Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Did the premier organization of Christians in science really choose to target fellow Christians instead of materialism in science? Apparently so.

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “American Scientific Affiliation – whatever happened to its mission?”, Bill Dembski alludes to an earlier post of mine:

I write this post to put into perspective Denyse O’Leary’s recent remarks about the “gutting of a spiritual tradition from within” (see here — the relevance of her remarks to the ASA cannot be missed) and to highlight that with the efforts by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to ramp up their propaganda for atheism since this letter by Jack Haas was written suggests that the ASA was mistaken in shifting its emphasis away from “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism.”

He addresses something I find truly shocking:

About three years ago I received the following mass mailing from the ASA’s Jack Haas (I’ve known Jack since 1990 and our exchanges have always been cordial). In this letter he describes how the ASA had, in times past, been concerned to address “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism,” but had recently decided to change its emphasis to combat young-earth creationism.

adding,

If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe, the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.

appending the relevant letter.

Well, that sheds considerable light on why the 2000-member organization of Christians in science has been AWOL from the main battle for so long. In an age when the non-materialist taxpayer has been compelled to fund materialist propaganda in science textbooks, when science textbooks routinely promote long-exploded errors in order to advance Darwinism, and key Darwinists promote a widely publicized anti-God campaign, this premier organization of Christians in science has chosen to largely (or entirely) ignore these problems and instead … conduct a war against the doctrinal position of some fundamentalist denominations. (The belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.)

It beggars belief, but it is apparently true.

Now, I am not saying that no one has done anything about the attempt of materialists to make materialism a publicly funded religion, with Darwinism as its creation story. As a matter of fact, ID guys like Dembski, the “evil” Discovery Institute, the estimable Muslim Mustafa Akyol, and others have jumped into the fray, even though they could all have just crowed, “See! We told you so! That’s where Darwinism leads!” But they didn’t do that because they actually cared about what was happening.

The fact that some publicly funded textbooks have had to clean up their act in recent years has everything to do with their efforts, as several correspondents have pointed out to me, and nothing whatever to do with ASA.

I have been covering controversies for my entire career as a journalist (now three and a half decades) and I recognize ASA’s decision to combat young earth creationism instead of materialism for what it is – a familiar type of copout on the part of a sclerotic organization.

They removed themselves from the scene of engagement just before the serious battle with materialists began, leaving the field to be defended by the Dembski gang and assorted other non-materialists of varying types.

Worse, they turned their fire on fellow Christians.

YECs have virtually no serious social influence. For example, when Canadian prime ministerial hopeful Stockwell Day revealed that he was a YEC, his chances of the highest office were kayoed. Few scientists will rise in their field unless they conceal any sympathies they may have for non-standard time frames, however justified.

Indeed, I have just learned of yet another scientist who was fired most likely because he was insufficiently supportive of Darwinism (but I cannot say anything as yet). Indeed, if I did, I am sure that the egregious “ASA list” (which supposedly does not represent the organization) would seethe with posts purporting to show that the guy had it coming to him, just as it recently did with attacks on Smithsonian scientist Rick Sternberg, who was widely abused for permitting a journal article to question Darwin.

That, by the way, is another familiar dodge of sclerotic organizations: Claim that the hatchet jobs done under the banner of the organization’s name do not really represent it. If the “ASA list” does not really represent ASA, the list should be ordered to change its name, go private, or just shut down.

I suspect that the true reason for ASA’s posture is that the ASA types do not want the humiliation of being told in so many words by their atheist peers that the only reason they are not persecuted by materialists – the way the ID guys are – is that they are useless and irrelevant, except when they aid the atheists’ cause by attacking fellow Christians.

Anyone who really does give the materialists grief will face serious attacks. For example, is Francisco Ayala invited to a confab to tell everyone about the danger presented by ASA? No, of course not. And why not? Because a chap can be royally popular at ASA and have tons of blowhards defending him against an obscure Canadian journalist – her crime was to reveal to a wider audience than the few people who bother to read the ASA public archive that he doubts that there is any “special supernatural component” in the human being. Well, if he doubts THAT, then …* Meanwhile, Ayala wants everyone to know that intelligent design is a big danger because the ID guys mean business.

