But it’s not about religion …

| 248 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The Disco ‘Tute has announced the opening of a new site, Faith+Religion, which purports to discuss the relationship between evolution and religion. A brief survey of the site shows that it has two objectives. First, of course, is the traditional ID goal of denigrating evolutionary theory. Right up on the home page we see a review of Collins’ The Language of God by Moonie Jonathan Wells that says

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome–in effect, a Darwin of the gaps.

Sure thing, Jonnie. Wells knows more about the scientific implications of new genetic knowledge than the former head of the Human Genome project. Yup.

Faith+Evolution also purports to present resources on various topics But just four sites are linked as specifically resources on evolution. First is Evolution News and Views, the Disco ‘Tute’s propaganda outlet. A resource on evolution? They have to be kidding! Right? Bueller?

Then there is About Darwin, which has not been updated since February 2008 as I write this. There is The Evolving Times, which currently features an article by Cornelius Hunter, Disco ‘Tute fellow and anti-evolutionist, about “Darwin’s predictions.” The last “evolution” resource listed is merely a direct link to that same Hunter article.

As far as Faith+Evolution’s “evolution resources” are concerned, Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution site doesn’t exist, nor do any of the other excellent resources on evolution on the web exist. It’s apparent that the core strategy in that section is to keep readers even more ignorant of evolution than are the Disco ‘Tute luminaries.

The press release for the new site quotes John West as saying

FaithandEvolution.Org is for anyone who wants to dig deeper into the scientific, social, and spiritual issues raised by Darwin’s theory, but who is tired of the limited options they are currently being offered by the media.

With the four sites offered as “resources” about evolution West doesn’t have to worry about anyone learning anything about the actual science. Which, of course, is his goal.

Paging around the site, it seems to have two main targets: standard materialistic (evil atheistic) science, and (more saliently) several varieties of theological compatibilists – theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism. As Dembski famously wrote

Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

The Disco ‘Tute’s new site sure makes that clear. Since Collins is an evangelical Christian, as are prominent evolutionary creationists like Denis Lamoreaux and Steve Matheson, it looks to me like the Disco ‘Tute is pulling itself further and further into a fundamentalist Christian corner, joining the ICR and AIG. John West handles most of the theological questions about theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism, and really really doesn’t like them. That all by itself could almost turn me into one, had I any inclination to believe in Thor .. erm … Zeus … um … Vishnu … er … the FSM.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams has a nice take-down of Faith+Evolution:

Despite their best efforts, though, the overwhelming evidence at the DI’s new site shows that this whole issue isn’t a matter of science v. religion; it’s all about how “best” to interpret Scripture.

I commend it to your attention. Cheryl also notes the paucity of “science resources” on the site.

The IDist agenda is at base theological, not scientific. Why else would it be supported by Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson? The pseudoscience they blather about is a cover for an essentially theological dispute. Faith+Science makes that crystal clear. And in contrast to science, there is no generally accepted methodology for resolving theological disputes except schism and (in the extreme case) religious warfare. As I’ve said before in other venues, if the ID creationists win the culture war, the very next day blood will flow in the aisles and under the pews.

1 TrackBack

In their twisted attempt to defend themselves against what they see as a threat to their version of Christianity, the Discovery Institute is lying to the people who visit their "faithandevolution.org" website. Read More

248 Comments

looks like they fear Collins is eroding their support base - here’s hoping!

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

Pharyngula: The Discovery Institute -{ }new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, {}, is a resounding: No.

Xpost from Pharyngula:

The DI is becoming more extremist, and they were extremist to begin with.

They are being squeezed by the YECs who have taken their own advice and mentally gone back to the Dark Ages. Rather than give up on biology, they are now attacking all sciences and history and social studies. Geocentrism is making a comeback and the Flat Earth may be close behind.

The moderate xians and even some fundies know a losing position when they see one and aren’t pushing pseudoscience. Geocentrism was a loser 4 centuries ago, and the RCC quickly learned that no matter how many scientists one torched, the facts remain the facts.

I would look for the DI to eventually end up as another a bunch of YECs. old white guys pushing even older mythology.

This is actually good news. Far out extremists usually end up irrelevant. There are still people pushing segregation, slavery, and white supremism. Few buy it, and few think they have any other point except they are kooks and potentially dangerous.

Pharyngula:

The Discovery Institute -{ }new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, {}, is a resounding: No.

Xpost Pharyngula: There are so many things wrong with this extremist crackpot strategy.

1. FWIW, the majority of the world’s xians don’t have a problem with evolution. I’m sure they will be happy to learn that the DI has decided they are Fake Xians. This is a smart move to win hearts and minds within the religion. Too bad, the mean old secular authorities took away their armies and weapons. Can you say, “Reformation Wars Part 2?” You have to remember, after 2,000 years of vicious sectarian warfare, only the strong sects willing to defend themselves with lethal force, if necessary, survived.

2. Making evolution a litmus test for faith was dumb. It works both ways. Asking people to believe lies and nonsense to be xians can backfire. Many will just say rather than reject modern science to be a xian, why not reject xianity to join the 21st century civilization. This is, in fact, happening.

3. There is nothing whatsoever in the bible that says one must reject modern science. Evolution is not mentioned at all. Salvation is by faith, faith and good works, or both, depending on which chapter of the inerrant, contradictory book one quote mines. They are simply making crap up. This is bad theology. In the old days, false prophets were to be stoned to death. They are lucky not to be living in the world they want to bring about.

It really looks like the DI has given up on science and gone back to pure fundie religion. Many of them are saying that the Intelligent Designer is a god named Yahweh, the xian god.

Bunch of evil idiots. Fake Xians the lot of them. LOL

The new ID site might be a reaction to the new BioLogos web site, where Francis Collins and others aim to teach Evangelicals about evolution. They will also be developing quality science curricula for Christian schools.

it looks to me like the Disco ‘Tute is pulling itself further and further into a fundamentalist Christian corner, joining the ICR and AIG.

That’s where they’ve been all along, but shame on us for noticing!

. Wells knows more about the scientific implications of new genetic knowledge than the former head of the Human Genome project.

Of course, and as I recall, O’Leary decided that Francis Collins was an intellectual lightweight!! Unbelievable.

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don’t think it’s a new idea– Hasn’t AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don’t think it’s a new idea– Hasn’t AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Yup. But this Faith_Evolution site is a direct attack not only on theistic evolutionists’ Christianity, but also on evangelicals who are evolutionary creationists. As noted earlier, Collins scares the liver out of the IDiots. And guys like Steve Matheson, an evangelical Christian evo-devo biologist at a conservative Christian college (Calvin), scare them as much. It’s people like that who are eating away at the IDiots’ credibility among their Christian base. That’s what they’re trying to shore up with this new site.

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don’t think it’s a new idea– Hasn’t AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Those who disagree with what Ken Ham says are regarded as non-Christians by AIG, and the staff of AIG regard non-Christians as being synonymous with inhuman, monstrous hellbound sinners wholly unworthy of respect or compassion. Hence Ken Ham saying how Steve Irwin is burning hell for not confessing the unforgivable crime of believing in evolution, or AIG’s commentaries on school shootings about how it’s all the fault of sinners, and more importantly, evolution, or how AIG staff purposely misconstrue the statement “I respect all religions” to imply that the person actively supports, if not engages in ritualized cannibalism.

Yup. But this Faith_Evolution site is a direct attack not only on theistic evolutionists’ Christianity, but also on evangelicals who are evolutionary creationists.

It is more than that. It is also a direct attack on a majority of the world’s xians. Mainline Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and so on don’t have a problem with evolution. Out of the 2 billion xians, this is 75% or so.

Not that they care if they even notice. Xians are very, very good at hating each other. The DI can hate them all they want. They will just hate them back.

Good thing the sects don’t have heavy weapons and armies anymore.

raven said:

Geocentrism is making a comeback and the Flat Earth may be close behind.

You keep saying this, but, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the staff of the Discovery Institute, or even their financier, Henry Ahmanson Jr, believe that believing in Geocentrism and or a Flat Earth is mandatory for being a Christian fanatic.

The only evidence you’ve shown are a joke site and an ambiguously mistranslated interview.

You keep saying this, but, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the staff of the Discovery Institute, or even their financier, Henry Ahmanson Jr, believe that believing in Geocentrism and or a Flat Earth is mandatory for being a Christian fanatic.

Strawman. I didn’t say the DI is pushing Geocentrism or Flat Earthism. That was the YECs. Neither did I say that even the YECs are making Geocentrism or Flat Earthism litmus tests for Real Xians™,.…yet.

In point of fact, one prominent YEC kook, Willis of Kansas/Arkansas has been pushing Geocentrism along with herding all evolutionary biologists into concentration camps for ultimate disposal. He would be easy to dismiss as mentally ill or something but he is a leader of creationism in that area.

26% of the fundies already believe in Geocentrism. No big deal to them that it was disproven 400 years ago. Flat Earthism still has its adherents as I and others documented last thread.

So believe whatever you want. Presuppositionalism allows you to believe anything.

raven said:

Flat Earthism still has its adherents as I and others documented last thread.

No, you didn’t: you provided a link to a Poe parody, and made reference to an ambiguously mistranslated interview.

So believe whatever you want. Presuppositionalism allows you to believe anything.

So I’m some sort of lunatic for assuming that not all creationists, young earth or otherwise, are malicious lunatics who may or may not be out to lobotomize everyone in the name of the Lord?

raven said:

I didn’t say the DI is pushing Geocentrism or Flat Earthism. That was the YECs. Neither did I say that even the YECs are making Geocentrism or Flat Earthism litmus tests for Real Xians™,.…yet.

If you aren’t saying that Young Earth Creationists are demanding that “Real Christians” (r) have to believe in a Flat Earth in the center of the Universe, then why do you keep bringing it up?

In point of fact, one prominent YEC kook, Willis of Kansas/Arkansas has been pushing Geocentrism along with herding all evolutionary biologists into concentration camps for ultimate disposal. He would be easy to dismiss as mentally ill or something but he is a leader of creationism in that area.

Doesn’t this statement contradict your earlier statement where you claim that Young Earth Creationists aren’t forcing or preaching at people that Geocentrism (and or Flat Earth) is required for a “Real Christian”?

Karen S. said:

Of course, and as I recall, O’Leary decided that Francis Collins was an intellectual lightweight!! Unbelievable.

Francis Collins, former NHGRI director, member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, co-author of literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers.…an intellectual lightweight?

*snkx* *pfft*

BWWWWAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

*wipes tears away*

Oh, that was a good one. Thanks. :)

James F said:

Karen S. said:

Of course, and as I recall, O’Leary decided that Francis Collins was an intellectual lightweight!! Unbelievable.

Francis Collins, former NHGRI director, member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, co-author of literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers.…an intellectual lightweight?

*snkx* *pfft*

BWWWWAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

*wipes tears away*

Oh, that was a good one. Thanks. :)

We’re dealing with an Intelligent Design proponent, or rather, a nodding head hired by Intelligent Design proponents who, and I use the term very, very generously, thinks highly of Adnan Oktar, a Muslim creationist who has previously stated that Intelligent Design Theory was an evil atheist/masonic scheme to promote Darwinism.

One wonders why the DI even bother setting up more and more websites which will just rehash the Same Old Shit in new layouts. And this one is pretty obviously just a shell which hosts very little “original” content, most of the answers on their Questions pages simply link to off-site IDist essasy.

They put so much effort into building empty facades, it’s almost like an obsession.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

The IDist agenda is at base theological, not scientific. […]

That seems to be the case.

I tried to read the article “Darwin’s Predictions” by Cornelius Hunter (one of your links to the faith+evolution site), but I had to drop it before midway. It was eloquently written, but I failed to find scientific contents, if any was to be found.

I do not fully understand, why theological issues should be discussed to the extent they are discussed at a basically scientifically oriented site, such as PT.

Things are different in the U.S., I have been told. Most surely they are, but sometimes they are difficult (for me) to understand, looking from the European perspective.

You may be a wrong person to address my complaints to, since your post dealt with scientific issues too. On the other hand, I may expect some understanding from a person with a scientific stance.

For background information, I have paid attention to cases from Dover to Freshwater.

Eric Finn said:

I do not fully understand, why theological issues should be discussed to the extent they are discussed at a basically scientifically oriented site, such as PT.

PT is indeed a basically scientifically oriented site; but as I understand it, it is specifically oriented towards the defence of the modern Theory of Evolution against irrational and antirational attacks, especially from creationists and proponents of the creationism-by-stealth scheme called “intelligent design”. That defence necessarily includes refuting accusations (typically levelled by creationists) that the Theory of Evolution implies atheism, racism, “laissez-faire” capitalism, xenophobia, callousness, amorality, ruthlessness or other evils. The very act of refuting these baseless charges requires evidence and argument from such sources as theology, history, sociology, philosophy, and the like. It is therefore reasonable to expect that issues in these fields, where they impact on the defence of the Theory of Evolution, should be discussed here.

Eric Finn said: I do not fully understand, why theological issues should be discussed to the extent they are discussed at a basically scientifically oriented site, such as PT.

Because, as Dave L. said, the anti-evolution education arguments and groups are religious in nature. Now, you might be tempted to say ‘why don’t you ignore these irrelevant and ignorant complaints, focus on the science, and they’ll go away.’ That strategy may work just fine in other countries. In the U.S., religious objections were ignored from 1925 through at least the mid-1980’s but they didn’t go away (they were quiet for a few years after Sputnik, but they were never directly addressed). So we have 60 years of empirical evidence that, at least in the U.S., we have to actually engage on theological issues if we want theological objections to evolution education to disappear from public opinion.

From the Hunter article:

“Evolutionists often ignore or deny the problem of unexpected findings and theory complexity. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies. Rarely do evolutionists follow-up such criticisms with supporting details. Until such details are provided we cannot know if these criticisms are sound.”

I believe that the technical term for such a logical fallacy is argumentum ignoratum, or possibly argumentum hypocriticum, take your pick.

Look, there are liteerally millions of articles in peer reviewed journals on evolutionary biology, there are virtually NONE for any viable alternative. To argue that science has not provided enough “details” is simply absurd. Just because you are ignorant of the “details” does not mean that they do not exist. Now if this Hunter charracter is to be taken seriously, why not provide a link to Talk Origins and let everyone see the “details” for themselves? Why not let people see that most creationist arguments come from the time of Darwin and that they basically haven’t come up with anything new in 150 years? Why not let everyone see that all of their attempts to deal with modern evolutionary biology are dismal failures?

there are virtually NONE for any viable alternative

I didn’t think there were any peer reviewed viable alternatives (doesn’t the word “virtually” imply that there might be some)

You don’t surely mean those that appear in the Answers Research Journal, which the YECs consider to be peer reviewed since the normal peer review process is “biased against creationists” ? Hence the need for ARJ.

DS quoting hunter:

“Evolutionists often ignore or deny the problem of unexpected findings and theory complexity. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as tired old arguments,” or fallacies.

Hunter’s statement isn’t a fallacy like Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity.

It is simply a lie. Prominent among the creationist strategies is lies.

If you asked Hunter what “unexpected findings and theory complexity” science ignores, she wouldn’t know of any. Most likely she would start talking about Irreducible Complexity and Macroevolution. If you provided examples of Irreducible systems like the immune system that turn out to be evolved and evolvable or macroevolution in our lifetime (Adriatic lizards, Tasmanian transmissable tumor), she would just run away. The next day she would repeat her “same, old, tired lies and fallacies.

A religious concept which is wrong in the real world, like creationism or Geocentrism, really has one main intellectual defense. Lie a lot. Make Up Stuff.

Of course, there are other defenses. Ask Giordano Bruno or Galileo about that. Bitterman was fired from an Iowa community college because he thought the idea that Western Civilization started with a walking, talking snake was ridiculous.

Dave Luckett said:

That defence necessarily includes refuting accusations (typically levelled by creationists) that the Theory of Evolution implies atheism, racism, “laissez-faire” capitalism, xenophobia, callousness, amorality, ruthlessness or other evils.

Like communism, fascism, cannibalism, driving on the left hand side of the road, and disco.

Like communism, fascism, cannibalism,

Cynthia Dunbar has stated that teaching evolution leads to cannibalism. She quotes Jeffrey Dahmer as a moral authority on this. Of course, there is only one example and he was raised in a strict fundie household.

It would be easy to dismiss her as a malevolent crackpot. She is one. She is also a creationist leader in Texas, a member of the Texas Board of Education, and may be nominated their next chairman now that McLeroy’s nomination failed.

I can think of few things better for the next court case than plopping down a printout of the FaithAndEvolution website and saying, “We’d like to enter this into evidence, your Honor.” If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

I was looking at the new DI site last night. It was flashy and pretty. Definitely looking inviting and like it has authoritative information. One time when I clicked it open I got lots of nice looking “scientists” and philosophers talking about science and religion and ID–very nicely done. They LOOKED like people I could trust to provide valuable information. It’s simple, the DI wants to be sure ordinary, non scientist folks gets its views. Those views, on the surface, seem logical and backed up by evidence. So the average person with no time on their hands to do a little digging, with kids and full time jobs, gardens to tend and houses to clean, may accept what the site says at face value. So the DI repackaged some of it’s stuff to be more mainstream and put it out there.

It’s really all about marketing.

The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does. Most of the sites I go to aren’t so pretty. Although the biologos site is OK, it’s still dealing with religion. There’s Michael Dowd’s site http://thankgodforevolution.com/, trying to create a new evolution-based religion. Loved his wife when I met them once, but he’s a little scary IMHO. Are there sites already out there that really fill the bill? Talk origins is great, so is PT, but for the average Jane, what’s out there?

By the way, I’m not a scientist, (I am a Horticulturalist and Landscape Designer) but I love to learn and do as much reading about science as possible. Numbers and stats tend to overwhelm me but information on processes gets me excited. My 5 yo daughter and I admire nature and I’m raising her to seek to understand how the amazing evolutionary process works and especially to question the sources of information she gets. I really enjoy for some great info. My daughter loved the pic of the frigate.

If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

Sure. They are also giving up on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell strategy of who the Inteligent Designer is. Several of them have been saying it is a xian god called Yahweh. So much for their ID is science not religion claim.

There seems to be two trends in creationism.

1. The ID crowd are giving up pretending it is science and returning to their fundie roots.

2. The YECs are becoming more extreme. They are still attacking biology but have branched out to attacking all science and fields as well as history, archaeology, and social studies. Astronomy is a favorite target. The moon is a glow in the dark object. Neurobiology is another. Despite billions of dollars spent, brain research hasn’t found the soul yet! It’s got to be there somewhere, running everything behind the scene.

Lynn said:

I really enjoy for some great info. My daughter loved the pic of the frigate.

That should read “I really enjoy PT for some great info…”

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

I can think of few things better for the next court case than plopping down a printout of the FaithAndEvolution website and saying, “We’d like to enter this into evidence, your Honor.” If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

They must be running out of toes to shoot off by now.

Peter wrote:

“I didn’t think there were any peer reviewed viable alternatives (doesn’t the word “virtually” imply that there might be some)”

Well, the only thing that I can think of is this little gem:

Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13:2651-64.

Some people might just claim that this paper supports ID. It doesn’t. What it does do is show that there is no conspiracy against any alternative that has any evidence. First, the results clearly show that evolution by gene duplication is possible given realistic values for important parameters. Second, it was spectacularly wrong compared to all of the empirical evidence that deomonstrates the major pathways by which gene duplication and divergence can and does occur. Third, it was published by an ID supporter in a reputable journal so I guess the evil darwinists all went to sleep that day.

Not only that, but YECs not associated with the DI have denounced both its Center for (the Renewal of ) Science and Culture and its mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design Creationism:

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don’t think it’s a new idea– Hasn’t AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Dave Luckett said:

That you are prepared to consider other Christians as outside the fold if they disagree with you on this question is shameful, and testifies only to your intolerance, sectarianism and lack of charity.

That FL is full of hubris, intolerance, and has a profound lack of charity is quite obvious, especially since this is a person who takes pride in not being able to tell the difference between a church and a science classroom, and once offered to explain how the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ magically disproved evolution only on the condition that Panda’s Thumb be made into his personal captive audience.

sooo.… the bible is literally true, every word.

Except when it isn’t.

Makes sense to me.…

FL said:

Dan said:

Dave has not stated that God is directing an undirected process.

He said that evolution is undirected and that it’s a part of God’s creation.

The inference is undeniable, Dan. Stating that evolution is undurected AND that it’s a part of God’s creation (remember, you’re attributing the creation to God there!), absolutely implies the first gig—that God is directing an undirected process.

In fact, I have already denied the inference, so FL’s claim that it’s undeniable is simply false.

FL is clearly wrong when making the baseless claim. FL’s paragraph states the claim about “inference” twice, but never gives any reasoning backing up your claim.

Perhaps FL doesn’t know the difference between create and direct.

I gave an argument here, comparing atomic theory with evolution theory. One could do the same with economic theory. Indeed, by FL’s reasoning, free will is inconsistent with Christianity.

If FL wants to convince anyone, he’ll have to do more than simply state a baseless claim twice. He’ll have to present some reasoning rather than word play.

Dave Luckett said:

Jackson simply asserts that the problem doesn’t exist, and quibbles vaguely about the meaning of the words, without ever saying what he thinks they actually mean. This procedure has the merit of impenetrability, but the defect that it is meaningless.

Dave, I was trying to think of how to describe Jackson’s morass, but you hit upon it perfectly. Congratulations.

FL said:

No wonder you guys prefer to stick to the science stuff, you don’t do so well on the Bible stuff.

FL:

Panda’s thumb is devoted to “Discussions and critiques of evolutionary theory, science and education.”

It’s about science stuff, not about Bible stuff.

If you don’t want to stick to science stuff, you should comment elsewhere.

FL wrote:

“The inference is undeniable, Dan. Stating that evolution is undurected AND that it’s a part of God’s creation (remember, you’re attributing the creation to God there!), absolutely implies the first gig—that God is directing an undirected process.”

Well is God “directing” human affairs? If so, then she is “directing” an undirected process which includes free will. If not, then she doesn’t really need to “direct” every process and so evolution can be undirected. See, no real problem.

Anyway, if “image” can be interpreted as physical body and “made” can be interpreted as “poof”, then “directed” and shouldn’t really be a big problem now should it?

Oh yea, and what does God need with a starship?

FL said: But the Bible clearly fails to support you on either point there. Nowhere does the Bible limit the impact of the Image Of God upon humans to the “spiritual” domain only…

Let me make sure I have this right. You are arguing that because the bible is unclear about whether “image” means spiritual, physical, or both, the bible is therefore perfectly clear on the origination of humans?

FL claims that

FL said:

the Bible (both Old and New Testament) is very clear how God originated the first humans.

I pointed out that the Bible was not very clear – that it contained multiple inconsistent creation stories.

Then, to support his claim for Biblical clarity

FL said:

And btw, there are at least eight websites and one or two textbooks that completely refute your suggestion that Gen. 1 contradicts Gen. 2. Let’s just do three of them for anybody interested.

YEC: http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

OEC: http://www.godandscience.org/apolog[…]enesis2.html

Evangelical: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

The fact that these three websites have completely different ways to “reconcile” the creation story of Genesis 1 and the creation story of Genesis 2 proves that the Bible is unclear, and demonstrates that FL’s claim of Biblical clarity is untenable.

FL said:

Okay, that’s all done.

I agree. FL has demolished his own claim.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 28, 2009 6:41 PM.

TX Senate Fails to Confirm McLeroy as Chair of BOE was the previous entry in this blog.

Arnhart’s Darwinian Conservatism: New And Improved! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter