Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

NCSE’s Hess Says: “ID is Blasphemous”, Atheist Rosenhouse Begs to Differ


What are the central theological failings of intelligent design? First, it is blasphemous.

Peter Hess, Faith Project Director, NCSE

In an ironic twist, Darwinist Atheist Jason Rosenhouse takes Darwinist Theologian Peter Hess to task here: Is ID Blasphemous (Rosenhouse). Rosenhouse concludes that ID is “not blasphemous”.

David Heddle then provides some modification Rosenhouse’s arguments in Comment 20, and also agrees that ID is not blasphemous

The NCSE’s Hess is wrong. Rosenhouse agrees. Heddle agrees. I agree. Wow! Or to quote PZ Myers:

The NCSE is lying.

HT: Mike Gene

I think the NCSE has made it clear: It's perfectly okay to promote religion in school, as long as it happens to be the right kind that gives up everything it originally promoted and will eventually implode on itself. Will the ACLU care about this one? F2XL
Peter Hess is, of course, free to present his own beliefs and arguments but I do not believe the NCSE as a body has any business getting involved in theological disputes. Seversky
likewise makes the claim that ID is blasphemous.</ Then they have to say all observations of nature are blasphemous. tribune7
Francisco Ayala, in DARWIN'S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION, likewise makes the claim that ID is blasphemous. The NCSE now has a choice to make: if they allow their representatives to say that ID is blasphemous, then they tacitly claim evolution is the only way to be theologically reasonable, in which case evolution does become inherently religious, which the NCSE principals would rather not concede; on the other hand, if they say ID is religiously okay, then they are going to have more and more problems keeping their troops in line (the Biologos people have it in for ID in the worst possible way, and that means arguing that it is theologically substandard). It will be interesting to watch what the NCSE does. William Dembski
I quote what Dr. Heddle got right:
The bible, very unambiguously, suggests otherwise. Hebrews 11 is the faith hall of fame--and every person mentioned at charter members saw god or spoke to him or witness miracles. If what you say is true, then Gideon, who repeatedly demanded physical evidence of God before he would act, should be in the faith hall of shame, not the hall of fame. .... There is nothing wrong, theologically, with looking for evidence of God.
I don't get why the faithful want to pal around with Darwinists that are bent on the destruction of Christianity. Hess teaches at what appears to be a catholic seminary. Maybe the Dawkins won't be so endearing if he gets away with his wish to have Pope Benedict incarcerated:
RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Times UK: Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI My suggestion to the faithful, make alliances with Dawkins and Hitchens to your own peril. There is no need to prop up a failed scientific theory like Darwinism to support an indefensible heological position that God must somehow not evidence Design in the universe. HT: Mike Gene for the TimesUK article and Rosenhouse' essay and the PZ Myers quote. scordova

Leave a Reply