IDist Stephen Meyer's "Signature" ID book has lately inspired this, this, this and this. Now it is Ayala's turn to play Whack-a-Meyer. Elsewhere Dembski of all people is criticized for not being wrong enough.
61 Comments
Pete Dunkelberg · 8 January 2010
Civil Math
I've noticed half of a four way split going around. Something like 10 and 01, but missing 00 and 11. That is to say, one may also be rude and wrong or polite and right. Recall if you will that rude is already wrong just on account of rudeness, unless there is evidence that some worthy point will get across that way but not politely. This is a rare circumstance. Rude usually makes the recipient defensive and is offputting to bystanders as well.
Pete Dunkelberg · 8 January 2010
Disco's "some Designer did something somehow" story looks to be wearing thin. This does not mean no more creationists, it means the YEC's take over unconstrained by their saner allies.
Although ID is in reality anti-science, they are not so anti-science as the YEC's. ID may go down, and go down as the last "scientific" creationist movement. Begun the YEC war has.
Doc Bill · 8 January 2010
Dembski writes:
so the effects of the Fall operate forwards and backwards in time (thus animal suffering is a result of the sin of Adam even though, temporally, it comes before).
So, basically, Dembski can write whatever pops into his head, like fiction. Need a Time Machine, no problema! Explanatory Filter? Here, take two! Specified Complexity? Simple!
Now, if only Dembski could create a Baylor Cafeteria meal card he'd be set for life ...
Wheels · 8 January 2010
Doc Bill said:
Dembski writes:
so the effects of the Fall operate forwards and backwards in time (thus animal suffering is a result of the sin of Adam even though, temporally, it comes before).
So, basically, Dembski can write whatever pops into his head, like fiction. Need a Time Machine, no problema! Explanatory Filter? Here, take two! Specified Complexity? Simple!
It does solve the problem of answering what happened when. Now, under this scheme, things can (and do!) happen whenever for reasons that may not even exist yet.
sparc · 8 January 2010
Elsewhere Dembski of all people is criticized for not being wrong enough.
Which clearly deserves its own thread. His following statement should make the headlines:
Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me
Isn't this the same cdesingpropentionist who stated that ID is not creationism
Dave Luckett · 8 January 2010
For the moment, may I accept the notion, argumento, that there is a God? IF (big if) there is a God, He stands apart from space and time. He must do: He created them. The one must follow from the other.
So God, says Dembski, is independent of time, and hence can allow evil to enter the world before the Fall, as the anticipatory result of it.
The answer is the very one that is used to accuse us of original sin: free will. Our will is part of our very selves - it must be, or we would not be personally guilty for its misuse. And we, unlike God, exist in time. Therefore our will, being part of ourselves, exists there also. If it exists in time, then it could not exist before the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, and hence the Fall.
Unlike time in the mind of God, that statement has real meaning. But God is said by Dembski to have allowed evil into the world for the sake of an event that is bound in time. Hence, God, who knows all things, is behaving towards His creation as if time didn't matter to it.
That is, all things capable of suffering (and many animals are certainly capable of it) must suffer for the sake of a sin that they cannot commit that hasn't happened yet.
And this God is said to be just. Hah! I spit on Dembski's God.
"The debate between Darwin and design is coming to Tampa, Florida with a major one-night event featuring some of the leading voices challenging Darwinian evolution. evolution" so says the DISCO.
The leading voices (debaters) include Michael Medved, Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, and Thomas Woodward, all ID/creationists, and poor Charles Darwin will be there in abstentia with noone to defend him in this one-sided "debate."
Of course, they're charging (milking) the public to attend this sordid affair.
Stephen P · 9 January 2010
And in addition, Dembski says:
I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
So he's finally given up all pretence, and admits what we all knew (or at least very, very strongly suspected) all along.
so the effects of the Fall operate forwards and backwards in time (thus animal suffering is a result of the sin of Adam even though, temporally, it comes before).
If time means so little to the supernatural entities known as god(s), why couldn't they just go back in time and fix everything that went wrong in the first place?
I suppose if you pile up enough ad hoc explanations, everything is explainable. But this isn't science. What Dembski completely lacks is something known as data, proof.
Mike Elzinga · 9 January 2010
raven said:
If time means so little to the supernatural entities known as god(s), why couldn't they just go back in time and fix everything that went wrong in the first place?
Maybe that is what is happening. They keep going back to fix what they screwed up in the “beginning”, but then they keep screwing up their "fixes" as well.
The net result is evolution.
fnxtr · 9 January 2010
Sad for the cdesignproponenstists that they can't do the same thing. Instead of Marty McFly time correction, all they can do is revisionist back-pedalling.
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Pete Dunkelberg said:
Disco's "some Designer did something somehow" story looks to be wearing thin. This does not mean no more creationists, it means the YEC's take over unconstrained by their saner allies.
Although ID is in reality anti-science, they are not so anti-science as the YEC's. ID may go down, and go down as the last "scientific" creationist movement. Begun the YEC war has.
Pardon if this was covered in another reply or in one or more links, but I must put in my usual 2c before reading it all. If anything ID is more anti-science than YEC. IDers may concede old life and sometimes common descent (and when they don't they are more "uncertain" than strongly denying), but ID itself allows all possibilities under the big tent. In contrast, YEC takes at least the first steps of being scientific by clearly stating testable hypotheses of "what happened when." IDers realize that such hypothesis (including old-earth and old-life variants that deny evolution) are easily falsifiable, so they are even more careful at avoiding what real scientists do.
Also, lets not forget "YEC" usually refers to that 20th century concoction that itself makes some concessions to mainstream science, particularly heliocentrism. To me it makes much more sense looking at the "evolution" of anti-evolution activism as an "evolution" of a strategy rather than of a belief system. At some point a bell goes off: "Oops, we're starting to concede too much, and our internal disagreements are making us look like the hopelessly confused ones. The only option left is to say as little as possible about the alternate "theory" (most audiences infer their childhood fairy tale anyway) and focus on promoting doubt of evolution any way we can, up to and including obeying Godwin's Law."
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Stephen P said:
And in addition, Dembski says:
I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
So he's finally given up all pretence, and admits what we all knew (or at least very, very strongly suspected) all along.
Does the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy say anything that a Theistic Evolutionist would explicitly disagree with?
Don't get me wrong, Dembski made it clear that TEs are "enemy #1" and I'm sure that's how he feels, if only because TEs are his harshest critics. But he also has an affinity for words and phrases with multiple meanings, and it would not surprise me if that's how the statement reads.
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Isn’t this the same cdesingpropentionist who stated that ID is not creationism?
— sparc
All of them say that. But they are deliberately playing a game. They want us to react with "ID is too creationism" so they can bait-and-switch 2 definitions of "creationism." Namely the critics' definition (any pseudoscience that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution) and the general public's definition (honest belief in one of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis).
Note that IDers look the other way when a YEC or OEC who "hasn't gotten the memo" equates ID with creationism, but jump on any critic who does the same thing?
Elsewhere Dembski of all people is criticized for not being wrong enough.
— Pete Dunkelberg
God may punish me for enjoying this so much, but I can't resist this train wreck. You have Demsbski pandering to every type of creationist possible, even resisting being caught in a contradiction (as if that ever stopped him before) calling himself an old-earth creationist to a creationist audience. But even some of them want no part of his "big tent" nonsense. The author of this calls Dembski a "theistic evolutionist!" That must be more painful to Dembski than the sum total of all the scientific critiques of his writings.
SWT · 9 January 2010
Frank J said:
Does the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy say anything that a Theistic Evolutionist would explicitly disagree with?
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
and
Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Frank J · 9 January 2010
We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
SWT:
I'm not sure how to interpret that sentence. Does it mean that they do not think that current scientific hypotheses about earth history falsify "creation" (whatever that means) and a global flood? Or does it mean that they will reject any scientific hypothesis (or theory) that does that? Or are they purposely being vague to please a wider audience?
Whichever they mean, everything I have read from Dembski suggests that he does not personally believe either interpretation, or at best the former if one stretches the definitions of "creation" and "flood" (note that it didn't say "global"). As some TEs do.
It would be nice if someone asks Dembski to elaborate on exactly what parts of that he agrees with. Same for the "Baptist Faith and Message 2000." If he's truly a recent convert to Genesis literalist (OEC variety) he should have no problem clarifying it. But if he's just trying to tell his followers what they want to hear, he'll give an inconclusive answer.
Karen S. · 9 January 2010
But Dembski has said that he takes Genesis figuratively.
Dave Luckett · 9 January 2010
Alas, it comes down to your interpretation of language, and this is the fact that Biblical "literalists" cannot get. I just used scare quotes because not even raving "literalists" think everything in the Bible actually literally happened. They just think that they can look at the text and know with certainty whether it's meant to be taken as a literal account of events or as a story with a moral purpose.
Which is to say, they regard themselves as infallible, or to put it another way, they have demanded of God that He miraculously provide them with perfect understanding, and believe that God has acceded to their demand.
Which is a blasphemy so vile, and so obviously rooted in overwheening hubris, as to actually shock even me, long-lapsed as I am.
The Chicago Declaration, that great sacrifice at the altar of blind, rigid ignorance, is probably meant to insist that the stories in Genesis of the creation and the flood are literal history. But it doesn't say so specifically and in so many words, and if it doesn't there is always wiggle room. Not much, though.
Possibly Dembski thinks he can wiggle a bit more than the Pharisees that wrote that wretched monument to their own arrogance would like. He's probably right - it's not in their interest to check him in public. So long as he doesn't absolutely assert in their hearing that the Genesis story of creation and the flood is not literal history, they'll let him get away with obfuscation, fudging and not quite saying.
Until, of course, they have no further use for him.
SWT · 9 January 2010
Frank J said:
We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
SWT:
I'm not sure how to interpret that sentence. Does it mean that they do not think that current scientific hypotheses about earth history falsify "creation" (whatever that means) and a global flood? Or does it mean that they will reject any scientific hypothesis (or theory) that does that? Or are they purposely being vague to please a wider audience?
Whichever they mean, everything I have read from Dembski suggests that he does not personally believe either interpretation, or at best the former if one stretches the definitions of "creation" and "flood" (note that it didn't say "global"). As some TEs do.
It would be nice if someone asks Dembski to elaborate on exactly what parts of that he agrees with. Same for the "Baptist Faith and Message 2000." If he's truly a recent convert to Genesis literalist (OEC variety) he should have no problem clarifying it. But if he's just trying to tell his followers what they want to hear, he'll give an inconclusive answer.
Article XIV
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
Article XV
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
Article XXII
WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
It would be nice, as you suggest, to get a clear, unambiguous statement from the horse's ... mouth.
fnxtr · 9 January 2010
"And we say it's a fact because... well because we say so!"
Can't argue with that now, can ya.
Dave Luckett · 10 January 2010
I should have held my nose and waded through to Article XXII. The stink of arrogant and unrepentant hubris overwhelmed me.
I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell, no liberal humanist he, to the Elders of the Church of Scotland: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken."
But they didn't, so it was necessary to use the traditional methods to demonstrate to them that they were, in fact, mistaken.
Dave Luckett · 10 January 2010
Mr Matzke, if you're going to allow Brian to godbot on the Seventh Day Adventist thread, could you allow my post refuting his nonsense about giant human fossils to go through?
Glenn · 10 January 2010
Just thought it was worth pointing out that Steve Matheson, biologist at Calvin, is making a series of responses to Meyer's book on his blog too; http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-beginning-review.html http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-other-reviews.html http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-preliminary.html
DS · 10 January 2010
From the Chicago statement:
"WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated."
Interesting, Gilgamesh deniers. Who would have thought. Well, might as well throw out all of history.
"WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation."
Interesting, geology, astronomy and biology deniers. Well, might as well throw out all of science.
How about this instead:
WE (the scientific community) DENY any beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence. We CONDEMN those who attempt to force beliefs contrary to evidence on others as charlatans. We APPLAUD those who honestly strive to discover evidence and search for truth, where ever that search may lead.
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Indeed, indeed, and so hath said thy "holy" masters Duane Gish and Henry Morris, the latter of "blessed memory":
Pete Dunkelberg said:
Disco's "some Designer did something somehow" story looks to be wearing thin. This does not mean no more creationists, it means the YEC's take over unconstrained by their saner allies.
Although ID is in reality anti-science, they are not so anti-science as the YEC's. ID may go down, and go down as the last "scientific" creationist movement. Begun the YEC war has.
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Well two years ago I offered to Bill the possibility of getting my assistance if he opted to write, with Michael Behe, the definitive textbook on Klingon Cosmology. Maybe it's time for him to accept my most generous offer:
Doc Bill said:
Dembski writes:
so the effects of the Fall operate forwards and backwards in time (thus animal suffering is a result of the sin of Adam even though, temporally, it comes before).
So, basically, Dembski can write whatever pops into his head, like fiction. Need a Time Machine, no problema! Explanatory Filter? Here, take two! Specified Complexity? Simple!
Now, if only Dembski could create a Baylor Cafeteria meal card he'd be set for life ...
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Didn't he also say too that Intelligent Design is really the LOGOS of Saint John's:
Karen S. said:
But Dembski has said that he takes Genesis figuratively.
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Poor Bill. Now he's really HOT N' COLD (with apologies to Katy Perry):
John Kwok said:
Didn't he also say too that Intelligent Design is really the LOGOS of Saint John's:
Karen S. said:
But Dembski has said that he takes Genesis figuratively.
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Thanks, Glenn. I just perused Matheson's two entries. This promises to be a lot better than Darrel Falk's "review" over at BioLogos:
Glenn said:
Just thought it was worth pointing out that Steve Matheson, biologist at Calvin, is making a series of responses to Meyer's book on his blog too;
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-beginning-review.html
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-other-reviews.html
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-preliminary.html
Frank J · 10 January 2010
John Kwok said:
Poor Bill. Now he's really HOT N' COLD (with apologies to Katy Perry):
John Kwok said:
Didn't he also say too that Intelligent Design is really the LOGOS of Saint John's:
Karen S. said:
But Dembski has said that he takes Genesis figuratively.
What else can one be when one is obsessed with getting as many "kinds" of science-denier under the big tent as possible? Unfortunately he has the unwitting help of most of us "Darwinists" in that, for every one time one of us says "look how he's trying to have it both ways" 100 others drown it out by saying "see, he really is a creationist!"
The king of chutzpah once dodged a tough question whining "you're asking me to play a game." In reality, it is he who is playing a game.
raven · 10 January 2010
From the Chicago statement:
“WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.”
This Chicago statement looks like anything written by a random troll on the internet. Except they used spellcheck and fewer exclamation marks.
Eminently ignorable and senseless. Except how do they enforce it if they do?
The traditional methods of commanding obedience were stoning to death, burning at the stake, or hanging. Maybe they just stuck someone with a sword if they were in a hurry.
These days that isn't possible in the west. So do they excommunicate anyone who doesn't buy the Chicago statement or accepts modern science?
Some Protestant sects have done exactly that, had purges and excommunicated scientists and science supporters. But even that isn't very common. The ones that have internal witch hunts tend to be highly schismatic and end up as a bunch of small fragments.
Some of my relatives were born into a highly doctrinaire Calvinist church. One day they moved and somehow forgot to re-enroll and joined a liberal Protestant denomination instead. Litmus tests work both ways.
Matt G · 10 January 2010
Stephen P said:
And in addition, Dembski says:
I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
So he's finally given up all pretence, and admits what we all knew (or at least very, very strongly suspected) all along.
How pathetic! All it takes is one contradiction, and "biblical inerrancy" is demolished. Here's one: in one of the four Gospels it says "there is no cause for divorce" and in another it says "there is no cause for divorce except adultery."
raven · 10 January 2010
All it takes is one contradiction, and “biblical inerrancy” is demolished.
There is a contradiction on the very first page. Two creation myths that are obviously different.
Plus several hundred more. IIRC, there are 3 repeats of the story of David slaying Goliath. In 2 stories, David kills him. In the third, it is one of his followers.
Rolf Aalberg · 11 January 2010
In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that is being blessed by their God with rain and water wells breaking forth. Thus life was created on Earth.
Contrary to that; in Babylon, floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.
eric · 11 January 2010
raven said:
From the Chicago statement:
“WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.”
That's interesting Raven, it suggests that signers like Dembski should repudiate the Conservative Bible Project. After all, Schlafly et al. are pretty clear in their claims that some biblical accounts were invented by the writers.
Yet another avenue for asking pointed questions.
raven · 11 January 2010
ggreenberg.tripod.com:
According to the King James translation of 2 Sam. 21:19,
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Although this translation says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, the words “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew text. The actual wording of the passage says that Elhanan slew Goliath, not his brother.
The addition of these words in the English translation came about for two reasons. One, the translators didn’t want to contradict the earlier story attributing the act to David, especially since David is so dramatically linked to Christ in Christian tradition. (Christ’s credentials as Messiah, according to biblical prophesies, depend upon his descent from David.) Two, the author of 1 Chr. 20:5, written centuries after the verse in 2 Sam 21:17 and faced with the same contradiction, wrote,
Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.
The English translators, relying on 1 Chr. 20:5, inserted the words “the brother of” into 2 Sam. 21:19.
NIV:
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [a] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [b] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.
The bible is loaded with contradictions. The original writers when faced with several versions of the same story or myth just put them all in without worrying about consistency.
Later editors have been rewriting the bible and removing the inconsistencies when no one is looking. The NIV, the newest fundie version, has several key rewrites, including trying to remove the contradictions of the two creation myths.
Calling a continuously rewritten book loaded with inconsistencies and multiple versions of the same stories INERRANT, is impossible and a lie.
Doesn't stop anyone though. The fundies would rather overthrow the US government, destroy the USA, and bring about a new Dark Age than admit an obvious truth. And they also never wonder why people are fleeing xianity.
Argon · 11 January 2010
I agree with the YECs: If you assume that "the Fall" is true, that natural evil arose as a consequence, and that God has interacted with the world in an 'interruptive' manner, then young earth creationism is most parsimonious. Dembski's problem is that with OEC, it appears that he's placing science over the Bible (if in a half-assed way by rejecting most of evolution).
I’m a theistic evolutionist, and I affirm the Chicago Statement. The parts you highlight are, by design, toothless. The first merely states that whatever the bible states about history and science is true. Given this is a document supporting inerrancy that is hardly surprising. You note it takes no stand as to what is said by the bible. There were young-earthers and old-earthers on the committee—on the statements pertaining to science they all agreed and signed-off because the statements say nothing in detail—only that the bible is right. They give no prescription for how the bible is to be interpreted.
The second is similar. It again affirms that if the bible speaks on science it speaks the truth, a truth that cannot be overturned by science—since (duh) the bible is true. It is also a weak statement in that it doesn’t specify what (if anything—or anything much) the bible actually says about science—only that whatever it does state is not wrong. It doesn’t point out where the bible speaks on science and most importantly if and when the bible does speak on science, the Chicago Statement doesn’t demand any particular hermeneutic, such as literalism.
In short, a theistic evolutionist who argues: “I believe the bible is inerrant (in the non-trivial manner described by the Chicago statement) and I believe what it says about creation, which I interpret this way” can affirm the Chicago statement. A TE who states: I believe that bible to be infallible only in what it states concerning matters of faith” can not.
A more interesting example of the same sort of argument is that some Presbyterian YECs say their beloved Westminster Confession confirms a young-earth view because it states that creation was accomplished “in the space of six days.” OEC Presbyterians argue that all the Westminster divines did was to quote scripture, so the argument is unchanged and they are back to arguing interpretation.
The difference is that the Westminster Divines were probably not too sensitive to the old/young debate and did not avoid details for big-tent reasons. On the other hand the Chicago Committee most definitely, by design, put in a statement that didn’t go beyond “whatever the bible states on creation or science is correct” and purposely avoided taking any stand as to interpretation.
SWT said:
Frank J said:
Does the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy say anything that a Theistic Evolutionist would explicitly disagree with?
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
and
Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Since the scientific community is split on, say, using live animals for drug testing--does this mean that you deny the belief of the scientist who believes animals testing is improper, or do you deny the belief of the scientist who believes it is an acceptable practice, or both? Or neither? And if the answer is neither does that mean, as your statement implies, that both beliefs are based on evidence (lest you deny them)? And if so, would you say that if the two sides simply pooled their evidence they would inexorably come to agreement, if they are of the scientific community?
DS said:
WE (the scientific community) DENY any beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.
RWard · 13 January 2010
Heddle, Was there really a world-wide flood? Did Moses literally lead a massive number of Israelites on a 38 year journey across the Sinai? Did Joshua really destroy Canaan?
You suggest that an intelligent reading of the Bible allows the reader to accept the Bible as 'Truth' not myth. I would be interested in hearing about the truth you find in Joshua 6.
I can understand theistic evolution and I respect the people who call themselves theistic evolutionists. I do, however, have a problem with people who try to twist the Bible into a valid version of history or science. The Bible is bad history and worse science; to pretend otherwise throws doubt on any other message it may contain.
Hi RWard,
Well, my answers are no, yes and yes, but that is irrelevant. I think what you are saying is something like "nobody can claim a local flood and be consistent with the bible." That's fair question, but a separate one. All the language of the Chicago Statement demands is that I affirm that the bible is not in error (with the caveats they spell out) in describing the Noahic flood. I affirm that. Whether or not I can make a compelling case for my interpretation of the flood or the Exodus or Joshua 6 is secondary.
They understood what they were writing. The old/young wars were in full force at the time. Had they wanted to affirm YEC positions like a global flood they would have done so explicitly--and promptly lost more than a few prominent signatories. If you look at some of the names and you know a bit about them, you know that many (most) are not biblical literalists and many either affirmed an old earth or had stated explicitly that an old earth view was within the pale of orthodoxy.
RWard said:
Heddle, Was there really a world-wide flood? Did Moses literally lead a massive number of Israelites on a 38 year journey across the Sinai? Did Joshua really destroy Canaan?
You suggest that an intelligent reading of the Bible allows the reader to accept the Bible as 'Truth' not myth. I would be interested in hearing about the truth you find in Joshua 6.
I can understand theistic evolution and I respect the people who call themselves theistic evolutionists. I do, however, have a problem with people who try to twist the Bible into a valid version of history or science. The Bible is bad history and worse science; to pretend otherwise throws doubt on any other message it may contain.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
Wow, heddle, that's a pretty near squeak.
Yes, I suppose you might be allowed to argue that the Declaration only says that Genesis 1-11 is not mythical, which leaves open the possibility that these stories could be some other kind of parable or fictional narrative other than myth. But, brother, that's splitting hairs, and it's a little too strained, I think.
What's a "myth"? I don't like duelling dictionaries, but the Shorter Oxford says it's "a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena". Other dictionaries agree on all those elements - fictitious, supernatural, explanation of phenomena. Some add "traditional" to the description.
Well, there's no doubting that the writers of the Chicago Declaration would agree that Genesis 1-11 is a traditional narrative with supernatural elements which accounts for natural events and history. Only they say it isn't mythical. But the only remaining element is "fictitious". Hence, they must be saying that it isn't fictitious. If it isn't fictitious, it must be factual. Hence, the Declaration is insisting that Genesis 1-11 is fact, actual history.
God, in fact, did create the Universe in six days, man from the dust of the ground and woman from his rib. There was an actual, worldwide flood lasting for a year, and all land was covered by water. These are not fictional narratives, not parables, not fables, not myths, but real, actual, historical events. So says the Declaration.
I hope you would be allowed to get away with denying this, and still be able to subscribe to the Declaration, if that's what you want, but I wouldn't say it too loud, if I were you. Maybe if you crossed your fingers?
You are free to think that. Or to argue: well then that means this and this and that absurdities. I can only reiterate that the writers purposely avoided creation interpretations and sought a document that affirms a so-called high view of scripture that was not completely trivial. I think they succeeded. That quite a few would write a document, sign it, and yet be excluded by it is a fairly weak proposition. But that is, in effect, what you are arguing.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
Thank you for acknowledging my freedom to think as I like. In the case of the Chicago Declaration, I'll exercise it. I hope its writers would extend to you the same privilege, had they the power to deny it. I, for one, am very glad to reflect that they have not.
DS · 13 January 2010
heddle said:
Since the scientific community is split on, say, using live animals for drug testing--does this mean that you deny the belief of the scientist who believes animals testing is improper, or do you deny the belief of the scientist who believes it is an acceptable practice, or both? Or neither? And if the answer is neither does that mean, as your statement implies, that both beliefs are based on evidence (lest you deny them)? And if so, would you say that if the two sides simply pooled their evidence they would inexorably come to agreement, if they are of the scientific community?
DS said:
WE (the scientific community) DENY any beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.
That is not a factual belief it is an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their won dumb opinions, even you. If you want to claim that the bible is subservient to scientific facts then so be it. Kind of makes the bible somewhat irrelevant if science always wins and the bible is always interpreted to fit the facts, but fine by me.
That's not what your statement read. Based on your response I guess your statement should be modified to read:
"WE (the scientific community) DENY any FACTUAL beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence."
which is hardly worth mentioning. But everyone is entitled to waste pixels, even you.
DS said:
heddle said:
Since the scientific community is split on, say, using live animals for drug testing--does this mean that you deny the belief of the scientist who believes animals testing is improper, or do you deny the belief of the scientist who believes it is an acceptable practice, or both? Or neither? And if the answer is neither does that mean, as your statement implies, that both beliefs are based on evidence (lest you deny them)? And if so, would you say that if the two sides simply pooled their evidence they would inexorably come to agreement, if they are of the scientific community?
DS said:
WE (the scientific community) DENY any beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.
That is not a factual belief it is an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their won dumb opinions, even you. If you want to claim that the bible is subservient to scientific facts then so be it. Kind of makes the bible somewhat irrelevant if science always wins and the bible is always interpreted to fit the facts, but fine by me.
I'm sure they will be willing to discuss how they can accommodate interpreting their own document to your advantage rather than how they intended.
Dave Luckett said:
Thank you for acknowledging my freedom to think as I like. In the case of the Chicago Declaration, I'll exercise it. I hope its writers would extend to you the same privilege, had they the power to deny it. I, for one, am very glad to reflect that they have not.
Dan · 13 January 2010
I see that
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars ...
In contrast, the Clergy Letter Project
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
has some 12,000 signers.
More importantly, the Clergy Letter is not merely a list of unsupported, unreasoned affirmations and denials ... it gives the reasoning behind its position, including "To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
In contrast, the "reasoning" in the Chicago Statement is often hilariously circular: "Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin." Paraphrase: "The Bible must be the word of God because it's the word of God"!!
stevaroni · 13 January 2010
heddle said:
I’m a theistic evolutionist ...
But what exactly does "theistic evolution" get you?
You believe that there's a quasi-natural proscess going on that looks exactly like unguided evolution, but it's actually not unguided because... well, because why?
I don't mean to be a dick here, heddle, but given that there's no evidence whatsoever of divine intervention, and no obvious gap in the mechanism that requires divine intervention, the only remaining reason to try so hard to involve divine intervention is to make the observed physical world match 10 pages in a 3000 year old book about the religious rites of bronze-age shepherds.
Why?
If you're going to believe fervently that God did it, why not just leave it at that and assume that the world popped into being around tea time one warm spring day 6014 years ago?
he only remaining reason to try so hard to involve divine intervention is to make the observed physical world match 10 pages in a 3000 year old book about the religious rites of bronze-age shepherds.
While I would change the wording--essentially that is spot-on.
If you’re going to believe fervently that God did it, why not just leave it at that and assume that the world popped into being around tea time one warm spring day 6014 years ago?
Because the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it.
DS · 13 January 2010
heddle wrote:
"That’s not what your statement read. Based on your response I guess your statement should be modified to read:
“WE (the scientific community) DENY any FACTUAL beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.”
which is hardly worth mentioning. But everyone is entitled to waste pixels, even you."
Agreed. That should have been the wording. If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough. If you think that trying to make everyone interpret the bible in a way that doesn't conflict with the evidence is not a waste, then please keep it up and good luck.
Now you are going back to talking about beliefs rather than "factual beliefs" (whatever they are). You have stated "If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough."
So back to the animal testing. Some scientists believe it is good, some believe it is bad. Which side, or both, or neither--should, as per yor comment, have it pointed out to them that their beliefs are not constrained by evidence? Or did you again forget the adjective "factual"? Did you mean to write: "If you think that it is a waste to point out that FACTUAL beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven’t been hanging around here long enough."?
DS said:
heddle wrote:
"That’s not what your statement read. Based on your response I guess your statement should be modified to read:
“WE (the scientific community) DENY any FACTUAL beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.”
which is hardly worth mentioning. But everyone is entitled to waste pixels, even you."
Agreed. That should have been the wording. If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough. If you think that trying to make everyone interpret the bible in a way that doesn't conflict with the evidence is not a waste, then please keep it up and good luck.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
No doubt you can be sure of what they intended, being, it appears, privy to their thoughts. I, for my part, am restricted to more mundane means when interpreting their words, and can only take them to mean what they plainly say, rather than the opposite.
What I am privy to are the actual positions of many of the writers. Your position demands that they were on 'luudes and wrote a document that conflicted with their own stated beliefs. Furthermore your "plain reading" is bunk, because they did not write, as they easily could have, plainly, as many churches (essentially) do in their doctrinal statement, "and the Genesis creation account and the Noahic flood must be interpreted with a literal hermeunetic--no other is acceptable."
Dave Luckett said:
No doubt you can be sure of what they intended, being, it appears, privy to their thoughts. I, for my part, am restricted to more mundane means when interpreting their words, and can only take them to mean what they plainly say, rather than the opposite.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed.
You say this all means that you may accept the scientific theory, that you may regard the Genesis account as traditional or fictive narrative and not as a factual account of events, and that you may deny that there ever was a world-wide flood. This, to my mind, clearly strains the language far beyond reason.
I wish you well, although I cannot imagine why you think this good, but I still think you're wrong, no matter what insights you think you have into the beliefs and thought processes of the writers of that document. Like Pilate, they have written what they have written.
In PandaThumbCommentSpeak I think that means:
If someone like J. I. Packer expresses some level of support for evolution and disdain for ID, we'll use that to our advantage. But the same J. I. Packer as a charter member of the Chicago Biblical Innerancy committee means that, when it is to our advantage, he forged a document that only fundy YECs can affirm.
Dave Luckett said:
We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed.
You say this all means that you may accept the scientific theory, that you may regard the Genesis account as traditional or fictive narrative and not as a factual account of events, and that you may deny that there ever was a world-wide flood. This, to my mind, clearly strains the language far beyond reason.
I wish you well, although I cannot imagine why you think this good, but I still think you're wrong, no matter what insights you think you have into the beliefs and thought processes of the writers of that document. Like Pilate, they have written what they have written.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
heddle, it is plain that it offends you that I take the Chicago Declaration as meaning what it actually says, quoting (at length) its actual words and appealing to their plain, natural and obvious meaning. This is signalled by your immediate recourse to personalities and accusations like the one immediately above. For the record, I have never referred to Packer here, and I am unaware of any reference to him here whatsoever. So far as I know, the same applies to all the Declaration's signatories.
Reading Packer's essay "The Interpretation of Scripture", I find excellent reason not to use his words in support of evolution, if indeed there are any such words. But to check his "support for evolution", I took the trouble of listening to his podcast at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/audio/creation_evolution_problems/ I can only invite you to listen to him, and see if you still think he supports the theory of evolution after you have.
As for me, I would not trust my understanding of his words so far as to use him as an authority. For instance, the distinction he draws between "literal" and "literalistic" is far too subtle for me, and only makes me wonder whether he thinks words have any accepted meaning at all.
Which might explain his attitude to the Chicago Declaration.
DS · 13 January 2010
I have to agree with Dave here. I really cannot understand how anyone could honestly interpret the quotes above as being in any way compatible with either theistic evolution or the evidence. Of course, I suppose it is possible that if one does not interpret the document literally... oh never mind.
gregwrld · 18 January 2010
heddle said:
Now you are going back to talking about beliefs rather than "factual beliefs" (whatever they are). You have stated "If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough."
So back to the animal testing. Some scientists believe it is good, some believe it is bad. Which side, or both, or neither--should, as per yor comment, have it pointed out to them that their beliefs are not constrained by evidence? Or did you again forget the adjective "factual"? Did you mean to write: "If you think that it is a waste to point out that FACTUAL beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven’t been hanging around here long enough."?
DS said:
heddle wrote:
"That’s not what your statement read. Based on your response I guess your statement should be modified to read:
“WE (the scientific community) DENY any FACTUAL beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.”
which is hardly worth mentioning. But everyone is entitled to waste pixels, even you."
Agreed. That should have been the wording. If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough. If you think that trying to make everyone interpret the bible in a way that doesn't conflict with the evidence is not a waste, then please keep it up and good luck.
You're just trying to confuse this argument. Most scientists would agree that animal testing can produce useful results. Some think it's immoral. You're just making a hash of two different arguments. Figures.
Ichthyic · 19 January 2010
I keep seeing Heddle talk out of his ass about scientific debate wrt the efficacy of animal testing.
...and yet I'm 100% sure Heddle actually knows nothing about how the tests are done, who does them, and why.
61 Comments
Pete Dunkelberg · 8 January 2010
Civil Math
I've noticed half of a four way split going around. Something like 10 and 01, but missing 00 and 11. That is to say, one may also be rude and wrong or polite and right. Recall if you will that rude is already wrong just on account of rudeness, unless there is evidence that some worthy point will get across that way but not politely. This is a rare circumstance. Rude usually makes the recipient defensive and is offputting to bystanders as well.
Pete Dunkelberg · 8 January 2010
Disco's "some Designer did something somehow" story looks to be wearing thin. This does not mean no more creationists, it means the YEC's take over unconstrained by their saner allies.
Although ID is in reality anti-science, they are not so anti-science as the YEC's. ID may go down, and go down as the last "scientific" creationist movement. Begun the YEC war has.
Doc Bill · 8 January 2010
Wheels · 8 January 2010
sparc · 8 January 2010
Dave Luckett · 8 January 2010
For the moment, may I accept the notion, argumento, that there is a God? IF (big if) there is a God, He stands apart from space and time. He must do: He created them. The one must follow from the other.
So God, says Dembski, is independent of time, and hence can allow evil to enter the world before the Fall, as the anticipatory result of it.
The answer is the very one that is used to accuse us of original sin: free will. Our will is part of our very selves - it must be, or we would not be personally guilty for its misuse. And we, unlike God, exist in time. Therefore our will, being part of ourselves, exists there also. If it exists in time, then it could not exist before the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, and hence the Fall.
Unlike time in the mind of God, that statement has real meaning. But God is said by Dembski to have allowed evil into the world for the sake of an event that is bound in time. Hence, God, who knows all things, is behaving towards His creation as if time didn't matter to it.
That is, all things capable of suffering (and many animals are certainly capable of it) must suffer for the sake of a sin that they cannot commit that hasn't happened yet.
And this God is said to be just. Hah! I spit on Dembski's God.
DavidK · 9 January 2010
"The debate between Darwin and design is coming to Tampa, Florida with a major one-night event featuring some of the leading voices challenging Darwinian evolution.
evolution" so says the DISCO.
The leading voices (debaters) include Michael Medved, Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, and Thomas Woodward, all ID/creationists, and poor Charles Darwin will be there in abstentia with noone to defend him in this one-sided "debate."
Of course, they're charging (milking) the public to attend this sordid affair.
Stephen P · 9 January 2010
DavidK · 9 January 2010
An interesting paper on the regarding the conditions ofr the origin of life:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm
raven · 9 January 2010
Mike Elzinga · 9 January 2010
fnxtr · 9 January 2010
Sad for the cdesignproponenstists that they can't do the same thing. Instead of Marty McFly time correction, all they can do is revisionist back-pedalling.
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Frank J · 9 January 2010
SWT · 9 January 2010
Frank J · 9 January 2010
Karen S. · 9 January 2010
But Dembski has said that he takes Genesis figuratively.
Dave Luckett · 9 January 2010
Alas, it comes down to your interpretation of language, and this is the fact that Biblical "literalists" cannot get. I just used scare quotes because not even raving "literalists" think everything in the Bible actually literally happened. They just think that they can look at the text and know with certainty whether it's meant to be taken as a literal account of events or as a story with a moral purpose.
Which is to say, they regard themselves as infallible, or to put it another way, they have demanded of God that He miraculously provide them with perfect understanding, and believe that God has acceded to their demand.
Which is a blasphemy so vile, and so obviously rooted in overwheening hubris, as to actually shock even me, long-lapsed as I am.
The Chicago Declaration, that great sacrifice at the altar of blind, rigid ignorance, is probably meant to insist that the stories in Genesis of the creation and the flood are literal history. But it doesn't say so specifically and in so many words, and if it doesn't there is always wiggle room. Not much, though.
Possibly Dembski thinks he can wiggle a bit more than the Pharisees that wrote that wretched monument to their own arrogance would like. He's probably right - it's not in their interest to check him in public. So long as he doesn't absolutely assert in their hearing that the Genesis story of creation and the flood is not literal history, they'll let him get away with obfuscation, fudging and not quite saying.
Until, of course, they have no further use for him.
SWT · 9 January 2010
fnxtr · 9 January 2010
"And we say it's a fact because... well because we say so!"
Can't argue with that now, can ya.
Dave Luckett · 10 January 2010
I should have held my nose and waded through to Article XXII. The stink of arrogant and unrepentant hubris overwhelmed me.
I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell, no liberal humanist he, to the Elders of the Church of Scotland: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken."
But they didn't, so it was necessary to use the traditional methods to demonstrate to them that they were, in fact, mistaken.
Dave Luckett · 10 January 2010
Mr Matzke, if you're going to allow Brian to godbot on the Seventh Day Adventist thread, could you allow my post refuting his nonsense about giant human fossils to go through?
Glenn · 10 January 2010
Just thought it was worth pointing out that Steve Matheson, biologist at Calvin, is making a series of responses to Meyer's book on his blog too;
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-beginning-review.html
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-other-reviews.html
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-preliminary.html
DS · 10 January 2010
From the Chicago statement:
"WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated."
Interesting, Gilgamesh deniers. Who would have thought. Well, might as well throw out all of history.
"WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation."
Interesting, geology, astronomy and biology deniers. Well, might as well throw out all of science.
How about this instead:
WE (the scientific community) DENY any beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence. We CONDEMN those who attempt to force beliefs contrary to evidence on others as charlatans. We APPLAUD those who honestly strive to discover evidence and search for truth, where ever that search may lead.
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
John Kwok · 10 January 2010
Frank J · 10 January 2010
raven · 10 January 2010
Matt G · 10 January 2010
raven · 10 January 2010
Rolf Aalberg · 11 January 2010
In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that is being blessed by their God with rain and water wells breaking forth. Thus life was created on Earth.
Contrary to that; in Babylon, floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.
eric · 11 January 2010
raven · 11 January 2010
Argon · 11 January 2010
I agree with the YECs: If you assume that "the Fall" is true, that natural evil arose as a consequence, and that God has interacted with the world in an 'interruptive' manner, then young earth creationism is most parsimonious. Dembski's problem is that with OEC, it appears that he's placing science over the Bible (if in a half-assed way by rejecting most of evolution).
Basically, it's the nuts running the nuthouse.
heddle · 13 January 2010
heddle · 13 January 2010
RWard · 13 January 2010
Heddle, Was there really a world-wide flood? Did Moses literally lead a massive number of Israelites on a 38 year journey across the Sinai? Did Joshua really destroy Canaan?
You suggest that an intelligent reading of the Bible allows the reader to accept the Bible as 'Truth' not myth. I would be interested in hearing about the truth you find in Joshua 6.
I can understand theistic evolution and I respect the people who call themselves theistic evolutionists. I do, however, have a problem with people who try to twist the Bible into a valid version of history or science. The Bible is bad history and worse science; to pretend otherwise throws doubt on any other message it may contain.
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
Wow, heddle, that's a pretty near squeak.
Yes, I suppose you might be allowed to argue that the Declaration only says that Genesis 1-11 is not mythical, which leaves open the possibility that these stories could be some other kind of parable or fictional narrative other than myth. But, brother, that's splitting hairs, and it's a little too strained, I think.
What's a "myth"? I don't like duelling dictionaries, but the Shorter Oxford says it's "a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena". Other dictionaries agree on all those elements - fictitious, supernatural, explanation of phenomena. Some add "traditional" to the description.
Well, there's no doubting that the writers of the Chicago Declaration would agree that Genesis 1-11 is a traditional narrative with supernatural elements which accounts for natural events and history. Only they say it isn't mythical. But the only remaining element is "fictitious". Hence, they must be saying that it isn't fictitious. If it isn't fictitious, it must be factual. Hence, the Declaration is insisting that Genesis 1-11 is fact, actual history.
God, in fact, did create the Universe in six days, man from the dust of the ground and woman from his rib. There was an actual, worldwide flood lasting for a year, and all land was covered by water. These are not fictional narratives, not parables, not fables, not myths, but real, actual, historical events. So says the Declaration.
I hope you would be allowed to get away with denying this, and still be able to subscribe to the Declaration, if that's what you want, but I wouldn't say it too loud, if I were you. Maybe if you crossed your fingers?
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dave Luckett,
You are free to think that. Or to argue: well then that means this and this and that absurdities. I can only reiterate that the writers purposely avoided creation interpretations and sought a document that affirms a so-called high view of scripture that was not completely trivial. I think they succeeded. That quite a few would write a document, sign it, and yet be excluded by it is a fairly weak proposition. But that is, in effect, what you are arguing.
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
Thank you for acknowledging my freedom to think as I like. In the case of the Chicago Declaration, I'll exercise it. I hope its writers would extend to you the same privilege, had they the power to deny it. I, for one, am very glad to reflect that they have not.
DS · 13 January 2010
heddle · 13 January 2010
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dan · 13 January 2010
stevaroni · 13 January 2010
heddle · 13 January 2010
DS · 13 January 2010
heddle wrote:
"That’s not what your statement read. Based on your response I guess your statement should be modified to read:
“WE (the scientific community) DENY any FACTUAL beliefs that are based on authority and not evidence.”
which is hardly worth mentioning. But everyone is entitled to waste pixels, even you."
Agreed. That should have been the wording. If you think that it is a waste to point out that beliefs should be constrained by evidence, you obviously haven't been hanging around here long enough. If you think that trying to make everyone interpret the bible in a way that doesn't conflict with the evidence is not a waste, then please keep it up and good luck.
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
No doubt you can be sure of what they intended, being, it appears, privy to their thoughts. I, for my part, am restricted to more mundane means when interpreting their words, and can only take them to mean what they plainly say, rather than the opposite.
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
heddle · 13 January 2010
Dave Luckett · 13 January 2010
heddle, it is plain that it offends you that I take the Chicago Declaration as meaning what it actually says, quoting (at length) its actual words and appealing to their plain, natural and obvious meaning. This is signalled by your immediate recourse to personalities and accusations like the one immediately above. For the record, I have never referred to Packer here, and I am unaware of any reference to him here whatsoever. So far as I know, the same applies to all the Declaration's signatories.
Reading Packer's essay "The Interpretation of Scripture", I find excellent reason not to use his words in support of evolution, if indeed there are any such words. But to check his "support for evolution", I took the trouble of listening to his podcast at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/audio/creation_evolution_problems/
I can only invite you to listen to him, and see if you still think he supports the theory of evolution after you have.
As for me, I would not trust my understanding of his words so far as to use him as an authority. For instance, the distinction he draws between "literal" and "literalistic" is far too subtle for me, and only makes me wonder whether he thinks words have any accepted meaning at all.
Which might explain his attitude to the Chicago Declaration.
DS · 13 January 2010
I have to agree with Dave here. I really cannot understand how anyone could honestly interpret the quotes above as being in any way compatible with either theistic evolution or the evidence. Of course, I suppose it is possible that if one does not interpret the document literally... oh never mind.
gregwrld · 18 January 2010
Ichthyic · 19 January 2010
I keep seeing Heddle talk out of his ass about scientific debate wrt the efficacy of animal testing.
...and yet I'm 100% sure Heddle actually knows nothing about how the tests are done, who does them, and why.
just as per his usual...
Heddle projects knowledge where he has none.