Creationism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Media theistic evolution

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Spread the love
Karsten Pultz

Karsten Pultz reports from Denmark on efforts to suppress the idea of design in nature that are coming from the Danish church. Mr. Pultz is also the author of “Why I have a problem with theistic evolution,”:

Intelligent design being suppressed in academia is old news. But in Denmark even a Christian newspaper participates in biased coverage in favour of evolution.

Recently, Mads Jakobsen, a priest and theologian in the Danish state church, was reprimanded by his bishop, Marianne Christiansen because he had written critically about Darwin’s theory in his parish magazine. The theologian had mainly identified the moral problems which arise when trying to combine survival of the fittest with Christian beliefs, but he seems also to have admitted his doubt of the science behind the theory.

The bishop was outraged that the priest would doubt a “scientifically proven” theory and she publicly demanded that he commit himself to be re-educated in the theory of evolution. The bishop recommended that , Niels Henrik Gregersen, professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, should provide this criminally ignorant theologian with the proper literature, so that his delusions could be corrected.

The bishop was supported by Svend Andersen, theology professor at the University of Århus, who insisted that “There ought not to be room for such views within the church.” Professor Andersen also expressed the view that a certain intellectual standard must be required of ministers, implying that only a moron would doubt evolution.

The battle between the bishop’s supporters and the few theologians who supported the priest’s right to criticize evolution has been played out mainly in the Christian newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad. The argument has turned mostly on whether the priest has the right to publicly express his view on evolution, and unfortunately not as much on the validity of the theory itself.

Some small comments in the debate section of the newspaper have tried to direct attention to the science itself but alas, it seems that the debate will end before a real discussion of evolution has been ignited. With a population where 85% believe in evolution, we actually do need the theory to be openly questioned.

Order Exit Evolution online. 198 kr.In the ongoing debate, university teacher Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, who has co-authored papers on creationism in Europe,  provided a rather extensive piece about the growth of creationism. Hjermitslev,who has a Phd in the history of science, listed my book Exit Evolution as an example of the contemporary promotion of creationism.

In his article Hjermitslev omits the fact that my book is a purely scientific critique of evolution, based on the books and scientific papers produced by Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Jonathan Wells etc. My book promotes ID, and I do not mix Bible verses in with the science or base any conclusions on the interpretation of the Bible. I have written several pieces in the newspaper I work for, criticizing creationism for its backward reasoning. It starts with the assumption that a certain interpretation of the Bible is true and then cherry-picks evidence to support this belief, instead of doing what I find more appropriate and satisfying, namely the ID approach. There, we look only at the empirical evidence approach and then draw the conclusions, while keeping religious and philosophical questions secondary and preferably in a separate sphere.

Despite the fact that I’ve publicly criticized creationism, Dr. Hjermitslev still defined my work as creationism. Of course, there is nothing new in that regard, it’s the good old trick of categorizing ID as creationism in order to avoid addressing the serious scientific issues it raises. It surprised me to even be mentioned by this academic expert. But maybe the Danish evolutionists are beginning to feel the hot breath from ID on their necks, and are therefore starting to launch preemptive strikes against ID proponents like myself.

What is slightly annoying is the fact that I’m being deprived of the opportunity to respond to the allegations raised against me by this university teacher. The Christian newspaper, Kristeligt Dagblad, simply refuses to air my side of the story. The journalist who manages the debate section chooses to ignore me. I sent him a piece in which I explain what ID is, and how it differs from creationism, for example, that ID considers only empirical evidence and that inference to the best explanation is valid for the ID hypothesis, just as it is for the theory of evolution.

My piece was, naturally, written in defense of pastor Mads Jakobsen but I also made the excuse for the bishop that she, hardly a villain, is just acting in accordance with what we all have learned in school, namely that evolution is a fact. She should not be blamed for the extremely biased way evolution is taught all the way from primary school to university. I got no answer from the journalist, no reaction, and no explanation, – I’m being met with complete silence. So what we have is a Christian newspaper which willingly airs unsubstantiated allegations against my work but at the same time refuses to bring my side of the story.

During the last few months there have been several articles in this Danish Christian newspaper which misrepresents the ID view in the most ignorant ways. In one article it was even defined as a belief in God-directed evolution. Both I and others from the Danish ID movement have tried to make the newspaper correct these errors, but we are being ignored. So the current state ID is facing in Denmark is that a Christian newspaper gangs up with the theological elite to heckle Darwin doubters and prevent an open debate about the validity of Darwin’s theory.

See also: Auto mechanic: Berra’s blunder splutters … yet again? Both the non-religious mechanic and the non-religious engineer found it immensely silly that anyone would suggest that the flagellar motor of the bacterium was the result of anything other than engineering. The second one added that the only question left was which engineering school God graduated from. (Karsten Pultz)

and

Theistic evolution: Conjuring up one’s own version of evolution and calling it God’s version. (Karsten Pultz)

13 Replies to “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

  1. 1
    EricMH says:

    What is the real religion of the Danish church? Christianity or Darwinism?

  2. 2
    News says:

    EricMH at 1, astonishing, isn’t it? Why does it matter so much to the bishop whether a priest believes in evolution? Is she an expert? Is he?

    What if the priest had said he didn’t believe in the forgiveness of sin? Well, there the bishop would need to get involved. That’s a critical part of the church’s business.

    No wonder so many of these institutions are Churches No One Goes to Any More.

  3. 3
    Fasteddious says:

    I would like to know what is the scientific difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution?

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    In news only slightly related to creationism, there is evidence that a large meteor exploded over the middle east ~3,700ya, which left traces of sulfates in the earth (along with fused glass, etc.), and totally wiped out any cit(ies) underneath the explosion:

    https://phys.org/news/2018-12-meteor-air-years-obliterating-dead.html

  5. 5
    PaoloV says:

    EricMH @1:

    Christianity is based on the Christian Bible.

    In this story it seems like a lady is a bishop. Is that according to the Christian scriptures?

    1 Timothy 3:2 (ESV)

    Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

    Footnotes:
    1 Timothy 3:2 Or bishop; Greek episkopos; a similar term occurs in verse 1
    1 Timothy 3:2 Or a man of one woman; also verse 12

  6. 6
    PeterA says:

    Fasteddious @3:

    Maybe it’s the OOL part? TE God does the OOL, but leaves the evolution to Darwin. AE does not have God in the story at all. AE OOL happens somehow.

  7. 7
    aarceng says:

    Fasteddious @3:

    Theistic evolution comes in different flavours, just like many other points of view. Some TE take a basically Deist approach that God set the ball rolling then sat back and watched the story unfold over millions or billions of years. Some accept various amounts of divine intervention at various points.

    If anything divides ID and TE it is the question of whether intervention by a designer is detectable. ID says that in some cases intervention is the best interpretation of the evidence; TE says their version of evolution is indistinguishable from a purely natural one.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Unsurprisingly, the Danish state church is a liberal church,,,

    Controversial issues,,,
    Female clergy,,,
    Same-sex marriage,,,
    Gay clergy,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark#Controversial_issues

    The reason why it is unsurprising that a bishop at a liberal church would demand that a priest be “re-educated”,,,

    The bishop was outraged that the priest would doubt a “scientifically proven” theory and she publicly demanded that he commit himself to be re-educated in the theory of evolution. The bishop recommended that , Niels Henrik Gregersen, professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, should provide this criminally ignorant theologian with the proper literature, so that his delusions could be corrected.

    The reason why it is unsurprising that a bishop at a liberal church would demand that a priest be “re-educated” into evolution is because Darwinism has, from the beginning, been mainly a (bad liberal) Theological argument, not a scientific argument.

    In fact, when Darwin’s first wrote his book, the Church of England scientific establishment reacted against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”

    “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species

    And again this is not surprising since Charles Darwin’s college degree was not in math (nor any other field that might be considered useful to the founding of an entirely new branch of science), but was instead in ‘liberal’ Anglican theology.

    Religious views of Charles Darwin
    Excerpt: Charles Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

    The Descent of Darwin (The Faulty Theological Foundation of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    Simply put, since the science itself contradicts the theory,

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    Simply put, since the science itself contradicts the theory, the acceptance of Darwinism has always been crucially dependent on (bad liberal) Theological argumentation,,,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    To this day, since again the science contradicts the theory, Darwinism is still crucially dependent on (bad liberal) Theological argumentation (as well as crucially dependent on censorship, intimidation, and expelling, anyone who dares disagree with them).

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    This crucial dependence of Darwinism on (bad liberal) Theology is all the more interesting since Darwinists are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism,,,

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

    That Darwinists would be absolutely dependent on (bad liberal) Theology instead of any substantiating scientific evidence is, again, unsurprising.

    All of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself (if Darwinism can even be called a science), are crucially dependent of basic Theological, even Christian, presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our ‘made in the image of God’ minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Theological presuppositions,

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West,,,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it.

    That Darwinists would still today be so dependent on such a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try to give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place.

    Darwinists, with their vital dependence on bad liberal theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.

    “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
    Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

    Simply put, the rejection of Theism in general, and Agent Causality in particular, by Darwinists is insane. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    ,,, Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

    One final note, since Christian presuppositions, despite what Darwinists may say, were and are necessary for the founding and continued practice of modern science, then it should not be all that surprising to find out that Christianity also brings us what can be termed ‘an ultimate closure to science’ ,,,, in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into what is called the quote unquote “Theory of Everything”:

    ,,, by allowing agent causality back into the picture of modern physics, as quantum physics itself now demands, and as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then a empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quantum-physicist-the-particle-itself-does-not-know-where-it-is/#comment-669088

    Verses and video:

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

    John 14:6
    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

  10. 10
    EricMH says:

    @PaoloV no, female bishops are not Biblical. But, it doesn’t seem like following the Bible is a primary concern of the Danish church, nor even following the scientific evidence.

  11. 11
    daveS says:

    EricMH and PaoloV,

    Ordination of women is obviously not biblical, but I wonder if churches that abide by this restriction are paying a significant price.

    I have attended many churches over the years, none of which would ever consider ordaining women. However I witnessed a sermon earlier this year which was quite instructive. The (male) pastor was preaching on Ephesians 5, the verses talking about how wives should submit to their husbands and so forth.

    The pastor actually sat down and had his wife speak for about half an hour, and I realized it was the first time I had ever been presented with a woman’s perspective on the matter. The message was slightly different from what I had heard before, and I found it to be educational. I suspect other men did as well.

    That’s the only time I have seen a woman at the “pulpit” (actually an old music stand). But I believe churches who require their leaders to be male are missing an opportunity to get their message across.

  12. 12
    chris haynes says:

    In Denmark, genocide is back.
    98% of Downs Syndrome people are killed off.
    About Denmark, that says it all .

    And the Danish “Church” is silent.
    So who cares what other garbage they come out with?

  13. 13
    Ed George says:

    I am sure that the priest would be able to criticize the Big Bang theory, or plate tectonics, or global warming (or maybe not), or why dinosaurs became extinct. I don’t see why the theory of evolution would be off limits.

    I lost all respect for Denmark when I had a business trip there and my wife wanted me to get a picture of the Little Mermaid statue. I went to the harbour and she was gone. On loan to China for the Shanghai Expo. But, as luck would have it, I was also scheduled to go to Shanghai that year. I made a point to go to the Expo for the express purpose of getting a picture of that little nymph. Sadly, the line for the Danish pavilion was seven hours. Needless to say , I never got my picture. I know that this story is totally off topic, but I found it amusing.

Leave a Reply