Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

November Apologetics Conference — We need more than good arguments

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Announcement immediately below plus my commentary afterward:

The Nation’s Leading Christian Apologists to Speak
at The National Conference on Christian Apologetics,
November 7th and 8th in North Carolina

Contact: Deborah Hamilton, 215-815-7716

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, Sept. 10 /Christian Newswire/ — The nation’s leading Christian apologists will speak at Hickory Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC on November 7th and 8th to present The National Conference on Christian Apologetics, presented by the Southern Evangelical Seminary. The theme of this year’s conference is, “A Summit On Defense of the Biblical Worldview.” Plenary and elective sessions will provide solid apologetics content, touching on how the Christian worldview relates to the home, the church, and the culture.

This year’s keynote speaker will be Dr. James Dobson. Other speakers include Chuck Colson of Breakpoint and Prison Fellowship Ministries; Josh McDowell, radio host, author and evangelist; Lee Strobel, journalist and best-selling author; Dinesh D’Souza, author and former senior policy analyst during the Reagan administration; Dr. David Noebel, worldview expert and founder of Summit Ministries; Del Tackett, leader of Focus On the Family’s “The Truth Project”; Erwin Lutzer, best-selling author and pastor of Chicago’s historic Moody Church; William Dembski, author, scholar, educator and expert on intelligent design and many others.

MORE

It’s nice to be in such distinguished company as indicated in this press release. I’ll certainly make my usual ID arguments. But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

**Remember how computers were going to become more intelligent than us and that we would be luck if they deigned to keep us as pets?
**Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks?
**Remember how it was only a matter of time before the Miller-Urey experiment could be extended to explain the origin of life? (For the sheer hopelessness of OOL research, see my forthcoming book with Jonathan Wells, due out next month — How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not).)

The list of vapid materialist promises that show no sign of ever being fulfilled keeps growing and growing. But losing the intellectual battle no longer matters to materialists. Hence Richard Dawkins has no problem endorsing THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE, a movie that denies Jesus even existed. Imagine what you want to be true and then enforce its acceptance — that’s the “new scholarship.”

It should have been obvious that Marxist economics did not work, but the Marxists took over dozens of countries after, not before, the famines of the twenties and thirties. And ran those countries with an iron hand until the mid-eighties. Yes, we still need good arguments for the faith. But we also need to pay attention to the rapid growth of liberal fascism (check out Jonah Goldberg’s book on the topic here).

There’s an old New Yorker cartoon that shows a client seated across from his attorney. The attorney remarks, “You’ve got a great case Mr. Smith. Now, how much justice can you afford?” We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Comments
Patrick: Jerry: I think Dembski’s upb uses Old Earth numbers to provide a conservative estimate, not to reject YEC as a possibility. If he allowed YEC numbers in the EF, Darwinists would say that his methodology is flawed because he didn’t give natural causes enough time to either succeed or fail. So, to answer that objection, he must say, “OK, I’ll give you all the time you think you need and it still isn’t enough.” That does not seem to be the same thing as saying that he must rule out YEC in principle.StephenB
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Sorry, I was only replying to your first sentence. But I would agree that "Cosmological ID is under-served". Then again, there are many people who agree with cosmological ID but disagree with biological ID.Patrick
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Patrick The fine tuning problem as I understand it isn't related to the age of the universe. Physicist Carl Frederick did a really good job explaining it.DaveScot
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
Agreed. There needs to be some sort of agreed upon starting point. Might as well be the standard model since it serves as a good baseline for computing an estimate for probabilistic resources. Although, for an absolute maximum plasma models would probably be more appropriate since, if I remember correctly, some of them assume hundreds of billions of years. Problem with using that maximum for a UPB is, is there any biological object with an IC core composed of many thousands of informational bits?Patrick
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Jerry and Patrick The UPB using a 14byo universe is simply ceding a point for the sake of argument. Cosmological ID is underserved. The fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is like a trade secret of theoretical physics. DaveScot
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
For a question like "What caused this diversity?" I would say that would be the job, or within the scope, of the various ID-compatible hypotheses/models. Seriously, how do you expect the tools of core ID to even begin to address that question? The ID Movement is the people. And I don't see a point in causing a schism by claiming everyone within that movement must adopt a particular hypothesis or you're out. Do you think that in-fighting would resolve anything? As an individual you of course can constructively criticize hypotheses that you believe are incorrect, but that's different from adopting an "official model" for the ID Movement as a whole. It's almost like if the Darwinists as a whole were to say that you cannot be a Darwinist unless you accept a model favored by Dawkins or anyone else.Patrick
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Patrick, If ID is going to be a meaningful player in anything scientific, it must make meaningful scientific statements using its own particular scientific approach. It can not just ignore what is inconvenient for it to address because of political considerations. ID cannot sit off on the periphery of the science universe and only make statements about its little corner of the universe without considering the rest of the universe. Not if it wants to be serious. If ID wants to make statements about evolution, then it should only make statements about what it can conclude. If it wants to make a statement about Darwinian processes, then it must say that Darwinian processes is perfectly acceptable to ID for most of life on the planet. If ID has no information that would rule out Darwinian processes to explain most of life or any particular aspect of life then it can not just say it does not make sense but must actually say it does make sense (note to critics that I did not say all of life). To be a science it must provide a series of conclusions and if it is to be a serious science then it cannot contradict other scientific findings unless it has good evidence to do so. It can only rule out any Darwinian/other naturalistic processes if it specifies which examples it rules out and what is the scientific evidence for it. Otherwise it must accept them. I gave an example of the diversity of life on the planet. What caused this diversity? ID cannot ignore it. The only logical conclusion at the moment is that the earth is old. Unless one wants to say they were all created in situ but then one has to deal with the rest of the evidence. I am not sure what is meant by the ID Movement and how ID science is being conflated with it. I realize that ID is glommed onto by a whole host of people for their own personal ends but what is the ID movement. I thought that this site is mainly about science. We are trying to prevent "incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins." If that is true then why does ID tolerate young earth creationism as a partner by ignoring their science and attacking the science of neo Darwinism unless we think young earth creationism is correct about biological and cosmological origins. I know the reasons but I am trying to say that it is counter productive and antithetical to the objectives of ID as outlined above on this site. It is also antithetical to good science and I believe good politics. There is a bigger tent out there where ID does not have to ignore good science.jerry
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
The theories of physics and astronomy are inherent in ID. For example, the upb of Dembski uses specific dates to limit this number. If the universe was eternal as was thought till less than a hundred years ago by many then the upb has no meaning. So ID uses the concept of an old but limited earth in its science.
I said pretty much the same thing to Hugh Ross last time I met him and he was slamming the ID movement. I would agree that if 6000 year YEC were true then the UPB--while still be true--would be irrelevant from a practical perspective. Why bother with heavy math when even a "gut feeling calculation" would do. But here is where I disagree. Jerry, you seem to be conflating the ID Movement with core ID theory. The personalities and varying opinions of the Movement should not be conflated with the scientific tools. The UPB is only one tool and it is a maximum estimate for the entire universe. Core ID theory is compatible with many competing hypotheses, some of which are tied to particular religions. Compatibility does not rely on agreeing entirely with Dembski's UPB estimate. A hypothesis is only in conflict if it contradicts design detection. Even if the UPB estimate is wrong and the universe's age is, say, 1/4 to 3/4 that of current estimates I would still say that 500 informational bits is a good universal baseline. Although, personally I think a Biological Probably Bound BPB based upon only Earth's history would be more practical. One can begin on a personal level with the starting presumptions of a YECer and yet adopt an alternative worldview. Then if the results of the evidential investigation overturn the very presupposition of the initial investigation it is even more convincing. Proof via self-contradiction is a powerful tool. Sal Cordova does this. He accepts the dates as valid and yet shows how Darwinism fails. Your paragraph on beetles is an example of this, since you start with assumption of 6000 years, then look at evidence and say, "How could this be?" In short, I see no need to rend the Big Tent. I commented on other reasons over at OE.Patrick
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Dave, I have only a short time to answer your comment. No, ID needs to rule out law and chance to be a meaningful discipline and only deep time allows that. A young earth implies a short time so almost everything has to be designed. For ID to be meaningful, it must be an option not a necessity. You can use all those disciplines you named to support an old earth of a certain age but biology and evolution support an old earth too and has a valid mechanism for causing most of the change within biology, a mechanism which takes considerable time to play out. Micro evolution is the observed process of changes to populations over time through regular biological processes such as cell division, sexual reproduction, mutations, epigenetic processes, natural selection etc. Micro evolution is understood to a certain degree and is constantly being modified as science proceeds. Micro evolution demands there be an old earth for all the biological complexity to be present. You cannot pinpoint a date from micro evolution like you could from physics but it has to be fairly old. It is not something that could happen over a short time. So if ID wants to play in the evolution area, it must acknowledge this. Something it cannot rule out, must be accepted as a viable explanation. Now the biological clock that micro evolution demands is not as necessarily old as the earth as seen from geology or astronomy but it could be. So ID has to dispute a young earth but can be quite comfortable with an old earth but not a too old one. In other words a young earth is anathema to ID but an old earth is not and an infinite earth is also anathema. So we are dealing with a Goldilocks analogy here. The theories of physics and astronomy are inherent in ID. For example, the upb of Dembski uses specific dates to limit this number. If the universe was eternal as was thought till less than a hundred years ago by many then the upb has no meaning. So ID uses the concept of an old but limited earth in its science. It depends upon the big bang cosmology. Unless you think that all of it just was created a few thousand years ago but there is no scientific evidence for this so ID cannot be neutral and as I said in such a scenario ID is meaningless. Where did the 300,000 species of beetles come from? I do not keep repeating this example because I particularly like beetles but use it as an example of how much variety there is and right now the only logical process to explain most of them is a naturalistic process playing out over a long period of time. A process that is completely in sync with ID and may on closer examination represent great design and one that is completely as odds with a young earth. Even if a population of beetles was created 6,000 years ago there is not enough time through any mechanism we know of to create this variety unless all were created at once. It must have been a very buggy ark.jerry
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
PaulGiem It isn't how fast the Hawaiian Islands rose up above sea level. It's how slowly they erode back below it. You're beating a dead horse and making yourself look stupid in the process. Overwhelming evidence points to an earth orders of magnitude older than 6,000 years. If the God of Abraham created the earth six thousand years ago he went to great pains to make it appear to the observer that he did it closer to six billion years ago.DaveScot
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Jerry As I thought would happen, you couldn't say a single substantive thing about how design detection gives us any information about the age of the earth. You need geology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics among other things to support an old earth, not intelligent design.DaveScot
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
jerry (47), I agree with YEC (52). To take two of your examples; are you aware that there is evidence that at least one magnetic reversal happened very rapidly? And given the speed at which the island of Surtsey emerged, how much time is actually required to produce the Hawaiian Islands (presumably what you referred to when you mentioned "volcanic island formation")?Paul Giem
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Jerry: Thanks for the link and the heads up. This looks interesting. Timeaus is very patient and his TE adversaries have been courteous---and not too overwhelmingly numerous. I hope the dialogue continues.StephenB
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Jerry (and StephenB), I find the suggestion that ID disassociate itself from YEC somewhat amusing. Both Behe and Dembski have clearly done that, and look at how much good it did them with the scientific community. Furthermore, if ID is defined as the concept that there is evidence supporting the agency of some kind (or kinds) of intelligent designer in the physical realm and that this evidence should be taken straightforwardly, then YEC's believe in intelligent design. The major divergence is the time frame. And we will still be (natural) allies and support the concept of intelligent design, because we actually believe in it also. Defining away the relationship won't make it go away. StephenB, you wrote (32),
The YECs are far more rational than the other two groups, questionable assumptions notwithstanding. They give straight answers to straight quesetions and they don’t look for every opportunity to escape when the argument is not going their way.
Thanks. In (19) you say,
If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can’t make a prior commitment to an old earth.
I agree. I would go further. If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can't make a prior commitment to ID. ID must follow from the evidence. These people who want commitments sound suspiciously like religious bigots to me, the same kind as they accuse (sometimes rightly) YEC's of being. jerry, (46) Regarding evolution, you say, "YEC’s don’t really believe in evolution but ID accepts evolution and only debates the mechanism for it." This needs clarification. There are at least 6 meanings of evolution: (1) change over time, (2) change in biology over time, (3) biological changes driven by RV&NS, (4) changes in biology leading to new species, (5) the emergence of new orders, classes, phyla, and possibly kingdoms by RV&NS, and (6) the progression of the universe from the Big Bang to human history without any intelligent intervention. Most educated YEC's in fact believe in evolution under definitions 1-4. While many of them assume that speciation is more a matter of sorting through pre-existing ("front-loaded") information than the creation of new mutations, I do not know of a YEC who doesn't believe that the latter happens, as exemplified by sickle-cell disease and some kinds of bacterial resistance (AIG doesn't like me to say this, but I doubt that even they would disagree with the concepts outlined here; they just don't want to call it evolution). So unless you are talking about definitions 5 and 6, YEC's in fact do believe in evolution, and your statement is incorrect. However, most ID adherents don't believe in definitions 5 and 6 either. So in order for your statement to be true, you must have a different definition of evolution. You need to make clear what that definition is. That means that your statement, "Evolution is not something ID can remain neutral on and the potential mechanisms for it", needs clarification. Furthermore, when you state, "I do not think the age of the earth is one it can remain neutral on", you miss an important point. StephenB has clearly indicated that he is not neutral on the age of the earth, or more to the point, the age of life on earth. He clearly at present believes that the evidence is strongly in support of an old earth with old life, and believes that this evidence should be trusted. What more do you want? An oath saying that he will never in the future consider YEC under any circumstances? StephenB made a reasonable request:
B] Explain exactly what you mean by disassociation and be explcit about how that should be made public. (Should Michael Behe challenge Paul Nelson to a duel at sunrise or should he simply run and hide when Paul says “good morning.”)
Do you simply want a disclaimer stating that the author believes in the standard geologic time scale? That's already been done by Behe and Dembski (and StephenB). Should YEC's not be allowed to comment on this blog, while Ted Davis and even sparc continue to comment? What precisely do you want done that is not already done? That Darwinists recognize that ID is not creationism? The chances of that happening are close to those of insulin spontaneously assembling, and it has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with political advantage. I agree that you need "to think out more" what you want to say, so am trying to give you some clarifying feedback.Paul Giem
September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
For all you interested in the ID/TE debate, Timaeus has reappeared on ASA and there is an extensive discussion about ID there. Timaeus is defending ID against many TE's and answering their questions about ID. The list of ASA for September is http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/ And Timaeus's post is not by him but by Ted Davis. Scroll down to the post by Ted Davis Ted Davis (Mon Sep 22 2008- 15:35:54 EDT) I have not read all the replies and Timaeus's replies to the questions put to him because everything represents 53 pages printed out. It might be useful starting a thread here to monitor what is being said and see if we agree with what is being said. So far I think Timaeus has been giving a great defense of ID there.jerry
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
jerry said (#47) --
I am not a geologist but have studied it in bits and pieces and the gradualism that is hoped for in biology but embarrassingly missing is present in geology in several different processes. These gradual processes that are operating each day in our present time and are consistent with many of the structures we find in the world. The biologists cannot say the same.
As I said, I have wondered about “slot canyons,” e.g., The Narrows in Zion National Park. Is this the result of natural gradual erosion? Does it seem reasonable that the river could saw straight down through the rock with none of the side erosion that we see in other canyons such as the Grand Canyon? As for the Grand Canyon, does it seem reasonable that natural erosion could create such a wide canyon, up to 18 miles wide? And the Colorado River today seems like such a silly little river in comparison to the size of the Grand Canyon.Larry Fafarman
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
jerry, Just time for a quick response... YECs have dealt with all those items you have listed. Unfortunately, most people think about YEC in the same way they think about ID ... they don't bother to get a real understanding of it because they think they know enough already. I understand that there is a fairly comprehensive YEC geology book coming out soon by Snelling which will gather in one place some of the excellent YEC work that has been going on that isn't always easily accessed. This kind of book has been needed for some time. I hope you take the time to read that book and maybe get a new perspective on YEC arguments. Your name must have been in the moderation list twice or I didn't save the list after I removed it. Sorry about that. You should be off moderation now. -ds YEC
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Apparently Obama recently said: "I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny" Somehow I doubt Obama (and probably McCain too) really knows a thing about ID. Do you think he could explain irreducable complexity, or no free lunch, or universal probability limits? I doubt it. He probably thinks the sum total of teaching ID would amount to "On the other hand students, some people believe that the world around us is the result of intelligent design (end of lesson)."YEC
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
StephenB, "Yes, in the context of uniformitarianism, “catastrophic events” can occur, " They not only "can" occur but they occur frequently and gradual events lead to catastrophic events all the time which are in turn modified by gradual events just as they do today. The geological record is consistent with both happening frequently. It is a complete law and chance process. Neither of which is happening today in biology. We see no gradual accumulation of new complex functional formations nor do we see any catastrophic changes either. Nor do we see any gradual events happening in the past that led to new organized functionality. Geology has no organized functionality in it where as biology does. People like to use analogies to make their case as do Darwinists who look to the geological record or language change as examples of how evolution might work. But one is law and chance completely that leads to no functional complexity and one is intelligently designed though chaotic in nature and subject to environmental effects. Again I do not know what the point you are making is about. For such a clear writer, you are confusing me on this.jerry
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
----Jerry: "I am not sure I follow what you are getting at. Why am I confused?" Uniformitarianism is a basic principle of geology and paleontology. It holds that the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past. Catastrophism holds that earth surface features originated suddenly by a process radically different from those we now observe. Yes, in the context of uniformitarianism, “catastrophic events” can occur, but that doesn’t alter the principle. You are confusing “catastrophic events” in the context of the principle of uniformatarianism, with the principle Catastrophism, which is totally incompatible with the principle of uniformitarianism.StephenB
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed said (#28) --
As such (a political game) it hardly makes sense for ID to align itself beside YEC, particularly if your competitor’s Point Numero Uno is that ID isn’t science.
DaveScot said (#44) --
Conflating ID and YEC is a lame untruth that our opponents use because it sells well to the unwashed masses and we, at least here at UD and most other flags under which ID supporters rally, will not be bullied by a lie into shrinking the size of our tent. Our stand is based on principle. We work to expose the lie rather than buckle under it.
Another reason why Darwinists conflate ID and YEC, Dave, is so they can misuse the Constitution's establishment clause to attack the teaching or even mention of ID in the public schools. The Darwinists do not give ID proponents any Brownie points for rejecting YEC -- the Darwinists insist on always calling ID "ID creationism." YEC's are not always friendly towards ID, but Answers-in-Genesis, a YEC outfit, enthusiastically advertises Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," an ID movie:
Special pre-release SALE! Get everyone you know to view this eye-opening documentary. Host a video party at your home! Order now to receive it immediately upon its worldwide release! (Ships beginning October 21) The lie of evolution must be exposed! The message of this top-quality expose' will both enthrall and shock you. Ben Stein's amazing, much-discredited (by evolutionists!) documentary is worthy of an Academy Award(R). But it will never receive one, because it reveals that America is losing some of its most important freedoms (academic freedoms, especially in tax-supported institutions) because of what atheistic evolutionists are doing. You will be astounded at what they have already done to squash educational freedom and mock God . . . . . . . A very popular “evolution-busting” tool to expose the lack of academic freedom in America’s schools today, we urge you to use it as a powerful resource for outreach. This film is an excellent springboard to tell people who the real intelligence behind the universe is: the Creator God of the Bible. Buy an extra copy and tell your pastor that the whole church—including the teens—must see it! Professional review “Expelled is a highly entertaining and riveting documentary . . . it’s one of those rare films that I urge you not to miss.” — Ken Ham, CEO/President of Answers in Genesis–USA
-- from http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Expelled-No-Intelligence-Allowed,5749,229.aspx The Answers-in-Genesis website also sells Michael Behe's ID book Darwin's Black Box.Larry Fafarman
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
YEC, I believe, plate tectonics, mid ocean ridge formation, volcanic island formation, magnetic field reversal and silt deposits are only a few items that strongly support an old earth and are both gradual and catastrophic in nature. There are many more but these are good for starters. There is good evidence that these processes have operated in the past and are definitely operating in the present. I am not a geologist but have studied it in bits and pieces and the gradualism that is hoped for in biology but embarrassingly missing is present in geology in several different processes. These gradual processes that are operating each day in our present time and are consistent with many of the structures we find in the world. The biologists cannot say the same.jerry
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
Dave, Two things: First: I have been very busy and most of my comments have been made on the fly so I haven't spent much time here. Most of my free time has gone to trying to figure out the mortgage crisis. It is now 1:30 in the morning and I have a few minutes to respond. Second: it has been just six months since you invited me to be an author. I have had some unusual circumstances that has prevented me from submitting anything and probably will continue to prohibit me from doing so in the near future. I definitely have some ideas but want to read much more before I stick my neck out. The one that interest me the most is just what is ucd and what are its implications. The other one is just how much do Darwinian processes explain in nature. I happen to think a lot but like you believe it is limited to the devolution of species not the upward evolution proposed by the Darwinists. That would fit in with your beliefs in front loading. I also believe that ID leads to an embracing of an old earth. That I have to think out more and would like the thoughts of others on this. I am not sure how much help I will get here on this. I made the statement before that the YEC's don't really believe in evolution but ID accepts evolution and only debates the mechanism for it. Evolution is not something ID can remain neutral on and the potential mechanisms for it. We should list the things ID can remain neutral on and those they cannot. I do not think the age of the earth is one it can remain neutral on. In order to apply ID methods it is necessary to assume an old earth or else the conclusions do not make sense. ID can not rule out micro evolution as a valid scientific theory and micro evolution implies an old earth. So from a political stand point some in ID say it is neutral on the age of the earth but from a scientific stand point it cannot be. Which is why I continue to point out the inconsistency of ID being neutral on the age of the earth not only because it is bad science but also because it really inhibits acceptance of it by a much wider audience. ID should start off every discussion of itself with the statement that it is completely consistent with a universe of 14 billion years, an earth of 4.5 billion years, of life existing on this earth for around 3.5 billion years and a general progression of life over that time to greater complexity and more sophisticated functionality. The only thing ID objects to in current evolutionary biology is the mechanism for the appearance of some new species (the real debate is over how big this "some" is). Besides saying that it is not inconsistent with an old earth ID should say it accepts certain mechanism for species origin as likely and that these mechanisms imply an old earth. I am mainly thinking of micro evolution here and the new species are mainly due to devolution. When ID makes such a statement and people like Steve Fuller begin their debate with such a statement, they will dominate the debate instead of being defensive through most of it. It would also be a topic in major discussions such as the upcoming conference at the Vatican on evolution. It would also dominate the college debates and rid many ID supporters of evasive and defensive debating techniques. It would put the Darwinists on the defensive in these debates. I am sure many will say I am dreaming but that's what I believe and that is what I continue to push for.jerry
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Prof. Dembski! I couldn’t agree more! Right on!! The Designer be with you at that conference! “But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.” Indeed they have—yet the political battle rages—note Jonah Goldberg and Dennis Prager today. Materialism must win at all costs, everything else is ignored and forgotten—including 9/11. Today, for what it’s worth, is 23 Elul on the Jewish calendar (as was 9/11/01), and there we see Ahmadinejad lashing out at us and Israel, but what do we care—destroying Sarah Palin is what matters. No, the logical case against Darwin and for ID has been made—overwhelmingly! But the materialist elite will not go quitely into the night. We must help them!Rude
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Jerry/Upright You know I love you guys and my opinion re an old earth is aligned with yours. I even agree with you that YEC association essentially poisoned the well for ID in several ways. However, I urge you to keep in mind that design detection, so far as I know, in and of itself does not give us dates or methods of design. It is, in actuality, only one small part of making a case for YEC. It does not make their case. They have a very long row to hoe beyond simply pointing to design detection in order to show when and how the design was accomplished. If you believe design detection speaks either for against an old earth then make your case for how it does. Otherwise we're not going to be throwing anyone under the bus for political expediency. Conflating ID and YEC is a lame untruth that our opponents use because it sells well to the unwashed masses and we, at least here at UD and most other flags under which ID supporters rally, will not be bullied by a lie into shrinking the size of our tent. Our stand is based on principle. We work to expose the lie rather than buckle under it. So what I suggest is that those of us who have no problem taking the evidence for an old earth with life diversifying on it for most of its tenure continue to hammer home that evolution by chance & necessity alone is a dog that won't hunt even when given all the time & opportunity of billions of years of years of descent from one or a few common ancestors and continue pointing to the positive evidence of design as the only other known mechanism with the capacity for explaining the origin and diversification of life. And to Jerry in particular, I promoted you from subsciber to author a long time ago so that you could stop spinning your wheels in the comments and get more visibility by putting your views, which are aligned with mine, on the front page in article format. Yet you haven't availed yourself of that opportunity in what must be at least a year or two. Put your money where your mouth is and give me some support in getting more science headlines copacetic with design and an old earth on this blog. Use your knowledge and writing skills to flog the Darwinists instead of flogging fellow ID supporters. DaveScot
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Here are some quick references related to the anecdote above: Old Austin article for the layman: http://www.icr.org/article/337/ Abstract for geology conf.: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_45610.htm Article by Snelling (another YEC PhD geologist) for the layman: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/time.asp (To moderators: It appears that not everyone's comments are moderated ... I've been good for a long time and I don't cause much trouble, is there way to get off the must-be-moderated list?) Done. You were nearly the first name on a very long moderation list. Sorry it took so long. It's easier getting on the moderation list than getting off of it. -dsYEC
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
----"Clearly someone who talks about the “understatement of the millenia” [sic] is not given to hyperbole." If I have told him once, I have told him five million times to stop exaggerating.StephenB
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Hi jerry, You said: "There is evidence for both gradualistic and catastrophic occurrence in the geological record and detailed evidence for both playing a part in the history of the earth not only in the past but in the world today." Would you mind specifying the evidence for past gradualistic geologic processes that require vast amounts of time, and that cannot possibly be produced by rapid processes? Little anecdote ... Steve Austin (YEC w/ PhD in sedimentary geology) was doing well at showing that geologic features thought to have formed over vast amounts of geologic time, were better explained by catastrophic processes. Fed-up old-earthers finally threw up their hands and said, "Look, all you have to do is go to the Grand Canyon and look at the layers there that HAD to have been laid down over vast periods of time." So he went, and among other discoveries of evidence of rapid deposition, discovered what may be the largest catastrophically laid fossil deposit in the world. The fossil layer was right in the middle of one of these beds which HAD to have been laid down over millions of years.YEC
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Jerry: Upright Biped: If you are going to suggest that ID throw YEC under the bus, I ask that you make a few points explicit: [A] Why is it necessary to end all relationships with decent and civilized people (YECs) in order to make the point that a religious presupposition (YEC) is not an empirical observation (ID). Why is it not enough to simply make the point in print and at every opportunity. [B] Explain exactly what you mean by disassociation and be explcit about how that should be made public. (Should Michael Behe challenge Paul Nelson to a duel at sunrise or should he simply run and hide when Paul says "good morning.") [C] Draw me a picture about how [B] will change things. Tell me how it all plays out---Which Darwinist will stop lying, which TE will finally decide whether or not God really does intervenes in the evolutionary process, which burueacrat in the academy will be persuaded to give ID its rightful place at the table, and which of the uncommitted seekers of truth will decide in favor of ID. [D] Meanwhile, explain why we don't confront materialist Darwinists, our real enemies, and take them to court for violating their precious doctrine of Church/State separation. Inasmuch as they are teaching children the RELIGION of Secular Humanism in the name of science, why don't we stop cowering and go after them. Explain why we shouldn't ALL GET FAMOUS TOGETHER.StephenB
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
"May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened” May I suggest the truth or what is the best evidence available.jerry
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply