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).
Would evolution fit that observation?
Credit for Trolling, steve-b wrote:
I’ve seen xcamel’s posts and haven’t noticed any problems. Can’t say the same for yours, though.
Of course not!
How about the Christian taliban nonsense posted on 9-11 of all days?
Correct answer — making conservatives look like morons by posting pseudoscientific flapdoodle is a standard liberal-troll tactic.
Which begs the question....what “theory” requires law suits backed by the secular humanist liberal NEA and ACLU to even have a leg to stand on?
OK then, give detailed scientific PROOF of your side. Quoting the bible is NOT scientific proof.
What “key scientific principles” does it violate?
You say it does. Put up or shut up.
Who are you trying to convince here? (seems to be only yourself)
I see only opinions of a few people, as opposed to the tens of thousands who see evolution as credible science, and not in conflict with religion which is faith.
Try opening your eyes!!!!!!!!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
ping! to 145
It has seemed to me that creationism, on examination, is a form of hydrolatry, that is, “flood worship”.
"Regardless of the sujbect matter..."
9 fake fairytale sites and and echo chamber post.
You are indeed pitiful.
As Waka says... Put up or shut up.
‘hydrolatry’
Excellent.
Really? you do have something in common
“Murderous Anti-Evolution Nigerian Islamists”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34312_Murderous_Anti-Evolution_Nigerian_Islamists
talk about “incapable of tolerating dissent” - you better look in the mirror first.
“I see only opinions of a few people, as opposed to the tens of thousands who see evolution as credible science, and not in conflict with blah blah blah....
9 fake fairytale sites and and echo chamber post.
You are indeed pitiful.
As Waka says... Put up or shut up.”
Put up or shut up? Is it an “echo chamber” (a liberal talking point exposed last week btw) OR is it “opinions of a few people”?
Which is it?
If you’re referring to FR as a fairy tale site, why do you troll here then?
I pay attention to wacka telling othes to put up or shut about as much as I pay attention to any other closet FR liberal stomping their feet.
Comparing Christians to the taliban on 9-11 isn’t “tolerating dissent” xcrement...that’s sheer DU/DC liberal gibberish.
Your anti FReep site link won’t open, speaking of fairy tale sites.
Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one’s eyes shut and wailing “DOES NOT!” -— Dr Pepper
the link opens just fine.
Next thing you know polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is going to be termed as abiogenesis by some.
The most amusing thing here about the presumed evidence for abiogensis is that the narrative begins, "Basically, scientists combined amino adenosine...."
And surely these predicate constituents were present in some anoxic primordial soup?: "pentafluorophenyl ester with the autocatalyst amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE)"
For the organic chemists out there one will certainly recall commonly observed and well-characterized aliphatic ester chain reactions which are understood in short hand as:
AcOC*HR +O2 -----> AcOCH(OO*)R
where the ester link is understood as "R-O=O", "R" is the AA link and "O" is the abbreviation for oxygen. Even the Miller-Urey experiment originally intended to support the premise of abiogensis fell apart on the oxidation point.
Even more interesting, this experiment demonstrated the possibility that autocatalysts could exhibit competition within a population of entities with heredity, which could be interpreted as a rudimentary form of natural selection.
"Heredity"? "Natural selection"? Something without predicate information, nor a plan to specify the information, nor evidence of even the simplest notochord is now credited with making self-designed "choices" as to "selection"?
"Demonstrates the possibility...." Translate: "Not that we actually observed it, and we are reading an awful lot into this here, but...."
Ribosomes correct misplaced code. There is a biochemically programmed expectation within them to recognize flaws and to repair them. Computer programs are designed to do something similar on your motherboard.
Will you now also attribute some sort of an innate sentience to ribosomes too? How about abiogenesis to your motherboard?
ahhhhh yes, Dr. Pepper science.
Thanks for the ping!
This site is full of such evidence- look it up or shut up
[[If you’re referring to FR as a fairy tale site, why do you troll here then?]]
They can’t help themselves- their whole day revolves around insulting Christians- We’ve discussed the impossibilities facign Macroeovlution many many many times here on FR- and htey simpyl ignore it all, wait a little while until they think people have forgotten the discussions, then bring up the same tired out ‘challenge’ again- Talk about ‘echo-chambers’- cripes- it’s the same BS with htese folks for years on end- their foot stomping, teeth gnashing insistance that Creationists and ID’ist don’t offer any evidence is contrary to the evidence, but they can’t seem to even ceede that their hypothesis has problems, and hteir only recourse is to say ‘nuh uh’- Brilliant!
Put up or shut up.
You wanted a civil debate. Put up your proof so the other side can examine it and come up with a thought out reply.
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.