Posted on 08/10/2009 8:52:29 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Thanks to Baron Scarpia for alerting us to this website, which outlines the rigorous academic standards [Quote-miners, please note: this is sarcasm] which William Dembski’s students have to achieve in his courses on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
If you follow the links, you will see that it is full of gems: we won’t spoil them for you by flagging them all up, but – just to whet your appetite – you will notice that, at both undergrad and masters level, there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites! This could explain a lot.
(Excerpt) Read more at richarddawkins.net ...
What popped out at me is not so much that Dembski gives college credit for trolling the Internet. I somewhat expected that. What gets me is this part of the curriculum:
For those who think they need mercy on missed or poorly answered quizzes, please get Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and write a 750 to 1000 word reflection on lessons to be drawn from that book for Christian apologetics. You need to have spent at least 6 hours carefully reading the book and sign your name to that effect
He definitely refers to the the book in a positive light. Reviews on books that counter his views are referred to as "critical reviews." So know we know, the Intelligent Design is a radical movement using Alinsky's tactics.
It is also sad that the supposed right is mimicking the radical left education where students are expected to regurgitate the views of the professor, no individual thinking allowed.
I’m having trouble loading Dawkins’ website, maybe I better pray for some help. :)
I find Dawkins comical. He never responds to any questions from his critics except to ask them back the same question about their own (presumably Christian) faith, laced with some naughty words about Christians in particular.
Not only has he never been able to logically prove that there's no Judeo-Christian God, or any other type of god, he's even said he himself is not entirely convinced of there being no gods whatsoever ("there's probably no God?" Come on, where are your balls!). I would imagine that someone who uses logic to reject one set of beliefs would certainly use logic to accept another set of beliefs. The only problem is that Dawkins' own beliefs do not rise from logic, as he likes to claim, but rather his own faith that there are indeed no supernatural beings of any sort, as he is unwilling and unable to offer proof for this assertion.
Such rhetoric only serves to convince me that Dawkins is no atheist, but rather yet another anti-Christian bigot who would never attack any faith other than those of Christian flavor.
Psst - one can never “prove” a negative. As such, one can never honestly reject the claim of a deity’s existence 100%.
Dawkins is being consistent.
That is incorrect. If you are knowledgeable in set theory you can easily and conclusively prove negatives. I am simply stating that Dawkins is no different than any other believer since he cannot prove his claims.
I also find it laughable that he himself can't prove what he believes, even though he believes that proof should be the foundation of one's belief.
To be clear, you are asking Dawkins (or anyone) to “prove” a supernatural being, which by definitions exists outside of “nature,” does NOT exist?
I see 3 problems with that, despite your argument to the contrary:
Empirically proving negatives is scientifically impossible.
Science does not deal with the supernatural
Science does not ever deal with “proof” anyway.
The burden of proof is solely on the believer. You say something exists, demonstrate through a repeatable test that it exists. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Hmm, apparently Dawkins did not get the memo.
Empirically proving negatives is scientifically impossible.
Again, this is not true. If you know what is in your set of things, you can clearly prove that something is not in a given set if you have all the facts. Isn't this a fundamental of logic itself?
Science does not ever deal with “proof” anyway.
How is any sort of scientific concept validated? Other scientists try to to reproduce the concept independently. If this type of proof cannot be done, then the concept is rejected.
Dawkins is trying to extend his belief that there is no supernatural beings of any kind into the realm of science. He fails because his assertion cannot be scientifically proven. As is always the case though, anyone who challenges this is almost always asked to prove that their supernatual being of choice does exist. I know I cannot do this, and hence it is why it is a belief. I might be able to say that certain things that happen in the realm of science are the result of the actions of one or more supernatural beings, but I certainly cannot prove it.
Why not? Aren't atheists credible? Anyway, here's one assignment:
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasiaAnd here is something that can help with that assignment.
I just don't like Dawkins.
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia
Darwin explicitly stated that eugenics (and logically following, the rest) would be harmful to the superiority of a society because humans operate on a level where social cohesion and our "sympathy" is more important than pure physical traits. Actions such as those erase our sympathy and make a society less cohesive and thus weaker. IOW, are you really going to fight for your society when they'll just off you or a member of your family when you or they are no longer useful? Of course not.
And euthenasia is an illogical addition to the list. Someone at the point of euthenasia is already out of the physical natural selection chain, they won't be reproducing anymore. Euthenasia is purely a matter of the sympathy and cohesion of the society. I know creationists like to blame all sorts of evils on Darwin, but please at least keep it semi-logical.
Those making the positive assertion that there is a God are burdened with the responsibility of providing supporting scientific evidence and argument, not those who find the evidence lacking. As you said, this type of proof couldn't be done, so the concept (of God) was rejected.
Dawkins goes a step further and makes the positive assertion that there's no possible way God could exist. Here's where I start disagreeing with Dawkins because of his attempt to prove a negative, which I find illogical in this case, instead of simply not accepting the unproven assertion that God exists.
No, it's the other way around. Those who blather on about how there is no God, being as they are a tiresome burden on society, have the burden of proving whatever nonsense they are spouting.
English gets to be a problem here. One way this statement can in itself be the positive assertion that there is no god. The other is the rejection of claims that there is a god as inadequate. Thus you san say "there is no god" the same as you can say there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) because nobody has convincing argument or evidence that She exists.
Which way are you meaning your offensive statement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.