Look, I wouldn’t care if I were not a Christian science journalist. After all, if I were an atheist science journalist, I would point gleefully to ASA as an example of the level to which Christians in science have sunk – attacking fundamentalist denominations’ beliefs while atheistic materialists ride roughshod over anyone whatever who disagrees with their agenda for the sciences – the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Southern Baptists, the Muslims, any scientists whose research does not support some materialist agenda – or whoever. But at some point the disgrace must surely come to an end.

And here’s how I hope it will come to an end: The organization should either get real about the key current issues or diminish in proportion to its irrelevance.

*Apparently, that guy was supposed to be counselling a Christian whose faith was endangered. Well, it’s hard to imagine how talking to him would help. The most important thing the troubled person needs to know is that he or she really does have a supernatural component, a light that cannot be extinguished by troubled circumstances. Since I am here anyway, here is some advice for Christians troubled in faith: Stay away from all Darwinists of whatever type, whether they claim to be Christians, “from a Christian background,” or “from a fundamentalist background.” Do not concern yourself at present about the age of the Earth. You are immortal; the Earth is not. Join a serious church and ask for a godly pastoral counsellor. Find a committed fellowship group, and avoid obvious occasions of sin. Pray and read the Bible daily. Study the lives of the saints and follow godly examples. Practice charity with everyone you meet. Repeat daily as long as you live.

Comments
GA, another point. You seem to be making the argument that science should limit itself to addressing issues of the material. I agree with that. Science, however, must not be accepted as the definitive authority. Mengele is the perfect example of what occurs when it is. We must accept as axiomatic (self-evident truths, if you will, such as we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights) that trump any scientific claim.tribune7
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
The materialist’s portrayal of reality is represented here as something that must be vigorously countered. Materialism seems to be a generic term that embodies everything that is random, apathetic, and godless in our various attempts to understand the universe. GA -- Materialism is the belief that only what can be measured is what exists. The most damning aspect of it may very well be that it's irrational. I do not understand materialism to be a denial of the super-natural because I essentially take the term “nature” to encompass all of existence. Which illustrates my point. The definition of nature is 1. The material world and its phenomena. hence if nature encompasses all of existence then materialism is the denial of the supernatural.tribune7
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Materialism also means only material things exist. Since I like to use abstract thought and the laws of logic (which are and utilize immaterial concepts), I think materialism is irrational.geoffrobinson
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
great ape, Materialism is the belief, taken in a leap of faith, that every effect has only physical causes. Empiricism is the unfalsifiable proposition that all existence can be observed. The difference is that the empiricist who is not a Darwinian cleric will accept the existence of immaterial causes if the observations lead in that direction; the materialist cannot accept it.Designed Jacob
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
The materialist's portrayal of reality is represented here as something that must be vigorously countered. Materialism seems to be a generic term that embodies everything that is random, apathetic, and godless in our various attempts to understand the universe. Or perhaps there's a more refined definition that eludes me. I would be interested in a clearer definition of just what folks here think the materialist paradigm entails. Certainly it can't be about the physical nature of the "stuff" that composes various parts of the universe. Is it then an epistemological paradigm? Does it concern how we come to know the world, or perhaps what things are knowable and by what means they are knowable? For my part, the vague connotations I associate with materialism roughly equates it with empiricism and rationalism, and I generally take these to be good things, especially with respect to science. I do not understand materialism to be a denial of the super-natural because I essentially take the term "nature" to encompass all of existence. Therefore super-natural is simply a term for order in nature that we do no--and possibly can no--understand. Whether we shall call some thing in the universe a "material" or "spiritual" substance seems of little relevance. So, if possible, I'd like to know what the essential features of the materialist paradigm are. As it stands, I don't think I know anyone who is a strict adherent of materialism as I currently understand it. Generally people consider materialist/empirical/rational science applicable to only a certain restricted domain of our existence. That is not to say that the remainder of existence need necessarily be magical or spiritual, but, at the very least, it is not amenable to the sort of analysis that the scientific method demands.great_ape
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
George Murphy, Defend Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's bacterial flagellum. It is a specious argument and to use my son's language. It is lame. It certainly doesn't qualify as science or logic. It is on his website for all to read. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html My guess is that you have never read it or you wouldn't be making your claims. If you haven't, read it and come back and discuss it. Where I grew up a statement such as " don’t think you guys realize how insular your discussions are. This blog as a whole reminds me of a bunch of kids playing D & D. It may be a fun & harmless way to spend a Saturday afternoon, but it’s kind of sad if they think that it has anything to do with the real world." was condescending.jerry
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
I’ve made it clear from the start that what I wanted to talk about was the theology of ID. There is no theology of ID.tribune7
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Rather, the objection is that teleological explanations (where supported by the evidence) should not be artificially excluded from the definition of “science”. But how is teleological being defined? Is it simply an attempt to determine design? I'd agree completely that would fall under the definition of science. Or is it an argument for the existence of God? I'd say that doesn't fall under the defintion of science. Dembski pointedly notes that ID does not name a designer which would put it squarely in the realm of science. "Teleological" has a connotation (see wiki, for example) with debates about the existence of God so seeing that word might cause confusion in a discussion.tribune7
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
George, You are not being consistent. In the previous thread you said "I don’t think that theology should dictate to science." If we can agree on that, then it is a mistake to derive a scientific position, such as whether an inference to an intelligent cause is warranted, from the dictates of a theology. Theology is not pertinent to evaluating the ID inference.ericB
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
George, Perhaps you'd be willing to comment on why you think inferences to design begin with the theological, and why biological systems would require different rules for design inferences than say, archeology. Perhaps the concept of irreducible complexity would make an interesting subject. Why must IC begin with the theological--and if this is true for biological systems, why don't human designed IC systems require the same? Why must the apparent theological implications of ID precede the theory itself; or is this just a convenient burden to place upon ID, with no logical basis whatsoever? Is big bang theory any more theological because its implications are theological? Should it be excluded from definition as science because it implies a creator that transcends matter and energy? Also, does "mind" constitute another aspect of reality, as is suggested by some interpretations of Quantum theory, and hence is reality not strictly limited to matter and energy? Do we know of any other source of complex specified information in the universe than a mind? Is it relevant that we can arrange a jumble of popsicle sticks into a meaningful, and even important message, demonstrating specificity, without changing its mass? Personally I think any of these topics would make for an interesting discussion, and others here might agree; but revisiting worn-out straw man arguments that ID is based in the theological, and thus qualifies as some sort of religious creation story, is going to generate a few "sighs" here as well.Apollos
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
George you haven't shown that there is a "theology of ID". Your claim is just so much pretentious hot air. Ken Miller and Francis Collins? Thanks for the argument from authority, not much of a fan myself though.mentok
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Well George in the "real world" ID is relevant, TE isn't.mentok
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Sigh! Since I see that scordova has chosen to misrepresent me, I suppose I should say something. His reference to "my" (as if I invented it) "so called" (as if he doesn't believe that there is any such thing) theology of the cross shows that he never tried to understand what I was talking about. I don't recall details of our exchanges but his references to me being "snippy" & "condescending" probably refer to my telling him that. As to my supposed "refusal" to discuss the science of ID - well, there's not really much point. When I see how IDers here wave off the quite cogent arguments of scientists like Ken Miller or Francis Collins who know more about the area in question than do I - & I wager at least 99% of the people here - why should I get bogged down in what will undoubtedly be a fruitless rehash? I've made it clear from the start that what I wanted to talk about was the theology of ID. & the response has been not only a refusal to do that but denials that there even is any theology involved - a patently false claim, as I've shown. I don't think you guys realize how insular your discussions are. This blog as a whole reminds me of a bunch of kids playing D & D. It may be a fun & harmless way to spend a Saturday afternoon, but it's kind of sad if they think that it has anything to do with the real world.George Murphy
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
rrf: Cute analogy, but I don’t think it holds. The age of the earth is certainly relevant to most ID proponents, if for varying reasons. ... But, at some point in the future, if ID vanguishes it’s enemy and becomes the reigning paradigm, it is going to have to take a position in one camp or the other.
ID will never "take a position" on that because the answer to such questions cannot be determined from the ID inference, i.e. that some effects are best explained by an intelligent cause. In short, you cannot get there from here. The inference cannot logically take you there. Even though "ID proponents" as people have various thoughts about various concerns for various reasons, it might help you catch what DaveScot and others are correctly pointing out if you would focus on the ID inference itself, instead of the diverse group of individuals who affirm it. The "enemy" that ID will vanquish is the artificial constraint that says science may not ever infer intelligent causes for natural effects.ericB
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
jerry: Darrell Falk is a scientist and TE and he doesn’t fit Denyse’s or Ericb’s definition from what I gather from reading his book and obviously neither did Salvador and I. Some of the books George Murphy recommended have a heavy theological over lay but Falk’s book is mostly science. He justifies his beliefs with science. So maybe the generalization doesn’t completely apply.
I admit that I have not studied Falk. Even so, it's not clear to me why you would think that he doesn't fit the definition. I hope no one has gotten the impression that I think those in the TE camp do not do science or do not aim to support their positions with science. The key question of the distinction is this: When they write their conclusions as scientists, do they agree to stay within the boundary of appealing only to unguided, natural processes to explain effects in nature. If Falk says "Evolution wouldn't function if it were left to natural processes. Someone had to intervene." then he wouldn't fit the description of TE, and would be crossing over into ID inferences. If Falk merely gives God credit for supporting the whole process in a scientifically invisible and undetectable manner, then he is still well within standard TE teritory ("no fingerprints"). It is when God's involvement (or the involvement of any intelligence) becomes scientifically detectable that lines are being crossed and the real trouble begins.ericB
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
rrf Cute analogy, but I don’t think it holds. The age of the earth is certainly relevant to most ID proponents, if for varying reasons. ID proponents who accept common descent necessarily have an ancient earth as part of their scientific proposition. ID proponents of the special creation species are invested in a young earth as a matter of orthodoxy. I understand the big tent is a variant of the old saw that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But, at some point in the future, if ID vanguishes it’s enemy and becomes the reigning paradigm, it is going to have to take a position in one camp or the other. Sure it's relevant in some instances but the age of the earth just isn't something that ID speaks to as a theory of inferring design in complex patterns. Other theories and observations must be consulted about the age of the earth. The mere fact that ID proponents are not monolithic in what they believe about the age of the earth yet still agree that some complex patterns in nature warrant a design inference is proof of this. ID simply doesn't speak to the age of the earth. If you don't understand that and continue to argue in this vein you'll be invited to leave.DaveScot
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
tribune7: That is a view held by many, and probably most who consider themselves TEs, but it is not completely without merit — namely science should be the method to explain nature, and in most if not all cases it is best to restrict explanations about nature (or the material or the measurable) to science.
Those in the ID camp are not advocating that science shouldn't be used to explain nature. Rather, the objection is that teleological explanations (where supported by the evidence) should not be artificially excluded from the definition of "science". Science draws inferences from observing consistent patterns and forming general statements. Intelligent causes can have discernable effects that can be distinguished from the patterns of unguided effects. When the scientific evidence points to an effect being caused by intelligent agency, not by unguided, mindless processes, that should be acceptable as a scientific inference.ericB
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Appolos, you said "From my observations so far, there has been an utter unwillingness of TEs on this blog to engage ID proponents on scientific issues." I couldn't agree more. But maybe there are some out there who might be willing to have a dialog on science. Darrell Falk was here last year and it would be interesting if he came back.jerry
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
ericB
The dominant view today is that “science” should by definition be required to explain all of nature using only unguided natural process explanations. If one holds this view, then by definition, any explanation that says intelligent agency was required cannot be considered “science”, regardless of what the evidence says.
That is a view held by many, and probably most who consider themselves TEs, but it is not completely without merit -- namely science should be the method to explain nature, and in most if not all cases it is best to restrict explanations about nature (or the material or the measurable) to science. The problem that has arisen is the presumption that the only things that exist, or are of consequence anyway, are natural/material/measurable. Further, because of this presumption, false explanations have been made in the name of science.tribune7
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
"I suspect it will go better at Judgement Day for kind and generous Muslims and Jews than for mean and abusive members of Christian faiths." You're probably right.Atom
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Oh and hopefully, we are witnessing a new upheaval in Biology :D.Designed Jacob
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Jerry said:
We can certainly criticize some of the ASA’s actions but let’s start a dialog with them on science as best we can. That should be the objective.
From my observations so far, there has been an utter unwillingness of TEs on this blog to engage ID proponents on scientific issues. (I've been waiting with bated breath since the overreactions to comments about Ted Davis thread.) This indicates a consummate lack of respect for Intelligent Design and its arguments, and betrays an attitude of spiritual and intellectual elitism on the part of the TEs that I have observed on this blog. Their insistence to deflect any scientific discussion to one of theology is insulting and unlikely to change anytime soon, or at least until ID gains political ground. When this happens, as is likely, the TE priesthood will seek to ameliorate their own political deterioration by claiming accord with ID theories. (This sort of hedging has been observed here already with "We have more in common than not" type comments, and I predict that this type of equivocation will become more apparent as TE continues to become politically, scientifically, and spiritually irrelevant). I bear no ill will toward TE adherents themselves, quite the opposite in fact. I hope and pray the best for those TEs with similar theologies to those represented here; but I hope the ideology itself dies a public and humiliating death. Until that happens, the TE community will continue to act with an air of aristocracy in regard to ID, and seek to appear as a father, graciously welcoming the prodigal son (ID) home. In addition, they will continue to buttress materialistic interpretations of science, and seek to undermine efforts of the ID community to educate the public. Some may take issue with my harsh attitude toward TE in general, and that's fine, but I have to take issue with a world view that manages to compromise both science and Christian theology in one fell swoop.Apollos
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
I think it would be better for ID to take a position on the age of the earth now, rather than betray your confederate “cultural warriors” at some point later.
It's not ID's place to take a position on these matters. A particular hypothesis, within ID, like say "front loading" or "PEH" or "Omega Point Theory" can take a position on the age of the Earth. For the YECs within ID, with respect to biology I simply recommend assuming Billions of Years for the sake of argument in a hypothesis. As in the case for OOL, the point still comes across even if one assumes trillions of years! In mathematics, false hypotheses are used as a starting point in order to demonstrate where the false hypothesis is self contradictory. For example, one can assume the square root of two is rational (even though it is not) in order to demonstrate it is irrational. See Home School Math Example. Thus there is no need to take a position. I suggest even building theories from incorrect assumptions in order to demonstrate the assumptions are incorrect. One can assume life took billions of years to evolve from a primordial soup and still see the assumption of OOL is dead wrong. There is no need to insist on what the starting assumptions will be. Nature will have a way of demonstrating which assumptions are incosistent with facts. The only thing that ID should insist on is that the deductions be logical from whatever the starting premises are. If the starting presises are wrong, many times a Proof by Contradiction will result. If nature is friendly to scientific inquiry, we would expect false premises would lead to ridiculous conclusions. For example, assume Darwinian evolution is true. One will find that in making this assumption there will be numerous points where the theory self-destructs on its own demerits (i.e. Haldane's Dilemma, No Free Lunch, etc.) A square circle theory may not, at first glance, be obviously flawed, but logic has a way of showing where a theory asserts the existence of square circles and perpetual motion machines. Salvadorscordova
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
"(Don’t jump on me YEC people, I’m not trying to pick a fight; if it turns out you were right in the end I’ll concede gracefully ;) )" As will I. The thing is, it seems to me that every old human science has been falsified in most of its principles. Classical physics is now known to be an approximation of reality, alchemy became chemistry, and astronomy, geography, biology, and geology have all been up heaved. What has changed about humanity that our sciences are now perfected, never to be upheaved again by future discovery? Therefore I credit the Biblical account, which endures for all time, over the sciences that are here today and gone tomorrow.Designed Jacob
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Have to agree on all points with Dave Scott in 43 and also Denyse O’Leary words to the weak in faith: “Stay away from all Darwinists of whatever type, whether they claim to be Christians …”—maybe especially if they claim to be believers. And Karen is right—believers set themselves up for a comeuppance when they make strong claims. But that only makes them good Popperians if they admit it when proven wrong and then they adjust their interpretations accordingly. This is vastly better than the sophisticated but utterly irrelevant liberal who never says anything that could ever be proven wrong. Now of course there are religious groups with a lot invested in particular biblical interpretations—and it would be just about as hard for them to adjust to an old earth as for, say, the National Science Teachers Association to reject Darwin. There is one difference though. The YECs do far less damage because it's not illegal to challenge them. It’s difficult for people to grasp that ID is not an organization with magisterium and a position on every point. But no, it’s just defining and detecting design in the natural world. What a miracle that such a movement could get off the ground—a movement not tied to a particular person or church or religion—even I feel welcome.Rude
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
mentok, the relationship between faith and reason has puzzled many thinkers, one such famous account that comes to mind is Charles Peirce's Fixation of Belief, see http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html (Re: post 33: To claim that the existence of God has to be taken on irrational faith alone is contradicted by much of Christian theology which makes much of personal revelation of God by God to the individual, be it mystical or philosophical.) A newer and rather elaborate analysis of the problem can be found in the encyclical of John Paul II on Faith and Reason, see http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM But what really needs to be stressed and thrown in the face of sceptical scientists and atheists, is that they too have to take many things, and the axioms of their belief system, on faith.rockyr
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
On being the Christian thing to do, maybe it is time we lay off the TE's. Both Salvador and myself considered ourselves TE's till we started reading about the science behind evolution. Darrell Falk is a scientist and TE and he doesn't fit Denyse's or Ericb's definition from what I gather from reading his book and obviously neither did Salvador and I. Some of the books George Murphy recommended have a heavy theological over lay but Falk's book is mostly science. He justifies his beliefs with science. So maybe the generalization doesn't completely apply. We can certainly criticize some of the ASA's actions but let's start a dialog with them on science as best we can. That should be the objective.jerry
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Sure. All true Christians treat others well. But: All who treat others well are not necessarily Christian. Set theory; think of circles within or partly overlapping circles like we learned in grade school. My bottom line; if you don't treat people well, you're not a true Christian regardless of your beliefs. I suspect it will go better at Judgement Day for kind and generous Muslims and Jews than for mean and abusive members of Christian faiths.dacook
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
"I believe the way you tell a true Christian is, simply, by how they treat other people. That’s the most important “fruit” of the gospel." I agree, with one caveat. It would qualify very kind and generous Muslims and Jews as Christians, which I'm sure they'd find offensive. So while action is 95% of the formula, it isn't 100% (which you never claimed, but I say this to make it clear). Beliefs have to have at least a small part, for clarity if nothing else.Atom
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Karen; I'm going to throw my .02$ in because I've given that question a lot of thought, and I like your name (my mother, wife, daughter, and mother-in-law are all named Karen, same spelling, my sister with a different spelling) even though it's not addressed to me. I believe the way you tell a true Christian is, simply, by how they treat other people. That's the most important "fruit" of the gospel. Similarly, in war or any other endeavor, you tell the good guys from the bad guys by how they treat people. That's my simple discriminant. The world is full of "fake Christians." (Names come to mind but naming them in public might be... un-Christian :)) Sure the age of the earth is important. But not as important as a lot of other things.dacook
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply