Dembski Coming Clean - He's a Creationist <strike>YEC</strike>

Wasn't there a toy rock that said something like:

The statement on the other side of this rock is true.

and on the other side

The statement on the other side of this rock is false?

Dembski may be an evangelical theologian, but what the new recantation demonstrates is that he is also a fundamentalist theologian.

Right, Wes. Good correction. I'm going to edit the post. I know there are many evangelics, including theologians, who support both an old earth and evolution.

What a freaking rat bag.

It appears that YECism is in ascendancy. Dembski now has to bow to YEC pressures, and the YECs are clearly fed up with ID. They have been saying this over at AiG for some time now.

And their “top-of-the-line astrophysicist” has just solved the distant starlight problem and has now taken down Stephen Hawking.

He even anticipates all the “jealous” criticism that will be directed against him, and has even obtained the support of one of the worlds greatest cartoonists.

Poor Dr. Dr. Dembski; the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” must now submit to “higher authorities.”

Is this direction that the antievolution movement is now going? They spend over 40 years producing no experimental evidence whatsoever for ID/creationism; thus they fall back on the only argument they have ever known; namely, biblical inerrancy.

Now we’re back at the beginning of the 20th century; its déjà vu all over again, but with a heavy dose of exegetical pseudo-science.

Wow!

Dembski's next employment opportunity is to work at a Subway in Waco.

He's gone from Dr. Dr. math/philosophy guy, to (briefly) head of a Center at Baylor, to a 5-year paid vacation at Baylor, to a seminary job (bounced out) to another Bible college job. He's at rock bottom. What's he going to do if he loses his Bible college job, other than make foot-longs at Subway?

Like the Cowardly Lion he does believe in ghosts, he does believe in ghosts! Every two weeks on payday he'll repeat that mantra; loudly.

Next to go will be his DI fellowship. How bad would that be, not even able to hold a job with the DI?

All things considered, though, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

1. Creationism is a fraud. 2. Intelligent Design is a generalized form of Creationism. 3. Creationism is based on the BLASPHEMOUS LIE that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. 4. That fundamentalist religion is all about power and has no actual standard of ethics (because if it did, it wouldn't rely on the Bible for it; objective ethics can be followed without reference to any man-made book).

Doc Bill said: Dembski's next employment opportunity is to work at a Subway in Waco. He's gone from Dr. Dr. math/philosophy guy, to (briefly) head of a Center at Baylor, to a 5-year paid vacation at Baylor, to a seminary job (bounced out) to another Bible college job. He's at rock bottom. What's he going to do if he loses his Bible college job, other than make foot-longs at Subway? Like the Cowardly Lion he does believe in ghosts, he does believe in ghosts! Every two weeks on payday he'll repeat that mantra; loudly. Next to go will be his DI fellowship. How bad would that be, not even able to hold a job with the DI? All things considered, though, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Does this mean Dembski isn't going to get around very soon to applying his Explanatory Filter to any real-world biological structure? Golly, so close to doing real science, and now this. And didn't the DI have the research facilities all set up and funded, and their very own peers to review the results and journal to publish them for genuine scientific examination?

Right on the very verge of real creation science, it must be devastating for Dembski to get collared by the thought police and subjected to such unscientific re-education. Maybe someone can recover his lab notes and test tubes and carry on his biological research in his absence.

At Southwestern Baptist he's merely exercising his Christian freedom.

The FBW article explicitly states that Dembski believes "that the universe is billions of years old", so I don't think you can claim that he's a YEC. Believing in an old Earth/Universe, biblical inerrantism, a historical Adam and Eve & a global Noahic flood would probably put him closest to Gap (aka Ruin and Restoration) creationism.

Does this mean Dembski isn’t going to get around very soon to applying his Explanatory Filter to any real-world biological structure?

Perfect timing! Friday is the anniversary of the "..beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er]....The year before Christ 4004." -Ussher

Took a lot of counting of begats to get there.

Now...what to toast with?

Thanks for more background than I had when I commented over at Pharyngula. It still seems to me there's just enough wiggle-room to jam in a Gap-type exegesis, and I agree with hrafn above that the Florida Baptist Witness article seems to suggest that he may still be in that camp. However, he does seem to be a global-diluvialist now.

Something that is intriguing is that Dembski has written an entire book on theodicy in which he allegedly accepted standard cosmology, astrophysics and geology for the dating of the Universe and the natural history on earth and claimed that theologically, YECs had an advantage because there was no death before the Fall - it was supposed to be a consequence of it. From what I recall, his book was meant to justify the backward causation of the Fall of Man - billions of years of death and waste and mass extinction on Earth before Adam were still caused by Adam!

Another event that rings the bell was a radio debate between him and Michael Shermer in which he claimed to be perplexed on the Flood story because "the Bible is really serious about it".

Hrafn said: The FBW article explicitly states that Dembski believes "that the universe is billions of years old", so I don't think you can claim that he's a YEC. Believing in an old Earth/Universe, biblical inerrantism, a historical Adam and Eve & a global Noahic flood would probably put him closest to Gap (aka Ruin and Restoration) creationism.

Dembski is critical of the young-earth position to be sure, but he is equally critical of the standard old-earth position that tries to minimize natural evil (such as animal suffering) and explain it away apart from the Fall (see chapter 9, entitled ―The Problem with Old-Earth Creationism‖). Dembski is a vigorous debater, but he is not disrespectful to the young-earth position.

Hrafn said: The FBW article explicitly states that Dembski believes "that the universe is billions of years old", so I don't think you can claim that he's a YEC. Believing in an old Earth/Universe, biblical inerrantism, a historical Adam and Eve & a global Noahic flood would probably put him closest to Gap (aka Ruin and Restoration) creationism.

It seems you are not familiar with the concept of “talking out of both sides of one’s mouth”.

Joe Felsenstein said: He seems to be both an OEC and a YEC and he believes that God's actions can have retroactive effects, and so on. In the Reply to the review of his book “The End of Christianity” the author of the reply (who is not Dembski) characterizes his views thusly:

Dembski is critical of the young-earth position to be sure, but he is equally critical of the standard old-earth position that tries to minimize natural evil (such as animal suffering) and explain it away apart from the Fall (see chapter 9, entitled ―The Problem with Old-Earth Creationism‖). Dembski is a vigorous debater, but he is not disrespectful to the young-earth position.

So yes he's a YEC and no he isn't, and yes he's an OEC and no he isn't. I'm sure glad that understanding science doesn't require me to understand these positions of his.

His views lies are complex

better, but even that doesn't really cover what's going on here.

Dembski is a patsy.

He has been since Dover.

It's the only value he continues to serve the DI as.

His purpose is to resuscitate failing support from their base.

I guess nobody has recalled the elections are just around the corner, and the rethuglicans are smelling blood?

Ichthyic said: Dembski is a patsy. He has been since Dover.

How typical. A heretic hunt. Xians have been hunting down heretics since the day the religion was formed.

He got off easy. Even a few hundred years ago he would have been tortured and maybe even burnt at the stake.

The SBC was taken over by right wingnuts a few decades ago. They seem far more interested in pushing right wing politics than anything to do with xianity. One of the first things they did was purge a lot of heretics. Very much like what Stalin did.

It is obvious that ID has failed and they are all heading back to their YEC roots.

There is now a huge paper trail that they are in fact, mostly YECs trying to pretend they aren't.

The ID has always seemed to steer clear of the courts. With their paper trail, they aren't going to stand a chance.

Baptist beliefs: Most Baptist traditions believe in the "Four Freedoms" articulated by Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden:[2] Soul freedom: the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church) Bible freedom: the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; Separation of church and state is often called the "civil corollary" of religious freedom

DavidK said: Wasn't there a toy rock that said something like: The statement on the other side of this rock is true. and on the other side The statement on the other side of this rock is false?

raven said: The SBC was taken over by right wingnuts a few decades ago. They seem far more interested in pushing right wing politics than anything to do with xianity. One of the first things they did was purge a lot of heretics. Very much like what Stalin did.

This strategy has been a dismal failure. They’ve lost in the school systems (for instance, Kansas), they’ve lost in the courts (Dover), they have never got off the ground in the science community

I have to disagree here: Dembski said he is an inerrantist, not a literalist. I am not really up to speed with fundie systematics, but I think that is a fairly significant difference (to them, at least).

Also, I am pretty sure Dembski had to be an inerrantist (or profess to be) in order to be hired to teach in any Baptist seminary, so I think the big news, if any, is basically that Dembski explicitly stated that at this time he actually believes in Noah's ark myth as it is described in the Bible. It's a silly belief, and his groveling for forgiveness should be brought up any time the IDists whine about academic freedom, but it still doesn't make him a YEC.

Dembski's book (reportedly - I have not read it) states that he believes that the evidence for an old earth is strong and that this evidence is compatible with an inerrantist interpretation of Genesis. Although he oh-hums on the topic in his recantation, he has not recanted it, and that alone rules him out as a YEC. In fact, strictly speaking his current recantation also leaves him open to later recant the recantation itself, because what he actually says says is that the Bible "**seem[s]** clearly to teach" the historicity of the flood myth, pending his "exegetical, historical and theological" (and pointedly, not "scientific") work on the topic.

There is a problem. Dembski has a history of lying. Why should lying about his religous beliefs be any different than lying about the science since they are both the same to him.

You cite the "coming clean" essay, but he was just prevaricating in that essay too. It was around the time when the ID perps had decided that ID wasn't going to cut the mustard and had started working up the Teach the Controvery switch scam in earnest. The first legal junk on the switch scam came out of the Discovery Institute in 1999 and guys like Mike Gene bailed out of the Teach ID scam, while the hard core prevaricators like Dembski and Meyer kept running the ID scam full tilt even in the face of their preparations to run the bait and switch on their own creationist support base. You can't expect any type of an honest answer from the people that stuck with the ID scam after that point. Heck look what Mike Gene ended up doing. There are no competent, informed and honest ID scam supporters left in existence. The saddest thing is that there likely never were any. From the initiation of the word substitution in the book Pandas and People the ID movement was likely doomed to only attract the guys willing to lie for their religious beliefs or the clueless that didn't know any better.

Dembski is also quoted as saying that he believes in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That is about as extreme as one can get, as far as beliefs about the Bible. The only basis for that belief is adherence to an old tradition. As far as I know, the only Christians who believe this are fundamentalists. Yes, I am aware that there is dispute about the details of the Documentary Hypothesis - but to deny DH is not to accept that Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy.

Ron Okimoto said: There is a problem. Dembski has a history of lying.

Yes, Dembski's book supports an old earth, and it's all about finding a way to reconcile an old earth with Adam and Eve, original sin, etc.

But in his clarification, he says "In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch."

That means he believes in a six literal day creation, and that the universe has been around as long as human beings. I don't see how that is not a rejection of an old earth?

Jack Krebs said (quoting Dembski): "... these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch."

Oh dear! And now he won't even be able to snuggle up to Ann Coulter any longer!

Genesis 1-11 also says that people lived for 100's of years, that "there were giants in those days", and that all people spoke one language until the Tower of Babel. All, according to Dembski's clarification, historically true.

To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, Dembski is a "sad, strange little man." Any delusions he may have harbored about his academic standing are now utterly gone-he has been reduced to licking the boots of his masters.

Jack Krebs said: Yes, Dembski's book supports an old earth, and it's all about finding a way to reconcile an old earth with Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. But in his clarification, he says "In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch." That means he believes in a six literal day creation, and that the universe has been around as long as human beings. I don't see how that is not a rejection of an old earth?

Come on, give the guy a break. He isn't lying, he's just a whore. He'll say anything anyone wants for money, pure and simple. He made up lots of crap in order to sell books. He knew he was wrong but he did it anyway just to make a buck. Now that he has a job working for people who care even less about science and the truth then he does, he's willing to say anything they want just to keep getting a paycheck. So what? No one is going to take him seriously. Everyone can see that he is no scientist and has no self respect or dignity. Give the poor guy a break, He has a family to feed. He never did learn anything about real science, so what else can he do? Does he know how to sequences a gene? Is he trained paleontology? IS he a developmental biologist? Can he make a living doing real science? There's no need to be vindictive or go all "I told you so"on his sorry posterior. Just let him wallow in his own crapulence.

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. He isn't lying, he's just a whore. He'll say anything anyone wants for money, pure and simple. He made up lots of crap in order to sell books. He knew he was wrong but he did it anyway just to make a buck. Now that he has a job working for people who care even less about science and the truth then he does, he's willing to say anything they want just to keep getting a paycheck. So what? No one is going to take him seriously. Everyone can see that he is no scientist and has no self respect or dignity. Give the poor guy a break, He has a family to feed. He never did learn anything about real science, so what else can he do? Does he know how to sequences a gene? Is he trained paleontology? IS he a developmental biologist? Can he make a living doing real science? There's no need to be vindictive or go all "I told you so"on his sorry posterior. Just let him wallow in his own crapulence.

Had the Bible been written in Pakistan, a flood of the present-day proportions (dare I say, biblical proportions) would have been perceived as universal 4000 years ago. Not so much TV then.

VJBinCT said: Had the Bible been written in Pakistan, a flood of the present-day proportions (dare I say, biblical proportions) would have been perceived as universal 4000 years ago. Not so much TV then.

Mike Elzinga said:

Doc Bill said: Dembski's next employment opportunity is to work at a Subway in Waco. He's gone from Dr. Dr. math/philosophy guy, to (briefly) head of a Center at Baylor, to a 5-year paid vacation at Baylor, to a seminary job (bounced out) to another Bible college job. He's at rock bottom. What's he going to do if he loses his Bible college job, other than make foot-longs at Subway? Like the Cowardly Lion he does believe in ghosts, he does believe in ghosts! Every two weeks on payday he'll repeat that mantra; loudly. Next to go will be his DI fellowship. How bad would that be, not even able to hold a job with the DI? All things considered, though, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Oh dear! And now he won't even be able to snuggle up to Ann Coulter any longer!

someone help me out here - I can't seen to parse this statement:
"Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch."

what the hell does that even mean? that God created BILLIONS of years (God created time/ space /history etc) but did it 6000 years ago? Is this some flavor of Last-Thursdayism or...or I don't even know what.

to me that doesn't even seem wrong so much as bat-shit insane

The debate some don’t want you to hear by Stephen Farrell Professors losing tenure (a permanent state of employment) at major universities for so much as even mentioning that Darwinism may not be as accurate as it seems is nothing new..."

In fact, strictly speaking his current recantation also leaves him open to later recant the recantation itself,..

I have to disagree here: Dembski said he is an inerrantist, not a literalist. I am not really up to speed with fundie systematics, but I think that is a fairly significant difference (to them, at least).

Professors losing tenure (a permanent state of employment) at major universities for so much as even mentioning that Darwinism may not be as accurate as it seems is nothing new…”

jasonmitchell said: someone help me out here - I can't seen to parse this statement: "Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch." what the hell does that even mean?

Is this some flavor of Last-Thursdayism

If I were Dembski, I’d be tired of it. He’s a fundamentalist theologian, and he’s got a job where he can be one. Why not give up the ID charade, join the flock, and come clean as a YEC. Looks to me like that’s what he’s done

The young-earth solution to reconciling the order of creation with natural history makes good exegetical and theological sense. Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of theologians up through the Reformation held to this view. I myself would adopt it in a heartbeat except that nature seems to present such a strong evidence against it. I’m hardly alone in my reluctance to accept young-earth. (The End of Christianity, 55).

Forgot to post the AiG link to this

From Ham's blog on the 19th July 2010:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/07/19/which-southern-baptist-professor-proposesteaches-this/

Peter Henderson said: So what's happened since then Jack ? Has Dembski visited the Ceation Museum ?

I think (this is just intuitive speculation) that when the conflict between the evidence and his fundamentalism came to a head, he was pushed over the edge in favor of fundamentalism. I don't know whether this was from pure self-interest (he wanted to keep his job and stay in with his main community of support), or whether he finally gave up trying to be sciencey and went with his heart, although it was probably a combination of the two.

UNST/UHNR 404B Syllabus (LSU) | Educate Truth: La Sierra promotes ... Jun 4, 2009 ... Educate Truth: La Sierra promotes theistic evolution! ...... There are rumors of possible “loyalty oaths” and “witch-hunts” in the future. ... The very name Seventh-day Adventist speaks to the SDA stand on a literal creation ... San Diego, CA 92124 …for Adventists, the fear is that the Sabbath will ... www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra.../unstuhnr-404b-spring-qtr-2009-syllabus/ - Cached

"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." --Dembski, quoted from Josh Rosenau's "Thoughts From Kansas" blog, Jan. 8, 2010.

So there you have it: Dembski •is a Biblical inerrantist, •accepts that Genesis 1-11 are historically true, and thus that the universe, the earth and all life were created in six literal days •is furthermore a creationist in respect to human beings, who are not related to hominid ancestors by common descent, •believes the Flood was a real universal event (presumably not too many thousands of years in the past), •and, since he believes “that what the Bible teaches is true”, he “bow[s] to the text.”

raven said:

In fact, strictly speaking his current recantation also leaves him open to later recant the recantation itself,..

Hmmm, sounds familar. Galileo was reported to have said after lying to save his life (I don't blame him a bit, getting burned alive must hurt a lot),..."and yet it still moves."

FL said: Dr. Dembski visited Washburn University in Topeka on Oct. 7th, for a live debate with Dr. Michael Shermer. (Dembski won by a field goal by a touchdown, imo.)

Yes, FL, we know that up until recently Dembski has stated that the evidence that the earth was old was extremly convincing. However, in his clarification, he wrote, "“In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.”

That means he believes in six literal days of creation, during which time the universe, the earth, and all "kinds" of living creatures, including human beings, were created.

Please explain to me how that is compatible with an old earth.

Typo correction: Dembski won by a touchdown. Not a field goal.

Typing too fast there, my apologies.

FL

Jack Krebs said: That means (Dembski) believes in six literal days of creation, during which time the universe, the earth, and all "kinds" of living creatures, including human beings, were created. Please explain to me how that is compatible with an old earth.

“In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.” That means he believes in six literal days of creation.

Stanton said: FL isn't going to explain anything, given as how he's solely here to gloat and cow us into worshiping for how he spreads disinformation and bigotry for Jesus.

FL said:

“In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.” That means he believes in six literal days of creation.

No, Jack, that's not necessarily true. As suggested earlier, Professor Archer ALSO accepted that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. A similar position is held by astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of the RTB website, who is an OEC. Those who are OEC's have to deal with additioal possible interpretive issues wrt the Bible & the Genesis historical claims, issues raised by the OEC position. I leave that business to them; they gotta handle it, they gotta deal with it. To his credit, though, Dr. Archer was able to reconcile many things just by sticking to the Bible texts. Did a great job of it. So....it's already clear that you can at least accept as much as Archer and Ross have accepted--and that's quite a lot--WITHOUT being a YEC. So Dembski hasn't actually abandoned OEC for YEC after all.

So Dembski hasn’t actually abandoned OEC for YEC after all.

eric said:

Stanton said: FL isn't going to explain anything, given as how he's solely here to gloat and cow us into worshiping for how he spreads disinformation and bigotry for Jesus.

Its a weird kind of gloating to cite the evidence for Dembski being a biblically inerrant OEC. Seeing how ID is supposed to have nothing to do with religion and all. Its kind of like, oh, say, someone being accused of burning a cross into a kids arm, and that person responding by saying 'it wasn't a cross.' Misses a bit of the point, doesn't it?

Flint said: subservient to his faith's hierarchy ... dogma

Flint wrote:

"I think an important distinction should be drawn here between what Dembski said a couple years ago, what he said most recently, what he actually believes in his heart, and why the descriptions of what he believes in his heart have been so ambiguous."

Right. The distinction is that when he said the earth was old he worked at a university and was pretending to do science. When he said the earth was young he worked at a seminary and was pretending to do theology. What he really thinks is irrelevant. I care about that about as much as I care about the sex life of Tiger Woods. As long as he can hit a driver I don't really care. Never did, never will. Same with Dembski (although I doubt that he can hit a driver).

news.adventist.org: La Sierra, addressing evolution issue, will revise biology course University board addressing ongoing discussion of origins 24 May 2010, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States Mark A. Kellner, Adventist Review/ANN The issue of what students at La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist-owned tertiary institution in Riverside, California, learn about the origins of life on Earth is being resolved, said Ricardo Graham, LSU board of trustees chair and president of the church's Pacific Union Conference. Graham told the Adventist Review in a May 19 interview: "I am very, very hopeful of a resolution very, very soon." The controversy centers on the presentation of evolutionary theory as an explanation of origins. Some La Sierra students and alumni have complained that the school presents evolution in opposition to the Genesis account of creation, which the Seventh-day Adventist Church has affirmed as part of its "Fundamental Beliefs" statement.

I am with FL on this point. (and with that I check my forhead for temperature.)

We agree that many poeple hold self contradicting positions. Most here think that the YEC worldview is one big tangled nest of contraditions for example. It is up to them to sort that out. (Not that it stops us from pointing it out.)

He has come out and said he is an OEC. He has not come out and said he is a YEC. That some of what he does say seems a bit inconsistant with OEC really doesn't matter. Its up to him to sort that out.

Just like everyone else might be, he could be saying what he needs to to keep his job or social status or whatever. I am not saying everything he says has to be truthful. Just that there is no need to assume that he must be a YEC because some of what he says doesn't make sense. There are many more possabilities. I have a hard time thinking of any respectable ones but there you have it.

I can't believe I'm saying this:
I actually feel sorry for the guy. The original statements sound like he was actually looking at things rationally, or at least trying. But as soon as he stepped out of line, he got his chain jerked by the seminary school he works for. So now he is recanting because his job under threat. Of course a statement issued under duress isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so we'll probably have to wait for him to change jobs before we can hear how he really feels.

FL said:

So there you have it: Dembski •is a Biblical inerrantist, •accepts that Genesis 1-11 are historically true, and thus that the universe, the earth and all life were created in six literal days •is furthermore a creationist in respect to human beings, who are not related to hominid ancestors by common descent, •believes the Flood was a real universal event (presumably not too many thousands of years in the past), •and, since he believes “that what the Bible teaches is true”, he “bow[s] to the text.”

All five items were specifically true of the late Old-Earth Creationist professor Dr. Gleason Archer (a professor of Old Testament and author of the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties). Furthermore, Dr. Archer accepted a GLOBAL Noahic Flood (and specifically rejected a local flood), on the basis of the Bible evidence, according to his EBD textbook. So, in fact, you can adopt all the specific positions Krebs mentioned about Dembski in this essay, and still be an Old Earth advocate, not a YEC. The End. FL

JKelley said: I can't believe I'm saying this: I actually feel sorry for the guy. The original statements sound like he was actually looking at things rationally, or at least trying. But as soon as he stepped out of line, he got his chain jerked by the seminary school he works for. So now he is recanting because his job under threat. Of course a statement issued under duress isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so we'll probably have to wait for him to change jobs before we can hear how he really feels.

Leszek said: I am with FL on this point. (and with that I check my forehead for temperature.) We agree that many poeple hold self contradicting positions.

Why is Dembski’s take on your holy book relevant to any science that works in the present?

FL said:

Why is Dembski’s take on your holy book relevant to any science that works in the present?

You might ask Jack Krebs that question. After all, it's HIS thread about "Dembski's take on your holy book.". (By the way, if you have no interest in his thread topic, should you not find another thread?) FL

FL said:

“In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.” That means he believes in six literal days of creation.

No, Jack, that's not necessarily true. As suggested earlier, Professor Archer ALSO accepted that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. A similar position is held by astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of the RTB website, who is an OEC. Those who are OEC's have to deal with additioal possible interpretive issues wrt the Bible & the Genesis historical claims, issues raised by the OEC position. I leave that business to them; they gotta handle it, they gotta deal with it. To his credit, though, Dr. Archer was able to reconcile many things just by sticking to the Bible texts. Did a great job of it. So....it's already clear that you can at least accept as much as Archer and Ross have accepted--and that's quite a lot--WITHOUT being a YEC. So Dembski hasn't actually abandoned OEC for YEC after all.

raven said: Theology is like silly putty. You can make it into anything you want.

Dembski wasn’t a YEC back in July, according to Ken Ham:

Maybe someone can recover his lab notes and test tubes and carry on his biological research in his absence.

However, some professors actually have the you-know-whats to stand up for what they believe.

Flint said: Creationism is like a mental perpetual motion machine, ...

I wouldn't worry much abotu what FL/mellotron writes. He has, for example, defended Jerry Bergman's attempt to conflate gene and genome duplications by offering up quotes from actual scientists in which both words are used in the same paragraph.

IOW, he is sort of mental case who will do whatever it takes to rescue any IDC.

Demski has been living so long in la la wonderland he is taking on the precepts of the main character Alice, who apparently 'could sometimes believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast'

So he believes in YEC but really believes in OEC and he gets to keep a rat arsed job in lying to students for pay...let's face it who else would want damaged goods on their payroll except the DI and they are not exactly gonna pay his mortgage or living expenses for evah 'n' evah!

Dude is a fundamentalist fuckwad, they lie for jebus...deal with it!...and the only people that really deserve sympathy are his erstwhile students, they are the ones getting really shafted!

FL arguing about whether or not Dembski is a YEC or an OEC is the same as arguing that Dembski's not bed-bug crazy, he's just bat-shit crazy. IOW six of one, half dozen of another, same old, same old.

For the record, it's the White Queen, not Alice, who could believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Alice's position, to which that was a response, was that you couldn't believe in impossible things. And of course Alice was wrong; see Kierkegaard if you don't like Carroll.

Nobody knows what Dembski really believes, if anything. All we can hope to know is his current public position, and that appears to change with his audience and other circumstances (like hope of keeping a job), so his position at time A may not resemble his position at time B, nor should it be expected to. Still, it would be fun to see him attempt to reconcile his contradictory statements. Has anyone tried to start up a discussion on Uncommon Dissent?

But, given that I have no interest in reading Archer or Ross,

...all I can do is repeat my question to you: how can Dembski say ““In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch” and also believe in an old earth?

So, Derwood, since you initiated a brand new thread on the CARM board to discuss THIS topic, are you finally interested in discussing this topic?

FL said: Dr. Dembski visited Washburn University in Topeka on Oct. 7th, for a live debate with Dr. Michael Shermer. (Dembski won by a field goal by a touchdown, imo.)

FL said: So, Derwood, since you initiated a brand new thread on the CARM board to discuss THIS topic, are you finally interested in discussing this topic?

FL said: And now I'm supposed to speak for Dembski? I'm supposed to tell you how Dembski himself would answer your question from Dembski's own interpretative stance (and I'm not even an OEC anyway)? Hopefully you see the rational problem with your inquiry, Jack. What's clear is that OEC's like Dr Archer, Dr Ross, and Dr Dembski do agree with the statement you're asking about. But what particular Bible interpretation rationale each OEC is using, as the basis for their individual agreement with the statement in question---it just doesn't sound like it's up to me to go hash all that out for you. Two weeks ago, I watched and listened in the audience, live at WU, as Dembski himself said at the microphone that he wasn't a YEC. Seems good enough for me, honestly. FL

When I wrote, "But, given that I have no interest in reading Archer or Ross,", FL wrote, "Hmm. No interest. That’s a bad sign: a true willingness to debate, but no willingness at all to inform yourself if opportunity arises?"

I'm not interested in debating. I'm been involved in lots of discussion with YECS, including FL, and they are fruitless - nothing but ad hoc, untestable explanations made up to try to save the scriptures. FL mentioned that these guys managed to reconcile an old earth with statements like Dembski, and I wanted to know if FL could explain. He doesn't want to, and that's fine.

FL says, "Two weeks ago, I watched and listened in the audience, live at WU, as Dembski himself said at the microphone that he wasn’t a YEC. Seems good enough for me, honestly."

As several people have pointed out Dembski seems to take various stances, depending on his audience, either from cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty.

But no matter what, he made the statements he did in his clarification, and if he says "I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch," I will conclude that he accepts a literal six day creation, etc, and that is not compatible with an old earth. It appears very clear to me what the meaning of this sentence is.

FL said: Typo correction: Dembski won by a touchdown. Not a field goal. Typing too fast there, my apologies. FL

Jack -

Left unsaid is our "pal" Bill's propensity toward larceny which he demonstrated in 2004 by skipping out on the Dover Area School District after receiving $20,000 in "services rendered" as a potential lead witness on their behalf and, more recently, in "borrowing" - which he later admitted was really an act of larceny - a Harvard University cell animation video produced for Harvard by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO.

John Kwok said: I strongly doubt that. He was all but laughed off the stage when he and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Mikey Behe argued the pro in favor of Intelligent Design back in the Spring of 2002 during the debate on ID held at the American Museum of Natural History:

FL said: Typo correction: Dembski won by a touchdown. Not a field goal. Typing too fast there, my apologies. FL

Karen S. said:

Dembski wasn’t a YEC back in July, according to Ken Ham:

Correct. He definitely didn't take Genesis literally before this. At the Great Debate in 2002 at the American Museum of Natural History, he distinctly says that he takes Genesis figuratively. (This would be in the part where Pennock questions Dembski) I assume Dembski saw the light--at the tip of the sword. However, some professors actually have the you-know-whats to stand up for what they believe.

FL said: I'm still in the process of reading this thread, but I'm seeing some big problems with Jack Kreb's essay already. Specifically, Krebs is totally wrong to say that Dembski is a YEC. Dr. Dembski visited Washburn University in Topeka on Oct. 7th, for a live debate with Dr. Michael Shermer. (Dembski won by a field goal by a touchdown, imo.) At any rate, during the question and answer session of that debate, Dr. Dembski specifically indicated that he was NOT a YEC, but instead accepted the Old Earth age. This is consistent with Dembski's previous writings, of course. Example:

"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." --Dembski, quoted from Josh Rosenau's "Thoughts From Kansas" blog, Jan. 8, 2010.

Also, I'm noticing that NOWHERE in Kreb's essay does Dembski specifically state a repudiation of his Old-Earth stance in favor of adopting a YEC age of the earth. **** Added up, then, it looks like Krebs is wrong to label Dembski a YEC. Furthermore, regarding the following portion:

So there you have it: Dembski •is a Biblical inerrantist, •accepts that Genesis 1-11 are historically true, and thus that the universe, the earth and all life were created in six literal days •is furthermore a creationist in respect to human beings, who are not related to hominid ancestors by common descent, •believes the Flood was a real universal event (presumably not too many thousands of years in the past), •and, since he believes “that what the Bible teaches is true”, he “bow[s] to the text.”

All five items were specifically true of the late Old-Earth Creationist professor Dr. Gleason Archer (a professor of Old Testament and author of the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties). Furthermore, Dr. Archer accepted a GLOBAL Noahic Flood (and specifically rejected a local flood), on the basis of the Bible evidence, according to his EBD textbook. So, in fact, you can adopt all the specific positions Krebs mentioned about Dembski in this essay, and still be an Old Earth advocate, not a YEC. The End. FL

John Kwok said: I still have a most vivid memory of accosting him after the debate, asking him if he could calculate the confidence limits of an explanatory filter. Asked him that twice and he looked at me as if I was a fool:

I expect the new accommodationist meme will be that Dembski retreated further in religious fundamentalism because Richard Dawkins is too strident.

FL is an ahole, but he is correct this time. There is zero evidence that Dembski is a YEC. Just because you, Jack, don't think that some statement or other is compatible with some position doesn't mean anything. People can be illogical. It's not a logical argument you're making.

You've been given the practical example of two theologians accepting the same thing Dembski does who are not YECs. Practice trumps theory. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you think their position is coherent or not. Coherence is not the issue here. "Scientific creationism" is incoherent for obvious reasons, yet there are people calling themselves that. Religion is all bullshit, yet it would be foolish to deny that religious people exist.

And stop saying that Dembski says different things at different times. It defeats your own argument - you cannot claim that he is YEC if he doesn't have a single position on the issue.

Please show intellectual honesty and remove the unsubstantiated characterization of Dembski from your posting.

In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.

Ghrom wrote:

"FL is an ahole, but he is correct this time. There is zero evidence that Dembski is a YEC."

Agreed on all counts. Obviously one cannot take any statements made by Dembski as evidence of his actual beliefs. His statements are contradictory and highly biased by context, as well as being deliberately nebulous and overwhelmingly whishy washy. The only thing that one could legitimately conclude from this evidence is that either Dembski doesn't know what he believes, is constantly changing what he believes, or just plain wants to keep people guessing as to what he actually believes. Me, I don't give a rats anal sphincter what he believes.

I expect the new accommodationist meme will be that Dembski retreated further in religious fundamentalism because Richard Dawkins is too strident.

heh.

I actually hope they try that.

Obviously one cannot take any statements made by Dembski as evidence of his actual beliefs.

So Obama really IS a muslim then?

:P

Ichthyic said: There is zero evidence that Dembski is a YEC. what about this:

In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.

how do you interpret that, then?

meh, other than that, I can't see why the issue here is really debating whether he is or is not a YEC. the issue here is that he is a lying fucktard.

Ichthyic said: There is zero evidence that Dembski is a YEC. what about this:

In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.

how do you interpret that, then? if he is an innerantist (stated as such), and he says both that genesis is historical AND happened in "ordinary space-time" (my interpretation being he does not do the "substitute god years for human years" thing, then it sure sounds to me that this is just a mealy-mouthed (go figure- it's Dembski) way of indeed saying that he IS a YEC. meh, other than that, I can't see why the issue here is really debating whether he is or is not a YEC. the issue here is that he is a lying fucktard.

To be obtuse, one could interpret that to mean Dembski thinks the earth was created (with Adam, Eve, animals, trees, etc…) in 6 days, 4.5 billion years ago.

read again.

if he's inerrant, AND he says these things happened in normal space time, then he would have to consider ALL of genesis to be the same, thus, the calculations based on generations would have to apply, thus, this IS evidence of his being a YEC.

NOTE:

I really couldn't give a flying fuck WHAT Dembksi is; he's a lying charlatan, but the idea that he hasn't provided enough evidence to conclude he is a YEC is basically ignoring the entire point of his latest diatribe, which was indeed to SUGGEST HE IS A YEC, for the very reasons many here have already outlined.

Ichthyic said: There is zero evidence that Dembski is a YEC. what about this:

In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.

how do you interpret that, then? if he is an innerantist (stated as such), and he says both that genesis is historical AND happened in "ordinary space-time" (my interpretation being he does not do the "substitute god years for human years" thing, then it sure sounds to me that this is just a mealy-mouthed (go figure- it's Dembski) way of indeed saying that he IS a YEC. meh, other than that, I can't see why the issue here is really debating whether he is or is not a YEC. the issue here is that he is a lying fucktard.

one also must produce a pseudo-science that makes no sense while literally conflicting with hundreds of objectively observable phenomena in the present as well as the past.

when trying to interpret screeds from people who work for the DI, you have to remember that this is a PR foundation, not a science foundation, not a religious foundation. Their motives are purely political, and directed at a very specific audience.

that audience is not us.

so, it is irrelevant to point out contradictions. the audience he is speaking to wanted reassurances that people working for the DI represent their beliefs.

Dembski has done this, like the good little dog he is.

that he can keep people HERE arguing over what his actual position is, only means he did his job well enough.

you can be sure that most YEC's will read his statement as being in support of their beliefs.

But I suspect FL

btw, I plonked that idiot years ago.

are you sure you want to take anything it says as representative of anything than one, insane, individual?

Ichthyic said: one also must produce a pseudo-science that makes no sense while literally conflicting with hundreds of objectively observable phenomena in the present as well as the past. when trying to interpret screeds from people who work for the DI, you have to remember that this is a PR foundation, not a science foundation, not a religious foundation. Their motives are purely political, and directed at a very specific audience. that audience is not us. so, it is irrelevant to point out contradictions. the audience he is speaking to wanted reassurances that people working for the DI represent their beliefs. Dembski has done this, like the good little dog he is. that he can keep people HERE arguing over what his actual position is, only means he did his job well enough. you can be sure that most YEC's will read his statement as being in support of their beliefs.

FL says "Those who are OEC’s have to deal with additioal possible interpretive issues wrt the Bible & the Genesis historical claims, issues raised by the OEC position."

IOW, these righteous christians will make up anything that keeps them in the fold.

Come on, people. At least try to learn the history of creationism. There are two standard ways to be both a biblical literalist (which is stricter than "inerrantist") and an OEC. They are known by the popular terms "day-age" and "gap theory". Day-age theorists suppose that the days of creation are not meant to be literal, 24-hour days. "A day with the lord is as a thousand years", and so on. The gap theorists propose that there is a gap of indeterminate length between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That's between "In the beginning..." and "And the earth was without form...". The idea is that there was a whole separate creation in that gap, a long history, and an act of destruction that turned everything back to chaos, followed by a re-creation that fits the subsequent story. YEC was a definite minority position in the US until the last 50 years or so. Dembski's most recently expressed position, as far as it can be made coherent, seems to be either gap theory or day-age.

Disclaimer: neither day-age nor gap theory makes much sense as biblical exegesis, and makes very little more sense scientifically than YEC.

:FL, I don’t have any idea how Archer or Ross reconcile an old earth with a historically accurate Genesis,

Ichthyic said: read again. if he's inerrant, AND he says these things happened in normal space time, then he would have to consider ALL of genesis to be the same,

John Harshman said: Dembski's most recently expressed position, as far as it can be made coherent, seems to be either gap theory or day-age.

John Harshman said: Come on, people. At least try to learn the history of creationism. There are two standard ways to be both a biblical literalist (which is stricter than "inerrantist") and an OEC. They are known by the popular terms "day-age" and "gap theory". Day-age theorists suppose that the days of creation are not meant to be literal, 24-hour days. "A day with the lord is as a thousand years", and so on. The gap theorists propose that there is a gap of indeterminate length between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That's between "In the beginning..." and "And the earth was without form...". The idea is that there was a whole separate creation in that gap, a long history, and an act of destruction that turned everything back to chaos, followed by a re-creation that fits the subsequent story. YEC was a definite minority position in the US until the last 50 years or so. Dembski's most recently expressed position, as far as it can be made coherent, seems to be either gap theory or day-age. Disclaimer: neither day-age nor gap theory makes much sense as biblical exegesis, and makes very little more sense scientifically than YEC.

Mike Elzinga said: Lisle believes he has solved it (he hasn’t; it’s an even more schlock science than ever).

Kevin B said:

John Kwok said: I still have a most vivid memory of accosting him after the debate, asking him if he could calculate the confidence limits of an explanatory filter. Asked him that twice and he looked at me as if I was a fool:

Well, yes. It was foolish to expect him to be able to give you an answer.

I feel a new documentary coming on:

Compelled: No Dissent Allowed is described by its promoters as a controversial satirical documentary. Betty Stein provides narrative commentary throughout the film and is depicted as visiting a sequence of Bible Colleges to interview both proponents of intelligent design who claim to have changed their views for fear of being victimized and biblical inerrantists who are presented as fundamentalists.

Jack Krebs said: But no matter what, he made the statements he did in his clarification, and if he says "I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch," I will conclude that he accepts a literal six day creation, etc, and that is not compatible with an old earth. It appears very clear to me what the meaning of this sentence is.

Bad science, and incidentally, horrible theology. "He bows to the text." Can't speak for other religions, but in Christianity, this is called idolatry. It is making the book into God. That it is a common heresy of Literal Creationists in no way excuses Dembski.

OMG ... I can tell this is going to be awesome and I haven't even read any of the comments yet. LoL

::: clicks on "1" :::

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

mrg said:

Ron Okimoto said: There is a problem. Dembski has a history of lying.

If understatement was a crime, RO, you'd be history.

How did we get here? This has to be one of the most perplexing and hotly debated questions of the last hundred years, hands down.

While many academic experts will, without hesitation, back "Darwinism," the theory of evolution, many other equally qualified experts (usually college professors) would say otherwise. Well, at least they would if they knew it wouldn't get them fired.

Professors losing tenure (a permanent state of employment) at major universities for so much as even mentioning that Darwinism may not be as accurate as it seems is nothing new. According to discovery.org, just one of many sources where this story can be found, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist at the University of Iowa, was denied tenure in 2005. This occurred after colleagues in the astronomy department created an elaborate plot to have him ousted based solely on his views on what is formally known as Intelligent Design.

Now, I'm not here to give you a science lesson. And truth be told, I'd sooner dig my eye out with a fork before sitting in a college level anatomy course;

instead, I think I'll just do my part to exploit those who would have others silenced for no other reason than because they have differing views.

But to be brief: Intelligent Design is the theory that the origination of life in the universe is best explained by an intelligent cause.

Exactly what or who this cause could be is another issue entirely,

but many scientists seem to fear that it will lead to bible studies in the classroom.

The issue of Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one that begins long before the college level, but at the elementary school level. I remember bringing home permission slips in my sixth grade science class before the subject of evolution would be broached. Across the board there seems to be a subtle rejection or "cold shoulder" on the part of the scientific community to any proponent of Intelligent Design. The said proponents are often dismissed as being "out of touch" or "disengaged" with reality. It's no secret that the idea of Intelligent Design has been snubbed by the academic community. Some scientists, like Richard Sternberg, who has two doctoral degrees in Biology from Binghamton University and Florida International University, have spoken out for the theory of Intelligent Design, albeit with a price. Sternberg was the editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he was also a research associate. Although Sternberg has admitted to finding many flaws with the Intelligent Design theory, he decided to publish it because it was something worth discussing For Sternberg's attempt at creating academic dialogue, he was rewarded with accusations of fraud and the spreading of false rumors. Other Smithsonian scientists claimed he wasn't even a scientist. There is, in fact, a conscious effort to silence the idea and theory of intelligent design. Even when people, like Dr. Sternberg, try to bring just a smidge of logical debate to the table, their efforts are squelched. This is an issue that you probably have not heard much about; that is because thousands of scientists and professors throughout our nation would prefer to keep it that way. That people have their life's work discredited for favoring one idea over another is nothing short of reprehensible. But that freedom of speech in a professional field has been obstructed without recourse is unforgiveable.

Ron Okimoto said: The only people left supporting the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest. There really are no other types left. If anyone thinks they know of an exception I'd like to hear about it.

The behavior of this author, in making such false statements, violates any mainstream ethical system

...and seems pretty much representative of the "denialism" community, regardless of whether the specifics are based on religious ideology or not.

see the same things from antivaxers and AGW deniers. Hell, even the same thing from flat earthers, holocaust deniers and moon landing deniers for that matter.

it's a psychological issue; they simply have to much personally vested in these ideas to do anything BUT defend them at all costs. Most of these people don't even seem to recognize they are even doing it!

it's scary, and sad.

eric said: His comment about Genesis 1-11 being in regular space time is a rejection of day-age, and if he's a gapper, his gap occurs at Genesis 11/12 mark. I.e. there were 4+ billion years between when Abram's father died and when the God spoke to Abram.

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

Dembski and the other whores at the Dishonesty Institute are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

... bummer

I was expecting a FL\Byers\IBug trifecta this thread around.

Still a good thread though. :Þ

RO The only people left supporting the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest. There really are no other types left. If anyone thinks they know of an exception I’d like to hear about it.

First abut the "coming clean' thing.
This implies dishonesty on his part. Prove it! In reality it shows the poverty of credible criticism of a true mover and shaker in modern science.

He makes a excellent case for biblical truth and includes a fair opinion that seeing a local flood as opposed to a general one. Wrong but not dangerous.
I didn't know this guy was a YEC. I thought I.D. and not our crowd. Good news.

"if he’s inerrant, AND he says these things happened in normal space time, then he would have to consider ALL of genesis to be the same, thus, the calculations based on generations would have to apply, thus, this IS evidence of his being a YEC."

Nope. What calculations would apply? The straightforward summing up of the patriarchs' ages? But that is only if you interpret "the son of" and "begat" one way - as a father and son.

OEC fundies propose another way to translate this - an ancestor and a descendant. OEC fundies claim this is a legit literal translation, I didn't really check whether it's true, but what matters is that they think so. They also cite Luke's Cainan (who is not mentioned in Genesis) to show that there are gaps in the Genesis genealogy. (YEC fundies retort that Cainan is likely a scribal error since he is mentioned only in late LXX mss., not in early LXX mss. or any others, thus Cainan originated as a scribal error in the gospel and then was inserted into the Septuagint by some Christian scribes; this is easily refuted since Cainan (Kainam) is mentioned in the Book of Jubilees, thus he did not originate as a scribal error and his name was saved in (or inserted into) some version of LXX, the version that happened to be used by Luke. Just another biblical contradiction. But that was quite a long digression.)

Thus, they have a loophole through which they can fit any number of years.

Dembski is an ass, but I feel a little pity for him. He's now tightly wedged between the crazy trains with little hope to hop of. If, as some here suggested, YECs are in the process of discontinuing ID it will be highly interesting how far he will stay for the ride (and his backboneless fall-back to YEC suggest a train wreck, if you excuse the pun).

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

Dembski and the other whores at the Dishonesty Institute are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

Maya said: I agree 100% but I wish you hadn't phrased your message so delicately. Are you one of those accomodationists I've been hearing about?

raven said:

RO The only people left supporting the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest. There really are no other types left. If anyone thinks they know of an exception I’d like to hear about it.

You left out crazy. Most of the hard core creationist people seem to be pretty weird. I'd include Dembski in that category. He managed to get himself fired at a Baptist college, Baylor, for rather pointless and self defeating activities.

Ron Okimoto said:

raven said:

RO The only people left supporting the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest. There really are no other types left. If anyone thinks they know of an exception I’d like to hear about it.

You left out crazy. Most of the hard core creationist people seem to be pretty weird. I'd include Dembski in that category. He managed to get himself fired at a Baptist college, Baylor, for rather pointless and self defeating activities.

"Incompetent" includes insanity. The range would be simple stupidity to bug nuts insane. Dembski could fall into this category, because of his stupid behavior like the farting routine he made up in response to the Dover decision and his Baylor boondoggles, but he is obviously dishonest too. That is why I put in the "and or." It is sort of sad when the insanity defense is your least negative option that you are stuck with. I would like to see any suggestions for an informed, competent and honest ID perp or ID supporter. I don't care if the guy cheats on his taxes or robs banks he just has to be honest about intelligent design.

ubik said: Dembski is an ass, but I feel a little pity for him. He's now tightly wedged between the crazy trains with little hope to hop of. If, as some here suggested, YECs are in the process of discontinuing ID it will be highly interesting how far he will stay for the ride (and his backboneless fall-back to YEC suggest a train wreck, if you excuse the pun).

In reality it shows the poverty of credible criticism of a true mover and shaker in modern science.

OK, Dembski is not a YEC

A number of people whose opinions I respect and/or know more than I do about how Biblical inerrantists try to reconcile modern science with Genesis tell me that merely saying "I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch" doesn't make Dembski a YEC.

Frankly I don't get it, but I don't get the whole business of trying to reconcile science with Genesis anyway, so who am I to judge whether one person's method of doing so is "right" or "wrong", or to judge which side of inconsistency and contradiction one person's view is "really" on.

Dembski says he accepts an old earth. His book End of Christianity was about trying to explain how the Fall could work backwards in time to influence the history of an old earth. The fact that this seems to me to be blatantly contradicted by the quoted sentence above doesn't mean he's changed his mind about the age of the earth, I guess.

I regret that this topic, and my headline, have distracted from the bigger, and less controversial, picture of how Dembski recanted about the Flood, or how the threat of being "expelled" looms over one at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary if they think the flood might have been local, not global. I guess that aspect of Genesis doesn't admit for alternative historical views the way the creation story does.

Ghrom said: Nope. What calculations would apply? The straightforward summing up of the patriarchs' ages? But that is only if you interpret "the son of" and "begat" one way - as a father and son. OEC fundies propose another way to translate this - an ancestor and a descendant. OEC fundies claim this is a legit literal translation, I didn't really check whether it's true, but what matters is that they think so.

TomS, you're reading this like a normal human being would do. When it comes to inerrantists, all bets are off. These "fixed" periods are specifically why I mentioned Cainan.

Compare:
Luke 3:36 the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

Genesis 11: 12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

So for an inerrantist there are 2 choices:

1. Either the Luke text is corrupted.
2. Or there is a gap in the genealogy, and thus these time periods need to be reinterpreted (e.g., "when A. had lived 35 years he became the literal father of a person who was an ancestor of Shelah, thus becoming a father of Shelah").

Option 1 cannot be proven, as I wrote above. This leaves option 2.

Note that a normal person would simply admit that there is a contradiction, but inerrantists, who also think they're literalists, ALWAYS twist themselves in knots trying to resolve these kinds of contradictions, all the while thinking that they're literalists. Analogous reinterpretations are evident in other places (e.g. in the issue of the length of the Egyptian sojourn, or during the discussion of some Babylonian kings, whom the Bible calls a father and a son while they were a grandson and a grandfather).

So there is a loophole for an OEC who wants to think of herself as a literalist.

I don't see how the begats can separate YEC from OEC anyway. All that happened after the times of the controversy. For gap theorists, the crucial period is between the first two verses of Genesis, which can expand into billions of years. For day-agers, it's the first 6 days that expand. Of course, those both require a global flood only a few thousand years ago, but that's another question.

John Harshman said: Could you explain your reasoning for both these claims? Why can't regular space time be consistent with non-24-hour days? Where does this gap between Genesis 11/12 come from, and what suggests Dembski could hold that view?

“Incompetent” includes insanity. The range would be simple stupidity to bug nuts insane.

Nuh-uh. Remember the punch line: "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid!"

Insanity and stupidity are two different problems, each with its own range: severe retardation---Einstein-brilliance; possessed and hearing voices---complete realist (including recognizing foibles of one's own mind).

I would propose a graph. X is the stupidity-brilliance scale, and Y the insanity-reality. Now someone with more time than I have, and way more familiarity with the zoo of creationist characters, could place each personality on the scale based on his writings, quotes, press releases, etc.

Robert Byers said: (Re: Dembski) In reality it shows the poverty of credible criticism of a true mover and shaker in saboteur of modern science.

SUMMARY

When Dembski is talking to people who are YEC, he strongly but vaguely implies that he is YEC, but gives himself a little room for (im)plausible deniability.

When he is trying to claim that he is not YEC for legal/political purposes, he strongly but vaguely implies that he is not YEC, but gives himself a little room for (im)plausible deniability.

I will not refer to Dembski as a "weasel" here. First of all, weasels are useful members of the ecosystem; they happen to have adapted as crafty carnivores. Second of all, weasels are good at what they do.

My take - Dembski started out just trying to deny science out of narcissistic crackpottery.

He latched on to religious fanatics as people who would monetarily support a science denier.

However, reality caught up. He discovered to his frustration that academically rigorous institutions like Baylor aren't generally a good fit for unproductive science deniers, even if they are officially associated with a religious institution. He bounced down the steps, eventually affiliated only with the DI and a hard core right wing cult college.

Since only the hardest core, most fundamentalist will have him now, he has no choice but to conform to their demands for dogmatic purity, if he wants a paycheck.

Jack Krebs said: I regret that this topic, and my headline, have distracted from the bigger, and less controversial, picture of how Dembski recanted about the Flood, or how the threat of being "expelled" looms over one at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary if they think the flood might have been local, not global. I guess that aspect of Genesis doesn't admit for alternative historical views the way the creation story does.

Wikipedia Trinity: The being of Christ, can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church through the 7th century A.D., and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431 A.D., and the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to Flavianus. From these councils, the following christological doctrines were condemned as heresies: Ebionism, Docetism, Basilidianism, Alogism or Artemonism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.[10])

old post: William Dembski: The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 12 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 12 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

raven said: A noted theologian was fired from a seminary in Florida recently for stating that xianity and science are compatible.

It is not clear what actually happened, but the claim is that he resigned without being asked to. (He is 80 years old.)

google capture: Cached►Evangelical Scholar, Bruce K. Waltke, Forced Out After Endorsing ... Apr 10, 2010 ... Evangelical Scholar, Bruce K. Waltke, Forced Out After Endorsing Evolution ... Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke ... Waltke's scholarly and religious credentials in Christian ... www.urbanchristiannews.com/.../evangelical-scholar-bruce-k-waltke-forced-out-after-endorsing-evolution.html - Cached

raven said: 10 seconds with google says Waltke was forced out.

John H.: Let’s have some standard here.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: Creationism is like a mental perpetual motion machine, ...

Does it come with mental patients? :-)

raven said: You don't really expect fundie xians to tell the truth about anything, do you? Lies are one of their three sacraments.

Bruce K. Waltke most definitely was forced out. NCSE even had an article about it: Evangelical scholar expelled over evolution

What are the other two? Damned lies and statistics? Child abuse and human sacrifice? Arrogance and willful ignorance? Money and power?

Bruce K. Waltke most definitely was forced out. NCSE even had an article about it: Evangelical scholar expelled over evolution.

According to RTS interim president Michael Milton, Waltke's resignation was accepted because of his "mainline evolutionary" views and "uncharitable and surely regrettable characterizations" of those who disagree with his biblical interpretation. -- Christianity Today online.

"Milton explained that Reformed Theological Seminary's faculty members are allowed to have different views on creation, but "Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life), are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this." --NCSE article

FL said: Waltke's a real good scholar and author and professor, but it's best that he departed from the RTS seminary under the circumstances.

FL/mellotron still spinning and flailing, I see.

Poor Dembski - one a 'world's leading scientist' , now a bitch for the administration at some podunk bible college.

How deserving he is.

BTW - I checked out his CV at the SBTS website, and darned if I found ZERO scholarly articles published by. Oh, sure, lots of religious books, bit not a single peer-reviewed publication, even oin his actual discipline.

No wonder he is were he is.

USAtoday article: Michael Milton, president of the seminary's Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would "undoubtedly" be considered one of the world's great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was "much beloved here," with his departure causing "heartache." But he said that there was no choice. Milton said that the seminary allows "views to vary" about creation, describing the faculty members there as having "an eight-lane highway" on which to explore various routes to understanding. Giving an example, he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed, Milton said. But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life) are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this. Asked if this limits academic freedom, Milton said: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view." Indeed he added that the problem with what Waltke said was as much his suggestion that religion will lose support over these issues as his statements about evolution itself. (The statement of faith at the seminary states: "Since the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God, it is the basis for the total curriculum.")

Now an obvious cynical reaction to all this is that he wants to keep his job, and will say whatever it takes to stay in Southwestern’s good graces. (Of course, the irony of this in respect to the whole Expelled schtick is breathtaking.) However, there’s another possibility. Dembski, and the ID movement in general, ever since Phillip Johnson devised his Wedge strategy, has been trying to create this illusion that what they were doing was “scientific” and had nothing to do with religion. Johnson has specifically said that the strategy was to get people to accept scientifically that a Creator was necessary, and after that was established the sectarian differences about the age of the earth, common descent, etc. could be worked out in house, so to speak. This strategy has been a dismal failure. They’ve lost in the school systems (for instance, Kansas), they’ve lost in the courts (Dover), they have never got off the ground in the science community: in fact, every time the ground troops get involved in trying to sell ID, their blatant creationism comes right to the forefront.

— Jack Krebs

derwood said: FL/mellotron still spinning and flailing, I see.

mrg said:

derwood said: FL/mellotron still spinning and flailing, I see.

Still playing the same broken record. Don't know why people feed that troll; Byers is even more of a sink.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

derwood said: FL/mellotron still spinning and flailing, I see.

Still playing the same broken record. Don't know why people feed that troll; Byers is even more of a sink.

The troll’s comments just continue to add to the profile. Evolution is bad in seminaries; religion is good. Evolution is bad in public schools; religion is good. Ergo, public schools are seminaries.

Stanton said: Do remember that FL once ranted about how he thinks that science classrooms are actually a kind of church (and that Charles Darwin is a bible)

Let’s have some standard here. 10 seconds with google would also tell you that Sternberg was fired from his job at the Smithsonian. Expelled is full of “10 seconds with google” sorts of evidence.

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

Dembski Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and the other whores atheists at the Dishonesty Institute that are playing scientists are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski these imposters may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists atheists posing as scientists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and the other whores atheists at the Dishonesty Institute that are playing scientists

lies.

Dawkins is a science historian and science philosopher, though his degree certainly required enough science.

easy enough to see his CV:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080423211133/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml

Coyne is a professor of biology at UC, and is also a scientist, with many recent publications:

http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/people/coyne.html

PZ is another professor of biology, though not an active scientist.

again, though, like the others, you can easily look up his published papers and his PhD thesis.

so, no.

those that ARE active scientists, like Coyne, most certainly aren't playing at it, and the others, simply, aren't DOING science, so they aren't "Playing" at it either.

that said, any one of them has more knowledge of actual science in their little fingers than you do in your entire family.

lying will make the baby jesus cry.

And yet, Steve P., Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne did not sign a charter swearing to Jesus-fy science and America at the behest of Christian fundamentalists.

I also noticed you have failed to explain what Dembski, Behe, Wells and the other whores at the Discovery Institute have done to further science in the past couple of decades.

Is it because even a pompous idiot like yourself can see that they have done nothing?

Stanton said: And yet, Steve P., Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne did not sign a charter swearing to Jesus-fy science and America at the behest of Christian fundamentalists. I also noticed you have failed to explain what Dembski, Behe, Wells and the other whores at the Discovery Institute have done to further science in the past couple of decades. Is it because even a pompous idiot like yourself can see that they have done nothing?

How can the events in Genesis be in ordinary space-time if they aren't in the right order? It doesn't sound very ordinary to me. I think what we have here is a case of "make believe" ordinary.

If we pretend that something ridiculous is not ridiculous, than that makes it easier to uhhhhhh believe a bunch of stupid ridiculous stuff. That's my theory anyway.

I don't know if anybody is interested (and if it's already been posted then I apologise for the repetition), But Nettle's reply to Allen's review of Nettle's review of Dembski's book can be found here. We can now wait with bated breath for Allen's reply to Nettle's reply to Allen's review ...

This whole idea that science cannot and must not be grounded in theistic concepts is pure bullshit and theists have proven it time and time again.

There is no restriction on where a scientist gets inspiration from. The standard example is Kekulé's dream leading to the structure of benzene. The problem is that a "theory" which says "that's the way it happens to be" is not open to discussion. ID does not go beyond that when it says, "unspecified agent(s) did something or other at some time and some place which somehow resulted in something": There is nothing which is not just as likely as anything else. (Describe some state of affairs which is not just as likely as anything else. Give an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not "intelligently designed".) ID is not taken seriously because it doesn't lead to a research program: It rather shuts of any further investigation, theoretical or experimental.

If you described a god who has some limitations that we can know about, then it would be possible to have a science of that god. See, for example, the investigation done by Daniel in the story "Bel and the Dragon".

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

derwood said: FL/mellotron still spinning and flailing, I see.

Still playing the same broken record. Don't know why people feed that troll; Byers is even more of a sink.

The troll’s comments just continue to add to the profile. Evolution is bad in seminaries; religion is good. Evolution is bad in public schools; religion is good. Ergo, public schools are seminaries.

Do remember that FL once ranted about how he thinks that science classrooms are actually a kind of church (and that Charles Darwin is a bible)

Ichthyic said: Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and the other whores atheists at the Dishonesty Institute that are playing scientists lies. Dawkins is a science historian and science philosopher, though his degree certainly required enough science. easy enough to see his CV: http://web.archive.org/web/20080423211133/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml Coyne is a professor of biology at UC, and is also a scientist, with many recent publications: http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/people/coyne.html PZ is another professor of biology, though not an active scientist. again, though, like the others, you can easily look up his published papers and his PhD thesis. so, no. those that ARE active scientists, like Coyne, most certainly aren't playing at it, and the others, simply, aren't DOING science, so they aren't "Playing" at it either. that said, any one of them has more knowledge of actual science in their little fingers than you do in your entire family. lying will make the baby jesus cry.

Steve P. said: There. Fixed it for your Burnett.

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

Dembski Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and the other whores atheists at the Dishonesty Institute that are playing scientists are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski these imposters may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists atheists posing as scientists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

Steve P. said: Alright Stanton, I'll play. What big ideas have any of these guys come up with? Start with Dawkins. What is Dawkins' claim to scientific fame? How about Myers'? How about Coyne? How about Carroll? How about Elsberry? How about Musgrave? Seems theists can be faulted for getting all the big ideas way too early on and leaving nothing left for atheists. This whole idea that science cannot and must not be grounded in theistic concepts is pure bullshit and theists have proven it time and time again. True, theists are to be blamed for neglecting their brainchild and letting atheists co-opt it and call it their own. Now atheists want to defend their step-child with so much fire and brimstone. But that is all changed now. We are in your territory now. We are bringing the fight straight to you. Damned if we are gonna let atheists and secular humanists take control of the country's young minds through the back door. Game on.

Stanton said: And yet, Steve P., Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne did not sign a charter swearing to Jesus-fy science and America at the behest of Christian fundamentalists. I also noticed you have failed to explain what Dembski, Behe, Wells and the other whores at the Discovery Institute have done to further science in the past couple of decades. Is it because even a pompous idiot like yourself can see that they have done nothing?

Steve P. said: Alright Stanton, I'll play. What big ideas have any of these guys come up with? Start with Dawkins. What is Dawkins' claim to scientific fame? How about Myers'? How about Coyne? How about Carroll? How about Elsberry? How about Musgrave? Seems theists can be faulted for getting all the big ideas way too early on and leaving nothing left for atheists. This whole idea that science cannot and must not be grounded in theistic concepts is pure bullshit and theists have proven it time and time again. True, theists are to be blamed for neglecting their brainchild and letting atheists co-opt it and call it their own. Now atheists want to defend their step-child with so much fire and brimstone. But that is all changed now. We are in your territory now. We are bringing the fight straight to you. Damned if we are gonna let atheists and secular humanists take control of the country's young minds through the back door. Game on.

Stanton said: And yet, Steve P., Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne did not sign a charter swearing to Jesus-fy science and America at the behest of Christian fundamentalists. I also noticed you have failed to explain what Dembski, Behe, Wells and the other whores at the Discovery Institute have done to further science in the past couple of decades. Is it because even a pompous idiot like yourself can see that they have done nothing?

steve P. the psycho troll: What big ideas have any of these guys come up with?

I'll add here that we scientists besides helping people live easier, richer, and longer, healthier lives, also feed 6.7 billion people.

Evolutionary biology is critical in medicine and agriculture. Our crops are all derived using evolutionary biology principles. We know that resistance to antipathogenic drugs and pesticides by simple evolution is a fact and combating it is an ongoing process.

All of this only matters to people who eat and want to live long, healthy lives.

Xianity's contribution to this has been less than zero. It is simply irrelevant on a good day and they get in the way on a bad day.

old post: William Dembski: The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

raven said: Don't feel sorry for Dembski. He is a thoroughly evil and crazy human.

Thanks for writing this up, Jack. I especially liked the "expelled" bit.

Whether Dembski really has decided to subscribe fully to a YEC view or is just ambiguously dissembling for the sake of a paycheck, neither course of action is really commendable or helpful for the ID cause. On the one side, ID's science-oriented critics are shown to be right in pointing out that ID is a front for promoting Creationism and encourages dogmatic adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. On the other, it shows how shamelessly dishonest ID's leading lights are willing to be in order to keep bringing in the money, and how much dogmatically-based organizations differ from non-ideologically oriented ones (like public schools and most colleges).

Not sure if this is evidence of a YEC ascendancy over all of ID or just over Dembski's professional life. I can't imagine that AiG would be more accomodating of ID just because Dembski makes a few concessions towards a more literal Genesis interpretation, unless those found their way into more of the Discovery Institute's official material, and they dropped all pretense of being secular.

William Dembski is a Xian Fascist with ample delusions of grandeur.

Xianity’s contribution to this has been less than zero.

William Dembski is a Xian Fascist with ample delusions of grandeur.

Wheels said: Not sure if this is evidence of a YEC ascendancy over all of ID or just over Dembski's professional life. I can't imagine that AiG would be more accomodating of ID just because Dembski makes a few concessions towards a more literal Genesis interpretation, unless those found their way into more of the Discovery Institute's official material, and they dropped all pretense of being secular.

Steve P. said: There. Fixed it for your Burnett. Dembski Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and the other whores atheists at the Dishonesty Institute that are playing scientists are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski these imposters may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists atheists posing as scientists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

that when Cheationists lie, they lie BIG!

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: Come on, give the guy a break. (Dembski) isn't lying, he's just a whore.

Dembski and the other whores at the Dishonesty Institute are trying every bit as hard as the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destroy Western civilization. They must not be given any break - any quarter - at all. They started the culture war and they will not give up until they are marginalized into the obscurity they so richly deserve. Watching the destruction of Dembski may be disturbing, but it is necessary. And it's just a beginning. Every single one of the cdesign proponentsists has to be ground into the dust to save the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

Flint said: In support of such a "faith", I can't quite imagine what a small lie would look like.

I concur with your observations Mike, except here: Mike Elzinga said: Unfortunately, by allowing people the freedom to seek religious understanding, the Constitution has also protected the institutionalization of sectarian terrorism. That just means that the scientific community cannot rest or avoid these issues.

Wheels said: Thanks for writing this up, Jack. I especially liked the "expelled" bit. Whether Dembski really has decided to subscribe fully to a YEC view or is just ambiguously dissembling for the sake of a paycheck, neither course of action is really commendable or helpful for the ID cause. On the one side, ID's science-oriented critics are shown to be right in pointing out that ID is a front for promoting Creationism and encourages dogmatic adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. On the other, it shows how shamelessly dishonest ID's leading lights are willing to be in order to keep bringing in the money, and how much dogmatically-based organizations differ from non-ideologically oriented ones (like public schools and most colleges). Not sure if this is evidence of a YEC ascendancy over all of ID or just over Dembski's professional life. I can't imagine that AiG would be more accomodating of ID just because Dembski makes a few concessions towards a more literal Genesis interpretation, unless those found their way into more of the Discovery Institute's official material, and they dropped all pretense of being secular.

Hah, I just had to explain to my mom and sister why I laughed when I read this. A little tricky.

Frank J said: Let's not lose sight of the other side of their "evolving" strategy. That is the "academic freedom," "viewpoint discrimination," etc. While more YEC-friendly quotes might add more material for any trials (as if "cdesign proponentsists" isn't enough), the new strategies might be legally slipperier. All they need is a Judge who's more like Scalia than Jones, and public schools will be teaching some "kind" of anti-evolution nonsense.

I do not think that it is wrong to retract some the statements that he made in the book. Many times scholars will declare a view on one thing and then change it later. The biggest thing that he detracts from the book was his view on the flood. He admittedly in the A Reply to Tom Nettles Review of Dembski’s End of Christianity, says that he needs to spend more time exegeting the passage of Genesis and the flood. Does that make him a YEC? No. He is simply stating that the flood was not a localized event and should be seen as a universal event, which is taught by Jesus and Peter. You claim that Dembski bows to the text. He’s bowing to the Truth! The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming. Of course if one believes in Intelligent Design, one would believe in Creationism. God designed the Earth and therefore created it.
The academic community always has to place the religion stamp on Creationism. Yes, the majority of creationists are Christian, but there are many that are not who believe in an Intelligent Designer. There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design and should be taught as a possibility of how the Earth was created. It is always discarded as evidence because it is associated with Christianity. However if one will look past its association with religion, one can see that the weight of evidence that Intelligent Design holds, crushes the theories that oppose it.

Joshua said: He’s bowing to the Truth! The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming.

Joshua said: However if one will look past its association with religion, one can see that the weight of evidence that Intelligent Design holds, crushes the theories that oppose it.

Joshua said: I do not think that it is wrong to retract some the statements that he made in the book. Many times scholars will declare a view on one thing and then change it later. The biggest thing that he detracts from the book was his view on the flood. He admittedly in the A Reply to Tom Nettles Review of Dembski’s End of Christianity, says that he needs to spend more time exegeting the passage of Genesis and the flood. Does that make him a YEC? No. He is simply stating that the flood was not a localized event and should be seen as a universal event, which is taught by Jesus and Peter. You claim that Dembski bows to the text. He’s bowing to the Truth! The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming. Of course if one believes in Intelligent Design, one would believe in Creationism. God designed the Earth and therefore created it. The academic community always has to place the religion stamp on Creationism. Yes, the majority of creationists are Christian, but there are many that are not who believe in an Intelligent Designer. There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design and should be taught as a possibility of how the Earth was created. It is always discarded as evidence because it is associated with Christianity. However if one will look past its association with religion, one can see that the weight of evidence that Intelligent Design holds, crushes the theories that oppose it.

There is actually far more proof in support of Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design cretinism. Here's why:

1) We see Klingons often on television and in the movies. So if they are on both media, then they must be real.

2) An official Klingon Language Institute exists here in North America.

3) People have conducted religious ceremonies, including marriages, speaking in Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon.

5) The Jenolen Caves, outside of Sydney, Australia, have audio tours in Klingon.

Please demonstrate just how the evidence for Intelligent Design cretinism is as overwhelming as the evidence for Klingon Cosmology and the well-established fact - I would say law - of biological evolution. Overwhelm us with such proof, my dear Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone.

Steve P. said: This whole idea that science cannot and must not be grounded in theistic concepts is pure bullshit and theists have proven it time and time again.

John Kwok said: I accept Charles Darwin as my personal saviour (Or rather, maybe Paul Bettany's portrayal of him in the film "Creation".). Hehehehe.

John Kwok said: Dembski may claim that he is a servant of Christ, but his one true master is Lucifer, and, hopefully, if there is an afterlife, he will be spending it with his master for the rest of eternity.

Flint said:

that when Cheationists lie, they lie BIG!

But really, how can you possibly tell a small lie when your core beliefs are prima facie preposterous, and resoundingly refuted by everything people have learned over the last 300 years or more? In support of such a "faith", I can't quite imagine what a small lie would look like.

Joshua said: (word salad)

Joshua the Death Cult Kook: There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design and should be taught as a possibility of how the Earth was created. It is always discarded as evidence because it is associated with Christianity.

Mike Elzinga said: There is another side to “viewpoint discrimination” that ID/creationists may come to regret if they ever get the courts to go along with their charade; namely that the secular universe has a “viewpoint” also.

raven said: I recognize this name from before. You won't get anything intelligent out of him. When you ask him questions, he goes psycho and claims people are persecuting him. Not a sign of a healthy mind if you know what I mean.

Wheels said:

Mike Elzinga said: There is another side to “viewpoint discrimination” that ID/creationists may come to regret if they ever get the courts to go along with their charade; namely that the secular universe has a “viewpoint” also.

Then again, so do their fellow IDists. And those viewpoints may differ significantly in regards to the age of the Earth, the necessity of an actual Fall, etc. etc. Sorry to say, but I'm enjoying the show as Dembski is being subject to a little "viewpoint discrimination" right now. Theologically, he and Behe were two of the more "liberal" among the DI's upper crust. Now he's working in a place that isn't so accommodating, and it's not an Atheist Materialist Liberal Ivory Tower.

Mike Elzinga said: If there is one dependable fact about authoritarian religion, it is the internecine warfare that shatters members into thousands of sects and miffed personalities.

Mike Elzinga said: Obviously it’s not about worshiping a deity or finding a template for living; rather, it’s about who gets to be the big-dog determiner of the course of other people’s lives.

If I knew the figures for Judaism and Islam, I’d add them in as well.

interestingly, there are only a handful of recognized sects of Judaism.

someone once told me why that was, but I've forgotten now.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

John Kwok said: Dembski may claim that he is a servant of Christ, but his one true master is Lucifer, and, hopefully, if there is an afterlife, he will be spending it with his master for the rest of eternity.

All due respect, sir, he is a Christian. Not, I grant you, the sort of Christian beside whom an educated, intelligent, or reasonable believer may feel comfortable. Nor a bright and shining role model for the ages, and certainly not an exemplar of the best aspects of the faith. And I can certainly understand why the vast majority of Christians, regardless of denomination, might feel that he falls outside the pale. Like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Reverend Phelps, he is undoubtedly a true believer in the faith. To insist otherwise is to approach the No True Scotsman fallacy with a vengeance. The MadPanda, FCD

John Kwok said: (lots of stuff)

Joshua said: ... There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design ... one can see that the weight of evidence that Intelligent Design holds, crushes the theories that oppose it.

I think one Evangelical Christian whose work I have read, historian Robert McElvaine, would strongly beg to differ. He would regard Dembski as a Xian, not a true Christian, as he has defined in his book "Grand Theft Jesus". May I suggest you read it?

Actually, Joshua is wrong about ID and the Flood being associated with xianity. The majority of xians worldwide think it is nonsense.

"According to an ABC News poll taken in early 2004: Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is "literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word." About as many say the same about creation (61 percent), and Noah and the flood (60 percent)." ("This ABCNEWS/Primetime poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 6-10, 2004, among a random national sample of 1,011 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Field work was done by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa.") ---Brent Palmer, "The Bible Skeptic" blog http://www.thebibleskeptic.com/believe.html

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. -- (Matthew chap. 24)

Pope Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God's love was seen in the "marvels of creation." He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance." "How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said. "With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love." --CADRE Comments, Nov. 14, 2005, quoting a San Francisco Examinater article.

John Kwok said: I think one Evangelical Christian whose work I have read, historian Robert McElvaine, would strongly beg to differ. He would regard Dembski as a Xian, not a true Christian, as he has defined in his book "Grand Theft Jesus". May I suggest you read it?

FL said: So Jesus is staking his own reputation and authority as a prophet on the historicity and literalness and global scope of the Noahic Flood. If Jesus got it wrong on the accuracy and reliability of the Flood account, then He's not to be trusted on the accuracy and reliability of Himself either, since the Bible clearly says not to believe in false prophets, and Jesus did speak of the Flood as if it were literal and historically accurate.

"Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is “literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word.” About as many say the same about creation (61 percent), and Noah and the flood (60 percent)."

What a bunch of infantile morons.

Tele_P said: "Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is “literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word.” About as many say the same about creation (61 percent), and Noah and the flood (60 percent)." What a bunch of infantile morons.

John Kwok said: I think one Evangelical Christian whose work I have read, historian Robert McElvaine, would strongly beg to differ.

Scott F said: Oh, but isn't that the fun part of being Christian? With 39,000 sects, there's always some Christian willing to declare that another Christian is not a True Christian. :-)

Minor correction. Wiki claims about 38,000 Christian sects, not 39,000. Though, assuming the Protestant Reformation was only about 500 years ago, that averages to about 100 new sects per year, so the Wiki numbers (taken from World Christian Encyclopedia) are 10 years out of date by now, allowing for an extra 1,000 sects or so :-)

(Please note the smiley face. These numbers are not to be taken, defended, or argued seriously, but are meant as a humorous OT.) Sheeze!

SWT said: Oh, you're the one who has the actual evidence for ID!

Scott F said: Though, assuming the Protestant Reformation was only about 500 years ago, that averages to about 100 new sects per year, so the Wiki numbers (taken from World Christian Encyclopedia) are 10 years out of date by now, allowing for an extra 1,000 sects or so :-)

The other item to note is that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, directly considered the global Noahic Flood to be literally true in actual history.

— FL

Arguing with that stuck record again ...

Frank J said:

The other item to note is that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, directly considered the global Noahic Flood to be literally true in actual history.

— FL

I often claim that reindeer fly. Does that mean that I (1) personally take it literally, (2) am lying, or (3) telling an allegory that might help the listener to behave better?

The existence of rubes as lost as Steve P and Joshua just do not make sense. Why would anyone try to support the ID perps at this late date? I can see trying to salvage your religious beliefs, but supporting scam artists seems to not be a very reasoned way to do that.

These guys likely dislike the ID perps as much as anyone. They know that they were lied to. Heck, they probably have been repeatedly made fools of by using the ID perp's bogus propaganda. ID perps like Nelson and Philip Johnson have admitted that the ID science never existed. Joshua and Steve P can see for themselves that all they have gotten from the ID persp is a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. The ID perps have been running the bait and switch scam on the rubes that believed them since Ohio in early 2003. No legislator or school board that has wznted to teach the science of intelligent design has ever gotten any ID science to teach, and yet these guys are willing to try to justify the actions of the ID perps.

Is this some variant of the Stockholm syndrome where these poor guys are left worshiping their abusers? It is obvious that the creationist rubes have been taken advantage of, so why defend the scam artists instead of retreating to simple defense of their religious beliefs?

Doesn't it register that in all the years that the ID Perps ran the teach ID scam and the bait and switch scam that the ID perps have never put up their own public school lesson plans to demonstrate that there was anything that they were selling that was worth teaching? They have always made the local rubes do that and take the fall. Why haven't the ID perps gotten any Seattle school boards to teach ID or the creationist switch scam? They are right there and they obviously are the ones to do it right without the usual screw ups that using regional ignorant creationist rubes always results in. So what is Steve P's and Joshua's excuses for the ID perp behavior and actions? Why defend the guys that perpetrated the intelligent design creationist scam?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

John Kwok said: I think one Evangelical Christian whose work I have read, historian Robert McElvaine, would strongly beg to differ. He would regard Dembski as a Xian, not a true Christian, as he has defined in his book "Grand Theft Jesus". May I suggest you read it?

You may suggest whatever you wish. I am afraid, however, that the opinion of an Evangelical concerning the qualifications of other Christians is hardly a positive endorsement. I find their collective track record in this regard...less than sterling, shall we say? Is there a particular reason you cannot accept that Dembski is a Christian, albeit a poor example of one? I am not insisting, after all, that you embrace him and call him brother and endorse his failings. I am merely pointing out that by claiming that he is not a Christian, you are making a basic logical error. The MadPanda, FCD

Ron Okimoto said: The existence of rubes as lost as Steve P and Joshua just do not make sense. Why would anyone try to support the ID perps at this late date? I can see trying to salvage your religious beliefs, but supporting scam artists seems to not be a very reasoned way to do that. These guys likely dislike the ID perps as much as anyone. They know that they were lied to. Heck, they probably have been repeatedly made fools of by using the ID perp's bogus propaganda. ID perps like Nelson and Philip Johnson have admitted that the ID science never existed. Joshua and Steve P can see for themselves that all they have gotten from the ID persp is a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. The ID perps have been running the bait and switch scam on the rubes that believed them since Ohio in early 2003. No legislator or school board that has wznted to teach the science of intelligent design has ever gotten any ID science to teach, and yet these guys are willing to try to justify the actions of the ID perps. Is this some variant of the Stockholm syndrome where these poor guys are left worshiping their abusers? It is obvious that the creationist rubes have been taken advantage of, so why defend the scam artists instead of retreating to simple defense of their religious beliefs? Doesn't it register that in all the years that the ID Perps ran the teach ID scam and the bait and switch scam that the ID perps have never put up their own public school lesson plans to demonstrate that there was anything that they were selling that was worth teaching? They have always made the local rubes do that and take the fall. Why haven't the ID perps gotten any Seattle school boards to teach ID or the creationist switch scam? They are right there and they obviously are the ones to do it right without the usual screw ups that using regional ignorant creationist rubes always results in. So what is Steve P's and Joshua's excuses for the ID perp behavior and actions? Why defend the guys that perpetrated the intelligent design creationist scam?

So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe but I know many of you will not look at the text as being enough to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. So if you discard that the Bible is true where do we look. If one were to look inside ourselves we will find billions of cells that have working parts. How do these cells move? How do they know what to do? A Naturalist or Evolutionist would argue that it was through millions of years of natural selection that allowed the cells to form the necessary parts to function. I heard an analogy regarding the odds of chance that this “selection” would happen. It would be like dropping a handful of scrabble pieces and trying to make it spell out two famous lines from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be? That is the question?” So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance.
Now lets look at the inner workings of a cell. The cell has many different working parts that make it work. Machines that build proteins and that work to make life exist, such as you and I. So how are these machines built? Through time and chance? Natural selection? Ok, so lets say that’s true. So how did the cells know how to build the machines necessary for it to work? Where did the instructions come from to show the cell how build its necessary components. One can say they were already there and knew how to construct them. However, if these things are true then a naturalist still has to come up with the answer of where DNA came from. DNA being the building blocks of life. DNA holds more encoded information in it than we can put on millions perhaps billions of pages of paper. Where did this information come from? It would have had to receive the instructions before the instructions were given. Life could not have formed without these instructions check out this video on youtube.com in which Dr. Stephen Myer shows how the cell works and answers the question of “Where did the information for the cell come from?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=player_embedded
So you asked for evidence, I gave you some. Now I am asking you to give me evidence how we could have been created by chance, and not design. Show me the proof. I think if you have it, you will change how we label Evolution. It will no longer be deemed as a theory but as scientific fact. So if you can do this. Please do. If not, ask yourself some questions about what you believe. The Truth is out there.

raven said:

Joshua the Death Cult Kook: There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design and should be taught as a possibility of how the Earth was created. It is always discarded as evidence because it is associated with Christianity.

Actually, Joshua is wrong about ID and the Flood being associated with xianity. The majority of xians worldwide think it is nonsense. It is associated with a perversion of xianity found mostly in the south central USA, the fundie death cults. One of which is Joshua's. I recognize this name from before. You won't get anything intelligent out of him. When you ask him questions, he goes psycho and claims people are persecuting him. Not a sign of a healthy mind if you know what I mean.

TomS said: It seems that someone is doing a heap of his own private interpreting.

Joshua said: So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe but I know many of you will not look at the text as being enough to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. So if you discard that the Bible is true where do we look. If one were to look inside ourselves we will find billions of cells that have working parts. How do these cells move? How do they know what to do? A Naturalist or Evolutionist would argue that it was through millions of years of natural selection that allowed the cells to form the necessary parts to function. I heard an analogy regarding the odds of chance that this “selection” would happen. It would be like dropping a handful of scrabble pieces and trying to make it spell out two famous lines from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be? That is the question?” So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance. Now lets look at the inner workings of a cell. The cell has many different working parts that make it work. Machines that build proteins and that work to make life exist, such as you and I. So how are these machines built? Through time and chance? Natural selection? Ok, so lets say that’s true. So how did the cells know how to build the machines necessary for it to work? Where did the instructions come from to show the cell how build its necessary components. One can say they were already there and knew how to construct them. However, if these things are true then a naturalist still has to come up with the answer of where DNA came from. DNA being the building blocks of life. DNA holds more encoded information in it than we can put on millions perhaps billions of pages of paper. Where did this information come from? It would have had to receive the instructions before the instructions were given. Life could not have formed without these instructions check out this video on youtube.com in which Dr. Stephen Myer shows how the cell works and answers the question of “Where did the information for the cell come from?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=player_embedded So you asked for evidence, I gave you some. Now I am asking you to give me evidence how we could have been created by chance, and not design. Show me the proof. I think if you have it, you will change how we label Evolution. It will no longer be deemed as a theory but as scientific fact. So if you can do this. Please do. If not, ask yourself some questions about what you believe. The Truth is out there.

Joshua said: *babbling screed snipped*

I’ve been waiting for the description of ID. Tell us What happened, When or Where it happened, Why or How, or Who did it.

— TomS

Stanton said:

Joshua said: *babbling screed snipped*

So, Joshua, how do you explain people winning the lottery, getting attacked by sharks, or getting a particular hand of cards in a game of poker even though "those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible"? Magic? Something tells me that you have never even taken a middle school level science class before.

So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe...

— Joshua

Joshua said: So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance.

TomS said:

Joshua said: So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance.

Evolutionary biology does not make the claim that life came by chance. As long as you don't tell us anything about the mechanism of "intelligent design", how can we tell the difference between "intelligent design" and chance? "Chance" means that we can't tell the difference between this and that. How does "intelligent design" tell the difference between this and that? What is the probability that "intelligent designer(s)", which, as far as we can tell from the lack of a description of their abilities, purposes, and methods are apt to do just about anything - what is the probability that they would decide to design platypuses and not design centaurs? What is the probability that they would decide to make the human body with a small variation of vertebrate body plan - rather than on the insect body plan, or on the octopus body plan, or on our own special, completely different body plan? What is the probability that the intelligent designers would design life so that it looks like all forms of life have a common ancestor? Unless you tell us something about how, why, where, or when "intelligent design" happens, isn't it saying that it's just a matter of chance that things turned out the way they are?

Joshua said: So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position ...

Frank J said:

So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe...

— Joshua

Do you agree with evolution-denier Steve P., who thinks that life is billions of years old and that humans share common ancestors with other species? Or do you agree with FL, who thinks that many "kinds" inlcuding our species, originated independently, and that life is only 1000s of years old. Or do you have a "theory" that contradicts both? Please answer the questions without adding any unsolicited "evidences of design" or "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." If you have an original thought on either, we can discuss it later.

Joshua said: "You cannot recognize me sir. This is my first time posting on this blog."

Joshua said: So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth...

Joshua said:... So if you discard that the Bible is true [much better] where do we look... If one were to look inside ourselves we will find billions of cells that have working parts. How do these cells move? How do they know what to do?

Joshua said: I heard an analogy regarding the odds of chance that this “selection” would happen. It would be like dropping a handful of scrabble pieces and trying to make it spell out two famous lines from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be? That is the question?”

Joshua said: So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance.

Joshua said: ...So how did the cells know how to build the machines necessary for it to work? Where did the instructions come from to show the cell how build its necessary components.

Joshua said: So you asked for evidence, I gave you some.

Joshua said: Now I am asking you to give me evidence how we could have been created by chance, and not design. Show me the proof. I think if you have it, you will change how we label Evolution. It will no longer be deemed as a theory but as scientific fact.

Mordant irrelevant objection, Joshua. "To be or not to be? That is the question..." is one line from Shakespeare, not two.

Relevant argument: Suppose you dropped the tiles and they spelled out, oh, "Now is the hour"? Well, that's line from a song. Suppose the spelled out "Gondwana". That's a word. Suppose they spelled out "hookers way hay" or "methinks it is a weasel" or any one of ten zillion meaningful English words or phrases? Well, that would be a bit of a coincidence, yes, but not a miracle, huh?

Now, suppose instead of dropping all the tiles at once, you did it one tile at a time. Like, randomly the first one to drop is a D. Suppose you dropped another, and it was a Q, and you said to yourself, well, that's not making a word, so I'll take the Q back and try again, and this time you get an I. That could be a word. So you do it again, and get a P. Well, that's a word. In your shock you drop three tiles at once, they are L, O and J. No good, take the J back, try again....

Now suppose some bonehead comes up to you and tells you that dropping a handful of tiles to spell out "college diploma" is a miracle. You'd tell them not to be such a fool, wouldn't you?

Because trying and fitting combinations, discarding the ones that don't fit, and coming up with something new and unexpected is how evolution actually works, not like the damnfool notion you've got.

Don't get me started on the rest of what passes for your thought, Joshua. It's a regurgitation of a series of really stupid ideas - argument from ignorance, argument from personal incredulity, (look them up, Joshua) and a series of notions about "information" and cellular biology that aren't even right enough to be totally wrong. I don't have the time, space or patience to explain it all to you. This isn't a course in basic biology. Educate yourself, starting by finding out how little you actually know.

Read some real science, not Myer and the other frauds and crooks at the DI. They're lying to you, Joshua, and a little study of genuine science will prove it to you, but if you don't want to make that effort, then don't. Your loss. In that case, forget going away and trying to understand. Just go away.

Joshua said:Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe...

So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists.

Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe but I know many of you will not look at the text as being enough to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer.

So if you discard that the Bible is true where do we look. If one were to look inside ourselves we will find billions of cells that have working parts. How do these cells move? How do they know what to do? A Naturalist or Evolutionist would argue that it was through millions of years of natural selection that allowed the cells to form the necessary parts to function. I heard an analogy regarding the odds of chance that this “selection” would happen. It would be like dropping a handful of scrabble pieces and trying to make it spell out two famous lines from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be? That is the question?” So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance.

Now lets look at the inner workings of a cell. The cell has many different working parts that make it work. Machines that build proteins and that work to make life exist, such as you and I. So how are these machines built? Through time and chance? Natural selection? Ok, so lets say that’s true. So how did the cells know how to build the machines necessary for it to work? Where did the instructions come from to show the cell how build its necessary components. One can say they were already there and knew how to construct them. However, if these things are true then a naturalist still has to come up with the answer of where DNA came from.

DNA being the building blocks of life. DNA holds more encoded information in it than we can put on millions perhaps billions of pages of paper. Where did this information come from?

It would have had to receive the instructions before the instructions were given.

Life could not have formed without these instructions check out this video on youtube.com in which Dr. Stephen Myer shows how the cell works and answers the question of “Where did the information for the cell come from?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJ[…]yer_embedded

So you asked for evidence, I gave you some.

Now I am asking you to give me evidence how we could have been created by chance, and not design. Show me the proof.

I think if you have it, you will change how we label Evolution. It will no longer be deemed as a theory but as scientific fact. So if you can do this. Please do.

If not, ask yourself some questions about what you believe. The Truth is out there.

Joshua has said "The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming.....There is overwhelming evidence that supports Intelligent Design and should be taught....the weight of evidence that Intelligent Design holds,crushes the theories that oppose it."

He actually might be right - consider:

Automobiles and washing machines and televisions are loaded with Complex Specified Information, and we know absolutely that they are Intelligently Designed.

Biological organisms are also loaded with Complex Specified Information, so we must consider that they, too, are Intelligently Designed.

We are absolutely aware of the existence of only one Intelligent Designer, which leads to the conclusion that biological organisms were Intelligently Designed by Humans.

bob maurus said: Automobiles and washing machines and televisions are loaded with Complex Specified Information, and we know absolutely that they are Intelligently Designed.

If we drop all the stuff about CSI out, what's changed? In other words, is this stuff about CSI just an attempt to make a very old argument sound more "sciency"? In simple terms, a snow job?

bob maurus said: Biological organisms are also loaded with Complex Specified Information, so we must consider that they, too, are Intelligently Designed. We are absolutely aware of the existence of only one Intelligent Designer, which leads to the conclusion that biological organisms were Intelligently Designed by Humans.

John Kwok said: So Joshua, when are you going to offer explanations pertaining to science without resorting to the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other religious text?

mrg said:

bob maurus said: Automobiles and washing machines and televisions are loaded with Complex Specified Information, and we know absolutely that they are Intelligently Designed.

Is this just a roundabout way of playing Paley and say: "Humans build complicated things like watches, and so complicated things like organisms had to be built by a superhuman intelligence." If we drop all the stuff about CSI out, what's changed? In other words, is this stuff about CSI just an attempt to make a very old argument sound more "sciency"? In simple terms, a snow job?

Here we go again; poor rubes mindlessly repeating the snatched-out-of-the air assertions of “awe inspiring experts.”

This almost always means that the ability to learn any science has already been severely damaged.

bob maurus said: Your response calls into question your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I nominate or mention a superhuman intelligence as the Intelligent Designer.

No snow job involved. Perhaps you should read it again?

OK ... retract all that. Duh. Don't read so fast.

bob maurus said: Your response calls into question your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I nominate or mention a superhuman intelligence as the Intelligent Designer. No snow job involved. Perhaps you should read it again?

Yeah, that's a pretty good gag, even though I have to admit the gag was on me. I'll have to use it one of these days.

Joshua,

You have presented a classic argument from incredulity against a strawman version of evolution, not an argument for intelligent design. Make a positive argument for design. Bonus points for telling us what data could not be rationalized by a design argument.

I would also suggest that you not make assumptions about what other commenters' faith.

Also, paragraphs are your friend, use them to avoid tl;dr ...

SWT said: Joshua, You have presented a classic argument from incredulity against a strawman version of evolution, not an argument for intelligent design. Make a positive argument for design. Bonus points for telling us what data could not be rationalized by a design argument. I would also suggest that you not make assumptions about what other commenters' faith. Also, paragraphs are your friend, use them to avoid tl;dr ...

John Kwok said: I don't deny that Dembski is a Christian. He's just a devious, despicable example of one and one whose true master is Lucifer, judging from his past history of "good" deeds.

SWT said: Joshua, ...paragraphs are your friend, use them to avoid tl;dr ...

So why can't science and faith co-exist? I am not discarding science. I think its important that we use science to have a better understanding of the world around us. Its the conclusions that we come to that makes the difference in what we believe.

Someone quoted earlier that theories allow us to gather facts. I am sure at one time Issac Newton proposed the "theory of gravity." We know gravity exists and recognize it as fact. So if theories give us facts, then why is Evolution not considered facts. Because we do not have the facts to prove that it is true.

I am not a scientist. However, I do understand the complexities of life and if you want to tell me that our bodies are as complex as an automobile or a washing machine, I suggest reading some books on anatomy. The Bible does tell us where to look for evidence of God. In Romans 1:20, Paul clearly tells us that we evidence for God in the world around us. Some have said that Intelligent Design is based on bad science and bad faith.

I don't know think there is bad faith but bad science can exist because we are human and we make mistakes. Therefore, it would only make sense that bad science has been committed in Evolutionary theory as well, because humans make mistakes.

Joshua, bless you, you have learned the art of the paragraph. It is much more readable. As for the content -- no comment.

Joshua,

Here is PBS documentary of the Dover trial showing Intelligent Design to be a fraud.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#

This may answer many of your questions.

mrg said: Joshua, bless you, you have learned the art of the paragraph. It is much more readable. As for the content -- no comment.

Jesus’s reference to the Flood story is quoted at Luke 17:27 and Matthew 24:38-39, but there is no implication whatsoever there or anywhere that Jesus considered the Flood to be literal history. All that can be said from his actual words is that he was quoting a story to point a moral, something he constantly did.

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

If Noah's flood were merely local, Jesus' comparison of the judgment on the people in Noah's time to the coming judgment of ALL men (Matthew 24:37-39) makes no sense. Jesus Himself makes it clear that Noah's flood was, indeed, a worldwide flood. --Craig von Buseck, CBN

"No more Water, but Fire next time." ---old Negro spiritual

Well, we now see why FL and the ID/creationists are incapable of learning science; they have had the crap scared out of them.

And, of course, all scientists who actually do understand science are a bunch of evil idiots because they are full of the crap that wasn’t scared out of them.

FL said:

Jesus’s reference to the Flood story is quoted at Luke 17:27 and Matthew 24:38-39, but there is no implication whatsoever there or anywhere that Jesus considered the Flood to be literal history. All that can be said from his actual words is that he was quoting a story to point a moral, something he constantly did.

Well, that's not going to cut it Dave. That's really incorrect. Can we look at the text together for a minute?

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

First, notice that Jesus is not using figurative language here. NO parables, no allegories, and no fables.

If you disagree with that claim, TomS or Dave L, please consider the following:

If Noah's flood were merely local, Jesus' comparison of the judgment on the people in Noah's time to the coming judgment of ALL men (Matthew 24:37-39) makes no sense. Jesus Himself makes it clear that Noah's flood was, indeed, a worldwide flood. --Craig von Buseck, CBN

It's not enough to try to duck it by saying "private interpretation." If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative "interpretation" that directly deals with that issue and resolves it clearly from the text/context, then that's that. No use even trying to complain about what I've said. Even if you are not a Christian, Jesus's promise and prediction that He will be coming back, is a matter of utmost importance. His Second Coming will have global impact, it's a planetwide thing, and the number of disobedient folks across the planet who escape and survive His judgment will be the same number of disobedient folks across the planet who escaped and survived the Noahic Flood outside of the ark. ZERO.

"No more Water, but Fire next time." ---old Negro spiritual

Decision gotta be made. Period.

*** So, while you consider your post-diluvian pre-apocalyptic options, let me offer a scholarly article (Richard Davidson's) for additional study: *link removed for spam* Think about it amigos. Your tempus surely fugit! FL

Joshua said: So why can't science and faith co-exist? I am not discarding science.

Someone quoted earlier that theories allow us to gather facts. I am sure at one time Issac Newton proposed the "theory of gravity." We know gravity exists and recognize it as fact. So if theories give us facts, then why is Evolution not considered facts. Because we do not have the facts to prove that it is true.

I am not a scientist. However, I do understand the complexities of life...

...and if you want to tell me that our bodies are as complex as an automobile or a washing machine, I suggest reading some books on anatomy.

The Bible does tell us where to look for evidence of God. In Romans 1:20, Paul clearly tells us that we evidence for God in the world around us.

Some have said that Intelligent Design is based on bad science and bad faith.

I don't know think there is bad faith but bad science can exist because we are human and we make mistakes. Therefore, it would only make sense that bad science has been committed in Evolutionary theory as well, because humans make mistakes.

Stanton said:

mrg said: Joshua, bless you, you have learned the art of the paragraph. It is much more readable. As for the content -- no comment.

If Joshua is saying that Evolution is not science because humans are flawed and incompetent, while saying that Intelligent Design is science because there is, allegedly, no such thing as bad faith, then he is lying when he claims he isn't rejecting science.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, we now see why FL and the ID/creationists are incapable of learning science; they have had the crap scared out of them. And, of course, all scientists who actually do understand science are a bunch of evil idiots because they are full of the crap that wasn’t scared out of them.

Joshua said: "....I am not a scientist. However, I do understand the complexities of life and if you want to tell me that our bodies are as complex as an automobile or a washing machine, I suggest reading some books on anatomy.

Stanton said: "Believe whatever we say, or God will murder you and we'll laugh as you burn in Hell" will never convince any scientist of anything.

FL said: His Second Coming will have global impact, it's a planetwide thing, and the number of disobedient folks across the planet who escape and survive His judgment will be the same number of disobedient folks across the planet who escaped and survived the Noahic Flood outside of the ark. ZERO. FL

Yo, FL, why did God need a flood to destroy all the folks he didn't like? That meant essentially destroying the whole surface of the Earth, including all nonhuman animals (except those arked), all two-year-old little girls, and all innocent fetuses.

He's GOD, right? He can do magic! Without limit! So why did he bring horrible, terrifying death to the innocent along with the guilty? Surely he could have just made the evil ones disappear. Not impressive enough? Leave a sign behind where each had been saying "This is what happens to evil people!" Or turn them all into statues with plaques listing their sins.

Hey FL, let's be conservative and say that 10,000 little girls, two and under, were drowned in the flood. Are they in Hell? Having watched their mommies drown, then drowning themselves, are they now being burnt continually in everlasting hellfire? Why?

mrg said: I dropped the ball once today and I am feeling cautious.

mrg said:

Stanton said:

mrg said: Joshua, bless you, you have learned the art of the paragraph. It is much more readable. As for the content -- no comment.

If Joshua is saying that Evolution is not science because humans are flawed and incompetent, while saying that Intelligent Design is science because there is, allegedly, no such thing as bad faith, then he is lying when he claims he isn't rejecting science.

Stanton, if I have no comments you kindly need not make them for me. If you wish to hose down our visitor, I won't get in your way, but kindly keep me out of the way. I dropped the ball once today and I am feeling cautious.

Mike Elzinga said: It was a damned funny punch line; and I didn’t see it coming either. :-)

Joshua said: So why can't science and faith co-exist? I am not discarding science. I think its important that we use science to have a better understanding of the world around us. Its the conclusions that we come to that makes the difference in what we believe.

Stanton said: It was either that, or I steal this "dropped ball due to a weed whacker accident" schtick from "The Sketch Show"

So why can’t science and faith co-exist?

— Joshua

Joshua said: So why can't science and faith co-exist?

I am not a scientist.

FL -

Which seminary granted you your credentials in theology?

Which theologians can you quote in support of your doctrinal pronouncements.

If the answer to either, let alone both, of these questions, is "none"...

Then why should your personal opinion about the meaning of Bible passages be worth more than anyone else's?

I'm not religious and not interested in theology, but even for those who are, why is your point of view better than theirs?

mrg said:

bob maurus said: Your response calls into question your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I nominate or mention a superhuman intelligence as the Intelligent Designer.

Beg pardon? Do you believe that humans have the capability to design organisms from scratch? But I suppose we're merely quibbling over terminologies here, and so I don't see any reason to belabor that question.

No snow job involved. Perhaps you should read it again?

Actually, just let me rephrase the question: Is this just a roundabout way of playing Paley and say: “Humans build complicated things like watches, and so complicated things like organisms had to be built by [some unspecified] intelligence [which is traditionally identified with a certain superhuman intelligence but people like to be coy about it these days].” The question is: If we drop all the stuff about CSI out, what’s changed? In other words, is this stuff about CSI just an attempt to make a very old argument sound more “sciency”? In simple terms, a snow job?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

John Kwok said: I don't deny that Dembski is a Christian. He's just a devious, despicable example of one and one whose true master is Lucifer, judging from his past history of "good" deeds.

Then we are in agreement about the man. You will, I hope, forgive me if I misunderstood you, but you did seem to be trying to argue that he wasn't a 'true' Christian, or a 'real' Christian, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Accusing him of being the tool of Lucifer, I'm afraid, is the sort of comment that leads me to bring up the No True Scotsman fallacy in the first place. One cannot, after all, be both Christian and a follower of the Satan...according to the Christians, that is. The MadPanda, FCD

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It was a damned funny punch line; and I didn’t see it coming either. :-)

I didn't see it GOING! I had to do a second pass! DUH! But it is devious: "Now WAITaMINUTE ... let me think this over." That's the only problem with it: it's too arch for a creationut to even notice. Subtlety is lost on a concrete block.

Joshua said: So why can't science and faith co-exist? I am not discarding science. I think its important that we use science to have a better understanding of the world around us. Its the conclusions that we come to that makes the difference in what we believe. Someone quoted earlier that theories allow us to gather facts. I am sure at one time Issac Newton proposed the "theory of gravity." We know gravity exists and recognize it as fact. So if theories give us facts, then why is Evolution not considered facts. Because we do not have the facts to prove that it is true. I am not a scientist. However, I do understand the complexities of life and if you want to tell me that our bodies are as complex as an automobile or a washing machine, I suggest reading some books on anatomy. The Bible does tell us where to look for evidence of God. In Romans 1:20, Paul clearly tells us that we evidence for God in the world around us. Some have said that Intelligent Design is based on bad science and bad faith.

bob maurus said: Feel free to use it, in your own words - I think it's a perfect summation of ID.

Matthew 24:32-34 - Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Rob said: FL, This is the unconditionally loving and ethical god. Right? The one that encourages the killing of innocent children and provides instructions for the sale of daughters as sex slaves. The inerrant Bible: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." ' The inerrant bible: Exodus 21:7-11 "And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,..." How many more examples would you like?

FL said: His Second Coming will have global impact, it's a planetwide thing, and the number of disobedient folks across the planet who escape and survive His judgment will be the same number of disobedient folks across the planet who escaped and survived the Noahic Flood outside of the ark. ZERO. FL

FL, your take on the words of Jesus is nonsense.

Read the Parable of the Sower through - you can find it, I'm sure.

Now, tell me. Where is the figurative language in it? Where are the metaphors? Where does Jesus say anywhere in it that this is a fable, an allegory, a story?

He doesn't, not in the story itself. Unusually, when his disciples ask him later, he tells them what the figures stand for. But the story itself consists of nothing more than plain expository language, just as if it were a witnessed event Jesus is reporting.

Which it is, in a sense. It's a series of realistic observations. That's the reason why it works so well. But he uses it as a narrative, to make a point.

Now consider the Good Samaritan. Do you think Jesus is here reporting events that actually happened? Is he quoting from the Jericho Police blotter? No, of course not. But, just as with the Sower, the language he uses is perfectly non-figurative. It is all plain, sober narrative, nothing metaphorical, nothing high-flown, all of it mimetic to a degree that is masterly in itself. It works so beautifully because of its faithfulness to the reportage style. That's its power. I speak as one who has made a living telling stories for a couple of decades. This is the work of a master.

That is, there is nothing in the nature of the story of the Samaritan that tells you that this is narrative fiction. But it plainly is narrative fiction. Jesus could not have known the conversation with the innkeeper. He could not have known about the priest and the levite crossing to the other side, unless he were observing the whole thing as a disinterested onlooker. That would be a calumny against him, were it true, which it is not. Jesus would not have been a disinterested onlooker. Here he is a narrator, a teller of a story.

The words Jesus spoke about the Flood are precisely similar. They, too, retail a story, but there is no reason to believe that he was doing any more than using it as a fictive narrative used for making a point, just as he constantly used many stories. You know no more. To say you do is to put words into the mouth of your God.

But you do far worse than that. What you are saying, with your foolish nonsense about "figurative language" and "no parables, no allegories" is that you know the mind of Jesus. You don't, and it is grossly hubristic to claim that you do.

Look to the beam in your own eye, you foolish hypocrite, before you try to remove the mote in mine.

John Kwok said: Well Dembski may claim to be a Christian, but his abhorrent behavior clearly demonstrate where his true spiritual loyalties lie. Have no disagreement with your assessment here, but I think I am merely stating the obvious with regards to Dembski's deplorable and diabolical conduct, especially against his critics:

I mean, I still remember when you stated that you would happily commit murder if you thought God told you to do so.

This “discussion” actually belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Now, tell me. Where is the figurative language in it? Where are the metaphors? Where does Jesus say anywhere in it that this is a fable, an allegory, a story? He doesn’t, not in the story itself. Unusually, when his disciples ask him later, he tells them what the figures stand for.

Similitudes - “The kingdom of heaven is like...” (These are all in Matt 13.) Parabolic sayings - these are the one-liners found in Luke 4-7 Full parables - a story told to make a point. --Hampton Keathley, "Introduction to the Parables", Bible.org

And, of course, FL’s rationale for killing is just what has happened throughout history; people demonstrably out of touch with reality start obeying the voices in their head, demonize others, and then go out and kill them in the name of their deity.

I think we have had enough of that.

This “discussion” actually belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Joshua said: So why can’t science and faith co-exist?

WH Heydt replied: Many people believe the two fields can co-exist in perfect peace. (The major concept is called “non-overlapping Magisteria”.…Stephen J. Gould was big on it.)

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle" -- operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat. . . . NOMA does impose this 'limitation' on concepts of God . . .." --Stephen J. Gould, from Chapter Two of his book Rocks of Ages

FL said: Always watch your back in their company, sir. FL

Mike Elzinga said: This “discussion” actually belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said: This “discussion” actually belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

It doesn't belong anywhere within hollering distance of rational people, that's for certain. So it really doesn't even belong on the bathroom wall, either.

Idiotic. FL is trying to separate stories from part-stories on the grounds that the latter don't have a full denoument, and then says that the part-stories must be true, on account of they aren't full stories.

The former is an artificial quibble of no merit. There are no such neat easy distinctions in narrative. The extension is an unwarrantable leap into the dark based on nothing but prejudice and irrational ignorance.

Consider the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Matt. 25: 1-13. There is no denoument, no resolution. The girls are locked out, the end. The story stops at the major conflict, as an unresolvable catastrophe. That is, it ends in exactly the same way as the Flood story as told by Jesus. (Of course in full the Flood story has a denoument and a resolution, but Jesus didn't quote it.)

The parable is fictive. So is the Flood story. The only difference is that Jesus appropriated the Flood story rather than coin a new one.

So what FL thinks of as a part-story - like the part-story of the Flood Jesus told - can be a parable, a fictive narrative told to make a point. That's what the part-story of the Flood is, as told by Jesus. There is no more indication that he thought of it as literal history than that he thought of the story of the Good Samaritan as literal history. FL's attempts to separate the two on the basis of his misunderstanding of the elements of narrative and genre is futile.

Dave Luckett said: Idiotic. FL is trying to separate stories from part-stories on the grounds that the latter don't have a full denoument, and then says that the part-stories must be true, on account of they aren't full stories.

FL said: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative "interpretation" that directly deals with that issue and resolves it clearly from the text/context, then that's that.

TomS said:

FL said: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative "interpretation" that directly deals with that issue and resolves it clearly from the text/context, then that's that.

Fascinating. Now, let's apply that principle to the variety of the world of life. The fact that the human body is a minor variation on the vertebrate structure, even less so on the mammalian, and next-to-no-difference on the primate structure - just to take one obvious example. One way to explain that is to say that common ancestry and descent with modification. All you anti-evolutionists out there: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative, then that's that.

Joshua:

I hate to keep bugging you, but unlike FL, you have not demonstrated that you are hopeless. FL's description of NOMA, particularly, "you must abandon any claim that God does supernatural miracles in actual history," is misleading. Within NOMA you can still believe that miracles occur, and talk about them all you want, but you can't pretend that they are testable. In fact, even Dembski (the long-forgotten subject of this thread) seemed to be saying that in the midst of his never-ending quest to have his cake and eat it too.

NOMA is not the only non-conflict model, anyway. Some theistic evolutionists like John Haught think that science, including evolution, are signs of God's creativity. Whether or not you agree philosophically with any of those models, you can't deny that anti-evolution activists have always attacked a false caricature of evolution (note how they prefer "Darwinism"). If you follow closely their strategies over the years, particularly those of the ID crowd, the "problem" with evolution is less and less about scientific "gaps" and more and more about how acceptance of it supposedly leads to bad behavior (as in that horrendous propaganda film "Expelled," which all but denies free will). I guess that's what one has to do when one knows that one does not have a prayer at an alternate "theory."

FL said:

I mean, I still remember when you stated that you would happily commit murder if you thought God told you to do so.

God told the nation of Israel to go to war, to go execute His judgment on the Canaanites who had used up their 400 or so years of God's mercy. God didn't enjoy giving the order, and it was no laughing matter for Israel to have to execute the order.

I don't think this discussion belongs on the bathroom wall - in fact, I think it is more pertinent to the thread then some of the posts (mostly name-calling) in response to Joshua earlier.

The big topic here is the various contortions people will go through to make the Bible "true" is whatever way is important to them, whether it's Dembski reconciling an old earth with Genesis or FL reconciling the language of the Bible with his literalism, or just in general the view FL has that all the "disobedient" people are condemned to ever-lasting torment in hell, and to be murdered if they happened to live at the time of the flood (or when the world ends.)

Dave Luckett said: So what FL thinks of as a part-story - like the part-story of the Flood Jesus told - can be a parable, a fictive narrative told to make a point. That's what the part-story of the Flood is, as told by Jesus. There is no more indication that he thought of it as literal history than that he thought of the story of the Good Samaritan as literal history. FL's attempts to separate the two on the basis of his misunderstanding of the elements of narrative and genre is futile.

The big topic here is the various contortions people will go through to make the Bible “true” is whatever way is important to them, whether it’s Dembski reconciling an old earth with Genesis or FL reconciling the language of the Bible with his literalism...

— Jack Krebs

Ron Okimoto said:

TomS said:

FL said: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative "interpretation" that directly deals with that issue and resolves it clearly from the text/context, then that's that.

Fascinating. Now, let's apply that principle to the variety of the world of life. The fact that the human body is a minor variation on the vertebrate structure, even less so on the mammalian, and next-to-no-difference on the primate structure - just to take one obvious example. One way to explain that is to say that common ancestry and descent with modification. All you anti-evolutionists out there: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative, then that's that.

Behe and Denton would agree with you. Common descent is a fact of nature. Getting back to Dembski, Dembski waffles and talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, so getting his view is like nailing spit to the wall.

“Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is “literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word.” About as many say the same about creation (61 percent), and Noah and the flood (60 percent).”

Joshua the death cult kook: Joshua said: So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth…

TomS said:

FL said: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative "interpretation" that directly deals with that issue and resolves it clearly from the text/context, then that's that.

Fascinating. Now, let's apply that principle to the variety of the world of life. The fact that the human body is a minor variation on the vertebrate structure, even less so on the mammalian, and next-to-no-difference on the primate structure - just to take one obvious example. One way to explain that is to say that common ancestry and descent with modification. All you anti-evolutionists out there: If you are not able to come up with a supportable alternative, then that's that.

DS said: It's even worse than that. There is a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that reveals exactly the same relationships as the morphological data. That isn't because of chance or intelligent design. No creationist can explain this evidence, they either have to try to deny that it exists or they have to just ignore it. This is what has convinced every real scientist and every real seeker of truth that evolution is true. You can believe the stories in the bible is you want to, but that doesn't explain the evidence that evolution is true.

I just found out I have been attacked at Uncommon Descent for a comment I made here a few days ago (October 21, 8:57 PM) - see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coming-clean-about-yec/ starting at comment #35. Now to see if they will publish my response, below:

First, I will apologize to Bill Dembski for the use of the word "whore" - I do not normally use it in conversation, and did not use it first in the pertinent thread, but was merely quoting and expanding upon the quote.

I will not, however, apologize for nor retract the claim (which can easily be verified by reading ID propaganda) that ID proponents want to change 21st century American culture. The original name of the organization Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was changed to decrease the religious implications of its founding 15 years ago, sponsored by overtly religious persons and foundations. This is history.

Do any of you deny that ID was and is supported primarily by religious fundamentalists, who want to change American culture? Are Fieldstead & Company, the Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation known primarily for their support of science, or for their support of fundamentalism? This is history.

You can believe the stories in the bible is you want to, but that doesn’t explain the evidence that evolution is true.

— DS

Frank J said: As for the activists, especially of Dembski's "big tent" variety, IMO their big sin is not trying to reconcile evidence with the Bible, or even trying to placate those audiences who honestly think that the Bible can overrule evidence. Rather it the pretense of being strictly scientific, then refusing to support their "theory" on its own merits. If "supporting" their "theory" on the "weaknesses" of others isn't bad enough, they are knowingly and willingly selective of what they want their audience to think is "weak." So they single out evolution to misrepresent, while giving a free pass to other creationist positions that they know have many more "holes" than they pretend that evolution has. Most of their audience, including many who accept evolution, simply does not notice the sneaky game they are playing.

Paul Burnett said: I just found out I have been attacked at Uncommon Descent for a comment I made here a few days ago (October 21, 8:57 PM) - see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coming-clean-about-yec/ starting at comment #35. Now to see if they will publish my response, below: First, I will apologize to Bill Dembski for the use of the word "whore" - I do not normally use it in conversation, and did not use it first in the pertinent thread, but was merely quoting and expanding upon the quote. I will not, however, apologize for nor retract the claim (which can easily be verified by reading ID propaganda) that ID proponents want to change 21st century American culture. The original name of the organization Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was changed to decrease the religious implications of its founding 15 years ago, sponsored by overtly religious persons and foundations. This is history. Do any of you deny that ID was and is supported primarily by religious fundamentalists, who want to change American culture? Are Fieldstead & Company, the Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation known primarily for their support of science, or for their support of fundamentalism? This is history.

Mike wrote:

"If they want to waggle their PhDs in front of their following in order to impress, then they have no excuse for not getting the science right."

Well said sir.

DS said: Mike wrote: "If they want to waggle their PhDs in front of their following in order to impress, then they have no excuse for not getting the science right." Well said sir.

Joshua said: So I see I have been called out to show evidence for my position that an Intelligent Designer exists. Well first I believe that the Bible is the Truth so therefore I would believe that there is a God who created the universe but I know many of you will not look at the text as being enough to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. So if you discard that the Bible is true where do we look. If one were to look inside ourselves we will find billions of cells that have working parts. How do these cells move? How do they know what to do? A Naturalist or Evolutionist would argue that it was through millions of years of natural selection that allowed the cells to form the necessary parts to function. I heard an analogy regarding the odds of chance that this “selection” would happen. It would be like dropping a handful of scrabble pieces and trying to make it spell out two famous lines from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be? That is the question?” So if you ask me, those odds seem pretty high and nearly impossible that life came by chance. Now lets look at the inner workings of a cell. The cell has many different working parts that make it work. Machines that build proteins and that work to make life exist, such as you and I. So how are these machines built? Through time and chance? Natural selection? Ok, so lets say that’s true. So how did the cells know how to build the machines necessary for it to work? Where did the instructions come from to show the cell how build its necessary components. One can say they were already there and knew how to construct them. However, if these things are true then a naturalist still has to come up with the answer of where DNA came from. DNA being the building blocks of life. DNA holds more encoded information in it than we can put on millions perhaps billions of pages of paper. Where did this information come from? It would have had to receive the instructions before the instructions were given. Life could not have formed without these instructions check out this video on youtube.com in which Dr. Stephen Myer shows how the cell works and answers the question of “Where did the information for the cell come from?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=player_embedded So you asked for evidence, I gave you some. Now I am asking you to give me evidence how we could have been created by chance, and not design. Show me the proof. I think if you have it, you will change how we label Evolution. It will no longer be deemed as a theory but as scientific fact. So if you can do this. Please do. If not, ask yourself some questions about what you believe. The Truth is out there.

FL said: The fact is that you are already aware of God's judgment, you already know that God loves all humanity but He is also humanity's Judge. That includes the Flood, that includes the Old Testament story of how God told the Israelites to conquer Canaan, totally destroy the city city of Jericho, etc etc.

For YOU, disobeying God is a viable option, because right now you are your own god, and you have some sort of ongoing anger or issues against the real God. (I don’t know what it is, and I don’t want to know what it is. There’s just some kinda problem in there and you don’t hide it very well.)

But for me, consciously disobeying God like that, telling Him a “No” (or even saying “Yes” but privately grumbling about it), even though He’s given the command, would not on the table. God told the nation of Israel to go to war, to go execute His judgment on the Canaanites who had used up their 400 or so years of God’s mercy. God didn’t enjoy giving the order, and it was no laughing matter for Israel to have to execute the order. But the order–and it was a just order–was given, and all the people recognized that it was God giving the order, and they all shouted back that Yes, they would follow it under Joshua’s leadership. Israel obeyed it, and AFAIK, hopefully, I would not have been like you and disobeyed it. So, once again, I would obey the execution order, taking comfort in the thought that God had already shown that He could be trusted on all of His commands, and that all His commands are just and right.

FL said: Imagine that, Joshua. In order for people of faith to stop the conflict between science and faith, they must obey NOMA, and the very first commandment of NOMA is... you must abandon any claim that God does supernatural miracles in actual history. Doesn't matter what the supernatural miracle is being claimed. No exceptions are given, not even the Resurrection. You gotta abandon ANY claim that God actually performed ANY miracle in actual earth history, or YOU are violating NOMA. No joke. Gould said it. You see how these evolutionists play, Joshua? They'll stick a surrender demand in your face and call it a peace treaty. Always watch your back in their company, sir. FL

Dale Husband said:I myself find NOMA to be useless.

W. H. Heydt said: My main gripe with NOMA is that the religious side not only keeps violating it, but that side drags its feet every time science makes an advance that disproves a cherished belief. NOMA mostly fits a God-of-the-gaps and the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

mrg said:

W. H. Heydt said: My main gripe with NOMA is that the religious side not only keeps violating it, but that side drags its feet every time science makes an advance that disproves a cherished belief. NOMA mostly fits a God-of-the-gaps and the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

I find the "science versus religion" argument obnoxious, in a sense for that reason. The sciences don't really care about religion one way or another. Sure, some scientists may embrace religion and others may regard it as superstitious twaddle unfitting of those in the profession -- but even the most outspoken atheist has to acknowledge that's an abstract argument of principles, and that the practice of science does not take into consideration the religious beliefs of a scientist one way or another. A theistic scientist's work is judged on the same merits as those of any other, and a theistic scientist is not disadvantaged when it comes time to make the Nobel Prize selections. SO ... if there's a conflict between religion and science, it's strictly up to religion, science has little to say about it. If a religion has no problem with science, the sciences have nothing to say about it but possibly: "That's a relief." If religions DO have a problem with science, all the sciences can say is: "We're following the evidence, we only accept the things we do because the evidence demands it, and if the evidence is ambiguous we bicker over it until the cows come home. We do NOT come to any conclusions JUST to spite RELIGION!" Though admittedly, some scientists LIKE it when science spites religion. In any case, the conclusion is: "If what the sciences say causes religion a problem, if they can't offer better evidence, then religion will JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT! Sorry, there's nothing we can say about it." Hmm, let me check this and the original posting a bit before hitting SUBMIT ... act in haste, repent in leisure.

FL said: One last post, because I probably will be elsewhere tomorrow.

Joshua said: So why can’t science and faith co-exist?

WH Heydt replied: Many people believe the two fields can co-exist in perfect peace. (The major concept is called “non-overlapping Magisteria”.…Stephen J. Gould was big on it.)

Joshua, there is indeed such a thing as Non Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA, as Gould and others called it. Heydt's right about that. But what WH Heydt is not telling you is that NOMA comes with a price tag. A big one. Watch this:

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle" -- operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat. . . . NOMA does impose this 'limitation' on concepts of God . . .." --Stephen J. Gould, from Chapter Two of his book Rocks of Ages

Imagine that, Joshua. In order for people of faith to stop the conflict between science and faith, they must obey NOMA, and the very first commandment of NOMA is... you must abandon any claim that God does supernatural miracles in actual history. Doesn't matter what the supernatural miracle is being claimed. No exceptions are given, not even the Resurrection. You gotta abandon ANY claim that God actually performed ANY miracle in actual earth history, or YOU are violating NOMA. No joke. Gould said it. You see how these evolutionists play, Joshua? They'll stick a surrender demand in your face and call it a peace treaty. Always watch your back in their company, sir. FL

jasonmitchell said: either you really don't understand this - or you are being intentionally deceitful

Hey FL,

How about those little girls and unborn babies? I'd really like to know why you think they deserved a horrible death. And are they in Hell? Why? If not, why not? How did they get "saved"? And how do you know they were?

The MadPanda, FCD said: There. Feel better? I can drag out my handy dandy Shakespearean Insult Generator if you'd rather have your abuse in Elizabethan Modern English.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Yay! Someone who knows that Shakespeaean English is Modern English!

jasonmitchell said: does this means that miracles never happened? not exactly it means that you'll never find evidence for miracles outside of holy writings and revelation

mrg said: By all the evidence, as has been observed, if magic, psi powers, or miracles actually exist ... there's no reason to think they're of any real practical use.

The MadPanda, FCD said: They're all "you're so close-minded" and "science doesn't know everything" and "you can't prove it doesn't happen"...

mrg said: Ain’t it so?

FL said: , once again, for the Jewish Jesus, AND for his hearers too (both friend and foe), and for the Hebrew Bible writers also, the Noahic Flood was/is always, ALWAYS, considered to be actual Earth history. FL

The MadPanda, FCD said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Yay! Someone who knows that Shakespeaean English is Modern English!

I aim to please, and occasionally even succeed. (bows) But FL apparently did not find my willingness to step in and provide the requested abuse to be worthy of comment. Alas for that. I may have to borrow a few choice witticisms from the works of Jack Vance if this keeps up, not that any of his colorful characters are equal to John Falstaff. The MadPanda, FCD

One possibility to be considered is that, even if Jesus did mean to say that there was a Noachic Deluge as a global, historical event, it is possible that Jesus was mistaken. Jesus, I need not remind those familiar with traditional Christianity, was fully human.

jasonmitchell said: ooooh please tell me there is a Vancean Insult Generator! - I never realized how FL resembles some of Vance's religous zealot characters from Cugel's travels - NOMA was in action! "I didn't cross the streams" of my fictional readings and my scientific!

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Yay! Someone who knows that Shakespeaean English is Modern English!

jasonmitchell said: ooooh please tell me there is a Vancean Insult Generator!

We do NOT come to any conclusions JUST to spite RELIGION!”

— mrg

The MadPanda, FCD said:

jasonmitchell said: ooooh please tell me there is a Vancean Insult Generator!

This isn't quite what we're looking for, but they still have the Random Vance Quote generator working. I thought this'd vanished when they let the license lapse a year ago, but they got it back again. http://www.dyingearth.com/random.htm (Apologies for the OOCness. Please return to the regular Dembski smackdown already in progress.) The MadPanda, FCD

Consider the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Matt. 25: 1-13.

1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' 9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' 10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' 12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

(1) "The kingdom of heaven is like..." (2) Definite beginning, plot, and ending.

So Jesus was wrong about the magic world wide flood, but he's still the real savior and others who correctly claim that such a flood is a physical and logical impossibility are somehow fake. Got it. Wrong is the new right. Good job.

FL said:
"That would not change the fact that he himself believed (rightly or wrongly) that the Noahic Flood was literal and global and historically true.

Therefore anybody who calls himself or herself a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, gotta go right on and agree with Jesus and his statement (rightly or wrongly, for sake of discussion). "

FL (who believes he knows what Jesus thought and believed, BTW are you a mind reader OF GOD FL?) is only correct in is statement if:
1) being a christian means that one agrees with HIS interpreatation of the Bible.
2) one is apparaently a Biblical literalist or believes in Biblical Inerrancy ("it says right here in this book , this is was JESUS SAID - therefore it must be TRUE")

I like over a BILLION other practicing Christians have noe problem reconciling our faith with reality/facts - like the fact that the earth/universe is ancient (billions of years old, evolution occurred etc.)

read it again … this time for comprehension … NOMA says that you must abandon miracles for SCIENTIFIC claims i.e. history as SCIENCE defines it

In the end it is hard to resist the conclusion that Gould has lifted the word "religion" and grafted it onto a toothless, hobbled beast incapable of scaring the materialists. And he seems strangely untroubled by the fact that few religious folk resemble the creature. But surely it is obvious that Gould’s religion is a close cousin of secular humanism. Gould’s position is not therefore so much, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" as "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have." Gould’s view of religion follows fairly naturally, though not necessarily, given a prior commitment to materialism. But this is precisely the commitment many religious people do not make.

In Gould's view, any insistence on miracles affecting the natural world would intrude upon the magisterium of science, which is to be the sole arbiter of what is and is not possible in the natural world. It seems to be Gould's view that science finally and definitively has ruled out the possibility of any such divine intervention in the material world, so that any religion insisting on the reality of miracles -- and here we must include a bodily resurrection from the dead -- is contradicting, and therefore intruding upon, the proper magisterium of science.

FL said: That's what NOMA means, Jason. SJ Gould, a very very honest evolutionist, was the expert on NOMA, he's the one who popularized it in his book. Gould knew what NOMA meant, and he knew--and explained--its necessary price tag. Total surrender, Total defeat, for Christians. Period.

I'm inclined to agree with FL on this one. Fundamentally, Christianity is a sort of bizarre hodgepodge of hearsay, magic, inconsistencies, and claims that are simply silly. It holds that a noncorporal entity who is so powerful he can't make a rock he can't lift, nonetheless POOFED all of reality into existence in two incompatible ways but who's counting, and later on somehow impregnated a human virgin (by magic, one supposes), who subsequently gave birth to a demigod who imitated the exploits of half a dozen contemporary mythological figures, doing nothing original. And hasn't done anything since.

And what IS said with anything remotely resembling a positive claim, has been resoundingly refuted by subsequent experience and investigation. Pretty hard on a religion, I admit, but that's the fate of religions thar rest on preposterous claims.

So FL is quite right, science DOES represent total surrender and defeat for any version of any religion that rests on false testable claims. One's choice is either denying reality or denying preposterous falsehoods. Denying reality seem, for FL and those like him, the only feasible option. Otherwise, his faith is exposed for what it is, and that's just a little bit too much reality to tolerate.

W. H. Heydt said: If religious ideas conflict with reality, then the religious ideas are wrong. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Mike Elzinga said: So instead of changing their religious beliefs, they mangle reality ...

FL said: That's what NOMA means, Jason. SJ Gould, a very very honest evolutionist, was the expert on NOMA, he's the one who popularized it in his book. Gould knew what NOMA meant, and he knew--and explained--its necessary price tag. Total surrender, Total defeat, for Christians. Period.

Dale Husband said:

FL said: That's what NOMA means, Jason. SJ Gould, a very very honest evolutionist, was the expert on NOMA, he's the one who popularized it in his book. Gould knew what NOMA meant, and he knew--and explained--its necessary price tag. Total surrender, Total defeat, for Christians. Period.

If you really think that, why are you even a Christian, then? I'd think Christians would at least think what they beleive is truth. You seem to think that it doesn't matter whether the doctrines in your religion are true or not, as long as you can be a troll around here and act like they are true even though the evidence shows they are not. Why are you so immature as to need Creationist dogmas? To need a higher intelligent power? To need life after death? To need a final judgement? To need to be "saved" from reality?

The true answer to FL's nonsense is the one already given: if Jesus believed that the Noachic Flood was a historical event, he was wrong. It wasn't, period.

But see the awesome presumption here on display. FL thinks he knows the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, knows what he meant, knows what he thought, not because Jesus said it directly, but because of what FL and, alas, a few nongs with Bibles, think are distinctions between two sorts of story.

In the first place, there are no such distinctions. FL has got some cockamamie idea that "parables" have to have the elements that he lists, or they're something other than "parables. That's simply untrue. "Parable" is a subset of "story". It isn't any more of a parable - a story used to make a point through symbolism - just because the ending resolves satisfactorally. (Or, rather, because FL thinks the ending resolves satisfactorally. In fact, the ending of the Virgins parable doesn't, and he's simply wrong again.)

In the second place, even if there were such a distinction, it would be irrelevant. FL is actually arguing that he can tell from what he thinks are distinctions between the forms of his discourse whether Jesus is thinking in terms of narrative fiction or not. That's like FL saying he knows a book is a novel from the shape of its antlers. Idiotic.

Now, look at what he's prepared to hang from that premise. Basically, the literality of all scripture, and who is and isn't a Christian. Jesus referred to the Flood. Therefore he referred to the Flood as a historical event. Therefore the Flood was a historical event. Therefore all Genesis is literal, on the authority of Jesus. Therefore to deny the literality of Genesis is to deny the authority of Jesus. Christians insist on the authority of Jesus over everything. Therefore no Christian can deny the literality of Genesis. So mote it be! FL has spoken!

It's that sickening, purblind pride that actually irks me most. FL is so insanely proud of his small understanding that he is prepared to hang his whole worldview from one tiny fragment of it. No matter how fragile the chain of reasoning, no matter how minuscule the actual evidence, no matter how distant the conclusion from the premise, FL could not possibly be wrong, and he's perfectly prepared to damn - not only me, who says that Jesus wasn't God - but anyone who doubts FL's conclusion.

And by "damn", I don't mean "consign to God's judgement". FL has already said that if he thought God wanted it, he'd do red slaughter among the infidels. He is one sentence from a voice in his head away from bloody murder.

Now do you understand why I am moved not only to contempt for him, but to disgust and horror?

Dave Luckett said: And by "damn", I don't mean "consign to God's judgement". FL has already said that if he thought God wanted it, he'd do red slaughter among the infidels. He is one sentence from a voice in his head away from bloody murder. Now do you understand why I am moved not only to contempt for him, but to disgust and horror?

Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What's funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality.

By your(pl) own definition, it is in the business of producing tentative explanations that work -an argument from utility.

Different animals.

And yet, you're also the same person who claimed that competition among animals in nature does not exist because not all women can marry basketball players, and thinks that the Discovery Institute knows more about science than actual scientists, or even that the alleged illuminaries of the Discovery Institutes are even doing anything relevant to science.

Steve P., why would you, out of all people, know anything about reality?

You're the one who claimed that competition among animals does not exist because not all women can marry basketball stars, and that you scolded me for assuming that the Discovery Institute should not be trusted on matters of science.

Hell, you're stupidly deluded enough to think that the alleged illuminaries of the Discovery Institute are doing science.

So...

You disagree with the consensus around here, Steve, about what "reality" means. And you go so far as to imply that this means that Mike, at least, doesn't know what it is. I actually think he lives far more in the realms of reality than you.

But how about I have a crack at defining it? This is off the top of my head, mind. Philosophers who have really studied ontology in depth will no doubt correct me.

"Reality" is the body of consistent, consensual experiential observation - that is, all perception that is agreed upon, being consistent with a broad consensus between persons having the faculties to observe it, including the perception of that body of persons and of that consensus. A definition from objective criteria is not possible, perception being of the essence.

That means that the body of consistent experiential observations (and the necessary conclusions therefrom) that is called "science" is part of reality itself, not merely a method of "producing tentative explanations that work", and its methods are in fact part of "the business of discerning reality".

Your turn, now. You imply that you realio trulio know what "reality" means. Enlighten me.

Steve P. said: Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What's funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality. By your(pl) own definition, it is in the business of producing tentative explanations that work -an argument from utility. Different animals.

Steve P. said: Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What's funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality. By your(pl) own definition, it is in the business of producing tentative explanations that work -an argument from utility. Different animals.

The real problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too, claiming the SCIENCES give support to their beliefs.

— mrg

Dave Luckett said: So... You disagree with the consensus around here, Steve, about what "reality" means. And you go so far as to imply that this means that Mike, at least, doesn't know what it is. I actually think he lives far more in the realms of reality than you. But how about I have a crack at defining it? This is off the top of my head, mind. Philosophers who have really studied ontology in depth will no doubt correct me. "Reality" is the body of consistent, consensual experiential observation - that is, all perception that is agreed upon, being consistent with a broad consensus between persons having the faculties to observe it, including the perception of that body of persons and of that consensus. A definition from objective criteria is not possible, perception being of the essence. That means that the body of consistent experiential observations (and the necessary conclusions therefrom) that is called "science" is part of reality itself, not merely a method of "producing tentative explanations that work", and its methods are in fact part of "the business of discerning reality". Your turn, now. You imply that you realio trulio know what "reality" means. Enlighten me.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What's funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality. By your(pl) own definition, it is in the business of producing tentative explanations that work -an argument from utility. Different animals.

I think we can all understand why such a concept as reality would totally elude you.

Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What’s funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality.

Steve P. said: Dave, What I am saying is that Elzinga implies reality can only be discerned by doing science which is false. I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it. This direct personal experience and and utilization of Chi precedes any attempt to quantify it scientifically. If science fails to observe it, test it, and quantify it, shall we say that Chi is 'unreal' and doesn't conform to reality? The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not? Over to you.

So, Steve, not in the slightest abashed by your embarrassing inability to define what you mean by "reality", you are happy to tell Mike that he doesn't know what he means by it. Project much, Steve?

Despite your coy reluctance to specify, it appears that you think that reality includes anything that some group of people have perceived - or say they have. You don't restrict it to general cultural phenomena like, say, religion or afterlife. Anything that any group says it saw or felt qualifies, if what you wrote is to be taken at face value. And you give no indication that you are prepared to examine any of those assertions critically. Quite the converse.

For instance, it apparently hasn't occurred to you that what you call "chi" was unheard-of outside China before Chinese culture began to influence westerners. Could this mean that "chi" is a cultural epiphenomenon, not a physical effect?

As Bugs Bunny remarked, "Ehhh.... could be."

So it's no good you telling me that you don't accept all of the woo without reservation, Steve, because you provide absolutely no means of discriminating between things that are real and things that are illusions or hallucinations or just plain old everyday bunkum, twaddle and tosh. Absent some rational means of separating them, I have to assume you think it's all, er, real.

Well, there's only one response to that. To paraphrase the late great Graham Kennedy, "You're a dill, Steve."

Steve P. said: I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it.

The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not?

Steve P. said: Dave, What I am saying is that Elzinga implies reality can only be discerned by doing science which is false. I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it. This direct personal experience and and utilization of Chi precedes any attempt to quantify it scientifically. If science fails to observe it, test it, and quantify it, shall we say that Chi is 'unreal' and doesn't conform to reality?

"Somehow" I'm reminded of how Mr. Haney, Mr. Kimball, Eb, the Ziffels, etc. all took turns to drive Oliver nuts, yet rarely spoke to each other. :-)

"There is no force greater in the Universe than the urge to reply to a troll."

It is an absolute law, one which I have to pointedly remind myself of at times: "Remember: I DO have useful things to do with my time."

Please explain how Chi is real even though it is not detectable.

— Matt G

Frank J said: Chi is imaginary but chi squared is real. ;-)

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Elzinga, you keep throwing the word reality around like you really understand what it means. What's funny though, is that science is not in the business of discerning reality. By your(pl) own definition, it is in the business of producing tentative explanations that work -an argument from utility. Different animals.

I think we can all understand why such a concept as reality would totally elude you.

Like the square root of minus one is imaginary, but its square isn't.

Frank J said:

Please explain how Chi is real even though it is not detectable.

— Matt G

Chi is imaginary but chi squared is real. ;-)

(FL is) perfectly prepared to damn - not only me, who says that Jesus wasn’t God...

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24, NIV)

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18 NLT)

"The weapons we use in our fight are not made by humans. Rather, they are powerful weapons from God. With them we destroy people’s defenses, that is, their arguments and all their intellectual arrogance that oppose the knowledge of God. We take every thought captive so that it is obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:4-5)

Steve P. said: Dave, What I am saying is that Elzinga implies reality can only be discerned by doing science which is false. I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it. This direct personal experience and and utilization of Chi precedes any attempt to quantify it scientifically. If science fails to observe it, test it, and quantify it, shall we say that Chi is 'unreal' and doesn't conform to reality? The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not? Over to you.

Dave Luckett said: So... You disagree with the consensus around here, Steve, about what "reality" means. And you go so far as to imply that this means that Mike, at least, doesn't know what it is. I actually think he lives far more in the realms of reality than you. But how about I have a crack at defining it? This is off the top of my head, mind. Philosophers who have really studied ontology in depth will no doubt correct me. "Reality" is the body of consistent, consensual experiential observation - that is, all perception that is agreed upon, being consistent with a broad consensus between persons having the faculties to observe it, including the perception of that body of persons and of that consensus. A definition from objective criteria is not possible, perception being of the essence. That means that the body of consistent experiential observations (and the necessary conclusions therefrom) that is called "science" is part of reality itself, not merely a method of "producing tentative explanations that work", and its methods are in fact part of "the business of discerning reality". Your turn, now. You imply that you realio trulio know what "reality" means. Enlighten me.

Matt G said: And therefore unicorns also exist because people write about them and draw them all the time. Millions of people experience depression, but depression is real, and we know this because it IS detectable. Please explain how Chi is real even though it is not detectable. Saying something is real does not make it so - this is the Wishful Thinking fallacy. And yes, Chi is unreal and does not conform to reality. Reality is not arbitrary, while your way of thinking is. When you detect Chi or anything else contained solely in your (or anyone else's) imagination, let us know.

Steve P. said: Dave, What I am saying is that Elzinga implies reality can only be discerned by doing science which is false. I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it. This direct personal experience and and utilization of Chi precedes any attempt to quantify it scientifically. If science fails to observe it, test it, and quantify it, shall we say that Chi is 'unreal' and doesn't conform to reality? The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not? Over to you.

Steve P. said: The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not?

Steve P.-

Do you know what oogerphantasms are? I don't either, I just made them up and now they exist! I think they have something to do with how the message indicator light on my cell phone seems to flash when it's in my peripheral vision....

John Kwok said: Since the Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon.

Maybe somewhere we can discuss why it’s a good idea to believe that Jesus is God, but that’s another topic for another time.

— FL

Since the Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

TomS said:

John Kwok said: Since the Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon.

Shakespeare's plays have been translated from Klingon into English.

Karen S. said:

Since the Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

Hey John, are you saying that KJV stands for Klingon Jury-rigged Version?

Karen S.,

Am surprised no one else has observed that Dembski, by his own admission, loves writing books since he can make money from them. That's "easier" - and far more lucrative - work than doing such druggery as writing publishable peer-reviewed scientific papers. When I began a brief e-mail correspondence with him in December 2007, one of my suggestions was for him to write the definitive textbook on Klingon Cosmology, and pledging my assistance toward such a worthy effort. Am still astonished that he hasn't taken me up on my generous offer, especially when such a book would be far more lucrative than the Xian-inspired mendacious intellectual pornography that he's published since then.

John,

Did you know that the "great debate" at the AMNH is now up on youtube? Just search on "great debate ncse"

(Is it true that Dembski's butt is still in the middle of W. 79th street, right where Pennock left it?)

Karen S. said: John, Did you know that the "great debate" at the AMNH is now up on youtube? Just search on "great debate ncse" (Is it true that Dembski's butt is still in the middle of W. 79th street, right where Pennock left it?)

Steve P. said: Nice tidbit soundbite there Elzinga. You're getting good at those.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Nice tidbit soundbite there Elzinga. You're getting good at those.

It’s just that it gets a bit tedious watching people who refuse to learn any science constantly asserting what science and reality are. Do you ever check your internal mental and sensory states against what is going on outside your body; or is it all just internal feelings and beliefs with you? Do you believe all your hallucinations? If you are having an out of the body experience, what mechanisms allow you to “see” what is going on around you? How is light, and in particular, the visible light you usually see with your eyes, transmitted to a larger neural network that perceives the way you perceive with your physical body? Drugs, foods, spices, toxins, anesthetics, sleep deprivation and a whole host of physical/chemical phenomena can cause hallucinations and altered perceptions. Are you suggesting that what goes on within your brain and neural systems always has something to do with the universe? Science attempts to deal with the universe that is independent of the internal experiences of any given individual animal; those things that go on even if sentient organisms were not present. But the issue of how external forces and stimuli impact on the neural networks of sentient organisms is also a field of scientific study. Just because your neurons are firing doesn’t mean anything else is happening in the physical universe. Many of us have had phantom pains and hallucinations. The more rational among us learn to question and analyze what is real and what is an artifact of our physical construction. People who are unable to do that usually have something wrong with their central nervous systems or their brains. They then project these internal states onto the external world and call it reality. Is that what you do?

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Dave, What I am saying is that Elzinga implies reality can only be discerned by doing science which is false. I asser that currently undetectable phenomena like Chi are nonetheless real as millions of people experience it, shape and focus it. This direct personal experience and and utilization of Chi precedes any attempt to quantify it scientifically. If science fails to observe it, test it, and quantify it, shall we say that Chi is 'unreal' and doesn't conform to reality? The same goes for apparitions, OOBEs, and NDEs. People experience them all the time, despite science's inability to observe, test, and quantify them. Are they part of reality or not? Over to you.

Are you saying that you would much prefer a priest or a witch doctor, rather than a licensed, specially trained medical practitioner to treat your cancer, or a magician, instead of a mechanic to fix your malfunctioning car?

This seems relevant to Steve P's claims.

Credit to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy for linking to it before I did.

FL said:

(FL is) perfectly prepared to damn - not only me, who says that Jesus wasn’t God...

Gosh, Dave, I didn't know that THAT was your position about Jesus. I didn't even try to presume on it. Well, you know what Jesus said about the matter--

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24, NIV)

Maybe somewhere we can discuss why it's a good idea to believe that Jesus is God, but that's another topic for another time. ****** Meanwhile, you needn't go all paranoid about any "red slaughter among the infidels." (Sheesh!) After all, according to Jesus himself, that ain't how we Christians do business.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18 NLT)

"The weapons we use in our fight are not made by humans. Rather, they are powerful weapons from God. With them we destroy people’s defenses, that is, their arguments and all their intellectual arrogance that oppose the knowledge of God. We take every thought captive so that it is obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:4-5)

So, fear thou not Dave. I may have evilly chopped your arguments against Matt. 24:37-39 to bloody ribbons (and of course you would disagree with that assessment), but my jurisdiction stops right there. No violence from me, rest assured! FL :)

eric said: Credit to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy for linking to it before I did.

mrg said:

eric said: Credit to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy for linking to it before I did.

I'm not a big XKCD fan, but that was good, and as a "sparky" I liked the "circuit diagram" it linked to: http://xkcd.com/730/ I laughed at the "666 timer" (non-sparkies need not ask) and the ground connection in holy water. The magic smoke is not so unreal ... electronics design does leverage off that a bit.

John Kwok said: He sells textiles from Taiwanese manufacturers and imports them to the USA if I'm not mistaken.

eric said: Credit to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy for linking to it before I did.

I can attest to an OOBE, sort of. It's just one anecdote, but bear with me... There is a point.

I was at a party one time, having a conversation with a group of people. Suddenly, it was as if I wasn't connected to my body any more. I was still in my head, hearing through my ears, seeing through my eyes, and talking with my mouth. But I wasn't in control, at least not directly. I heard what my ears reported. I told my mouth to say some words, and as I "watched" and "listened" my mouth said those words, and I heard my mouth say those words, even though I wasn't actually involved in that act in the normal sense. As my mouth was saying those words, I watched the other people and could think about other things at the same time. Strangest damn thing. It was as if there was a time-shifted buffer between "me" and the rest of my body. The experience didn't last for more than a couple of minutes, but it was significantly more than a simple fleeting feeling. (And no, I don't drink and have never knowingly done drugs. :-)

Anyway, the point is that, with just a little shift in perspective, instead of still being "in my head", the perspective could easily have changed to being just outside of me. I know now, and I knew as it was happening that it was just my mind playing "tricks" on me. I also figure that if it could happen to me, such an experience could easily happen to others. (Maybe it might even be something one could practice??) Were I a bit more gullible, I could probably imagine that I truly had some kind of OOBE. Were I subject to bouts of "faith", one could easily attribute it to a "religious" experience (if it hadn't been in such a mundane setting).

It was a damn neat trick, though. There've been many times where I'd have liked to have had the Vulcan ability to run conscious mental "subroutines", being able to analyze what I'm saying in parallel. Sure would prevent a lot of foot-in-mouth problems, I tell ya'. :-)

So, yes, I can easily imagine that people could experience some odd mental hiccups or folds, and report them as OOB and NDE. Doesn't mean there was anything "physical" going on outside the mind, but it could seem entirely "real". Does that make it part of "reality"? The perception was real enough, but that doesn't mean that my "essence" was breaking loose from my body and traveling around in any "real" sense. A lot of it has to do with how one interprets one's perceptions.

I'll leave it to others to decide how convincing your thesis is, FL, that you can tell that Jesus thought the Flood was literal history, not because he said so, but because you think that he referred to it in a way you think is different from the way he referred to other stories that you know are fictional. I'll also leave it to others to contemplate your overwheening, monumental spiritual pride.

Scott F said: So, yes, I can easily imagine that people could experience some odd mental hiccups or folds, and report them as OOB and NDE. Doesn't mean there was anything "physical" going on outside the mind, but it could seem entirely "real". Does that make it part of "reality"? The perception was real enough, but that doesn't mean that my "essence" was breaking loose from my body and traveling around in any "real" sense. A lot of it has to do with how one interprets one's perceptions.

Mike Elzinga said: There are thousands of examples of this kind of thing.

mrg said: In my military studies I have read of incidents where soldiers were in desperate combat situations where the probability of being killed was close to certainty. One would expect to be reduced to a state of absolute terror, but in many cases they become unbelievably fearless, like they just didn't care. Sometimes they come to after the fighting stops and realize everyone around them is dead.

Mike Elzinga said: During the time I was on submarines we had couple of occasions where intense repetitive training kicked in and everyone became intensely focused on saving the boat.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: During the time I was on submarines we had couple of occasions where intense repetitive training kicked in and everyone became intensely focused on saving the boat.

I have chatted with other submariners and I get the impression that it is a strong case of the military existence consisting of "long intervals of intense boredom broken by short intervals of extreme terror".

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, with a sufficiently complex environment such as a sub, there are always plenty of things to do.

mrg said: The military is dull if you don't have a real mission. If you're just going through the motions, essentially standing by for the day you really have something useful to do, it's staggeringly boring. And the people in charge are just as bored, so they spend their times picking on the troops. This is why alcoholism is so common in the military.

According to Dave's definition, which no one here seems to dispute, apparitions, OBEs, NDs, and Chi must in fact be real since they conform to collective experience and consensus.

It seems to me that you (pl)are confusing the reality of an experience with its interpretation. You all seem to be saying that if I say Chi exists, i live in a fantasy land. Well, no. Chi exists alright, in spite of science inability to confirm it.

Rather, it seems irrational to deny one's experience as illusion simply because it cannot be observed with the senses, detected and tested with machines, etc. I believe it is false humility to deny one's own ability to be in control of one's perceptions. Why would you defer to science to tell you what it is you perceive? Science has a narrow focus so it is incapable of making conclusive statements as to the nature of what we experience.

This seems the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Do you trust yourself? Do you know yourself? My answers are Yes,I do and No, not yet but I am beginning to learn my mind's abilities.

My mind is that great, final frontier and I won't let science tell me No! because it is not yet ready to tell me Yes!.

By the way, that is the secret to success. Never take no for an answer. Always a positive outlook. Communicate with yourself. Look beyond your own capabilities. Trust yourself. Move ahead prudently but fearlessly into new territory.

My take is, use science as a practical tool to do work. It is not a litmus test of truth and reality. It is not and cannot be that kind of tool.

Scott F said: So, yes, I can easily imagine that people could experience some odd mental hiccups or folds, and report them as OOB and NDE. Doesn't mean there was anything "physical" going on outside the mind, but it could seem entirely "real". Does that make it part of "reality"? The perception was real enough, but that doesn't mean that my "essence" was breaking loose from my body and traveling around in any "real" sense. A lot of it has to do with how one interprets one's perceptions.

Steve P. said: By the way, that is the secret to success. Never take no for an answer. Always a positive outlook. Communicate with yourself. Look beyond your own capabilities. Trust yourself. Move ahead prudently but fearlessly into new territory. My take is, use science as a practical tool to do work. It is not a litmus test of truth and reality. It is not and cannot be that kind of tool.

Steve P. said: According to Dave's definition, which no one here seems to dispute, apparitions, OBEs, NDs, and Chi must in fact be real since they conform to collective experience and consensus. It seems to me that you (pl)are confusing the reality of an experience with its interpretation. You all seem to be saying that if I say Chi exists, i live in a fantasy land. Well, no. Chi exists alright, in spite of science inability to confirm it. Rather, it seems irrational to deny one's experience as illusion simply because it cannot be observed with the senses, detected and tested with machines, etc. I believe it is false humility to deny one's own ability to be in control of one's perceptions. Why would you defer to science to tell you what it is you perceive? Science has a narrow focus so it is incapable of making conclusive statements as to the nature of what we experience. This seems the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Do you trust yourself? Do you know yourself? My answers are Yes,I do and No, not yet but I am beginning to learn my mind's abilities. My mind is that great, final frontier and I won't let science tell me No! because it is not yet ready to tell me Yes!.

Steve P. said: By the way, that is the secret to success. Never take no for an answer. Always a positive outlook. Communicate with yourself. Look beyond your own capabilities. Trust yourself. Move ahead prudently but fearlessly into new territory. My take is, use science as a practical tool to do work. It is not a litmus test of truth and reality. It is not and cannot be that kind of tool.

Steve P. said: My take is, use science as a practical tool to do work. It is not a litmus test of truth and reality. It is not and cannot be that kind of tool.

“Reality” is the body of consistent, consensual experiential observation - that is, all perception that is agreed upon...

According to Dave’s definition, which no one here seems to dispute, apparitions, OBEs, NDs, and Chi must in fact be real since they conform to collective experience and consensus.

(3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

John Kwok said: As I have heard or read from notable scientists like Dr. Guy Consolmagno, Vatican Astronomer (a noted planetary scientist who is also a Jesuit Brother), and physicist Dr. Lisa Randall, science and religion can be seen as different ways of knowing.

Frank J said: @ Jack Krebs: This thread is getting very long, and straying from your topic. I would like to recommend that you start another one, and concentrate on one statement of Dembski's that you quoted above:

(3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

I have many questions (and a few speculations that differ from those of most other fellow "Darwinists") about his interpretations of those words. Perhaps he would participate and clarify it to us and his followers who read PT regularly. I would also invite any of his DI colleagues who might disagree with him on that statement, or agree and interpret it differently.

If you get into David Hume, who was a very intellectually cautious man, he was always careful to keep his hands off insights obtained from revelation or intuition -- after all, since they weren't obtained by logical means, there was no useful logical argument to be made against them.

However, made it just as clear that once revelation and intuition made statements about OBSERVABLE & MEASURABLE FACT, they had just lost their immunity and were fair and only too easy targets.

And in the case of evo science, we end up with the bait & switch game of rejecting evo science -- which people can do if they want -- while claiming that science supports their rejection, which is 180 degrees from the fact of the matter. Buy science or not, that's exactly not what it says; a blatantly bogus statement, like saying Mexicans speak French.

Unless you want to disagree about what the definition of “is” is, I don’t any way of interpreting those statements as anything other than YEC. They are as explicit as they are wrong.

— Matt G

"I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors." -- Wm. Dembski.

So, may I ask? If Dr. Dembski was right here right now, what specific questions might you have for him about this statement of his?

— FL

Frank J said: one I would ask is whether he thinks that "specially created by God" means "in vivo" via biological parents - as Behe apparently believes - or if they were assembled independently from nonliving matter.

Assembling from matter doesn’t strike me as the same as creating. I thought that creation was ex nihilo (“from nothing”).

— TomS

@FL

I answered your question, but have not seen your answer to my question of 10/24, 6:44 AM. If I just missed it, please point me to it.

TomS said: Assembling from matter doesn't strike me as the same as creating. I thought that creation was ex nihilo ("from nothing"). In general, I wonder whether creationists think that "creation" is meant to be the same thing when said of Adam and Eve as it is of John and Mary Doe. Or of "mankind", rather than of individuals.

If Dembski, Behe, Abel, Meyer, et. al. remain consistent in their treatment of assemblies of atoms and molecules – namely, that assemblies above a certain level of complexity and organization are not possible without the guidance of intelligence – then I would suspect they would claim that the first humans were created.

— Mike Elzina

(FL)....The other item to note is that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, directly considered the global Noahic Flood to be literally true in actual history.(Matt. 24:37-39).

(Frank J).... I often claim that reindeer fly. Does that mean that I (1) personally take it literally, (2) am lying, or (3) telling an allegory that might help the listener to behave better?

Frank said: But even that is easy to spin ambiguously enough so that the part of their audience that wants to hear "universe, earth and life were created from nothing ~6K years ago" will hear just that. And those with a more "progressive" alternative "theory" in mind will hear that too.

FL said: What IS clear is that in the Bible, the global Noahic Flood is never presented as anything but literal, global, and straight history in the Bible. Even if it's wrong 100 percent, that is how the Bible presents the Flood, never in a non-literal fashion.

W. H. Heydt said: That's all well and good, but there is no actual evidence supporting that claim and a vast amount of evidence against it.

FL wrote:

"What IS clear is that in the Bible, the global Noahic Flood is never presented as anything but literal, global, and straight

history in the Bible. Even if it’s wrong 100 percent, that is how the Bible presents the Flood, never in a non-literal fashion.

That would include Jesus, whose Matthew 24 reference, as we have demonstrated, contains NO parabolic markers whatsoever, nor conforms to any of the previously documented Three Types of Parable. Also there’s no allegory in there at all.

If you want to say that Jesus is lying on it, for example, well that’s an option.

(But NOT for anybody who runs around claiming that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. That don’t work, period.)"

Well claiming that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior really isn;t going to work if he was completely wrong about the magic flood now will it? That would be just plain silly.

Matt G said:

John Kwok said: As I have heard or read from notable scientists like Dr. Guy Consolmagno, Vatican Astronomer (a noted planetary scientist who is also a Jesuit Brother), and physicist Dr. Lisa Randall, science and religion can be seen as different ways of knowing.

I really detest that "different ways of knowing" bit. It suggests an equivalence between religion and science which simply does not exist. We already have a word for what religion provides - that word is "believing," and it has little to do with knowledge (or logic, or reason).

What does this FL have against Christianity, so that he keeps loudly telling everybody that it's inconsistent with strongly supported evidence-based conclusions?

Henry J said: What does this FL have against Christianity, so that he keeps loudly telling everybody that it's inconsistent with strongly supported evidence-based conclusions?

Jesus, whose Matthew 24 reference, as we have demonstrated, contains NO parabolic markers whatsoever, nor conforms to any of the previously documented Three Types of Parable. Also there’s no allegory in there at all.

However, your claim is NOT what Jesus claimed, and there’s no analogy between what you’re claiming and what Jesus is claiming in Matt. 24:37-39.

— FL

Real science is so much more consistent and easier to understand.

— Mike Elzinga

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Steve P. said: According to Dave's definition, which no one here seems to dispute, apparitions, OBEs, NDs, and Chi must in fact be real since they conform to collective experience and consensus. It seems to me that you (pl)are confusing the reality of an experience with its interpretation. You all seem to be saying that if I say Chi exists, i live in a fantasy land. Well, no. Chi exists alright, in spite of science inability to confirm it. Rather, it seems irrational to deny one's experience as illusion simply because it cannot be observed with the senses, detected and tested with machines, etc. I believe it is false humility to deny one's own ability to be in control of one's perceptions. Why would you defer to science to tell you what it is you perceive? Science has a narrow focus so it is incapable of making conclusive statements as to the nature of what we experience. This seems the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Do you trust yourself? Do you know yourself? My answers are Yes,I do and No, not yet but I am beginning to learn my mind's abilities. My mind is that great, final frontier and I won't let science tell me No! because it is not yet ready to tell me Yes!.

You've got it backwards, my lad. Very much so. The burden of proof is on you in all cases: assertions are not evidence. Neither are anecdotes. And in the absence of positive, externally verifiable, reliable evidence, the null hypothesis remains. Here's a thought: you assert that chi is real. Very well. Figure out where it lies on the electromagnetic spectrum, how to measure it, and what it can be used to do. Once you have done that (show your work, please), publish the results. If you're right, you'll revolutionize a few fields of science and win yourself everlasting fame. If you're not right...well, that's pretty much where you started, so it's not like you'll lose much. Just because a fairy tale is popular doesn't mean it isn't still just a fairy tale. The MadPanda, FC D

John Kwok said: I think you are reading your own biases, Matt G. Consolmagno may think that they are equivalent, but I'm not persuaded that Randall would concur, judging from some of her published commentary in the past (Will give her ample credit, however, unlike her colleague Brian Greene, in dealing directly with creationist abuse and misunderstanding of valid science.):

"Saying that science and religion are “different ways of knowing” is like saying that walking and teleportation are “different ways of traveling.”"

Irrespective of whether I agree or not, that's a great line. :)

Steve P. said: I trust my instinct, my intuition, but mostly my direct experience. To me this trumps scientific skepticism.

Matt G said: Saying that science and religion are "different ways of knowing" is like saying that walking and teleportation are "different ways of traveling."

Steve P. said: I have personal experience to convince myself, and millions of people in Asia, that Chi is real. There is no burden on us to do anything except enjoy the benefits of Chi Kung. Something you (pl) keep forgeting. I am not claiming Chi is some woo magic, some immaterial phenomena. I am saying that if I follow your line of reasoning, I must view Chi with great skepticism, since science has yet to quantify Chi. I am saying why must I wait for science to tell me yes Chi is real? Science is all too often behind the curve. I trust my instinct, my intuition, but mostly my direct experience. To me this trumps scientific skepticism.

Curiously enough, no one answered my question - how many here do Chi Kung? So without any direct knowledge of the experience of Chi, how is anyone here prepared to deny its existence? Simply because you have not read a peer-reviewed article on the subject? Is not going to the source the best demonstration of its 'realness'? So how about it? Go to your nearest Chi Kung master (they are in all major cities I am sure) and take a three month class, learn what Chi is, learn how to first balance it, then learn how to increase it, and then learn how to manipulate it. When you have done this, come back and let me know what you discover. Deal?

Robin said: Close and a pretty good line, but for me those two modes are too close for the analogy to work. For me it's more like - saying that science and religion are "different ways of knowing" is like saying that wings with jet propulsion and falling are "different ways of flying."

Matt G said:

Robin said: Close and a pretty good line, but for me those two modes are too close for the analogy to work. For me it's more like - saying that science and religion are "different ways of knowing" is like saying that wings with jet propulsion and falling are "different ways of flying."

The first analogy I came up with was that jumping and taking the elevator are different ways of getting to the ground floor. I discarded it because jumping (or falling) describes a real phenomenon. While religion is real, it describes phenomena which are most likely not real, just as teleportation of macroscopic objects is likely not possible. I suppose this is what you mean when you say the analogies are too close. I also wanted to appeal to John's weakness for anything Star Trek....

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer discovered that what had earned him the derision of the other reindeer -- his very shiny nose -- ultimately had great value. In the same way, we should be aware that the differences among us can ultimately be of great value, and we would be wise to honor those differences rather than ridicule those who are different from us.

Steve P. said: It seems the only burden of proof is to satisfy your skepticism. I have personal experience to convince myself, and millions of people in Asia, that Chi is real. There is no burden on us to do anything except enjoy the benefits of Chi Kung.

Oh, one can employ chi / ki in, say, playing the piano, getting to the state where it's like a fluid flowing out one's fingertips. One does get into a Zen state on the best days.

However, trying to make more of this than a "mental mnemonic" is unsupportable. Certainly nobody would sensibly confuse it with an objective measurable, much less claim it comparable to one.

mrg said: Oh, one can employ chi / ki in, say, playing the piano, getting to the state where it's like a fluid flowing out one's fingertips. One does get into a Zen state on the best days.

Steve P. said: It seems the only burden of proof is to satisfy your skepticism.

Steve P. said: I have personal experience to convince myself, and millions of people in Asia, that Chi is real. There is no burden on us to do anything except enjoy the benefits of Chi Kung. Something you (pl) keep forgeting. I am not claiming Chi is some woo magic, some immaterial phenomena. I am saying that if I follow your line of reasoning, I must view Chi with great skepticism, since science has yet to quantify Chi. I am saying why must I wait for science to tell me yes Chi is real? Science is all too often behind the curve. I trust my instinct, my intuition, but mostly my direct experience. To me this trumps scientific skepticism.

Steve P. said: Curiously enough, no one answered my question - how many here do Chi Kung? So without any direct knowledge of the experience of Chi, how is anyone here prepared to deny its existence? Simply because you have not read a peer-reviewed article on the subject? Is not going to the source the best demonstration of its 'realness'?

Steve P. said: So how about it? Go to your nearest Chi Kung master (they are in all major cities I am sure) and take a three month class, learn what Chi is, learn how to first balance it, then learn how to increase it, and then learn how to manipulate it. When you have done this, come back and let me know what you discover. Deal?

Matt G said: ...just as teleportation of macroscopic objects is likely not possible.

Paul Burnett said: Waitaminute - are you implying that teleportation of microscopic objects is possible?

Paul Burnett said:

Matt G said: ...just as teleportation of macroscopic objects is likely not possible.

Waitaminute - are you implying that teleportation of microscopic objects is possible?

If that link is behind Science's registration wall for you, this may work:

http://tinyurl.com/3895nyk

Matt G said:

Paul Burnett said:

Matt G said: ...just as teleportation of macroscopic objects is likely not possible.

Waitaminute - are you implying that teleportation of microscopic objects is possible?

"Sort of" is right! Link to a Science article: http://tinyurl.com/2vfv8b3

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt G said:

Paul Burnett said:

Matt G said: ...just as teleportation of macroscopic objects is likely not possible.

Waitaminute - are you implying that teleportation of microscopic objects is possible?

"Sort of" is right! Link to a Science article: http://tinyurl.com/2vfv8b3

“Teleporting” a quantum state is not the same thing as teleporting a particle.

Mike Elzinga said: “Teleporting” a quantum state is not the same thing as teleporting a particle.

Matt G said: If that link is behind Science's registration wall for you, this may work: http://tinyurl.com/3895nyk

The MadPanda, FCD said: In other words, because you think you know what you saw, it must be real. But tell me, leafleaper, how you would know if you were wrong? This is not a trivial question.

Steve P. said: According to Dave's definition, which no one here seems to dispute, apparitions, OBEs, NDs, and Chi must in fact be real since they conform to collective experience and consensus. It seems to me that you (pl)are confusing the reality of an experience with its interpretation. You all seem to be saying that if I say Chi exists, i live in a fantasy land. Well, no. Chi exists alright, in spite of science inability to confirm it. Rather, it seems irrational to deny one's experience as illusion simply because it cannot be observed with the senses, detected and tested with machines, etc. I believe it is false humility to deny one's own ability to be in control of one's perceptions. Why would you defer to science to tell you what it is you perceive? Science has a narrow focus so it is incapable of making conclusive statements as to the nature of what we experience. This seems the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Do you trust yourself? Do you know yourself? My answers are Yes,I do and No, not yet but I am beginning to learn my mind's abilities. My mind is that great, final frontier and I won't let science tell me No! because it is not yet ready to tell me Yes!.

Steve P. said: By the way, that is the secret to success. Never take no for an answer. Always a positive outlook. Communicate with yourself. Look beyond your own capabilities. Trust yourself. Move ahead prudently but fearlessly into new territory. My take is, use science as a practical tool to do work. It is not a litmus test of truth and reality. It is not and cannot be that kind of tool.

Steve P. said: It seems the only burden of proof is to satisfy your skepticism. I have personal experience to convince myself, and millions of people in Asia, that Chi is real. There is no burden on us to do anything except enjoy the benefits of Chi Kung. Something you (pl) keep forgeting. I am not claiming Chi is some woo magic, some immaterial phenomena. I am saying that if I follow your line of reasoning, I must view Chi with great skepticism, since science has yet to quantify Chi. I am saying why must I wait for science to tell me yes Chi is real? Science is all too often behind the curve. I trust my instinct, my intuition, but mostly my direct experience. To me this trumps scientific skepticism. Curiously enough, no one answered my question - how many here do Chi Kung? So without any direct knowledge of the experience of Chi, how is anyone here prepared to deny its existence? Simply because you have not read a peer-reviewed article on the subject? Is not going to the source the best demonstration of its 'realness'? So how about it? Go to your nearest Chi Kung master (they are in all major cities I am sure) and take a three month class, learn what Chi is, learn how to first balance it, then learn how to increase it, and then learn how to manipulate it. When you have done this, come back and let me know what you discover. Deal?

Science Avenger said: I've had that discussion with dozens of practitioners of alternative medicine, and they simply will not deal honestly with that question. They know what they know, period. Misinterpretation of experience simply does not exist in their world.

The MadPanda, FCD said: And yet somehow we're close-minded for wanting to stick with the evidence.

Matt G,

Different animals, Matt.

Can you see planetary orbits? No. Can you experience planetary orbits? No.

Can you see Chi? No. Can you experience Chi? yes.

"Out of sight is not out of Mind."

Steve P. said: Matt G, Different animals, Matt. Can you see planetary orbits? No. Can you experience planetary orbits? No. Can you see Chi? No. Can you experience Chi? yes. "Out of sight is not out of Mind."

Steve P. said: Can you see planetary orbits? No. Can you experience planetary orbits? No.

I would not place a bet that you have any interest in learning the facts, SP, but I have been surprised by people before, so if you are interested, here is something that explains orbital mechanics:

http://www.vectorsite.net/tpecp_05.html

The following chapter provides additional material. If you are not familiar with basic concepts in physics, you might want to read the first four chapters.

Steve P. said: Matt G, Different animals, Matt. Can you see planetary orbits? No. Can you experience planetary orbits? No. Can you see Chi? No. Can you experience Chi? yes. "Out of sight is not out of Mind."

I'm convinced that misinterpretation of experience is the norm, with rare exceptions. People are enormously curious, and require explanations for everything. Almost nobody has experiences they can't explain, but few of these explanations withstand any sort of blind test. Coincidences demand causal explanations, however far fetched.

Not much of what people physically sense actually reaches their conscious mind. I read that about 0.1% of what hits the retina ends up being presented to the conscious mind to be "seen". The rest is tuned out as irrelevant, and what little is left is filled in with prior experiences strongly influenced by expectations.

And so, much of the scientific enterprise considered broadly exists explicitly to try to weed any signal out of all of this noise. If figures don't lie but liars figure, we are all liars. We can't help it. Recognizing this is a trait acquired with constant, diligent effort.

Our ears suffer the same problems. Mike Elzinga may be aware of the continuing arguments about how the materials an electric guitar is made of influence the tone. What becomes clear is, people actually hear the brighter tone of a maple neck, but only provided they know the neck is maple beforehand. They actually hear a more mellow tone from a mahogany neck given the same foreknowledge. So if half the guitarists are told a neck they can't see is maple, and half are told it's mahogany, and the (unseen) neck is graphite, it doesn't matter. They hear their expectations. They are said to "hear with their eyes".

In general, people do not doubt their senses, nor know how little of what they sense reaches their conscious minds. I know several people who are confident they'll experience an afterlife because they actually saw their dear departed, plain as can be, in broad daylight. The misinterpretation of experience is built in, fabricated by mental mechanisms behind the scenes even before it gets fed into a matrix of expectations resting solidly on confirmation bias.

Steve P. said: Matt G, Different animals, Matt. Can you see planetary orbits? No. Can you experience planetary orbits? No. Can you see Chi? No. Can you experience Chi? yes. "Out of sight is not out of Mind."

folks, sorry to interupt this regularly scheduled program, but vjtorley has just posted a most interesting most over at UD.

I know you will have to hold your noses but trust me, you will want to read it.

Steve P. said: folks, sorry to interupt this regularly scheduled program, but vjtorley has just posted a most interesting most over at UD. I know you will have to hold your noses but trust me, you will want to read it.

Newton’s theory of gravity, Wegener’s theory of continental drift and Darwin’s theory of evolution all have one thing in common: they have all been ridiculed as impossible at one time or another, because they lacked a plausible mechanism. So which theory is different from the rest? I shall argue that Darwin’s theory is unique, in that it has won widespread acceptance despite the existence of weighty scientific arguments showing that its mechanism is incapable of accounting for the phenomena that it purports to explain. However, if Darwin had formulated his theory of evolution in the same way that Newton formulated his theory of gravity, Darwin’s theory would have been invulnerable to these scientific difficulties. It is also a curious fact that although Darwin’s original theory has undergone radical transformation, like those of Newton and Wegner, many scientists and philosophers are proud to call themselves “Darwinists,” whereas no modern scientist would refer to him/herself as a “Newtonian” or “Wegnerian.”

Flint said: Our ears suffer the same problems. Mike Elzinga may be aware of the continuing arguments about how the materials an electric guitar is made of influence the tone. What becomes clear is, people actually hear the brighter tone of a maple neck, but only provided they know the neck is maple beforehand. They actually hear a more mellow tone from a mahogany neck given the same foreknowledge.

I think this comes full circle to the animosity generated towards Dembski.

Dembski and Marks seek to take information, an entity even more elusive than Chi, and confirm it scientifically; show information as a 'real' entity, independent and separate from matter.

They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that? Any personal dislike of Dembski's (note vitriole against Marks is noticably absent) theistic leanings should be kept separate when considering the merit of his work.

Moreover, Demski and Marks' attempt at formalizing information is a perfect example of instinct and intuition driving science. Whether they succeed or fail in not the point. It is the attempt which should be supported in the spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery.

Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism?

Krebs?

Steve wrote:

"They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that? Any personal dislike of Dembski’s (note vitriole against Marks is noticably absent) theistic leanings should be kept separate when considering the merit of his work."

No one begrudges him trying to define something mathematically. What he is rightly condemned for is claiming that he has succeeded, even though he has never published his supposed results. Even though he has no definition, let alone no equation, no values, no statistics, no hypothesis, no conclusion and no hope of ever getting anywhere.

If he would just admit that he was wrong, if he would just admit that he failed, then he might at least preserve some modicum of respect. Now why is it that creationists can never admit error? You Steve are a perfect case in point.

Steve P. said: Moreover, Demski and Marks' attempt at formalizing information is a perfect example of instinct and intuition driving science. Whether they succeed or fail in not the point. It is the attempt which should be supported in the spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery. Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism? Krebs?

Steve P. said: I think this comes full circle to the animosity generated towards Dembski. Dembski and Marks seek to take information, an entity even more elusive than Chi, and confirm it scientifically; show information as a 'real' entity, independent and separate from matter. They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that? Any personal dislike of Dembski's (note vitriole against Marks is noticably absent) theistic leanings should be kept separate when considering the merit of his work. Moreover, Demski and Marks' attempt at formalizing information is a perfect example of instinct and intuition driving science. Whether they succeed or fail in not the point. It is the attempt which should be supported in the spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery. Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism? Krebs?

Steve P. said: I think this comes full circle to the animosity generated towards Dembski. Dembski and Marks seek to take information, an entity even more elusive than Chi, and confirm it scientifically; show information as a 'real' entity, independent and separate from matter. They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that? Any personal dislike of Dembski's (note vitriole against Marks is noticably absent) theistic leanings should be kept separate when considering the merit of his work. Moreover, Demski and Marks' attempt at formalizing information is a perfect example of instinct and intuition driving science. Whether they succeed or fail in not the point. It is the attempt which should be supported in the spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery. Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism? Krebs?

Dale Husband said: Steve P was referring to this worthless $#it: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/which-one-is-different-gravity-continental-drift-or-evolution/

Newton’s theory of gravity, Wegener’s theory of continental drift and Darwin’s theory of evolution all have one thing in common: they have all been ridiculed as impossible at one time or another, because they lacked a plausible mechanism. So which theory is different from the rest? I shall argue that Darwin’s theory is unique, in that it has won widespread acceptance despite the existence of weighty scientific arguments showing that its mechanism is incapable of accounting for the phenomena that it purports to explain. However, if Darwin had formulated his theory of evolution in the same way that Newton formulated his theory of gravity, Darwin’s theory would have been invulnerable to these scientific difficulties. It is also a curious fact that although Darwin’s original theory has undergone radical transformation, like those of Newton and Wegner, many scientists and philosophers are proud to call themselves “Darwinists,” whereas no modern scientist would refer to him/herself as a “Newtonian” or “Wegnerian.”

When your opening paragraph is full of fallacious falsehoods, why bother with the rest of it? First, Darwin's theory of evolution DID describe a plausible mechanism for evolution to occur. What was it? NATURAL SELECTION! Second, there are NO scientific arguments showing that natural selection cannot account for changes in lines of organisms over a long period of time. NONE! Third, the exact understanding of the process of evolution has indeed undergone modifications over the past century. Why? Because it is the nature of science when describing something in the real universe to become more accurate and detailed. Fourth, biologists do not generally call themselves "Darwinists". That's what anti-evolutionary bigots call us. Fifth, and most damning of all, Newton's ideas about gravity were indeed overthrown by those of Einstein, but that seems to have gone unnoticed by the writer of Uncommon Descent (UD). Thank you once again, Steve P, for showing us all once more why you, and the morons that post at UD, are simply too fuked up to do any real science!

Dale Husband said: I know Chi to be one of the Greek letters, but aside from that.....

Yo FL, why aren't you here defending Steve P.? Is it because he accepts common descent? If so, why aren't you challenging him on that? Is it because you're OK with anyone who argues with "Darwinists"?

Steve P. said: ...vjtorley has just posted a most interesting most over at UD. I know you will have to hold your noses but trust me, you will want to read it.

Steve P. said: I think this comes full circle to the animosity generated towards Dembski. Dembski and Marks seek to take information, an entity even more elusive than Chi, and confirm it scientifically...

Steve P. said: They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that?

Flint said: I'm convinced that misinterpretation of experience is the norm, with rare exceptions. People are enormously curious, and require explanations for everything. Almost nobody has experiences they can't explain, but few of these explanations withstand any sort of blind test. Coincidences demand causal explanations, however far fetched.

Steve P. said: Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism?

The MadPanda, FCD said: Dembski's reputation in these matters is well-known and justly earned.

mrg said:

The MadPanda, FCD said: Dembski's reputation in these matters is well-known and justly earned.

And he deliberately worked at it, too: "I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail." In sum he said: YOU have to prove EVERYTHING and I don't have to prove ANYTHING!

Paul Burnett said: For more on Dembski's "pathetic level of detail" comment, see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/id-in-their-own-1.html

Steve P. said: I think this comes full circle to the animosity generated towards Dembski. Dembski and Marks seek to take information, an entity even more elusive than Chi, and confirm it scientifically; show information as a 'real' entity, independent and separate from matter. They are not the first to make this observation. But I believe they are the first to make the attempt to formalize it mathematically. Why would any scientist begrudge them that? Any personal dislike of Dembski's (note vitriole against Marks is noticably absent) theistic leanings should be kept separate when considering the merit of his work. Moreover, Demski and Marks' attempt at formalizing information is a perfect example of instinct and intuition driving science. Whether they succeed or fail in not the point. It is the attempt which should be supported in the spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery. Why are you(pl) not on board? Is it because Dembski's instincts and intuition are grounded in theism? Krebs?

TomS: It is good that you clarified your statement with "as far I know" because you don't know.

The Church said "recant or die!" So he recanted.
And now he has to suffer with academic house arrest.
Who does that remind you of?

It's worth noting that Wegener's theory of continental drift was rejected because it's wrong, and it's still wrong. What we have now is plate tectonics, which is different, and which works. Wegener had continental plates ploughing through the ocean-floor plates like icebreakers. This does not happen.

So, because Dr. Dembski is a Biblical inerrantist this automatically excludes him from being able to do objective scientific research? Believing the Bible is inerrant means that that you believe that there is a God who created the universe and everything in it; including human beings. This very same God loves those human beings and wants to have a relationship with them. Therefore, he has given mankind Scripture by which he communicates with them. Because he is all-powerful and is outside of nature, he has so preserved his Scripture in such a way that what we have today is the Word of God to us. It would be an accurate assumption, admittedly, that if one held to this view of the Bible, scientist or not, he would expect his observations to be consistent with the testimony of the Word of this Creator God.

Having this assumption, however, does not automatically disqualify a person from being able to conduct objective scientific experiments and reporting the results of those experiments accurately. One of the first steps in the rational thought process, after all, is to understand one’s own presuppositions and delineate how those presuppositions might effect that person’s conclusions. However, it does not mean that those presuppositions would necessarily cause that person to skew the results of his experimentation to fit his presuppositions. That is to say, he is very capable of still following the evidence wherever it may lead.

Everyone, whether they are creationist or evolutionist, has presuppositions that affect the way they think. The problem is not having these presuppositions; the problem would be not recognizing these presuppositions and allowing them to keep us from going where the evidence takes us.

Twain said: So, because Dr. Dembski is a Biblical inerrantist this automatically excludes him from being able to do objective scientific research?

Everyone, whether they are creationist or evolutionist, has presuppositions that affect the way they think. The problem is not having these presuppositions; the problem would be not recognizing these presuppositions...

...and allowing them to keep us from going where the evidence takes us.

Twain, you have to be aware that a Biblical Inerrantist believes that literally anything and everything that contradicts that person's preferred interpretation of the Bible is automatically incorrect, whether it is other people's interpretations of the Bible, science, or even casual observations of the physical universe.

This sort of attitude makes it extremely difficult for the Biblical Inerrantist to do science: this also leaves those precious few who can do science extremely suspect, as well. I mean, wouldn't you be suspicious of someone who regards his own life's work as being sinful, hellbound fiction?

Having said that, Dembski has repeatedly demonstrated, all by himself, that he is incapable of doing objective scientific research, especially with the way he has never ever ever done any research whatsoever to explain what "specified complexity" is, how to tabulate or even detect "specified complexity," or even explain how or why Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation, let alone a science that's supposed to be magically superior than Evolutionary Biology.

As for Dembski's statement of being a Biblical Inerrantist, we find it hypocritical for several reasons.

One reason is that it directly contradicts earlier statements where he implied that believing that the Bible is totally inerrant is silly.

Another reason is that you need to be aware that Dembski works at a school where, if the administration found out that you did not perfectly mirror their religious beliefs, they would fire you in the nastiest way possible.

Stanton said:
“As for Dembski’s statement of being a Biblical Inerrantist, we find it hypocritical for several reasons. One reason is that it directly contradicts earlier statements where he implied that believing that the Bible is totally inerrant is silly.”

Surely you are not suggesting that a person cannot change their position on an issue after considering further evidence. Isn’t that the way it most often goes? We develop certain beliefs and then change those beliefs as we collect additional data that would suggest something else. That he changed his position on any particular issue and admitted it does not make him a hypocrite, it only makes him honest.

As for the school he works for, disagreeing with a schools position has never stopped him from disagreeing in the past.

As for the statement:

“Twain, you have to be aware that a Biblical Inerrantist believes that literally anything and everything that contradicts that person’s preferred interpretation of the Bible is automatically incorrect, whether it is other people’s interpretations of the Bible, science, or even casual observations of the physical universe.”

The key word being that person’s “preferred interpretation.” While it is true that there are some who would not budge from their own interpretation of Scripture that does not mean all Biblical Inerrantist are this way. There are those who would at least consider other interpretations of Scripture if those interpretations where consistent with the whole of Scripture. And this still does not exclude that person from conducting objective scientific experiments and effectively record their findings.
Furthermore, the same argument could be employed against many Darwinian evolutionists. There are those in this camp, as well, who, regardless of what evidence might be presented, would not let go of their own Darwinian presuppositions and allow the evidence to take them to a place they do not want to go.
My thought is this, why don’t both sides of this argument work hard to reveal the truth and, end the end, may the best theory win?

Twain said: Furthermore, the same argument could be employed against many Darwinian evolutionists. There are those in this camp, as well, who, regardless of what evidence might be presented, would not let go of their own Darwinian presuppositions and allow the evidence to take them to a place they do not want to go. My thought is this, why don’t both sides of this argument work hard to reveal the truth and, end the end, may the best theory win?

Twain, Dembski does not look at evidence: he has demonstrated that he says contradictory things either because a) he's getting his lies mixed up, or b) he's being paid by someone to say something that coincidentally contradicts something he said earlier.

As for Dembski disagreeing with the position of the school he's employed at, I'm saddened to tell you this, but, Baylor University did not, and does not have a policy of terminating teachers who do not hold religious views identical to the administration: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, on the other hand, does have such a policy.

As for your inane accusation of "Darwinian presuppositions leading people to deny evidence," that is pure projection of your own biases.

Scientists who refuse to look at the evidence stop doing science, and wind up getting forgotten by the scientific community.

Oh, one more thing: no one has ever been able do any science with a literal interpretation of the Scripture. Either we have Biblical Inerrantists who don't do science because they were taught that science is evil and against their religion, or, we have the precious few Biblical Inerrant scientists who are well aware that an Inerrant Bible is absolutely no use to helping them with their work.

Or, Twain, you can prove us wrong by going out and proving to us that one can do science by solely relying on a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Holy Bible, instead of concern-trolling about how mean it is for us to point out that Bill Dembski is a hypocrite.

Twain said: Stanton said: “As for Dembski’s statement of being a Biblical Inerrantist, we find it hypocritical for several reasons. One reason is that it directly contradicts earlier statements where he implied that believing that the Bible is totally inerrant is silly.” Surely you are not suggesting that a person cannot change their position on an issue after considering further evidence. Isn’t that the way it most often goes? We develop certain beliefs and then change those beliefs as we collect additional data that would suggest something else. That he changed his position on any particular issue and admitted it does not make him a hypocrite, it only makes him honest.

As for the school he works for, disagreeing with a schools position has never stopped him from disagreeing in the past.

As for the statement: “Twain, you have to be aware that a Biblical Inerrantist believes that literally anything and everything that contradicts that person’s preferred interpretation of the Bible is automatically incorrect, whether it is other people’s interpretations of the Bible, science, or even casual observations of the physical universe.” The key word being that person’s “preferred interpretation.”

There are those who would at least consider other interpretations of Scripture if those interpretations where consistent with the whole of Scripture.

And this still does not exclude that person from conducting objective scientific experiments and effectively record their findings.

Furthermore, the same argument could be employed against many Darwinian evolutionists. There are those in this camp, as well, who, regardless of what evidence might be presented, would not let go of their own Darwinian presuppositions and allow the evidence to take them to a place they do not want to go.

My thought is this, why don’t both sides of this argument work hard to reveal the truth and, end the end, may the best theory win?

This is a great article. I have always had a hunch that talent seems a bit too magical, if anything deserves to be labelled talent it should be persistence.
Anyone interested should read “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle who demistifies the fluff around talent