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).
If that means liberals, atheists, Darwinists, RINOS, etc, withhold their donations from FR, well, I guess we'll get along without them.
Jim, no one is suggesting that God be banished from the schoolroom. To do so flies in the face of the intent of the framers and their immortal words which I need not repeat but must do so to complete my argument:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The framers are clear -- freedom is granted to all humans from God Himself (as opposed to suffered from governments created from man).
That is not the issue at hand. This particular thread O.P. basically states that "if we can find anything that TToE cannot address (mind you without any counter arguments to provide refutation) then TToE must fall and thus an Intelligent Designer must be the cause." Note no mention of God as that designer.
I know you do not feel that humans resulted from TToE. But yours is a philosophical/theological argument. That is fine, but the applicability to theology to science is attempting to "speak" (in Biblical terms) to a discipline which God himself created.
This line of attack is particularly ugly, since it attempts to use a combination of fallacies ("if any aspect of TToE fails, the entirety must fail") and the converse ("if any aspect of TToE is wrong, the only substitute is an "intelligent designer").
These fallacious conclusions may be satisfying but they meet neither logical analysis nor, more importantly, scientific muster.
Did God make Man in His Image? The Bible is clear (and Christians understand): YES. Did God use evolution to create what we know as Homo Sapiens? The scientific evidence of billions of artifacts and millions of scientists say (again, to Christians and Jews and deists) also YES.
They are not incompatible, Jim. They are looking at the problem in different ways.
But further, I ask you to look at what has been suggested in the OP.
God should be in the classroom -- but not as a magical agent in the scientific process.
At Wendy’s.
[[Don’t get me wrong. I love science. It’s one of God’s greatest creations for man.]]
Hey- me too- but I love objective science- not subjective science rife with assumptions about suppsoed past events for which there isn’t a shred of evidnece to support- not to mention Macroevolution is biologically, chemically, mathematically and naturally impossible- The science is great- but it goes just so far- then the religion of Darwin steps in and takes over beyond hte evidence- Science is indeed fascinating, but we need to at least cede that it stops at discontinuity
[[Don’t get me wrong. I love science. It’s one of God’s greatest creations for man.]]
Not real sure why you said that, as I never stated otherwise? was just talkign about not worrying too much about a handful of complainers who might leave for other sites- This site will quickly replace thsoe that don’t liek Religious views being front and center on FR- I think maybe your reply mighta been menat for osmeone else? I’ve fought tooth and nail for good objective science here
[shrug] ( ^: }
[[This line of attack is particularly ugly, since it attempts to use a combination of fallacies (”if any aspect of TToE fails, the entirety must fail”) and the converse (”if any aspect of TToE is wrong, the only substitute is an “intelligent designer”).]]
Maybe you’ve been absent from FR for a good long time? Because there are a great many areas where TOE fails- not just single insignificant areas- you’re falslely portraying the ID position- we NEVER said the hwoel would fall if ANY single area is proved wrong- Never- but htere ARE enough areas where it fails miserably to point to a very strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case against Nature being hte creator- being capable of complexity, being capableof violating scientific precepts etc- there are myriad threads here on FR talkign about all manner of areas in TOE that fail
[[These fallacious conclusions may be satisfying but they meet neither logical analysis nor, more importantly, scientific muster.]]
Does falsley portrayin the position of ID and creationism ‘meet scientific muster’? Talk about fallacious!
[[Did God make Man in His Image? The Bible is clear (and Christians understand): YES. Did God use evolution to create what we know as Homo Sapiens? The scientific evidence of billions of artifacts and millions of scientists say (again, to Christians and Jews and deists) also YES.]]
Um- you might want to look more closely- there is MUCH debate about our suppsoed ‘species line’- and even folks in your own camp dissagree with your emphatic claim
[[God should be in the classroom — but not as a magical agent in the scientific process.]]
Nope- apparently, only hte magical process of science violating Natural causes shoudl be allowed in the classroom evidently?
>>Maybe you’ve been absent from FR for a good long time? Because there are a great many areas where TOE fails- not just single insignificant areas- you’re falslely portraying the ID position- we NEVER said the hwoel would fall if ANY single area is proved wrong- Never- but htere ARE enough areas where it fails miserably to point to a very strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case against Nature being hte creator- being capable of complexity, being capableof violating scientific precepts etc- there are myriad threads here on FR talkign about all manner of areas in TOE that fail<<
But none have a scientific alternative. Your opinion, such as it is, doesn’t create one. Your attempted argument boils down to “it is too hard to understand so some THING did it.” And, you also don’t even try to name the THING.
>>Does falsley portrayin the position of ID and creationism ‘meet scientific muster’? Talk about fallacious!<<
That is not only bad speling but it is nonsensical.
>>Um- you might want to look more closely- there is MUCH debate about our suppsoed ‘species line’- and even folks in your own camp dissagree with your emphatic claim<<
You fight the “we found a knot in the thread” fight. If an alternative scientific theory has been proposed as a result of your unsupported “dissagree”ments then I have not read it in any science journals. Got a link?
>>Nope- apparently, only hte magical process of science violating Natural causes shoudl be allowed in the classroom evidently?<<
If you have an alternative scientific theory to hte TToE, then publish it and you shall be hte magus of hte centuries. Hte fact you don’t understand science and thus see it as “magic” is your issue and certainly not to be put on the backs of schoolchildren.
>>he science is great- but it goes just so far- then the religion of Darwin steps in and takes over beyond hte evidence- Science is indeed fascinating, but we need to at least cede that it stops at discontinuity<<
Ignorance is NOT a conservative value.
>> It’s a small point. To wit: Censors are unconstitutional in the first place, under the First Amendment.
Oh, these pesky details!!!<<
Cone on bb, you know you are being a bit disingenuous.
This isn’t about “censorship.” This is about ensuring science is presented as science and theology as theology and philosophy as philosophy.
Unless and until you can provide a forum for all creation stories/theories/etc. in a science forum (thus ending it as a science forum) you can’t make this a 1st Amendment issue.
You and AG (and a very few others) make erudite, interesting, engaging and thought-provoking PHILOSOPHICAL posts that deserve attention. But rarely do they pass the lower bars for inclusion into scientific debate.
It is like seeing a rock in the road and conjecturing on how it got there. Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time. Who tossed it what weather (or other) forces resulted in it are interesting and maybe significantly relevant but have no scientific currency.
Why is the who and the how of “no scientific currency”?
[[But none have a scientific alternative. Your opinion, such as it is, doesn’t create one.]]
You keep saying that- but no matter how many times you do- you still will never be able to escape the NEED for an intelligent aagent behind the compelxity- Tell us- Is nature that ‘intelligence’?
[[If an alternative scientific theory has been proposed as a result of your unsupported “dissagree”ments then I have not read it in any science journals.]]
Then you haven’t looked hard enough- and it’s more than a simple ‘knot in the thread’- Way to downplay the issue
[[Hte fact you don’t understand science and thus see it as “magic” is your issue and certainly not to be put on the backs of schoolchildren.]]
This is why I don’t like discussing thigns with you- You start off wel thought out- then turn into an insulting dolt- stomping your foot and declaring Creationsits ‘don’t understand the science’ in NO way explains away the impossibilities facing Macroevolution- I’d have htoguht you’d have known that- but apparently that has escaped you- but yeah- keep stomping your foot and offerign nothign but silly accusations- Macroevolution will STILL be chemically, biologically, mathematically and naturally impossible- so yueah- You folks ARE putting your faith in a magical natural process which soemhow creates pure supernatural miracles which defy nature itself
[[Ignorance is NOT a conservative value.]]
You are correct- that’s your realm- enjoy!
[[Why is the who and the how of “no scientific currency”?]]
The who isn’t even part of ID- the How is- and whether nature is capable of the how, or something or someone else is- Some in ID have opinions about who or what was needed, but the evidence, like any forensic science investigation, only has to show the NEED for an intelligence behind the complexity- and to show that nature is incapable of creating the complexity- the evidnece is mounting in favor of the NEED for a Designer of some sort, and the evidence is mounting against Nature being capable of such feats. Some in ID feel that nature is stil lcapable of creating intelligent Deisng and metainformation- but they have yet to provide ANY evidence to show that nature could produce either- they simply have opinions, but also cede that complexity and information could not arise on it’s own- Some, like Demski- think nature was capable of supllying hte metainformaiton- but his ‘explanation’ is really whacked- likening it to a game of Red Rover where nature simpyl ‘sends the information right over’ (apparently those that think nature is capable of such feats, think nature to be an omnipotent designer- able to foretell what is needed, and to provide info in advance to deal with problems that haven’t arisen yet)
[[It is like seeing a rock in the road and conjecturing on how it got there. Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time. Who tossed it what weather (or other) forces resulted in it are interesting and maybe significantly relevant but have no scientific currency.]]
Again, another blatant misrepresentation of ID based on an asinien argument- Life is NOTHING like a simple rock with barely enough complexity to mention- to be more accurate- you shoudl have been honest enough to at least say- it’s liek seeing 1000 computers i nthe road and wondering how they were created since nature certainly would NOT be capable of creating them- to argue otherwise would be assinine.
[[ Hte fact you don’t understand science and thus see it as “magic” is your issue and certainly not to be put on the backs of schoolchildren.]]
Ah yes- we should just keep beating it into their brains that ‘we don’t know how nature violated several key scientific principles, but by golly... ‘it just did’ and ‘we just don’t have the answers yet’ Swell copout! Nature HAS to be magical IF it somehow violated several key scientific principles trillions of times- infact, it has to be downright supernatural- Tell us Freedumb- how did nature accomplish these supernatural feats? “It just did” and “You just don’t understand science” isn’t an answer I’m afraid!
[[Science is indeed fascinating, but we need to at least cede that it stops at discontinuity]]
Pssst- Science DOES stop at discontinuity- The Religion of Darwin takes over fro mthere- insisting that the evidence doesn’t show discontinuity, but shows common descent DESPITE the compelte lack of actual evidence to show it- this isn’t science any longer- it’s a religious philisophical beleif based on ASSUMPTIONS that compeltely lack evidence- the evidence shows discontinuity- when and only when, evidence can be presented that goes beyond discontinuity to sho common descent, only then can we say the actual science goes further- till then- the only thing that goes further than the actual evidence is the religious philisophical beleif in common descent
You posted several amusing non-responses, so I took a flyer and landed on this one.
Nature isn't "magical" -- and your assertion (it does not even rise to contention) that because you don't understand simple processes such as stochasticism, somehow millions of real scientists analyzing and interpreting billions of artifacts across hundreds of years have been toiling in fields of error doesn't even meet the laugh test.
You again purposefully misinterpret my simple analysis: a supernatural process embedded in an observed physical process must expose itself for complete breakdown or be completely discounted as having no applicability (please reread my posts for content to understand this idea).
Your attempts to climb the intellectual mountains of science are analogous to the linguists who has noted that all languages across the galaxy have a "jin-n-tonix" construct and do not buttress anything other than your circular references.
And please respect your audience enough to post both proper spelling and grammar. You reveal your ignorance in the large things by demonstrating your ignorance in the small things.
“Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time.”
But why should an intelligent agency be excluded from consideration? In order for a rock to be moved to its present location gravity had to be overcome, force had to be applied, work done, energy expended, each in amounts sufficient to produce the observed results. And finally the observer becomes part of the process.
Humans move and exist in a physical world, subject to gravity and energy inputs and chemical reactions that would permit them to place a rock in the road by design so I see no reason to exclude as unimportant or unscientific that possibility because intelligence may be involved.
I understand what you are saying about the ID view and its variations among adherents. That is why I am not one of them, I have no trouble with pointing to a Creator, Designer and Producer of the universe or cosmos.
And since no one has a copyright on the words, “intelligent design”, I'll use them in this sense.
So.. there is no poll. That make you a liar, or in deep denial.
Mostly it makes you a deluded dupe.
You truly display your incredibly inane disposition with that comment. You are presented a thread which is discussing the poll and contains "1600" posts and you blithely state that the poll did not exist and essentially call me a liar. I fart in your general direction.
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.