I normally ignore such things. But this time I am going to respond. Stephen has decided to use his blog to blast me. He is, of course, entitled to do that. But he goes a little over the top this time. He does so by answering a comment from one of his readers. He writes and writes and writes three long comments worth. I’ll just deal with some of the highlights. He seems to have been particularly upset when I edited one of the comments he made in this blog. I removed the name of an individual he was inferring was a computer hacker who thus, deliberately, in an academic and scientific environment, cheated and faked carbon dating results. Because he had no evidence, I found it despicable and removed the name.
That will not do. He states early in his three part long expanded comment:
If a hacker had modified the program to convert the Shroud samples’ dates to dates which clustered around 1325, then all but the hacker would be none the wiser.
In my next post I will provide evidence that [ . . . name omitted by me . . .] was the hacker.
And, then he warns me (and I guess several of us):
I told Dan and his commenters that the Holy Spirit had been prompting me to warn both them and Dan that they who personally attack me, a Christian who is only seeking to serve his Lord, that Jesus will, if they don’t repent, avenge their attacks on me[.]
Stephen tells us he is basing this on Romans 12:19, ye olde Vengeance is mine admonition.
But that is not enough. He says of me:
Dan is himself close to being a secularist. In the past he has said he has `no problem with evolution’. But the "evolution" which rules the secular scientific world is that "…God had NO PART in this process."
Secularist? Being an Episcopalian, let me quote from Wikipedia on how Anglicans view this:
Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," while believing that "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, some Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science.[18] In an interview, the [former] Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it’s not a theory alongside theories… My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."[19]
The Catholic position is not very different (IMHO). It should be noted that (still quoting from Wikipedia):
Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago.[28]
It should also be noted (Wikipedia still) that
the National Council of Churches USA [representing most mainline Protestant denominations] has issued a teaching resource . . . . This resource cites the Episcopal Church, according to whom the stories of creation in Genesis "should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation."[17]
If I’m close to being a secularist, I’m in good company. But then again, so what?
Stephen continues:
Dan also has said he has no problem with there being multiple universes, but the Multiple Universe Theory is the Atheistic attempt to explain away the fantastic level of design evident in the laws and constants of the one and only Universe that science can detect.
Does God not exist if there are multiple universes?
The best quote on the subject of the multiverse to appear in this blog was by MouseIntheHouse who wrote:
according to Frank Tipler of Tulane [pictured at blackboard]there are an infinate number of [Turin] shrouds but they are in different universes.
Just for fun read in this blog from 2011:
Now we get to the good stuff. Stephen writes:
Dan . . . even seems to think the resurrection was not physical: one instant Jesus body was in the tomb, and the next instant it is resurrected, with nothing in between.
What is not physical about this? What is supposed to be in between? Granted, if this may not be very scientific, for what change of state occurs in this world without a process? None that I can think of. But what I said in my next instant explanation is completely biblical.
John 19:41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. 42And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.
— NSRV
What happened between the last verse of John 19 and the first verse of John 20? Now, it is true that the accounts in the four gospels vary significantly (Here is a good chart on that) but where is there something in between?
Here is a clue to what Stephen is thinking:
So Dan is against John Jackson’s theory that the Shroud’s image was caused by the cloth’s collapse into the field of radiation where Jesus’ body had been.
That is close to, if not actually Gnosticism, the super-spiritual position that was already a problem in the New Testament letters and became a major problem in 2nd century.
Gnosticism? What super-spiritual position did I advocate? I happen to believe in a physical resurrection. I just see it differently. And even then, I’m just wondering if it might be so. But when and why, anyway, is what I consider or believe all that important when it comes to studying the shroud?
Here is what!!!
They (and Dan) fit the description of the Apostle Paul: Tim 3:5: "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."
But was Paul thinking about blogs?
Stephen wraps up:
. . . I am preparing a post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: The evidence for [so and so] being the hacker." . . .
I strongly believe that Jesus is going before me in this and that He will progressively reveal what REALLY happened in the C-14 dating of His Shroud.
If Jesus is for me, who CAN be against me! (Rom 8:31).
Stephen E. Jones
The term “Big Bang” was actually poking fun at the priest-scientist who put forth the theory which has now become the term everyone knows for a theory most everyone accepts as true.
Dan, what in the world is he getting at?
Jesus may indeed be going before SEJ with this, with part of the Master plan to include enhanced free publicity and more awareness…But what if the good Lord in His infinite wisdom is turning up the spotlight to, in fact, catalyze the reveal that such accusations have no solid, factual foundation, and are not truly based on actual transpired events? One wonders if the author would also be willing to accept that type of Divine intervention, or must it be made to order?
Also, if such conspiracies are true, then does this mean Ray Rogers’ lab notebooks may have also been hacked? That the area sampled for the dating is, in fact, not anamolous relative to the rest of the cloth? Are C-14 date hacking (the cloth is really much older than we were led to believe) and RR’s chemical analysis (this area is spurious, non-representative of the main cloth) compatible? Or is this just happenstance, true, true, & unrelated? Does anyone know where Ray Rogers stood on the Big Bang and evolution?
“The theory of evolution has seen an amazing process of accretion of facts since it was first proposed, and it has proved to have predictive value.” — Ray Rogers.
Ray Rogers was a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education in New Mexico, which stressed the importance of teaching evolution in the schools. He was strongly against teaching creationism in the schools and actively lobbied against it. In one case he wrote a rather strong letter to the editor of the Los Alamos Monitor, the city’s local newspaper.
R. N. Rogers
10 Jan. 1997
The Los Alamos Monitor
Editor:
Sig Hecker is the director of the most famous laboratory in the world, certainly the laboratory that has had the largest effect on humanity’s perception of science since the beginning of recorded history. This is The Laboratory that has shown people that they must take the effects of science seriously. It is also one of the laboratories that could teach the world just what science is and what they can expect from it. I have reason to believe that Sig Hecker is an exceedingly poor choice to represent science.
The public largely does not understand exactly what science is, and there appears to he a strong desire not to be compelled to find out either in school or by personal study. A significant fraction of the public has a deep hate for what they think science is. Another fraction feels that its beliefs are threatened. Both groups have launched assaults on science, and the people who love science cannot believe that it is happening. It is! We have seen a very practical result in the State Board of Education that will have long-term effects.
Science is not “things.” It is a way of thinking. Classical Scientific Method is simply a method for objectively applying logic to the solution of problems. 1) The problem must be stated in clear terms, and obscure words must be defined clearly. The goal sought must also be stated clearly. 2) Everything known about the problem must be studied, and all references must be acknowledged. There must be no “hidden facts,” and it is not clever to “blind side” the opposition. Carefully planned observations should be made. Different methods of observation should be made when possible, and results must be checked for internal consistency and agreement with reported results. All observations must be taken seriously, until some justifiable and clearly stated reason can be found to eliminate any. 3) A “brainstorming” session, preferably with other workers familiar with the problem, should try to develop as many potential explanations (hypotheses) as possible (Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses), All hypotheses must be clearly stated. And 4), all of the hypotheses must be tested equally against the same, complete list of observations and facts. Testing may often involve making predictions on the basis of the hypotheses and testing the predictions by experiment. The Principle of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) states that the hypothesis that includes the largest number of facts and observations will be closest to the truth. Hypotheses that do not accept many facts without “special pleading” should be discarded.
We are now living in a time when the special pleadings have assumed more importance than the facts. An approach that does not include the components of Scientific Method is not “science.”
A well-tested hypothesis, for which no exceptions have been found, is called a “theory.” The word “theory” in science does not connote “speculation.” Creationists misuse the term to confuse the public.
I asked Sig Hecker for help in the defense of science. He has, after all, espoused excellence in science” as his fundamental desire for the laboratory. With regard to creationism, his response was the following: “The lab has no official position on creationism. The media have tried, several times to get me to take a stance, and I have refused.”
I suppose that a large government-financed scientific organization must be politically correct. It might not be good for the careers of scientific managers to propose an official position on something like science. An individual scientist, however, might be expected to make continual application of classical Scientific Method. He would be expected to keep “truth” as his primary goal. He would be expected to defend his methods under peer review. I believe that Sig’s refusal to make a personal statement on creationism is his scientific position.
If the laboratory is managed by creationists who still profess to be scientists, they should be willing to present all of their facts for public scrutiny. If they are not willing to do this, I believe that higher authorities should return the laboratory to scientific management as quickly as legally possible. Persons who value science should insist on it.
R. N. Rogers
Here is another letter. Any questions now about where Rogers stands?
R. N. Rogers
17 Jan. 1997
The Los Alamos Monitor
Editor:
John Baumgardner’s response to my letter attributes statements to me that I did not make. I was advocating classical scientific method as the best approach to the solution of problems. I did not advocate or even mention atheism. I did not advocate any control over religious expression. Religion is “revealed”: The body of knowledge in science is developed by application of a specific logical process. The two operate in different spheres. Science and atheism are two different things. Trouble comes when a person attempts selectively to accept or deny scientific observations primarily on the basis of religious beliefs. By definition, a “scientist” is a person who uses scientific method. Like Caesar’s wife, a scientist must be above suspicion. The more “renowned” the scientist, the more careful he should be.
I was accused of proposing atheism as official policy for the laboratory. I was accused of advocating control over free religious expression. Those are serious accusations. I did neither.
The Greeks classified logical fallacies over two thousand years ago, and many fallacies appear in attempts to circumvent honest application of scientific method on any topic. Baumgardner’s accusations against me are a good example of an argument ad hominum, with which you attack a person rather thrums logic (common in politics). Invocation of great theist scientists seems to have as its unstated conclusion that “therefore, creationism is true.” True science should not use hidden premises; however, the type of argument used involves the non sequitur fallacy (argumentative leap). The most common fallacy I see used is “begging the question”: The argument assumes as true what it needs to prove.
Hundreds of years of observations and measurements by thousands of scientists have provided the basis for the scientific theory of evolution. Has all of that been a conspiracy? Back to begging the question, can anyone prove that “science has falsified evolution” without first accepting the premise that God created everything, most things, some things, or (fill in the blanks)? In science you state your hypotheses and premises, and I have yet to see all of the creationist premises and/or hypotheses clearly stated.
Incidentally, I hated to use the word “theory.” Its use by creationists illustrates another fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation. This involves the deliberate use of the same word or phrase in more than one sense. A scientific theory is more solidly established than a hypothesis. The theory of evolution has seen an amazing process of accretion of facts since it was first proposed, and it has proved to have predictive value.
The fallacy of composition has often been used in attempts to disprove evolution. It involves the suggestion of some doubt and the application of that doubt to the attempted destruction of an entire body of knowledge. Each doubt must be critically analyzed, and I do not see that being done. Is it necessary to disprove anything to prove God? Do warped logic and outright lies support God?
I admit that I have not read Behe’s book. I have, however, had a son who worked in Melvin Calvin’s laboratory at Berkeley, and I have read many of Calvin’s works. Calvin wrote Chemical Evolution, and he got a Nobel Prize. I have not seen any creationist work of similar stature. Perhaps a corporate philosophy that allows a lack of scientific rigor explains the lack of Nobel Prizes at Los Alamos.
I would have to see some scientific analysis of creationists’ claims, made by creationists with rigorous methods, before I organized a symposium with them. I do not enjoy illogical polemics and vague claims. With or without scientific, method, I suggest most strongly that John Baumgardner watch very closely what he says or writes about any scientist
R. N. Rogers
Rogers wrote “.. if the laboratory is managed by creationists who still profess to be scientists.” See #4. What about non-creationists who still profess to be scientists? That is why the science-theology dialogue exists.
“I told Dan and his commenters that the Holy Spirit had been prompting me to warn both them and Dan that they who personally attack me, a Christian who is only seeking to serve his Lord, that Jesus will, if they don’t repent, avenge their attacks on me.”
“I strongly believe that Jesus is going before me in this and that He will progressively reveal what REALLY happened in the C-14 dating of His Shroud.”
It is easy to fall into the trap that one is the spokesperson for Jesus. The worst offences committed by Christians were always done in His name. The Egyptian desert monks under St Cyril of Alexandria murdered the renown female mathematican Hypatia for this reason. Dare one mention the horrors committed by the western Crusaders against their orthodox brethren in the east, the methods of the Spanish inquisitors, the horrors perpetrated by both Elizabethan and Jacobite persecutors against those they disagreed with. Stephen is no doubt familiar with Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. One can cite the witch trials of medieval Europe, and those more recently in Salem, check Artur Miller’s “The Crucible”. All done in the name of Christ! But other agendas were at work and the real culprit is laughing his demonic head off in his home of Hades.
Stephen is on shaky ground when he accuses other God-fearing folk of heresy. But he is following a well-trodden precedent!
It can be no accident that the most virulent evangelical adherents also tend to become the most fanatic of agnostics and atheists. It is a mind-set that drives them, not God’s truth at all.
A lot of rethinking about the Bible’s creation story will have to be done and Father Georges Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory is still not proven and even if it is, it may only answer some questions,not all. But that will not be his fault because he was just a physicist, not a theologian like Rahner or a philosopher like Heidegger.
As I wrote more than once here, there is still a lot more in the box and it will not be the Big Bang theory or the Turin Shroud that will stop churches from closing down (nine a day only in the US, it seems). For that matter, it is also the reason why 70% of Israel’s population is secular, roughly thinking along the lines archaeologist Israel Finkelstein thinks.
There are two things that have to be considered by those writing on the Shroud:
1) If the image was formed by a natural process, what will it tell us? Do we need it to prove the existence of Jesus or that he was crucified, dead and buried?
2) If it was formed by a supernatural process, a byproduct of the Resurrection, will it answer all our questions? No, it wont. One has to go beyond Shroud studies to see what science is discovering. There are things that neither science or religion can answer now and we have to go beyond slowly.
Kelly asks if anyone knows where Ray Rogers stood on evolution. Judging from a paper he co-authored, nothing to do with the Shroud, he accepted the evolutionary process, and in this particular paper he sort of wrote about it as an automatic process, without saying anything about where the rationale came from. Such an attitude can unfortunately also be seen in some areas of Shroud studies. To dodge questions when they are raised is downright dishonesty.
Very disappointing, So Stephen just remembered now that everyone here is bad? Only when Dan tries to prevents him from defaming someone with no shred of evidence.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about
the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years
and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth,
and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and
experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an
infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people
outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil,
the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned
men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring
untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught
in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For
then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements,
they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite
from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about
which they make assertion.”
Augustine(Bishop of Hippo)
Delightful! I’ve passed it on to a scholarly Augustinian priest acquaintance who I think might also appreciate it!
Theoretically this sounds fine, however it seems Augustine would have done some rethinking if he were here with us today.
Further to my other comments above, there are other viewpoints:
http://news.yahoo.com/creationists-hate-catholic-040054152–politics.html
Creationists do not sometimes understand that Intelligent Design can create problems, which is something Miller grasps very well. It is like saying Leibniz did away with the problem of evil.
Dan,
Thanks for your effort on this-It was interesting to read Rogers’ viewpoint in detail.
I must be honest and apologize-I was actually making a sarcastic comment, that if Rogers’ assigned some value to evolution (I had a pretty good idea what his views were), then his credibility in studying the Shroud must also be questioned, according to the SEJ school of thinking. When one sets authentic at all costs as the final page and works backwards, conspirators can lurk everywhere.
My apologies again (though I did enjoy reading this!)-I just didn’t want to mislead why I originally wrote that-
Stephen is speaking as though he believes God has given him ‘authority’ to do so. I have to ask what proof Stephen has that such authority has been given him.
I can quote Scripture out of context too.
True Christians and false Christians are separated through love, tolerance and reaction to adversity.
How do you act when you don’t get your way or when someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs? Newsflash- Bigotry is NOT a Christian trait, in fact it’s an oxymoron.
Remember folks, when you come online, the world is watching. It’s great to voice our individualism and thoughts, but IF you are a Christian it is your obligation to do so in a Christ-like manner, regardless how right you THINK you are, or agitated you become.
Why would anyone want to convert to a group of angry hypocrites spewing out condescending remarks faster than a new PEZ dispenser? It only encourages atheism.
A point extremely well made. I’ll try to remember that one. But I guess that to err is also human.
Good point. Perhaps there is a inverse correlation between virtue and contention. The more virtue the less contention.
Once again, Stephen Jones is, as I expected, atrophying his credibility. Dan, you or I don’t know where these come from, it’s simply that they seem to have been going in a misdirection since his supposed “hypothesis”. Why?