Posted on 09/24/2009 6:08:52 AM PDT by xcamel
William Dembski, the “intelligent design” creationist who is a professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, has some rather interesting requirements for students of his creationism courses — 20% of their final grade comes from having written 10 posts promoting ID on “hostile” websites: Academic Year 2009-2010.
Spring 2009
Intelligent Design (SOUTHERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY #AP 410, 510, and 810; May 11 – 16, 2009)
NEW! THE DUE DATE FOR ALL WORK IN THIS COURSE IS AUGUST 14, 2009. Here’s what you will need to do to wrap things up:
AP410 — This is the undegrad [sic] course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP510 — This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
Thank you for making that fact clear.
Probably should have put UCANSEE2,ALL in the TO: box.
A question I would put to those “tens of thousands” then would be, “Is there any statement on evolution that you ever have or ever would reject because it conflicts with what the Scriptures say?”
I ain’t perfect but I do try to fix my mistakes.
FR has a poll function... put it to the test.
I don’t do polls or trolls.
LOL!
Evolution™, as taught in the public schools, is which of the following?
1. Empirical
2. Semi-Empirical
3. Non-Empirical
4. Faith
Poo wittle Dawwin!
He supuld be so important. Illuminist societies were pushing evolution hundreds of years before he came along.
You're right. Conservatives don't like to donate to a site that doesn't immediately zot those posting evolution propaganda, and trying to call it 'science.'
So, What was GGG’s grade?
.
write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below”
I read this book...it’s junk
Evolution- Macroevolution, isn’t a fact, it’s a scientifically impossible, failed hypothesis- but no matter how many times you or I or anyone else shows how it violates several key scientific principles, Adherents will still insist it is ‘science’ and that those like GGG who bring the articles refutign the hypothesis of Darwin, and exposing hte impossibilities, lies and deceits, are ‘practicing nothign but religion’ (Apparently because anythign that exposes the problems with Macroevolution is ‘religion’ in their eyes)
[[That is true. There are a few Evos who do engage in intellectual discussion and those discussions can be enlightening,
but guys like xcamel and steve-b seem to be content to simply ridicule rather than engage in honest debate.]]
Not only enlightening, but pleasant and civil as well- even if they are wrong lol- but yeah- it’s a pelasure when some evos can discuss things without hte usualy petty antics seen by some of htose evos i nthis thread who have nothign more to sy than the usual petty, tired out taunts we’ve seen immediately crop up in evey one of GGG’s threads-
Usually when I get involved in these discussions it is to challenge those who claim to believe in God and yet somehow find it consistent with their belief in God to ridicule and malign those who, when they look at creation, see evidence of design rather than evidence of some endless unguided purposeless process.
I do notice, however, that for the most part the rabid evos on these threads seem to employ the same debating tactics that liberals who call into conservative talk radio shows employ. There are exceptions to the rule and I have engaged a few evolutionists who can make a point without resorting to ridicule or ad-hominem arguments, but those people seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
[[Usually when I get involved in these discussions it is to challenge those who claim to believe in God and yet somehow find it consistent with their belief in God to ridicule and malign those who, when they look at creation, see evidence of design rather than evidence of some endless unguided purposeless process.]]
as do I- you MUST question the salvation of those who claim to be ‘religious’ yet reject the very word of God, and so mangle His word that it’s left looking nothing like His original word to us- you also MUST question those who claim to be ‘religious’ who’s only apparent goal is to malign and accuse true Christians who consistently bring God’s word and supporting evidnece of creation to hte table, as well as evidence that refutes macroevolution. Whne those claimning to be ‘religious’ engage in nothing more than character assassination, ignoring the issues beign discussed, and attackign the messenger time and time again- one has to judge whether the fruit they bear is of God or not.
LOL!
Trolling is what you closet liberals are doing on FR.
And thanks for proving that liberals simply can not tolerate dissent of their intelligence banning cult.
Not that we remotely needed more proof.
(My apologies to the sane folks if you were already pinged!)
You are one of a growing number of people that rightly understand that the evos on here that are incapable of tolerating dissent of their cult are indeed closet liberals.
Anyone that defends the NEA public screwels, secular humanism and “science” that can only be enforced via liberal activist judges, simply can not be viewed as conservative.
Each and every examination of evolution on here is almost always met with “religious attacks on science”.
xcamel’s “argument” consists of posting Christian taliban drivel; on 9-11 no less.
I see Inquisition...all kinds of whack job anti-conservative liberalism in support of evolution in here.
Chrissy Fit Matthews was stammering and flinging spit on a camera toward a Republican guest about evolution being “settled science” not long ago. (ALOT like algore’s “debate is over” hot air cult!)
I often wonder if Chrissy Fit isn’t one of these festering trolls in here!
So you actually think enforcement through buying your views is conservatism?
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.