Dec 282005
 

Why are so many Darwinians trying to convince Christians that evolution is compatible with Christianity? Yet at the same time they would be just as fervent in telling the Christians to keep their belief out of every aspect of the government. Take it out of the Pledge, our money, department stores, town squares, courthouses, schools, etc, etc…

What gives? Take a look at these quotes.

Scott’s metaphysics
As I said, Scott is indeed an atheist and materialist.

Scott espouses the view that there is a distinction between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. The first corresponds to what any practicing scientist would do. We assume that the world is made of matter, and that if there is something else out there, this is simply beyond the scope and reach of the scientific method. The second position is rational, but not scientific. It points to the rational conclusion that there is only matter out there, even though we cannot prove it beyond any doubt.

One problem with Scott’s dualism is that, even though technically correct, it smacks of political correctness, or at least lacks philosophical courage.

Provine’s metaphysics
Not so for William Provine. His answer is clear: there is nothing out there, we die in the most definitive sense of the word, and there is no point in even asking the question of the ultimate meaning of life. Where does he get this conclusion? From the Darwinian theory of evolution by descent with modification. According to Provine, not only there is no evidence for anything beyond matter, but the whole essence of evolutionary change should tell us that it is irrational to even look for it.

Barbara Forrest’s metaphysical terrain.

  • First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible

Steve Weinberg who’s a physicist and notably anti-religious have said “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”

ID offends Darwinism at its atheistic core. Darwinism is battling for their religious survival. Take a look at some of the posters like edarrell and Nohm at this blog. They don’t dispute the scientific evidences put forth by ID. They are always the first to bring up religion and Creationism as the strawman. Darwinian atheism is protect by the educational establishment. If they can turn ID into a religious argument they know they can win by default because all other religions are inadmissible from the Darwinian religion by their definition.

From post-darwinist blogspot posted this quote from David Warren
What impresses me about the American people, is that even though they do not have the intellectual means to confute the Darwinian priesthood in the academy, they smell a rat in Darwinism, & will not be intimidated into accepting its presumptions. They just know that Darwinism is a rival religious faith, & they will even embrace Creationism to resist it.

The growing popularity of “Intelligent Design” is because it offers a way for science to get out of the face of religion. This is why the Darwinoids hate it so passionately: because the whole point of their Darwinism is to be in the face of religion. “ID” uses exactly the same fact-sets as all the biological disciplines; it merely leaves God to open minds, rather than insisting upon a causative sequence designed expressly to exclude a Creator.

Darwinists are on a holy war. Dr. Krauss calls Darwinists everywhere to united and become evangelists to preach Christianity to Christians. That is Darwinian Christianity, which by definition atheistic according to leading Darwinians like the ones that I quoted. You also have stealth atheists pretending to be Christians when in reality they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. These stealth atheists glorify Forrest who despise Christians and claim that Darwinian evolution has rendered God irrelevant if not non-existent. These stealth atheists won’t fool true Christian.

  69 Responses to “Why The Deception”

  1. Just ask the average garden variety Darwinian mystic just what role does a Christian or any other kind of God play in the Darwinian scheme. I can assure you it will be met with silence.

  2. That would depend on whom you ask. If you ask Krauss he will tell you that god can play any role that you want. You just have to keep god under your bed or basement. Whisper it to yourself in the shower. It is your own personal little belief. For the rest of the sane world, we can speak of chance and random mutations and materialistic naturalism as the creator of all things.

    Now if you ask Forrest or Provine they will just say that you are crazy if you think god has any role at all.

  3. No one argues that Christians should keep their views out of the public fora. You miss the point: Government shouldn’t have religious views, and whenever anyone tries to hijack government to force religious views, that hijacking is illegal, immoral, and must be opposed.

    So when the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, tried to hijack the Dover schools to preach intelligent design, even as just a “warning,” the preaching was stopped. The religious freedom of all of us requires that each of us resist such attempts to take it away from us.

    No, God cannot play “any role that you want.” That’s the classic creationist error. God plays the role God wants. Your desires do not enter the equation. Consequently, your desires may not be taught as science in opposition to the manifestations of God’s actions.

    Just stick to the facts, and we’ll all be better off. When it comes to evolution, teach the facts first.

  4. What impresses me about the American people, is that even though they do not have the intellectual means to confute the Darwinian priesthood in the academy, they smell a rat in Darwinism, & will not be intimidated into accepting its presumptions.

    How impressive to smell a rat where no rat exists! Is Warren an advocate of homeopathic medicine, too? The water remembers!

  5. No, God cannot play “any role that you want.” That’s the classic creationist error. God plays the role God wants. Your desires do not enter the equation. Consequently, your desires may not be taught as science in opposition to the manifestations of God’s actions.

    edarrell aren’t you lying now? What you mean is that your god cannot play any role that I want. Your god can play any role that “you want” .

    You’ve already said that Jesus Christ is not God because you don’t like what He did in the temple. You’ve already deny that “God Created” . Come on edarrell be honest and deny that you are a Christian and start your own religion with Forrest, Miller and Scott who agree with you.

    BTW, you accuse ID disguised as religion when you are the only one who keeps bringing up the topic. Dazzle us with evolutionary science that is able to refute ID.

  6. They don’t dispute the scientific evidences put forth by ID.

    I can’t dispute them when I’ve never been presented with them. What are the scientific evidences put forth by ID? Actually, that’s strange, because scientific theories don’t “put forth” evidences; evidence puts forth scientific theories. You have it backwards, but that’s because IDists/creationists start with the answer and word backwards to the evidence, while scientific theories (such as evolution) start with the evidence and work forwards to the answer.

  7. ETA – “…and word backwards…” should be “…and work backwards…”

  8. Intelligent Design is as plain as the nose on one’s face and never should have been presented as a subject for debate. My God, Dembski is even trying to prove it mathematically. That is like trying to prove pregnancy mathematically. What is there to prove?

    It is a mandatory starting place for any rational view of either ontogeny or phylogeny. It lies at the heart of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which remains in complete accord with everything we really know about both.

    “Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
    Leo Berg, Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law, page 134

  9. Speaking of Holy Wars:

    “Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Natural Selection.”
    after Karl Marx

    “Creationists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Bibles.”
    ibid

    The truth lies elsewhere.

  10. What is the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis?

  11. “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” is the title of the paper I published in Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166, 2005. It is also available at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum and elsewhere on the internet.

  12. My blog also has that title.

    prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

  13. “Teleological,” you ascribe to me many non-Christian views which I have never voiced. You strive to insult my faith. Why?

  14. Eh. Shoulda been “Teleologist.” The fingers remember sometimes what the brain does not intend to type.

  15. edarrell

    Why don’t you enlighten everyone as to what role God plays in the Darwinian fairy tale. You are welcome to do it at my blog too where no one has yet to offer his version of the MECHANISM of organic evolution, not Dawkins, nor Dembski, nor Johnson, nor Denton, nor Wells nor Behe nor Ruhe nor any of the lightweights like Elsberry, P.Z. Meyer , Scott Page or yourself for that matter. Come on man be the first. Show us all what you are made of.

  16. John,

    I don’t pretend to speak for God. I’m not sure, from science, what role God plays in evolution, just as you cannot be.

    My faith informs me that God is the creator. Further, my faith informs me that creation, from the hand of God, does not lie. If creation manifests evolution — and it does — I am not one to gainsay God. Why do you?

  17. ID offends Darwinism at its atheistic core.

    Good heavens! Not “Darwinism!!!”

    ID offends all truth seekers to the core. ID offends evolution to its Christian origins. ID, positing no findings of new fact, and sowing only strife wherever it apears, offends all truth-loving humans, no matter their faith.

    If “Darwinism’s atheistic core” is offended, that core, whatever it may be, must be truth-loving.

    That is what you meant to say, right?

  18. “Teleological,” you ascribe to me many non-Christian views which I have never voiced. You strive to insult my faith. Why?

    edarrell, it was not meant as an insult but a declaration of truth. I only wish I could have confidence that you are a Christian. “4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:4)” The views that you’ve express and associate with is not Christian. I am sorry. I can’t lie to make it better for you. There is no compromise in faith because it is not for Man to compromise. It is the Word of God. To recap: When I quoted the incident where Christ drove out the money-changers from the temple. You reply calling that scurrilous. When I quoted the definition of Darwinian science proclaiming that God is outside of nature and therefore by definition have no perceivable role in creation you seem to agree with Ken Miller’s statement. That definition is absolutely contrary to the Word of God where He said “God Created” . You readily praise Barbara Forrest who is religiously anti-Christian and agree with her view of Darwinian science that God has no role in His Creation. If I am wrong about your views please feel free to clarify with specific explanation of how you see God Created that is consonant with Forrest and Miller’s definition. You can also explain how you can characterize the actions of Christ as scurrilous.

    Like I said if you are that antithetical to the Bible, please don’t force your definition of Christianity upon the rest of us. If nothing else do it out of courtesy.

  19. edarrell,

    ID offends all truth seekers to the core.

    Don’t be such a hypocrite. You accuse Christians of telling lies and mocking Jones. What do you think you are doing? We are all humans with human emotions and frailties. When you constantly insult people calling them liars and trying to deceive people, you don’t expect them to reply back in terse language? What makes you so grandiose and omniscience to imply that just because someone holds to an ID view do not seek truth?

    My faith informs me that God is the creator. Further, my faith informs me that creation, from the hand of God, does not lie. If creation manifests evolution– and it does– I am not one to gainsay God. Why do you?

    The Darwinian view does not say that God use evolution to create. On the contrary, the Darwinian view claims that God play no role in creation and you affirm that Darwinian view.

  20. John,

    Ed Darrel apparently isn’t made of much, he is the type that likes to say things behind your back, here is an example ( he is refering to you John)….

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/john_a_davison_orders_a_pizza/

    Damn, but old age is a bitch. Coupled with a tinge of insanity, and a healthy does of inanity, it’s still no fun.

    But that doesn’t mean an old person needs to become a bitcher.

    So far I’ve refused to visit Davison’s site. The one-act play will have to do.

    I found the last sentence of this Ed Darrel quote amusing. Ed literally lives at evo/id blogs (just do a google search on his name to see his numerous comments, and that doesn’t even count the time he spends lurking) but somehow he “refuses” to visit your blog, even now after you directly challenged him. That says a lot to me.

    Ed said..

    If creation manifests evolution– and it does– I am not one to gainsay God. Why do you?

    1:Do you agree with Stephen J Gould’s view on evolution, that we could get different results if we hit the “rewind button” on life? If so, explain to us how this view is supported by what is said in the Bible.

    2: Do you subscribe to the “theistic-evolution” view that evolution has a “direction” or “goal” but it isn’t possible for human beeings to observe or understand it? If so, explain why you accept Darwinian evolution as the “truth” yet have a belief system that runs contradictory to the “unguided” version of Darwinian evolution that the pro-evo scientists subscribe to?

    3: If you have a different view all together, please explain.

  21. Well said Teleologist.

  22. eldorn

    I have very little respect for Stephen J. Gould or Ernst Mayr or Richard Dawkins all for the same reason. They ignored the greatest evoluitionary minds of two centuries in order to promote their own Godless purposeless agenda. I have rejected all of Darwinism as meaningless in favor of a new hypothesis which assumes for sound reasons that there has been a plan. It is called the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and there is no reason whatsoever for me to further explain it here or elsewhere. It is now for all time on the shelves of the world’s libraries right along with the contributions of my predecessaors that made it possible.

  23. edarrell, like Alan Fox, is a member of one of Wesley Elsberry’s “Goon squads,” the sole purpose for which is to sally forth from the Darwinian Alamo to do everything that can be done to silence and corrupt the opposition. I regard them as about as significant as a flea. They continue gloriously presenting living proof that Darwinism is the biggest hoax in recorded history. It’s wonderful!

    “War, God help me, I love it so!”
    General George S. Patton, with Albert Einstein and myself, a convinced predestinationist.

    How do you like them pickled pig’s feet?

  24. Is ID compatible with your Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, John?

  25. John,

    I have very little respect for Stephen J. Gould or Ernst Mayr or Richard Dawkins all for the same reason.

    Well I am not really a “fan” of people like Gould or Dawkins either. I brought up Gould in the 2nd part of my previous comment in an attempt to find out what version of “theistic-evolution” Ed Darrel considered to be the “truth” and why he feels it is compatible with Christianity.

  26. Interesting John. Could it be that the bloggers and blogees at Teleological Blog are witnessing a new solution to the problem of origin? Are we in for a surprise or something? I can feel the suspense mounting .

  27. Benjii

    Intelligent design is a mandatory starting point without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny can ever make sense. It is the sine qua non of scientific inquiry in every field. Why Dembski, Behe, Wells and the other IDIsts insisted on presenting it for debate is beyond me. We all know what happens when things are debated. “Debating teams” magically appear and nothing ever becomes resolved.

    “Since God found it necessary to limit man’s intelligence, why didn’t he also limit his stupidity.”
    Konrad Adenauer

  28. John, I find many of your writings to be baffling. Do you, or do you not agree with ID. Do you believe in teleology–as far as biology is concerned? Would you in the future consider yourself an ID theorist?

  29. Benjii

    I am afraid I cannot hrelp you. Maybe someone else can.

  30. Hello, everyone, and Hi to Professor Davison.

    John and I are old friends:

    edarrell, like Alan Fox, is a member of one of Wesley Elsberry’s “Goon squads,” the sole purpose for which is to sally forth from the Darwinian Alamo to do everything that can be done to silence and corrupt the opposition.

    However John misrepresents me as having any connection with Wesley Elsberry; I doubt Dr Elsberry is aware of my existence.

    Benji,

    You have found a new home. Do you know if Bill closed his site by choice? I wonder what the moderating policy here is; a quick check on the comments suggests a more open approach than Uncommon Descent.

    Have a look at some of the Brainstorm threads at ISCID and check out Professor Davison’s comments there. That will give you an idea of how productive it will be to pursue any kind of elaboration of his PEH.

  31. Why does “Darwinism” upset American fundamentalists so much?
    Religion and Science seem orthogonal to me; they inhabit different dimensions. It appears to an outside observer that this is a contrived and parochial dispute, more to do with power and control than a genuine search for truth.

  32. Hi Benjii,
    Some people don’t think it is necessary that they be force-fit into some pigeon-hole before their ideas can be assessed.

    I have laughed at the times where I’ve accidentally posted as ‘anonymous’ on some threads where I am well-known and neither my ‘opponents’ nor those on ‘my side’ knew how to respond to me. People on either side would tip-toe around, not quite sure what to make of the points because at the root, as it turns out, most of us are not as diametrically opposed as we tend to think.

  33. I wonder what the moderating policy here is

    Welcome Alan,

    Our policy prohibits the usual blatant profanity including attempts to disguise these words with * and other symbols. No blatant personal attacks for attack sake. Grossly off topic and refusal to address the contents of the main topic might be censored. Finally there is a catchall covered under the prerogative of the moderators, which we endeavor to use judiciously. Fortunately we have not found a need to do so yet since the existence of this blog.

  34. Alan,

    Religion and Science seem orthogonal to me

    Unfortunately, many of us sees Darwinism as making metaphysical claims antithetical to religion disguised as science. Many also view certain Darwinian claims as either poor science or not science at all. These two areas of dispute have been the topic of many of the posts in this blog.

  35. Alan Fox is just another member of Elsberry’s “Goon squad ” who is now pursuing me here with his blatant lies. He is one of the inner circle at Panda’s Thumb as is proved by his posting in the exclusive “After The Bar Closes” forum reserved only for the elite. He is a demonstrated compulsive liar. If he keeps exposing himself as such I will have to start calling him “The Flasher.” To say he has no connection with Elsberry is a transparent mendacity. He is one of Elsberry’s most trusted “goons,” sure to do what Elsberry hasn’t the balls to do. I am also willing to bet he has no biological background at all and I doubt if Alan Fox is his real name. Don’t take my word for anything. Plug him into Google and see where he surfaces. I am also willing to bet that his IQ is in the room temperature range.

    I am no friend of Alan Fox, edarrell, P.Z. Meyers, Wesley Elsberry or any of the other regulars at Panda’s Pathetic Pollex. They don’t even qualify as enemies, just ethical, moral and intellectual flotsam and jetsam left over after the sinking of the good ship Darwin. That ship went down in 1871 when Mivart asked the simple question – How can Natural Selection be involved in a structure that has not yet appeared?

  36. Teleologist

    Thanks for the welcome. Just to clarify matters, I am English but now live in France. I knew nothing about ID prior to February 2005, when I encountered someone on a blogsite (related to language help for non-native speakers) with threads discussing various topics to help with language. As I recall, one thread was on the subject of “do you believe in God”. Possibly due to an upbringing in the Anglican church and church school education, and experiencing some hypocrisy from those entrusted with my spiritual care, I developed an agnostic outlook and expressed this view on the thread. I had a response from “Rhetor” who told me to read up on Dembski, Behe, Berlinski and even provided a link to John Davison’s site.

    I became interested, not because the ideas expressed by these people appealed to me at all, but why they should appeal to a swathe of people in America. Via the internet, I have followed the dispute between pro and anti IDers, especially the Dover trial which has been addictive.

    I am a skeptic at heart, and find other people’s certainties unconvincing but fascinating. John Davison suggested I should look in here, so here I am.

    BTW, Alan Fox is exactly what is on my birth certificate and passport, and I completed an undergraduate course in biochemistry in 1971 but did not pursue a career in science.

  37. Alan,

    I am sorry that you had to personally experience the frailty of the human condition. This is not a blog for ecclesiastic or religious matters (except religious Darwinism), although I did make a few exceptions.

    Feel free to comment on any of the ID and evolution debate in this blog.

  38. Hey Alan,

    Did you get kicked out of Bill’s blog? Someone said you came back as a different user. After being caught, you were kicked out again, according to DaveScot. I hope you stay on this blog. Let’s keep a level of mutual respect.

    Hope to exchange messages with you.

  39. Teleologist, you defend the many, manifest falsehoods put forth by ID advocates in the recent Pennsylvania trial — and then you have the gall to question my Christianity?

  40. So, eldorn, do you endorse that way of ordering pizza? Is it parody or not?

  41. Teleologist

    You now have two members of Elsberry’s “Goon Squad” posting here. Enjoy.

    Happy New Year

  42. edarrell, do not make any more personal attacks without specific examples to justify your accusations. eldorn and I have used specific examples to expose your hypocrisies. I am telling you out right your deeds and words are contrary to the Word of God. Just as you can arrogantly and confidently tongue lashes others, I am even more confident that you do not represent the beliefs of Christians.

  43. If you regard questions and rebuttal of the things you say as personal attacks, there is little I can do to promise that I won’t do that.

    I’m curious as to what you regard as personal attacks, teleologist, since so far you’ve attacked my faith, my views of Christianity, you’ve called me a liar (with no example of a falsehood that I can find), etc.

    Have I done any of these things to you?

    I regret you feel attacked. I regret that you attacked me. My back is large, I’m old but tough — I can ignore attacks on me for the most part. I would ask for fairness, however.

  44. I said:

    No, God cannot play “any role that you want.” That’s the classic creationist error. God plays the role God wants. Your desires do not enter the equation. Consequently, your desires may not be taught as science in opposition to the manifestations of God’s actions.

    Teleologist said:

    edarrell aren’t you lying now? What you mean is that your god cannot play any role that I want. Your god can play any role that “you want” .

    No, I’m making a statement of what most Christians believe. God acts as God wishes, and not as we wish. At a very basic level, surely you would agree that God does not answer every prayer as prayed. On a more serious level, I think it behooves us to teach, in science classes, what nature manifests, and to teach it as fact. That’s a basic sort of ecumenical agreement that has kept western science advancing for the past half millennium or so — we agree, starting from Descartes’ views (no matter how faulty they may have been found to be by later brain researchers), that you and I experience light the same way, and when we measure light, colors of light, etc., our measurements will be presumed to of the same stuff. If you use a ruler to measure some distance, and I mark a similar distance off with the same ruler, or another one closely calibrated, we presume that we have measured the same distance.

    That’s all I’m saying. We don’t get to say the universe operates with angels pushing planets in perfectly circular orbits, if for no other reason than we measure elliptical orbits. (You may wish to argue that angels still do the pushing; I’ll note that Newton’s physics suggest that the planets could move that way in the absence of angels, simply by the operation of motion and gravity).

    In any case, if you and I disagree on some theological point, that does not make the disagreement “a lie.” I resent your implication. It’s unfair, and unwarranted.

    Teleologist said:

    You’ve already said that Jesus Christ is not God because you don’t like what He did in the temple.

    No, I have never denied the divinity of Jesus, nor did I say I didn’t like what Jesus did in the Temple. I’m not sure what I could have said to give you that impression, but it’s incorrect.

    Teleolgist said:

    You’ve already deny that “God Created” .

    No, I said quite the opposite. My faith informs me that God created everything. Everything. My faith also informs me, in the Christian tradition, that creation is good (see Genesis), and our western scientific assumption is that nature, since it comes directly from the hand of God and is a testament of God, is truthful and correct. What it manifests is not deception, is the traditional, Christian view. I have not deviated from that point. I have questioned others who appear to have deviated from that view.

    But there is no fair way that my statements could be interpreted as a denial of God’s creative actions, at least no fair way that I see.

    Teleologist said:

    Come on edarrell be honest and deny that you are a Christian and start your own religion with Forrest, Miller and Scott who agree with you.

    Miller and I agree on much. Forrest and I are quite at odds on the issue of God, as are Scott and I.

    Still, Genie Scott, Barbara Forrest, and Kenneth Miller are all quite polite, bright and ethical people. I have no difficulty discussing issues with them, especially issues on which we disagree. Dr. Miller and I have engaged in rather extensive exchanges on the material in the textbooks he authors; some things he has changed, some he has not. He always has a good scientific reason to back his scientific statements, and he always has solid pedagogical reasons to back his pedagogical actions.

    Scott, Forrest, Miller and I agree, I think, that we should offer our kids the best science courses possible — for their sake, for the future of our nation, and as a statement of ethical action for teachers. Surely you would find common ground there, too.

    BTW, you accuse ID disguised as religion when you are the only one who keeps bringing up the topic. Dazzle us with evolutionary science that is able to refute ID.

    I don’t think there’s much of a disguise. I think the court in Dover was a fair hearing, and on the basis of the evidence presented — fairly, with rules to make sure the hearing was fair — the decision found that putting ID into the classroom is a religiously motivated idea.

    Now, legally, that would be inaccurate were there a significant body of research to support intelligent design. That has always been the case. Wholly apart from the statements of ID leaders to the effect that they are motivated by religion,* the lack of science behind ID points to a lack of any pedagogical reason or science reason to include it in the classroom. I think that it’s particularly and especially premature to put it in any classroom when there is not a single course in any American university science department where one can study intelligent design to see what the science is and what could and should be presented in any class period on the subject.

    And, be fair: Your post opening this thread explicitly dives into the religious issue (inaccurately, I think, but you’ve not chosen to pursue my response on that point). I was not the one who introduced religion into this thread.

    If you would rather discuss difficulties with Cartesian inquiry in science, let’s do. I think there is a lot of bluster from ID advocates on the issue — when we try to pin them down, say, in a deposition in which they have sworn to tell the truth, it turns out they rarely have any complaints to make.

    What is wrong with looking for proximate causes in science? How would NOT looking for them make science possible at all?

    * Here I’m referring to the specific statements of the Grandfather of Intelligent Design, Phillip Johnson, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. William Dembski, and the fund-raising pitch of the Discovery Institute, among others. I’ve seen Dr. Behe here in Dallas on more than one occasion — sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ, by Christian Dallas, but never by any scientific organization. It’s difficult to follow this issue for long without running headlong into the fact that intelligent design is not discussed in science meetings, but is instead almost exclusively discussed in religious meetings.

  45. I couldn’t care less what edarrell or Alan Fox feel about Christianity. It is their blind adherence to Darwinism that I find unbelievable. Dobzhansky also claimed to be a Christian even though he remained a devout Darwinian to the end and was personally involved in the experimental demonstration that Darwinism was a failed hypothesis. The notion of a Christian Darwinian is absurd for the simple reason that there is no role for a God of any description in the Darwinian paradigm. Are we really to believe that God operated in ways that are not subject to discovery, that we are mere accidents? There is no question that is exactly what Gould believed and said as much when he claimed – “Intelligence was an evolutionary accident, ” or when he compared evolution to “A drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door.”

    What kind of a world are we living in I wonder.

    I have just completed an incisive experiment when I asked anyone anywhere to present his view of the MECHANISM of an undeniable past evolution, only to discover that no one was willing to do exactly that which I have done, which is to present such an hypothesis. Furthermore, having published it, I have asked for evidence that it is inadequate, something I have been unable to do myself and have been greeted with the same silence that prevailed when I asked others to offer their versions of an event no one has ever observed. I have personally invited some of the leading spokespersons in the world of the contemporary literature, Dembski, Dawkins, Ruse, Behe, Wells, Johnson and others not one of whom was willing to defend his convictions concerning an event no one has ever witnessed. Instead all we see are adversaries engaging in personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject presumably at hand which is the question of our own origins.

    Everyone is an expert when no one knows nothing for certain. As usual Montaigne put it well.

    “Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

  46. edarrall, I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want to talk about science, fine. Don’t you dare impose your beliefs as Christian and constantly drag Christianity into your argument against ID. When Darwinists pretend to be wolves in sheep’s clothing what do you think Christians will do? Throw away our Bibles and bow at the theology of Darwinian Christianity? It is totally despicable for Darwinists to tell Christians what Christians truly believes.

    let me remind you that it was you who first attack Christians in the thread regarding the Dover case. And specifically with this unsubstantiated attack at me.

    And don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re noble if you’re telling whopping fibs against the reputation of a solid federal judge.

    Ask yourself, seriously: What would Jesus do?

    You are the one who called me a liar. You questioned my actions as adverse to Christianity.

    I’m making a statement of what most Christians believe. God acts as God wishes, and not as we wish. At a very basic level, surely you would agree that God does not answer every prayer as prayed.

    You are twisting what Christians believe. Don’t you know anything about Christian doctrines? Of course Christians believe that God is sovereign. This is the reason when God said “He Created” we accept that as truth. Christians are not the ones limiting God. It is people like you who “claim” to be Christian who denies that “God Created” . You deny God by adhering to Darwinism, which denies God a priori in science. Will you unequivocally deny the Darwinian premise?

    No, I have never denied the divinity of Jesus, nor did I say I didn’t like what Jesus did in the Temple. I’m not sure what I could have said to give you that impression, but it’s incorrect.

    I will remind you again for at least the second time. In answer to you question, “what would Jesus do” . To those who pretend to Christians when they profess things that are antithetical to God. I said,

    It is crystal clear what Jesus would do.

    12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
    13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12-13)

    21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (Mt 7:21)

    What was your reply to me?

    Do you really think Jesus used such scurrilous and false attacks on anyone, even His enemies? I asked what you thought Jesus would to do suggest you should consider not making such attacks.

    I quoted to you what Jesus would do and you called it scurrilous and false attacks?

    There is no point to answering the rest of your post until you’ve answer these questions. You have a habit of just bloviating without answering questions. Let’s just start with this first.

  47. The notion of a Christian Darwinian is absurd for the simple reason that there is no role for a God of any description in the Darwinian paradigm. Are we really to believe that God operated in ways that are not subject to discovery, that we are mere accidents?

    Thank you, thank you, John! This is the hypocrisy from edarrell that I must reject. He claims to believe that “God Created” but he confess the essential Darwinian dogma that God had no role in the diversity of life. When you asked him to explain God’s role in the Darwinian scheme. He can’t because Darwinism denies God period.
    Ken Miller ” The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”

    Barbara Forrest “To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible”

    Did edarrell disagree with either of these definitions? NO! Can he find any Darwinists who disagree with these definitions? NO! Can edarrell show from Scripture where God is excluded from His Creation? NO! QED I must reject edarrell’s claim of Christianity.

  48. Edarrell said..

    [quote]So, eldorn, do you endorse that way of ordering pizza? Is it parody or not?[/quote]

    If by parody, you mean making mean spirited insults behind someone’s back, I will go with that. While the people in the ID camp are far from perfect, I see WAY to much of that type of ridicule (just look at the panda’s thumb blog for evidence) coming from the evo-crowd. Even if you do genuinely feel you are intellectually superior, and that the ID crowd and “anti-evolutionists” are ignorant when it comes to science and biology, it isn’t neccassary to constantly ridicule them about it. And if your goal is to persuade them, I think that type of behavior has the opposite effect.

    I think you (and many at panda’s thumb) could learn a lot from someone like Doctor(Logic). Even though I often disagree with him, he writes some very thoughtful comments (I especially enjoyed his comments/discussions on the tuquoque blog) and tends to stay away (from the comments of his I have seen) from the personal attacks and cheap shots.

    With that said, I don’t doubt you are a Christian. But as far as God is concerned, I just don’t understand why you (like Ken Miller) are so “over assertive” when it comes to darwinian evolution and scientific explanations beeing the truth, especially when biologists use such a strict naturalistic methodology. What if God chose to intervene (I am not saying he would have to) on numerous occassions in the creation proccess. Biologists would be completely off the mark due to their use of occam’s razor and the naturalistic assumptions they make with their methodology. What if God actually worked VERY quickly during a literal 7 days of creation, and achieved in 7 days (this point is just for sake of argument, I am not a YEC) what would appear to be billions of years to science. Again, science would be off the mark if that were the case. I am not trying to say any of my above statements are scientific, or should be taught to anyone in college or highschool. I am just trying to point out why I feel you put to much weight behind scientific theories when it comes to your religious beliefs.

    Like you said previously

    God acts as God wishes, and not as we wish.

    Yes and God doesn’t neccassarily have to work the way scientists think he does either.

  49. I think you (and many at panda’s thumb) could learn a lot from someone like Doctor(Logic). Even though I often disagree with him, he writes some very thoughtful comments (I especially enjoyed his comments/discussions on the tuquoque blog) and tends to stay away (from the comments of his I have seen) from the personal attacks and cheap shots.

    I want to second this comment from eldorn. It’s been a long time since I’ve been able to carry on a cordial debate with someone who supports Darwinian evolution. Thank you doctor(logic) for your participation.

  50. To Benji,

    I think I was banned by Bill half a dozen times. It was certainly not for using insults; maybe it was for asking awkward questions. One banning resulted from my comment: could you sum up the theory of ID for a layman? I think his policy of arbitrary censorship back-fired on him in the end, and may have contributed to his blog folding. I live in France and have the surname Fox, so used a few pseudonyms which weren’t hard to guess. I was surprised how long it took to be spotted the last time.

    You may wonder why I bothered, especially as I have no particular axe to grind in this debate, other than I strongly believe in the free exchange of ideas. Well, someone had to attempt to counter the unadulterated nonsense that Josh Bozeman, especially, used to post.

    Would calling another’s comment “unadulterated nonsense” be a personal insult if true, BTW? I never noticed you overdoing the venom in your posts.

  51. Prof. Davison writes

    I couldn’t care less what edarrell or Alan Fox feel about Christianity.

    Nor should you. Other than mention in passing that I consider myself an agnostic (today at least), I don’t recall discussing my religious beliefs. Nor are others’ beliefs of concern to me. People should be free to express their beliefs without fear, to the extent that that expression does not infringe the rights of others.

    BTW, I don’t know Ed Darrell at all, so he may express a different view (which is of course his right and prerogative!)

  52. Teleologist

    I have to disagree that “Darwinism is a Religion”, although using your blog’s dict. option, #4 could come close.

    1.
    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    And it might be that we understand the term “Darwinism” differently. To me, the meaning is narrow, i. e. adherence to the ideas that Darwin proposed. Scientists working in evolutionary biology today do not carry “Origin of Species” around as a reference book, nor have many of them read it. His ideas have not been contradicted as much as built on and surpassed so to equate work being done today with Darwin is like calling particle physics “Daltonism”.

    Also, it should be obvious there are no Darwinist churches where the faithful gather to worship, or other badges or demonstrations of faith. I realise that current evolutionary theory conflicts with the tenets of some (but by no means all) religions, but I am puzzled as to why a particular item in a catechism assumes such importance, that a branch of science needs to be denigrated so energetically. People could be more accommodating and flexible.

  53. Alan,

    And it might be that we understand the term “Darwinism” differently. To me, the meaning is narrow, i. e. adherence to the ideas that Darwin proposed.

    That would also be my definition as well except I would add with modification, such as in the case of the modern synthesis. But the question is deeper than that isn’t it? How do you go about studying the ideas proposed by Darwin and the subsequent synthesis? Empirical methodology has been the hallmark in the quest for knowledge. Why should Darwinism be allowed to deviate from this method?

    Here is another definition of religion.
    relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality

    Beside the lack of empirical evidence for Darwinism, there are the metaphysical claims of Atheism by Darwinists.

    Lawrence Krauss “And you really hit the point. Scientists–we have lost the public relation battle in many ways, and I didn’t go into it. Scientists are particularly bad at public relations in many ways. But one thing we have to do is become evangelists because people are trying to attack science are evangelists.”

    Ken Miller ” The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”

    Barbara Forrest “To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible”

    Scott’s metaphysics
    As I said, Scott is indeed an atheist and materialist.

    Scott espouses the view that there is a distinction between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.

    One problem with Scott’s dualism is that, even though technically correct, it smacks of political correctness, or at least lacks philosophical courage.

    Steve Weinberg who’s a physicist and notably anti-religious have said “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”

    Daniel Dennett:
    If they said that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with the existence of a divine creator, then I must say that I find that claim to be disingenuous.

  54. Alan Fox’s definition of ‘Darwinism’ leaves out such evolution proponents as Dawkins, Miller and Ruse who happily call themselves ‘Darwinists’ while embracing modern ideas never imagined by Darwin.

  55. To Alan Fox,

    I got kicked out of Bill’s blog one time for disrespectful comments towards Matzke from the PT. Eventually, he reinstated me after seeing my commitment to ID. At first, I wasn’t sure what to think of it. I guess I felt like Bill was a bit too possessive over his blog. Bozeman was a cool guy. There seemed to be some heated discussions between you, Bozeman and DaveScot. Oh well, since the blog is down, I’ll probably never exchange comments with them again. Hopefully, we can continue these discussions over at this blog or at telic thoughts.

  56. Didn’t DaveScot come across as disrespectful?

  57. Chance never played any role in evolution and with that pronouncement I now leave this blog to find a more productive purpose for my remaining days.

    “Since God found it necessary to limit man’s intelligence why didn’t he also limit his stupidity?”
    Konrad Adenauer

    Adios

  58. What do you mean by that?

  59. Benjii,
    You can ask John over at his blog Prescribed Evolution
    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18568882&postID=113094610998517478

  60. Daron’s link doesn’t work for me, Benji. You can try the following link toProfessor Davison

    If you are really interested in John’s ideas, have a look here, which will give you an idea of the sort of dialogue the professor is capable of conducting.

    BTW did you refer me to David Chiu, the DI fellow, and examples of his work as peer-reviewed and in support of ID? (This was on Bill’s blog a while ago.) I got banned for posting that I thought mention of David Chiu’s work was a red herring.

  61. Hi Benjii,
    For a very interesting discussion involving John A. Davison, and what Phil Engle calls a very good synopsis of John’s Prescribed Evolutionary Theory try brainstorms at ISCID.
    Hope this link works
    http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548-p-4.html

  62. Thank you, Daron.

  63. I want to thank Alan Fox for calling attention to everything I had to say at Panda’s Thumb. I wouldn’t change a word of any of it and if Elsberry hadn’t banned me would have had much more of the same to offer. Fortunately I am still able to hold forth here, at “brainstorms” and elsewhere. Panda’s Thumb is one of the last bastions of Darwinian mysticism and it was my greatest pleasure to have been instrumental in exposing it as exactly that. The denizens there refuse to respond at my blog where I have openly asked for their participation. Perhaps they will surface here. So far they have only sent lightweight messengers in the persons of Alan Fox and eddarell. Bring on the A team. What a bunch of cowardly losers they have proved themselves to really be. I love it so!

    “I’m an old campaigner and I love a good fight.”
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

  64. The denizens there refuse to respond at my blog where I have openly asked for their participation. Perhaps they will surface here.

    That will be the day John. I’ve decimated his designer argument in his paper “The Darwinian thieves covet spoil: the Darwinian arguing from ignorance” . 😀

  65. Teleologist

    The answer to who produced the artifacts in the photos: crop circles, Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, is in all examples, human beings.

  66. Incidentally, Alan Fox earned a bachelors degree in biochemistry decades ago and then by his own admission abandoned a career in science. So much for Alan Fox. I know nothing concerning the credentials of eddarell, or Sir Toe Jam or most of the others at Elsberry’s intellectual groupthink. They maintain a discrete silence about their own publications in the field of evolution so I naturally assume they have none. Their publications are apparently in that most ephemeral of all journals where peer revue is of course unknown, The Weekly Journal of Egogratification.

    I love it so!

  67. […] science. It is the opinion of this blog that Darwinism is not science, and it is completely anti-Christian. See also: The Anatomy of Darwinism The Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 2) The Anatomy of Darwin […]

  68. […] edarrell: ” you have the gall to question my Christianity?” Seriously, Lenny, the bottom line is that with the help of PZ Myers and other folks (like me) who have had all they can take with this country’s obsession with religious garbage, the influence of religion, i.e., “Christianity” , will be eroded. Then we’ll get the prayers off our coins and out of our schools. […]

  69. […] I can talk about the Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists, the Atheism’s Trojan Horse and Why The Deception? […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.