Replies

Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me and I'm always amazed at the closed-mindedness of those who pride themselves on scientific open-mindedness! There were so many excellent points in favor of Intelligent Design contained in this section of the book -- I was also thrilled that creationism and science (as well as reason and logic) were not as far apart as some would have us believe.

When a science-oriented person says he's open-minded, he means he will consider your evidence and your logical arguments. If you have none to present, he will wait until you do. You may consider this as being "closed-minded," but it's very far from that. I'm open-minded, but I never forget that I have a mind, and I'm very fussy about what I'll let into it. No facts? No logic? Sorry, no sale.

As for these authors with whom you are so impressed, I'll just say that when someone from outside of the careful peer-reviewed scientific community comes along and claims that virtually everything we know is wrong ... well, all sorts of alarm bells go off. Can't help it. If your authors should turn out to be right, I'll hear about it soon enough. We all will.

You seem to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you have closed your mind to the possibility of supernatural intervention. The evidence for Intelligent Design (and, therefore, Intelligent Designer) is overwhelming (DNA, the firmament, skin, atoms to name a very few), but you have closed off portions of that evidence (ie, supernatural intervention) because it doesn't meet your (mankind's) criteria. As for logic, I can only refer you to the book of Romans, which was written by an intellectual of the first rank (Paul).

I think my posts indicate that I have some reservations about Missler and that I don't know enough about Eastman to make a hard decision, so I don't know about being "so impressed" with them. Nevertheless, their argument for Intelligent Design as put forth in the pertinent section of The Creator Beyond Space and Time was excellent.

"Virtually everything" is a strong statement, one that I doubt you really mean since I doubt you have studied everything propounded by Missler and, in fact, I don't believe Missler and/or creationists are saying that everything science has done is wrong. For me, alarm bells go off when something is promoted by the "peer reviewed scientific community" having worked closely with doctors conducting empirical research in a clinical setting for publication.

I don't know if you'll take this recommendation from me, a Christian (**GASP**), but you might really enjoy these two books: (1) The Case for Christ, by Lee Stoebel; and (2) How Now Shall We Live?, by Charles Colson and Nancy R. Pearcey. I believe they will engage your intellect (if you do read either or both, I'd love to know your thoughts).

"If your authors should turn out to be right, I'll hear about it soon enough. We all will."

Amen.

You sort of came off as hounding another FReeper about the question of the age of the earth (when no one really knows for sure and there are plenty of good arguments for both sides -- sheesh!), so I've got a question for you, posed by someone named Alan Sandage: "How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?"

v3

I'm open-minded

Oh please! All you know is how to insult opponents! You call that open minded? You cannot discuss any subject without throwing in a bunch of ad hominems. You cannot even discuss the answers given to you and instead just attack those who disagree with you and are even too cowardly to direct the attacks to them but go around addressing them to 'All' or to one of your friends. In fact, here's an example - IN YOUR OWN WORDS - of your close mindedness -

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads,

62 posted on 12/29/2002 1:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry
From: Here .

Some opne-minded person, you only like to hear your side of the story and try to exclude others from the discussion.