Devastating Review of Anti-ID Book
Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute has recently written a review of the book by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross titled Creationism's Trojan Horse. Forrest and Gross argued that Intelligent Design theory is simply creationism in disguise and a covert ploy to infiltrate creationism into the public schools and undermine the separation of church and state. Witt responds to their arguments (or lack thereof), showing the desperate attempts that naturalistic materialists will go to preserve their Darwinian creation myth. Witt's review will be published in Philosophia Christi, but you can find a pdf version at:
http://www.epsociety.org/p%20517-519.pdf
http://www.epsociety.org/p%20517-519.pdf
4 Comments:
"attempts that naturalistic materialists will go to preserve their Darwinian creation myth."
So says Dr Cowan, who claims also to accept an old earth scenario, which gives plenty of time for naturalistic evolution (4.5 billion years).
It's this kind of self-contradiction and inability to view the world with anything but a Creationist Biblical agenda that leads to ID being so mocked by the rest of the world. If you can't make up your own minds, how on earth do you expect to convince anyone else?
As for "lack of arguments", perhaps a visit to the Talk Origins site will provide ample evidence of evolution, as well as the self-delusional deception used by Creationists/ID supporters as they ignore reality to do "God's" will.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
DC
Also, an expose of the 'tactics' used in the Dover case by the proponents of ID, by someone who was witness to the entire event.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo_in_dov.html
It says a lot more about the motives and methods of theist ID'ers than it does about ID itself. Shaming, to say the least.
DC
DC says. . .
So says Dr Cowan, who claims also to accept an old earth scenario, which gives plenty of time for naturalistic evolution (4.5 billion years).
When did I ever say that I was an old-earther? I can assure you that I have never said so. If the truth be known, I do not have a firm position on the age of the earth. I believe that there are good scientific and biblical arguments on both sides of the issue. Perhaps I will come down on one side or the other in the future, but for now I am "agnostic" about how old the universe is. For me the issue that really matters is whether or not chance and time can explain the origin of the universe and/orliving things. I am totally convinced that no non-theistic answer is the least bit plausible--and my belief is not motivated by the Bible so much as the scientific evidence.
It's this kind of self-contradiction and inability to view the world with anything but a Creationist Biblical agenda that leads to ID being so mocked by the rest of the world. If you can't make up your own minds, how on earth do you expect to convince anyone else?
Could you please tell me what is self-contradictory about an old-earth view? As a philosopher, I think I know something about what a self-contradiction is, and I just don't see it. So, perhaps you can help me out. What's more, your comments about ID here express a profound ignorance of the movement. You keep assuming that ID theory is held only by fundamentalist Christians. However, ID theorists come in several stripes. Some are not Christians at all, but Buddhists, Muslims, Deists, and agnostics. Some are even proponents of macro-evolution for crying out loud!
dr. steve cowan said...
For me the issue that really matters is whether or not chance and time
can explain the origin of the universe and/orliving things. I am totally
convinced that no non-theistic answer is the least bit plausible--and my
belief is not motivated by the Bible so much as the scientific
evidence.
congratulations on your conviction, that can be comforting. i am
impressed, but not favorably, that you would consider yourself able to
conceive of and dismiss every potential prospective non-theistic answer.
it often is much more difficult to prove non-existence than it is
existence, increasingly with the scope of the conclusion. part of the
difficulty is circumscribing all the possibilities. here, you're ruling
out all "natural" processes for the mechanisms by which living things could
evolve from elemental materials over time. that implies not just a firm
grasp of many conventional sciences, from biochemistry to information
theory, but also a complete understanding of epistemology and the limits of
our knowledge - which understanding might be eventually in the grasp of our
species, but that doesn't seem very likely.
either you're woefully ignorant of the limits of our understanding of the
universe, and quite arrogant, or you have an agenda and are not concerned
with the actual facts of the situation. maybe both. in either case, this
statement alone suggests to me that the philosophy you preach is
misleading, at least when it comes to natural science.
Post a Comment
<< Home