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
Clearly someone who talks about the "understatement of the millenia" [sic] is not given to hyperbole.allanius
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
-----allanius: "The strongest political tactic for ID is to state its case in an attractive way. ID has natural power because nature looks designed. Now it needs the right kind of rhetoric to transmute this natural power into political gold. May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened" Check out "The Evidential Power of Beauty, by Father Thomas Dubay.StephenB
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened
Indeed, the understatement of the millenia. Most Americans would be complete shocked to find out that there have been any scientific discoveries that support the possibility of a Creation. All science supports Darwinism.Upright BiPed
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
The strongest political tactic for ID is to state its case in an attractive way. ID has natural power because nature looks designed. Now it needs the right kind of rhetoric to transmute this natural power into political gold. May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened. Behe, for example, is learned and convincing and certainly writes well; but the very homeliness of the mousetrap analogy defines its own political limitations. Design is magnificence. This becomes more evident every day through basic research, which leaves man stuttering in wonder at what has been made. Now the task is for someone to communicate this magnificence effectively and in a positive way. Make note of the positive. If ID wants political influence, it must move beyond the resistance stage. It must put the “Darwin on trial” approach behind it and present itself in more inspiring weeds. Gravity and especially light can be used effectively as wildcards in this new polemic, by the way. Their mysteriousness can be easily grasped and is a good antidote to the insufferable egotism of Big Science. As for the larger culture—well, we are of the opinion that the antithesis that is Modernism can only be overthrown by a new construct of value that counteracts its nothingness with the self-evident goodness of nature. The way to overthrow the superannuated Age of Great Theories is to reground its nothingness in sense. Nothingness was an illusion produced by Darwin. In point of fact, nature is not nothing. Nature is “very good.” Cultural change must begin there.allanius
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Bill, nice quote by the real Roosevelt... also you played it brilliantly. I thought that was a rant by you- a culmination of your emotion towards the current state of things and then I saw it was actually from 1911. Some things are timeless, and "the controversy" is such.Frost122585
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
StephenB
The academy doesn’t accept ID because it doesn’t want to; it has little to do with the company we keep.
You are correct in your assessment, but it seems like a rather empty observation, and it doesn't change the reality on the ground. The academy may or may not care if your scientific beliefs are based on Genesis, but the Academy caring about it isn't the issue - at least not from a strategic sense. The issue is can they use it to silence your opposition to their control over information, and the overwhelming truth of the matter is - yes they can. I stopped by a bookstore yesterday (Bookpeople in Austin Texas, supposedly the largest independent bookstore in America) and was amazed and maddened by the selection. Amongst four lone copies of EOE was a literary lovefest with the idea that ID is CS...and neither is science. Ah well, I don't have to tell you, you already know the score. One point though: Two of the principles of opposing force say that to undertake a direct attack on a heavily defended position is a matter of (a) attacking at the weakness inherent in strength and (b) to NOT broaden your forces. In this case, the weakness inherent in strength is the fact that the Darwinian paradigm is falsified by the empirical evidence in fossils, in mathematics, and in micro-biology. And further, to not broaden your forces would almost certainly include not trying to also get YEC through the door. It's simply a strategic reality, ID doesn't have the resources (nor the inclination) to pull that off. - - - - - - To your last comment (31) - I understand your position, but to my mind it doesn't follow that
If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can’t make a prior commitment to an old earth.
That represents an expansion of a goal that will forever exceed the resources of the ID movement.Upright BiPed
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Actually, I should have said [A]"most of us disagree with your assumptions. By the way, I have interacted with YECs, Darwinists, and TEs on this site, and I will be happy to go on the record with this comment: 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.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
-----Upright Biped: "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." I suppose there might be two levels of disassociation or two ways of speaking to the YECs. [A] "We totally disagree with all of your assumptions, and we say so publicly every chance we get. [B] "Don't speak to me." It seems to me that level [A] should be sufficient.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Jerry, I will try to start winding down, but not just yet. -----“By rejecting a claim that let’s say has the probability of 10^ -10,000,000 you then say I am endorsing a another claim that is impossible, and thus you can then pin some nasty attribution to me. Non sequitur.” Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be a “nasty attribution,” nor was I connecting dots here. I was going by previous comments in which you characterized the Kansas City Science criteria as acceptable. I assumed, then, that you accepted its attendant methodological naturalism as well. Did I misread you on that? -----“ID is about science as far as I am concerned and not about theology. You just put ID in the theology mode and that is the problem.” Now that is a "nasty attribution" {insert smiley face}. No, I do not. When I argue for ID science, I always argue from the bottom up. Take note of a recent discussion that I had with TedD and JackK in which I asked them to account for “functionally specified complex information.” They immediately headed for the tall grass and tried to reframe the issue. After they put religion on the table, it was one more variable that I needed to respond to. Very seldom am I the first to broach the issue. ----“StephenB, we agree on most things in this debate except for the association of ID with YEC. I believe it is extremely negative for the acceptance of ID as legitimate and you do not share that view. I will continue to proffer that point of view since I believe the evidence supports it.” I celebrate your right to do it and I admire your dedication towards that end. Also, you do as good of a job separating Darwin’s general theory from Darwin’s special theory as anyone. Obviously, I feel differently about the ID/YEC connection. In my judgment, the TEs and Darwinists who claim to be scandalized by our association with “creationists” are being disingenuous. Or, if they are sincere, meaning that if they really do confuse creationism’s Biblical presuppositions with IDs empirical observations, then they are intellectually challenged in the extreme. For crying out loud, these people do this for a living. Don’t you think they have a moral obligation to know what they are talking about? If they can’t distinguish motives from methods, how bright can they be? Anyone who thinks that Ken Ham and Michael Behe are on the same page is less in need of instruction and more in need of therapy. The academy doesn’t accept ID because it doesn’t want to; it has little to do with the company we keep. Also, I should make it clear for other observers that I am not arguing on behalf of YEC. I am saying that, as unlikely as it is, it cannot possibly be as unlikely radical Materialist Darwinism. We should not forget about that point, because it helps us to more accurately assess IDs role in the big picture.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
jerry said (#22) --
StephenB, “The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration.” Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution.
If ID scientists are not being invited to the Vatican conference on evolution, then how can the conference properly consider the question of whether ID is relevant or not?
By the way I suggest you study geology. 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.
I have wondered about "slot canyons," e.g., The Narrows in Zion National Park. Is this the result of "natural" 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?Larry Fafarman
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
When I make my visits here (which is often) I truly enjoy reading both StephenB and Jerry's comments on the issues raised. I value them both. IMO there is little doubt about the issue of YEC. If we are to believe that a Creator has sought to trick humanity by whatever means, then all scientific credibility is out the window. ID can close shop and everyone go home. Personally, I think the YEC view shortchanges the Creation. I think the evidence shows that the Creator designed a real world - one that actually operates within definitions - not one that is just a membrane of reality in which to fool the inhabitants. However, I have no inclination to try and change the minds of those who believe in YEC. But, at the same time let's be frank about the actual challenge that ID faces - its all socio-political. If this argument was about the science, then Darwinistic gradulism and the whole greasy bucket of speculation that travels with it would have been buried long ago. 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. That issue becomes even more grave when it becomes abundantly clear that the opposition has had their "ID isn't Science" stance codified into law, into lore, and into the laziness of the truth-telling press.Upright BiPed
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
StephenB, You have good analytical abilities and write really well but some times you lose it when the issue gets near and dear to your heart. "If, as it appears, you accept “methodological naturalism,” which is nothing more than euphemized materialism, you are playing into the hands of our adversaries." By rejecting a claim that let's say has the probability of 10^ -10,000,000 you then say I am endorsing a another claim that is impossible, and thus you can then pin some nasty attribution to me. Non sequitur. "I have considered the proposition and rejected it just as you have. That doesn’t mean that ID is required to join me in that rejection." ID is about science as far as I am concerned and not about theology. You just put ID in the theology mode and that is the problem. ID must follow science if it wants to be considered serious. By associating itself with flawed science that has only an ideological basis ID has become just as suspect as the science it walks hand in hand with. "You seem to be a little confused here. “Uniformitarianism” is an operating principle which holds that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. It assumes, for example, that the forces that build mountains and erode mountains, whatever they are, operate in the same way and at the same rate today as in the past." I am not sure I follow what you are getting at. Why am I confused? StephenB, we agree on most things in this debate except for the association of ID with YEC. I believe it is extremely negative for the acceptance of ID as legitimate and you do not share that view. I will continue to proffer that point of view since I believe the evidence supports it.jerry
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
----Jerry: “Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution. It can be part of some philosophical discussions and that is what you are proposing and as such makes it similar to the TE science/theology fiasco. Materialistic Darwinism, (as opposed to Darwin's special theory) refers to the idea that everything can be explained by natural causes AND that science may not consider anything else. That is not science; it is ideology. There are times when an analysis of comparative difficulties can be helpful. That God created the word in seven days, as some YECs would have it, is highly unlikely; that the world created itself, as the materialist Darwinists would have it, is absolutely impossible. You appear to believe that the former is more unlikely that the latter. If, as it appears, you accept "methdological naturalism," which is nothing more than euphemized materialism, you are playing into the hands of our adversaries. -----“If you want to consider a God that plays havoc with the world, be my guest. I find no need to ever postulate such a deceptive God.” I have considered the proposition and rejected it just as you have. That doesn't mean that ID is required to join me in that rejection. I would never demand that ID rule it out YEC in order to appease materialist Darwinists, especially since I could be wrong on the matter. ----“By the way I suggest you study geology. 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. It is this firm foundation for geology that is missing from biology.” You seem to be a little confused here. “Uniformitarianism” is an operating principle which holds that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. It assumes, for example, that the forces that build mountains and erode mountains, whatever they are, operate in the same way and at the same rate today as in the past.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
The original post says,
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.
This is true -- the Darwinists are not even pretending anymore to be rationally debating the controversy -- they say that arguments based on irreducible complexity, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, the co-evolution of obligate mutualism, etc. are religious arguments.
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?
A lot of predictions about technology never came to pass -- for example, it was predicted that electricity produced by nuclear power plants would be "too cheap to meter."
Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks?
Maybe those dogs and birds are like human idiot-savants, who are phenomenally talented in narrow areas like feats of rote memory -- often areas that require no originality -- but who have low overall intelligence. Maybe the chimps just have better overall intelligence. IMO the words apology, apologetics, and apologist have bad connotations. In common everyday usage, "apology" and "apologetic" imply regret and an admission of wrongdoing, and "apologist" implies making excuses for something that is bad or evil. I think that a lot of people are unaware that these words can also refer to an explanation or defense. Also, I think that James Dobson is too controversial to be a "keynote" speaker.Larry Fafarman
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Funny how Father Dubay got the definition of IC right on what would seem to be one try when Behe's rational and scientific critics have mangled it for over a decade.Charlie
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.
But who are the winners? In today's SPIEGEL somebody else is claiming victory for his side with the same arguments. However, you may not be too happy with the designer he claims to have identified. English translation of SPIEGEL for non-German speakers -- UD admin sparc
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
StephenB, "The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration." Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution. It can be part of some philosophical discussions and that is what you are proposing and as such makes it similar to the TE science/theology fiasco. By the way I suggest you study geology. 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. It is this firm foundation for geology that is missing from biology. If you want to consider a God that plays havoc with the world, be my guest. I find no need to ever postulate such a deceptive God. By the way, I bet the Vatican conference will take into consideration the materialistic implications of Darwin so why does ID even have to exist as far as they are concerned, So ignoring ID is of little consequence according to your thesis.jerry
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Not all influential Catholics are like those who snubbed ID. From Bishop Donald Wuerl: “Continuing to make a case for intelligent design among other leading theories of the universe’s origin, the Bishop wrote that, “When we examine with the light of reason the origins of the cosmos and human life then we must be prepared to respond to all the reasonable, rational, intellectually sustainable theories.” “Academia”, he said, “must never become arbitrarily exclusive of the conclusions of rational investigation.” From Father Thomas Dubay: (In “The Evidential Power of Beauty”) “Michael Behe, using his expertise in biochemistry, writes of what he calls ‘irreducible complexity’ on the molecular level. By this terminology, he means ‘a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’” There are two classes of influential Catholics---those who do the requisite reading, and those who don’t’.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
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 is just like 1984. I used to read that book once a year just because I liked it so much but it also made me subtly aware of changes in our society. Think how silly it would be if I denied the existence of Mohammad. I agree with him in no form or fashion but that has nothing to do with whether he was real or not. The thought police are starting to actually come out from under their rocks.ellijacket
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
-----Jerry: "My guess is because they identify ID with creationsim." If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can’t make a prior commitment to an old earth. While YEC seems unlikely to most of us, it is not impossible. What if the designer created, as some believe, “ExNilio,” and what if, under the circumstances, the effects of the command “let there be light” were such that the earth was flooded with cosmic rays. Such an event COULD accelerate the geological aging process and cause a young earth to look old. The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration. To follow where the evidence leads is to be open to anything, including a young earth. It makes no sense for ID to abandon the principle of openness simply because Darwinists and TEs are so intellectually lazy or so morally dishonest that they cannot or will not distinguish between CS and ID. Indeed, even when we dramatize the distinction for our anti-ID guests, TEs and Darwinists alike, they ignore the point and change the subject. We have both witnessed this many times. Their ignorance is less about whatever indiscretions may be coming from the YEC community and more about their own stubborn refusal to consider the evidence.StephenB
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
as well as this one: Christian Apologetics - 8 - Pi and Natural Log http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gk7E3lbjZIbornagain77
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, You may find this interesting: Christian Apologetics - 16 - Bible Numerology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfUI5ed0WIbornagain77
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Speaking of cartoons: The Charles Darwin Memorial Hospital - Day 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Lj6kEjNnsbornagain77
September 22, 2008
September
09
Sep
22
22
2008
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Bill 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?” There's a corollary in the university system. "You've got a great intellect, Mr. Smith. You can think, read, and learn. Now how much certification can you afford?" GCUGreyArea Farewell, we hardly knew ya, but ultimately we still knew ya too well.DaveScot
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Well, GCUGreyArea's one major contribution to UD was agreeing that GAs have known limitations...something most Darwinists are loathe to admit. He never volunteered what exactly made biology so special that it could overcome similar limitations without intelligent input, other than saying that his "biology friends" were certain that "DNA was highly evolvable", a topic that was broached upon previously.Patrick
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Nullasalus, if you are still in the "building", I just wanted to thank you for saying this: "Philosophy of mind, physics, biology, etc.. materialist (particularly reductionist materialist) views are challenged strongly in just about all of them in some way, and not exclusively by religion-sympathetic philosophers. This doesn’t mean that materialism is lost in the sense that all materialists are clearly wrong. But it’s lost in the sense that developments in science and philosophy have made materialism merely an option, not the only reasonable option." Yes, and much of the smoke raised in various disciplines (in which some careers have died from smoke inhalation - cf Michael Reiss) is best understood as an effort to avoid the fact that the materialist god HAS failed. As Bill noted above, his miracles never happened. It's not that they happened but were shown not to be miracles. They never happened at ALL. Case in point: Apes are not people. Computers are not people. Cave men are not half people; they are just people with miserably basic, early technology. Only people are people. Believe/don't believe in Adam and Eve ... but don't anyone try telling me that there is a better materialist explanation out there. It just isn't true. I will have more to say on this.O'Leary
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
If people don't know what Bill means by "liberal fascism", here's a very brief, basic introduction.O'Leary
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
GCUGreyArea: I think you'll be happier elsewhere, so you have your wish. I didn't delete your post, however, because it is instructive. The contempt you feel toward ID is the contempt I feel toward Darwinian materialism, only more so. What I find so offensive about that viewpoint is that it bills itself as the antidote to superstition, the only way to enlightenment, and therefore as justified in using any means whatsoever to advance itself. I remind readers of this blog of a quote by Teddy Roosevelt posted here sometime back: “There is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition. No grotesque repulsiveness of medieval superstition, even as it survived into nineteenth-century Spain and Naples, could be much more intolerant, much more destructive of all that is fine in morality, in the spiritual sense, and indeed in civilization itself, than that hard dogmatic materialism of to-day which often not merely calls itself scientific but arrogates to itself the sole right to use the term. If these pretensions affected only scientific men themselves, it would be a matter of small moment, but unfortunately they tend gradually to affect the whole people, and to establish a very dangerous standard of private and public conduct in the public mind.” --Theodore Roosevelt, “The Search for Truth in a Reverent Spirit,” Outlook, Dec. 2, 1911.William Dembski
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
-----“does anyone know why the Vatican is excluding Intelligent Design representatives in their upcoming conference” As a Catholic, I am offended by my own Church's foray into political correctness. My guess is that the whacked out Jesuits at Notre Dame persuaded a few members of the hierarchy to attend and support a TE love fest. I don't think it reflects the mind of Benedict XVI.StephenB
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
While I'm a resident somewhat-skeptic of ID, I think the claim that 'materialists have lost the intellectual battle' does have some justification. Pick your point of conflict. Philosophy of mind, physics, biology, etc.. materialist (particularly reductionist materialist) views are challenged strongly in just about all of them in some way, and not exclusively by religion-sympathetic philosophers. This doesn't mean that materialism is lost in the sense that all materialists are clearly wrong. But it's lost in the sense that developments in science and philosophy have made materialism merely an option, not the only reasonable option. For people who want a materialist viewpoint of the world to be the only possibility, that truly is a serious loss. And the desire for wanting such a viewpoint to reign supreme usually has little to do with it being right or wrong, but with secondary political goals. (Look at Cortunix's recent babble about what purpose he thinks education serves.)nullasalus
September 21, 2008
September
09
Sep
21
21
2008
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply