Real Science Friday: The Dr. Jerry Bergman in Studio!

[Jefferson]

The Dr. Jerry Bergman in Studio!

This is the show from Friday June 11th, 2010.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Richard Dawkins doesn't provide evidence for evolution, he just assumes it and he thinks if he makes an illustration he's proved his point. And so now, in his latest book, he lists all of his previous books and he says, "You know what? I've never provided the evidence for evolution in any of my books."

SUMMARY:

* Most Prolific Creationist Writer on BEL: Bob Enyart interviews Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of Slaughter of the Dissidents (buy now at creation.com!) Bob Enyart has been reading Dr. Bergman's writings for 30 years and is honored to have the good doctor in studio! Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, created more awareness for Dr. Bergman's book. Enyart and Bergman discuss evolutionists who kill the careers of those who doubt Darwin, and they talked about Richard Dawkins, Richard Sternberg, and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's new book that references Dr. Bergman's work.

* If You're In Denver: Come out and meet Dr. Jerry Berman tonight at Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship at 7 p.m. in the Bethlehem Luthern Chapel at 21st and Wadsworth.

Personhood is the most important human rights movement of your lifetime. Will you be one who fights to end the systematic dehumanization and murder of an entire class of citizen? Or will you stay in your comfort zone? If you live in any state in America, you can advance personhood via the 2010 ballot or in one of three different ways. If you live in Colorado join by calling or e-mailing Personhood Colorado or Colorado Right to Life.

Today’s Resource: You can enjoy one or two of Bob Enyart’s entertaining and insightful videos each month, mailed to you automatically, simply by subscribing to the BEL Monthly Topical Videos service! Also, you can check out the other great BEL subscription services!

 

[Granite]

So presuppositionalism is never a good argument for anything? Just checking.

 

[Stripe]

So presuppositionalism is never a good argument for anything? Just checking.

:squint:

A presupposition is never an argument for anything.

 

[Granite]

:squint:

A presupposition is never an argument for anything.

It's not a good one, but it is an approach that is and can be used. I'm just curious if Bergman's consistent or not.

 

[Stripe]

It's not a good one

A presupposition is something you accept as true regardless of any evidence. It is no form of argument - it's a presupposition. Anyone who claims it can be an argument is being silly. Are you going to insist it can be used as an argument?

but it is an approach that is and can be used.

Presuppositions must be used before any and every argument can be made. But they are not arguments themselves. If you find a presupposition that cannot be undone by logic or evidence then you have an argument for the validity of the presupposition. But that does not make the presupposition the argument.

I'm just curious if Bergman's consistent or not.

What did he say to spark this line of inquiry?

Are you going to be consistent?

 

[Granite]

A presupposition is something you accept as true regardless of any evidence. It is no form of argument - it's a presupposition. Anyone who claims it can be an argument is being silly. Are you going to insist it can be used as an argument?

I agree with your arguments against this thinking, but like it or not, presuppisitionalism isn't an unknown argument used by Christians.

Presuppositions must be used before any and every argument can be made. But they are not arguments themselves. If you find a presupposition that cannot be undone by logic or evidence then you have an argument for the validity of the presupposition. But that does not make the presupposition the argument.

Again: we agree. I'm trying to see where Bergman's coming from.

What did he say to spark this line of inquiry?

When he said that evolutionists don't provide evidence, and simply assume evolution is true and go from there.

 

[Jefferson]

So presuppositionalism is never a good argument for anything? Just checking.

No comment about how Dawkins admitted he never provided any evidence for evolution in any of his books?

Just checking.

 

[Granite]

No comment about how Dawkins admitted he never provided any evidence for evolution in any of his books?

Just checking.

Dawkins doesn't necessarily need to, to put it mildly...

...although a book called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution strikes me as fairly self-explanatory. It was, in fact, written specifically to address this issue. Soooooooo...why is that tricky to understand? What's the problem?

 

[Stripe]

I agree with your arguments against this thinking, but like it or not, presuppisitionalism isn't an unknown argument used by Christians.

Sounds like you haven't taken the time to properly understand the argument. Presups do not use the presupposition as the argument. They use the fact that the presupposition cannot be otherwise as the argument. A subtle, yet very profound difference. And one you need to fully appreciate in order to build any coherent world view.

When he said that evolutionists don't provide evidence, and simply assume evolution is true and go from there.

They do provide evidence, you're probably not well representing Dr. Bergman's intent. He would not say they do not provide any evidence. He would say that the evidence is ultimately found wanting. But before saying more about that I'll listen to what he said again.

And, like I said, everyone must be a presuppositionalist in order to speak about any idea. One should be very open and clear about what assumptions one makes.

 

[Stripe]

Dawkins doesn't necessarily need to, to put it mildly...

Exactly! He doesn't need to. As long as his readers are aware that his evidence requires a similar presupposition in order to be valid.

Unfortunately atheists tend to run away from sharing such fundamentals.

 

[Granite]

Exactly! He doesn't need to. As long as his readers are aware that his evidence requires a similar presupposition in order to be valid.

Unfortunately atheists tend to run away from sharing such fundamentals.

I meant that other scientists have been doing the heavy lifting on evolutionary theory for nearly two centuries.

 

[Stripe]

What are you referring to with your first post? What did Dr. Bergman say and when did he say it?

 

[Stripe]

I meant that other scientists have been doing the heavy lifting on evolutionary theory for nearly two centuries.

And as long as they are up front about their assumptions then that work can be easily assessed.

 

[Granite]

What are you referring to with your first post? What did Dr. Bergman say and when did he say it?

"Richard Dawkins doesn't provide evidence for evolution, he just assumes it and he thinks if he makes an illustration he's proved his point."

So I guess Bergman feels...what? Insulted? Angry? Annoyed? I mean, he should be pleased that Dawkins's newest book is out, yes?

 

[Stripe]

"Richard Dawkins doesn't provide evidence for evolution, he just assumes it and he thinks if he makes an illustration he's proved his point."

:BRAVO:

So I guess Bergman feels...what? Insulted? Angry? Annoyed? I mean, he should be pleased that Dawkins's newest book is out, yes?

I think you'll find that Dawkins' books have been widely used as evidence for evolution.

I think you'll find that the critique of his most recent book makes all your input here moot.

 

[Granite]

I think you'll find that Dawkins' books have been widely used as evidence for evolution.

Meaning what? That he's responsible for what every one of his readers does and takes from his work?

I think you'll find that the critique of his most recent book makes all your input here moot.

And if I cared about your opinion, I'd fling myself in front of a train. Back on ignore.

 

[Stripe]

Meaning what? That he's responsible for what every one of his readers does and takes from his work?

Nope. It means he should have written more carefully and honestly.

And if I cared about your opinion, I'd fling myself in front of a train.

Oooh, dear oh dear. Don't do that, mate. You might damage it.