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).
I didn't say methodological naturalism was "unacceptable" because it's "derived from philosophical naturalism." It is what it is. These are just doctrines. As such, they assume a great deal without validating their assumptions. They simply aver something — there are only natural causes in nature. No other causes can exist by definition. Thus the doctrine "reduces" the world to our expectation that it is the product of natural causes only.
If this were actually true, then all would be just hunky-dorey. Unfortunately, no one really knows whether it's true. At the end of the day, it is simply a faith statement. For the non-existence of causes other than natural ones has never been shown; I doubt it can be shown. Methodological naturalism just takes it for granted that the statement is true.
Thus an epistemological problem arises.... How sound can our knowledge of the world be, really, when we are already "editing" the world down to the size of our expectations, in advance?
What has Godwin produced that I should have invested time?
What does "editing the world down to the size of our expectations" mean? We should have no expectations, or we should somehow be able to have them, but operate as if we didn't?
How does that work in practical terms, as a methodology? How do you even justify employing logic without "editing" the world down to your expectation that whatever it is you're investigating will have a logical explanation?
I say this to you, respectfully and with love:
you said: “I don’t have to be “born again”. I was born once and that’s all I need to go to heaven.”
Bible says: John 3:3 Jesus answered unto him (Nicodemus), “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
You said: “I believe that all the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Wiccans, etc, and even atheists that live good lives will go to heaven.”
Bible says: John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
and Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: 9=Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
I say this to you, respectfully and with love:
I’ve got my religion and you’ve got yours. As long as I follow a good life and the Catholic teachings, I’ll go to heaven and I’ll see my friends,loved ones, and even pets even if they had a different religion.
God is not so mean that one would be separated from their friends and family for eternity, because they don’t worship in an exact certain way.
Great way to follow the bible.
Can’t come up with any FACTS or PROOF for yur view, just attack the other side personally.”
So when have i attacked you personally?
[[I stopped reading after that line. I was laughing so hard I couldn’t catch my breath, much less read.]]
You were the one questioning my intellect- I asked if you cared to compare iq test results- neurological spelling mistakes have nothign to do with intelligence
Stop it, you’re killing me!
I am sorry, that was for another thread where the usual GGG groupies were doing that.
I posted it in the wrong thread or pasted it in error. Sorry
[[Unfortunately, no one really knows whether it’s true. At the end of the day, it is simply a faith statement. For the non-existence of causes other than natural ones has never been shown; I doubt it can be shown.]]
I gotta dissagree a bit here- there is enough evidence to show the need for an intelligence- enough evidence to present a strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case- We know nature isn’t capable of the foresight and anticipation seen in the compelxity of Metainformation, and it certainly couldn’t arise from chemicals- hence I think it can be quite strongly shown that an intellgient Designer capable of anticipating and planning was needed. Can we show the actual designer? No- but I think we can show His handiwork to a degree that creates a strong beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that an omniscient Designer was needed
>>neurological spelling mistakes have nothign to do with intelligence<<
They have everything to do with attention to detail and thinking before hitting the “Post” button. You know you get to read your posts before final submission, right? FireFox and Chrome both have built in spell check functionality so things like dyslexia are not in play.
The only reason for posting such awful grammar and spelling is intellectual (and physical) laziness and/or not caring about the content of your posts.
If you don’t care about your posts, no one else will. Nor should they. I sure don’t.
[[Stop it, you’re killing me!]]
Whatever- I didn’t think you’d care to- again showing you’ve got nothign but insults as amunition- well done
>>am sorry, that was for another thread where the usual GGG groupies were doing that.
I posted it in the wrong thread or pasted it in error. Sorry<<
I have “merged” threads in my responses before. But now that I have lectured C/S I will have to keep closer track so I don’t do that again ;)
>>Whatever- I didn’t think you’d care to- again showing you’ve got nothign but insults as amunition- well done<<
I give what I get.
lol I see you’re goign to whine abotu spelling all day- Can’t address the actual Issues I brought up eh? That’s alright- you just keep obsessing over my spelling and pretending that nullifies the issues I brought to the table- Typical liberal tactics when oyu’re losing an argument- Kids do that a lot when they’re dumbstruck for answers
[[I give what I get.]]
You’re the oen that started in with hte petty antics fella- but again I expected nothign more from you as your positing history tells a tale of runnign from arguments by derailign the arguments ad hominems when things start looking bad for your case
>>Can we show the actual designer? No- but I think we can show His handiwork to a degree that creates a strong beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that an omniscient Designer was needed<<
Do, I once again offer you the opportunity to show how to place an intelligent designer into any — ANY — scientific process, theorem, axiom or even hypothesis. Do we start the process, then burn incense? Rub blue mud into our navels? If we can’t directly affect nor predict the results based in materialistic rules then there is no point to science (I will break it to the tens of millions of scientists on the planet that they might as well just go join The Church Of The Intelligent Designer and ask Deep Thought to make things happen the way they would like).
Once again, just a modicum of knowledge about science would serve you and your ilk well.
You’re pretty funny so I look forward to another sloppy and lazy response.
Sign the List
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php
Woopsie- many ARE turning away, or at least ceding that the natural process of Macroevolution does NOT explain how l ife got here
“Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour”
“Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
On and on it goes- but of course all of htese more than 700 scientists must not be ‘real scientists or prophesors and specialists in their fields’ because they find that the mechanisms behind Macroevolution can NOT explain how life got here, right? They must all have a ‘religious agenda’ and just want to ‘sneak relgion and creationism into hte classroom, right? Lol Yeah right!
“Science seeks to discover natural causes to provide natural explanations for what is observed in nature. However, to say that natural causes are the only causes or to dogmatically assert that everything about the material world can be explained through material causes alone are philosophical statements and not objective statements about scientific methodology.
Science makes no presuppositions about the existence or non-existence of transcendent causes. Neither does science make any presuppositions regarding the influence or effect a transcendent cause might have in the material world or the ability or inability of science, using the methods of empirical science, to detect those influences or effects. Consequently, the impossibility of disproving the existence of a transcendent cause precludes an assumption that all observable effects must be due to natural causes and only natural causes. Imposition of such an assumption can only be made on the basis of ideology and within the context of public education, raises First Amendment issues.
Evidence bearing on a scientific question must be critically examined from all sides and evaluated on the basis of scientific merit, not religious or philosophical presuppositions. While it may be true that science can only study material effects in the natural world, there are some effects that cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, chance and time alone and point to the possibility of an intervening intelligence, or, a previously undiscovered law that mimics the actions of an intervening intelligence. To rule out the possibility of an intervening intelligence can only be made on the basis of ideology, not evidence.”
http://www.nmidnet.org/articles.htm
Science is supoposed to be about OBJECTIVE observation- but macroevolution cuts objectivism off at the knees by declarign that everything MUSt have a natural origins and MUST be explained via natural processes- this is a subjective ideological religious claim, and is NOT an objective observation of the evidences
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.