Replies

No, he is likening ‘suppressing’ HIS message (by denying the authority of Baylor University) DIRECTLY to an ‘Offense of the Gospel’;

If you read his comments on his blog ( where people like you are also free to register and post ), you will see that you are MISTAKEN.

He is likening what Baylor did to what the early Christian suppressors did.

And no, he is NOT DENYING Baylor's authority to do it. Of course he submits to their authority and is STILL on friendly terms with the school. He is simply registering his DISAPPROVAL and DISAPPOINTMENT with what they did.

Do not conflate the two issues.

because to them he wishes to represent the “DEFENDER OF THE FAITH” against that nasty Science that ‘Offends the Gospel’ i.e. his interpretation of the Gospel.

Nope, he wishes to present what he believes to be LEGITIMATE RESEARCH which ought not to be suppressed, not especially by a Christian school that believes in God.

When a Scientist falls back on the Gospel as his authority for the authenticity of his data or conclusions he has lost his way.

That would be true if Dembski was doing that in his scientific work. I challenged you before to show me where in his papers he actually invoked the gospels, thus far, I get nothing from you. Which of course shows you're deliberately misinterpreting what he said.

He is doing Apologetics not Science.

You have it backwards. He and Prof. Marks are doing Science. Apologetics is something he can do in another setting.

Moreover Dumbski

There ya go, bias showing again.

has signed on to a PR outfit that seeks to overturn the very nature of Science itself (see the “wedge” document).

Can you show me where he is a signatory ?

To Dumbski

Bias showing again.

opposing him is opposing the Gospel.

Nope, he never said that. That's you putting words in his mouth.

This makes him an egotistical twit as a theologist (syn theologian) and someone doing apologetics not Science.

Not at all. I've heard Dembski speak and I've seen him on TV and in debates, he is cool, calm, collected and never egotistical.

You can try to spin it all you want.

Actually it is obvious -- *YOU* are doing the spinning here. I am CORRECTING YOU.

His words are there in black and white.

Yes, and the meaning you want to put into it are your own, not his.

Denying the name of Baylor to his ID work is an ‘offense of the gospel’ in his wrongheaded way of thinking.

Nope, in his right headed way of thinking, denying Dr. Marks his desire to pursue research on evolutionary informatics smacks of academic suppression and does Baylor's prestige no good. *THAT* is how it ought to be seen. As it should be.

He has to be a signatory of the ‘wedge’ document? Please. Does a Communist have to have been an author of the Communist Manifesto in order to be a Commie? When one signs on to the Discovery Institute one buys into their goals aspirations and philosophy. Their goal is nothing less than an overthrow of methodological naturalism (i.e. natural explanations for natural phenomenon) to be replaced by “Isn’t it lovely that the Designer made everything so well designed, yet not well designed enough to change on its own without the guidance of the designers hand.”

Please name for me another Scientist who intimates that disagreement with his findings and conclusions is an “Offense of the Gospel”, or that ANY Science could possibly be an “Offense of the Gospel”.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ point was quite simply that when Science and your interpretation of the Bible are in conflict, it is your interpretation of the Bible that must give way; or one makes Christians the object of ridicule to those who know the facts of the situation. Dumbski Dembski’s position is that he expects better of a Baptist University than to allow Science to ‘Offend the Gospel’.

No discovery about the reality of the Universe and the laws that govern it could possibly be an affront to the creator of the Universe. That is why Dembski is a shoddy theologist (still a cromulent word), he thinks that the Gospel needs to be defended at a Baptist University against facts and theories. He is a fool, although an entertaining one. I especially liked how your supposed mathematical genius didn’t realize that the data set he cited was already normalized so he Renormalized it and found out that Australians are REALLY into Incompetent Design (what I call ‘Intelligent Design’ because it posits a Designer who creates a universe that cannot subsist without him plugging up the cracks and filling in the holes).