Granville Sewell on the backlash against ID

_{William Dembski

November 24, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Why Are They So Angry?
Granville Sewell

There are a lot of articles out there on the web intended to refute my writings on Intelligent Design, but if there is one that isn’t full of anger and personal insults, I haven’t located it yet. Other ID proponents have experienced similar reactions to their writings, and must have also wondered, why are they so angry? I think we all know that the source of this anger is not, as our critics claim, a fear that drawing the obvious conclusions from the scientific evidence for design in Nature threatens the foundations of science.

It is clear to me that we will never reach many of these people by simply uncovering more evidence, or strengthening our arguments: the better our logic, the more angry they become. The source of this anger no doubt lies outside the world of science.

MORE: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/anger.html

Comments

Chris Hyland wrote, " . . . the general impression given by the movement is that they think they deserve a place at the table with apparently barely having done any science to try and prove their ideas." It's a good thing ID and it's close cousins have been at the table inspiring medical discoveries for over a hundred years. The assumption that unexplained biological entities (fluids, structures, processes) exist for a purpose has parented most medical breakthroughs. If scientists really rejected ID, then they wouldn't bother looking any deeper into "junk DNA." Neal Roysnroys_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Chris Hyland: I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak for Sewell in particular, but in my experience scientists are angered by the claims that the ID movement has overturned decades of scientific research without actually doing any of their own. Chris Hyland points out a common attitude. You see, Darwinists own all, of the data of empirical science and they alone have total freedom to (mis)interpret it. No one else has the right to interpret published data. Other people have to go and get their own data. By this standard Max Planck was a thief because he found the quantum mechanical explanation of blackbody radiation without doing any of his own measurements, unfairly overturning decades of hard-won research based on assumptions of classical electromagnetism. I guess he did so out of shear laziness, piggybacking on the hard work of others without lifting a finger himself. Planck should be ashamed.Matteo_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

"In my experience that is total laughable nonsense." Obviously some scientists are thicker skinned than other so it doesn't bother them. This is just my experience of course the scientists you talk to might think differently. What I haven't seen any evidence of is that scientists see the evidence for design in nature and ignore it because it will change the foundations of science. I have several colleagues who see the evidence of design in nature but they are theistic evolutionists so they don't think it's science. "How many ounces of gold were produced by the critics of alchemy?" I'm afraid I don't know much about alchemy but my understanding would be that it's critics would have to prove that you couldn't produce gold. Having said that scientists have turned lead into gold so the alchemists have the last laugh, although I don't imagine they got their moneys worth. "Were alchemists angered by the man on the street who scoffed at their enterprise?" I don't know whether that's a good analogy or not. I guess in the blogosphere the idea is best put by David Heddle, but it is simply that if ID wants itself to be considered a scientific theory it has to do the research. I'm told by people here that it is being done so this might not be a problem soon but it is right now. Of course there are a lot of ID supporters that agree with that basic point, but the general impression given by the movement is that they think they deserve a place at the table with apparently barely having done any science to try and prove their ideas.Chris Hyland_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

second post: "I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say anything about hellfire. ... Read before you react, all right?" Compared to first post : "The idea of an eternal hellfire..." Read your own words before you backlash. All right?Borne_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

I am not a theologian and I do not feel comfortable talking about theology, I would much rather talk about the scientific evidence for design. But after 30 years of frustration, it has become clear to me that there are limits on the persuasive power of logic and evidence; sometimes you just have to try to understand why your critics are so angry.
As we were putting the finishing touches on the plans to serve 250 Thanksgiving Day Dinners, I brought up Intelligent Design. What Sewell said is just about exactly how I put it- ID is for those not comfortable with religion and/ or the YEC PoV but not willing to blindly accept the purely materialistic PoV. Next I plan to show them what ID is about. I will start with my 3-hour ID challenge, and go from there.Joseph_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Chris Hyland: I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak for Sewell in particular, but in my experience scientists are angered by the claims that the ID movement has overturned decades of scientific research without actually doing any of their own. In my experience that is total laughable nonsense.Joseph_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

I didn't say anything about hellfire. I said about God torturing people for eternity. Read before you react, all right?faithandshadow_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Chris Hyland // Nov 24th 2006 at 2:53 pm I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak for Sewell in particular, but in my experience scientists are angered by the claims that the ID movement has overturned decades of scientific research without actually doing any of their own. Comment by Chris Hyland Ã¢â‚¬â€ November 24, 2006 @ 2:53 pm How many ounces of gold were produced by the critics of alchemy? Were alchemists angered by the man on the street who scoffed at their enterprise?russ_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

I love this comment:
It is clear to me that we will never reach many of these people by simply uncovering more evidence, or strengthening our arguments: the better our logic, the more angry they become.
Sewell has backwards. What frosts us, Mr. Sewell, is that when the logically fallacies Dawinists employ to bolster their case are clearly spelled out, they simply refuse to admit it. "Better logic" on the part of Darwinists would mean fallacy free logic!DonaldM_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

faithandshadow: "If that pagan myth is ever banished from Christianity" Of course this kind of statement ignores the fact that almost everything we know about this "hellfire" was stated by the Commander and Chief of Christianity Jesus Christ. In fact, count them, you find almost exactly 2 times the number of references to hell by Christ than his references to heaven. So, if the God of Christianity was mistaken on this one point, perhaps he was mistaken on all or others. In any case, we all lose and Chrisitanity falls. For, if the gospel records are not in fact accurate we have no other complete and reliable sources to know anything about Jesus Christ. Thus, such a statement either denies that Christ spoke these things - in which case we end up with no further complete and reliable sources of anything about him; or, admitting that he said, it accuses him of being a pagan in promoting a "pagan myth". And furthermore, the references to "hell" in scripture go back way before the time of Christ. You cannot pick and choose amongst the commandments or words of Christ - taking those you like and ignoring those you don't. He does not offer such paltry allegiances. Hell is the penitentiary, the insane asylum, of the moral universe. If there is no hell, there ought to be one. Otherwise no real justice will ever be done for the infinite dammages laid upon the universe by the rebellious who have disobeyed the law of love to do what is right in their own eyes. As the author of the Ecclesiates said, "One sinner destroys much good". This "pagan myth" theory of hell is by no means Christian. Not can it ever be, not while admitting the truth of our most reliable sources of historical information about him - the scriptures and especially the gospels. But if one denies that then there is little left to go on is there.Borne_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

I can't speak for Sewell in particular, but in my experience scientists are angered by the claims that the ID movement has overturned decades of scientific research without actually doing any of their own.Chris Hyland_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

The idea of an eternal hellfire where God tortures people forever is probably near the heart of atheism. They see it as a contradiction, and they are right to because it isn't, in fact, sensible. If that pagan myth is ever banished from Christianity, and people see that God isn't some vindictive dictator, they'll like Him a lot better than they do now. It certainly made a huge difference in my faith.faithandshadow_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Sewell is awesome.DaveScot_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Loving and forgiving - but also just. The Bible continually reminds us that Jesus will judge the earth at the end of time. And - contrary to Sunday School lessons - Jesus actually talked more about Hell then he did Heaven. Scary... If I didn't have a balanced understanding of God's grace, atheism might sound more attractive then it does. I think the problem lies with Christians not teaching the whole truth about what they believe. Some swing one way and relentlessly preach hell and judgement without grace. And some emphasize a Mister Rogers God that doesn't care about justice and righteousness. Both ring false to the atheist at heart.levi_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

I've noticed that many of loudest atheist come from strict religious upbringings. I wonder if I might not be one if I had not been raised with an emphasis on a loving, forgiving God.tribune7_{November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply