Search This Blog

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Who is William Dembski and why are Darwinists afraid of him? Part Three!

Sunday, August 05, 2012 we posted this

Who is William Dembski and why are Darwinists afraid of him? Part Two! 

Here is the third part of the continuation of the interview that was begun on Saturday's blog post.   TBS is The Best Schools' interviewer in bolded green.   WD is William Dembski in black.

The last blog post ended with Dembski revealing that:  "In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast..."

TBS: You have been a Fellow (now Senior Fellow) with the Discovery Institute (DI) in Seattle since 1996. They have played an important role in disseminating your ideas, and ID more generally, to the general public. Both you and they are also frequently targets of attack by the academic establishment and the political left. Can you tell us a little bit about the DI, and about your role there?

WD: When one has had to deal with the vilification and marginalization that I have, it’s important to have friends and to know who they are. The Discovery Institute (and by that I mean both its fellows and its administrators) has been my best friend these last 15 years. They’ve been there whenever I’ve needed them. They’ve been my most engaging conversation partners. And we’ve had a commonality of purpose.



The Discovery Institute’s founding dates back to the early ’90s. It was started as a high-tech and public-policy think tank. George Gilder (left) was one of the key people providing it with vision. In the mid-’90s, Steve Meyer came on their radar, and the director, Bruce Chapman, decided to establish a program to promote intelligent design. Think of the Discovery Institute as an incubator for various initiatives. Well, the ID initiative quickly became Discovery Institute’s main initiative and the one for which it is best known.

When Meyer became the director of the newly founded Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (subsequently simplified to the Center for Science and Culture), he included me among its initial, fully funded fellows. This was a godsend. I was newly married, and the job market was tough in philosophy at the time. Coming on board with Discovery allowed me to pursue research in ID full-time. It made a huge difference to my subsequent research.

I stayed on as a full-time Discovery fellow until Baylor hired me in early 2000. But in the intervening twelve years, they’ve provided lots of support, both tangible and intangible. As it is, I’m leaving my present post at Southwestern Seminary and returning as a full-time fellow of Discovery later this year (2012). This will allow me to redouble my efforts at developing ID’s scientific research program.

Throughout the years, my role with Discovery has been to do heavy lifting connected with ID, developing intelligent design’s theoretical underpinnings. This has meshed nicely with work of other Discovery fellows.

The Discovery Institute has been absolutely indispensable to the success of the ID movement. Without it, most of us would have ended up as road kill.

TBS: You have stated that “design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.” But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?

WD: The quote needs context. I’ve also written that intelligent design, besides being a scientific program, has a theological dimension, in trying to understand divine action, and a cultural dimension, in trying to overturn naturalism. So intelligent design is a number of things. But at its core, it is a scientific program. Indeed, unless there is good science to back it up, all the cultural and theological superstructures that people build on it will be in vain.

As for why religious believers tend to be associated with design, I could turn the question around. If Darwinian evolution is strictly scientific, then why is that field so heavily populated with atheists? In one survey of around 150 prominent evolutionary biologists, only two were religious believers (as I recall, Will Provine was behind this survey). I see a scientific core to both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. And I see no merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep. The character of the proposals that both approaches make is what really ought to count.
But why, then, have so many scientific bodies turned against ID? I recall speaking at a symposium at Grove City College back in 2007, and University of Wisconsin historian of science Ron Numbers mentioning that over 100 professional scientific societies had issued formal denunciations of intelligent design. It’s probably more by now.

I’ve been unimpressed with these denunciations. In every case, they have seemed to me politically motivated, attempting to ensure that the professional society doesn’t lose face should some of its wayward members be perceived as sympathizing with ID. I recall the AAAS denunciation of ID. I was a member at the time, though I let my membership lapse subsequently. When my colleagues inquired into who was behind their denunciation and what materials they had read that convinced them to issue it, it became clear that the materials were unread and the denouncers didn’t understand what they were denouncing.

As for more scientists coming on board with ID if it were legitimate, I think this question misses the point. The question is not legitimacy, but incentives. There are no incentives for coming on board with ID save that one thinks it offers some interesting ideas and true insights. There is no federal funding for ID research. If it’s known that you accept intelligent design and you’re in the mainstream academy, you can expect your career to be derailed. Support ID and expect some pain.



On the other hand, if you denounce intelligent design, you score points. Think of Judge Jones (right) in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case. After ruling against ID in 2005, he was voted one of 2005’s ten most sexy geeks by Wired magazine. Time magazine voted him one of the 100 most important thinkers of 2005. And the last I heard, he had been awarded four honorary doctorates (I’ve confirmed two of them). Jones’s claim to fame prior to Dover was not expertise in the theoretical underpinnings of evolutionary biology, but rather heading the Pennsylvania liquor commission.

I could recount case after case of mediocre academics who have done well for themselves (tenure, named professorships, etc.) by denouncing ID. And I can recount case after case of very bright individuals whose careers have been derailed for supporting, or even showing sympathy toward, ID. The documentary Expelled demonstrates this last point.

TBS: In bringing up Expelled, you beat us to the punch. You were prominently featured in a documentary favorable to intelligent design, narrated by Ben Stein and titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. What can you tell us about that documentary? Did it help or hurt the ID movement?

WD: The documentary came out in the spring of 2008 and most of the footage was taken the year earlier. I was therefore called in as an information resource person—in the few spots I have in the movie, that’s what I do, i.e., provide background information. I could well have been one of the “expelled,” but my story with Baylor goes back to 2000 and the producers were looking for more recent narratives.

I would give the documentary a B, certainly not an A. It effectively underscores the opposition that proponents of intelligent design face in the academy. Some of the individual cases recounted pack a nice punch. And the “exit interview” of Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein is classic. Stein gets Dawkins to admit that ID might be legitimate, so long as the designer is not God but a space alien who evolved by Darwinian means. I almost always show that clip in my public presentations of ID. Indeed, Dawkins gives away the store in those two minutes.

But the documentary had some weaknesses. The seven or so minutes devoted to the Nazis and their assimilation of Darwinian theory and its basis in the holocaust seemed misplaced. Not that there isn’t a connection, but bringing up the Nazis invariably causes the temperature to rise and the train of an argument to be lost. Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design. This, to me, was the biggest weakness of the movie. So, ID is marginalized and its proponents vilified. But what has it accomplished to show that it doesn’t deserve that treatment? This needed to be spelled out.



I also understand that the producers mismanaged their funds. Expelled was to lead to a national reaction, with an active website from which people could learn more. The weekend that the documentary opened in theaters, the website went dormant—the producers had run out of funds. I think the film could have done much better at the box office with some more careful editing and refocusing of the material. And its impact, even as it is, would have been much greater if the intended support structures, such as the website, had been fully functioning.

Even so, now that the film is out on DVD, I keep hearing from people who’ve seen me in it (some from my distant past). On balance, I think it’s had a positive impact in alerting people to the controversy over intelligent design.

TBS: In 2000, after organizing and hosting a very successful and visible international conference (whose proceedings, coedited by you and Bruce Gordon, are now published as The Nature of Nature [ISI, 2011]), you were first demoted, then essentially fired, by Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Can you explain how this came about? What were the ramifications of Baylor throwing you under the bus for you personally? What do you think the long-term ramifications of this incident have been for our intellectual culture as a whole?

WD: The short of it is that Baylor hired me to start an intelligent design think-tank, the Michael Polanyi Center, we put on a tremendously successful conference, and three days after the conference the faculty senate voted 27–2 to shut the center down. Not immediately, but a few months later, the Baylor administration acceded to the faculty senate’s wishes.

When I protested the center’s dissolution, I was fired as director from a center that had already ceased to exist. This, at Baylor—an ostensibly Christian institution. But in fact, the science faculty at Baylor were probably more Darwinian than their secular counterparts, having to prove that they were as “reliable” in their science as those outside.

The whole story is available online, arranged chronologically in a series of news articles: “The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center.” If I had it to do again, I would never have gone to Baylor. But the past is past. It’s all there. It made national news. And Baylor got a black eye for its failure to respect freedom of thought and expression. But massive institutions like Baylor can handle a bit of battering. Private individuals who get chewed up by them are less fortunate.

The bottom line is that ID remains without the sort of institutional support that could accelerate its research and acceptance. I give the Darwinists credit here for their implacable opposition to ID. The Polanyi Center was the first and remains the last ID center at any college or university. It’s a sad commentary, not just on higher education, but on Christian higher education specifically.

One of the main lessons I’ve drawn from this is that most of the academic world, Christian included, is not so much concerned with truth as with fitting in and looking good. Perhaps I should have known that from the start. After the Polanyi Center closed, so too did much of the sympathy toward and curiosity about ID.  In many people’s minds, ID was no longer a winner, and people like to be associated with a winner. We saw the same phenomenon a few years later with the Dover trial.
But history teaches that truth has little to do with winning and losing. Christ—the one who calls himself “the way, the truth, and the light”— is hardly a picture of victory on the Cross. So, I never lose heart.



For me personally, the Baylor episode has been better in the aftermath than in its unfolding at the time. Lots of people rallied to me. And I gained many valuable conversation partners. I had enough visibility and support so that I could land on my feet. But it could easily have turned out worse.

As for the ramifications of this incident for our culture as a whole, I don’t want to read too much into this. I don’t think it should be read as a decisive battle that changes the course of a war. Rather, I would see it as emblematic of the corruption that had existed in the academy already. This incident merely underscored the degree to which secular ideology was and remains entrenched in the academy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny how Darwinists are so often atheists and yet their religion is not considered a factor in whether their views on science should be considered.   Label a guy a "Christian" or even an "ID Proponent" and the propaganda machine goes whirring into overtime.

Have you ever wondered how Naturalism got to be the official religion of secular science?   Have you  ever wondered how the USA, founded as a Christian nation where all kinds of beliefs would be allowed has become a Secular Humanist nation that is hostile to Christianity?   

Darwinism is at the bottom of it all.   Darwinism combined with Malthusian ideas and Eugenics became a good excuse for tyrants to murder millions of innocents.    That Darwinism attacks and removes Christianity then ushers in socialist/communist group think and whenever socialism is tried within a nation the nation becomes a dictatorship and then eventually fails.

Ideas have consequences.   Either God made everything and everyone and we all have a responsibility to Him and each other OR existence is just a strange and meaningless random event and therefore we have no consequences other than the ones that come back at us in life and we can do whatever we can get away with and care nothing for anyone we do not know.   In truth, a Darwinist purist would assert that he has evolved to believe what he is saying and really has no free will at all.  Consider for yourself whether God creating a Universe or gazillions upon gazillions of random freak occurrences just happened to cause today to be today.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Either God made everything and everyone and we all have a responsibility to Him and each other OR existence is just a strange and meaningless random event and therefore we have no consequences other than the ones that come back at us in life and we can do whatever we can get away with and care nothing for anyone we do not know."

False dichotomy

radar said...

False dichotomy?

Either there is or is not a God. The God of the Bible is the one in whom men like Newton and Maxwell and Kelvin and Von Braun and etc. believed in and trusted in a Logical God so they were willing to devote long years to finding logical processes and laws - and they were right. They did find them. Science as we know it came from a belief in the Creator God and was an improvement over the axiomatic science of Aristotle and the Greeks.

So that God is a valid choice.

Darwinists must have a cohesive worldview and most of them admit to being Atheists. They deny that God created the Universe and do not believe things were designed but rather somehow popped into being. You can spend 138 pages of verbiage discussing the concept of a random first cause but in the end it boils down to chance.

So a meaningless and random existence leaves man with no responsibility to a Creator and therefore he only owes allegiance to whatever moral code he decides to live by and that is another choice.

Random world or God world. Seems like a clear and valid choice to me and not a false dichotomy at all.

Anonymous said...

"Either there is or is not a God."

That was not the dichotomy I was pointing out but rather the conclusions you attach to it. Namely that there can be only morality with God and none without God.

That was what you were saying, right?

radar said...

Anonymous,

I am not saying that denying God means no morality. But it does mean you have a situation-based morality rather than one grounded on absolutes. An Atheist chooses what moral code he will follow and may well have a very fluid moral code based on situations, feelings and etc.

Godly morality is based on absolutes stated in the Bible. That doesn't mean that anyone follows them perfectly. That is why a Savior was provided to mankind. But we as Christians can say that there is a standard moral code based on absolutes presented by the Creator, Who would have the right to present them.

christian soldier said...

Thought you had stopped posting!!!
I've got some catching up to do! : - )

Carol-CS

Anonymous said...

"An Atheist chooses what moral code he will follow and may well have a very fluid moral code based on situations, feelings and etc."

Suppose you are a Christian in WWII and hiding Jews in your cellar.
What do you say when the Gestapo officer asks you: "Are there any Jews here?"

Anonymous said...

"I am not saying that denying God means no morality. But it does mean you have a situation-based morality rather than one grounded on absolutes. An Atheist chooses what moral code he will follow and may well have a very fluid moral code based on situations, feelings and etc."

I've never met a Christian yet who didn't have a situation-based morality that deviated greatly from the so-called absolutes in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever wondered how the USA, founded as a Christian nation where all kinds of beliefs would be allowed has become a Secular Humanist nation that is hostile to Christianity?

What nonsense. On so many levels.

lava

Anonymous said...

"Godly morality is based on absolutes stated in the Bible."

Tell me, "Mr. Absolute Morality", what is your position on usury?

radar said...

lava, either you do not know American history or you do not comprehend what has happened in modern society. Secular Humanism is taught in public schools as SOP, with Darwinist propaganda taught in science classes with dogmatic High Priests of Darwinism fighting tooth and nail to keep evidence for both Intelligent Design and Creation by God away from classrooms. After all, we wouldn't want kids to have to THINK, would we? Let's just brainwash them into believing a pack of fairy tales.

Those who try to re-write history need to be slowly replaced by actual historians and teachers that actually respect and applaud America. We have survived as a free people because we have had capitalism, individual freedoms and Christian societal mores. But the moral fabric of the nation is torn, capitalism and individual excellence is under attack, collectivism is being promoted. So no wonder our economy is tanking and the deficit has doubled and we are in big financial trouble...we have collectivists in charge!!!

How ironic that nations like China have begun to abandon collectivism and encourage capitalism! You do know that all nations have always acted as capitalists in trade amongst themselves?

Christians actually have a hierarchy of authority. Personally all answer to God first. Within the family the father and the mother are the authorities, the father being the head authority and his responsibility is to God.

With government, we are told to obey every law of God and man. So Christians are to obey the law unless it is against the law of God. So if I know that the government is seeking to locate and take Jews off to camps I will lie to the soldiers and remain true to my higher authority. If I forbid my wife to pray I know she would do it anyway, and she would be right, because I should not tell her to disobey God, my own boss!

As to "usury" I suspect you really do not even know what you are discussing. Some of the laws established for the Children of Israel were specific to the Tabernacle and then the Temple.
All of the laws involving animal and other sacrifices and other rituals associated with forgiveness of sin and restoration of standing with God were done away with after Christ offered Himself on the cross.

Some of the laws were part of a Theocracy, in which God was in charge and an intermediary (Moses, Joshua, etc.) would hear from God and decide the big issues of leadership. As long as there was a functional government of Jews, there were certain laws that governed their behavior. There is no longer a Temple, no more book of generations, no more Old Testament Judaism and no more adherence to such laws.

radar said...

It is quite obvious that the Pilgrims who came to our shores brought Biblical morality with them. Subsequent waves of settlers took the Biblical morality for granted. Everybody knew that the Bible was the foundation of just law, and it was certainly the foundation of English jurisprudence and was the primary source document for the Constitution.

The idea that the Judeo-Christian ethic would not be the default setting was foreign to anyone who lived in this nation before World War One. That it is losing influence over society is the explanation for the degradation of society - more violence, drugs, crime, murdered babies, drug addiction, sexual deviance and suicide - is now sadly apparent.

Anonymous said...

"As to "usury" I suspect you really do not even know what you are discussing. Some of the laws established for the Children of Israel were specific to the Tabernacle and then the Temple.
All of the laws involving animal and other sacrifices and other rituals associated with forgiveness of sin and restoration of standing with God were done away with after Christ offered Himself on the cross."

Tell me, "Mr. Absolute Morality", when specifically did Jesus do away with the laws regarding usury?

Anonymous said...

"That it is losing influence over society is the explanation for the degradation of society - more violence, drugs, crime, murdered babies, drug addiction, sexual deviance and suicide - is now sadly apparent."

The facts suggest otherwise: http://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png

Anonymous said...

lava, either you do not know American history or you do not comprehend what has happened in modern society. Secular Humanism is taught in public schools as SOP, with Darwinist propaganda taught in science classes with dogmatic High Priests of Darwinism fighting tooth and nail to keep evidence for both Intelligent Design and Creation by God away from classrooms. After all, we wouldn't want kids to have to THINK, would we? Let's just brainwash them into believing a pack of fairy tales.

but what you originally wrote that the US is now ...a Secular Humanist nation that is hostile to Christianity... This statement just isn't true.

A look at our history of congress men and women and presidents shows how many of them are christian? How many open atheists are among that group?

A look at recent jurisprudence on the separation of church and state shows the opposite of what you claim.

You want to make it out as if christians are under constant attack in the US. That just simply isn't true. The teaching of YEC, ID,... are under constant attack. Most of us consider that a good thing.

lava

radar said...

The ACLU is one of the organizations constantly suing towns to take down crosses and creches and the ten commandments or a Hebrew menorah or star. Millions of taxpayer dollars are thrown away on the relentless attack of Atheists against any Christian symbols anywhere. Even though such symbols are part of our heritage. Even if they stand for military heroes who died in WWII or represent the basis of American law or are incorporated in a town or city seal. Don't tell me Christianity and Theism aren't under attack!

If you want to discuss usury, you will have to be specific. Jesus used a parable to teach his disciples and those to follow afterwards to use their gifts rather than let them lay fallow. In the parable of the Stewards, Jesus rebuked the one who did absolutely nothing with the talents given him (talents were a measurement of money in those days, although you can see a secondary meaning in English today), telling him he could have invested it and gotten a percentage back on the investment rather than burying it in the ground!

So go ahead and bring me your usury source if you know it. But if that is just another "question to ask Christians" borrowed from some Atheist blog you won't have a clue probably.

Anonymous said...

The usury example only goes to show how situation-based this so-called absolute morality of the Bible really is. It evolves over time, like all morality, because it is a human construct.

radar said...

No, you do not know the Bible and have no idea what you are discussing.

The Bible includes several covenants between God and mankind. God first made a covenant with Adam. Adam broke it and God changed the terms of the contract.

God then made a contract with Noah and continued to keep offering us new terms when we, as mankind, failed to keep our end up. So God presented new terms to Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Joshua and so on. When Jesus Christ arrived as the Messiah, God provided the last covenant offering to mankind, one that put the burden on Jesus Christ to pay the price since we continually fell short of fulfilling the previous contracts.

Each covenant spoke to the terms of the previous covenant. When Christ paid the price of sin for mankind He also did away with the ceremonial and ritualistic laws of Moses - including the laws governing the people. Human governments would provide human government and God would provide salvation.

Usury laws were ended at the cross.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Seems to me that the different covenants are merely convenient narrative explanations for evolving morality, as formulated by moral leaders over time.

Anonymous said...

"So if I know that the government is seeking to locate and take Jews off to camps I will lie to the soldiers and remain true to my higher authority."

Your 'higher authority' forbids you to lie:

"A false witness will not go unpunished,
And he who speaks lies shall perish."
(Proverbs 19:9)

Anonymous said...

Apparently that part's no longer operative.

radar said...

Don't ask questions if you really don't want an answer.

God has changed the terms of covenants with mankind because we defaulted. He could have foreclosed and Boom, no more Universe! He did kill off one civilization and start over again. He did destroy a set of cities where evil reigned supreme (Sodom and Gomorrah) and He did confuse languages at Babel to force people to spread out and repopulate the Earth.

But every change in covenant was for the benefit of mankind.

As for lying, again, when government goes against God we are going to follow God. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a greater imperative than Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. If the Government is murdering Jews and I am hiding them in my crawl space I am not going to tell anyone they are there.

Jesus said "Obey every law of God and man." Notice which priority comes first?

Anonymous said...

I questioned you regarding you characterizing the USA as ...a Secular Humanist nation that is hostile to Christianity...

You responded with this:

The ACLU is one of the organizations constantly suing towns to take down crosses and creches and the ten commandments or a Hebrew menorah or star

Do you see how that doesn't address your original statement?

lava

Anonymous said...

"Jesus said "Obey every law of God and man." Notice which priority comes first?"

Not from that quote, no. It says every law and the "and" doesn't prioritize one over the other. Same with "render unto Caesar" etc.

"The ACLU is one of the organizations constantly suing towns to take down crosses and creches and the ten commandments or a Hebrew menorah or star"

Because of the constitutional separation of church and state as understood by courts for centuries. By the same token, the ACLU also defends the rights of religious expression of the individual.

www DOT aclufightsforchristians DOT com

www DOT aclu DOT org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

... or just google "aclu defends christians" yourself.

radar said...

There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. That is a fallacy perpetuated by a liberal judiciary who attempt to legislate from the bench,

radar said...

Help lava! I accidently deleted your comment about the USA being a Secular Humanist nation? Can you do it again? I was grabbing the quote from it and accidently hit the garbage can I guess, weird.

Anonymous said...

Its still there but I'll re-paste it anyway.


I questioned you regarding you characterizing the USA as ...a Secular Humanist nation that is hostile to Christianity...

You responded with this:

The ACLU is one of the organizations constantly suing towns to take down crosses and creches and the ten commandments or a Hebrew menorah or star...

Do you see how that doesn't address your original statement?

lava

Anonymous said...

"There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. That is a fallacy perpetuated by a liberal judiciary who attempt to legislate from the bench,"

... but you do accept that the ACLU does in fact defend the rights of Christians. It's impossible to deny, of course.

Anonymous said...

"Thou Shalt Not Kill is a greater imperative than Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."

Could you point me to the passage in the Bible that states this? Thanks.

radar said...

One - there is no place in the Constitution stating separation of church and state. In fact the first amendment places freedom of religion (not FROM religion) first on the priority list.

Whether the ACLU sometimes defends an individual Christian, they make much of their money and spend much of their time taking taxpayer dollars while suing to have things like crosses removed.

You can see for yourself which sin is more grave in the eyes of God by looking at the punishment. God gave a penalty of death for murder, not for lying.

Lava, the United States adapted Secular Humanism as a state religion when they begin teaching evolution only in classrooms of government-operated schools. Evolution is a doctrine of Secular Humanism (and Atheism). If classrooms were taught that there are three points of view - Naturalism, Creation and Intelligent Design and were presented the evidence to explore, then it would be science. But only Naturalism is presented and thus it is indoctrination. Indoctrination comes from doctrine. The official doctrine of this government is Naturalism/Secular Humanism/Darwinism therefore.

Anonymous said...

"One - there is no place in the Constitution stating separation of church and state. In fact the first amendment places freedom of religion (not FROM religion) first on the priority list."

No, that's second on the list; first is not to support any religious establishment by law.

"Whether the ACLU sometimes defends an individual Christian, they make much of their money and spend much of their time taking taxpayer dollars while suing to have things like crosses removed."

That doesn't make sense grammatically. Did you mean to say that they make much of their money FROM suing to have things like crosses removed? If so, hey, got any facts to back that up? Of course you don't. Because you made it up, as usual.

"Lava, the United States adapted Secular Humanism as a state religion when they begin teaching evolution only in classrooms of government-operated schools. Evolution is a doctrine of Secular Humanism (and Atheism). If classrooms were taught that there are three points of view - Naturalism, Creation and Intelligent Design and were presented the evidence to explore, then it would be science. But only Naturalism is presented and thus it is indoctrination. Indoctrination comes from doctrine. The official doctrine of this government is Naturalism/Secular Humanism/Darwinism therefore."

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a doctrine. It is accepted not just by atheists and secular humanists, but by a majority of people of many religions too.

In a science classroom, there are no three points of view, there is only methodological naturalism, as it has been since the scientific method and modern science was established. Creationism (especially YEC) fails to meet basic scientific standards and so doesn't belong in any science classroom. But that doesn't make you a victim.

radar said...

Methodological Naturalism is a metaphysical construct. It is more religion than science. That is the entire problem with Darwinism, it is more religion than science and it has been one of the biggest swindles ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. That is why people like Behe and Dembski and Sanford and Berlinski and Meyer are focusing on Intelligent Design because THAT is actual science. Actual science has already pulled the rug out from under Darwinism.

Christians invented the scientific method without the Naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview, a belief system, a religious point of view. You Darwinists have fooled enough people to have gotten your religion accepted as science, which is why we call things like Darwinism "scientism" because it really is not science at all.

You are also wrong about the First Amendment. Here is the start: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So those are the words. But the government has forced Naturalism on government schools and the ACLU has attacked the free exercise thereof by suing towns and cities and schools and other entities for having a cross or a creche or a menorah or any other free expression. The framers of the Constitution did not want a national religion but they never imagined Naturalism/Secular Humanism would ever be even considered by thinking men. Such pagan practices had been cast aside by Western civilization ages earlier. A return to pagan beliefs was unthinkable to men like Adams or Jefferson or Madison or Franklin.

In the 18th Century Deism was accepted, Theism was expected but Christianity was the norm. No one form of Christianity was to become a national religion enforced by government. Such things had always led to excess and immorality, as the people who escaped Europe well knew. How ironic it is that their new model of government, meant to keep the Republic from ever promoting a national religion, would fall prey to Naturalism and Secular Humanism.

So now we ban prayer in schools and murder babies by the millions. We have made the Republic that was supposed to be a coalition of states into a Federally-governed top-down behemoth. Agencies under the leadership of the Executive branch have extended control over things never meant for it to have. The Judiciary has switched from being Constitution defenders to change-agents, legislating from the bench. Congress has lost much of their power in the governing triad and yet they still have more power than the founders envisioned. Because States have far less power and local governments have far less power. The more the Federal government takes, the less freedom remains.

Anonymous said...

"You can see for yourself which sin is more grave in the eyes of God by looking at the punishment. God gave a penalty of death for murder, not for lying."

Bible passage please. Thank you in advance.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Methodological Naturalism is a metaphysical construct. It is more religion than science. [...] Christians invented the scientific method without the Naturalism."

Since it's clear you still don't understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (or, worse, are trying to deceive others about this difference), I'll just point out to your readers that they should check out the difference between these two, and to not be fooled when you try to blur the line between them by referring to "Naturalism" instead of being specific which one you are talking about: philosophical naturalism is a philosophical worldview (though not a religion), while methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science and the scientific method, as practiced by virtually all scientists today, regardless of their religion.

"ACLU has attacked the free exercise thereof by suing towns and cities and schools and other entities for having a cross or a creche or a menorah or any other free expression"

No, it hasn't attacked an individual's free exercise of religion, it has prevented local government from respecting an establishment of religion, as described in the Constitution and subsequently recognized to apply on the state level as well. The individuals' free exercise of religion is unaffected and in fact also defended by the ACLU.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"You can see for yourself which sin is more grave in the eyes of God by looking at the punishment. God gave a penalty of death for murder, not for lying."

Yes, Bible passage please.

Anonymous said...

"You can see for yourself which sin is more grave in the eyes of God by looking at the punishment. God gave a penalty of death for murder, not for lying."

Hm, by that standard murder is on a par with disobeying your parents or not yelling for help loud enough while being raped, which also carry the death penalty in the Bible.

radar said...

"Methodological Naturalism is a metaphysical construct. It is more religion than science. [...] Christians invented the scientific method without the Naturalism."

Since it's clear you still don't understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (or, worse, are trying to deceive others about this difference), I'll just point out to your readers that they should check out the difference between these two, and to not be fooled when you try to blur the line between them by referring to "Naturalism" instead of being specific which one you are talking about: philosophical naturalism is a philosophical worldview (though not a religion), while methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science and the scientific method, as practiced by virtually all scientists today, regardless of their religion.

No, it is clear and historically accurate that Christian scientists like Bacon and Pasteur used methodological INVESTIGATION and did not put Naturalism into science.

Methodological Naturalism is a faulty warping of investigation that has been another plank of propaganda for Darwinism. Roger Bacon did not propose this, Francis Bacon did not outline this and Louis Pasteur did not include this Naturalism when they outlined methods of testing and investigation. In fact most scientists of the past believed in God, whether as Deist, Theist or Christian, and would never have included Naturalism in their research because it is unscientific to do so. Methodological INVESTIGATION is the true scientific method.

radar said...

Secondly, you all misrepresent the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU does as it systematically attack various towns and cities and thereby steals taxpayer dollars by suing them. For what? For things like a cross in a town seal, or a creche or star displayed at Christmas. Such things do not establish a State religion, they are simply free expressions that the First Amendment was meant to protect. The warped ACLU has been working for years to rob the taxpayer and attack everything that is not Naturalist in nature. It does not matter that they occasionally represent a Christian. The work of the entire organization is set on attacking the very concept of God.

radar said...

As to the other claims made about the Bible, commenters will have to give chapter and verse before I will respond, as the claims about what the Bible teaches are made with no references. You want answers, give specifics.

Anonymous said...

"No, it is clear and historically accurate that Christian scientists like Bacon and Pasteur used methodological INVESTIGATION and did not put Naturalism into science."

Kindly explain the difference between methodological investigation and methodological naturalism as you see it. Please don't waste your time (or anyone else's) by confusing methodological and philosophical naturalism. We all know they're not the same thing.

Anonymous said...

"Such things do not establish a State religion, they are simply free expressions that the First Amendment was meant to protect"

That depends on if it's an individual doing it or a part of the government.

Anonymous said...

"As to the other claims made about the Bible, commenters will have to give chapter and verse before I will respond, as the claims about what the Bible teaches are made with no references."

I guess we assumed you'd know the references.

"You want answers, give specifics."

Okay, death penalty for a woman for not crying out while being raped. Sorry, I skipped the bit about her being betrothed. Here you go:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

King James Version (KJV)

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.


And disobeying a parent - I was mistaken, it's cursing a parent. That's Matthew 15:4 - "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'"

Anonymous said...

"As to the other claims made about the Bible, commenters will have to give chapter and verse before I will respond"

And this from the guy who didn't provide a Bible passage for his own claims...

Anonymous said...

""As to the other claims made about the Bible, commenters will have to give chapter and verse before I will respond, as the claims about what the Bible teaches are made with no references."

Not sure why this is needed, but anyway:

You claimed that if need be, you would lie to save a life because "Thou Shalt Not Kill is a greater imperative than Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."
When asked to back this up with the Bible you then answered:
"You can see for yourself which sin is more grave in the eyes of God by looking at the punishment. God gave a penalty of death for murder, not for lying."

I -and other commenters- would like to know where exactly you got that from the Bible.

Hope this is clear and you can enlighten us.

radar said...

Yes, I call on chapter and verse because the Bible questions are entirely off of the topic of the post, for one.

Secondly the difference between the government under Moses and the Priests was explained. The legal code for individual crimes was enforced under the system in place until the Jews cried out for a king. Saul became king and he took over rule from that point, and eventually the Jews were conquered and by the time of Christ were ruled by Rome. At that point the laws given in Exodus and Deuteronomy were meted out by the Sandhedrin and Herod to the extent Rome allowed them to do so.

Since you can look up passages I am sure you can find the penalty for bearing false witness in the Law before the New Covenant. So once you do so, if you do that work, then we'll talk. I fail to see what that has to do with William Dembski, however.

Anonymous said...

"Since you can look up passages I am sure you can find the penalty for bearing false witness in the Law before the New Covenant. So once you do so, if you do that work, then we'll talk."

No need for me to look up any passages. Since you made the claims I can call your bluff. So unless you can back up your claim that murder is worse than lying I can consider it hogwash. Your choice.

"I fail to see what that has to do with William Dembski, however."

Nothing. But if that is a problem you shouldn't have answered the question about the Jews and the Gestapo in the first place.



radar said...

Ugh, lazy commenters! Deuteronomy 19 is pretty specific:

The Law Concerning Witnesses

15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. 16 If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. 18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, 19 then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


So death was the penalty for murder (and that is also spelled out in Deuteronomy 19 and other places) while the false witness would receive the punishment that would have been meted out on the falsely accused.

The concept of "eye for an eye" was not a theme of vengeance but rather for justice. In other words, one was forbidden to punish beyond the crime.

If you actually decide to look it up, you will find that God assigned cities of refuge for people to flee from revenge and set down specifics about how they could work and in what cases they could not be used. Since the Pentateuch contains the original code of laws by which the Jews were ruled it was THE LAW for them during the days before kings were established.

Jewish Kings often changed the law or ignored the law and made their own laws. By the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin and King Herod used the Law arbitrarily but were under the greater civil law of Rome as a conquered territory.

The founders of both English law and American law used Jewish Law as a basis for establishing judicial codes. I posted on this more than once.

By the way, when the Pharisees and their henchmen brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus and asked Jesus if she should be stoned to death according to the Law, Jesus first stooped down and wrote in the sandy soil without saying a word. He then told them that the first stone needed to be cast by someone who was without sin. All the potential stone-throwers dropped their rocks and left.

The Law said that both the man and woman would be brought before authority to be stoned and both would be stoned if they stood accused and judged. Perhaps Jesus wrote that out on the sand before He spoke. He knew that they were either ignorant of the Law or hoping that He was ignorant.

In reading the history of the Jews in the Old Testament, you rarely read of people actually being punished by the Law. Whereas the Law spelled out punishments, there were also sacrifices and offerings available for the Jews to receive a temporary atonement for sins.

It is true that children could be stoned for disobedience and rebellion against parents but we do not see any instances of this being recorded. Parental love would tend to keep them from hauling their children up for judgment. Part of the Law required witnesses to testify to the veracity of a charge against anyone. It would have taken an amazingly wicked and out-of-control child to cause parents to bring them to judgment so severe. Eastern custom was that a child would be cast out to fend for himself before such an action would be taken.

radar said...

A thorough knowledge of the Bible would tell you that the "Laws that were against us" were nailed to the cross with Christ. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law so that all could be forgiven of all violations of the Law. The huge veil of the Temple that separated the people from the Presence of God in the Holy of Holies central to the Temple was an exceedingly thick curtain and at the time of the death of Jesus that curtain was torn in two from the top!

God had removed His Presence from the Temple and now the Holy Spirit will live within believers rather than in a Temple. That Temple was torn down stone by stone just as Jesus predicted within a generation of His death and resurrection. The former rule of Law of the Jews with ritual and sacrifice was forever ended and now Rabbinical Judaism continues but the believing Jews of the time founded Christianity and that is what the Jewish believers followed going forward.

Yes, the Disciples/Apostles and of course Jesus Christ were all Jews and it was Jews who wrote the New Testament and walking into the synagogues of the First Century declaring that the Messiah had come and that Jesus was that Messiah. The New Testament was written and spread around the area and the events listed in those writings were known to the readers as all the NT writings were either by eyewitnesses or by writers who accessed the accounts of eyewitnesses. Even an attempt to scrub all references to Jesus from the non-Christian Jewish documents was not completely successful.

The belief in the Creator God can trace an unbroken line from Adam to living believers today. The Bible is the most well-supported ancient document in existence with far more evidence than anything written by other ancients. That includes Homer and the major Greek philosophers and other texts from antiquity.

Anonymous said...

"Ugh, lazy commenters! Deuteronomy 19 is pretty specific"

So you are bound by the Laws of the Old Testament?