$5000 Video Contest at GodorNot.com: “Why do you believe that God is good?”

_{William Dembski

January 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As part of the promotion for my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY, the publisher has arranged a $5000 video contest in which participants upload an up-to-2-minute video explaining why they believe that God is good. The contest has just started and the deadline for submissions is April 5, 2010. The contest is operated by Memelabs, which allows online voters to judge the contest. Go to GodorNot.com for details.

Interestingly, THE END OF CHRISTIANITY is receiving most of its criticism not from atheistic and theistic evolutionists but from young-earth creationists (e.g., Johnny Helms’ blog here). As I comment at that blog, “What I’m trying to do is preserve Christian orthodoxy within an old-earth perspective…. BOTTOM LINE: The only way my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY could be called heterodox is if one makes young-earth creationism a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy.”

[Only after posting this did I see the redundancy with Clive Hayden’s fine previous post.]

Comments

I have actually written a paper discussing the action of DMS and DMSP, released from various zooplankton, on cloud physics. So yes micro-biology and meteorology may overlap. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114262878/abstractAndrew Sibley_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST}

So should ID as science be divided from the science of Flood geology? Should microbiology as science be divided from the science of meteorology? Sure. And, I hope that we all agree, that if someone motivated by a belief in a young earth and catastrophic flood discovers some new aspect of nature, that we don't reject it due to prejudice.tribune7_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PST}

I want to raise another question about ID. It is a question of whether science should be divided. Through history flood geologists and intelligent design proponents were often one and the same. Steno proved the heart was a pump against Descartes, and proved fossils were of organic origin (by comparision of fossil teeth with recently deceased sharks teeth) against the neo-Platonic plastic theory of fossil formation. He also believed in the Flood. Dean William Buckland was an old earth creationist, but wrote that trilobites 400 compound eyes in the bottom layers were evidence of intelligent design. He was a neo-catastrophist believing the higher layers evidence of the Flood. Even Darwin was more a geologist at the start of his voyage. Today there is a great deal of scientific work by flood geologists such as Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner etc. whose scientific credentials are first class. I note though that apart from interest in the Cambrian explosion there is little interest in the rest of the geological column by many ID supporters. I am not saying that ID proponents must agree absolutely with Flood geology, but it is an interesting question why there is not more cooperation. The geological column is one support for evolution, and I believe from my own field work can be explain scientifically to provide evidence of rapid burial. As I think Bill has acknowledged in his 'Bridge' book Flood geology can be done entirely scientifically. So should ID as science be divided from the science of Flood geology? Enjoyed your Premier interview Bill, look forward to the theodicy one.Andrew Sibley_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

FYI: Here's a recent review and follow-up comment.Patrick Chan_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PST}

"The only way my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY could be called heterodox is if one makes young-earth creationism a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy.” Very nicely put, Bill. There's some essential material in this book on some very key theological issues, so it's plain folly to just reject it - it needs to be properly considered and discussed. I hope that more considered voices will be heard, so that genuine engagement and further progress on these matters can truly take place here.howard_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST}

Is it common for YECs to mistake IDers as Theistic Evolutionists?CannuckianYankee_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST}

Hmm... I will probably enter this.Gods iPod_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply