such fellow.  And then I began meeting them in the city too.

The brothers Luke and Andrew strike me as examples to this day.  And I began to meet more and mounting volumes more of older folk who epitomise the vital qualities of manhood, and are well into that “giving back” portion of their life where they delight to invest in the up and coming generations.  Ken Walker, Peter Daniels, and the list really does go on.

And I began to see that God has many men.  Perhaps I wasn’t mature enough in myself to identify them in my younger years.  Perhaps things have changed over ten years and there are many more men.  Or perhaps I just know a lot more people now than I did then!  :o)

But when I ask myself today, “Where are all the men?” my mind jumps from example to example, here and there, young and old, throughout the state and around the globe, and I say to myself, “They’re all around!”.

Postscript: So why don’t we see them more?

If there are a lot of men out there – albeit a small minority, yet still large in absolute numbers – then why don’t we see them more involved in the community, in social action, in Christian journalism, etc?  But we do!  Not that men can relax now – far from it because many more men are needed!  As I myself become more heavily involved in these groups, I am pleased to report that any time I set my hand to a task to further God’s kingdom, I find myself squarely shoulder to shoulder with at least two other equally dedicated men of God, often from widely different backgrounds. Working with me, and me with them!

If you want the pleasure of meeting some awesome men of God, throw yourself into Christian service!  No, not necessarily full-time!  No, no, I didn’t say become a ‘pastor’!  I volunteer one day a week, using my skills to further the work of Wycliffe Bible Translators.  I teach Christian Religious Education in public schools. I run a business and get to have significant conversations with clients and employees of clients.  Many significant spiritual conversations have come about as a result.

You and I are different parts of the Body – don’t expect that we’ll do the same things or put the same amount of time into it – but do start serving – take the first opportunity that arises and commit to it for a while – and you’ll be surprised as you serve what doors will open.  Where are all the men?  Why don’t you be one yourself – you’ll soon discover more!  :o)