Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
| December 5, 2018 | Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Media, theistic evolution |
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.
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 Responses to Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What is the real religion of the Danish church? Christianity or Darwinism?
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.
I would like to know what is the scientific difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution?
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
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)
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
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.
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.
Unsurprisingly, the Danish state church is a liberal church,,,
The reason why it is unsurprising that a bishop at a liberal church would demand that a priest be “re-educated”,,,
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.”
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.
Simply put, since the science itself contradicts the theory,
Simply put, since the science itself contradicts the theory, the acceptance of Darwinism has always been crucially dependent on (bad liberal) Theological argumentation,,,
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).
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,,,
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,
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.
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.
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”:
Verses and video:
@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.
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.
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?
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.