worldview

The core challenge being addressed (as we respond to abuse of a critical thinking curriculum)  is the notion that belief in the reality of God is a culturally induced, poorly grounded commonplace notion. An easily dismissed cultural myth or prejudice, in short. Let us remind ourselves of the curriculum content used by teachers in a district in Texas until protest led to removal of the focal question: Having: shown that such belief is deeply rooted in key, serious thought (also note vids 1: Kreeft, 2: Zacharias, 3: Craig, also 4: Stroebel on Jesus), (exposing the flying spaghetti monster parody as strawman fallacy) and noting (cf here in op and here as a comment)  how it underpins the moral fabric of Read More ›

In further addressing the curriculum abuse that sought to induce twelve year olds to imagine that belief in God is little more than a culturally induced ill-supported notion, it is critical to address the favoured ideology, evolutionary materialist scientism and/or its fellow travellers. For, never mind the lab coat clad magisterium, evolutionism is self-referentially incoherent and self falsifying. Advocates or adherents and fellow travellers of such materialistic scientism will typically try to dismiss, distract from or refuse to face this, but it is absolutely pivotal and utterly decisive. So, let us inform ourselves and our children for record. Craig, as a first point of reference, presents a useful talk: An excellent recent summary of this comes from Nancy Pearcey in Read More ›

As we continue to respond to the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch how William Lane Craig responds to the sort of arguments presented by Dawkins et al as a refutation of arguments to God. Arguments that any number of triumphalistic YouTube videos announce as “destroying” arguments in support of theism: Further food for thought, and of course strictly verboten in today’s radically secularised public school classroom. END PS: It is worth the further pause to look at Plantinga’s collection of two dozen or so theistic arguments.

As we continue to respond to the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch the always entertaining — and perfect for twelve year olds — but oh so pointedly insightful Ravi Zacharias: Food for thought — of course, strictly verboten in today’s radically secularised class room. END

As we continue to address the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch Kreeft’s video lecture: Food for thought. END

As just noted, a discussion thread on responding to abuse of the privilege of developing and implementing curriculum has been trollishly hijacked in what looks like an escalation of the tactics coming from a circle of objector sites. At the end, on a topic dealing with 12 year olds, sexually tinged vulgarity has been injected by word plays on a participant’s handle in an attempt to trigger a spiral to the gutter. That is the sort of ruthless nihilistic amorality and domineering disrespect we have been seeing in answer to exposure and correction of patent education abuse — of 12 year olds in Critical Thinking class . . . as in: pretending and trying to enforce under colour of education Read More ›

I headline as a notice, to deal with trollish misconduct: >>I warned about hijacking threads of discussion, took time to give pointers of correction and even link where there are discussions of this sort of sophomoric parody, e.g. http://www.truefreethinker.com…..l-part-2-4 (as in: this sort of foolishness has long since been corrected, that which is made of parts is essentially composite thus contingent and cannot be a necessary being [a major feature of the idea of God in relevant Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion, both significant academic disciplines that the mocking objectors were pointed to but willfully ignored showing malicious threadjacking intent and incorrigibility in the face of an important issue on the table], and to try to redefine components as Read More ›

Yesterday, I highlighted a case in Texas in which a School-level Critical Thinking Curriculum has been manipulated to set an assignment (in a section for 20 points) gives a question requiring the answer that “There is a God” is not fact or credible view but a cultural commonplace, poorly supported and dubious assertion that apparently students felt was effectively equivalent to “myth.” Documents: Today, we need to begin to address this attempt to discredit ethical theism under colours of education. At first level, ethical theism is foundational to the charter of modern Constitutional Democracy, the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. Something that can and should be memorised by school students (and which it would be difficult indeed for educators or Read More ›

Here (make sure to watch the embedded Fox26 video which I doubt I can embed at UD). Is it reasonable to be putting such a question to 12 year old students in class? (And if you think this was just one teacher, note how it came up the next day in other classes and in multiple classes on the day in question; somebody with responsibility wrote this into a curriculum with intent to create the view that per critical thinking, belief in God is little more than a widely believed, religiously backed [itself a loaded issue] questionable opinion with little warrant.) Is the view that God is real merely a religious belief with no serious weight of evidence or argument? Read More ›

One of the challenges commonly met with in re-thinking origins science from a perspective open to design, is that the evolutionary materialist narrative is too often presented as fact (not explanation), and there is also a typical failure to recognise that materialist ideology cannot be properly imposed on science. Likewise, there is a pattern of failing to address the issue of the self-falsifying self-referential incoherence of such materialism. It is appropriate to highlight these issues through this basics series. In this case, we have a live case in point, here: GD, 173: >>There are some parts of evolutionary theory that are so well supported that they can be considered facts. Widespread (if not necessarily universal) common ancestry. Mutation, selection, and Read More ›

It is important, as we go on to deal with understanding the deadlock on discussions about design theory, to understand how many evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers address evidence and reasoning. For example, in recent weeks, here at UD, we have had to address how not even self-evident first principles of reason are regarded by many objectors to design thought. Similarly, once record (or testimony) does not fit the preferred narrative, it is going to be dismissed as inadequate and/or delusional or as suspected of fakery.  In effect, after all, our senses and perceptions are not utterly reliable, so if something does not fit the lab coat clad evolutionary materialist narrative, something must be wrong. The case of Jesus of Read More ›

Dr Torley has recently responded to Tayler’s Article as headlined. On a day when news is still somewhat emerging about a mass murder on a community College campus where those who affirmed that they were Christians were shot in the head, it is important to take up the issue, especially in light of the underlying, all too patent, New Atheist/Evolutionary materialism and fellow traveller concept that they have cornered the market on reasonableness and responsibility. We cannot neglect the assertions of Dawkins and co, that Bible-believing Christians are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. That lines right up with the sub-title of Tayler’s Salon post: “The right-wing’s religious delusions are killing us—and them.” Nor is the obvious immediate trigger, the attacks Read More ›

I passed by and noted a dismissive comment (or a few) regarding US Presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson: CASE A: he’s running for President of the United States of America; he’s a politician who’s put religion and science into his platform. He willingly exposed himself to criticism and does not deserve a pass because he did good things as a surgeon. CASE B: Dr Carson. He is clearly a talented physician, but get him talking about evolution or cosmology and he turns into Ken Ham. Looks like a classic case of willful ignorance to me; he should know better. Is that acceptable for the president of a world power? CASE C: Surgery is to science what carpentry is Read More ›

It is time to move on from preliminary logical considerations to key foundational issues relevant to design theory. Of these, the challenge of complexity, information and functionally specific organisation is first and foremost. Hence this post. We live in a technological age, and one that increasingly pivots around information. One in which we are surrounded by trillions of technological entities showing how what we can describe as functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I for short) is a characteristic result and highly reliable indicator of intelligently directed configuration. That is, of design. For simple illustration, we may examine the exploded view of a 6500 C3 baitcasting reel: . . . which shows the characteristic pattern of a network of Read More ›

It is time to get back to basics (BTB henceforth) on ID, but as step zero, we have to set first principles of right reason straight. For instance, it seems that — once we are certain that we can be certain of nothing falls apart in absurdity — the fallback position on the issue of distinct identity is that it is only about an empty tautology, A = A that sets up a tiresome little game we call logic, when we would rather be playing another game, Science . . . actually, a priori Evolutionary Materialist Scientism and/or its fellow travellers. (Now, I know I know, this is not about the scientific specifics that some crave getting back to the Read More ›