|
Mumbai: Drawing
parallels between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, stating that Christianity
is true and Jesus is the way to God, would sound like Benny Hinn speaking on
channel God. But this was said in a lecture delivered by Prof H F Schaefer,
director of the Center for Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia, at
the Techfest of the Indian Institute of Technology on Friday.
The lecture did
not go down well with the secular students on the IIT-Powai campus, who termed
the talk as an “attempt at conversion’’.
Raising
Hackles: HF
|
|
 |
A five-time
Nobel award nominee Schaefer, who was to speak on ‘Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang
and God’, quoted numerous scientists and Nobel laureates who spoke about science
and God. But towards the lecture’s close, his comments started getting religious
undertones. “The Big Bang is more consistent with Christianity than other
religions. The Big Bang ripples are clearly pointing to an ex-nihilo creation
consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis,’’ he said.
Earlier,
quoting George Smoot, a Nobel laureate and his classmate at MIT, Schaefer said,
“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and
the Christian notion of creation from nothing.’’
Later, quoting
Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel
Prize recipient in physics, he said: “The best data we have (concerning the Big
Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the
five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.’’
Upset IIT-Bombay
students distributed a handbill protesting the lecture among the audience. “They
use impressive words to confuse masses and deliver ideas that normally would not
be accepted at a science and technology institute like ours,’’ the handbill
read.
“Though Prof
Schaefer is a famous chemist, his opinions beyond the domain of academic
credibility shouldn’t be considered to be scientifically authoritative,’’ the
handbill added.
hemali.chhapia@timesgroup.com
Do you know what
you are doing?
You are about
to hear Prof. Henry Fritz Schaefer III.
TOI 6.1.2008
The focus of
Prof. Schaefer’s talk at IITB will be on cosmology. But, according to text of
his scheduled lecture(also here), final message he intends to promote is
Christianity disguised as science. We are not here to oppose Christianity itself
but the scientific packaging to it. Therefore we need to discuss the
scientific conclusions he offers.
According to
Prof. Schaefer, “Not every religion can be true. Most are mutually
contradictory … Christianity is true and Jesus is the only way to God”.
Doesn’t he mean, “Unless you believe in Jesus/Holy Ghost, YOU are going to
Hell”? These are attempts of conversion.
Prof. Schaefer
is supporter of a pseudo-science: Intelligent Design (ID).
They use
impressive words to confuse masses and deliver ideas that normally would not be
accepted at a science and technology institute like ours. We hope that Prof.
Schaefer knows God’s reason for creating poor body designs and vestigial organs
(other than the purpose of appendix as a potential way to punish with
appendicitis).
Prof. Schaefer
is also known to attack science with quotes like “Science has not disproved
God”. However, neither Prof. Schaefer nor anyone else has ever made any
falsifiable predictions that would fail in God’s absence (i.e. if scientific
laws were to hold absolute control over the universe). He has not mentioned any
experiment that, if failed, would convince him of God’s absence. Such arguments
are not science.
Wherever he
makes such speeches, he notes them on his website, along with the head count of
students and professors present (thought they don’t get equal chance of
scepticism). He is using our name to increase support to ID. He considers us so
much important that of 175 international places he spoke on such issues, 13 are
Indian!
We are not
happy with the claim “giving you an opportunity to interact” made by Techfest
organisers as they have refused our request for a matched debate between Prof.
Schaefer and a scholar in cosmology/evolution. Such a discussion could have done
justice by representing both types of prevalent opinions among scientists.
Though
Prof. Schaefer is a famous chemist, his opinions beyond domain of academic
credibility shouldn’t be considered to be scientifically authoritative. Please
ponder on his thoughts about theology, slavery, intelligent design, method of
science, etc. To save your time and to equip you with the domain
knowledge to find inadequacies, if any, in his arguments, a summary of issues
that ought to arise with some quick thinking can be found at
http://homepages.iitb.ac.in/~atheist.
Thanx.
-
Dr. Nikhil
Joshi, MBBS, M.Tech. II year Biomedical, IITB
Pramod Sahasrabuddhe, B Tech,
1982, Civil, IITB, (Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, Thane)
Nandkumar Nagesh, MANS, Thane
Rahul Gundecha, M Tech, II year,
Computer Science, IITB
Ganesh Nawsupe, M Tech, II year,
Biomedical, IITB
Sandesh Hegde, M Tech, II year,
Computer Science, IITB
|
|
 |
“I detest
what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue
to write” – Voltaire
In the midst of
innovation, a pious protest
Speak Up donned
their tech-savvy caps and went down to Techfest 2008 at the IIT campus in Powai.
What they found was a wealth of innovation and skill. Oh, and yes the battle
between Intelligent Design and Darwinism finally spilled over onto Mumbai’s
shores, with a section of the students taking umbrage with ID guru Dr Henry
Schaefer
Some IIT
students fail to see the Intelligence in Schaefer’s Design
R Krishna :
D.N.A Jan 26, 2008
|
MUMBAI: The
lecture series at IIT Bombay’s annual technical festival, Techfest, is one of
the most sought out events, by both students and teachers. This year, however,
some IIT students were unhappy with one of the speakers, Prof Henry F Schaefer
III of the Centre for Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia, who spoke
on The Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking and God.
IIT students
were not entirely happy with Prof Schaefer’s lecture
|
|
 |
A signer of the
Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution letter, ‘A Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism’, Schaefer has written a book entitled Science and Christianity:
Conflict or Coherence? He has invited controversy in the past for his radical
views regarding religion. In a lecture he presented at the University of
Colorado in 1994 (titled Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God) Schaefer
concluded by quoting Hugh Ross
whose views, Schaefer said, “with only minor modifications, I wholeheartedly
concur”. Ross himself believed: “The one and only path is to give up all human
attempts to satisfy God’s requirements and put our trust solely in God and in
His means of redemption.”
Dr Nikhil
Joshi, a second year MTech student at IIT-Bombay, said, “My basic contention is
that he [Schaefer] is taking science’s name and propagating ideas that are
unscientific. There are many places where he can propagate Christianity. The
freedom to propagate your religion guarantees that. But he is using science to
enter these institutes, and then packaging his idea as science and selling it.”
The subject irked Joshi and his fellow students enough to prompt them to
distribute pamphlets in the audience.
Joshi sent an
e-mail to the event coordinator expressing his displeasure on Prof Schafer’s
inclusion in the lecture series, and had even planned to distribute pamphlets
prior to students entering the auditorium. “But when the authorities told me
that the professor had promised them that he would not go beyond science [in the
lecture] I decided not to distribute any pamphlets,” says Joshi.
But when
Schaefer started alluding to God in his lecture, Joshi decided to distribute the
pamphlets anyway. As the pamphlets were being distributed, P Gopalan, Dean,
student affairs, IIT Bombay, came up on stage and said, “The institute does not
support any one view. It is a democratic setup. Both the views are presented.”
Speaking to DNA
after his lecture, Schaefer pointed out that he had not spoken in detail about
Christianity in his lecture: “I think science and religion ultimately are part
of a bigger picture. I don’t make negative statements about anybody else’s
religion.”
Prof. Schaefer
(HFS3)
God is loving.
If God rescued
from every problem those who are true to Jesus, Christians would not need faith.
Their religion would be a great big insurance policy, and there would be lines
of selfish people ready to sign up.
Discussion
Isn’t there a
contradiction above? What meaning does love have without actual help?
HFS3
People are
attracted to moral subjectivism or relativism because it exonerates them of
guilt. But the very fact that they so strongly desire to perceive themselves
righteous betrays a commitment to moral realism.
(In simple
words, Laws and morality do not change with progress of time or society.)
Discussion
Leviticus
25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, 1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke
12:47-48, among other places in the Old and New Testament support slavery.
Therefore, either these books are not correct, or they are correct relative to
that time, because today, we consider slavery to be wrong.
As per
Wikipedia, some of the Bible passages most commonly criticized include the
subjugation of women, sexual acts like incest although it was told to be wrong
after the events of Noah’s flood and sodomy, support for institution of slavery
and the order to commit the genocide.
We’d like Prof.
Schaefer to comment on apparent contradiction between his morality
and Bible.
HFS3
Analogies
between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a
purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me
inappropriate […to support evolution].
The ...
intricacy ... in a living organism is beyond our ability to comprehend.
Discussion
We hope Prof.
Schaefer knows intention of God in creating poor body designs of animals
and vestigial organs (other than the purpose of appendix as a potential way for
God to punish with appendicitis). What balance and order, dude?
It may be
difficult to comprehend evolution for all those non-biologists and other
scientists who were made to sign the ‘Scientific Dissent from
Darwinism’. Their problem is due to their lack of knowledge of the subject,
failure of logical thinking and ignorance about the
method of science. It is also unethical to claim to be a scientist to give
public lectures beyond the subjects of one’s expertise.
Prof. Schaefer
is also a prominent proponent of Intelligent Design. ID is misnomer for a
belief in Bible and the way God created this world. As per our beloved Wikipedia,
“The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that ‘intelligent design and
other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life’ are not science
because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions,
and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers
Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest
organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.”. Also see this.
HFS3
Science has
limitations.
Scientific
evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good.
Discussion
Prof. Schaefer
should not trust science’s proof of God if he believes in the limitations of
science.
Also, purpose
of science is to help humankind in making predictions about the world which in
turn help in conquering the nature. Even if we assume truth to ID, it does not
explain mechanism behind any other event. Nor does it provide mathematical model
to simulate the world or estimate outcome of any event.
HFS3
Omnipotence
does not mean God can do literally everything. God cannot sin. God cannot lie.
Discussion
Wow! Even a
human can commit these activities. Isn’t this God unable to do stuff that is
surely in the realm of potency?
HFS3
Jesus actually
rose from dead.
Discussion
Are you still
reading this to get convinced? If you showed so much interest to reach this line
then most probably you have a thinking mind of your own. Please decide the
utility of speech by Prof. Schaefer at a science and technology institute like
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, apart from making us aware about the
rampant use of scientific jargon to deliver religion. We hope that Prof.
Schaefer comes up with replies to the issues raised here because more issues are
coming soon. Thank you.
Were we made or
did we just happen?
A response
to the Times of India
|
On May 29, 2006, The
Times of India published an article titled “Were we made or did we
just happen? The author Ashutosh, Pune based physicist, rhetorically
asked many questions that supposedly refute the Intelligent Design.
Jerry Thomas answers his questions.
|
|
 |
On May 29, 2006, The
Times of India published an article titled “Were we made or did we
just happen? The author Ashutosh, Pune based physicist, rhetorically
asked many questions that supposedly refute the Intelligent Design.
He began by asking ‘if an intelligent designer does exist, why do
I have an appendix and bad breath? He then raised the question “And
of course, who designed the designers- a question IDer’s say is forbidden”
He went on to compare ID proponents to those who believe in flat earth.
By using the language of ridicule, he tried to argue that even fossils
are in support of evolution. He wrote, “Or the old argument that you
cannot know the mind of God- God put fossils in the rocks to test our
faith” (Meaning: fossils contradict the creation view).
It is very difficult
to engage in a conversation when one of the parties employs ridicule
and dismisses the other side. Moreover, the author has already made
up his mind regarding ID. But for the sake of readers, one is compelled
to answer these questions. We shall look into these one by one.
If an
intelligent designer does exist, why do I have an appendix and bad breath?
The author
is partially right in asking this question. It poses a challenge to
the ID theory. However, it doesn’t invalidate the ID theory nor it
does prove the evolution. At the outset, one must point here that monkeys,
supposedly the immediate known link between human beings and other species,
do not have an appendix. In fact, it is absent in fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds and most mammals. It is only present in a few marsupials
such as the wombat and South American opossum, a few rodents (rabbits
and rats) and human beings (see,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp).
In other words, evolution has the trouble of explaining why it is there
only in few species and absent in most. If one species is evolved from
another, why doesn’t it appear in all?
Again,
it must be noted that scientists are not unanimous in their view about
uselessness of appendix. Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., writing in ‘Fundamentals
of Anatomy and Physiology,’ a medical text book of 1995, writes “The
mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules,
and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.”
It must
be recalled that in the historical 1925 Tennessee Scopes Trial, where
the atheists have won, an atheist argued that: “There are, according
to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigal [sic] structures in the human
body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.
Among these [is] the vermiform
appendix . These and numerous other structures of the same sort can
be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors
in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost
these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has
any use for them”. At that time, according to atheists, the number
of useless organs in human body was 184 but now it is only one or two.
It is ironical but fortunate that no atheists at that time removed his
184 useless organs from his body!!!Now even if appendix is useless,
it may fit into Biblical view where man due to sin has lost his glory
and may lost his certain functions too (This is just a hypothesis).
“And
of course, who designed the designers- a question IDer’s say is forbidden”
This is
a dishonest misrepresentation of the ID view. The creationists and ID
proponents have argued that whatever has a beginning (effect) must have
a creator (cause). Then they have pointed out that since universe should
have a beginning according to the scientific laws itself, it must have
a creator who is uncaused ( Read ‘God and the Astronomers,’ written
by Robert Jastrow, Founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for
Space Studies for the argument of beginning of the universe). IDer’s
have not argued that this question is forbidden rather they have pointed
out that this question is irrelevant.
IDer’s
are like flat earth believers
This is
again a presumptuous charge. To cite an example, in a press release
to support ID movement, over 500 doctoral scientists had signed. Many
are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions
such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley,
Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University,
the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732).
Dr. Frank
Schaffer who is an ardent supporter of creationism is a five time Nobel
nominee. Moreover, the world’s most famous philosophical atheist in
the last century, Professor Antony Flew is now a supporter of ID movement
(See the article, ‘A Year after Confession’ in
www.sakshitimes.com)
Fossils:
Whom do they support?
Let me
just quote David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist. He says, “Evolution
requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not
provide them”. As one website notes “All the different, basic kinds
of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with
no proof of ancestors. Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record.
It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals.” (For a detailed
discussions see,
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
Now, we
might ask whether the author has considered any of the IDer’s argument
before he wrote or dismissed them without even giving a hearing. The
author wrote in his article, “The bottom line is therefore just this:
ID has not explained anything. It never will” (emphasis mine). Is
it a scientific attitude or a blind faith in evolution?
Be first to comment
this article
Write Comment
-
Please keep the
topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
-
Personal verbal
attacks will be deleted.
-
Please don’t
use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
-
Just ensure to
*Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking
on the ‘Send’ button.
-
Keep in mind that
the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security
code.
Invitation to Debate
with IIT (B) Atheists Led By Dr. Nikhil Joshi -
Second Update
|
A
group of IIT (B) students under the banner of atheists objected to Prof.
Henry Schaefer’s view that recent findings in cosmology are parallel
to the creation narration of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. This
was reported in DNA and Times of India. Sakshi: An Apologetics Network
in India extends an invitation to these students to choose a scholarly
speaker from their side to debate with us on the topic- creation or
evolution. |
|
 |
Background for
the Invitation for Debate
During
the recent visit of the Distinguished Chemist Prof Henry F Schaefer
(Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for
Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia), to the Tech Fest
in IITB, a group of students at IIT (B) protested against the logical
deductions of Prof Schaefer. These IIT students objected to Prof. Schaefer’s
conclusion that recent developments in cosmology points towards the
creator and is closely parallel to the Genesis of the Bible.
The flyer
that students printed (and published online at http://homepages.iitb.ac.in/~atheist/schaefer/flyer.htm)
said: We are not here to oppose Christianity itself but the scientific
packaging to it. Therefore we need to discuss the scientific conclusions
he offers. It further said: We are not happy with the claim “giving
you an opportunity to interact” made by Techfest organisers as they
have refused our request for a matched debate between Prof. Schaefer
and a scholar in cosmology/evolution. Such a discussion could have done
justice by representing both types of prevalent opinions among scientists.
This has been reported in DNA and The Times of India.
Sakshi:
An Apologetics Network in India who holds similar views of Prof. Schaefer
on cosmology and intelligent design appreciates the view of these students
that there should be a debate on this topic and extends an invitation
to these students to debate on the topic Evolution or Creation: What
does Science Say.
Disclaimer
We hasten
to add that though we have organized a few of Prof. Schaefer’s programs
in India, this should not be construed as a response from Prof. Schaefer.
Prof. Schafer has neither instructed nor advised us to take up this
challenge. Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India is formed to answer
the critics of Christianity in India and it is only fulfilling its mission
in answering the challenge of these IITB students.
Open
Invitation
Dear Dr. Nikhil Joshi
and Other IITians,
Let us
begin by introducing ourselves. We are Sakshi: An Apologetics Network
in India, an evangelical Christian network established for defending
the Christian faith through reasons and answering its critics. We have
conducted open forums with renowned scientists on these subjects which
includes Prof. Henry Schaefer (Intelligent Design) and Dr. Carl Wieland
(Creation Institute).
We have
come across your objections to Prof. Henry F Schaefer and are encouraged
by the fact that you are willing to debate on the topic- creation or
evolution. Our resource persons have conducted scientific talks and
debate on these topics in many universities and a few times along with
Prof. Henry Schaefer.
So, Sakshi:
An Apologetics Network in India as a response to your desire for a debate
extends an invitation to debate on the topic with a prominent speaker
on this subject- Rev. Prof Sudhakar Mondithoka. His brief profile is
attached for your reference and we will be happy to provide more information
if you require. He has been a resource person along with Prof. Schaefer
at the University of Hyderabad last year on the same topic and has conducted
debates with reputed atheists in many Universities in India.
We are
confident that your objections from the scientific methodology (falsification)
and evidences (vestigial organs) to intelligent design were because
of academic differences and not because of any other motivations. So,
we hope that you make use of this opportunity and will be willing to
debate with us which will be educative for the larger public.
You can
choose any scholar from your side to represent your case and then we
will discuss the venue, date and the title for the topic.
We will
be publishing the update in this site with your responses and the date,
venue, topic and speaker from your side for the said debate. We will
be also publishing all our correspondences if you are willing to correspond
with us unless otherwise you have an objection.
We are
also sending an SMS to Dr. Nikhil Joshi (919820777286) informing him
about this published open invitation. We are sending an email also to
his id- atheist at
iitb.ac.in. We will be publishing his response too.
We are waiting to hear from you and looking forward for the debate on
this subject.
Thanking you,
Regards,
Jerry Thomas (For
Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India).
Profile
of Rev. Prof Sudhakar Mondithoka (Speaker from our side for the debate)
Rev. Prof
Sudhakar Mondithoka has three graduate degrees - M. Sc (Zoology - specializing
in Entomology and Neurophisiology, M. Ed (School Administration) from
Osmania University and M. A (Philosophy of Religion and Ethics) from
Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, USA. After working for
a short time as an Entomological Officer with the Andhra Pradesh State
Health Department, he has taught Zoology for over 9 years in the prestigious
Wesley and Loyola institutions in Andhra Pradesh. He is a Visiting Professor/Faculty
of ‘Contemporary World Religions & Christian Apologetics’ and
‘Ethics’ at SAIACS where he teaches the M. A. 2nd Year Students
and Christian Apologetics & Philosophy of Religions at SABC where
he teaches the M. Div., 2nd Year Students.
He has
also lectured at a number of other Seminaries/Bible Colleges: GFABS,
NEIBBCS, Ichthous Bible College, IEM Bible College, etc. He has authored
a small book God - Science and Scientists and has contributed a chapter
Apologetic in a Hindu Context for a book Missiology For the 21st Century:
South Asian Perspective (Delhi: ISPCK-MIIS, 2004). He has also contributed
a major article Incarnation, the Mission Theology of for the IVP Dictionary
of Mission Theology that will come out in September 2007 and a number
of other articles for Apologia, Vidyarthi Jwala, The Answer, Harvest
Times for Your Family, In Touch India, India Church Growth Quarterly,
etc. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Evangelical
Theological Society, USA. While at Talbot, he won the prestigious Baker
Book House Award for Excellence in the Study of Theology. He was ordained
in their Local Church in the US, East West Community Church (part of
the NABC - North American Baptist Conference) in 2001.
From 1994
Aug. to 2006 Jan. he worked with RZIM Life Focus Society (as Asst. Director,
Director-Ministries, and finally as Executive Director), which is involved
in evangelism (under-girded by apologetics) among thinkers and opinion
makers and in training Christian professionals, leaders, and Seminary
Students in apologetics. He served as the Executive Director of RZIM-India
and also as the Editor and Publisher of a Quarterly Magazine Apologia:
Reasoned Answers for Life, for three years from its inception.
He has
spoken in over 10 countries and also in some the best Universities and
Institutes of Higher Education in India, like the Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, IITs, IIMs, Hyderabad Central University, M.S. University,
Baroda, S.P. University, Anand, Andhra University, Nagarjuna University,
APAU, NEHU, Shillong, etc. He has spoken in almost all major Denominational
Church and Para-Church settings through out India.
Rev. Mondithoka
is now a Free-Lance Writer-Speaker and Apologist-Evangelist. He lives
in Hyderabad with his wife, Mrs. Santha Kumari and son, Shamuel Susheel.
He is now the Pastor
of the English Congregation of Centenary Baptist Church, Secunderabad
and also provides leadership for Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India.
First
Update
Hi Nikhil,
Thanks
for the email and your willingness to debate the issue over the email
and later a public debate. I am attaching the rough draft for the agreement
which should be signed by both of us so that there will not be any misgivings
at a later stage.
Regarding
clarifying the opinion about Pope, we agree with him when he is speaking
the truth and disagrees with him when he is in error. I am sure that
the articles you read must have addressed two issues. In fact, our approach
to issues has been objective and we try avoiding making personal attacks
even against people whom we disagree with.
We appreciate
your suggestion to make a difference between the official and personal
views in Sakshi. In fact, we think that we have already done so. If
you browse the section About Us in Saskhi
http://www.sakshitimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=37, you
will see a paragraph on articles published in
www.sakshtimes.com and
what we believe. What we believe is the non-negotiable part and our
official stand. If you cite any factual errors, we will be happy to
amend the articles. However it should factual errors and not just difference
in perspective.
As discussed,
I am attaching the format for the paper debates and the subsequent public
debate. Please review it and let me know your comments. We will discuss
further on the points which we cannot agree at this stage.
I am copying
Rev. Sudhakar Mondithoka for his comments on the agreement.
I am copying
a few other key members of our network including Dr. Arun Gadre.
Waiting for your reply.
Regards, Jerry
-On 2/4/08, Nikhil
Joshi atheist@iitb.ac.in wrote:
Hi there,
Thank
you very much for your email. I appreciate your offer for a discussion.
Apologetic Mr. Cyril Georgeson sometimes visits IIT Bombay to chat with
some students. He said you are acquainted. I wish to keep him in the
loop. My cellular phone (number 9820777286) is old and unreliable. Please
do not misunderstand if you can’t contact me on it.There are some
issues to be tackled in this regard. Please feel free to publish them.
1. The signatories
of my pamphlet concerning Prof. Schaefer’s lecture at IIT Bombay were
unanimous about the opinions mentioned therein. I do not guarantee the
signatories’ acceptance of my leadership. Last three of the signatories
are not atheists. I have informed all five of them about your email
as well as your website. They may communicate with you to explain their
stance. If you wish to communicate with them, I will request them to
allow me to disclose their email addresses to you.
2. Just for records,
my objections about Christianity (in general, about all religions) are
more than those noted in the pamphlet. I would be more interested in
a comprehensive discussion.
3. In addition to
ID, theology and falsificationism, my friends and I had also criticized
Prof. Schaefer’s moral opinions in context with the stand of New Testament
about slavery. I would like the debate to include this issue as well.
4. To save time, we
need to decide mutually accepted opinions so that no energy will be
spent to research arguments in their defence. Please state such points.
e.g. age of the universe, evolution of species, subjectivism, morality,
etc.
5. I am making our
opinions open to you. It will be speedy to arrive at central points
of dispute if your arguments are made known to me in advance. I am requesting
this as it seems that your opinions differ from the conventional clergy.
In particular there are articles on your website criticizing the Pope.
Therefore if our expert prepares his arguments considering the Vatican,
he is likely to miss the target.
6. Please clear some
ambiguities in your opinion. e.g. One post of your website criticizes
the Pope while one praises him, one post claims Christianity’s superiority
while one debunks it, etc. There are some factual errors on the site
as well. e.g. Claim about appendix, etc. Also, please distinguish personal
opinions from official opinions of sakshitimes.
7. Prof. Schaefer
was planned to speak in yet another esteemed institute in front of gullible
students. We needed to nullify effects of his speech. Therefore we requested
an oral debate with of Prof. Schaefer. We stood to lose if we were to
let Prof. Schaefer leave uncontested. On the other hand, we don’t
seem to gain anything even in case we win debate with you as the status
quo with Prof. Schaefer will be undisturbed. Still, we are making inquiries
about our expert’s availability for your debate. We will have to convey
terms of debate to him in detail.
8. I am thankful to
you for using modern methods of communication like email, blog and SMS
to offer chance to debate. It will be great if we can conduct the debate
by means of email/blog. This way, presentations skills will not affect
the performance of the speaker. It will eliminate need of all speakers
being free at same time at same place. It will provide chance to correct
silly mistakes, slip of tongue, etc., which may brutally damage the
case in oral debates. Also, it will allow contribution of more than
one brain to each side in debate. If you want to hold a proper non-virtual
debate on a grand scale with publicity, I am ready to get our speaker
speak all the points (already offered by our side in email) and re-run
the entire email debate in a single oral debate session (like the staged
reality shows on television channels).
PS: I appreciate that
you oppose global warming frenzy, yoga and astrology, at least from
the summary of the articles.
Thanx~Nikhil
Sakshi Apologetics
Network wrote:>
Dear Dr. Joshi,>
>
We are
/Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India/.
We have
come across your objections to Prof. Schaefer’s view on science
and Christianity. We > hold a similar view to Prof. Schaefer and
have conducted programs along > with Prof Schaefer too.>
We have
seen your desire to conduct a debate. We extend an invitation > from
our side for the debate.
We have
published the invitation to you in our site www.sakshitimes.com
Hope you would kindly respond to this initiative in positive.
Thanks and regards,>>
Jerry Thomas>>
For Sakshi: An Apologetics
Network in India
Debate
on Creation or Evolution Agreement.doc29K View as HTML Open as a Google
document Download
Second
Update
Thanks dear friends,
Jerry and Nikhil for all the hard work you have already done and all
the e-mail exchanges (I have been receiving). I just got to see the
latest mails. But it is already 1 am (6th Feb.). I have been working
on some notes for my students (on logic and worldviews) and I have three
classes tomorrow. So I will respond tomorrow, particularly on those
points on which Jerry wanted my inputs, probably in the afternoon. Sudhakar
- Hide quoted text -
Sakshi
Apologetics Network
<
sakshi.apologeticsnetwork@gmail.com
> wrote:-
Here is my reply. Hereafter let the correspondence be restricted
to the agreement to save time for both the parties. Also, I request
Rev. Prof Sudhakar Mondithoka to respond from point 10 onwards ( also
see the point regarding number of rebuttals).
On 2/5/08, Nikhil Joshi<atheist@iitb.ac.>
wrote: Thanx for
a very quick reply.
1. Core issues seem
to be acceptable.
Response: Good to hear this.
2. Please rest assured
about me having read articles about ID. I wonder why you offered me
a chance to debate if you doubted my knowledge. Also, as I requested
in my earlier email, I wished to know depth of difference of opinions
between us. You know, there still are some creationists who believe
that earth is 5000 years old. I just wanted to confirm that your official
stand is not so. Also, I wish to debate the phrase “ID scientist”
itself (a contradiction). Therefore please do not use it till we resolve
about its truth. At least please put inverted commas around it. I am
ready to do the same to the word evolutionist.
Response: Rev. Prof Sudhakar’s view is not
same as the young age creationist view. This is mentioned in his writings.
3. I do not benefit
by reading the book- Darwin on Trial by Philip E Johnson, unless that
book is your official stand.
Response: It is just a recommended book for those who
are interested to know the core issues on evolution creation debate.
4. I am very much
willing to accept the word limit to each article. But I can not accept
limit to number of articles. Two is an arbitrary choice of yours. What
to do about some unproved claims made (to support some arguments in
earlier rebuttal) in the second rebuttal?
Response: First, paper debate is a suggestion
from you and not from us. We agreed for it. We are aware of the frauds
among scientists (http://www.sakshitimes.com/index.php)
So we should be worried about this as there were many atheists who misled
the public. However, considering the manageability, more than two rebuttals
are not possible. What could be done instead is to reach an agreement
on an alternative way of addressing this concern. I propose that whoever
publishes the articles and rebuttals should give their opponents website
address along with it. If you are going to publish it, you should give
Rev. Prof Sudhakar Mondithoka’s and Sakshi website id. Similarly we
will also do that.
5. I have read about
Christianity and Prof. Sudhakar. However you never asserted that Prof.
Sudhakar’s opinions are going to be your official stand. Response:
To re-reconfirm, Prof. Sudhakar is our representative.
6. Accepting the truth
and rejecting the lies is what we must do. I just wanted to confirm
that you do not conform to stereotyped Christians (as there was an article
praising the Pope as “distinguished scholar and leader of the Catholic
Church”). Also, as far as I know, Protestants do not accept any central
authority. Therefore I want to know your opinions (to know how much
we agree and how much we differ so as to save time of the expert) as
you are free to interpret Bible in own unique ways.
Response: I
am glad that you got it right now. However, calling Pope as distinguished
scholar and leader of the Catholic Church I think is a correct description.
He is a distinguished scholar irrespective of whether I or others like
me agree with him or not. Distinguished scholars can be in error at
many times.
7. I hope that this
freedom to interpret Bible does not constitute post-modernist subjectivism
as I hope we both agree on objectivism. Response: We hold the
view that truth has a capital T.
8. I do not wish to
burden my evolution expert with negotiation skills’ work. I will ask
him to communicate once we finalize the terms of debate. Response:
Hope he is the loop and should not raise reservations after we reach
the agreement.
9. We can not start
a debate unless we finalize the terms. It was you to ask me to show
factual errors. My terms of debate have been left unanswered by you.
10. The terms I wish
to resolve are:
State
your objectives that you currently hold and plan to convince me but
are ready to forgo if I manage to refute them. (as per my request in
earlier email “please go through my email as well as http://homepages.iitb.ac.in/~atheist/schaefer/flyer.htm
and the links therein to state all your differences with our opinions”)
Also, “What we
believe is the non-negotiable part and our official stand.” is your claim. This
official stand includes beliefs that I plan to challenge. If they are
non-negotiable, then you offer me no chance to convince you, thereby making the
debate purposeless. Please help me reinterpret this quote of yours if you find
the conclusion wrong.
Response:
I thought we are discussing science and not theology. To be on record,
Dr. Francis S Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and the author
of the Language of God believes in evolution and God. His book is about
that. Between both of our views, there are many other views. If you
would like to discuss theological issues mentioned in What we Believe,
we can take it up at a later stage. Let us first discuss evolution or
creation.
One example of
your factual errors is the claim of appendix being present only in “few
marsupials such as the wombat and South American opossum, a few rodents (rabbits
and rats) and human beings”. Please comment. Response: Please cite reference. It
will be gladly updated.
Please
clarify the meanings of ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ in the agreement
just like the clarification of terms like ‘offerer’ and ‘offeree’.
(Are we are going to accept falsificationism, Occam’s Razor, etc.
in the debate?)
Response: ‘offerer’ and ‘offeree’ are
legal terms for the agreement. Other points may be answered by Rev,
Sudhakar Mondithoka. I hope you are not developing any bad feelings
about the debate proposal.
Response: We are glad that we are going to save some
souls. At the end of of the debate, we would like to see you having
eternal joy. Thanx
Sakshi
Apologetics Network wrote:
Hi,Thanks for your reply.The core focus of
the debate could be whether this universe and life originated through
undirected natural selection or was it designed by any intelligent designer
outside the observed dimensions of this universe. To further clarify
our focus, I am giving you a few questions that have been identified
Hugh Ross on which we can debate:
1. Is our universe
finite or infinite in size and content?
2. Has this universe
been here forever or did it have a beginning
3. Was the universe
created?
4. If the universe
was not created, how did it get here?
5. If the universe
was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what we learn about
the agent and events of creation?
6. Who or what governs
the laws and constants of physics?
7. Are such laws the
products of chance or have they been designed?
8. How do the laws
and constants of physics relate to the support and development of life?
9. Is there any knowable
existence beyond the apparently observed dimensions of our universe?
10. Do we expect our
universe to expand forever, or is a period of contraction to be followed
by a big crunch? I hope that you have read some articles on Intelligent
Design before you objected to it. There is no contention with the evolutionists
and ID scientists on the question of the age of the earth. If you want
to know more about the point of contentions between evolutionists and
ID scientists, I highly recommend you to read the book- Darwin on Trial
by Philip E Johnson, former Professor at Berkeley. It is not possible
to debate without limited rebuttals and without word limit. It is neither
manageable nor advisable. It is not advisable for at least two reasons-
it might create an unequal situation where one person writes 10 pages
and the other write 40 pages.
The audience
also will not be able to read any such lengthy dialogs. So we suggest
two options- (1) Narrow down the focus to one or two core and fundamental
issues (2) Increase the length of the presentation and rebuttals within
the manageable limit. The format you suggested is not a format at all!!! I
strongly suggest that you connect your representative (Professor from
Pune) to our representative (Rev. Prof Sudhakar Mondithoka). Let them
speak over the phone or correspond through the email and decide the
core issues and agree on a manageable format. At the beginning of this
mail, I have already mentioned about the ‘could be’ focus. But this
is best left to the representatives. We would like to see the paper
debates and public debates so that the same audience who heard and read
your objections will see the truth.
Now coming
to the question of Pope. If you were well-read about the Christianity
and then read the profile of our speaker, you would have not raised
this question in the first place. Rev. Prof. Sudhakar Mondithoka now
pastors at Baptist Church which has nothing to do with the Catholic
Church. It comes as no surprise to me that you are shallow about Christianity-
your musings have already exposed that you have formed your opinion
of Christianity by the prejudiced stereotypes and not by any objective
study. What surprises me is the fact that you missed on making a logical
deduction from what I wrote- if we oppose Pope when is wrong and support
when he is right then how do we ‘ follow the chain of command under
the Pope’. I am leaving the rest of your email without pointing
out such mistakes for the fact that we are not here to discuss and debate
such issues. Let us stay on the focus of the discussion. Regards,Jerry
On 2/5/08,
Nikhil
Joshi <atheist@iitb.ac.in>
wrote: Thanx for the quick reply.
Here is
a tautological and therefore uninformative claim of yours: “Regarding
clarifying the opinion about Pope, we agree with him when he is speaking
the truth and disagrees with him when he is in error.”
You are
avoiding to state whether you follow the chain of command under the
Pope or are independent ‘Christians’. If latter, please state your
objectives for making debate (i.e. list the ‘truths’ that you currently
conclude and are ready to get challenged and are ready to abandon if
successfully refuted in the debate) so that I may find out how much
of our opinions differ (I know that the Vatican differs from us but
wish to confirm about you). It is possible that we don’t have anything
to debate and thus there will be no need to debate. Thus, please go
through my email as well as
http://homepages.iitb.ac.in/~atheist/schaefer/flyer.htm
and the links therein to state all your differences with our opinions
(thus I will know that you agree with rest of my opinions). Then we
shall go on to debate on each of the disputes, one by one.
Also,
“What we believe is the non-negotiable part and our official stand.”
is your claim. This official stand includes beliefs that I plan to challenge.
If they are non-negotiable, then you offer me no chance to convince
you, thereby making the debate purposeless.
One example
of your factual errors is the claim of appendix being present only in
“few marsupials such as the wombat and South American opossum, a few
rodents (rabbits and rats) and human beings”. Even if I accept your
reference of a site that I find biased, still you distort even their
opinions too. They were referring to a ‘worm shaped appendix’ while
you used it as generic appendix. Please refrain from such attempts in
the intended debate. I am prepared to confront ALL such filibuster statements.
Nevertheless, as I am an hobbyist and not a full timer, my responses
are going to be slower than yours. Please excuse the possible delays.
If you wish to save time, please promise not to make any statements
directly necessary to support the basic point of the article.
Also,
one post in debate should contain support for only one disagreement.
Next article should start only after both parties run out of rebuttals
and accept one answer to the point of contention. Please clarify the
meanings of ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ in the article just like
the clarification of terms like ‘offerer’ and ‘offeree’. There
should not be a limit to the number of rebuttals or number of total
words.
Please
tell if you can modify the draft according to these requests.
Thanx
To be
continued....
|
