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).
The old proverb "where there's smoke, there's fire" has probably saved a lot of lives and property.
[[The old proverb “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” has probably saved a lot of lives and property.]]
I was smoking during a fire one time, dropped my pack of smokes, bent over to pick em up, bumped my head, fell backwards, through a 3’rd story window, and landed on a pile of bricks- if it hadn’t been for my smoking, I’d probably have died in the fire- so yup- where’s there’s a pack of smokes, there’s fire has saved lives too :)
LOLOL!!! Precious!
I’ve wanted to quit smoking, but it’s just saved my life too many times- Hate to give up such a lfiesaver lol
No, because those people are acting in an official capacity as advisers and political philosophy is directly related to establishing public policy.
I think when those associations are made, you have to be able to show what makes those associations relevant.
The association being made about Darwin are being made to "fill in the blanks" to build evidence with the objective of applying it to a theory based on a misperception that it is relevant to that theory.
That does not strike me as being a particularly sound methodology.
LOLOL!
And Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, was a friend and adviser to Obama when he was just a child growing up in Hawaii.
And then there’s Reverend Wright, a black liberation theologian with sympathies to anti-Israel regimes, who was his minister for more than two decades – longer than Obama has been in politics.
And so on.
None of these hold an official capacity as adviser, but a person would not be irrational to conclude they affected Obama’s thinking.
That does not strike me as being a particularly sound methodology.
Some no doubt would say that Darwin should get a pass on filling in the blanks because he was a scientist and Obama should not because he is a politician.
But others would say not so, because the way people look at the world around them can be influenced by many, that it would be a “non-sequitir” to conclude that because Darwin's theory is science it then therefore cannot influence the worldview of others.
And I would advocate on that point, that science is rooted in philosophy.
Beginning of Modern Science and Modern Philosophy
Well good grief, tacticalogic, if as you say these men are acting in an official capacity to establish public policy, wouldn't you say it's important that we understand what they think and believe — since we are the public the policies are intended to affect?
I think when those associations are made, you have to be able to show what makes those associations relevant.
Why not just try your eyes!
Captain Zero's public policies are all "radical progressive," totalizing ones, of the Marxist, Communist, socialist, some say fascist sort; with shades of Alinsky-style anarchism and Black Liberation tossed in for good measure. It seems clear to me that "Obama's advisors" have been affecting his thinking and for a very long time — back to childhood, e.g., Frank Marshall Davis at least.
I think it's also true that, as David Horowitz recently noted, none of these people have spent 15 minutes in their entire lives thinking about what constitutes the Good Society. What they are up to is all about Power, and only about Power — consolidated in their own hands, of course.
It would be absurd to say that! Obviously, science affects the worldview of most conscious human beings nowadays. In particular, its materialism and determinism have for a long time been undermining traditional cultural and moral understandings of man and society, quite aside from transforming our view of the natural world.
I'm pretty ambivalent about Darwin. I wonder why a scientist would choose the title he did — On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life — for a scientific work. It seems more suitable for a myth. Or maybe a soap opera....
[Who's doing the "favouring?" Could a less emotionally-charged term have been found than "struggle for life?" Where is the much-touted scientific "objectivity" here?]
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding analysis!
In my view, science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method. But materialism by definition is a subset of "all of that there is" so anything based on the physical (e.g. methodological naturalism) should hardly be considered definitive or objective applied to subjects which reach beyond that boundary, things that science did not consider in the first place.
Thank you again so very much for sharing your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
Why not just try your eyes!
You tell me how to "see" (and measure) what it is they think and believe. You submit that it's all subjective, but that my assesment is wrong. By what measure?
If science has to be "socially conscious", how long before it has to be done in pursuit of "social justice"?
"My job" is not to "tell you what to see," but to "show you where to look." It's because I DON'T want Truth to be "subjective" that I so strongly advise you to go look for yourself.
I AM NOT THE "MEASURE" OF TRUTH. And NEITHER ARE YOU.
GOD alone IS [among other things, the Measure].
But you have reason and free will, and so therefore are perfectly well-equipped to form your own understandings of things. Again, I am only showing you where to look, not telling you what to think of the things you might see, should you accept my direction.
As far as you are concerned, you are responsible for figuring that out, not me.
If you don't want to look where I'm pointing, perhaps that only means you've cut yourself off from a treasure of human experience and understanding that goes back millennia.
Still, to say that is not to "foredoom" your own free conclusions in the matter.
Jeepers, you must have been unconscious, these past several decades!!! Haven't you already realized that "science" has been harnassed to questions of "social justice" [which, or course are only decidable "politically," not on the basis of any enduring Truth] for all that time?
How do you think anyone could move a federal budget to address, say, "global warming" issues, without some "fig leaf" of science to support the endeavor?
Fraudulently.
The question was "how". It was answered with only references to "what" and "where". Why is that?
How so? Considering the methods that are being employed — simulation models — have been blessed by science?
How so? Considering the methods that are being employed — simulation models — have been blessed by science?
They've selectively filtered their data, only looking for certain things in certain places, to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Because if you want to know the "how" of things, you first have to understand the "why" of things.
"Why?" is not a scientific question (these days).
And so, since I cannot clear up this conundrum for you, you have to go see for yourself.
At least, that is my understanding of the matter. FWIW
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.