Leadership U. article: Evolving Education: "Teach the Controversy"
Jason Spaceman
Steven Carr
> http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html
Interesting that scientists have suddenly turned into atheists and
agnostics, when Leadership U. has been telling us how science points
to God.
Irony meter alert `Time and time again, the issue of whether or not
the problems with evolutionary theory and alternative explanations are
presented becomes clouded by ad hominem attacks of skeptics' motives
and straw-man accusations of "importing religion into science."
This is an article which talks about the ACLU and National Academy of
Science as being 90 percent atheists and agnostics. It seems Leader U.
is the one wanting to drag religion into the controversy.
R. Baldwin
news:572eea83.02112...@posting.google.com...
I thought it would be interesting to see what can be learned about
Leadership U's mission statement. Their "about" page states that they
are "rooted in the university--sponsored by Christian Leadership
Ministries, the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade
for Christ International, Leadership U includes resources from the
high school to research levels, with an emphasis on the scholarly" The
bottom of the page states "This site is part of the Telling the Truth
Project."
CLM, Telling the Truth, and CCCI web sites:
http://www.clm.org/
http://www.clm.org/ttt/home.html
http://www.ccci.org/
From the Telling the Truth web page http://www.clm.org/ttt/what.html
"Telling the Truth is an ongoing Internet-based strategy pioneered by
Christian Leadership Ministries (CLM), designed to pool the best of
Christian scholarship and propel it to a global audience. Working
together, CLM and our WebPartners present unique resources to a lost
and confused world. From homosexuality to origins to theology and
apologetics--millions of Internet users are confronted with thousands
of messages from a biblical worldview. Through Telling the Truth
sites, the gospel takes its rightful place among thought-provoking
ideas related to today's burning issues."
From the CLM site, the CLM mission statement:
http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
"The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and equip
professors to change the world for Christ."
and an extract from their vision:
http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
"In partnership with professors, we build spiritual leaders, help them
continually saturate the campus with the gospel, and fully integrate
their faith into their academic discipline and culture. This
partnership will change the way decision makers around the world think
by giving them a biblical perspective on relevant topics that are at
issue on campuses and in the culture."
My question is: given all this, how is an allegation that Leadership U
is trying to import religion into science in any way a straw man? The
allegation seems spot on to me.
Frank J
> http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html
>
>
>
Yet another Johnson/Dembski website.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:iT9E9.18134$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:572eea83.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > jspa...@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote in message
> news:<b9401f8a.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html
> >
> > Interesting that scientists have suddenly turned into atheists and
> > agnostics, when Leadership U. has been telling us how science points
> > to God.
> >
> > Irony meter alert `Time and time again, the issue of whether or not
> > the problems with evolutionary theory and alternative explanations
> are
> > presented becomes clouded by ad hominem attacks of skeptics' motives
> > and straw-man accusations of "importing religion into science."
> >
<snip>
>
> My question is: given all this, how is an allegation that Leadership U
> is trying to import religion into science in any way a straw man? The
> allegation seems spot on to me.
>
Perhaps you could provide evidence from the original article showing that
"Leadership U" was the object of the accusations regarding the import of
religion into science.
If not, you would appear open to the charge of using a bait-and-switch
technique to advance your point.
Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
R. Baldwin
news:xhQF9.248048$fa.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
As noted in the extract found in Steven Carr's post, the author of the
Leadership U article in question made the complaint: "Time and time
again, the issue of whether or not the problems with evolutionary
theory and alternative explanations are presented becomes clouded by
ad hominem attacks of skeptics' motives and straw-man accusations of
'importing religion into science.' "
My point was that the mission and vision of Leadershup U's parent
organization (CLM) and the relation of Leadership U to that parent
make it quite clear that they are attempting to import religion into
science (and into everything else). I provided citations and links,
which you snipped. In other words, they have no grounds for complaint
about the purported accusations because, if made, they woulc be an
accurate description of this organization.
Since Leadership U did not cite the accusations, I cannot provide
them - but there is no need to since the gist of the accusation was
plain in the article. That gist accurately described a significant
part of the CLM mission statement.
This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he favored
tax cuts.
Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
Tichy
Obviously. Why repeat that?
>
> My point was that the mission and vision of Leadershup U's parent
> organization (CLM) and the relation of Leadership U to that parent
> make it quite clear that they are attempting to import religion into
> science (and into everything else). I provided citations and links,
> which you snipped.
Why shouldn't I snip them? They didn't provide the information that
I'm talking about. The point is that if person X is accused of
importing religion into science groundlessly, it doesn't follow that
the accusation is justified if person Y is justly accused of importing
religion into science.
In other words, they have no grounds for complaint
> about the purported accusations because, if made, they woulc be an
> accurate description of this organization.
That's a non-sequitur. Person Y, above, cannot complain that person X
was falsely accused if *he* was justly accused?
That's simply not logical.
>
> Since Leadership U did not cite the accusations, I cannot provide
> them - but there is no need to since the gist of the accusation was
> plain in the article. That gist accurately described a significant
> part of the CLM mission statement.
And, as I am pointing out, the claim that LeaderU cannot legitimately
complain about the illegitimate complaint against others is not
reasonable.
>
> This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he favored
> tax cuts.
Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was the
original target of the complaint, but it could be like you claiming
that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being accused of
favoring tax cuts.
>
> Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
Your analogy shows the bait and switch perfectly. You never
established that person Y (Lott) was the same person as X, which is
taken for granted in your analogy. Nor did you establish that the
accusation was accurate except through circular reasoning (that
circular reasoning required you to identify X and Y as the same
entity).
R. Baldwin
The information you are talking about is irrelevant.
>
> In other words, they have no grounds for complaint
> > about the purported accusations because, if made, they woulc be an
> > accurate description of this organization.
>
> That's a non-sequitur. Person Y, above, cannot complain that person
X
> was falsely accused if *he* was justly accused?
> That's simply not logical.
Person Y (LeaderU) complained that the class to which Person Y belongs
(Creationists) was falsely accused; when Person Y was justly accused
as demonstrable by Person Y's own admission of the point Person Y
complains of. Get it now?
>
> >
> > Since Leadership U did not cite the accusations, I cannot provide
> > them - but there is no need to since the gist of the accusation
was
> > plain in the article. That gist accurately described a significant
> > part of the CLM mission statement.
>
> And, as I am pointing out, the claim that LeaderU cannot
legitimately
> complain about the illegitimate complaint against others is not
> reasonable.
That was not what I said.
>
> >
> > This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he
favored
> > tax cuts.
>
> Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was the
> original target of the complaint, but it could be like you claiming
> that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being accused of
> favoring tax cuts.
It was obvious that LeaderU took the target of the complaint as
including themselves.
>
> >
> > Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
>
> Your analogy shows the bait and switch perfectly. You never
> established that person Y (Lott) was the same person as X, which is
> taken for granted in your analogy. Nor did you establish that the
> accusation was accurate except through circular reasoning (that
> circular reasoning required you to identify X and Y as the same
> entity).
Sorry, to accept this one would have to believe that LeaderU was not a
Creationist organization. It clearly is.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
<snip, to get right to the issue>
> > In other words, they have no grounds for complaint
> > > about the purported accusations because, if made, they woulc be an
> > > accurate description of this organization.
> >
> > That's a non-sequitur. Person Y, above, cannot complain that person
> X
> > was falsely accused if *he* was justly accused?
> > That's simply not logical.
>
> Person Y (LeaderU) complained that the class to which Person Y belongs
> (Creationists) was falsely accused;
Again, bzzt. You haven't provided contextual evidence that the LeaderU
article is talking about a classs to which LeaderU belongs. You appear to
be simply assuming that to be true.
when Person Y was justly accused
> as demonstrable by Person Y's own admission of the point Person Y
> complains of. Get it now?
Got it from the first. You're begging the question by idenfying person X as
person Y with no apparent justification for doing so.
Do *you* get it now?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Since Leadership U did not cite the accusations, I cannot provide
> > > them - but there is no need to since the gist of the accusation
> was
> > > plain in the article. That gist accurately described a significant
> > > part of the CLM mission statement.
> >
> > And, as I am pointing out, the claim that LeaderU cannot
> legitimately
> > complain about the illegitimate complaint against others is not
> > reasonable.
>
> That was not what I said.
Nor is it reasonable, obviously, to claim without support that LeaderU is
referring to its own activity without *you* providing *evidence* that this
is the case. From what I can see of the context, they appear to have
specific evidences in mind, not Duane Gish doing a "mission impossible" and
impersonating Richard Dawkins in the classroom.
If you can provide the evidence, then do so. Assuming that the LeaderU
article is talking about itself seems unjustified.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he
> favored
> > > tax cuts.
> >
> > Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was the
> > original target of the complaint, but it could be like you claiming
> > that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being accused of
> > favoring tax cuts.
>
> It was obvious that LeaderU took the target of the complaint as
> including themselves.
"Obvious" based on what evidence?
If you need not provide evidence, then I can easily refute you by informing
you that you are obviously wrong.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
> >
> > Your analogy shows the bait and switch perfectly. You never
> > established that person Y (Lott) was the same person as X, which is
> > taken for granted in your analogy. Nor did you establish that the
> > accusation was accurate except through circular reasoning (that
> > circular reasoning required you to identify X and Y as the same
> > entity).
>
> Sorry, to accept this one would have to believe that LeaderU was not a
> Creationist organization. It clearly is.
By "creationist organization" you mean an organization that includes
creationists? If so, then the Congress of the United States is also a
creationist organization.
LeaderU publishes articles touching on literally dozens of topics that have
nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology.
http://www.leaderu.com/
Check the menu at left, and revisit the broad terms in which their
organizational purpose is stated.
Sift through the text of the article you quoted. Find something that
supports what you say.
Or don't.
R. Baldwin
>
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:pe8G9.2298$361...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7c15eee6.0211...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip, to get right to the issue>
>
> > > In other words, they have no grounds for complaint
> > > > about the purported accusations because, if made, they woulc
be an
> > > > accurate description of this organization.
> > >
> > > That's a non-sequitur. Person Y, above, cannot complain that
person
> > X
> > > was falsely accused if *he* was justly accused?
> > > That's simply not logical.
> >
> > Person Y (LeaderU) complained that the class to which Person Y
belongs
> > (Creationists) was falsely accused;
>
> Again, bzzt. You haven't provided contextual evidence that the
LeaderU
> article is talking about a classs to which LeaderU belongs. You
appear to
> be simply assuming that to be true.
This is idiotic. It doesn't take more than a few minutes of poking
around their web site to see that LeaderU clearly identifies with
Creationists.
>
> when Person Y was justly accused
> > as demonstrable by Person Y's own admission of the point Person Y
> > complains of. Get it now?
>
> Got it from the first. You're begging the question by idenfying
person X as
> person Y with no apparent justification for doing so.
> Do *you* get it now?
I provided the justification. You snipped it.
Again, I did. You snipped it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he
> > favored
> > > > tax cuts.
> > >
> > > Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was the
> > > original target of the complaint, but it could be like you
claiming
> > > that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being
accused of
> > > favoring tax cuts.
> >
> > It was obvious that LeaderU took the target of the complaint as
> > including themselves.
>
> "Obvious" based on what evidence?
> If you need not provide evidence, then I can easily refute you by
informing
> you that you are obviously wrong.
Based on the evidence you snipped.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
> > >
> > > Your analogy shows the bait and switch perfectly. You never
> > > established that person Y (Lott) was the same person as X, which
is
> > > taken for granted in your analogy. Nor did you establish that
the
> > > accusation was accurate except through circular reasoning (that
> > > circular reasoning required you to identify X and Y as the same
> > > entity).
> >
> > Sorry, to accept this one would have to believe that LeaderU was
not a
> > Creationist organization. It clearly is.
>
> By "creationist organization" you mean an organization that includes
> creationists? If so, then the Congress of the United States is also
a
> creationist organization.
Congress has members that oppose Creationists as well. LeaderU does
not seem to share this attribute.
> LeaderU publishes articles touching on literally dozens of topics
that have
> nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology.
> http://www.leaderu.com/
>
> Check the menu at left, and revisit the broad terms in which their
> organizational purpose is stated.
> Sift through the text of the article you quoted. Find something
that
> supports what you say.
> Or don't.
I already did. You ignored it. Nonetheless, here are a few more things
for you to look at:
On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist articles.
http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist web sites:
http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
The bottom of the page includes the statement "This site is part of
the Telling the Truth Project." It links to this page:
http://www.clm.org/ttt/
On this page we see that the site "Mere Creation" is a satellite site
of LeaderU. http://www.clm.org/ttt/glance.html
The "Mere Creation" page is here:
http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html
We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU site supporting
evolution, but a great deal of material supporting Creationism. This
clearly establishes LeaderU as an organization in the Creationist
camp.
Tichy
It's idiotic of *you*: You're missing the point badly. Allow me to
explain via analogy: Suppose that a newspaper run by
African-americans publishes a story about discrimination against a
group of black people.
Of what relevance is the orientation of the newspaper to the facts of
discrimination?
Strictly speaking, absolutely *none*. The facts of the story are
either true, or they are not. You (for purposes of this analogy)
would be arguing that the newspaper itself is a black organization,
thus their complaint is irrelevant.
Thus, your identification of a "class" of creationists is irrelevant
to the issue broached in the LeaderU story (ad hominem
circumstantial).
>
> >
> > when Person Y was justly accused
> > > as demonstrable by Person Y's own admission of the point Person Y
> > > complains of. Get it now?
> >
> > Got it from the first. You're begging the question by idenfying
> person X as
> > person Y with no apparent justification for doing so.
> > Do *you* get it now?
>
> I provided the justification. You snipped it.
You equivocated between "creationist" and supporter of intelligent
design theory, from what I can see, and it's *still* irrelevant.
The gist of the article (from what I recall--the document is currently
unavailable), it was referring *criticism* of evolution. In that
endeavor, of what relevance is the pov of the critic? Isn't the issue
the nature of the criticism? Yet, you duplicate the straw man tactics
of the attackers, claiming that LeaderU is trying to insinuate
creationism into the schools, while what they appear to actually do
(as a portion of a *broad* spectrum of purposes) is advocate ID theory
and criticize aspects of evolutionary theory.
Again, what was snipped was a byte trail indicating that LeaderU,
among other issues, favors intelligent design theory.
Still irrelevant, particularly respecting the specific activity (esp.
the content of criticism) referred to in the article.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone said he
> favored
> > > > > tax cuts.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was the
> > > > original target of the complaint, but it could be like you
> claiming
> > > > that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being
> accused of
> > > > favoring tax cuts.
> > >
> > > It was obvious that LeaderU took the target of the complaint as
> > > including themselves.
> >
> > "Obvious" based on what evidence?
> > If you need not provide evidence, then I can easily refute you by
> informing
> > you that you are obviously wrong.
>
> Based on the evidence you snipped.
Your "evidence" is irrelevant (ad hom circumstantial). Even if
LeaderU *were* trying specifically to get "creationism" (however you
define it) into science, you haven't provided the merest scrap of
evidence that the red herring dismissal of the criticisms of
evolutionary theory fits the subjects referred to in the article
itself.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now where is the bait and switch? I do not understand you.
> > > >
> > > > Your analogy shows the bait and switch perfectly. You never
> > > > established that person Y (Lott) was the same person as X, which
> is
> > > > taken for granted in your analogy. Nor did you establish that
> the
> > > > accusation was accurate except through circular reasoning (that
> > > > circular reasoning required you to identify X and Y as the same
> > > > entity).
> > >
> > > Sorry, to accept this one would have to believe that LeaderU was
> not a
> > > Creationist organization. It clearly is.
> >
> > By "creationist organization" you mean an organization that includes
> > creationists? If so, then the Congress of the United States is also
> a
> > creationist organization.
>
> Congress has members that oppose Creationists as well. LeaderU does
> not seem to share this attribute.
Based on what, what on? Do you know what argumentum ad ignorantiam
is? Perhaps you should define "Creationist" (one who believes that
god had something to do with creation?) and *then* adduce the evidence
that LeaderU is a "creationist organization".
>
> > LeaderU publishes articles touching on literally dozens of topics
> that have
> > nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology.
> > http://www.leaderu.com/
> >
> > Check the menu at left, and revisit the broad terms in which their
> > organizational purpose is stated.
> > Sift through the text of the article you quoted. Find something
> that
> > supports what you say.
> > Or don't.
>
> I already did. You ignored it. Nonetheless, here are a few more things
> for you to look at:
Evaluation of this will have to wait until the LeaderU site is
resuscitated.
>
> On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist articles.
> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
>
> On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist web sites:
> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
>
> The bottom of the page includes the statement "This site is part of
> the Telling the Truth Project." It links to this page:
> http://www.clm.org/ttt/
>
> On this page we see that the site "Mere Creation" is a satellite site
> of LeaderU. http://www.clm.org/ttt/glance.html
>
> The "Mere Creation" page is here:
> http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html
>
> We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU site supporting
> evolution, but a great deal of material supporting Creationism. This
> clearly establishes LeaderU as an organization in the Creationist
> camp.
LeaderU is apparently experiencing some server problems of
considerable duration. We don't find material at LeaderU supporting
*anything*, at the moment--but we do find that the satellite sites of
LeaderU are apparently organizationally independent.
The "Mere Creation" title is not a banner announcing "We are
Creationists" as you seem to suppose (pending your definition of
Creationist), but seems clearly to be a nod to C. S. Lewis, thus it
would signify a basic rallying point for theists regarding origins,
which seems to be announced clearly by the sub-heading.
Are forensic scientists unscientific?
Do you have a scientific objection to a forensic style of research
applied to "natural" information systems?
R. Baldwin
Perhaps you have not read the Wedge Strategy document. I have. It
leaves no doubt that the designer ID advocates have in mind is God -
therefore I do not distinguish between ID adherents and creationists,
though ID does not say much about YEC.
> The gist of the article (from what I recall--the document is
currently
> unavailable), it was referring *criticism* of evolution. In that
> endeavor, of what relevance is the pov of the critic? Isn't the
issue
> the nature of the criticism? Yet, you duplicate the straw man
tactics
> of the attackers, claiming that LeaderU is trying to insinuate
> creationism into the schools, while what they appear to actually do
> (as a portion of a *broad* spectrum of purposes) is advocate ID
theory
> and criticize aspects of evolutionary theory.
>
I never once in this thread referred to the gist of the article, I
referred to a single sentence and pointed out the irony involved.
According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent organization,
advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
Inserting God into education and other aspects of human society is
what they are about.
You apparently did not read the trail very carefully.
Sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here.
Could you be more plain?
If that was what ID advocates were actually doing, without an a priori
assumption of an intelligent designer, then no. Unfortunately, ID
advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and replace it
with a disguised religion.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7c15eee6.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:<xndG9.8297$31....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pW8G9.253437$fa.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:pe8G9.2298$361...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7c15eee6.0211...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > >
Whooopeeee!
I'm quite familiar with the "Wedge Strategy document" (or is there more than
one?), as I am familiar with Prof. Johnson, M. Behe, and W. Dembski.
It
> leaves no doubt that the designer ID advocates have in mind is God -
> therefore I do not distinguish between ID adherents and creationists,
> though ID does not say much about YEC.
The fact that *you* have no doubt that they have god in mind is no more
significant than the idea that the NAS has "no god" in mind when they talk
about evolution. The issue of whether something non-scientific is being
passed off as science remains the issue, and you opinion does not carrry the
day.
>
> > The gist of the article (from what I recall--the document is
> currently
> > unavailable), it was referring *criticism* of evolution. In that
> > endeavor, of what relevance is the pov of the critic? Isn't the
> issue
> > the nature of the criticism? Yet, you duplicate the straw man
> tactics
> > of the attackers, claiming that LeaderU is trying to insinuate
> > creationism into the schools, while what they appear to actually do
> > (as a portion of a *broad* spectrum of purposes) is advocate ID
> theory
> > and criticize aspects of evolutionary theory.
> >
>
> I never once in this thread referred to the gist of the article, I
> referred to a single sentence and pointed out the irony involved.
So what? Admitting that you extrapolated from one sentence hardly helps
your case. Manifestly you were not accused of referring to gist of the
article (I would be accusing you of reading it in context!!!).
The irony is the same as a "black" newspaper writing about race
discrimination.
>
> According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent organization,
> advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
> Inserting God into education and other aspects of human society is
> what they are about.
Yeah? So, what's wrong with that?
Are you intolerant of religious education?
Intolerant of religious expression in society?
<snip the older bit>
> > > >
> > > > Nor is it reasonable, obviously, to claim without support that
> > > LeaderU is
> > > > referring to its own activity without *you* providing *evidence*
> > > that this
> > > > is the case. From what I can see of the context, they appear to
> > > have
> > > > specific evidences in mind, not Duane Gish doing a "mission
> > > impossible" and
> > > > impersonating Richard Dawkins in the classroom.
> > > >
> > > > If you can provide the evidence, then do so. Assuming that the
> > > LeaderU
> > > > article is talking about itself seems unjustified.
> > >
> > > Again, I did. You snipped it.
> >
> > Again, what was snipped was a byte trail indicating that LeaderU,
> > among other issues, favors intelligent design theory.
> > Still irrelevant, particularly respecting the specific activity
> (esp.
> > the content of criticism) referred to in the article.
>
> You apparently did not read the trail very carefully.
I know the trail already, as I have visited most of the sites over the
years; the fact that LeaderU isn't available at the moment does not prevent
me from having an educated opinion on the matter.
What did I supposedly miss? Is it a secret? Does it get you off the hook
for an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This would be like Trent Lott complaining that someone
> said he
> > > favored
> > > > > > > tax cuts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all, since you haven't established that LeaderU was
> the
> > > > > > original target of the complaint, but it could be like you
> > > claiming
> > > > > > that Trent Lott cannot complain about Dick Gephardt being
> > > accused of
> > > > > > favoring tax cuts.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was obvious that LeaderU took the target of the complaint
> as
> > > > > including themselves.
> > > >
> > > > "Obvious" based on what evidence?
> > > > If you need not provide evidence, then I can easily refute you
> by
> > > informing
> > > > you that you are obviously wrong.
> > >
> > > Based on the evidence you snipped.
<snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
There is no a priori assumption of an intelligent designer, afaics--no more
so than when a scientist assumes himself to be intelligent and making use of
science as a tool rather than simply reacting to the marionette strings of
cause and effect.
Unfortunately, ID
> advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
> information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
> methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and replace it
> with a disguised religion.
Methodological naturalism is a dead end with respect to forensics. In the
historical sciences, many things just happen, and knowing the way things
normally happen doesn't explain what actually happened. In order to
consider intelligent design in science, you must assume intelligence
(including fields such as archaeology/anthropology).
Methological naturalism has a place firmly esconced in science, but it is a
*mistake* to make it the be-all, end-all. You'll end up explaining your own
intelligence in terms of normal processes of cause and effect, and change
science itself from an enterprise (with purpose) into a brute aspect of
reality--if you insist on that paradigm.
R. Baldwin
>
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:X97I9.2457$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7c15eee6.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> > > You equivocated between "creationist" and supporter of
intelligent
> > > design theory, from what I can see, and it's *still* irrelevant.
> >
> > Perhaps you have not read the Wedge Strategy document. I have.
>
> Whooopeeee!
> I'm quite familiar with the "Wedge Strategy document" (or is there
more than
> one?), as I am familiar with Prof. Johnson, M. Behe, and W. Dembski.
>
> It
> > leaves no doubt that the designer ID advocates have in mind is
God -
> > therefore I do not distinguish between ID adherents and
creationists,
> > though ID does not say much about YEC.
>
> The fact that *you* have no doubt that they have god in mind is no
more
> significant than the idea that the NAS has "no god" in mind when
they talk
> about evolution. The issue of whether something non-scientific is
being
> passed off as science remains the issue, and you opinion does not
carrry the
> day.
The significance is that LeaderU is attempting to inject religion into
science, where it does not belong. Science is silent about God because
it has no method for dealing with God.
>
> >
> > > The gist of the article (from what I recall--the document is
> > currently
> > > unavailable), it was referring *criticism* of evolution. In
that
> > > endeavor, of what relevance is the pov of the critic? Isn't the
> > issue
> > > the nature of the criticism? Yet, you duplicate the straw man
> > tactics
> > > of the attackers, claiming that LeaderU is trying to insinuate
> > > creationism into the schools, while what they appear to actually
do
> > > (as a portion of a *broad* spectrum of purposes) is advocate ID
> > theory
> > > and criticize aspects of evolutionary theory.
> > >
> >
> > I never once in this thread referred to the gist of the article, I
> > referred to a single sentence and pointed out the irony involved.
>
> So what? Admitting that you extrapolated from one sentence hardly
helps
> your case. Manifestly you were not accused of referring to gist of
the
> article (I would be accusing you of reading it in context!!!).
> The irony is the same as a "black" newspaper writing about race
> discrimination.
I did not admit extrapolation.
>
> >
> > According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent
organization,
> > advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
> > Inserting God into education and other aspects of human society is
> > what they are about.
>
> Yeah? So, what's wrong with that?
> Are you intolerant of religious education?
> Intolerant of religious expression in society?
I'm rather fond of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which supports religious
expression free of Government control. If religion is injected into
public schools, then it comes under Government control.
[snip]
> > (esp.
> > > the content of criticism) referred to in the article.
> >
> > You apparently did not read the trail very carefully.
>
> I know the trail already, as I have visited most of the sites over
the
> years; the fact that LeaderU isn't available at the moment does not
prevent
> me from having an educated opinion on the matter.
>
> What did I supposedly miss? Is it a secret? Does it get you off
the hook
> for an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy?
I don't admit a fallacy.
[snip for brevity]
>
> <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
>
I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
[snip]
I don't believe you for a moment.
>
> Unfortunately, ID
> > advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
> > information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
> > methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and replace
it
> > with a disguised religion.
>
> Methodological naturalism is a dead end with respect to forensics.
In the
> historical sciences, many things just happen, and knowing the way
things
> normally happen doesn't explain what actually happened. In order to
> consider intelligent design in science, you must assume intelligence
> (including fields such as archaeology/anthropology).
I don't suppose you actually practice forensics, archaeology, or
anthropology, do you?
>
> Methological naturalism has a place firmly esconced in science, but
it is a
> *mistake* to make it the be-all, end-all. You'll end up explaining
your own
> intelligence in terms of normal processes of cause and effect, and
change
> science itself from an enterprise (with purpose) into a brute aspect
of
> reality--if you insist on that paradigm.
Rather, it is a recognition that science has a limited scope of
utility. It is a mistake to force supernatural phenomena into science.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
Science has no method for dealing with *many* things (morality, unobservable
historical events, etc.), so long as methodological naturalism is taken as
the be-all, end-all.
Of possible interest:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The gist of the article (from what I recall--the document is
> > > currently
> > > > unavailable), it was referring *criticism* of evolution. In
> that
> > > > endeavor, of what relevance is the pov of the critic? Isn't the
> > > issue
> > > > the nature of the criticism? Yet, you duplicate the straw man
> > > tactics
> > > > of the attackers, claiming that LeaderU is trying to insinuate
> > > > creationism into the schools, while what they appear to actually
> do
> > > > (as a portion of a *broad* spectrum of purposes) is advocate ID
> > > theory
> > > > and criticize aspects of evolutionary theory.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never once in this thread referred to the gist of the article, I
> > > referred to a single sentence and pointed out the irony involved.
> >
> > So what? Admitting that you extrapolated from one sentence hardly
> helps
> > your case. Manifestly you were not accused of referring to gist of
> the
> > article (I would be accusing you of reading it in context!!!).
> > The irony is the same as a "black" newspaper writing about race
> > discrimination.
>
> I did not admit extrapolation.
That's okay; what you wrote yourself is sufficient to incriminate you.
Do you also consider it "ironic" that a newspaper for African Americans
would publish a story concerning racial discrimation against an African
American?
Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How, exactly, does
ID import religion into science? If you cannot answer that, then you should
regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in the LeaderU
article.
>
> >
> > >
> > > According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent
> organization,
> > > advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
> > > Inserting God into education and other aspects of human society is
> > > what they are about.
> >
> > Yeah? So, what's wrong with that?
> > Are you intolerant of religious education?
> > Intolerant of religious expression in society?
>
> I'm rather fond of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which supports religious
> expression free of Government control. If religion is injected into
> public schools, then it comes under Government control.
Here's the key, then: How should "religion" be defined with respect to the
U.S. Bill of Rights?
>
> [snip]
> > > (esp.
> > > > the content of criticism) referred to in the article.
> > >
> > > You apparently did not read the trail very carefully.
> >
> > I know the trail already, as I have visited most of the sites over
> the
> > years; the fact that LeaderU isn't available at the moment does not
> prevent
> > me from having an educated opinion on the matter.
> >
> > What did I supposedly miss? Is it a secret? Does it get you off
> the hook
> > for an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy?
>
> I don't admit a fallacy.
You don't need to admit it. Your argument fits the form of the fallacy.
While not admitting to the fallacy, I note that you also exercised your
option to not answer the questions.
>
> [snip for brevity]
> >
> > <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
> >
> I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
That's false as a generalization, but correct with respect to the example
that was snipped. The point is being made adequately elsewhere without
leading you by the hand through the interpretation of the edited text.
LeaderU is working, so I'll be addressing your linked references.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > >
> > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist
> articles.
> > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?). How do you define
"Creationist"?
> > > > >
> > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist web
> sites:
> > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking about. Respecting
your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is specifically
"Creationist" about these sites?
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
(the one above is not working, afaics)
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
That's out of 29 links, btw.
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottom of the page includes the statement "This site is
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the Telling the Truth Project." It links to this page:
> > > > > http://www.clm.org/ttt/
> > > > >
> > > > > On this page we see that the site "Mere Creation" is a
> satellite
> > > site
> > > > > of LeaderU. http://www.clm.org/ttt/glance.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The "Mere Creation" page is here:
> > > > > http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU site
> supporting
> > > > > evolution, but a great deal of material supporting
> Creationism.
How do you define "evolution"?
---
Basically I said you should only believe what there is evidence for. After
spending years studying evolution in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral
programs, I can tell you that, first of all, there is evidence for small
changes in organisms as they adapt to small environmental fluctuations.
Second, there is evidence that new species do arise. We see new species of
fruit flies, rodents, and even birds.
---
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cr-evol.html
Another:
---
The evidence for the common ancestry of life is very strong. To give some
idea of what it is, I will simply list a few of the kinds of questions that
common ancestry gives an answer to. Why is it that bats and whales have so
much in common anatomically with mice and men? Why do virtually all
vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic "pentadactyl" (five-fingered)
design?
---
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9712/opinion/barr.html
How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
Argument from incredulity. I'm suitably impressed. Did you even take note
of the comparison?
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, ID
> > > advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
> > > information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
> > > methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and replace
> it
> > > with a disguised religion.
> >
> > Methodological naturalism is a dead end with respect to forensics.
> In the
> > historical sciences, many things just happen, and knowing the way
> things
> > normally happen doesn't explain what actually happened. In order to
> > consider intelligent design in science, you must assume intelligence
> > (including fields such as archaeology/anthropology).
>
> I don't suppose you actually practice forensics, archaeology, or
> anthropology, do you?
No. Does that make me unqualified to talk about them?
Are you a Creationist? No? Does that mean that you're unqualified to talk
about them?
>
> >
> > Methological naturalism has a place firmly esconced in science, but
> it is a
> > *mistake* to make it the be-all, end-all. You'll end up explaining
> your own
> > intelligence in terms of normal processes of cause and effect, and
> change
> > science itself from an enterprise (with purpose) into a brute aspect
> of
> > reality--if you insist on that paradigm.
>
> Rather, it is a recognition that science has a limited scope of
> utility. It is a mistake to force supernatural phenomena into science.
Like intelligence? Will you admit that any perception that you might have
that you (or anybody else) are intelligent is a non-scientific view?
Robin Levett
>
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:sZiI9.7841$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:JQ7I9.432551$S8.88...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
message
> > > news:X97I9.2457$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7c15eee6.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
message
<snip for length>
This is ludicrous. Leadership University has alleged that
evolutionists cloud the issue of problems with evolutionary theory
by making "straw man accusations of "importing religion into
science."" But Leadrship University's very mission statement
demonstrates that, certainly so far as that institution is
concerned, the accusation is not directed at a straw man, but is a
valid criticism.
Your analogy is wholly invalid; closer would be a newspaper
written for African Americans carrying an editorial leading
arrticle denying that any newspaper is written for African
Americans.
>
> Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
exactly, does
> ID import religion into science?
The intelligent designer, for all intelligent design theorists, is
the Christian God. What other entity is it? Have your ead, say,
Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
> If you cannot answer that, then you should
> regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in the
LeaderU
> article.
>
Asked and answered.
<further snip for brevity>
> >
> > [snip for brevity]
> > >
> > > <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
> > >
> > I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
>
> That's false as a generalization, but correct with respect to
the example
> that was snipped. The point is being made adequately elsewhere
without
> leading you by the hand through the interpretation of the edited
text.
>
> LeaderU is working, so I'll be addressing your linked
references.
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist
> > articles.
> > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
>
> Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?).
Pretty much all of them.
> How do you define
> "Creationist"?
One who attacks the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory on the
ground that God created the diversity of life we see today by some
other means. That ranges from YECs who deny evolution on the
ground that Genesis 1 & 2 are literally true and historical
accounts of the creation of the world, all the way to intelligent
design theorists and other forms of progressive creationists who
say that something, somewhere is wrong with evolutionary theory
and set out to find a space into which to fit their god.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist
web
> > sites:
> > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
>
> I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking about.
Respecting
> your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is
specifically
> "Creationist" about these sites?
>
> http://www.origins.org/
Let's see now - perhaps the fact that each of the articles under
the heading "Darwibnism and Evolution is written from a
creationist perspective?
Or let's have a look at the page "Our Focus":-
"Origins.org focuses primarily on the scientific theory known as
Intelligent Design and reaches one logical conclusion: that the
universe and life show verifiable signs of intelligent creation
because there is an intelligent Creator. Some of our resources
deal with scientific data exclusively and some take the defensible
position that the data point to and support the Biblical claim of
Divine Creation."
(http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus.html)
Try the Statement of Faith:-
"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments)
is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is
thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically,
scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original
writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended
the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the
words and literary styles of its individual human authors.
Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the
nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the
salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is
therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it
addresses. "
(http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml?main)
> http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
> (the one above is not working, afaics)
Still not working.
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
>
Dembski's personal website? He's a creationist. He rejects
theistic evolution not because of the word "theistic" but because
of the word "evolution":-
(all the following quotes (unless otherwise attributed) are from
http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html).
"Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design theorists'
preoccupation with theistic evolution rests not with what the term
"theistic" is doing in the phrase "theistic evolution," but rather
with what the term "evolution" is doing there. The design
theorists' objection to theistic evolution is not in the end that
theistic evolution retains God as an unnecessary rider in an
otherwise perfectly acceptable scientific theory of life's
origins. Rather, the design theorists' objection is that the
scientific theory which is supposed to undergird theistic
evolution, usually called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is itself
problematic"
He lies about Michael Denton:-
"Michael Denton's critique of Darwinism is a case in point. In
his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues at length
that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failed scientific paradigm.
It bears noting that Denton is an agnostic in matters of religious
faith--thus in criticizing Darwinism he has no religious ax to
grind."
The lies? Firstly, by omission - he fails to point out that
Denton now accepts (Nature's Destiny) evolution, both micro- and
macro-; and, on the other hand, Denton is not an agnostic - see
this quote:-
"Behe: Can I jump in for a second? Maybe I'm reading things
into the book, but I certainly got the strong sense--perhaps
Denton didn't state this explicitly, but he does so
implicitly--that he was arguing for the relevant choices being
made by an intelligence.
Let me give you some background. During the April 1996 meeting at
the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Washingon, DC, where
Denton and I both spoke, he said to the whole group of journalists
and other folks there that he thought God had set up the universe
to produce human beings.
Moreover, the night before that meeting, Denton and I had dinner
at Tom Bethell's house. I told him that I had read his
manuscript--at that point, the book was called Biology, The
Anthropic Perspective, with the subtitle, An Essay in Natural
Theology--and that I liked it very much. He was pleased. Then I
said, "But there just one thing that bothers me. For a natural
theology, it doesn't mention God." Denton seemed a bit startled by
that, and he said, "Well, I certainly believe in God, and I think
God did this. I was just trying to style the arguments in the
fashion of the natural theologies of the early nineteenth
century." So it seems pretty clear to me that Denton in fact sees
the evidence for design as pointing, ultimately, to a transcendent
intelligence."
(http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
So Behe is quoting Denton as saying that he believes in God; while
Dembski above claims him as being agnostic.
Dembski also admits that he accepts creationism broadly
construed:-
"The only thing one can say for certain is that to reject fully
naturalistic evolution is to accept some form of creationism
broadly construed, i.e., the belief that God or some intelligent
agent has produced life with a purpose in mind. Young earth
creationism certainly falls under such a broad construal of
creationism, but is hardly coextensive with creationism in this
broad sense."
and is clear that the intelligence in intelligent design is an
agent:-
"Dembski: I see design as directed contingency--meaning some agent
choosing and making real this outcome, rather than the
indefinitely many other possible outcomes allowed by the
background regularities and chance."
(also from
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
> That's out of 29 links, btw.
You excluded Probe Ministries; the Crossroads Project (which
accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood
(http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/gen8-14.htm), fergawdsake); Koons
website; Texans for Life Coalition
(http://texlife.org/issues/fabric/chap05.html); & Bridges
International. NARTH, Stonewall Revisited (and its mirror) and
the Journal of Human Sexuality are problematic in their own
distinct way.
You stopped when it started becoming interesting - let me supply
the following paragraphs:-
" But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new species is
still a fruit fly. These processes do not tell us how we get
horses and wasps and woodpeckers.
Third, in the fossil record, there are only a few transitions
between major groups of organisms, like between reptiles and
birds, and these are controversial, even among evolutionists. If
evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record should be full
of them.
Fourth, there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin of
complex adaptations like the tongue of the woodpecker; or flight
in birds, mammals, insects, and reptiles; or the swimming
adaptations in fish, mammals, reptiles, and the marine
invertebrates. These adaptations appear in the fossil record with
no transitions. And fifth, there is no genetic mechanism for these
large-scale evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution from
amoeba to man is an extrapolation from very meager data.
So the problem with evolution is that it is a mechanistic theory
without a mechanism, and there is no evidence for the big changes
from amoeba to man."
So you produced an "inverse Darwin's eye" quote - well done.
>
> Another:
> ---
> The evidence for the common ancestry of life is very strong. To
give some
> idea of what it is, I will simply list a few of the kinds of
questions that
> common ancestry gives an answer to. Why is it that bats and
whales have so
> much in common anatomically with mice and men? Why do virtually
all
> vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic "pentadactyl"
(five-fingered)
> design?
> ---
> http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9712/opinion/barr.html
>
This is part of an essay by a physicist explaing that evolution is
not necessarily a problem for theology or the Argument from
design; another part of the essay is representative of the
argument being put:-
"The Argument from Design remains perfectly healthy, then, even if
we concede to natural selection all that is claimed for it by the
most naturalistic theory of evolution. But, as it happens, there
is no reason to concede so much to it. It is far from clear that
natural selection is really up to the job, not only of crafting
complex organisms, but even of explaining what goes on in the
simplest living cell, as the molecular biologist Michael J. Behe
has amply demonstrated in his recent book, Darwin's Black Box.
Moreover, the times available for natural selection to have worked
these wonders were far shorter than was commonly supposed. The
Cambrian Explosion, that wild proliferation of new forms of life
that occurred about 540 million years ago, took only a few million
years. And it is now generally admitted that most species make
their appearance in the fossil record quite suddenly, geologically
speaking.
Unfortunately, many religious believers-and not only biblical
literalists-have taken this argument one step further than it has
to be or ought to be taken, to deny that life on earth has a
common ancestry. I find this quite puzzling. If it can be shown
that a reptile cannot evolve into a mammal or a fish into an
amphibian by natural selection alone, then there must have been
divine intervention. Nothing is added to the force of this
argument by denying that the reptile or the fish did so evolve.
The atheist is out on a limb, so why try to saw down the whole
tree, especially against the grain of so much evidence?"
Essentially, Barr is saying that he accepts common descent, but
that the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory cannot explain
it, and that hence Paley's Argument from Design is still alive and
kicking.
What was that you said?
> How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
>
That's right; how do you explain your incorrect presentation of
the facts?
You actually mean a forensic *science* style of research, of
course.
But the analogy is false. Forensic scientists know exactly what
kind of agent they are looking for, and its capabilities and
motivations. IDT is only comparable *if* they are indeed assuming
a priori an intelligent agent, which is generally God, and are
prepared to posit capabilities and intentions. The probelem they
have is that there is no evidence for the existence of an
intelligent design agency capable of what is, in their view,
required.
<snippage>
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
R. Baldwin
Methodological naturalism is hardly a be-all and end-all, but neither
is Science. We use Science to come up with useful models of natural
phenomena with which we can make good predictions. We don't use
Science to study God, or write a poem, or appreciate Martha Graham's
choreography, or attend a Rachmaninov concert. There's no Science in
"Rime of the Ancient Mariner," but it is still worth reading.
I disagree with your assessment, and don't see that your analogy fits
at all.
>
> Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
exactly, does
> ID import religion into science? If you cannot answer that, then
you should
> regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in the
LeaderU
> article.
"The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and equip
professors to change the world for Christ." from
http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
"CHANGE THE WORLD FOR CHRIST: In partnership with professors, we build
spiritual leaders, help them continually saturate the campus with the
gospel, and fully integrate their faith into their academic discipline
and culture." from http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
"Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part
of Campus Crusade for Christ, International." from
http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html
It doesn't get any plainer than that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent
> > organization,
> > > > advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
> > > > Inserting God into education and other aspects of human
society is
> > > > what they are about.
> > >
> > > Yeah? So, what's wrong with that?
> > > Are you intolerant of religious education?
> > > Intolerant of religious expression in society?
> >
> > I'm rather fond of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which supports
religious
> > expression free of Government control. If religion is injected
into
> > public schools, then it comes under Government control.
>
> Here's the key, then: How should "religion" be defined with respect
to the
> U.S. Bill of Rights?
Generally by precedent from court decisions.
>
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > (esp.
> > > > > the content of criticism) referred to in the article.
> > > >
> > > > You apparently did not read the trail very carefully.
> > >
> > > I know the trail already, as I have visited most of the sites
over
> > the
> > > years; the fact that LeaderU isn't available at the moment does
not
> > prevent
> > > me from having an educated opinion on the matter.
> > >
> > > What did I supposedly miss? Is it a secret? Does it get you
off
> > the hook
> > > for an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy?
> >
> > I don't admit a fallacy.
>
> You don't need to admit it. Your argument fits the form of the
fallacy.
> While not admitting to the fallacy, I note that you also exercised
your
> option to not answer the questions.
I dispute your characterization. "Does it get you off the hook for an
ad hominem circumstantial fallacy" is a leading question. Answering
yes would be an admission I was on the hook to begin with. I do not
agree and will not do that. Answering no would be an admission that I
am still on the hook. I do not agree and will not do that. No answer
is possible.
You missed that LeaderU's parent organization is attempting to
"saturate the campus with the gospel, and fully integrate (Christian
professors') faith into their academic discipline and culture."
>
> >
> > [snip for brevity]
> > >
> > > <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
> > >
> > I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
>
> That's false as a generalization, but correct with respect to the
example
> that was snipped. The point is being made adequately elsewhere
without
> leading you by the hand through the interpretation of the edited
text.
>
> LeaderU is working, so I'll be addressing your linked references.
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist
> > articles.
> > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
>
> Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?). How do you define
> "Creationist"?
These for starters, though some make a lame attempt to distance
themselves from Creationism. I would define "Creationist" as one who
believes that creation of the Universe by God is somehow a subject for
scientific study.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/anderson/insert.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dembski1129.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or101/101views.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/science/mondore-animals.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/behe/mb_brresp.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/science/biotic_message.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dardoc1.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/viewscie.html
http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/churchofdarwin.html
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist web
> > sites:
> > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
>
> I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking about.
Respecting
> your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is specifically
> "Creationist" about these sites?
>
> http://www.origins.org/
"For Christians, the date of Creation is not a primary issue of faith
and should not be regarded as such. Trusted orthodox Bible scholars
allow freedom of interpretation on the age issue. What is crystal
clear from Scripture is who created." from
http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus.html
"It is our conviction that since the same God who "authored" the
universe also inspired the writings of Scripture, a consistent message
will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature
will agree with, not contradict, the words of the Bible." from
http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml?main
> http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
This one was 404.
> (the one above is not working, afaics)
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
I don't have time this evening to address Dembski's slippery gab.
You skipped the part that reads "So the problem with evolution is that
it is a mechanistic theory without a mechanism, and there is no
evidence for the big changes from amoeba to man." Also "But when the
original species is a fruit fly, the new species is still a fruit
fly."
How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
This is not argument from incredulity. It is refusal to believe an
unreliable source that contradicts information I already have from
many reliable sources.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, ID
> > > > advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
> > > > information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
> > > > methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and
replace
> > it
> > > > with a disguised religion.
> > >
> > > Methodological naturalism is a dead end with respect to
forensics.
> > In the
> > > historical sciences, many things just happen, and knowing the
way
> > things
> > > normally happen doesn't explain what actually happened. In
order to
> > > consider intelligent design in science, you must assume
intelligence
> > > (including fields such as archaeology/anthropology).
> >
> > I don't suppose you actually practice forensics, archaeology, or
> > anthropology, do you?
>
> No. Does that make me unqualified to talk about them?
It is your rediculous statement that these areas of science do not
depend on methodological naturalism that indicates you are unqualified
to talk about them.
How would you go about forensic science without methodological
naturalism? This is the method that tells you, based on the evidence,
that a victim died of, say, asphyxiation caused by a cord drawn around
the neck; without having to bother with whether it was demons,
goblins, or the will of God.
> Are you a Creationist? No? Does that mean that you're unqualified
to talk
> about them?
I was in my youth. I got over it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Methological naturalism has a place firmly esconced in science,
but
> > it is a
> > > *mistake* to make it the be-all, end-all. You'll end up
explaining
> > your own
> > > intelligence in terms of normal processes of cause and effect,
and
> > change
> > > science itself from an enterprise (with purpose) into a brute
aspect
> > of
> > > reality--if you insist on that paradigm.
> >
> > Rather, it is a recognition that science has a limited scope of
> > utility. It is a mistake to force supernatural phenomena into
science.
>
> Like intelligence? Will you admit that any perception that you
might have
> that you (or anybody else) are intelligent is a non-scientific view?
No. There are ways for science to deal with the subject of
intelligence.
Tichy
"Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ek8usa...@grendel.hayesway...
Correct, and they give an example of that very thing, via link.
But Leadrship University's very mission statement
> demonstrates that, certainly so far as that institution is
> concerned, the accusation is not directed at a straw man, but is a
> valid criticism.
Which means that you're doing the same thing as Mr. Baldwin, yet you
apparently see nothing wrong with it. If the story is accurate, then
whether or not LeaderU does as you claim is irrrelevant, and the supposed
"irony" is insignificant.
>
> Your analogy is wholly invalid; closer would be a newspaper
> written for African Americans carrying an editorial leading
> arrticle denying that any newspaper is written for African
> Americans.
Sorry, Robin, but you are committing a logical fallacy via your "improved"
(my term) analogy. LeaderU is manifestly *not* claiming that it is
impossible to infuse religion into science (specific to "Creationists" or
not), but that (some) evolutionists are responding to attacks on the
consistency of evolution itself via red herring and straw man tactics. You
started out apparently realizing this, but then you seemingly lost your way.
>
> >
> > Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
> exactly, does
> > ID import religion into science?
>
> The intelligent designer, for all intelligent design theorists, is
> the Christian God.
And it doesn't matter that they explicitly deny this?
Looks to me like you producing a straw man of your own.
Do you not accord the opponent in debate the right to form his own argument?
What other entity is it? Have your ead, say,
> Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
Could be *any* other entity, including a naturalistic one (ala Francis
Crick), pending investigation.
Yes, I've read Behe's book, and I don't recall any explicit theistic
suggestion on his part. The thrust of his work emphasized, rather, the
dearth of evolutionary mechanisms to explain molecular machinery at the
cellular level.
Quoting Behe:
"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role
of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the
system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design more strongly than a
conviction about the identity of the designer."
(Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_, p196)
>
> > If you cannot answer that, then you should
> > regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in the
> LeaderU
> > article.
> >
>
> Asked and answered.
You "answered" with argument by assertion, presenting not even a single
example in support.
>
> <further snip for brevity>
>
> > >
> > > [snip for brevity]
> > > >
> > > > <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
> > > >
> > > I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
> >
> > That's false as a generalization, but correct with respect to
> the example
> > that was snipped. The point is being made adequately elsewhere
> without
> > leading you by the hand through the interpretation of the edited
> text.
> >
> > LeaderU is working, so I'll be addressing your linked
> references.
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist
> > > articles.
> > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
> >
> > Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?).
>
> Pretty much all of them.
lol
Based on what, what on?
>
> > How do you define
> > "Creationist"?
>
> One who attacks the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory on the
> ground that God created the diversity of life we see today by some
> other means.
The above criterion is the one you need to match to your claim that "pretty
much all of them" are Creationist articles.
Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.
That ranges from YECs who deny evolution on the
> ground that Genesis 1 & 2 are literally true and historical
> accounts of the creation of the world, all the way to intelligent
> design theorists and other forms of progressive creationists who
> say that something, somewhere is wrong with evolutionary theory
> and set out to find a space into which to fit their god.
As soon as they have a legitimate grounds for criticizing evolution, your
claim is falsified, and if the "reason" for the criticism was not "because"
god created it, your claim is similarly falsified.
You pick any example you want from the LeaderU site. I'm predicting here &
now that you will be falsified in one or more of the aforementioned ways in
each case.
>
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist
> web
> > > sites:
> > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
> >
> > I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking about.
> Respecting
> > your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is
> specifically
> > "Creationist" about these sites?
> >
> > http://www.origins.org/
>
> Let's see now - perhaps the fact that each of the articles under
> the heading "Darwibnism and Evolution is written from a
> creationist perspective?
If you stop there, your argument is a classic circularity (making your
answer fallacious: The articles are Creationistic because they are written
from a Creationist perspective).
You need your examples to meet specific criteria in order for your argument
to pass muster.
What are you doing in any of the above ng's if that's what passes for your
logic?
>
> Or let's have a look at the page "Our Focus":-
>
> "Origins.org focuses primarily on the scientific theory known as
> Intelligent Design and reaches one logical conclusion: that the
> universe and life show verifiable signs of intelligent creation
> because there is an intelligent Creator. Some of our resources
> deal with scientific data exclusively and some take the defensible
> position that the data point to and support the Biblical claim of
> Divine Creation."
> (http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus.html)
>
You have failed to meet your own criteria. Reminder:
". . . all the way to intelligent design theorists and other forms of
progressive creationists who say that something, somewhere is wrong with
evolutionary theory and set out to find a space into which to fit their
god."
.. . . though perhaps I should consider the possibility that you're being
deliberately dishonest by creating a non-specific spectrum reaching from the
first criterion to the second. Time will tell, I suppose.
> > http://www.reasons.org/
>
> Try the Statement of Faith:-
>
> "We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments)
> is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is
> thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically,
> scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original
> writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended
> the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the
> words and literary styles of its individual human authors.
> Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the
> nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the
> salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is
> therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it
> addresses. "
>
> (http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml?main)
Again, failing your own criteria. The above is simply a statement of
Christian faith, including inerrancy. The statement does not criticize
evolution, nor does it try to "create space" for god in any manner
*specified* by you.
>
> > http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
> > (the one above is not working, afaics)
>
> Still not working.
>
> > http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
> >
>
> Dembski's personal website? He's a creationist. He rejects
> theistic evolution not because of the word "theistic" but because
> of the word "evolution":-
The Dembski site is "Creationist" because Dembski is a creationist? That's
another circular argument, and the latter portion of your statement is
completely unsubstantiated, afaics.
>
> (all the following quotes (unless otherwise attributed) are from
> http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html).
>
> "Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design theorists'
> preoccupation with theistic evolution rests not with what the term
> "theistic" is doing in the phrase "theistic evolution," but rather
> with what the term "evolution" is doing there. The design
> theorists' objection to theistic evolution is not in the end that
> theistic evolution retains God as an unnecessary rider in an
> otherwise perfectly acceptable scientific theory of life's
> origins. Rather, the design theorists' objection is that the
> scientific theory which is supposed to undergird theistic
> evolution, usually called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is itself
> problematic"
Before you begin the proliferation of red herring (which I will deal with
solely for the sake of completeness), we note that you again fail to meet
your own specified criteria for what a "Creationist" is via the quotation
above.
1) Absent from the text is a denial that evolution is true based on a
literal reading (or liberal reading, ftm) of Genesis.
2) Admittedly, the text states that something is wrong with evolutionary
theory, but I hope that you are not foolhardy enough to claim *that* as
proof of a Creationistic pov.
3) The text itself flatly contradicts your latter criterion since "theistic
evolution" which presumeably has room for god is rejected in favor of the
view that evolution should be rejected on its own lack of merit (see #2).
Once again, you failed your own criteria.
Now for the red herring parade:
>
> He lies about Michael Denton:-
Some are equivocal enough to declare that any statement which is not true is
a lie; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the equivocation and assume
that you are accusing Dembski of a deliberate attempt to mislead. I shall
show that you don't make your case.
>
> "Michael Denton's critique of Darwinism is a case in point. In
> his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues at length
> that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failed scientific paradigm.
> It bears noting that Denton is an agnostic in matters of religious
> faith--thus in criticizing Darwinism he has no religious ax to
> grind."
>
> The lies? Firstly, by omission - he fails to point out that
> Denton now accepts (Nature's Destiny) evolution, both micro- and
> macro-;
Dembski's point is that a person with no theistic axe to grind can
legitimately attack evolution. Denton's views subsequent to publishing
EATIC (_Evolution: A Theory In Crisis_) are irrelevant to that point.
If you will review the link that you provided, Behe is referring to
_Nature's Destiny_ by Denton. Denton's vanilla theistic stance is relevant
to that work, not to EATIC (the respective publishing dates of the works
would seem to permit room for a change of stance).
You're not trying to deliberately mislead, are you?
In Dembski's context, Denton's views are relevant only to the criticisms
advance in EATIC. To make you claim that Dembski is lying stick, you need
to show that Denton wasn't an agnostic when he wrote EATIC, or show that
Dembski wrote that Denton was an agnostic (at that time) while knowing
otherwise.
Fyi, that isn't what you do . . .
>
> Dembski also admits that he accepts creationism broadly
> construed:-
>
> "The only thing one can say for certain is that to reject fully
> naturalistic evolution is to accept some form of creationism
> broadly construed, i.e., the belief that God or some intelligent
> agent has produced life with a purpose in mind. Young earth
> creationism certainly falls under such a broad construal of
> creationism, but is hardly coextensive with creationism in this
> broad sense."
>
> and is clear that the intelligence in intelligent design is an
> agent:-
So what? Isn't that obvious (and irrelevant)?
>
> "Dembski: I see design as directed contingency--meaning some agent
> choosing and making real this outcome, rather than the
> indefinitely many other possible outcomes allowed by the
> background regularities and chance."
>
> (also from
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
>
> > That's out of 29 links, btw.
>
> You excluded Probe Ministries; the Crossroads Project (which
> accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood
> (http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/gen8-14.htm),
Yes, I excluded Probe Ministries, based on the description of the site on
the page where it was listed (along with my knowledge of Probe Ministries).
Look at the mission of Probe Ministries and you won't find origins mentioned
at all. Probe Ministries does not meet your criteria for what "Creationist"
is unless you broaden it (which would be dishonest of you, imo, but I'll
deal with it if you want to go that route).
Crossroads Project accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood? So does the
staff at "Uncle Buford's Snake-handling and Bible Healing Ministry"--does
that make Uncle Buford's organization a "Creationist" organization? Goody;
we can identify all manner of organizations as Evolutionary organizations by
concocting a similarly preposterous definition.
fergawdsake); Koons
> website; Texans for Life Coalition
> (http://texlife.org/issues/fabric/chap05.html); & Bridges
> International. NARTH, Stonewall Revisited (and its mirror) and
> the Journal of Human Sexuality are problematic in their own
> distinct way.
You'll need to convince me that taking a stand on Biblical inerrancy (or the
like) properly equates with an organization being a "Creationist"
organization before I waste time rebuking you for the other supposed
examples.
Allow me to interrupt, since your claim was that the site contained
*nothing* (my emphasis) supporting evolution. Your claim is falsified
unless the author repudiates what he has already written--which he does not.
>
> " But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new species is
> still a fruit fly. These processes do not tell us how we get
> horses and wasps and woodpeckers.
>
> Third, in the fossil record, there are only a few transitions
> between major groups of organisms, like between reptiles and
> birds, and these are controversial, even among evolutionists. If
> evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record should be full
> of them.
>
> Fourth, there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin of
> complex adaptations like the tongue of the woodpecker; or flight
> in birds, mammals, insects, and reptiles; or the swimming
> adaptations in fish, mammals, reptiles, and the marine
> invertebrates. These adaptations appear in the fossil record with
> no transitions. And fifth, there is no genetic mechanism for these
> large-scale evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution from
> amoeba to man is an extrapolation from very meager data.
>
> So the problem with evolution is that it is a mechanistic theory
> without a mechanism, and there is no evidence for the big changes
> from amoeba to man."
>
> So you produced an "inverse Darwin's eye" quote - well done.
No problem. Your claim is falsified, and you quote an additional portion
attacking another aspect of evolution as though it gets you off the hook.
It doesn't.
>
> >
> > Another:
> > ---
> > The evidence for the common ancestry of life is very strong. To
> give some
> > idea of what it is, I will simply list a few of the kinds of
> questions that
> > common ancestry gives an answer to. Why is it that bats and
> whales have so
> > much in common anatomically with mice and men? Why do virtually
> all
> > vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic "pentadactyl"
> (five-fingered)
> > design?
> > ---
> > http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9712/opinion/barr.html
> >
>
> This is part of an essay by a physicist explaing that evolution is
> not necessarily a problem for theology or the Argument from
> design;
So what? Did you forget what you claimed?
Here's reminder:
"We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU site supporting
evolution, but a great deal of material supporting Creationism."
At issue, just in case you missed it, is the claim that "we do not find
information anywhere on the LeaderU site supporting evolution".
That claim of yours is false. Deal with it.
I said that your claim that the LeaderU site has nothing supporting
evolution has been falsified.
Lets see how long it takes for the truth of that to dawn on you.
Certainly the needlessly-expanded quotations do nothing to salvage your
claim from falsification.
They *do* waste substantial amounts of bandwidth with respect to our
topic--but I just want you to be aware that I'm not ducking any of your
supposed argument (irrelevant though most of it may be).
>
> > How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
> >
>
> That's right; how do you explain your incorrect presentation of
> the facts?
You claimed that there was nothing at the LeaderU site supporting evolution.
That claim of yours has been manifestly falsified (pending your ability to
tie yourself into knots in claiming that an affirmation of common descent is
not support for evolution). If you're not simply in parrot-mode, I expect
you to offer an example where I incorrectly presented the facts.
Not necessarily. The might simply look for "something that would do
*this*". A human could drown a person. So could an alligator. Or, the two
might even collaborate.
You haven't adequately supported your claim that the analogy is false.
IDT is only comparable *if* they are indeed assuming
> a priori an intelligent agent, which is generally God, and are
> prepared to posit capabilities and intentions. The probelem they
> have is that there is no evidence for the existence of an
> intelligent design agency capable of what is, in their view,
> required.
Support your claim that forensic scientists know what sort of agent they're
looking for a priori, or your attempt at refutation is legless.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
Not much to say except you're not agreeing with me quite enough.
;-)
<snip the older stuff, picking up with R. Baldwin's comments>
> > > > > I never once in this thread referred to the gist of the
> article, I
> > > > > referred to a single sentence and pointed out the irony
> involved.
> > > >
> > > > So what? Admitting that you extrapolated from one sentence
> hardly
> > > helps
> > > > your case. Manifestly you were not accused of referring to gist
> of
> > > the
> > > > article (I would be accusing you of reading it in context!!!).
> > > > The irony is the same as a "black" newspaper writing about race
> > > > discrimination.
> > >
> > > I did not admit extrapolation.
> >
> > That's okay; what you wrote yourself is sufficient to incriminate
> you.
> > Do you also consider it "ironic" that a newspaper for African
> Americans
> > would publish a story concerning racial discrimation against an
> African
> > American?
>
> I disagree with your assessment, and don't see that your analogy fits
> at all.
Disagreement without rationale is not logical argument. If you don't see
that the analogy fits, then try harder. At least suggest why you don't
think it fits, if that's your opinion.
Or you could just give up. There's not much point in just posting that you
disgree, is there?
>
> >
> > Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
> exactly, does
> > ID import religion into science? If you cannot answer that, then
> you should
> > regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in the
> LeaderU
> > article.
>
> "The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and equip
> professors to change the world for Christ." from
> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
>
> "CHANGE THE WORLD FOR CHRIST: In partnership with professors, we build
> spiritual leaders, help them continually saturate the campus with the
> gospel, and fully integrate their faith into their academic discipline
> and culture." from http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
>
> "Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part
> of Campus Crusade for Christ, International." from
> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html
>
> It doesn't get any plainer than that.
You concede, then?
*Just in case* you miss the point, there is *nothing* in the quotations that
you provided above that explicitly suggests that religion should be injected
into science.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > According to the mission and vision of Leader U's parent
> > > organization,
> > > > > advocacy of ID theory is not what they are principally about.
> > > > > Inserting God into education and other aspects of human
> society is
> > > > > what they are about.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah? So, what's wrong with that?
> > > > Are you intolerant of religious education?
> > > > Intolerant of religious expression in society?
> > >
> > > I'm rather fond of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which supports
> religious
> > > expression free of Government control. If religion is injected
> into
> > > public schools, then it comes under Government control.
> >
> > Here's the key, then: How should "religion" be defined with respect
> to the
> > U.S. Bill of Rights?
>
> Generally by precedent from court decisions.
That's nice, except that the precedents contradict one another. The Bill of
Rights was composed without reference to legal precedents concerning itself,
so far as I'm aware (with the possible exception of English law, which I
somehow doubt you will find comforting, ultimately).
What do you think the intent of the authors was, if I may be so bold as to
suggest that their opinion would be of primary relevance?
No answer? But the question you're complaining about was only one of three,
and if you have no refutation of my identification of your statement
fitting the form of an ad homimem circumstantial fallacy (do you need for me
to lead you by the hand through that process?), then a debate format would
suggest that my identification of your fallacy was apt.
>
> You missed that LeaderU's parent organization is attempting to
> "saturate the campus with the gospel, and fully integrate (Christian
> professors') faith into their academic discipline and culture."
No, I didn't miss that; I simply don't follow you in assuming that the above
refers to an intent to inject religion into science.
When one assumes one's conclusion in the premiss, one commits the fallacy of
begging the question, fwiw.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip for brevity]
> > > >
> > > > <snip a portion Mr. Baldwin doesn't get>
> > > >
> > > I see you are unwilling to untwist your tortuous phrases.
> >
> > That's false as a generalization, but correct with respect to the
> example
> > that was snipped. The point is being made adequately elsewhere
> without
> > leading you by the hand through the interpretation of the edited
> text.
> >
> > LeaderU is working, so I'll be addressing your linked references.
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of Creationist
> > > articles.
> > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
> >
> > Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?). How do you define
> > "Creationist"?
>
> These for starters, though some make a lame attempt to distance
> themselves from Creationism. I would define "Creationist" as one who
> believes that creation of the Universe by God is somehow a subject for
> scientific study.
If the creation of the universe by ~god is a subject for scientific study,
then the creation of the universe by a god is also a subject for scientific
study. They are the same issue, in effect, since science doesn't speak
directly to the issue of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods
(nor lack thereof). The universe and its origin are subject to various
scientific inquiries regardless of their actual origin.
Your criterion for what constitutes a Creationist is rejected on the basis
of incoherence.
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/anderson/insert.htm
This article fails to meet your own criterion for "Creationist".
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dembski1129.htm
This article also fails to meet your own criterion for "Creationist".
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html
This article also fails to meet your own criterion for "Creationist".
Three strikes, you're out (I'm not reading through a complete list of bogus
citations).
You should have been providing the evidence from each article supporting the
citation, btw.
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or101/101views.htm
> http://www.leaderu.com/science/mondore-animals.html
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/behe/mb_brresp.htm
> http://www.leaderu.com/science/biotic_message.html
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dardoc1.htm
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/viewscie.html
> http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/churchofdarwin.html
>
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of Creationist web
> > > sites:
> > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
> >
> > I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking about.
> Respecting
> > your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is specifically
> > "Creationist" about these sites?
> >
> > http://www.origins.org/
>
> "For Christians, the date of Creation is not a primary issue of faith
> and should not be regarded as such. Trusted orthodox Bible scholars
> allow freedom of interpretation on the age issue. What is crystal
> clear from Scripture is who created." from
> http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus.html
The above citation fails to meet your own criterion for "Creationist"--this
is nothing new!
>
> > http://www.reasons.org/
>
> "It is our conviction that since the same God who "authored" the
> universe also inspired the writings of Scripture, a consistent message
> will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature
> will agree with, not contradict, the words of the Bible." from
> http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml?main
"I would define "Creationist" as one who believes that creation of the
Universe by God is somehow a subject for
scientific study."
I see no explicit indication of your self-chosen definition in the material
that you quoted, but I'm eager to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can
you suggest what portion of the quotation matches your definition of
"Creationist" and why?
>
> > http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
>
> This one was 404.
Hence my comment below.
>
> > (the one above is not working, afaics)
> > http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
>
> I don't have time this evening to address Dembski's slippery gab.
We'll just extrapolate your current success average onto the Dembski
material.
How does that soften your claim above that LeaderU has nothing supporting
evolution?
If you say that set A contains no {1}, and I point out that among the
elements of set A we find {1,2,3}, it is improper for you to defend your
original claim by pointing out the presence of {2,3} in set A. The presence
of {2,3} in set A does not cause {1} to disappear.
Also "But when the
> original species is a fruit fly, the new species is still a fruit
> fly."
>
> How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
lol
Another parrot!
Your claim has been falsified.
If you think that I have presented facts incorrectly, please specify the
instance you are referring to.
If you don't share your sources, but stick to the declaration that you don't
believe me, then your argument is exactly of the form of argument from
incredulity.
Your claim that you have "reliable sources" contradicting what I say
perfectly fits the form of argument by assertion unless you actually
reference at least one of your supposed sources.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, ID
> > > > > advocates are not applying forensic style research to "natural
> > > > > information systems." ID appears to be an attempt to push out
> > > > > methodological naturalism, on which science depends, and
> replace
> > > it
> > > > > with a disguised religion.
> > > >
> > > > Methodological naturalism is a dead end with respect to
> forensics.
> > > In the
> > > > historical sciences, many things just happen, and knowing the
> way
> > > things
> > > > normally happen doesn't explain what actually happened. In
> order to
> > > > consider intelligent design in science, you must assume
> intelligence
> > > > (including fields such as archaeology/anthropology).
> > >
> > > I don't suppose you actually practice forensics, archaeology, or
> > > anthropology, do you?
> >
> > No. Does that make me unqualified to talk about them?
>
> It is your rediculous statement that these areas of science do not
> depend on methodological naturalism that indicates you are unqualified
> to talk about them.
That's a straw man. I simply state that certain areas of science are not
*limited* to methodological naturalism (MN), with the reason being that the
ordinary conclusions of these disciplines cannot be reached using MN
exclusively.
<snip straw man stuffing>
>
> > Are you a Creationist? No? Does that mean that you're unqualified
> to talk
> > about them?
>
> I was in my youth. I got over it.
Did you answer my questions above completely?
8-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Methological naturalism has a place firmly esconced in science,
> but
> > > it is a
> > > > *mistake* to make it the be-all, end-all. You'll end up
> explaining
> > > your own
> > > > intelligence in terms of normal processes of cause and effect,
> and
> > > change
> > > > science itself from an enterprise (with purpose) into a brute
> aspect
> > > of
> > > > reality--if you insist on that paradigm.
> > >
> > > Rather, it is a recognition that science has a limited scope of
> > > utility. It is a mistake to force supernatural phenomena into
> science.
> >
> > Like intelligence? Will you admit that any perception that you
> might have
> > that you (or anybody else) are intelligent is a non-scientific view?
>
> No. There are ways for science to deal with the subject of
> intelligence.
Like what, what like?
Try sticking to a methodologically naturalistic framework for your answer,
or else you will be effectively conceding my point.
Tichy
Robin, my other reply to your message probably associated Mr. Baldwin's
views directly with yours (iow crediting his words to you). To whatever
extent I did this, I apologize and retract.
I trust you to make a game attempt to address the content of my post
irrespective of the oversight on my part.
Over & out,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
Karsten Knönagel
Itchy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and equip
>> professors to change the world for Christ." from
>> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
>>
>> "CHANGE THE WORLD FOR CHRIST: In partnership with professors, we
>> build spiritual leaders, help them continually saturate the campus
>> with the gospel, and fully integrate their faith into their academic
>> discipline and culture." from
>> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
>>
>> "Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part
>> of Campus Crusade for Christ, International." from
>> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html
>>
>> It doesn't get any plainer than that.
>
> You concede, then?
>
> *Just in case* you miss the point, there is *nothing* in the
> quotations that you provided above that explicitly suggests that
> religion should be injected into science.
You are not good at parsing English sentences, aren't you?
What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
discipline" do you have difficulties with?
k2
--
A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem.
catshark
<bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ek8usa...@grendel.hayesway...
>> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rwsI9.446466$S8.90...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
>> > news:sZiI9.7841$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:JQ7I9.432551$S8.88...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
>> message
>> > > > news:X97I9.2457$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:7c15eee6.02120...@posting.google.com...
>> > > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
>> message
[snip]
>>
>> The intelligent designer, for all intelligent design theorists, is
>> the Christian God.
>
>And it doesn't matter that they explicitly deny this?
>
>Looks to me like you producing a straw man of your own.
>Do you not accord the opponent in debate the right to form his own argument?
We are free, however, based on the evidence, to discount the denial.
Take, for instance, the following from Dembski:
Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created
in the image of a benevolent God.... The job of apologetics is to
clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from
coming to the knowledge of Christ.... And if there's anything that
I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the
Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is
the Darwinian naturalistic view....
-- William Dembski, February 6, 2000, at a meeting of the National
Religious Broadcasters in Anaheim, California (as quoted by Barbara
Forrest in "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism
Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" in
_Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,
Theological and Scientific Perspectives_, ed. Robert T. Pennock, A
Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London,
England, p. 5 - 53, at p. 30)
Dembski has also admitted that ID is a *cultural movement* as much as
an attempt at science.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.27.Disciplined_Science.htm
And it is obviously being pursued through political means in Ohio and
elsewhere. We in the U.S. are entitled by birthright to be skeptical
of politicians and their motives.
There are many examples from Phillip Johnson as well, who, along with
Dembski, I believe, receives "virtual offices" from L.U.
[ . . . ]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
Tichy
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9619vuk7bsjug1b1j...@4ax.com...
You are "free", based on *no* evidence, to discount the denial--but that
doesn't make it right. Let's examine your evidence.
> Take, for instance, the following from Dembski:
>
> Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created
> in the image of a benevolent God.... The job of apologetics is to
> clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from
> coming to the knowledge of Christ.... And if there's anything that
> I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the
> Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is
> the Darwinian naturalistic view....
>
> -- William Dembski, February 6, 2000, at a meeting of the National
> Religious Broadcasters in Anaheim, California (as quoted by Barbara
> Forrest in "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism
> Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" in
> _Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,
> Theological and Scientific Perspectives_, ed. Robert T. Pennock, A
> Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London,
> England, p. 5 - 53, at p. 30)
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7002.htm
I trust that you used the above link as your source. That article is filled
with sufficient inaccuracy to warrant questioning its dependability, not the
least of which is the fact that your key quotation is shorn of its context.
Apparently lost on you is the fact that Dembski is using the very same
reasoning that that causes some to claim in the first place the evolution
forces "god" into the "gaps" of unknown science, only toward the opposite
conclusion. Neither assertion is necessarily (or even probably) an attempt
to insert ideology or theology into science.
>
> Dembski has also admitted that ID is a *cultural movement* as much as
> an attempt at science.
Yeah, but that's also what they said about the Renaissance. Your point?
>
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.27.Disciplined_Science.htm
> And it is obviously being pursued through political means in Ohio and
> elsewhere. We in the U.S. are entitled by birthright to be skeptical
> of politicians and their motives.
That page "cannot be displayed" apparently.
The Scopes' trial was an attempt by evolutionists to legally/politically
advance evolution/scientism (a cultural movement). Were you even aware that
you dwell in a glass house?
>
> There are many examples from Phillip Johnson as well,
Phillip Johnson doesn't claim to be any sort of scientist. On the contrary,
he has been pointing out the cultural and philosophical aspects of evolution
that go beyond science. Apparently that message whooshed right over your
head, but evolutionist Michael Ruse, among others, seems to have appreciated
that portion of Johnson's message.
Related story:
http://www.discover.com/cover_story/comment.html
who, along with
> Dembski, I believe, receives "virtual offices" from L.U.
Grasping at straws, I see. LeaderU seemingly gives a virtual office to the
author of any article that they host, in the style of a virtual university.
Having a virtual office at LeaderU means that the person having the virtual
office is attempting to insert god into science, eh?
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
>
> Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
--Anonymous
Tichy
"Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in message
news:at207e$tvbg6$2...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
> In news:3uXI9.460970$S8.93...@twister.tampabay.rr.com,
> Itchy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and equip
> >> professors to change the world for Christ." from
> >> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
> >>
> >> "CHANGE THE WORLD FOR CHRIST: In partnership with professors, we
> >> build spiritual leaders, help them continually saturate the campus
> >> with the gospel, and fully integrate their faith into their academic
> >> discipline and culture." from
> >> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
> >>
> >> "Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part
> >> of Campus Crusade for Christ, International." from
> >> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html
> >>
> >> It doesn't get any plainer than that.
> >
> > You concede, then?
> >
> > *Just in case* you miss the point, there is *nothing* in the
> > quotations that you provided above that explicitly suggests that
> > religion should be injected into science.
>
> You are not good at parsing English sentences, aren't you?
Correct. I am *excellent* at it.
>
> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god into
science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their faith into their
academic discipline".
Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
Tichy
> Theological and Scientific Perspectives_, ed. Robert T. Pennock, A
> Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London,
> England, p. 5 - 53, at p. 30)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Okay, so *that* was your source.
;-)
Does that source supply any context to Dembski's statements? It seems that
he was speaking in the context of apologetics rather than science. Mixing
the contexts would be misleading, imo.
catshark
<bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, as you discovered when you reread it, I already gave the source.
>That article is filled
>with sufficient inaccuracy to warrant questioning its dependability, not the
>least of which is the fact that your key quotation is shorn of its context.
>Apparently lost on you is the fact that Dembski is using the very same
>reasoning that that causes some to claim in the first place the evolution
>forces "god" into the "gaps" of unknown science, only toward the opposite
>conclusion. Neither assertion is necessarily (or even probably) an attempt
>to insert ideology or theology into science.
I didn't know "apologetics" was a scientific term. Are you
maintaining that Johnson's, Dembski's and Behe's religious beliefs do
*not* affect their views about evolution?
Just what are *you* basing your statement that Dembski isn't
"necessarily" or "probably" trying to insert ideology into science on?
Especially in the face of this *explicit* statement from Dembski that
*ideology* is at the *heart* of the matter (from his Keynote address
delivered at RAPID Conference, found in its entirety here):
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.27.Disciplined_Science.htm
"Two animating principles drive intelligent design. The more
popular by far takes intelligent design as a tool for liberation
from ideologies that suffocate the human spirit, such as
reductionism and materialism. The other animating principle, less
popular but intellectually more compelling, takes intelligent
design as the key to opening up fresh insights into nature . . .
These animating principles can work side by side, and there is no
inherent conflict between them. Nonetheless, there is a clear
order of priority. Unless intelligent design is an intrinsic good
-- unless it can be developed as a scientific research program
and provide sound insights into the natural world -- then its use
as an instrumental good for defeating ideologies that suffocate
the human spirit becomes insupportable. Intelligent design must
not become a "noble lie" for vanquishing views we find
unacceptable (history is full of noble lies that ended in
disgrace). Rather, intelligent design needs to convince us of its
truth on its scientific merits.
Unfortunately, ID isn't there yet scientifically, according to
Dembski:
"These, then, are my recommendations for *turning* intelligent
design into a disciplined science." [Emphasis mine]
Worse yet, according to Dembski, ID _need_not_even_be_scientific_ at
this point:
"Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID
as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply
temporal priority. To think that the scientific program must
first succeed (and according to whose criteria of success?)
before the cultural movement can legitimately be undertaken is
not only naive but to give up on both.
At least Dembski is right about the "cultural movement" being way
ahead of the science!
>>
>> Dembski has also admitted that ID is a *cultural movement* as much as
>> an attempt at science.
>
>Yeah, but that's also what they said about the Renaissance. Your point?
Now who's constructing a strawman? Or are you going to try to argue
with a straight face that Copernicus, Galileo et al. put their
*philosophy* and *cultural preferences* before their science?
>
>>
>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.27.Disciplined_Science.htm
>> And it is obviously being pursued through political means in Ohio and
>> elsewhere. We in the U.S. are entitled by birthright to be skeptical
>> of politicians and their motives.
>
>That page "cannot be displayed" apparently.
Worked fine tonite at 8:04 p.m. EST U.S. I do have to wonder just how
much you really know about the ID movement if you did not even know
about this speech by Dembski where he called for the abandonment of
the wedge strategy.
>The Scopes' trial was an attempt by evolutionists to legally/politically
>advance evolution/scientism (a cultural movement). Were you even aware that
>you dwell in a glass house?
Make up your mind. I thought you were arguing that L.U. was being
subjected to "straw man accusations of "importing religion into
science."" Now you are apparently arguing that it is 'only fair'
since science started it.
And if you think it can be called "scientism" to fight a law that made
it a crime to teach, in a *science classroom*, something that, whether
or not you or any one else likes it or not, is an *integral* part of
science, then and today, then you are even less aware of the facts
surrounding science and education than I imagined.
The real issue here is educational integrity. ID is no danger to
science, where it simply will not be taken seriously, no matter how
much its adherents whine, until it *does* science. As far as schools
are concerned, teach only science in science classes. ID isn't
science. It is, at best, philosophy and, at worst, theology. If ID
is to be taught in public schools, teach it in philosophy classes,
where, if anywhere, it belongs.
>>
>> There are many examples from Phillip Johnson as well,
>
>Phillip Johnson doesn't claim to be any sort of scientist. On the contrary,
>he has been pointing out the cultural and philosophical aspects of evolution
>that go beyond science.
Ah, so now you *agree* that ID is trying to inject ideology into
science. Now just in case you think *Behe* is just doing science and
doesn't share your views about ID being really about the cultural and
philosophical issues, there is this:
"Phillip Johnson is our age's clearest thinker on the issue of
evolution and its impact on society. Quickly cutting through the
technical brush, Johnson goes straight to the logical foundations
of the controversy, and exposes the fallacies propping up the
decaying edifice of Darwinism. This book is a superb introduction
for high school and college students--and their parents and
teachers--who want to come to grips with the underlying
philosophy of modern society."
Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=1360
>Apparently that message whooshed right over your
>head, but evolutionist Michael Ruse, among others, seems to have appreciated
>that portion of Johnson's message.
(I suppose you know that Ruse is not a scientist but a philosopher.)
What I, and others, have been trying to point out to you is that is
*all* ID is about: that it is an attempt by certain conservative
Christians to dress up their theism in scientific garb and inject it
into our public schools.
>Related story:
>http://www.discover.com/cover_story/comment.html
>
>who, along with
>> Dembski, I believe, receives "virtual offices" from L.U.
>
>Grasping at straws, I see. LeaderU seemingly gives a virtual office to the
>author of any article that they host, in the style of a virtual university.
>Having a virtual office at LeaderU means that the person having the virtual
>office is attempting to insert god into science, eh?
Why should I have to grasp at straws? Johnson, Behe, Dembski and even
you admit as much. It was nothing but a passing comment because I
seem to remember (as I indicated) Johnson or Dembski giving effusive
thanks to L.U. for the favor. Of course, if it is all so innocent on
L.U.'s part, I assume you can show where they give the same facility
to people who do *not* share their aims and goals. If so, I'll
apologize for even making the comment.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The devil is in the details.
Science explains them.
Intelligent design explains them away.
- Mark VandeWettering -
Tichy
<snip small bit concerning my erroneous assumption regarding the quotation
source>
> >Apparently lost on you is the fact that Dembski is using the very same
> >reasoning that that causes some to claim in the first place the evolution
> >forces "god" into the "gaps" of unknown science, only toward the opposite
> >conclusion. Neither assertion is necessarily (or even probably) an
attempt
> >to insert ideology or theology into science.
>
> I didn't know "apologetics" was a scientific term. Are you
> maintaining that Johnson's, Dembski's and Behe's religious beliefs do
> *not* affect their views about evolution?
Hmmm? Why should I do that, unless you assert that their religious views
*do* affect their views about evolution? The burden of proof is on you. If
you do not deal with their explicit criticisms of evolution and concentrate
instead on their supposed motivations and biases, then you are committing a
fallacy.
Without a claim by you that persons mentioned *are* affected in their view
of evolution by their religious views, there is no need whatsoever for me to
touch the subject, which would make your question a red herring.
You would no doubt be prepared for the understandable countercharge that the
NAS and maybe even *you* are affected in your view of evolution by your
areligious beliefs?
:-)
>
> Just what are *you* basing your statement that Dembski isn't
> "necessarily" or "probably" trying to insert ideology into science on?
The paucity of your evidence, of course, stemming from my understanding of
English sentences. The question is why you would think that the quotations
*do* represent an intent to import ideology/religion into science. That BoP
remains yours, and ambiguous quotations (particularly out-of-context ones)
do not enable you to make your case.
This is irrelevant; for a witheringly apropos example, check the cultural
philosophical acceptance of evolution prior to Darwin. Without the cultural
groundwork, Darwin's work probably would not have happened.
>
> >>
> >> Dembski has also admitted that ID is a *cultural movement* as much as
> >> an attempt at science.
> >
> >Yeah, but that's also what they said about the Renaissance. Your point?
>
> Now who's constructing a strawman?
Apparently you, but I was going to wait until you tried to develop your
point prior to pointing it out.
Or are you going to try to argue
> with a straight face that Copernicus, Galileo et al. put their
> *philosophy* and *cultural preferences* before their science?
Maybe you'll just have to wait for *me* to state my own arguments.
Were you going to try to develop your point, or do you intend to stay on
this red herring attack strategy?
>
> >
> >>
>
>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.27.Disciplined_Science.htm
> >> And it is obviously being pursued through political means in Ohio and
> >> elsewhere. We in the U.S. are entitled by birthright to be skeptical
> >> of politicians and their motives.
> >
> >That page "cannot be displayed" apparently.
>
> Worked fine tonite at 8:04 p.m. EST U.S.
Yep. Works fine, now.
I do have to wonder just how
> much you really know about the ID movement if you did not even know
> about this speech by Dembski where he called for the abandonment of
> the wedge strategy.
Wonder all you like. Is your comment relevant to the discussion?
>
> >The Scopes' trial was an attempt by evolutionists to legally/politically
> >advance evolution/scientism (a cultural movement). Were you even aware
that
> >you dwell in a glass house?
>
> Make up your mind. I thought you were arguing that L.U. was being
> subjected to "straw man accusations of "importing religion into
> science."" Now you are apparently arguing that it is 'only fair'
> since science started it.
Nope, I'm pointing out that your criticism cuts both ways. My comment about
the Scopes trial is only relevant to the topic insofar as *you* brought up
political action in an attempt to dicredit the scientific aspects of
intelligent design.
>
> And if you think it can be called "scientism" to fight a law that made
> it a crime to teach, in a *science classroom*, something that, whether
> or not you or any one else likes it or not, is an *integral* part of
> science, then and today, then you are even less aware of the facts
> surrounding science and education than I imagined.
That *is* most certainly a straw man. I said that the Scopes trial was an
attempt to advance Scientism (among other things), not that the challenge of
the Tennessee law itself was Scientism.
>
> The real issue here is educational integrity.
Actually the real issue is whether or not the intelligent design movement is
being discriminated against on non-scientific grounds.
ID is no danger to
> science, where it simply will not be taken seriously, no matter how
> much its adherents whine, until it *does* science. As far as schools
> are concerned, teach only science in science classes. ID isn't
> science. It is, at best, philosophy and, at worst, theology.
Is SETI a philosophical, or a theological program?
If ID
> is to be taught in public schools, teach it in philosophy classes,
> where, if anywhere, it belongs.
The gold standard of scientific inquiry, methodological naturalism, is based
on philosophical bedding. It is appropriate in science class to broach the
interaction of science and philosophy, imh(umble)o. Do you disagree?
>
> >>
> >> There are many examples from Phillip Johnson as well,
> >
> >Phillip Johnson doesn't claim to be any sort of scientist. On the
contrary,
> >he has been pointing out the cultural and philosophical aspects of
evolution
> >that go beyond science.
>
> Ah, so now you *agree* that ID is trying to inject ideology into
> science.
On the contrary, I am stating that Johnson detects an injection of ideology
into science perpetuated by the status quo.
I find *your* interpretation of what I wrote highly imaginative.
Now just in case you think *Behe* is just doing science and
> doesn't share your views about ID being really about the cultural and
> philosophical issues, there is this:
>
> "Phillip Johnson is our age's clearest thinker on the issue of
> evolution and its impact on society. Quickly cutting through the
> technical brush, Johnson goes straight to the logical foundations
> of the controversy, and exposes the fallacies propping up the
> decaying edifice of Darwinism. This book is a superb introduction
> for high school and college students--and their parents and
> teachers--who want to come to grips with the underlying
> philosophy of modern society."
> Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box
>
> http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=1360
Thanks. Behe's view appears to accord well with my own view; and provides
for you (again) no evidence of an intent to inject ideology into science.
>
> >Apparently that message whooshed right over your
> >head, but evolutionist Michael Ruse, among others, seems to have
appreciated
> >that portion of Johnson's message.
>
> (I suppose you know that Ruse is not a scientist but a philosopher.)
I suppose you're aware that philosophy of science (Ruse's specialty) deals
specifically with the working of science and the scientific method?
http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/people/faculty/mruse.html
If he's an evolutionary know-nothing, then why was he called as an expert
witness by the evolutionist camp in the Maclean vs. Arkansas trial? Stupid
lawyers?
>
> What I, and others, have been trying to point out to you is that is
> *all* ID is about: that it is an attempt by certain conservative
> Christians to dress up their theism in scientific garb and inject it
> into our public schools.
lol
That makes absolutely no sense, given that our topic specifically concerns
*criticism* of evolution; your statement above is the type of red herring
that LeaderU pointed out with respect to *specific* criticisms of evolution.
>
> >Related story:
> >http://www.discover.com/cover_story/comment.html
Not even a peek, or just no comment?
> >
> >who, along with
> >> Dembski, I believe, receives "virtual offices" from L.U.
> >
> >Grasping at straws, I see. LeaderU seemingly gives a virtual office to
the
> >author of any article that they host, in the style of a virtual
university.
> >Having a virtual office at LeaderU means that the person having the
virtual
> >office is attempting to insert god into science, eh?
>
> Why should I have to grasp at straws?
Because you've got nothing.
Johnson, Behe, Dembski and even
> you admit as much.
Admit as much *what*? That they (we?) are trying to inject religion into
science? You're letting your overactive imagination speak for you again.
It was nothing but a passing comment because I
> seem to remember (as I indicated) Johnson or Dembski giving effusive
> thanks to L.U. for the favor.
Relevant how, how relevant?
Of course, if it is all so innocent on
> L.U.'s part, I assume you can show where they give the same facility
> to people who do *not* share their aims and goals.
lol!
As though it *isn't* innocent if they only give virtual office space to
author's whose work is published onsite and accords with the broad purposes
of LU?
You're some piece of work.
If so, I'll
> apologize for even making the comment.
How grandly condescending of you!
:-)
R. Baldwin
Karsten is a more perceptive reader. To accept your take on this you
would have to believe that science is not an academic discipline.
I'm sorry, but your most recent posts are so loopy I'm not going to
continue this fruitless conversation.
Tichy
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
To accept Karsten's take is to take it for granted that "fully integrate
their faith into their academic discipline" means to insert religion into
science.
If you attempt to connect the dots of that argument, you will find that it's
a non-sequitur. No guarantee that you'll understand it, mind you, but I'll
make it plain by pointing out your fallacies.
>
> I'm sorry, but your most recent posts are so loopy I'm not going to
> continue this fruitless conversation.
Really? Loopy in what way?
Oh, I get it! The old "attack the opponent with an unsubstantiated
accusation" trick.
Good one, yeah. It's a big favorite in some of the ng's.
Robin Levett
>
> "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ek8usa...@grendel.hayesway...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rwsI9.446466$S8.90...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
message
> > > news:sZiI9.7841$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:JQ7I9.432551$S8.88...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:X97I9.2457$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
news:7c15eee6.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote
in
> > message
> >
<snip all>
Much to answer, but work takes priority. I will answer probably
tonight.
Robin Levett
No - the strain shows.
> >
> > What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> > discipline" do you have difficulties with?
>
> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting
god into
> science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their faith
into their
> academic discipline".
<short point, short reply>
No; it requires the reader to replace the words "your academic
discipline" in that clause with the name of their academic
discipline - so, for biology teachers, it would read "fully
integrate their faith into their biology teaching".
Academic life != academic discipline.
>
> Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
>
His reading is rather more natural than yours.
Karsten Knönagel
Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in
> message news:at207e$tvbg6$2...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
>> In news:3uXI9.460970$S8.93...@twister.tampabay.rr.com,
>> Itchy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "The mission of Christian Leadership Ministries is to reach and
>>>> equip professors to change the world for Christ." from
>>>> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutmission.html
>>>>
>>>> "CHANGE THE WORLD FOR CHRIST: In partnership with professors, we
>>>> build spiritual leaders, help them continually saturate the campus
>>>> with the gospel, and fully integrate their faith into their
>>>> academic discipline and culture." from
>>>> http://www.clm.org/menus/aboutvision.html
>>>>
>>>> "Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries,
>>>> part of Campus Crusade for Christ, International." from
>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't get any plainer than that.
>>>
>>> You concede, then?
>>>
>>> *Just in case* you miss the point, there is *nothing* in the
>>> quotations that you provided above that explicitly suggests that
>>> religion should be injected into science.
>>
>> You are not good at parsing English sentences, aren't you?
>
> Correct. I am *excellent* at it.
Excellent at: not good at parsing sentences?
>
>>
>> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
>> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
>
> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god into
> science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their faith into
> their academic discipline".
inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere insertion)
god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
Phew, what weird assumptions I made. Could you enlighten us what
precisely that quote is about. You seem to be sure that the inter-
pretation everybody except you makes is completely unjustified. But
you have not presented an argument yet.
It is funny that you changed _god_ to _religion_ in your reply to
R. Baldwin. Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my breath.
No, not really.
> Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
Third.
<sigsnip>
Tichy
Where, Evidenceless One?
>
> > >
> > > What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> > > discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> >
> > The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting
> god into
> > science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their faith
> into their
> > academic discipline".
>
> <short point, short reply>
>
> No; it requires the reader to replace the words "your academic
> discipline" in that clause with the name of their academic
> discipline - so, for biology teachers, it would read "fully
> integrate their faith into their biology teaching".
>
> Academic life != academic discipline.
Yeah? So? How does that get you to "inserting god into
science"? By obfuscation? Equivocation?
>
> >
> > Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
> >
>
> His reading is rather more natural than yours.
In what way, exactly? Through the methodologically naturalistic method of
observing that three of you think that I am wrong, followed by statistical
breakdown?
Hmmm?
:-)
Tichy
If you want to be cute, Karsten, we can always return to the grammar of your
attempt to question me, above.
>
> >
> >>
> >> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> >> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> >
> > The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god into
> > science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their faith into
> > their academic discipline".
>
> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere insertion)
> god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
"nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
Case closed.
Next.
>
> Phew, what weird assumptions I made.
Not weird, Karsten. From a methodologically naturalistic outlook, your
misuse of logic is normal; it's the sort of thing we see in nature all the
time.
Could you enlighten us what
> precisely that quote is about. You seem to be sure that the inter-
> pretation everybody except you makes is completely unjustified.
It *is* unjustified. First, by your argument by assertion (the one you led
with), and second by your logical equivocation (that's a fallacy).
But
> you have not presented an argument yet.
I don't need an argument. All I need to do is refute yours, which didn't
appear until your current post. You have been caught equivocating. Want to
try again?
>
> It is funny that you changed _god_ to _religion_ in your reply to
> R. Baldwin.
Did I quote him? Did I use it in an argument? Did I fail to capture his
intent with the change?
If the answers are "no" to the above, then your observation is irrelevant.
Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
> too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my breath.
> No, not really.
lol
>
> > Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
>
> Third.
If you weren't equivocating like there's no tomorrow, I'd tell you that your
English is pretty good.
Karsten Knönagel
Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in
> message news:at4qfo$10idfv$6...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
Oh, please. I like grammar.
Isn't cuteness solely in the eye of the beholder? What would wanting
to be cute change?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
>>>> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
>>>
>>> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god
>>> into science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
>>> faith into their academic discipline".
>>
>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere insertion)
>> god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
>
> "nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
Ah, you win arguments by assertion. How about backing that up.
Hint: The level of similarity between both statements is perceived to
be in the range of 99%-100% by all participants in the subthread except
you. If the level were self-evidently far below that I would grant
you to have an argument. Dissect the statements, give the "correct"
meanings of all words, show they won't fit.
You are equivocating because you treat nearly synonymous statements
as completely different without justification. Does it disturb you
that everyone speaks an English different from yours? Probably not,
but that makes communication with you complicated.
Btw, you forgot to give the precise meaning of the quote. That would
establish that both statements must not be equated.
> Case closed.
> Next.
As far as I can see you have not shown that the statements are
different to a meaningful degree.
>>
>> Phew, what weird assumptions I made.
>
> Not weird, Karsten. From a methodologically naturalistic outlook,
> your misuse of logic is normal; it's the sort of thing we see in
> nature all the time.
That's a relief! I'm normal. Since you are nature's normality expert,
could you tell me if it's normal to see nonexistent differences.
> Could you enlighten us what
>> precisely that quote is about. You seem to be sure that the inter-
>> pretation everybody except you makes is completely unjustified.
>
> It *is* unjustified. First, by your argument by assertion (the one
> you led with), and second by your logical equivocation (that's a
> fallacy).
Asserting a "logical equivocation" is sufficient to counter my
argument? Could you add substance to your posts, please.
> But
>> you have not presented an argument yet.
>
> I don't need an argument. All I need to do is refute yours, which
> didn't appear until your current post. You have been caught
> equivocating. Want to try again?
Throughout the thread you assert that the statements are different,
you don't argue that. (How could you, you have no argument. Silly me.)
Is "refuting" synonymous with "hand waving" in your language?
>>
>> It is funny that you changed _god_ to _religion_ in your reply to
>> R. Baldwin.
>
> Did I quote him? Did I use it in an argument? Did I fail to capture
> his intent with the change?
> If the answers are "no" to the above, then your observation is
> irrelevant.
Let me quote you:
"To accept Karsten's take is to take it for granted that "fully
integrate their faith into their academic discipline" means to
insert religion into science."
^^^^^^^^
I meant the exchange of _god_ with _religion_ WRT your original
statement. Let's see, according to you religion and god are
synonymous ( = the message remains the same). Oh, the irony.
> Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
>> too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my breath.
>> No, not really.
>
> lol
Where is it?
Tichy
Excellent. Then you will be pleased with the following revision of you
sentence above: "You are not good at parsing English sentences, are you?"
Your construction with the double negative was clumsy in its effect.
>
> Isn't cuteness solely in the eye of the beholder?
What would wanting
> to be cute change?
Rather, *not* wanting to be cute would have permitted you to omit your
response further above.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> >>>> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> >>>
> >>> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god
> >>> into science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
> >>> faith into their academic discipline".
> >>
> >> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere insertion)
> >> god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
> >> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
> >
> > "nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
>
> Ah, you win arguments by assertion. How about backing that up.
Straw man. *You* do not win an argument by assertion. Your conclusion
might be true, but you have provided no evidence in favor of your
conclusion. Your argument by assertion "Is!" is easily countered by the
counter-assertion "Is not!".
You can make yourself look bad by relying on an argument by assertion, but
strictly speaking you don't "lose" an argument that way; and I don't claim
my opponent's argument by assertion a win for my argument unless my argument
happened to be to the effect that my opponent used argument by assertion.
Clear?
:-)
>
> Hint: The level of similarity between both statements is perceived to
> be in the range of 99%-100% by all participants in the subthread except
> you.
Appeal to popularity; a logical fallacy.
I'm a theist posting to skeptical ng's. I could claim that the earth has a
roughly spheroid shape and you could find enough ninnies to outvote me.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
If the level were self-evidently far below that I would grant
> you to have an argument. Dissect the statements, give the "correct"
> meanings of all words, show they won't fit.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You have claimed that the
quotations have a given meaning. It is *your* responsibility to make a
probabilistic (or even deductive, but fat chance of that!) argument that of
all the possible meanings for the quoted section, the one you propose is the
most likely.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=burden%20of%20proof
>
> You are equivocating because you treat nearly synonymous statements
> as completely different without justification.
Bzzt. *You* are equivocating because you take (allegedly) "nearly
synonymous" statements as synonymous without justification.
If they aren't directly synonymous, as even you appear to admit, then you
also bear the BoP for showing that any difference in meaning is insufficient
to allow the charge of equivocation.
Does it disturb you
> that everyone speaks an English different from yours?
If that were the case, then sure. It does surprise me that a supposedly
bright person such as yourself would compose such an impressive stream of
serial fallacy, however (now adding complex question to the list).
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/cq.htm
Probably not,
> but that makes communication with you complicated.
>
> Btw, you forgot to give the precise meaning of the quote. That would
> establish that both statements must not be equated.
Fallacy of shifting the BoP, just in case you forgot. You have asserted
that they mean the same thing, and you have appealed to the popularity of
the view that they mean the same thing as proof that they mean the same
thing (with an hint of argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Neither is a satisfactory argument.
>
> > Case closed.
> > Next.
>
> As far as I can see you have not shown that the statements are
> different to a meaningful degree.
Correct. I am able to do so, but it is simpler to simply compel you to bear
your own burden of proof. Do you object to bearing your own burden of proof
(like I care!)?
>
> >>
> >> Phew, what weird assumptions I made.
> >
> > Not weird, Karsten. From a methodologically naturalistic outlook,
> > your misuse of logic is normal; it's the sort of thing we see in
> > nature all the time.
>
> That's a relief! I'm normal. Since you are nature's normality expert,
> could you tell me if it's normal to see nonexistent differences.
Red herring, wrapped around a bundle o' fallacy.
You're boring me, Karsten. Have you considered advancing an argument that
contains substance?
>
> > Could you enlighten us what
> >> precisely that quote is about. You seem to be sure that the inter-
> >> pretation everybody except you makes is completely unjustified.
> >
> > It *is* unjustified. First, by your argument by assertion (the one
> > you led with), and second by your logical equivocation (that's a
> > fallacy).
>
> Asserting a "logical equivocation" is sufficient to counter my
> argument?
Literally *anything* is sufficient to counter argument by assertion plus
appeal to popularity.
Could you add substance to your posts, please.
>
You mean you want me to bear your burden of proof, or do you really need for
me to explain why (correctly) identifying your arguments by assertion and
appeals to popularity refutes your argument?
With the identification of your fallacies, it simply needs to be clear that
your argumentation fits the pattern of the fallacy. I have provided links
which should make the comparisons clear.
> > But
> >> you have not presented an argument yet.
> >
> > I don't need an argument. All I need to do is refute yours, which
> > didn't appear until your current post. You have been caught
> > equivocating. Want to try again?
>
> Throughout the thread you assert that the statements are different,
> you don't argue that. (How could you, you have no argument. Silly me.)
I don't need an argument, *you do; and you haven't got one (yes, silly you).
>
> Is "refuting" synonymous with "hand waving" in your language?
No, so that's one more difference you'll have to get used to.
>
> >>
> >> It is funny that you changed _god_ to _religion_ in your reply to
> >> R. Baldwin.
> >
> > Did I quote him? Did I use it in an argument? Did I fail to capture
> > his intent with the change?
> > If the answers are "no" to the above, then your observation is
> > irrelevant.
>
> Let me quote you:
>
> "To accept Karsten's take is to take it for granted that "fully
> integrate their faith into their academic discipline" means to
> insert religion into science."
> ^^^^^^^^
> I meant the exchange of _god_ with _religion_ WRT your original
> statement.
I was well aware of that. Maybe you'll get to your point eventually?
Let's see, according to you religion and god are
> synonymous ( = the message remains the same). Oh, the irony.
More faulty logic by Karsten. My paraphrase of the former quotation simply
reflects my impression of the other author's intent (which is correct, I
think); my own view is that the broader term "ideology" is the correct one
to be using, since that term is broad enough to include most any bias
(theistic or atheistic) brought to the practice of science.
So, you are incorrect to conclude that I consider god and religion as
synonyms. You would be correct to conclude that I believed that the other
author *would* accept them as functional synonyms (with various aspects of
god-belief a subcategory of religious belief).
Again, if I haven't committed a fallacy (you haven't gone so far as to
suggest such a thing--which is sensible of you), you're just wasting space
with a diversion.
>
> > Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
> >> too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my breath.
> >> No, not really.
> >
> > lol
>
> Where is it?
Where is what?
Tichy
No explanations or apologies needed on my account. Lack of reply will not
be taken as an inability on your part to answer*.
*I'll leave the ponderous caveat unspoken
Robin Levett
Still got problems with reading comprehension?
> >
> > > >
> > > > What part of "fully integrate their faith into their
academic
> > > > discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> > >
> > > The part which requires the reader to *assume* that
inserting
> > god into
> > > science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
faith
> > into their
> > > academic discipline".
> >
> > <short point, short reply>
> >
> > No; it requires the reader to replace the words "your academic
> > discipline" in that clause with the name of their academic
> > discipline - so, for biology teachers, it would read "fully
> > integrate their faith into their biology teaching".
> >
> > Academic life != academic discipline.
>
> Yeah? So? How does that get you to "inserting god into
> science"? By obfuscation? Equivocation?
No; by natural reading of the words "integrate their faith into
their biology teaching". Is English your first or your fifth
language?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
> > >
> >
> > His reading is rather more natural than yours.
>
> In what way, exactly? Through the methodologically naturalistic
method of
> observing that three of you think that I am wrong, followed by
statistical
> breakdown?
> Hmmm?
> :-)
>
No; by simple construction of the words used.
> Cheers,
> Tichy
> General Director, THEOHIPPIP
>
If you want to be taken seriously, using the name of a rewriter of
history as your pseudonym doesn't help.
Tichy
Mu.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What part of "fully integrate their faith into their
> academic
> > > > > discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> > > >
> > > > The part which requires the reader to *assume* that
> inserting
> > > god into
> > > > science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
> faith
> > > into their
> > > > academic discipline".
> > >
> > > <short point, short reply>
> > >
> > > No; it requires the reader to replace the words "your academic
> > > discipline" in that clause with the name of their academic
> > > discipline - so, for biology teachers, it would read "fully
> > > integrate their faith into their biology teaching".
> > >
> > > Academic life != academic discipline.
> >
> > Yeah? So? How does that get you to "inserting god into
> > science"? By obfuscation? Equivocation?
>
> No; by natural reading of the words "integrate their faith into
> their biology teaching".
So, if my academic discipline were English, would that mean that I would
make my students write papers about Jesus or the apostles?
Or math? One plus one plus one equals three ("That's the Holy Trinity,
class!")?
You are shamelessly reading into the text.
Is English your first or your fifth
> language?
Appeal to ridicule.
Sweet.
Take this (reductio ad absurdum):
"I want you to integrate your dog-training skills with your instruction of
your class."
"But won't their parents complain when they find out that I reward correct
answers with Kibbles and Bits?"
IOW, there are literally dozens of ways to integrate faith with various
academic disciplines without hitting on your favored (so-called "natural")
interpretation.
You demean yourself by forcing me to point this out to you.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is English your second (third, fourth) language, Karsten?
> > > >
> > >
> > > His reading is rather more natural than yours.
> >
> > In what way, exactly? Through the methodologically naturalistic
> method of
> > observing that three of you think that I am wrong, followed by
> statistical
> > breakdown?
> > Hmmm?
> > :-)
> >
>
> No; by simple construction of the words used.
Oh, really? I didn't see you deconstructing the sentence (that's because
multiple nuances of meaning will make your "natural reading" excuse look as
thin as it is). You can try it if you want, but you're already doomed by
the reductio ad absurdum, so I suggest that the exercise would be pointless
on your part.
Oh, and btw:
http://www.clm.org/msu/chapter3.html
Tichy
"Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hio5ta...@grendel.hayesway>...
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aSmJ9.6769$Db4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Tichy
> > General Director, THEOHIPPIP
> >
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, using the name of a rewriter of
> history as your pseudonym doesn't help.
Eh? Aren't you named after the alter-ego of Bruce Wayne's youthful
ward Dick Grayson????
;-)
I'm pleased that you're familiar with the source of my
nick--especially if you didn't have to look it up. Technically,
however, you're incorrect. THEOHIPPIP wasn't initiated to rewrite
history, but to *remake* history, and *made* history in the attempt.
I suspect that you may have read a review that didn't make that
clear--but maybe your reading comprehension simply isn't up to snuff.
Robin Levett
> I missed a little something first time through . . .
>
> "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<hio5ta...@grendel.hayesway>...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:aSmJ9.6769$Db4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tichy
> > > General Director, THEOHIPPIP
> > >
> >
> > If you want to be taken seriously, using the name of a
rewriter of
> > history as your pseudonym doesn't help.
>
> Eh? Aren't you named after the alter-ego of Bruce Wayne's
youthful
> ward Dick Grayson????
> ;-)
No; I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
>
> I'm pleased that you're familiar with the source of my
> nick--especially if you didn't have to look it up.
I did have to llok it up, although I read a little Lem a long time
ago.
> Technically,
> however, you're incorrect. THEOHIPPIP wasn't initiated to
rewrite
> history, but to *remake* history, and *made* history in the
attempt.
> I suspect that you may have read a review that didn't make that
> clear--but maybe your reading comprehension simply isn't up to
snuff.
>
> Cheers,
> Tichy
> General Director, THEOHIPPIP
>
--
Karsten Knönagel
Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in
> message news:at59id$10ila6$1...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
Clumsy or wrong?
You are (not good at...), aren't you?
The first version had it as (very bad) but that sounded too harsh.
I chose an euphemistic version, nice person that I am.
<snip>
>>>>>> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
>>>>>> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
>>>>>
>>>>> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god
>>>>> into science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
>>>>> faith into their academic discipline".
>>>>
>>>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere
>>>> insertion) god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
>>>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
>>>
>>> "nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
>>
>> Ah, you win arguments by assertion. How about backing that up.
>
> Straw man. *You* do not win an argument by assertion. Your
> conclusion might be true, but you have provided no evidence in favor
> of your conclusion.
Let me quote what I wrote a few lines above:
>>>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere
>>>> insertion)
>>>> god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
>>>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
Your answer (paraphrasing): "No, it's not."
I can't help you more than to advise you to look up those (to you
apparently unknown)words and see for yourself that they are that
closely related that they convey the same message.
Clear? ;o)
> Your argument by assertion "Is!"
And here you went wrong. How simple do I have to arrange the evidence
for you. Oh, I see my error. I had questioned your understanding of
language already, so this argument had to go right over your head.
Yup, my fault. Nevertheless, to a more proficient reader, it was an
argument. And a good one.
> is easily
> countered by the counter-assertion "Is not!".
> You can make yourself look bad by relying on an argument by
> assertion, but strictly speaking you don't "lose" an argument that
> way; and I don't claim my opponent's argument by assertion a win for
> my argument unless my argument happened to be to the effect that my
> opponent used argument by assertion.
>
> Clear?
> :-)
>
>>
>> Hint: The level of similarity between both statements is perceived to
>> be in the range of 99%-100% by all participants in the subthread
>> except you.
>
> Appeal to popularity; a logical fallacy.
So? I'd call it an observation. My argument stands only on the evidence
that went over your head. How do you read such absurdities (AtP) into
that sentence.
<snip paradigm of how to misapply fallacies>
>> Btw, you forgot to give the precise meaning of the quote. That would
>> establish that both statements must not be equated.
>
> Fallacy of shifting the BoP, just in case you forgot.
I presented the evidence. You answered "Is not.". Why? It's your turn.
See immediately below.
>> As far as I can see you have not shown that the statements are
>> different to a meaningful degree.
>
> Correct. I am able to do so,
You have been asked several times now. I doubt that (you are able).
I presented evidence. If you don't think it suffices as that then
show why. I'm not interested in hand-waving.
We both could have claimed that the issue is self-evident and put
a stop to it. That would have been an interesting exchange.
<snip>
>> I meant the exchange of _god_ with _religion_ WRT your original
>> statement.
> I was well aware of that. Maybe you'll get to your point eventually?
Is such mental "ejaculatio praecox" typical for you? You had to read
only to the next line. Don't be that impatient and eager next time.
>> Let's see, according to you religion and god are
>> synonymous ( = the message remains the same). Oh, the irony.
> More faulty logic by Karsten.
This remark wasn't directed at me?
Anyways, I won't refrain from commenting on it.
> My paraphrase of the former quotation
> simply reflects my impression of the other author's intent (which is
> correct, I think);
> my own view is that the broader term "ideology" is
> the correct one to be using, since that term is broad enough to
> include most any bias (theistic or atheistic) brought to the practice
> of science. So, you are incorrect to conclude that I consider god and
> religion as synonyms.
Let me summarize:
You made a statement, changed a word in that statement, the word was a
stupid choice (ideology is the correct one), the message became clearer
despite that stupid choice and you know the intent of the original
author better than he does.
I have to interpret your sloppy wording. How could I know all this?
> You would be correct to conclude that I
> believed that the other author *would* accept them as functional
> synonyms (with various aspects of god-belief a subcategory of
> religious belief).
I like your use of "functional synonyms" and "subcategory".
You know, just recently I was involved in a discussion where those
weird conclusions weren't allowed. Funny, isn't it?
<snip>
>>>> Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
>>>> too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my
>>>> breath. No, not really.
>> Where is it?
> Where is what?
The non-sequitur.
Don Cates
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Karsten_Kn=F6nagel?=
<karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
>In news:L2uJ9.7990$Db4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com,
>Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in
>> message news:at59id$10ila6$1...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
[big snip]
It occurs to me that in a discussion about the natural meaning of words
an appeal to popularity *is* appropriate, not a fallacy.
[snip]
--
Don Cates
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca
Tichy
In formal writing it is both clumsy and wrong. It's okay for instances
where artistic license is customarily granted.
>
> You are (not good at...), aren't you?
Which has the meaning equivalent to:
"You are not good at English, are you not?"
Also equivalent to:
"You are good at English, are you?
>
> The first version had it as (very bad) but that sounded too harsh.
> I chose an euphemistic version, nice person that I am.
Euphemism makes you more condescending and less blatant, if anything.
How *nice* of you to con-de-scend.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>>>> What part of "fully integrate their faith into their academic
> >>>>>> discipline" do you have difficulties with?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The part which requires the reader to *assume* that inserting god
> >>>>> into science is conceptually included in "fully integrate their
> >>>>> faith into their academic discipline".
> >>>>
> >>>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere
> >>>> insertion) god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
> >>>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
> >>>
> >>> "nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
> >>
> >> Ah, you win arguments by assertion. How about backing that up.
> >
> > Straw man. *You* do not win an argument by assertion. Your
> > conclusion might be true, but you have provided no evidence in favor
> > of your conclusion.
>
> Let me quote what I wrote a few lines above:
>
> >>>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere
> >>>> insertion)
> >>>> god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
> >>>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
>
> Your answer (paraphrasing): "No, it's not."
That's quite a paraphrase for:
"nearly synonymous"=>equivocation"
If it isn't synonymous (rather than "nearly synonymous"), then there's a
difference in meaning. If there's a difference in meaning then you are
equivocating. If you are equivocating, then you are committing (in this
case) a logical fallacy. If you are committing a logical fallacy, then your
proof is unsound.
Got it? Get it? Good.
>
> I can't help you more than to advise you to look up those (to you
> apparently unknown)words and see for yourself that they are that
> closely related that they convey the same message.
>
> Clear? ;o)
Yes, it is clear that you expect me to bear your burden of proof.
That's another fallacy, btw.
>
> > Your argument by assertion "Is!"
>
> And here you went wrong. How simple do I have to arrange the evidence
> for you.
("simply")
Oh, I see my error. I had questioned your understanding of
> language already, so this argument had to go right over your head.
You don't see your error, which is that you take a possible meaning for
"fully integrate" and match that to "insert" in order to "prove"
equivalency. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread (very simply, via
link), the website you're quoting has a fuller explanation of the "full
integration" they are talking about which contradicts the meaning that you
(and other skeptical geniuses) are trying to read into the language used.
You ignored the literary context; you got burned.
Next.
> Yup, my fault. Nevertheless, to a more proficient reader, it was an
> argument. And a good one.
lol
"Someday your arm's gonna snap
from pattin' yourself on the back"
--Galactic Cowboys
>
>
> > is easily
> > countered by the counter-assertion "Is not!".
> > You can make yourself look bad by relying on an argument by
> > assertion, but strictly speaking you don't "lose" an argument that
> > way; and I don't claim my opponent's argument by assertion a win for
> > my argument unless my argument happened to be to the effect that my
> > opponent used argument by assertion.
> >
> > Clear?
> > :-)
> >
> >>
> >> Hint: The level of similarity between both statements is perceived to
> >> be in the range of 99%-100% by all participants in the subthread
> >> except you.
> >
> > Appeal to popularity; a logical fallacy.
>
> So? I'd call it an observation.
"So?"? So logical fallacies should be avoided in the course of an argument
(duh).
You'd call it "an observation"?
I'd call that a euphemism.
;-)
My argument stands only on the evidence
> that went over your head. How do you read such absurdities (AtP) into
> that sentence.
Call it whatever you want, Karsten ("evidence" "an observation"), it's the
logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.
We note also how you try to downplay your commission of the fallacy:
"So?" (budding case of invincible ignorance)
"I'd call it an observation." (euphemistic excuse)
"My argument stands only on the evidence that went over your head."
(argumentum ad hominem)
"How do you read such absurdities (AtP) into that sentence." (rhetorical
assertion that the charge of fallacy is incorrect via appeal to ridicule:
the charge of AtP is "absurd".)
>
> <snip paradigm of how to misapply fallacies>
. . . along with the links supporting my identification of your fallacies.
Where's your counter-argument?
A wave of the hand.
>
> >> Btw, you forgot to give the precise meaning of the quote. That would
> >> establish that both statements must not be equated.
> >
> > Fallacy of shifting the BoP, just in case you forgot.
>
> I presented the evidence. You answered "Is not.". Why? It's your turn.
For your review:
---
> >>>> inserting -> fully integrate (that seems to exceed mere
> >>>> insertion) god -> their faith (what is their faith about)
> >>>> into science -> into their academic discipline. (nearly synonymous)
> >>>
> >>> "nearly synonymous"=>equivocation
---
*You* explain why it is that "nearly synonymous" (your term) means
"synonymous".
For you to call my reply "Is not" is laughable.
I haven't even begun to deal with the *other* obvious problem for your
argument that you apparently don't even realize. Here's a hint: "god ->
their faith (what is their faith about)"
You'll never solve this first problem, ftm.
> See immediately below.
>
> >> As far as I can see you have not shown that the statements are
> >> different to a meaningful degree.
> >
> > Correct. I am able to do so,
>
> You have been asked several times now.
I am aware of that. I resist your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I doubt that (you are able).
> I presented evidence. If you don't think it suffices as that then
> show why. I'm not interested in hand-waving.
I showed you why. If the terms don't mean the same thing (you described
them as "nearly synonymous"), then there is a variance in meaning and it
remains your burden of proof to ensure that the meanings cannot vary
sufficiently (at least probabilistically) to undermine your attempt at
argument. You will not be able to accomplish that task.
>
> We both could have claimed that the issue is self-evident and put
> a stop to it. That would have been an interesting exchange.
That is basically the tack that *you* have taken, albeit you have prettied
it up a tad by claiming that it is self-evident word-by-word.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I meant the exchange of _god_ with _religion_ WRT your original
> >> statement.
>
> > I was well aware of that. Maybe you'll get to your point eventually?
>
> Is such mental "ejaculatio praecox" typical for you? You had to read
> only to the next line. Don't be that impatient and eager next time.
Don't fluff up what could have been a straightforward point (albeit flatly
wrong) next time, then.
>
> >> Let's see, according to you religion and god are
> >> synonymous ( = the message remains the same). Oh, the irony.
>
> > More faulty logic by Karsten.
>
> This remark wasn't directed at me?
You're Karsten, aren't you?
>
> Anyways, I won't refrain from commenting on it.
>
> > My paraphrase of the former quotation
> > simply reflects my impression of the other author's intent (which is
> > correct, I think);
> > my own view is that the broader term "ideology" is
> > the correct one to be using, since that term is broad enough to
> > include most any bias (theistic or atheistic) brought to the practice
> > of science. So, you are incorrect to conclude that I consider god and
> > religion as synonyms.
>
> Let me summarize:
>
> You made a statement, changed a word in that statement, the word was a
> stupid choice (ideology is the correct one), the message became clearer
> despite that stupid choice and you know the intent of the original
> author better than he does.
Your summary is unworkably erroneous. The original statement wasn't mine
(whereas you write "you made a statement), and you go downhill from there.
>
> I have to interpret your sloppy wording. How could I know all this?
>
> > You would be correct to conclude that I
> > believed that the other author *would* accept them as functional
> > synonyms (with various aspects of god-belief a subcategory of
> > religious belief).
>
> I like your use of "functional synonyms" and "subcategory".
>
> You know, just recently I was involved in a discussion where those
> weird conclusions weren't allowed. Funny, isn't it?
If you're referring to your eqivocation in the midst of your argument, then
there is no comparison. I'm not making an argument, I was simply echoing
back the ideas presented to me from the other side, while simultaneously
uncovering the principle behind my opponent's argument (inserting god into
science biases science just as importing various ideological positions into
the practice of science would introduce bias).
Cease with the whiny red herring.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>> Now are both parts of the second line nearly synonymous,
> >>>> too. Feel free to construct your non-sequitur. I will hold my
> >>>> breath. No, not really.
>
> >> Where is it?
>
> > Where is what?
>
> The non-sequitur.
You tell me.
Tichy
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7c15eee6.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > I missed a little something first time through . . .
> >
> > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<hio5ta...@grendel.hayesway>...
> > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aSmJ9.6769$Db4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Tichy
> > > > General Director, THEOHIPPIP
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you want to be taken seriously, using the name of a
> rewriter of
> > > history as your pseudonym doesn't help.
> >
> > Eh? Aren't you named after the alter-ego of Bruce Wayne's
> youthful
> > ward Dick Grayson????
> > ;-)
>
> No; I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
You parent *named* you after Dick Grayson's alter ego?
Man, what were they thinking?
<snip>
Btw, your post is going to the alt.atheism ng, where many of the
alt.atheists post under pseudonyms (raven1, decimal, Stix, Budikka, ^nemo^,
Apostate, Beowulf, Chani, FatherFAK, Jim2002, Kamian, Liquid Grace, maff,
Meteorite Debris, quibbler, (Rooster, Skeptic, Muddy Boggs, etc), stoney,
etcetera.
Something you wish to say to them?
Robin Levett
...and many of them post under their real names - so? Others use
handles, but also their real name. Over here, most of the
"evolutionist" posts are from people who use their real name - and
you can see their photos if you look at the regular howlerfest
reports.
> Something you wish to say to them?
No; if they want to take it up with me, that's up to them. I was
talking to and about you.
Tichy
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2rKJ9.357806$fa.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> >
> > Btw, your post is going to the alt.atheism ng, where many of the
> > alt.atheists post under pseudonyms (raven1, decimal, Stix,
> Budikka, ^nemo^,
> > Apostate, Beowulf, Chani, FatherFAK, Jim2002, Kamian, Liquid
> Grace, maff,
> > Meteorite Debris, quibbler, (Rooster, Skeptic, Muddy Boggs,
> etc), stoney,
> > etcetera.
> >
>
> ...and many of them post under their real names - so?
You took the two-letter-word right out of my mouth.
Others use
> handles, but also their real name. Over here, most of the
> "evolutionist" posts are from people who use their real name - and
> you can see their photos if you look at the regular howlerfest
> reports.
Does this improve the strength of their arguments?
>
> > Something you wish to say to them?
>
> No; if they want to take it up with me, that's up to them. I was
> talking to and about you.
As though any criticism of the use of pseudonym applies to me and not to
them?
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Robin Levett
> rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
> (address munged by addition of Big Blue)
>
> Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
> Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
> Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
(William of) Ockham: Theist for whom the Razor is named since he mol
invented it, and Robin would probably call him a fundy if they met and
conversed on the street.
Robin Levett
> > >
> > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
message
> > > news:sZiI9.7841$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:X97I9.2457$Ec....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > > > > > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote
in
> > message
> >
I've tried to correct the quote marks and line lengths - the post
is long enough without those problems for legibility. Oh - and
where I've spotted a spelling mistake, I've corrected it too.
<snip again>
> > This is ludicrous. Leadership University has alleged that
> > evolutionists cloud the issue of problems with evolutionary
theory
> > by making "straw man accusations of "importing religion into
> > science.""
>
> Correct, and they give an example of that very thing, via link.
>
To which link do you refer - the one that defends the Alabama
insert:-
""A Message from the Alabama State Board of Education"
"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some
scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of
living things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was
present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any
statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not
fact.""
> > But Leadership University's very mission statement
> > demonstrates that, certainly so far as that institution is
> > concerned, the accusation is not directed at a straw man, but
> > is a valid criticism.
>
> Which means that you're doing the same thing as Mr. Baldwin, yet
you
> apparently see nothing wrong with it. If the story is accurate,
then
> whether or not LeaderU does as you claim is irrelevant, and the
supposed
> "irony" is insignificant.
>
Let's put this even more simply, since you appear to have problems
understanding what's being said.
Leadership University claims that "evolutionists" lie when they
say that evolution deniers import religion into science.
Leadership University seek to encourage academics to import
religion into science; their mission statement says precisely
that. Leadership University, an institution which denies the
truth of evolution, is therefore doing precisely what
evolutionists accuse evolution deniers of doing.
> >
> > Your analogy is wholly invalid; closer would be a newspaper
> > written for African Americans carrying an editorial leading
> > article denying that any newspaper is written for African
> > Americans.
>
> Sorry, Robin, but you are committing a logical fallacy via your
"improved"
> (my term) analogy. LeaderU is manifestly *not* claiming that it
is
> impossible to infuse religion into science (specific to
"Creationists" or
> not), but that (some) evolutionists are responding to attacks on
the
> consistency of evolution itself via red herring and straw man
tactics. You
> started out apparently realizing this, but then you seemingly
lost your way.
>
I realise precisely what Leadership University is doing. It
claims (in the article) that scientists lie when they accuse
evolution deniers of trying to import religion into science. In
its mission statement it exhorts academics to integrate their
faith into their academic teaching.
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
> > > exactly, does ID import religion into science?
> >
> > The intelligent designer, for all intelligent design
theorists, is
> > the Christian God.
>
> And it doesn't matter that they explicitly deny this?
They do so in public...
> Looks to me like you producing a straw man of your own.
> Do you not accord the opponent in debate the right to form his
own argument?
>
If the opponent is honest about it. Behe was honest, to an
extent, in Darwin's Black Box - he implicitly admitted that his
Intelligent
Designer was called "God". Dembski and Johnson are not; either to
the public, to whom they say religion is irrelevant to Intelligent
Design; or to YECs, to whom they say (broadly) that ID is an
extension of YEC.
> > What other entity is it? Have you read, say,
> > Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
>
> Could be *any* other entity, including a naturalistic one (ala
Francis
> Crick), pending investigation.
> Yes, I've read Behe's book, and I don't recall any explicit
theistic
> suggestion on his part.
Then you didn't read the book very carefully. Do you recall what
was written on the other side of the elephant?
> The thrust of his work emphasized, rather, the
> dearth of evolutionary mechanisms to explain molecular machinery
at the
> cellular level.
Behe's thesis *was* that there was no conceivable evolutionary
pathway to explain the structures he dealt with in his book.
Because there was no conceivable pathway, the only alternative is
design; having eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth. But immediately scientists
pointed out that, in each case, he had overlooked a valid pathway
that either had already been proposed, or which he would, had he
looked critically at the topic, have seen himself. Each of the
structures has been found to have a conceivable evolutionary
pathway. That suggests one of two things; that the book resulted
from incompetent science, a failure to conduct a comprehensive
literature search on a topic he claims specific expertise in; or
that his thesis grew not from the evidence, but from his a priori
religious commitment that Darwinism was wrong (in both senses of
that word).
If the former were the case, the obvious response would be to
accept the criticism - since the literature is there - and move
on.
If the latter, one would expect him to shift his ground so as to
maintain his a priori commitment, even if it disembowelled the
thesis he had presented.
What has happened since? He has retreated to a claim that the
pathways are so improbable that they can be discounted - but that
fatally weakens the design inference; because the design
inference is itself highly improbable. An intelligent designer is
required. That designer is either a God (as Behe implied in DBB),
standing above nature and not subject to natural law; or a natural
entity - a space alien, if you will. But the latter idea has a
problem - it is one of infinite regress. The IDers say that the
evolution of, inter alia, intelligence is so improbable that it
must result from intelligent intervention - so a non-God
intelligent designer must itself have been the result of
Intelligent Design and so "ad infinitum, aut ad Deum".
> Quoting Behe:
> "Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate
for the role
> of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by
examining the
> system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design more
strongly than a
> conviction about the identity of the designer."
> (Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_, p196)
>
The second sentence is pure assertion, and he nowhere in the book
even starts on producing evidence for the claim.
As to the first:-
"Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake.
A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with
magnifying
glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the
middle of the
room, next to the body, stands a large, gray, elephant. The
detectives
carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as they crawl,
and never even
glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their
lack of
progress but resolutely press on looking even more closely at the
floor. You
see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man", so they never
consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying
to explain the development of life. The elephant is labelled
"intelligent
design."
..."
(DBB Ch 9, pp 192-3)
"Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its
startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled
with
intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the
elephant is
labelled "intelligent design", the other might be labelled God."
(DBB Ch 11, p233)
The elephant does not appear between chapters 9 and 11.
"The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of
intelligent design that its long hard labours have made manifest
has no justifiable
foundation. Scientific chauvinism is an understandable emotion,
but it should
not be allowed to affect serious intellectual issues. The history
of
skirmishes between religion and science is regrettable and has
caused bad
feelings all around. Inherited anger, however, is no basis for
making
scientific judgments."
(DBB Ch 11, p251)
For reference, there are 3 skirmishes that Behe refers to in a
review of history; the Huxley/Wilberforce debate, the Scopes
trial, and the
case of one Forrest Mimms, allegedly not hired by Scientific
American
because of a belief in creationism.
> >
> > > If you cannot answer that, then you should
> > > regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in
the
> > > LeaderU article.
> > >
> >
> > Asked and answered.
>
> You "answered" with argument by assertion, presenting not even a
single
> example in support.
>
Then you didn't read the whole of my post.
Perhaps you should reread Darwin's Black Box, and the Wedge
Strategy, for example.
<snippage>
> > > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of
Creationist articles.
> > > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
> > >
> > > Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?).
> >
Let's take Remine's - sorry, the review of Remine's bok, The
Biotic Message:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/biotic_message.html.
The tone of the review is clearly favourable (I'd dearly love to
know who actually wrote it). From the article:-
"...The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from
creationists and evolutionists alike.
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't
just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a
scientifically testable creation theory to take its place....
...The Biotic Message can win a place on your science bookshelf."
Science bookshelf - a book that puts forward a "scientifically
testable creation "theory""? That is a creationist article.
It also lies. We've had Remine blow by here a few times; his
understanding of evolution theory is woeful. The suggestion that
his analysis of evolution theory can receive praise from anyone
who knows anything on the topic is laughable - and I claim no
special knowledge.
Then again, there's
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/viewscie.html. The authors
reveal at the end that they are "confirmed fence-sitters; why -
because:-
"Biblically, we find the young earth approach of six consecutive
24-hour days and a catastrophic universal flood to make the most
sense. However, we find the evidence from science for a great age
for the universe and the earth to be nearly overwhelming. We just
do not know how to resolve the conflict yet."
Why exactly, outside a creationist's head, is the young earth
biblical approach even relevant to the question of how old the
earth is? It is as much a scientific question as the size of the
earth, the length of the earth's year... You don't look it up in
the bible - you use the best available physical evidence, and if
that contradicts the bible - then the bibele got it wrong.
Unless, of course, your religion says that the bible is holy writ,
inerrant, and overrides physical evidence...
> > Pretty much all of them.
>
> lol
> Based on what, what on?
>
I withdraw "pretty much all of them", and replace it with "pretty
much all of them that treat of issues relevant to evolutionary
theory".
> >
> > > How do you define
> > > "Creationist"?
> >
> > One who attacks the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory on
the
> > ground that God created the diversity of life we see today by
some
> > other means.
>
> The above criterion is the one you need to match to your claim
that "pretty
> much all of them" are Creationist articles.
> Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> > That ranges from YECs who deny evolution on the
> > ground that Genesis 1 & 2 are literally true and historical
> > accounts of the creation of the world, all the way to
intelligent
> > design theorists and other forms of progressive creationists
who
> > say that something, somewhere is wrong with evolutionary
theory
> > and set out to find a space into which to fit their god.
>
> As soon as they have a legitimate grounds for criticizing
evolution, your
> claim is falsified, and if the "reason" for the criticism was
not "because"
> god created it, your claim is similarly falsified.
> You pick any example you want from the LeaderU site. I'm
predicting here &
> now that you will be falsified in one or more of the
aforementioned ways in
> each case.
>
Apart from the previous comments, ponder on the following:-
"The present discussion is over whether belief in Darwinism is
compatible with a meaningful theism. When most people ask that
question, they take the Darwinism for granted and ask whether the
theism has to be discarded. I think it is more illuminating to
approach the question from the other side. Is there any reason
that a person who believes in a real, personal God should believe
Darwinist claims that biological creation occurred through a fully
naturalistic evolutionary process? The answer is clearly No. The
sufficiency of any process of chemical evolution to produce life
has not been demonstrated, nor has the ability of natural
selection to produce new body plans, complex organs or anything
else except variation within types that already exist, Papers
presented at this symposium explain why Darwinian innovation of
this sort is exceedingly unlikely. The fossil record does not
evidence any continuous process of gradual change, which is why
paleontologists are continually tempted to flirt with the heresy
that biological transformations occurred in sudden jumps. If
chemical and biological evolution is the only possible source of
living organisms, then the shortage of evidence is of little
importance; the only question is how naturalistic evolution
occurred, not whether it did. If God exists, then naturalistic
evolution is not the only alternative, and there is no reason for
a theist to believe that God employed it beyond the relatively
trivial level where variation has been demonstrated."
(from http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter4.html, a
piece by Philip E Johnson, author of the Wedge Strategy)
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of
Creationist web sites:
> > > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
> > >
> > > I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking
about.
> > > Respecting
> > > your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is
specifically
> > > "Creationist" about these sites?
> > >
> > > http://www.origins.org/
> >
> > Let's see now - perhaps the fact that each of the articles
under
> > the heading "Darwibnism and Evolution is written from a
> > creationist perspective?
>
> If you stop there, your argument is a classic circularity
(making your
> answer fallacious: The articles are Creationistic because they
> are written from a Creationist perspective).
Not at all circular. If I say that an article about the conflict
between Bloggsia and Jondozia is written from the Jondozian
perspective, and hence favours Jondozia, where is the circularity?
Let's have a look at one of the articles:-
""How to Talk to Your Kids About Evolution and Creation" by Dr.
Ray Bohlin & Sue Bohlin"
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlin_talktokidsaboutevolution.ht
ml
This takes the form of a dialogue, with questions asked by a
creationist and answered by the Bohlins.
The first question sets up some strawmen as supposed scientific
problems with evolutionary theory:-
"Problems with Evolutionary Theory
Why is there a problem with evolution in the first place?
Someone once asked you, "What should I believe?" Remember what you
told them?
Basically I said you should only believe what there is evidence
for. After spending years studying evolution in bachelor's,
master's, and doctoral programs, I can tell you that, first of
all, there is evidence for small changes in organisms as they
adapt to small environmental fluctuations.
Second, there is evidence that new species do arise. We see new
species of fruit flies, rodents, and even birds. But when the
original species is a fruit fly, the new species is still a fruit
fly. These processes do not tell us how we get horses and wasps
and woodpeckers.
Third, in the fossil record, there are only a few transitions
between major groups of organisms, like between reptiles and
birds, and these are controversial, even among evolutionists. If
evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record should be full
of them.
Fourth, there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin of
complex adaptations like the tongue of the woodpecker; or flight
in birds, mammals, insects, and reptiles; or the swimming
adaptations in fish, mammals, reptiles, and the marine
invertebrates. These adaptations appear in the fossil record with
no transitions. And fifth, there is no genetic mechanism for these
large-scale evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution from
amoeba to man is an extrapolation from very meager data.
So the problem with evolution is that it is a mechanistic theory
without a mechanism, and there is no evidence for the big changes
from amoeba to man."
Dealing with the last point first, no-one who understand
evolutionary theory suggests that evolution proceeds from amoeba
to man. Both have evolved from a common ancestor.
Next:-
"But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new species is
still a fruit fly".
What's the problem with that - evolutionary theory can live with
that. It doesn't predict the evolution of entirely new familes of
organism in the laboratory over human timescales.
And:-
"...there are only a few transitions between major groups of
organisms... If evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record
should be full of them."
The first sentence is simply untrue. Borrowing others'
scholarship, "Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood
that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically
short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in
the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels,
however, are abundant."
(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).
The second sentence, unless it is intended to imply that
ishouldn't be able to dig my back garden without finding an
inter-generic transitional, is therefore unexceptionable.
Next:-
"there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin of complex
adaptations like...flight in birds, mammals, insects, and
reptiles"
Just to take one example, try
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html; the
section headed "Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds", with
its reference to two articles. There are answers for each -
although those answers are beign continually refined, not because
of weakness in the theory, but because we don't have a videotaped
record.
Finally:-
"...there is no genetic mechanism for these large-scale
evolutionary changes".
Imperfect reproduction and subsequent selection of environmentally
advantageous traits are virtually guaranteed by the mechanims of
heredity as we know them, the thermodynamics of chemical
reactions, and the fact that those traits that are diaadvantageous
(=tend to reduce reproductive success) don't leave so many
children in the next generation. The "large-scale evolutionary
changes" are made up of a series of small changes - albeit the
rate of change may not be constant, the granularity will be.
Evolutionary theory does not predict that a dinsoaur gives birth
to a modern bird - it predicts that over geological time,
populatiosn chaneg little by little, producing large-scale (at the
genetic level) change incrementally. Of course, some large-scale
(at the phenotypic level) changes require onyl small genetic
change, if the genetic change affects expression of genes - but
that's no assistance to the creationist.
Now the point of all of this is not only that the criticisms are
not scientifically valid, although they are not so valid; it is
that they are standard creationist strawmen - go to any mainstream
creationist website, you'll find them there.
Now let's take a look later in the article:-
Under the heading "Early Human history", we find the following:-
"When it comes to human origins, the Bible gives no room for
anything other than God's personal fashioning of Adam and Eve. It
is the fact that God personally created mankind that gives us such
intrinsic value."
This is a scientific criticism of evolutionary theory?
> You need your examples to meet specific criteria in order for
your argument
> to pass muster. What are you doing in any of the above ng's if
that's what
> passes for your logic?
>
> >
> > Or let's have a look at the page "Our Focus":-
> >
> > "Origins.org focuses primarily on the scientific theory known
as
> > Intelligent Design and reaches one logical conclusion: that
the
> > universe and life show verifiable signs of intelligent
creation
> > because there is an intelligent Creator. Some of our resources
> > deal with scientific data exclusively and some take the
defensible
> > position that the data point to and support the Biblical claim
of
> > Divine Creation."
> > (http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus.html)
> >
>
> You have failed to meet your own criteria. Reminder:
> ". . . all the way to intelligent design theorists and other
forms of
> progressive creationists who say that something, somewhere is
wrong with
> evolutionary theory and set out to find a space into which to
fit their
> god."
> .. . . though perhaps I should consider the possibility that
you're being
> deliberately dishonest by creating a non-specific spectrum
reaching from the
> first criterion to the second. Time will tell, I suppose.
>
What do you think I meant?
> > > http://www.reasons.org/
> >
> > Try the Statement of Faith:-
> >
> > "We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New
Testaments)
> > is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation,
it is
> > thus verbally inspired and completely without error
(historically,
> > scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original
writings. While God the
> > Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended
> > the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects
the
> > words and literary styles of its individual human authors.
> > Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the
> > nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the
> > salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is
> > therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that
it
> > addresses. "
> >
> > (http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml?main)
>
> Again, failing your own criteria. The above is simply a
statement of
> Christian faith, including inerrancy.
"...completely without error (historically, scientifically...) in
its original writings". That is not a standard christian
viewpoint. The suggestion that the bible is without error
scientifically is an assertion that biblical exegesis is relevant
to science. It tries to find a space within science to fit the
christian god.
> The statement does not criticize
> evolution, nor does it try to "create space" for god in any mann
er
> *specified* by you.
>
It certainly does the latter - and the extreme claim of inerrancy
underlies the creationist criticism of evolutionary theory.
> >
> > > http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
> > > (the one above is not working, afaics)
> >
> > Still not working.
> >
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
> > >
> >
> > Dembski's personal website? He's a creationist. He rejects
> > theistic evolution not because of the word "theistic" but
because
> > of the word "evolution":-
>
> The Dembski site is "Creationist" because Dembski is a
creationist? That's
> another circular argument,
Hardly.
> and the latter portion of your statement is
> completely unsubstantiated, afaics.
>
No. See below.
> >
> > (all the following quotes (unless otherwise attributed) are
from
> > http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html).
> >
> > "Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design
theorists'
> > preoccupation with theistic evolution rests not with what the
term
> > "theistic" is doing in the phrase "theistic evolution," but
rather
> > with what the term "evolution" is doing there.
...see what I mean...
> > The design
> > theorists' objection to theistic evolution is not in the end
that
> > theistic evolution retains God as an unnecessary rider in an
> > otherwise perfectly acceptable scientific theory of life's
> > origins. Rather, the design theorists' objection is that the
> > scientific theory which is supposed to undergird theistic
> > evolution, usually called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is
itself
> > problematic"
>
> Before you begin the proliferation of red herring (which I will
deal with
> solely for the sake of completeness), we note that you again
fail to meet
> your own specified criteria for what a "Creationist" is via the
quotation
> above.
> 1) Absent from the text is a denial that evolution is true
based on a
> literal reading (or liberal reading, ftm) of Genesis.
> 2) Admittedly, the text states that something is wrong with
evolutionary
> theory, but I hope that you are not foolhardy enough to claim
*that* as
> proof of a Creationistic pov.
> 3) The text itself flatly contradicts your latter criterion
since "theistic
> evolution" which presumeably has room for god is rejected in
favor of the
> view that evolution should be rejected on its own lack of merit
(see #2).
> Once again, you failed your own criteria.
Don't interrupt before I've finished.
>
> Now for the red herring parade:
New definition for red herring?
>
> >
> > He lies about Michael Denton:-
>
> Some are equivocal enough to declare that any statement which is
not true is
> a lie; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the
equivocation and assume
> that you are accusing Dembski of a deliberate attempt to
mislead. I shall
> show that you don't make your case.
In fact, you don't.
>
> >
> > "Michael Denton's critique of Darwinism is a case in
point. In
> > his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues at
length
> > that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failed scientific
paradigm.
> > It bears noting that Denton is an agnostic in matters of
religious
> > faith--thus in criticizing Darwinism he has no religious ax to
> > grind."
> >
> > The lies? Firstly, by omission - he fails to point out that
> > Denton now accepts (Nature's Destiny) evolution, both micro-
and
> > macro-;
>
> Dembski's point is that a person with no theistic axe to grind
can
> legitimately attack evolution. Denton's views subsequent to
publishing
> EATIC (_Evolution: A Theory In Crisis_) are irrelevant to that
point.
>
So you can produce evidence of Denton's conversion betwen
publishing EATIC and this article? In any event, it is copyright
2002, whereas the round table discussion below was in 1999 - so
Dembski knew that Denton was Christian when writing the article,
yet still claims that he "*is* an agnostic" (my emphasis).
> > and, on the other hand, Denton is not an agnostic - see
> > this quote:-
> >
> > "Behe: Can I jump in for a second? Maybe I'm reading
things
> > into the book, but I certainly got the strong sense--perhaps
> > Denton didn't state this explicitly, but he does so
> > implicitly--that he was arguing for the relevant choices being
> > made by an intelligence.
> >
> > Let me give you some background. During the April 1996 meeting
at
> > the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Washingon, DC, where
> > Denton and I both spoke, he said to the whole group of
journalists
> > and other folks there that he thought God had set up the
universe
> > to produce human beings.
> >
> > Moreover, the night before that meeting, Denton and I had
dinner
> > at Tom Bethell's house. I told him that I had read his
> > manuscript--at that point, the book was called Biology, The
> > Anthropic Perspective, with the subtitle, An Essay in Natural
> > Theology--and that I liked it very much. He was pleased. Then
I
> > said, "But there just one thing that bothers me. For a natural
> > theology, it doesn't mention God." Denton seemed a bit
startled by
> > that, and he said, "Well, I certainly believe in God, and I
think
> > God did this. I was just trying to style the arguments in the
> > fashion of the natural theologies of the early nineteenth
> > century." So it seems pretty clear to me that Denton in fact
sees
> > the evidence for design as pointing, ultimately, to a
transcendent
> > intelligence."
> >
> > (http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
> >
> > So Behe is quoting Denton as saying that he believes in God;
while
> > Dembski above claims him as being agnostic.
>
> If you will review the link that you provided, Behe is referring
to
> _Nature's Destiny_ by Denton. Denton's vanilla theistic stance
...in context, Christian, not vanilla..
> is relevant
> to that work, not to EATIC (the respective publishing dates of
the works
> would seem to permit room for a change of stance).
And you have evidence for that change?
> You're not trying to deliberately mislead, are you?
> In Dembski's context, Denton's views are relevant only to the
criticisms
> advance in EATIC. To make you claim that Dembski is lying
stick, you need
> to show that Denton wasn't an agnostic when he wrote EATIC, or
show that
> Dembski wrote that Denton was an agnostic (at that time) while
knowing
> otherwise.
He knew in 1999 (the roundtable discussion) that Denton was
Christian - yet in 2002 (this article) wrote that he was
agnostic. So I've demonstrated the latter, certainly. And if you
claim he converted after EATIC, bring on your evidence.
> Fyi, that isn't what you do . . .
>
FYI - it is.
> >
> > Dembski also admits that he accepts creationism broadly
> > construed:-
> >
> > "The only thing one can say for certain is that to reject
fully
> > naturalistic evolution is to accept some form of creationism
> > broadly construed, i.e., the belief that God or some
intelligent
> > agent has produced life with a purpose in mind. Young earth
> > creationism certainly falls under such a broad construal of
> > creationism, but is hardly coextensive with creationism in
this
> > broad sense."
> >
> > and is clear that the intelligence in intelligent design is an
> > agent:-
>
> So what? Isn't that obvious (and irrelevant)?
>
Highly relevant - think infinite regress. An Intelligent Designer
(of Intelligent Designers of Intelligent Designers...) is/must be
God. It is only if the nth Intelligent Designer emerged without
ID help that the regress is broken - but then you're left with a
whole chain of unnecessary Intelligent Designers, since if your
nth Intelligent Designer didn't need ID assistance to emerge, why
should the n-1th?.
> >
> > "Dembski: I see design as directed contingency--meaning some
agent
> > choosing and making real this outcome, rather than the
> > indefinitely many other possible outcomes allowed by the
> > background regularities and chance."
> >
> > (also from
> > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
> >
> > > That's out of 29 links, btw.
> >
> > You excluded Probe Ministries; the Crossroads Project (which
> > accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood
> > (http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/gen8-14.htm),
>
> Yes, I excluded Probe Ministries, based on the description of
> the site on the page where it was listed (along with my
knowledge of Probe
> Ministries).
>
> Look at the mission of Probe Ministries and you won't find
> origins mentioned at all. Probe Ministries does not meet your
criteria for what
> "Creationist" is unless you broaden it (which would be dishonest
of you, imo,
> but I'll deal with it if you want to go that route).
The Bohlin article I quote above is copyright Probe Ministries.
QED?
> Crossroads Project accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood? So
does the
> staff at "Uncle Buford's Snake-handling and Bible Healing
Ministry"--does
> that make Uncle Buford's organization a "Creationist"
organization? Goody;
> we can identify all manner of organizations as Evolutionary
organizations by
> concocting a similarly preposterous definition.
>
OK then:-
"The first thing we must realize about Gen. 1 (and chapters 2-11
as well) is that it is history rather than myth. More than any
other passage of scripture, Gen. 1-11 has been rejected by many as
true history. This is because of a lack of extra-biblical
historical records for this period, and because of supposed
contradictions with science.1 Therefore, we are told, this passage
must be stories that humans made up to help them cope with life,
like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the stories of Zeus. But Gen. 1-11,
including the creation account, is real history, reporting on real
persons and events in space and time. There are several reasons
why I say this." (http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/gen2-4.htm)
It is fair to say that the writer also says that Genesis 1 is not
a scientific textbook, and rejects YEC - but he also argues that:-
"Gen. 1 harmonizes with origins science. There is no contradiction
between what is recorded here and what science has discovered
about the origin of the universe and life on earth. Rather, there
is agreement about the most important issues."
Or you can try:-
"For those investigating Christianity, the evidence from design in
nature is one of the ways that God is trying to reveal himself to
each one of us. He's doing so in a way that leaves room for our
freewill...we can choose to suppress the evidence, or instead
choose to respond with openness. Why not make the decision right
now to become open to the possibility that God really is there?
Why not continue on in this series and ask God to show himself to
you, acknowledging that you'll respond if he does? "
(http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/obj2.htm)
Clap hands, here comes Jaysus.
> > fergawdsake); Koons
> > website; Texans for Life Coalition
> > (http://texlife.org/issues/fabric/chap05.html); & Bridges
> > International. NARTH, Stonewall Revisited (and its mirror)
and
> > the Journal of Human Sexuality are problematic in their own
> > distinct way.
>
> You'll need to convince me that taking a stand on Biblical
inerrancy (or the
> like) properly equates with an organization being a
"Creationist"
> organization before I waste time rebuking you for the other
supposed
> examples.
>
See above - rebuke away.
<snippage>
> > > > > > > > The "Mere Creation" page is here:
> > > > > > > > http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU
> > > > > > > > site supporting
> > > > > > > > evolution, but a great deal of material supporting
> > > > > > > > Creationism.
> > > How do you define "evolution"?
> > > ---
> > > Basically I said you should only believe what there is
> > > evidence for. After spending years studying evolution in
bachelor's, master's,
> > > and doctoral programs, I can tell you that, first of all,
there is evidence
> > > for small
> > > changes in organisms as they adapt to small environmental
> > > fluctuations.
> > >
> > >
> > > Second, there is evidence that new species do arise. We see
> > > new species of
> > > fruit flies, rodents, and even birds.
> > > ---
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cr-evol.html
> >
> > You stopped when it started becoming interesting - let me
supply
> > the following paragraphs:-
>
> Allow me to interrupt, since your claim was that the site
contained
> *nothing* (my emphasis) supporting evolution. Your claim is
falsified
> unless the author repudiates what he has already written--which
> he does not.
>
> >
> > " But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new
species is
> > still a fruit fly. These processes do not tell us how we get
> > horses and wasps and woodpeckers.
> >
> > Third, in the fossil record, there are only a few transitions
> > between major groups of organisms, like between reptiles and
> > birds, and these are controversial, even among evolutionists.
If
> > evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record should be
full
> > of them.
> >
> > Fourth, there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin
of
> > complex adaptations like the tongue of the woodpecker; or
flight
> > in birds, mammals, insects, and reptiles; or the swimming
> > adaptations in fish, mammals, reptiles, and the marine
> > invertebrates. These adaptations appear in the fossil record
with
> > no transitions. And fifth, there is no genetic mechanism for
these
> > large-scale evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution from
> > amoeba to man is an extrapolation from very meager data.
> >
> > So the problem with evolution is that it is a mechanistic
theory
> > without a mechanism, and there is no evidence for the big
changes
> > from amoeba to man."
> >
> > So you produced an "inverse Darwin's eye" quote - well done.
>
> No problem. Your claim is falsified, and you quote an
additional portion
> attacking another aspect of evolution as though it gets you off
the hook.
> It doesn't.
>
See above for more commentary on this article as it stands on the
Origins website.
The reference to an inverse Darwin's eye quote appears to have
flown past you. Many creationist sources quote Darwin as saying
that the possibility is absurd; but fail to quote the following
text which makes clear that this is a rhetorical device, and that
his real view is that his theory explains it. You quote Bohlin as
if he supports evolutionary theory - indeed, that was the very
point of the quote. Yet Bohlin goes on, immediately after your
quote stopped, to say "But"; and then go on to produce standard
creationist strawman criticisms of evolutionary theory.
> >
> > >
> > > Another:
> > > ---
> > > The evidence for the common ancestry of life is very strong.
To
> > > give some
> > > idea of what it is, I will simply list a few of the kinds of
> > > questions that common ancestry gives an answer to. Why is it
that bats and
> > > whales have so much in common anatomically with mice and
men? Why do
> > > virtually all vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic
"pentadactyl" (five-fingered)
> > > design?
> > > ---
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9712/opinion/barr.html
> > >
> >
> > This is part of an essay by a physicist explaing that
evolution is
> > not necessarily a problem for theology or the Argument from
> > design;
>
> So what? Did you forget what you claimed?
> Here's reminder:
> "We do not find information anywhere on the LeaderU site
supporting
> evolution, but a great deal of material supporting Creationism."
>
> At issue, just in case you missed it, is the claim that "we do
not find
> information anywhere on the LeaderU site supporting evolution".
> That claim of yours is false. Deal with it.
Stop interrupting before I've finished. Once again, you're taking
the quote out of context as if the article it appears in supports
evolution.
> > another part of the essay is representative of the
> > argument being put:-
> >
> > "The Argument from Design remains perfectly healthy, then,
even if
> > we concede to natural selection all that is claimed for it by
the
> > most naturalistic theory of evolution. But, as it happens,
there
> > is no reason to concede so much to it. It is far from clear
that
> > natural selection is really up to the job, not only of
crafting
> > complex organisms, but even of explaining what goes on in the
> > simplest living cell, as the molecular biologist Michael J.
Behe
> > has amply demonstrated in his recent book, Darwin's Black Box.
> > Moreover, the times available for natural selection to have
worked
> > these wonders were far shorter than was commonly supposed. The
> > Cambrian Explosion, that wild proliferation of new forms of
life
> > that occurred about 540 million years ago, took only a few
million
> > years. And it is now generally admitted that most species make
> > their appearance in the fossil record quite suddenly,
geologically
> > speaking.
> >
> > Unfortunately, many religious believers-and not only biblical
> > literalists-have taken this argument one step further than it
has
> > to be or ought to be taken, to deny that life on earth has a
> > common ancestry. I find this quite puzzling. If it can be
shown
> > that a reptile cannot evolve into a mammal or a fish into an
> > amphibian by natural selection alone, then there must have
been
> > divine intervention. Nothing is added to the force of this
> > argument by denying that the reptile or the fish did so
evolve.
> > The atheist is out on a limb, so why try to saw down the whole
> > tree, especially against the grain of so much evidence?"
> >
> >
> > Essentially, Barr is saying that he accepts common descent,
but
> > that the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory cannot
explain
> > it, and that hence Paley's Argument from Design is still alive
and
> > kicking.
> >
> > What was that you said?
>
> I said that your claim that the LeaderU site has nothing
supporting
> evolution has been falsified.
> Lets see how long it takes for the truth of that to dawn on you.
When Leadership University posts something supporting evolution,
tell me. So far all you've done is rip quotes out of context.
>
> Certainly the needlessly-expanded quotations do nothing to
salvage your
> claim from falsification.
> They *do* waste substantial amounts of bandwidth with respect to
our
> topic--but I just want you to be aware that I'm not ducking any
of your
> supposed argument (irrelevant though most of it may be).
>
> >
> > > How do you explain your incorrect presentation of the facts?
> > >
> >
> > That's right; how do you explain your incorrect presentation
of
> > the facts?
>
> You claimed that there was nothing at the LeaderU site
supporting evolution.
> That claim of yours has been manifestly falsified (pending your
ability to
> tie yourself into knots in claiming that an affirmation of
common descent is
> not support for evolution). If you're not simply in
parrot-mode, I expect
> you to offer an example where I incorrectly presented the facts.
An affirmation of common descent is not support for evolution -
where the concurrent claim is made that the transitions between
the generations is made by progressive creation by an Intelligent
Designer.
<snippage>
> > > > > > > Are forensic scientists unscientific?
> > > > > > > Do you have a scientific objection to a forensic
style
> > > > > > > of research applied to "natural" information
systems?
> > > > > >
> >
> > You actually mean a forensic *science* style of research, of
> > course.
> >
> > But the analogy is false. Forensic scientists know exactly
what
> > kind of agent they are looking for, and its capabilities and
> > motivations.
>
> Not necessarily. The might simply look for "something that
would do
> *this*". A human could drown a person. So could an alligator.
Or, the two
> might even collaborate.
> You haven't adequately supported your claim that the analogy is
false.
So of which entity, alligator or human being, do forensic
scientists not have information as to capabilities and
motivations?
In any event, you've admitted the point - "forensic scientists
look for something that would do this. A human could drown a
person. So could an alligator". ID theorists claim that they're
not looking for something that would do *this*. They explicitly,
officially, deny this. You've quoted them doing so above.
> > IDT is only comparable *if* they are indeed assuming
> > a priori an intelligent agent, which is generally God, and are
> > prepared to posit capabilities and intentions. The problem
they
> > have is that there is no evidence for the existence of an
> > intelligent design agency capable of what is, in their view,
> > required.
>
> Support your claim that forensic scientists know what sort of
agent they're
> looking for a priori, or your attempt at refutation is legless.
Done.
--
The end of the world is off topic in sci.geo.satellite-nav and
probably
also on sci.astro.amateur - "Graham" (crossposted also to
sci.geo.geology)
Robin Levett
>
> "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hbd8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2rKJ9.357806$fa.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Btw, your post is going to the alt.atheism ng, where many of
the
> > > alt.atheists post under pseudonyms (raven1, decimal, Stix,
> > Budikka, ^nemo^,
> > > Apostate, Beowulf, Chani, FatherFAK, Jim2002, Kamian, Liquid
> > Grace, maff,
> > > Meteorite Debris, quibbler, (Rooster, Skeptic, Muddy Boggs,
> > etc), stoney,
> > > etcetera.
> > >
> >
> > ...and many of them post under their real names - so?
>
> You took the two-letter-word right out of my mouth.
>
> Others use
> > handles, but also their real name. Over here, most of the
> > "evolutionist" posts are from people who use their real name -
and
> > you can see their photos if you look at the regular howlerfest
> > reports.
>
> Does this improve the strength of their arguments?
>
Not using the handle of a remaker of history doesn't weaken them.
> >
> > > Something you wish to say to them?
> >
> > No; if they want to take it up with me, that's up to them. I
was
> > talking to and about you.
>
> As though any criticism of the use of pseudonym applies to me
and not to
> them?
No; if they want to take it as personal criticism by implication,
they can take it up with me.
>
> >
> > --
> >
________________________________________________________________
> > Robin Levett
> > rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
> > (address munged by addition of Big Blue)
> >
> > Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
> > Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
Razor
> > Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
>
> (William of) Ockham: Theist for whom the Razor is named since
he mol
> invented it, and Robin would probably call him a fundy if they
met and
> conversed on the street.
>
No, he was a 14th century Roman Catholic monk (not "a theist") who
came from a village not far from me, and who was excommunicated
for two main reasons:-
1 Politics - he backed the wrong horse in a power struggle
within the RC Church;
2 Theology - he applied his razor to his Christian faith, and
came up with the result that one couldn't reason one's way to the
existence of God, one had to take a leap of faith.
By no means a fundy.
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Tichy
I thought that I had corrected your misperception. THEOHIPPIP had intended
to literally *improve* history (adding an extra planet to the solar system
for terraforming; stuff like that), not remake it. The history that they
made was actual history (extra planet=>asteroid belt).
So, with no "remaker" of history, what happens to your criticism (if such it
is)?
Instead, we've got somebody with their actual name (courtesy of Dick
Grayson's alter-ego) repeating an error when he should know better.
>
> > >
> > > > Something you wish to say to them?
> > >
> > > No; if they want to take it up with me, that's up to them. I
> was
> > > talking to and about you.
> >
> > As though any criticism of the use of pseudonym applies to me
> and not to
> > them?
>
> No; if they want to take it as personal criticism by implication,
> they can take it up with me.
Thanks for making that clear.
:-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > Robin Levett
> > > rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
> > > (address munged by addition of Big Blue)
> > >
> > > Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
> > > Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
> Razor
> > > Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
> >
> > (William of) Ockham: Theist for whom the Razor is named since
> he mol
> > invented it, and Robin would probably call him a fundy if they
> met and
> > conversed on the street.
> >
>
> No, he was a 14th century Roman Catholic monk (not "a theist")
Newsflash: All orthodox Christians are theists, that includes Roman
Catholic monks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theist
who
> came from a village not far from me, and who was excommunicated
> for two main reasons:-
>
> 1 Politics - he backed the wrong horse in a power struggle
> within the RC Church;
>
> 2 Theology - he applied his razor to his Christian faith, and
> came up with the result that one couldn't reason one's way to the
> existence of God, one had to take a leap of faith.
I challenge your claim that Ockham's razor had anything to do with his
position on faith, reason, and dogma.
>
> By no means a fundy.
>
He accepted the authority of the Roman church, and the authority of
scripture.
Have I mentioned that he was a theist?
;-)
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "fundy".
Robin Levett
May I quote you:-
"THEOHIPPIP wasn't initiated to rewrite
history, but to *remake* history, and *made* history in the
attempt."
Are you arguing just for the sake of it?
> Instead, we've got somebody with their actual name (courtesy of
Dick
> Grayson's alter-ego) repeating an error when he should know
better.
>
I originally said "rewriter"; although in context it still
applies, since history gets rewritten either way, I've changed it
to the "remaker" that you demanded.
No, Roman Catholic monks are a fairly specific kind of theist.
You may remember using the term "theist" to avoid calling Denton a
Christian.
> > who
> > came from a village not far from me, and who was
excommunicated
> > for two main reasons:-
> >
> > 1 Politics - he backed the wrong horse in a power struggle
> > within the RC Church;
> >
> > 2 Theology - he applied his razor to his Christian faith,
and
> > came up with the result that one couldn't reason one's way to
the
> > existence of God, one had to take a leap of faith.
>
> I challenge your claim that Ockham's razor had anything to do
with his
> position on faith, reason, and dogma.
Challenge all you like; then look at the facts, and find you're
wrong.
From your spource below:-
"Thus Ockham is really the pioneer of modern epistemology. The
mysterious universals with their species in the sense of objective
realities are abolished. Objects work upon the senses of men, and
out of these operations the active intellect frames its concepts,
including the so-called universals, which, while they are in
themselves subjective, yet correspond to objective realities. By
the statement that science has nothing to do directly with things,
but only with concepts of them, the theory of knowledge assumes
vital import for the progress of science, and a new method of
scientific cognition is made available. Of course this increases
the difficulty of the task of theology. However, Ockham was
essentially of a skeptical and critical temperament, of great
critical acumen, but (especially in the religious province) he was
by no means equally great in constructive ability..."
and then under the heading "Nature of God":-
"In regard to the nature and attributes of God, he applies a
critical solvent to the principal proof given by Scotus for God's
existence. Ockham shows that the reality of God as the infinitus
intensive can as little be demonstrated from efficientia,
causalitas, eminentia, as from the divine knowledge of the
infinite or from the simplicity of his nature. Nevertheless, he
considers the recognition of God to proceed from the idea of
causality. If not by strict syllogistic deduction, then " by
authority and reason.""
and under "Reason and Scripture":-
"According to his attitude toward the dogmas of the Church, it
appears that "authority, reason, and experience" are the sources
of religious knowledge. A scientific proof of dogma is impossible.
This he shows by the method of evolving a number of propoitions
which on ecclesiastical principles ought to be possible, but
actually contradict the doctrine of the Church. The instances are
frequently rather startling; but it would be quite misleading to
understand them in the sense of anti-ecclesiastical unbelief or
frivolous skepticism. Ockham's purpose is to show that reason is
useless as a foundation of ecclesiastical dogma. The infidel can "
attain all the knowledge, whether simple or complex, which the
believer can have"; the difference is in the possession of faith."
It doesn't express it as directly as I've seen it elsewhere, but
as it's your own source, it will serve. Didn't you read your
source before posting it?
>
> >
> > By no means a fundy.
> >
>
> He accepted the authority of the Roman church,
...but not of the Pope, John XXII, whom he considered a heretic
(see your own link below):-
"The belief that John XXII. was a heretic and no true pope, that
the poverty of Christ and the apostles was an article of faith,
were as much a part of his fixed belief as that the State and the
rights of the emperor were independent of pope and Church."
> and the authority of
> scripture.
...and...
> Have I mentioned that he was a theist?
> ;-)
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
>
http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
>
See my explanation above.
>
> I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "fundy".
>
In soundbite terms, you've got it above. By that definition, he
couldn't be a fundy. He also, for temporal reasons, couldn't be a
Fundamentalist.
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Tichy
I'm arguing to counter your ill-conceived attempts to blacken my pseudonym.
Perhaps you should ask youself the question you just asked me.
>
> > Instead, we've got somebody with their actual name (courtesy of
> Dick
> > Grayson's alter-ego) repeating an error when he should know
> better.
> >
>
> I originally said "rewriter"; although in context it still
> applies, since history gets rewritten either way, I've changed it
> to the "remaker" that you demanded.
No, history stays the same after THEOHIPPIP finishes its work. History
would have had to be rewritten if not for us (clears throat with mild
fictional embarassment--history would have been improved except for the
infighting--but that wasn't my fault).
If you haven't read the book and you can't find an accurate review, then try
to resist the urge to belch forth your opinion about it.
If you would just remove the "no" from your sentence above, it wouldn't be
wrong. Oops, too bad for you.
> You may remember using the term "theist" to avoid calling Denton a
> Christian.
I have no evidential support for calling Denton a Christian, and I don't
recall you providing any such. His newer book is consistent with theism,
but what little I've heard of it might also be consistent with deism.
>
> > > who
> > > came from a village not far from me, and who was
> excommunicated
> > > for two main reasons:-
> > >
> > > 1 Politics - he backed the wrong horse in a power struggle
> > > within the RC Church;
> > >
> > > 2 Theology - he applied his razor to his Christian faith,
> and
> > > came up with the result that one couldn't reason one's way to
> the
> > > existence of God, one had to take a leap of faith.
> >
> > I challenge your claim that Ockham's razor had anything to do
> with his
> > position on faith, reason, and dogma.
>
> Challenge all you like; then look at the facts, and find you're
> wrong.
What, exactly, am I wrong about?
<snip what was made available via link>
>
> It doesn't express it as directly as I've seen it elsewhere,
You can say that again.
but
> as it's your own source, it will serve. Didn't you read your
> source before posting it?
Certainly.
You had already established that you are from the school that simply pastes
in a quotation and takes that as unequivocal support of your position, iirc.
>
> >
> > >
> > > By no means a fundy.
> > >
> >
> > He accepted the authority of the Roman church,
>
> ...but not of the Pope, John XXII, whom he considered a heretic
> (see your own link below):-
You're disagreeing with me without disagreeing with me ...
<snip proof of undisputed point>
>
> > and the authority of
> > scripture.
>
> ...and...
He handled snakes? I dunno--how *do* you define "fundy"?
>
> > Have I mentioned that he was a theist?
> > ;-)
> > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
> >
> http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
> >
>
> See my explanation above.
That he thought the Pope was a heretic? I don't recognize the authority of
the Pope beyond his authority in the RC hierarchy--does that mean that I
couldn't possibly be a fundy?
>
> >
> > I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "fundy".
> >
>
> In soundbite terms, you've got it above. By that definition, he
> couldn't be a fundy. He also, for temporal reasons, couldn't be a
> Fundamentalist.
If you're claiming that fundy="Fundamentalist" in terms of the early 20th
Century movement then you're using it out-of-step with the majority of your
skeptical brethren.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html
Reply only if you wish; I don't happen to see this portion of the thread
going anyplace interesting (apart maybe from you having to shore up support
for your opinions).
Tichy
Not the one I had in mind, but it'll do. Are you leaving out the part where
a second sticker reading "Goddidit" is attached adjacent to the other
sticker?
>
> > > But Leadership University's very mission statement
> > > demonstrates that, certainly so far as that institution is
> > > concerned, the accusation is not directed at a straw man, but
> > > is a valid criticism.
> >
> > Which means that you're doing the same thing as Mr. Baldwin, yet
> you
> > apparently see nothing wrong with it. If the story is accurate,
> then
> > whether or not LeaderU does as you claim is irrelevant, and the
> supposed
> > "irony" is insignificant.
> >
>
> Let's put this even more simply, since you appear to have problems
> understanding what's being said.
You do, and I'll explain post-quotation.
>
> Leadership University claims that "evolutionists" lie when they
> say that evolution deniers import religion into science.
> Leadership University seek to encourage academics to import
> religion into science; their mission statement says precisely
> that. Leadership University, an institution which denies the
> truth of evolution, is therefore doing precisely what
> evolutionists accuse evolution deniers of doing.
1) LU didn't broadbrush evolutionists with the accusation that they lie
when "they say that evolution deniers import religion into science."
Rather, it is a recounting of an allegedly commonplace event. Whether or
not *all* such accusations are straw men or not is irrelevant.
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html
This statement of yours: "Leadership University seek to encourage academics
to import religion into science; their mission statement says precisely
that" is both immaterial and false. You have not borne your BoP for that
claim, and neither have your ng compatriots.
>
> > >
> > > Your analogy is wholly invalid; closer would be a newspaper
> > > written for African Americans carrying an editorial leading
> > > article denying that any newspaper is written for African
> > > Americans.
> >
> > Sorry, Robin, but you are committing a logical fallacy via your
> "improved"
> > (my term) analogy. LeaderU is manifestly *not* claiming that it
> is
> > impossible to infuse religion into science (specific to
> "Creationists" or
> > not), but that (some) evolutionists are responding to attacks on
> the
> > consistency of evolution itself via red herring and straw man
> tactics. You
> > started out apparently realizing this, but then you seemingly
> lost your way.
> >
>
> I realise precisely what Leadership University is doing. It
> claims (in the article) that scientists lie when they accuse
> evolution deniers of trying to import religion into science.
You're slipping toward a fallacy of ambiguity. Would you say that it is
true that no scientist lies when he accuses a critic of evolution of
importing religion into science?
In
> its mission statement it exhorts academics to integrate their
> faith into their academic teaching.
We recall what Juan said when accused based on what he had said: "Si! I
"took" the truck, but I did not *steal* it!"
You're equivocating.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you'll want to focus on the "straw man" issue. How,
> > > > exactly, does ID import religion into science?
> > >
> > > The intelligent designer, for all intelligent design
> theorists, is
> > > the Christian God.
> >
> > And it doesn't matter that they explicitly deny this?
>
> They do so in public...
Do what in public? Believe that the designer is God, or deny it? If the
public statements of ID advocates are "science" then are the public
statements of evolutionists also "science"?
How double is your standard?
>
> > Looks to me like you producing a straw man of your own.
> > Do you not accord the opponent in debate the right to form his
> own argument?
> >
>
> If the opponent is honest about it. Behe was honest, to an
> extent, in Darwin's Black Box - he implicitly admitted that his
> Intelligent
> Designer was called "God".
Citation?
Dembski and Johnson are not; either to
> the public, to whom they say religion is irrelevant to Intelligent
> Design; or to YECs, to whom they say (broadly) that ID is an
> extension of YEC.
Citation?
>
> > > What other entity is it? Have you read, say,
> > > Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
> >
> > Could be *any* other entity, including a naturalistic one (ala
> Francis
> > Crick), pending investigation.
> > Yes, I've read Behe's book, and I don't recall any explicit
> theistic
> > suggestion on his part.
>
> Then you didn't read the book very carefully. Do you recall what
> was written on the other side of the elephant?
No, but after looking it up it turns out to have been "intelligent design".
That's an explicit suggestion of theism?
(he called the designer "god" by labeling an elephant "intelligent design"
iirc)
> standing above nature and not subject to natural law; or a natural
> entity - a space alien, if you will. But the latter idea has a
> problem - it is one of infinite regress. The IDers say that the
> evolution of, inter alia, intelligence is so improbable that it
> must result from intelligent intervention - so a non-God
> intelligent designer must itself have been the result of
> Intelligent Design and so "ad infinitum, aut ad Deum".
I would appreciate it if you would substantially edit your ramblings about
Behe, making the as relevant as possible to the specific issue of "inserting
god into science".
You highlight one of the difficulties of science with your reference to
"natural law" above, btw. Natural law is descriptive, not prescriptive (as
you are no doubt aware) in the sense you are using it, and anything which is
observed may be described (including the "supernatural"--whatever that means
within an observable framework). Thus, a framework of "natural law" cannot
eliminate "the supernatural" except by definition. If water turns into
wine, this simply needs to be incorporated into what occurs naturally,
otherwise science denies its responsibility to match observation to its
generalizations of law.
Spontaneous generation of quantum particles is a fine example of this.
Scientists call such generation "random" and "uncaused" which is as close as
MN science could ever come to saying "miraculous". Truly uncaused
generation of particles is, in principle, beyond the explanatory ability of
science.
>
> > Quoting Behe:
> > "Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate
> for the role
> > of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by
> examining the
> > system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design more
> strongly than a
> > conviction about the identity of the designer."
> > (Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_, p196)
> >
>
> The second sentence is pure assertion, and he nowhere in the book
> even starts on producing evidence for the claim.
It should be obvious, imo. Philip Johnson illustrated the concept using the
moon monolith from 2001. If you can imagine SETI receiving signals which
reflect patterns suggestive of communication, then you should have little
difficulty appreciating the point.
To avoid considering a intelligent cause of complex non-repetitive patterns,
you would have to have an a priori committment to the non-existence of such
causes, afaics.
Are you able to suggest otherwise while employing reason?
>
> As to the first:-
>
<snip text of illustration, same thing or close enough is available here,
for those who are interested>
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm
> ..."
> (DBB Ch 9, pp 192-3)
>
> "Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its
> startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled
> with
> intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the
> elephant is
> labelled "intelligent design", the other might be labelled God."
> (DBB Ch 11, p233)
>
> The elephant does not appear between chapters 9 and 11.
Contextually, we see that Behe is not identifying the elephant as god, but
is surmising that the resistance of scientists to the notion of intelligent
design stems from their own philosophical commitments.
IOW, your longish spiel about Behe isn't making your case at all.
<snip apparently needless expansion of the Behe story>
>
> > >
> > > > If you cannot answer that, then you should
> > > > regard the accusation as a straw man, just as was written in
> the
> > > > LeaderU article.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Asked and answered.
> >
> > You "answered" with argument by assertion, presenting not even a
> single
> > example in support.
> >
>
> Then you didn't read the whole of my post.
I've read the whole of your post.
>
> Perhaps you should reread Darwin's Black Box, and the Wedge
> Strategy, for example.
Thanks, but it's easy enough to see from what you've written that you're
trippin'. The elephant insinuation is an elegant example of this.
>
> <snippage>
>
> > > > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU provides a number of
> Creationist articles.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/lifescience.html
> > > >
> > > > Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?).
> > >
>
> Let's take Remine's - sorry, the review of Remine's bok, The
> Biotic Message:
> http://www.leaderu.com/science/biotic_message.html.
>
> The tone of the review is clearly favourable (I'd dearly love to
> know who actually wrote it). From the article:-
>
> "...The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from
> creationists and evolutionists alike.
>
> The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't
> just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a
> scientifically testable creation theory to take its place....
>
>
> ...The Biotic Message can win a place on your science bookshelf."
>
> Science bookshelf - a book that puts forward a "scientifically
> testable creation "theory""? That is a creationist article.
You're arguing in a circle, along the lines of "creationism isn't science
because creationism isn't scientific".
>
> It also lies. We've had Remine blow by here a few times; his
> understanding of evolution theory is woeful. The suggestion that
> his analysis of evolution theory can receive praise from anyone
> who knows anything on the topic is laughable - and I claim no
> special knowledge.
Your case for the reviewer having lied is based on appeal to ridicule, which
is a logical fallacy. Were you aware of this?
Btw, how does this relate to the "straw man" issue we were allegedly
discussing?
>
> Then again, there's
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/viewscie.html. The authors
> reveal at the end that they are "confirmed fence-sitters; why -
> because:-
>
> "Biblically, we find the young earth approach of six consecutive
> 24-hour days and a catastrophic universal flood to make the most
> sense. However, we find the evidence from science for a great age
> for the universe and the earth to be nearly overwhelming. We just
> do not know how to resolve the conflict yet."
>
> Why exactly, outside a creationist's head, is the young earth
> biblical approach even relevant to the question of how old the
> earth is? It is as much a scientific question as the size of the
> earth, the length of the earth's year... You don't look it up in
> the bible - you use the best available physical evidence, and if
> that contradicts the bible - then the bibele got it wrong.
> Unless, of course, your religion says that the bible is holy writ,
> inerrant, and overrides physical evidence...
Did you pause to consider the purpose of the article you're commenting on
it?
I suggest you snip that entire portion when it's your turn again, for it is
irrelevant to our topic. It does nothing to ameliorate your errors.
>
> > > Pretty much all of them.
> >
> > lol
> > Based on what, what on?
> >
>
> I withdraw "pretty much all of them", and replace it with "pretty
> much all of them that treat of issues relevant to evolutionary
> theory".
To which I reply: Based on what, what on?
("Which are the "Creationist" articles (name one?).")
With respect to your review of the above text, we should expect a
"Creationist" article to find no conflict between the Bible and science at
all, since the Bible is correct, and the "science" is wrong. Would you
disagree?
Your previous example fails on your own criteria.
Did you fail to understand what was written?
You're wasting bandwidth, with respect to substantiating your claims.
Johnson points out that evolution, as it is generally taught (random,
non-directed process) is philosophically grounded, particularly with regard
to its broader claims (common descent, abiogenesis). One who does not share
that philosophical ground has insufficient basis for accepting the
conclusions which depend on that philosphical grounding.
You were supposed to be finding "Creationist" articles--ones which
supposedly fit your own criteria as to what "Creationism" is.
Instead, you seem intent on reading your own conclusions into as many LU
articles as possible.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On this page, LeaderU links to a number of
> Creationist web sites:
> > > > > > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/menus/othersites.html
> > > >
> > > > I've picked out the ones that I think you must be talking
> about.
> > > > Respecting
> > > > your (forthcoming) definition of "Creationism", what is
> specifically
> > > > "Creationist" about these sites?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.origins.org/
> > >
> > > Let's see now - perhaps the fact that each of the articles
> under
> > > the heading "Darwibnism and Evolution is written from a
> > > creationist perspective?
> >
> > If you stop there, your argument is a classic circularity
> (making your
> > answer fallacious: The articles are Creationistic because they
> > are written from a Creationist perspective).
>
> Not at all circular. If I say that an article about the conflict
> between Bloggsia and Jondozia is written from the Jondozian
> perspective, and hence favours Jondozia, where is the circularity?
lol--You're serious?
First, let's clear up your attempt (intentional or not) to equivocate:
Admit that "writing from a Jondozian perspective" is the same as favoring
Jondozianism.
Once you do that, I'll put your proposal in a syllogism that makes it very
clear that you are begging the question.
Straw man argumentation is irrelevant to your earlier claim, and is not part
of your own criterion for "Creationism"--or wasn't. Are you moving the
goalposts on us?
<snip more examples of non-theistic arguments against evolution that Robin
finds unsuitable, but which do not meet his criterion for "Creationist">
The red herrings won't work, Robin.
>
> Just to take one example, try
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html; the
<snip another attempt to pass off allegedly flawed argumentation as
"Creationist">
> Now the point of all of this is not only that the criticisms are
> not scientifically valid, although they are not so valid; it is
> that they are standard creationist strawmen - go to any mainstream
> creationist website, you'll find them there.
So, if an argument is used that is a "standard creationist strawman" then
the person using that argument is a "Creationist"?
1) That goes beyond your own criteria for what "Creationist" is.
2) It's also a non sequitur.
Creationists use standard straw man argument X; Mr. T uses standard straw
man argument X; therefore Mr. T is a Creationist.
(Creationists wear crosses around their necks; Bishop Spong wears a cross
around his neck; therefore Bishop Spong is a creationist)
>
> Now let's take a look later in the article:-
You have utterly sacrificed quality for quantity, I should add.
(below is from the following link, I presume):
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlin_talktokidsaboutevolution.html
>
> Under the heading "Early Human history", we find the following:-
>
> "When it comes to human origins, the Bible gives no room for
> anything other than God's personal fashioning of Adam and Eve. It
> is the fact that God personally created mankind that gives us such
> intrinsic value."
>
> This is a scientific criticism of evolutionary theory?
It isn't a criticism of evolutionary theory *at all*, and it doesn't pretend
to be, afaics. It is an interpretation of the Bible's creation account, and
the same thing could be stated by an atheist or an evolutionist in good
conscience.
I suspect that even you could endorse the statement, Robin.
>
>
> > You need your examples to meet specific criteria in order for
> your argument
> > to pass muster.
<snip small bit, question above left in for emphasis>
I took your criteria at face value at first, but now that I see you
disregarding them wholesale in the course of your examples, I don't think
that you intend to let yourself get tied down to any criteria for
identifying "Creationists" or "Creationism". If you say it's "Creationism"
then it's just supposed to be accepted, afaics.
Actually it is, but since nobody said that it *was* a "standard christian
(sic) viewpoint" there's no point in arguing about it.
The suggestion that the bible is without error
> scientifically is an assertion that biblical exegesis is relevant
> to science. It tries to find a space within science to fit the
> christian god.
Non sequitur. I'm going to write a scientifically accurate statement
(inerrant, I hope!):
"Fluffy went poop in the litterbox."
My suggestion that the above is accurate scientifically does not entail (no
pun on Fluffy's anatomy intended) that I expect the above statement to be
used as a standard of science; it merely reflects a stance regarding the
statement itself.
I could even change it to: "Through the power of God, Fluffy went poop in
the litterbox"; subsequently claim scientific accuracy, and then the claim
of scientific accuracy is contingent on the purview of science--not the
other way 'round.
IOW, the stand within inerrancy regarding scientific accuracy touches those
things which fall under the purview of science--occurrences in the material
world. Beyond that, exegesis itself (which varies) would determine the
interface between Biblical claims and "scientific" claims.
>
> > The statement does not criticize
> > evolution, nor does it try to "create space" for god in any mann
> er
> > *specified* by you.
> >
>
> It certainly does the latter - and the extreme claim of inerrancy
> underlies the creationist criticism of evolutionary theory.
Inerrancy is contentless without exegesis. IOW you need to find
*literalist* (and not just any old literalist) interpretations within an
innerrantist position in order to claim an implicit criticism of evolution.
You haven't got that; not even close.
>
> > >
> > > > http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html
> > > > (the one above is not working, afaics)
> > >
> > > Still not working.
> > >
> > > > http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/index.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dembski's personal website? He's a creationist. He rejects
> > > theistic evolution not because of the word "theistic" but
> because
> > > of the word "evolution":-
> >
> > The Dembski site is "Creationist" because Dembski is a
> creationist? That's
> > another circular argument,
>
> Hardly.
lol
Eh--blistering riposte, Robin.
It's time you defined "creationist" for purposes of your argument.
>
> > and the latter portion of your statement is
> > completely unsubstantiated, afaics.
> >
>
> No. See below.
>
> > >
> > > (all the following quotes (unless otherwise attributed) are
> from
> > > http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html).
> > >
> > > "Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design
> theorists'
> > > preoccupation with theistic evolution rests not with what the
> term
> > > "theistic" is doing in the phrase "theistic evolution," but
> rather
> > > with what the term "evolution" is doing there.
>
> ...see what I mean...
I see what you're trying to say, but you're misguided.
Here's the rest of the quotation. You are shamelessly ignoring the context,
afaics.
"The design theorists' objection to theistic evolution is not in the end
that theistic evolution retains God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise
perfectly acceptable scientific theory of life's origins. Rather, the
design theorists' objection is that the scientific theory which is supposed
to undergird theistic evolution, usually called the neo-Darwinian synthesis,
is itself problematic."
http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html
(approx. 40% down the page)
In context, Demski is saying that the ID criticisms of evolution are based
on science rather than theology, which contradicts your definition of
"Creationist" (assuming that you've given one in good faith).
Don't what?
interrupt before I've finished.
>
Oh.
Bite me!
:-)
> >
> > Now for the red herring parade:
>
> New definition for red herring?
You're distracting from the topic, which was the alleged Creationist pov,
and plunged into calling Dembski a liar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=red%20herring
Look it up under definition #2.
>
> >
> > >
> > > He lies about Michael Denton:-
> >
> > Some are equivocal enough to declare that any statement which is
> not true is
> > a lie; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the
> equivocation and assume
> > that you are accusing Dembski of a deliberate attempt to
> mislead. I shall
> > show that you don't make your case.
>
> In fact, you don't.
We'll see.
>
> >
> > >
> > > "Michael Denton's critique of Darwinism is a case in
> point. In
> > > his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues at
> length
> > > that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failed scientific
> paradigm.
> > > It bears noting that Denton is an agnostic in matters of
> religious
> > > faith--thus in criticizing Darwinism he has no religious ax to
> > > grind."
> > >
> > > The lies? Firstly, by omission - he fails to point out that
> > > Denton now accepts (Nature's Destiny) evolution, both micro-
> and
> > > macro-;
> >
> > Dembski's point is that a person with no theistic axe to grind
> can
> > legitimately attack evolution. Denton's views subsequent to
> publishing
> > EATIC (_Evolution: A Theory In Crisis_) are irrelevant to that
> point.
> >
>
> So you can produce evidence of Denton's conversion betwen
> publishing EATIC and this article?
That's your burden of proof, since the accusation is yours. Though perhaps
you are swell-headed enough to think that with regard to an accusation as
fine as *yours*, guilt should be assumed, and the burden of proof should lie
with the defense.
I said that you hadn't made your case, and now you're here trying to shift
the BoP.
In any event, it is copyright
> 2002, whereas the round table discussion below was in 1999 - so
> Dembski knew that Denton was Christian when writing the article,
> yet still claims that he "*is* an agnostic" (my emphasis).
Apparently you skipped over what I wrote, or chose to ignore it. Since
Dembski's point is that criticism of evolution need not have a theistic
motivation, Denton's religious view is only relevant at the time he wrote
EATIC, which was well before 1999.
By way of analogy, it's as though you're claiming that an atheist wrote the
songs for which Dan Barker receives royalties today from a CCM music
publisher, based on Barker's "deconversion" from Christianity.
Oh? What's "Christian" about it? The belief in God?
lol
>
> > is relevant
> > to that work, not to EATIC (the respective publishing dates of
> the works
> > would seem to permit room for a change of stance).
>
> And you have evidence for that change?
Do I need it? You made the original claim, Robin. To put the "lie" tag on
Dembski, you need to show that Denton was a non-agnostic when he wrote
EATIC.
Barker's "Christian" tunes were written by a Christian, if he is to be
believed.
>
> > You're not trying to deliberately mislead, are you?
> > In Dembski's context, Denton's views are relevant only to the
> criticisms
> > advance in EATIC. To make you claim that Dembski is lying
> stick, you need
> > to show that Denton wasn't an agnostic when he wrote EATIC, or
> show that
> > Dembski wrote that Denton was an agnostic (at that time) while
> knowing
> > otherwise.
>
> He knew in 1999 (the roundtable discussion) that Denton was
> Christian - yet in 2002 (this article) wrote that he was
> agnostic. So I've demonstrated the latter, certainly. And if you
> claim he converted after EATIC, bring on your evidence.
Perhaps I confused you with ambiguity. If Denton was an agnostic when he
wrote EATIC, then Dembski isn't lying (unless you make a case of Dembski
intending it to be understood that Denton was an agnostic at the time
Dembski was speaking--good luck with that). You have only made a case for
non-agnostic status well-subsequent to the publishing of EATIC. It is your
BoP, should you expect your lying charge to stick (pun intended) to show
that Denton 1) wasn't an agnostic when he wrote EATIC and(/or) 2) Dembski
knew it.
>
> > Fyi, that isn't what you do . . .
> >
>
> FYI - it is.
Incorrect. You seem to misunderstand your burden of proof.
>
> > >
> > > Dembski also admits that he accepts creationism broadly
> > > construed:-
> > >
> > > "The only thing one can say for certain is that to reject
> fully
> > > naturalistic evolution is to accept some form of creationism
> > > broadly construed, i.e., the belief that God or some
> intelligent
> > > agent has produced life with a purpose in mind. Young earth
> > > creationism certainly falls under such a broad construal of
> > > creationism, but is hardly coextensive with creationism in
> this
> > > broad sense."
> > >
> > > and is clear that the intelligence in intelligent design is an
> > > agent:-
> >
> > So what? Isn't that obvious (and irrelevant)?
> >
>
> Highly relevant - think infinite regress. An Intelligent Designer
> (of Intelligent Designers of Intelligent Designers...) is/must be
> God.
You mean that a first cause which is intelligent might as well be god. That
is correct. It is patently false, however, that any intelligent design
(detected scientifically) "is/must" be God.
It is only if the nth Intelligent Designer emerged without
> ID help that the regress is broken - but then you're left with a
> whole chain of unnecessary Intelligent Designers, since if your
> nth Intelligent Designer didn't need ID assistance to emerge, why
> should the n-1th?.
Or, we could extrapolate in the other direction and question whether or not
your ng post has an intelligent cause.
Backward in time, we run into a wall, where the universe appears to have a
beginning. At that point, any first cause is either intelligent, or
unintelligent. If there is no way, in principle, to tell which is the case,
then is there a scientific principle that I can use to determine whether or
not your ng posts were produced by an intelligent cause?
>
> > >
> > > "Dembski: I see design as directed contingency--meaning some
> agent
> > > choosing and making real this outcome, rather than the
> > > indefinitely many other possible outcomes allowed by the
> > > background regularities and chance."
> > >
> > > (also from
> > > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm)
> > >
> > > > That's out of 29 links, btw.
> > >
> > > You excluded Probe Ministries; the Crossroads Project (which
> > > accepts the historicity of Noah's Flood
> > > (http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/gen8-14.htm),
> >
> > Yes, I excluded Probe Ministries, based on the description of
> > the site on the page where it was listed (along with my
> knowledge of Probe
> > Ministries).
> >
> > Look at the mission of Probe Ministries and you won't find
> > origins mentioned at all. Probe Ministries does not meet your
> criteria for what
> > "Creationist" is unless you broaden it (which would be dishonest
> of you, imo,
> > but I'll deal with it if you want to go that route).
>
> The Bohlin article I quote above is copyright Probe Ministries.
> QED?
Apart from the fact that you failed to identify the Bohlin article as
creationist according to your own criteria?
And . . .?
Where is the insertion of God into science?
How does the article meet your self-chosen criteria?
>
>
> Or you can try:-
>
> "For those investigating Christianity, the evidence from design in
> nature is one of the ways that God is trying to reveal himself to
> each one of us. He's doing so in a way that leaves room for our
> freewill...we can choose to suppress the evidence, or instead
> choose to respond with openness. Why not make the decision right
> now to become open to the possibility that God really is there?
> Why not continue on in this series and ask God to show himself to
> you, acknowledging that you'll respond if he does? "
>
> (http://www.xenos.org/ct_outln/obj2.htm)
Sorry about the c&p, but
And . . .?
Where is the insertion of God into science?
How does the article meet your self-chosen criteria?
>
> Clap hands, here comes Jaysus.
And there goes yet another of Robin's evidences, dismissed for failure to
meet his own criteria.
>
> > > fergawdsake); Koons
> > > website; Texans for Life Coalition
> > > (http://texlife.org/issues/fabric/chap05.html); & Bridges
> > > International. NARTH, Stonewall Revisited (and its mirror)
> and
> > > the Journal of Human Sexuality are problematic in their own
> > > distinct way.
> >
> > You'll need to convince me that taking a stand on Biblical
> inerrancy (or the
> > like) properly equates with an organization being a
> "Creationist"
> > organization before I waste time rebuking you for the other
> supposed
> > examples.
> >
>
> See above - rebuke away.
As though you have have established that inerrantists *are* Creationists?
Hardly.
Instead, I rebuke you for posting such a long article which provides *no*
evidence (hey, there's 15% or so left to go, though) supporting your
position that isn't easily refuted via identification of fallacy or by
simply pointing out that you fail according to your own criteria.
(the claim (actually Baldwin's, which you appear to have adopted) has been
falsified, nothing you wrote above changes that, and your additional
contrabutions have, as noted, failed to meet your own criterion for
Creationism)
>
> The reference to an inverse Darwin's eye quote appears to have
> flown past you.
I allow irrelevancies to do that, unless the perpetrator of the irrelevancy
tries to make something of it . . .
Many creationist sources quote Darwin as saying
> that the possibility is absurd; but fail to quote the following
> text which makes clear that this is a rhetorical device, and that
> his real view is that his theory explains it. You quote Bohlin as
> if he supports evolutionary theory - indeed, that was the very
> point of the quote. Yet Bohlin goes on, immediately after your
> quote stopped, to say "But"; and then go on to produce standard
> creationist strawman criticisms of evolutionary theory.
There you go confusing an argument used by X with an identifying mark of
X's, again.
Seemingly, you would have us believe that if a person has any criticism of
evolution (especially a familiar one!), then that person is, by definition,
a creationist.
Additionally, it is apparently impossible (in Robinworld) to say anything
supportive of evolution if you say something against evolution in the next
breath.
Your trampling of logic has been very thorough.
I repeat: Bite me.
Once again, you're taking
> the quote out of context as if the article it appears in supports
> evolution.
Baldwin's claim was that there is *nothing* at the site supporting
evolution. That claim has been thoroughly falsified. You can pretend that
the claim was that 'none of the articles unequivocally support evolution and
each of its corollary hypotheses (common descent, abiogenesis)' all you
like, but you're just manufacturing a big, fat, red herring.
Wake up: Game over.
Do the quotations contain support for evolutionary ideas (yes)? Do the
authors repudiate those ideas later in the respective texts (no)?
Game over. Baldwin is refuted regarding his claim, and your excuses on his
behalf are irrelevant.
1) Where's the example?
2) Since when is progressive creation inclusive of speciation via natural
processes *not* support for evolution?
All or nothing with you, is it?
>
>
> <snippage>
>
> > > > > > > > Are forensic scientists unscientific?
> > > > > > > > Do you have a scientific objection to a forensic
> style
> > > > > > > > of research applied to "natural" information
> systems?
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > You actually mean a forensic *science* style of research, of
> > > course.
> > >
> > > But the analogy is false. Forensic scientists know exactly
> what
> > > kind of agent they are looking for, and its capabilities and
> > > motivations.
> >
> > Not necessarily. The might simply look for "something that
> would do
> > *this*". A human could drown a person. So could an alligator.
> Or, the two
> > might even collaborate.
> > You haven't adequately supported your claim that the analogy is
> false.
>
> So of which entity, alligator or human being, do forensic
> scientists not have information as to capabilities and
> motivations?
You breezed right past the point. You haven't adequately supported your
claim that the analogy is false. So, the investigators find an apparent
bite mark that doesn't match any known dentition, and mucous bits with
silica-based biochemistry--you're going to tell me that they had the
perpetrator in mind when they started the investigation?
>
> In any event, you've admitted the point - "forensic scientists
> look for something that would do this. A human could drown a
> person. So could an alligator". ID theorists claim that they're
> not looking for something that would do *this*. They explicitly,
> officially, deny this. You've quoted them doing so above.
Transparent bait & switch. ID theorists look for evidence of intentional
design, and that's what the forensic investigator starts with, also. The
person is drowned: What is the evidence that an outside agent caused the
drowning?
The difference in the analogy is in the type of evidence sought.
>
> > > IDT is only comparable *if* they are indeed assuming
> > > a priori an intelligent agent, which is generally God, and are
> > > prepared to posit capabilities and intentions. The problem
> they
> > > have is that there is no evidence for the existence of an
> > > intelligent design agency capable of what is, in their view,
> > > required.
> >
> > Support your claim that forensic scientists know what sort of
> agent they're
> > looking for a priori, or your attempt at refutation is legless.
>
> Done.
You're right--the legs are gone.
Again, the potential agents involved in the drowning are myriad. Your thin
apology was to point out that investigators know about people and gators.
If it came to that, we know what an omnipotent god would be capable of, in
theory.
:-)
What you've entirely overlooked is that people and gators are not suspected
a priori. If they *are* suspected a priori, then the investigators are
biased, just as you would claim ID proponents are biased.
<snip>
Robin Levett
Let's see now - you insist that THEOHIPPIP was inItiated to remake
history - and it did so - and then you complain when I say it's
General Director remade history.
>
> >
> > > Instead, we've got somebody with their actual name (courtesy
of
> > Dick
> > > Grayson's alter-ego) repeating an error when he should know
> > better.
> > >
> >
> > I originally said "rewriter"; although in context it still
> > applies, since history gets rewritten either way, I've changed
it
> > to the "remaker" that you demanded.
>
> No, history stays the same after THEOHIPPIP finishes its work.
History
> would have had to be rewritten if not for us (clears throat with
mild
> fictional embarassment--history would have been improved except
for the
> infighting--but that wasn't my fault).
> If you haven't read the book and you can't find an accurate
review, then try
> to resist the urge to belch forth your opinion about it.
The mission of THEOHIPPIP is:-
""...For World History to be regulated, cleaned up, straightened
out, adjusted and perfected, all in accordance with the principles
of humanitarianism, rationalism and general esthetics. You can
understand, surely, that with such a shambles and slaughterhouse
in one's family tree it's awkward to go calling on important
cosmic civilizations!... If need be, alterations will be made even
before the rise of man, so that he arises better.""
True or false?
<snippage>
Then your memory is faulty.
It becomes easier to deny my thesis if you snip its support. Let
me focus on the relevant sentences:-
" Ockham shows that the reality of God as the infinitus intensive
can as little be demonstrated from efficientia, causalitas,
eminentia, as from the divine knowledge of the infinite or from
the simplicity of his nature."
"Ockham's purpose is to show that reason is useless as a
foundation of ecclesiastical dogma."
from your own link, referenced at
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
Or try:-
"In philosophy William advocated a reform of Scholasticism both in
method and in content. The aim of this reformation movement in
general was simplification. *This aim he formulated in the
celebrated "Law of Parsimony", commonly called "Ockham's Razor":
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate"*. With this
tendency towards simplification was united a very marked tendency
towards skepticism a distrust, namely, of the ability of the human
mind to reach certitude in the most important problems of
philosophy. Thus, in the process of simplification he denied the
existence of intentional species, rejected the distinction between
essence and existence, and protested against the Thomistic
doctrine of active and passive intellect. *His skepticism appears
in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the
immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of
God. *"
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm
I've marked the two particularly relevant sentences between " * ".
Taking the quotes together, he sought to show that, applying
simplification and scepticism, reason was useless as foundation
of ecclesiastical - and cannot prove, inter alia, the existence of
God.
> >
> > It doesn't express it as directly as I've seen it elsewhere,
>
> You can say that again.
>
> but
> > as it's your own source, it will serve. Didn't you read your
> > source before posting it?
>
> Certainly.
> You had already established that you are from the school that
simply pastes
> in a quotation and takes that as unequivocal support of your
position, iirc.
>
Only when it is. I have now seen that you are of the school that
deletes inconvenient quotes so that the reader cannot see that you
are wrong.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > By no means a fundy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He accepted the authority of the Roman church,
> >
> > ...but not of the Pope, John XXII, whom he considered a
heretic
> > (see your own link below):-
>
> You're disagreeing with me without disagreeing with me ...
>
> <snip proof of undisputed point>
>
> >
> > > and the authority of
> > > scripture.
> >
> > ...and...
>
> He handled snakes? I dunno--how *do* you define "fundy"?
>
Read on.
> >
> > > Have I mentioned that he was a theist?
> > > ;-)
> > > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
> > >
> >
http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
> > >
> >
> > See my explanation above.
>
> That he thought the Pope was a heretic? I don't recognize the
authority of
> the Pope beyond his authority in the RC hierarchy--does that
mean that I
> couldn't possibly be a fundy?
WTF does this have to do with why I said he was a Roman Catholic
rather than a theist?
>
> >
> > >
> > > I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "fundy".
> > >
> >
> > In soundbite terms, you've got it above. By that definition,
he
> > couldn't be a fundy. He also, for temporal reasons, couldn't
be a
> > Fundamentalist.
>
> If you're claiming that fundy="Fundamentalist" in terms of the
early 20th
> Century movement then you're using it out-of-step with the
majority of your
> skeptical brethren.
> http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html
>
No I'm not - see that word "also".
> Reply only if you wish; I don't happen to see this portion of
the thread
> going anyplace interesting (apart maybe from you having to shore
up support
> for your opinions).
>
I entirely agree that this thread isn't going anywhere - and if I
have to keep restoring the snips that contain the support for my
arguments...
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Tichy
I said that THEOHIPPIP was initiated to remake (as in *improve*) history,
but I did not say that it merely did so, as you (again) erroneously convey
above. I said that they *made* history, as in how it had always been.
The conclusion that the General Director of THEOHIPPIP remade history is
false.
Go read the book. _The Star Diaries_ by Stanislaw Lem, and take a chill
pill.
Read the book. It's pointless for me to correct the misapprehensions that
you construct regarding a fictional character, based on your unfamiliarity
with the literature. Maybe I'll change my nick to Hitler just for the fun
of it and watch you go ballistic.
Refresh it, then.
I left the link in. Don't be such a baby.
>
> " Ockham shows that the reality of God as the infinitus intensive
> can as little be demonstrated from efficientia, causalitas,
> eminentia, as from the divine knowledge of the infinite or from
> the simplicity of his nature."
>
> "Ockham's purpose is to show that reason is useless as a
> foundation of ecclesiastical dogma."
>
> from your own link, referenced at
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
You're just posting stuff about his epistemology. I'm challenging specific
application of the razor to that epistemology, relevant to church dogma.
Perhaps you should have attempted an answer to my question above on the
first go . . .
>
>
> Or try:-
>
> "In philosophy William advocated a reform of Scholasticism both in
> method and in content. The aim of this reformation movement in
> general was simplification. *This aim he formulated in the
> celebrated "Law of Parsimony", commonly called "Ockham's Razor":
> "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate"*. With this
> tendency towards simplification was united a very marked tendency
> towards skepticism a distrust, namely, of the ability of the human
> mind to reach certitude in the most important problems of
> philosophy. Thus, in the process of simplification he denied the
> existence of intentional species, rejected the distinction between
> essence and existence, and protested against the Thomistic
> doctrine of active and passive intellect. *His skepticism appears
> in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the
> immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of
> God. *"
>
> from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm
>
> I've marked the two particularly relevant sentences between " * ".
That's close to what you need, but the RC source has reason to be harsh on W
of Ockham.
>
> Taking the quotes together, he sought to show that, applying
> simplification and scepticism, reason was useless as foundation
> of ecclesiastical - and cannot prove, inter alia, the existence of
> God.
The link is imaginable, but tenuous.
>
> > >
> > > It doesn't express it as directly as I've seen it elsewhere,
> >
> > You can say that again.
> >
> > but
> > > as it's your own source, it will serve. Didn't you read your
> > > source before posting it?
> >
> > Certainly.
> > You had already established that you are from the school that
> simply pastes
> > in a quotation and takes that as unequivocal support of your
> position, iirc.
> >
>
> Only when it is.
Your recent posting history belies your claim above.
I have now seen that you are of the school that
> deletes inconvenient quotes so that the reader cannot see that you
> are wrong.
Dream on. As you noted above, it was *my* link that you have attempted to
use to prove your point, and I went through quite a number of them to find
what appeared the most relevant.
The only reason that the quotation was removed (not the link to it) is
because of the excessive length that you encourage by needlessly quoting
stuff that doesn't prove your point.
The sheer volume that you quoted into the other portion of this thread is
literally funny.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > By no means a fundy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He accepted the authority of the Roman church,
> > >
> > > ...but not of the Pope, John XXII, whom he considered a
> heretic
> > > (see your own link below):-
> >
> > You're disagreeing with me without disagreeing with me ...
> >
> > <snip proof of undisputed point>
What? You're skipping an opportunity to whine about my editing?
> >
> > >
> > > > and the authority of
> > > > scripture.
> > >
> > > ...and...
> >
> > He handled snakes? I dunno--how *do* you define "fundy"?
> >
>
> Read on.
>
> > >
> > > > Have I mentioned that he was a theist?
> > > > ;-)
> > > > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
> > > >
> > >
> http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > See my explanation above.
> >
> > That he thought the Pope was a heretic? I don't recognize the
> authority of
> > the Pope beyond his authority in the RC hierarchy--does that
> mean that I
> > couldn't possibly be a fundy?
>
> WTF does this have to do with why I said he was a Roman Catholic
> rather than a theist?
Our overall topic had been fundiness, so I figured you would deal with that
rather than the inarguable point that William of Ockham was a theist. As I
said before, *all* non-heretical Roman Catholics are theists. Your attempt
to contest this point is inevitably ridiculous.
"It's not an automobile, it's a Jaguar."
<Ding>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "fundy".
> > > >
> > >
> > > In soundbite terms, you've got it above. By that definition,
> he
> > > couldn't be a fundy. He also, for temporal reasons, couldn't
> be a
> > > Fundamentalist.
> >
> > If you're claiming that fundy="Fundamentalist" in terms of the
> early 20th
> > Century movement then you're using it out-of-step with the
> majority of your
> > skeptical brethren.
> > http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html
> >
>
> No I'm not - see that word "also".
I should have known better than to provide you a link that didn't bother to
differentiate between the Fundamentalist movement of the early part of the
20th Century and the later use of the term, which is clearly not
chronologically restricted if you would just take note of the description.
Mea culpa for providing it. Youa culpa for not noting the inconsistency of
usage.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f1/fundamen.asp
Still with some inconsistency of usage, but an improvement over what you're
going by.
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyone.html
fairly decent . . .
<snip the bit where I encouraged optional reply>
>
> I entirely agree that this thread isn't going anywhere - and if I
> have to keep restoring the snips that contain the support for my
> arguments...
Tissue?
<snip sig, which probably supported one of Robin's arguments>
Tichy
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:19:22 +0000 (UTC),
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Karsten_Kn=F6nagel?=
> <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
>
> >In news:L2uJ9.7990$Db4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com,
> >Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Karsten Knönagel" <karsten....@stud.uni-rostock.de> wrote in
> >> message news:at59id$10ila6$1...@ID-80576.news.dfncis.de...
My reply to Mr. Cates apparently did not go to the various ngs,
including the Google archive.
Here's another attempt to make it appear.
If he means "natural meaning" of the words the way you're using it
above,
then he is implicitly admitting that he is ignoring the context.
You think he wants to go that route?
Thanks for trying to help, anyway.
Robin Levett
>
> "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:so8bta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ts1K9.23109$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:uai9ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ThWJ9.21182$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:uop8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
news:AzPJ9.359875$fa.69...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > news:hbd8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > news:2rKJ9.357806$fa.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
<snip discussion of the pros and cons of your pseudonym, and my
alleged misunderstandings of its implications>
The reference is to the roundtable discussion between Behe,
Dembski and Johnson. Three Christians. Behe makes the point that
Denton has told him that he believes in God - without reference to
"Deism" or any other non-Christian belief. In that context, the
belief is strongly arguably in a Christian God.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm
> >
> > > His newer book is consistent with theism,
> > > but what little I've heard of it might also be consistent
with
> > > deism.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > came from a village not far from me, and who was
> > > > > > excommunicated
> > > > > > for two main reasons:-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1 Politics - he backed the wrong horse in a power
struggle
> > > > > > within the RC Church;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2 Theology - he applied his razor to his Christian
> > > > > > faith, and
> > > > > > came up with the result that one couldn't reason one's
way
> > > > > > to the existence of God, one had to take a leap of
faith.
> > > > >
> > > > > I challenge your claim that Ockham's razor had anything
to
> > > > > do with his position on faith, reason, and dogma.
> > > >
> > > > Challenge all you like; then look at the facts, and find
> > > > you're wrong.
> > >
> > > What, exactly, am I wrong about?
>
> What, exactly, am I wrong about?
You are wrong that Occam never took his razor to his theology; ie
his position on faith, reason and dogma.
OK then, try http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/.
Or the Wikipedia, which makes the explicit claim -
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
"Ockham himself used his principle to argue that God's existence
cannot be deduced from reason alone."
> >
> > Taking the quotes together, he sought to show that, applying
> > simplification and scepticism, reason was useless as
foundation
> > of ecclesiastical - and cannot prove, inter alia, the
existence of
> > God.
>
> The link is imaginable, but tenuous.
>
<snip to avoid confusion between quotes>
<snip discussion of our respective attitudes to quotes>
Tichy, please try to keep up. The words "by no means a fundy"
originally immediately followed my numbered point 2 above; and my
comment below ("in soundbite terms, you've got it above") referred
to my sig, which at the time I typed it was a lot closer to the
comment.
I don't know why you've added these links in. I am, quite aware
of the early 20th century movement called Fundamentalism. It is
also clear from my response "No, I'm not - see that word "also""
that I am not claiming "fundy="Fundamentalist" in terms of the
early 20th century movement." One example of a fairly obvious
difference is as to inerrancy. The "Fundamentalists" claimed
inerrancy for the autograph of scripture. "Fundies" tend to claim
inerrancy for the English translation in the King James Version.
<snippage>
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Tichy
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i9gK9.31111$Db4.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:so8bta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ts1K9.23109$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:uai9ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ThWJ9.21182$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:uop8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> news:AzPJ9.359875$fa.69...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > news:hbd8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > news:2rKJ9.357806$fa.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
>
Bwaaaaahaaahaaahaaaa!
Let's see the strong argument, then.
Make me laugh some more.
Good thing they weren't talking about Michael Medved.
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm
<snip the rest, which I'll get to later>
Robin Levett
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:i9gK9.31111$Db4.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:so8bta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ts1K9.23109$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:uai9ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:ThWJ9.21182$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > news:uop8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > news:AzPJ9.359875$fa.69...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > news:hbd8ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > news:2rKJ9.357806$fa.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> Let's see the strong argument, then.
> Make me laugh some more.
Laugh as much as you like. Behe quotes Denton as telling an April
1996 meeting that he believes that "God" (not "a God") had set up
the universe to produce human beings; and goes on to say that he
had had dinner with him at Tom Bethell's house the previous
evening, and he had claimed to believe in God (again, not "a
God").
AIUI, Tom Bethell is not particularly enamoured of ecumenism; his
view is clear that there is only one God, whose son was JC and
whose true church is the RC Church ( see
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/41/story_4172_1.html and
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2C213CD2). ISTM that mention that
his (Denton's) belief was in a Deist God at that dinner table
would not have gone unremarked; and that belief in a Deist God
would not have passed muster, either at that dinner table, or at
the subsequent roundtable at which it was mentioned, as "belief in
God". YMMV.
>
> Good thing they weren't talking about Michael Medved.
>
Who he?
> >
> > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm
>
>
> <snip the rest, which I'll get to later>
>
Awaited. - just as you are awaiting (and will receive) a reply to
your monster post on the other subthread.
Tichy
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fSGL9.398560$fa.81...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:mmulta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:i9gK9.31111$Db4.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:so8bta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ts1K9.23109$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:uai9ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You may remember using the term "theist" to avoid
> calling
> Denton a
> > > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no evidential support for calling Denton a
> Christian,
> and
> I don't
> > > > > > recall you providing any such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then your memory is faulty.
> > > >
> > > > Refresh it, then.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The reference is to the roundtable discussion between Behe,
> > > Dembski and Johnson. Three Christians. Behe makes the point
> that
> > > Denton has told him that he believes in God - without
> reference to
> > > "Deism" or any other non-Christian belief. In that context,
> the
> > > belief is strongly arguably in a Christian God.
> >
> > Bwaaaaahaaahaaahaaaa!
> > Let's see the strong argument, then.
> > Make me laugh some more.
>
> Laugh as much as you like.
Thank you; I will.
Behe quotes Denton as telling an April
> 1996 meeting that he believes that "God" (not "a God") had set up
> the universe to produce human beings; and goes on to say that he
> had had dinner with him at Tom Bethell's house the previous
> evening, and he had claimed to believe in God (again, not "a
> God").
Care to deal with the ambiguity of upper case/lower case treatment of
the word "God" itself? "A" G(g)od would imply some form of
monotheism; the more specific meaning of the capitalized form should
not be assumed without supporting evidence, which you fail to provide
(I'm counting your subsequent remarks). Is the the quotation you are
referring to Denton's ambiguous response to Behe's question? If not,
then you should provide a link (I'll continue to assume that you refer
to the familiar quote until you provide evidence to the contrary).
>
> AIUI, Tom Bethell is not particularly enamoured of ecumenism;
Is your understanding based on Bethell's journalistically objective
article regarding the official RCC stance on the ultimate fate of
unbelievers (linked below)? If so, then you could perhaps take a
floor tile as evidence that the Earth is flat.
his
> view is clear that there is only one God, whose son was JC and
> whose true church is the RC Church ( see
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/41/story_4172_1.html and
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2C213CD2).
Neither do these links support specific Christian belief on Bethell's
part. The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of his
education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered alt.atheists
who went to Catholic school?
Nevermind the fact that Bethell could be the Pope himself and you
still have insufficient grounds for assuming that Denton is a
Christian. It's just amusing to see you grasp at straws in your
attempt to back up your reckless claims.
ISTM that mention that
> his (Denton's) belief was in a Deist God at that dinner table
> would not have gone unremarked; and that belief in a Deist God
> would not have passed muster, either at that dinner table, or at
> the subsequent roundtable at which it was mentioned, as "belief in
> God". YMMV.
Did the comment go unremarked at the dinner table? I don't seem to
recall you giving any evidence that it went unremarked . . .
Nevermind the fact that a failure to delve into the specifics of
Denton's beliefs would be tenuous circumstantial evidence;
particularly in consideration of the lack of research you appear to
have put into it.
>
> >
> > Good thing they weren't talking about Michael Medved.
> >
>
> Who he?
He's a theist.
:-)
<snip stuff about replies to other posts>
I'm busy for a bit; I owe Ted King a thoughtful reply; you're
scheduled next after him barring the unforseen.
Robin Levett
> "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<idk5ua...@grendel.hayesway>...
> > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fSGL9.398560$fa.81...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:mmulta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:i9gK9.31111$Db4.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:so8bta...@grendel.hayesway...
> > > > > > "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:ts1K9.23109$Db4.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > news:uai9ta...@grendel.hayesway...
> <snip>
<snip>
I'll come back to the snipped parts, but this particular gem
tickled me:-
> >
> > AIUI, Tom Bethell is not particularly enamoured of ecumenism;
>
> Is your understanding based on Bethell's journalistically
objective
> article regarding the official RCC stance on the ultimate fate
of
> unbelievers (linked below)?
Now this had my lips twitching - not quite a belly laugh, but not
far short. Assuming you're serious with that sentence, you
clearly wouldn't know journalistic objectivity if it jumped up and
made the sign of the cross in front of you. A journalist writing
objectively doesn't set up his own *personal* beliefs as some kind
of objective truth.
> If so, then you could perhaps take a
> floor tile as evidence that the Earth is flat.
>
> his
> > view is clear that there is only one God, whose son was JC and
> > whose true church is the RC Church ( see
> > http://www.beliefnet.com/story/41/story_4172_1.html and
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2C213CD2).
>
> Neither do these links support specific Christian belief on
Bethell's
> part.
Whaaa....?
What does this mean, then:-
"But the lion is roaring, the floods and torrents will come, and
we all need an ark.
It has existed for 2,000 years, and it is still here. It is the
Catholic Church, the one true church, which goes back in an
unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles"
(See second link above)
> The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of his
> education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered
alt.atheists
> who went to Catholic school?
Not at all - I went to a cathedral school myself.
<snippage>
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Robin Levett
and, just in case there remains any doubt as to Bethell's
Catholicism, read http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213530E2.
>
> > The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of his
> > education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered
> alt.atheists
> > who went to Catholic school?
>
> Not at all - I went to a cathedral school myself.
>
>
> <snippage>
>
>
<sigsnip>
Tichy
Where, exactly, does Bethell express his own personal (Christian) beliefs in
the following link, or "set up his own "personal" beliefs as some kind of
objective truth? Feel free to quote liberally, if you can find anything
appropriate.
>
> > If so, then you could perhaps take a
> > floor tile as evidence that the Earth is flat.
> >
> > his
> > > view is clear that there is only one God, whose son was JC and
> > > whose true church is the RC Church ( see
> > > http://www.beliefnet.com/story/41/story_4172_1.html and
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2C213CD2).
> >
> > Neither do these links support specific Christian belief on
> Bethell's
> > part.
>
> Whaaa....?
>
> What does this mean, then:-
>
> "But the lion is roaring, the floods and torrents will come, and
> we all need an ark.
>
> It has existed for 2,000 years, and it is still here. It is the
> Catholic Church, the one true church, which goes back in an
> unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles"
That (probably) means that Bethell views the Roman Catholic church as the
(most) authentic expression of Christianity.
Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian belief on Bethell's
part" or what?
>
> (See second link above)
>
> > The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of his
> > education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered
> alt.atheists
> > who went to Catholic school?
>
> Not at all - I went to a cathedral school myself.
Now, perhaps I should slightly amend what I wrote about the links not
showing Bethell's belief. The text that Bethell wrote has nothing
conclusive in it; more conclusive is the fact that it was published by
Beliefnet--but all of this tends to distract from the point, which is the
fact that you do a very poor job of marshalling evidence in support of your
claims. I could very happily grant that Bethel is a Christian, a Roman
Catholic, or even the Pope if you like (as mentioned in a since-snipped
portion of my former reply to you); none of which supports your central
claim regarding Michael Denton.
Robin Levett
He *is* a Catholic; he clearly states that in another article on
the Beliefnet site, to which I have referred in another post. His
Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
description of the Catholic Church as the one true church, going
back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles, quoted
below.
His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean, and that
the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon conversion of
nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles. Try (from
the first link below):-
"My own feeling is that some such statement from Rome was overdue.
The church has been so beset by papal apologies, endless
dialogues, and ecumenical appeals that some of us had begun to
wonder whether the hierarchy in Rome believed there was anything
special about the church they governed. It's reassuring to be
reminded that they do."
See the references "My own feeling...", "...some of *us* had begun
to wonder...", "It's reassuring to be reminded that they do."?
Go on to:-
"Those groups are "not yet in full communion with the Catholic
Church," the new Vatican document says, and in 1995 Pope John Paul
II wrote that ecumenism "is directed precisely to making the
partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full
communion." That is a polite way of saying that non-Catholics are
expected to see the wisdom of Catholicism, not vice versa."
and:-
"In the new document, it's good to see that the word "conversion"
reappears after what seems to have been a lengthy hibernation. St.
Paul's comment that preaching the gospel of Christ is "a necessity
. . . woe to me if I do not" is in a prominent place"
and:-
"It is particularly refreshing that the new Vatican document is so
much at odds with the temper of our times."
So; a statement that "Dominus Iesus" interprets ecumenism as means
of conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism, which is not what
Protestants see it as; and personal endorsement of the document.
The latter is setting up his personal beliefs as a measure of the
document; an the former means he is clearly anti-ecumenism other
than as a means of getting the Protestants to return to the Roman
communion - to "see the wisdom of Catholicism". That, it need
hardly be said, is not the way that the Protestant churches see
ecumenism.
From the second link we can see the following. He has referred to
criticism of "Dominus Iesus" from Sister Joan Chichester, and
quotes the following:-
"She added: "If Jesus--and more specifically, Roman Catholic
Christianity--is the only way to heaven, then what are we to think
about the other 80% of the world that is non-Catholic or even
non-Christian? In fact, what are we to believe about God? Are we
to believe that God created all these people in order to condemn
them?""
He partially answers this be reference to Matthew 24:14, and goes
on (bear in mind that Dominus Iesus was directed at the Protestant
Churches as much as non-Christians):-
"The idea here surely is that "the justice of God" ensures that
everyone will be given a chance to hear the gospel before they can
be held responsible for rejecting it. Those who have died before
doing so are presumably exempt from the "condemnation" that
Chittester deplores.
But the rider to that seems clear, even if it is unwelcome today.
Those who have had access to the Gospel--and that would surely be
almost all of us in the Western world who have reached the age of
reason--are no longer in a position to plead ignorance of the law.
In fact, we are enjoined to go forth and preach that gospel
ourselves."
So - since the Catholic Church has preached the message to the
Western world, Westerners have no excuse for not becoming, not
just Christian, but specifically Catholic; or they are damned; he
finishes with the words:-
"Nations that were pagan before the gospel of Christ had been
preached in them cannot revert to paganism should they choose to
repudiate the words of Christ. They will revert not to paganism
but to something less innocent."
Again remember that Bethell has interpreted "Dominus Iesus" as
reemphasising the RCC's primacy in Christianity, and the necessity
of (specifically) Catholic faith for salvation. "Dominus Iesus"
also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not formally
Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ, that is
*not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the Apostolic
Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of the
Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
>
> >
> > > If so, then you could perhaps take a
> > > floor tile as evidence that the Earth is flat.
> > >
> > > his
> > > > view is clear that there is only one God, whose son was JC
and
> > > > whose true church is the RC Church ( see
> > > > http://www.beliefnet.com/story/41/story_4172_1.html and
> > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2C213CD2).
> > >
> > > Neither do these links support specific Christian belief on
> > Bethell's
> > > part.
> >
> > Whaaa....?
> >
> > What does this mean, then:-
> >
> > "But the lion is roaring, the floods and torrents will come,
and
> > we all need an ark.
> >
> > It has existed for 2,000 years, and it is still here. It is
the
> > Catholic Church, the one true church, which goes back in an
> > unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles"
>
> That (probably) means that Bethell views the Roman Catholic
church as the
> (most) authentic expression of Christianity.
Non-Christians tend not to view any Christian Church as a "true
church", or to accept the Apostolic Succession. Non-Catholic
Christians tend not to describe the Catholic Church as the "one
true church", or consider the RCC as the most authentic expression
of Christianity - since they would be Catholics if they did.
Many non-Catholic Christians reject the Apostolic Succession.
> Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian belief
on Bethell's
> part" or what?
>
Not at all. The links were posted to illustrate Bethell's
opposition to ecumenism, with which the articles are shot through.
His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on the
Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles linked
here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic Church
quoted above.
> >
> > (See second link above)
> >
> > > The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of
his
> > > education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered
> > alt.atheists
> > > who went to Catholic school?
> >
> > Not at all - I went to a cathedral school myself.
>
> Now, perhaps I should slightly amend what I wrote about the
links not
> showing Bethell's belief. The text that Bethell wrote has
nothing
> conclusive in it;
Only if you consider that a non-Catholic would both describe the
Catholic Church as the one true church, going back to Jesus Christ
and his apostles, and express the view sthat the Catholic Church
has something special and that it is a good thing for the Catholic
Church to be going beck to reference to conversion of other
nominal Christians, rather than co-operating with them. Both the
description and the views assume Catholic belief on the writer's
part, and a belief that no other Christian Church is truly
Christian.
> more conclusive is the fact that it was published by
> Beliefnet--but all of this tends to distract from the point,
which is the
> fact that you do a very poor job of marshalling evidence in
support of your
> claims.
No, I do a very poor job of working out what claim you are going
to decide I am marshalling the evidence for. The evidence was as
to Bethell's views on ecumenism - his Catholicism was already
clear from the article, and is directly stated in an article
elsewhere on the site.
> I could very happily grant that Bethel is a Christian, a Roman
> Catholic, or even the Pope if you like (as mentioned in a
since-snipped
> portion of my former reply to you); none of which supports your
central
> claim regarding Michael Denton.
>
I disagree. Oh - and my central claim regarding Denton was that
he is not agnostic, and was not (to Dembski's certain knowledge)
at the time Dembksi was describing him as such in the present
tense. Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a Christian)
accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having been
stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't accept the
full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
Tichy
With regard to my question above, your answer would seem to amount to: "He
doesn't."
His
> Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
> description of the Catholic Church as the one true church, going
> back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles, quoted
> below.
Not really. Anybody could make that statement whether Roman Catholic or
not, just as the U.S. courts could rule on which branch of Joseph Smith's
followers was the original and which was the splinter.
>
> His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean, and that
> the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon conversion of
> nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles.
Apparently you're basing that on an erroneous conception of "ecumenicism".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
Try (from
> the first link below):-
>
> "My own feeling is that some such statement from Rome was overdue.
> The church has been so beset by papal apologies, endless
> dialogues, and ecumenical appeals that some of us had begun to
> wonder whether the hierarchy in Rome believed there was anything
> special about the church they governed. It's reassuring to be
> reminded that they do."
>
> See the references "My own feeling...", "...some of *us* had begun
> to wonder...", "It's reassuring to be reminded that they do."?
>
> Go on to:-
>
> "Those groups are "not yet in full communion with the Catholic
> Church," the new Vatican document says, and in 1995 Pope John Paul
> II wrote that ecumenism "is directed precisely to making the
> partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full
> communion." That is a polite way of saying that non-Catholics are
> expected to see the wisdom of Catholicism, not vice versa."
Indeed. Do you not see that the Pope is advocating both the authority of
the Roman church awa favoring ecumenicism? Yet you regard these as
antithetical in Bethell's case, afaics.
>
> and:-
>
> "In the new document, it's good to see that the word "conversion"
> reappears after what seems to have been a lengthy hibernation. St.
> Paul's comment that preaching the gospel of Christ is "a necessity
> . . . woe to me if I do not" is in a prominent place"
>
> and:-
>
> "It is particularly refreshing that the new Vatican document is so
> much at odds with the temper of our times."
>
>
> So; a statement that "Dominus Iesus" interprets ecumenism as means
> of conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism, which is not what
> Protestants see it as; and personal endorsement of the document.
Protestants (generally--I don't presume to speak for all) regard oneness
with the RC church as involving the RCC's repudiation of the authority of
its hierarchy, which is basically full concession to the Protestant (albeit
not Mormon--somehow the LDS got the Protestant label put on them) view that
the church is universal irrespective of hierarchical concerns.
The fact that one group holds one view as opposed to the view of the other
group in no respect means that they do not favor ecumenicism; it simply
means that they differ as to the requirements for unity.
> The latter is setting up his personal beliefs as a measure of the
> document; an the former means he is clearly anti-ecumenism other
> than as a means of getting the Protestants to return to the Roman
> communion - to "see the wisdom of Catholicism".
1) Nonsense. He's not measuring the document by his own beliefs, he's
offering his opinion that it is appropriate for the RCC to stand up for its
claim to authority. I, as a Protestant, could say the same thing about the
RCC. The statement simply portrays Bethell as a proponent of either/or
logic rather than both/and logic.
2) How is it non-ecumenical to want to see one church under the RCC
hierarchy?
Have fun explaining *that* one (I'll continue to laugh at you, naturally).
That, it need
> hardly be said, is not the way that the Protestant churches see
> ecumenism.
Both see ecumenicism as the unification of the church, and that's what
ecumenicism is. The fact that the two sides have differring criteria as to
what is essential for unity accounts for the fact that the ecumenical
movement worked its way into what Francis Schaeffer termed
"co-belligerence".
Why should I "remember" that? He didn't say it, afaics, and you never
demonstrated it.
Look at the title and subtitle of his article. The comments he makes are in
keeping with them.
"Dominus Iesus"
> also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not formally
> Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ, that is
> *not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the Apostolic
> Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of the
> Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
So, Bethell wrote the "Dominus Iesus"? No? Then it is irrelevant to what
he actually believes unless he states so himself. Right?
Btw, what you wrote just above (and the section of the DI that you drew it
from: the latter portion of part III) contradicts your previous claim
regarding the exclusivity of salvation through the RCC. Fact is, the way
you expressed yourself just above is self-stultifying.
That's true on the basis of personal irrelevancy but insofar as it's
relevant (see example of the U.S. court system in the adjudication of
primary and splinter groups) to the outsider, a determination may be made.
Non-Catholic
> Christians tend not to describe the Catholic Church as the "one
> true church", or consider the RCC as the most authentic expression
> of Christianity - since they would be Catholics if they did.
Similarly, the judge who ruled in favor of the Reorganized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints must have been a member of that church (consider
that a fatal counterexample to your claim).
> Many non-Catholic Christians reject the Apostolic Succession.
Correct, and irrelevant.
>
> > Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian belief
> on Bethell's
> > part" or what?
> >
>
> Not at all. The links were posted to illustrate Bethell's
> opposition to ecumenism, with which the articles are shot through.
Incorrect. You have presented nothing which suggests that Bethell opposes
unification of Christendom.
> His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on the
> Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles linked
> here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic Church
> quoted above.
No, it isn't. If he states flatly elsewhere that he's a Roman Catholic,
then it would behoove you to bookmark the page should you be required to
substantiate your claim that he is a RC.
>
> > >
> > > (See second link above)
> > >
> > > > The strongest suggestion is in the Benedictine aspect of
> his
> > > > education. Do you doubt that I could find some numbered
> > > alt.atheists
> > > > who went to Catholic school?
> > >
> > > Not at all - I went to a cathedral school myself.
> >
> > Now, perhaps I should slightly amend what I wrote about the
> links not
> > showing Bethell's belief. The text that Bethell wrote has
> nothing
> > conclusive in it;
>
> Only if you consider that a non-Catholic would both describe the
> Catholic Church as the one true church, going back to Jesus Christ
> and his apostles, and express the view sthat the Catholic Church
> has something special and that it is a good thing for the Catholic
> Church to be going beck to reference to conversion of other
> nominal Christians, rather than co-operating with them.
It need only be pointed out that a non-Catholic *could* do those things.
Luther probably believed in apostolic succession . . . and the DI itself
allows for non-RC Christians sects to be "true" churches.
Both the
> description and the views assume Catholic belief on the writer's
> part, and a belief that no other Christian Church is truly
> Christian.
Incorrect. If you don't understand why, based on what I've already written,
then you may be invincibly ignorant.
>
> > more conclusive is the fact that it was published by
> > Beliefnet--but all of this tends to distract from the point,
> which is the
> > fact that you do a very poor job of marshalling evidence in
> support of your
> > claims.
>
> No, I do a very poor job of working out what claim you are going
> to decide I am marshalling the evidence for. The evidence was as
> to Bethell's views on ecumenism - his Catholicism was already
> clear from the article, and is directly stated in an article
> elsewhere on the site.
Case in point: You failed to provide clear evidence for either claim.
>
> > I could very happily grant that Bethel is a Christian, a Roman
> > Catholic, or even the Pope if you like (as mentioned in a
> since-snipped
> > portion of my former reply to you); none of which supports your
> central
> > claim regarding Michael Denton.
> >
>
> I disagree.
Contradiction's not the same thing as an argument.
;-)
Oh - and my central claim regarding Denton was that
> he is not agnostic, and was not (to Dembski's certain knowledge)
> at the time Dembksi was describing him as such in the present
> tense.
So, you are interpreting Dembski to be claiming that Denton was, at the time
of his speaking, an agnostic *despite* the fact that the context explicitly
favors the view that Denton was an agnostic when he wrote "Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis"?
Thanks for making your position clear and unambiguous. Your position is,
otoh, irresponsible.
Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
> Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a Christian)
> accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having been
> stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't accept the
> full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
>
lol
No other comment necessary. I trust anybody with an inkling concerning
logic to see the fallacy.
<snip>
Robin Levett
Only if you stop my answer before I've finished - and I *do*
continue below (and of course he does express his Catholicism
elsewhere on the Beliefnet site).
>
> > His
> > Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
> > description of the Catholic Church as the one true church,
going
> > back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles,
quoted
> > below.
>
> Not really. Anybody could make that statement whether Roman
Catholic or
> not, just as the U.S. courts could rule on which branch of
Joseph Smith's
> followers was the original and which was the splinter.
No. Ask, for instance, "Dr" Ian Paisley whether the Roman
Catholic Church is the "one true church".
On his site you will find an essay by Robert Lewis Dabney (at
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=dabney), which
includes the following passage:-
"For Presbyterians of all others to discount the perpetual danger
from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that
the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was
essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy
and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community
and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total
extirpation."
For Dabney certainly, the proposition that the RCC is the "one
true church, going back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and
his apostles" is a false one. He holds that there is no
historical link to Christ and the apostles
Indeed, for any Protestant church, it must be false.
Protestantism is based inter alia upon the proposition :-
"That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the
Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs
to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop
and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or
through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have
attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a
lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the
ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show."
(The Smalcald Articles, Article IV;
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/sm
c-02d.html)
Luther holds that the Pope is merely the bishop and pastor of
Rome, and has no primacy above other bishops; from which it
necessarily follows that his church cannot be the *one* true
church. Even if it is "true" - and he describes the Pope as the
Antichrist later in this article, so even this is in question - it
is not uniquely so.
As I comment below, US Courts, so far as I am aware, do not
generally rule on church doctrine, but on corporate status.
> >
> > His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean, and
that
> > the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon conversion of
> > nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles.
>
> Apparently you're basing that on an erroneous conception of
"ecumenicism".
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenical
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
>
That ecumenism is the movement towards Christian unity isn't the
issue; it is the means to that end and the final state that is
relevant.
The hardline RCC view of ecumenism, to which Bethell appears to
subscribe, is that it means the regathering of the Protestant
churches under the authority of the RCC - see the quotes I have
taken from his articles and Dominus Iesu.
The Protestant view of ecumenism is that the RCC cannot claim
authority over them; that unity is to be achieved on the lines set
out by Luther as quoted above - ie by recognition of the
ministries of non-RCC churches as being equally valid as those of
the RCC - the Pope as merely the Bishop of Rome and the RCC as one
among many Christian churches.
The problems that the Church of England has with the RCC view are
reflected in "the Eucharist:sacrament of unity" at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/ccu/england/eucharist.pdf - for
instance:-
"32. A further major stumbling-block is the view, adopted in the
document, of the defectiveness ('lack of validity') of Anglican
orders and consequently of Anglican celebrations of the
Eucharist..."
Ecumenism in the CoE's understanding is reflected in the following
passage from that paper:-
"37. The ecumenical method that has been pursued consistently by
the Church of England and is embodied in the Meissen, Fetter Lane
and Reuilly Agreements (and which has been repeatedly endorsed by
the Lambeth Conferences), is that of seeking full visible unity by
clearly defined and mutually agreed stages. This approach suggests
that various degrees of real communion, grounded in baptism, may
appropriately be expressed by degrees of eucharistic sharing. The
degrees of eucharistic sharing that we have in mind are: first,
mutual eucharistic hospitality; then the participation of
ministers, excluding presidency or concelebration, in each other's
churches' eucharistic services (as provided for in our ecumenical
canons and ecumenical agreements); finally, full
interchangeability of ministries as part of full visible unity."
"Full interchangeability of ministries" requires recognition by
the RCC that its view is not solely authoritative.
The difference between the hardline RCC view and the Protestant
view of ecumenism is profound. Indeed the hardline RCC view
amounts simply to the Protestants renouncing their "Protest" and
accepting its authority. That is not a merger (the Protestant
view) - it is a takeover, and potentially a hostile one at that.
Yes and no. Hardline RCC ecumensim is indistinguishable from
reassertion of the authority of the Roman Church, and in this
passage the Pope, as interpreted by Bethell, is using the word in
this sense. Protestants use the word differently - and the Pope
is not favouring the Protestant version of ecumensim here.
> Yet you regard these as
> antithetical in Bethell's case, afaics.
They are antithetical; unless ecumenism has no more meaning than a
submission of the Protestant churches to the Roman Catholic will.
It means that there is a profound difference between their
understandings of ecumenism. I am using the word throughout in
the Protestant sense.
>
> > The latter is setting up his personal beliefs as a measure of
the
> > document; an the former means he is clearly anti-ecumenism
other
> > than as a means of getting the Protestants to return to the
Roman
> > communion - to "see the wisdom of Catholicism".
>
> 1) Nonsense. He's not measuring the document by his own
beliefs, he's
> offering his opinion that it is appropriate for the RCC to stand
up for its
> claim to authority.
Exactly as I said - his opinion is agin ecumenism (in the
Protestant sense) and hence the RCC should continue to press for
unity on its own terms, requiring the Protestant churches to
return to the RCC communion.
> I, as a Protestant, could say the same thing about the
> RCC.
A Protestant would not honestly hold the opinion that his church
should simply be reabsorbed by the RCC.
> The statement simply portrays Bethell as a proponent of
either/or
> logic rather than both/and logic.
I disagree only with the word "simply". It also portrays Bethell
as a supporter of the "RCC or bust" side of the dichotomy.
> 2) How is it non-ecumenical to want to see one church under the
RCC
> hierarchy?
> Have fun explaining *that* one (I'll continue to laugh at you,
naturally).
>
To an RC - not at all. To a Protestant entirely; Protestants do
not accept that the Pope, or the RCC, are uniquely privileged.
Most of the major denominations accept the RC is a Christian
church, but they do not accept that the Pope is more than the
Bishop of Rome.
> That, it need
> > hardly be said, is not the way that the Protestant churches
see
> > ecumenism.
>
> Both see ecumenicism as the unification of the church, and
that's what
> ecumenicism is. The fact that the two sides have differring
criteria as to
> what is essential for unity accounts for the fact that the
ecumenical
> movement worked its way into what Francis Schaeffer termed
> "co-belligerence".
No argument here. But it seems to me that the fact that the RCC's
insistence that there is soemthign inferior about the Protestant
churches which required return to the RCC to remedy is rather more
causative of that than the Portestant churches insistence that
that was a unhelpful way to approach unity.
Incorrect - reread the passages quoted above in my previous post;
for example:-
""Those groups are "not yet in full communion with the Catholic
Curch," the new Vatican document says, and in 1995 Pope John Paul
II wrote that ecumenism "is directed precisely to making the
partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full
communion." That is a polite way of saying that non-Catholics are
expected to see the wisdom of Catholicism, not vice versa.""
and his reference to being reassured to find (from Dominus Iesus)
that the RCC hierarchy does consider that there is something
special about the RCC.
> Look at the title and subtitle of his article. The comments he
makes are in
> keeping with them.
>
> > "Dominus Iesus"
> > also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not
formally
> > Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ, that is
> > *not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the Apostolic
> > Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of the
> > Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
>
> So, Bethell wrote the "Dominus Iesus"? No? Then it is
irrelevant to what
> he actually believes unless he states so himself. Right?
He clearly states his approval of what DI says.
> Btw, what you wrote just above (and the section of the DI that
you drew it
> from: the latter portion of part III) contradicts your previous
claim
> regarding the exclusivity of salvation through the RCC.
No. As I see it, it is only insofar as the RCC recognises the
validity of the church that the RCC considers that salvation is
"available" through that church.
The US Court system is, so far as I am aware, not called upon to
judge the doctrinal truth of any church, merely its coporate
status. Feel free to provide counterexamples with references.
>
> Non-Catholic
> > Christians tend not to describe the Catholic Church as the
"one
> > true church", or consider the RCC as the most authentic
expression
> > of Christianity - since they would be Catholics if they did.
>
> Similarly, the judge who ruled in favor of the Reorganized
Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-Day Saints must have been a member of that
church (consider
> that a fatal counterexample to your claim).
I correct my claim - I should add "or non-Christian". A
Protestant who views the RCC as the most authentic expression of
Christianity is either in the wrong church or his self-description
is awry..
As to the judgment mentioned - would you provide a reference
please? Was he ruling on doctrinal matters,or corporate status?
>
> > Many non-Catholic Christians reject the Apostolic Succession.
>
> Correct, and irrelevant.
>
> >
> > > Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian
belief
> > on Bethell's
> > > part" or what?
> > >
> >
> > Not at all. The links were posted to illustrate Bethell's
> > opposition to ecumenism, with which the articles are shot
through.
>
> Incorrect. You have presented nothing which suggests that
Bethell opposes
> unification of Christendom.
OK - he opposes any version of ecumenism that invovles anything
other than reassertion of RCC primacy over the Protestant
churches.
>
> > His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on the
> > Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles linked
> > here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic
Church
> > quoted above.
>
> No, it isn't. If he states flatly elsewhere that he's a Roman
Catholic,
> then it would behoove you to bookmark the page should you be
required to
> substantiate your claim that he is a RC.
Already provided in another post; see
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213530E2.
...but did not consider the RCC as the "one true church", and
indeed considered the Pope of his day as the Antichrist - see
references above...
> . . . and the DI itself
> allows for non-RC Christians sects to be "true" churches.
>
...insofar as they are considered by the RCC as accepting the
Apostolic succession.
Oh yes it is...
> Oh - and my central claim regarding Denton was that
> > he is not agnostic, and was not (to Dembski's certain
knowledge)
> > at the time Dembksi was describing him as such in the present
> > tense.
>
> So, you are interpreting Dembski to be claiming that Denton was,
at the time
> of his speaking, an agnostic *despite* the fact that the context
explicitly
> favors the view that Denton was an agnostic when he wrote
"Evolution: A
> Theory in Crisis"?
The context does not explicitly favour that view. The context
favours the view that Denton "is" an agnostic, and therefore "was"
an agnostic when he wrote the book.
> Thanks for making your position clear and unambiguous. Your
position is,
> otoh, irresponsible.
No; Dembski's is.
>
> > Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
> > Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a Christian)
> > accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having
been
> > stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't accept
the
> > full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
> >
>
> lol
> No other comment necessary. I trust anybody with an inkling
concerning
> logic to see the fallacy.
Conclusive argument? No, but I didn't claim that it was. In that
context, explain the fallacy?
Tichy
Your attempt to infer from the text was rendered irrelevant via
counterexample. Did you defeat the counterexample?
>
> >
> > > His
> > > Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
> > > description of the Catholic Church as the one true church,
> going
> > > back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles,
> quoted
> > > below.
> >
> > Not really. Anybody could make that statement whether Roman
> Catholic or
> > not, just as the U.S. courts could rule on which branch of
> Joseph Smith's
> > followers was the original and which was the splinter.
>
> No. Ask, for instance, "Dr" Ian Paisley whether the Roman
> Catholic Church is the "one true church".
You have attacked the counterexample by initial contradiction ("No"), and by
providing an example that does not contradict your claim.
My counterexample remains unscathed, and apparently you do not comprehend
the consequence.
>
> On his site you will find an essay by Robert Lewis Dabney (at
> http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=dabney), which
> includes the following passage:-
>
> "For Presbyterians of all others to discount the perpetual danger
> from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that
> the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was
> essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy
> and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community
> and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total
> extirpation."
>
> For Dabney certainly, the proposition that the RCC is the "one
> true church, going back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and
> his apostles" is a false one. He holds that there is no
> historical link to Christ and the apostles
On the contrary, he appears to believe in a form of "Common Descent" as
regards Christianity and RCatholicism.
You continue to manifest a difficulty in relating your conclusions to the
evidence offered in favor of your conclusions.
>
> Indeed, for any Protestant church, it must be false.
> Protestantism is based inter alia upon the proposition :-
>
> "That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the
> Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs
> to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop
> and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or
> through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have
> attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a
> lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the
> ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show."
>
> (The Smalcald Articles, Article IV;
> http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/sm
> c-02d.html)
You're just wasting space with your citations, and giving yourself
opportunity for additional error. The above describes a fundamental
difference between historically Protestant churches and the RC/LDS on the
issue of ecclesiastical authority. Orthogonal to the issue of origin and
splinter groups unless you happen to decide that one of the groups happens
to be right, along with the doctrine being one necessarily characteristic of
the doctrinally true church through time.
>
> Luther holds that the Pope is merely the bishop and pastor of
> Rome, and has no primacy above other bishops; from which it
> necessarily follows that his church cannot be the *one* true
> church.
Actually, you're slipping into a fallacy of ambiguity here, imo; and I don't
expect that the labor of disabusing you of your deluded notions is anywhere
near the effort. RC and LDS have a particular view of "one true church"
that differs markedly from that of historical Protestants. In Luther,
you're simply demonstrating the absence of the RC/LDS view (that divine
authority is granted to the ecclesiastical hierarchy).
Even if it is "true" - and he describes the Pope as the
> Antichrist later in this article, so even this is in question - it
> is not uniquely so.
Exactly, and this would not at all stop the Roman Church from being
hierarchically original and "true" in that historical sense, which is what
you were supposed to demonstrate (last I checked).
>
> As I comment below, US Courts, so far as I am aware, do not
> generally rule on church doctrine, but on corporate status.
Corporate status stems from the decisions of the hierarchy--which would seem
inseparable from church doctrine in the case of churches who trace their
authority through their historical hierarchical structure.
That should be obvious.
>
> > >
> > > His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean, and
> that
> > > the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon conversion of
> > > nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles.
> >
> > Apparently you're basing that on an erroneous conception of
> "ecumenicism".
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenical
> > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
> >
>
> That ecumenism is the movement towards Christian unity isn't the
> issue; it is the means to that end and the final state that is
> relevant.
lol
Do tell. Explain why certain plans for achieving church unity aren't
*really* ecumenical.
>
> The hardline RCC view of ecumenism, to which Bethell appears to
> subscribe, is that it means the regathering of the Protestant
> churches under the authority of the RCC - see the quotes I have
> taken from his articles and Dominus Iesu.
Yes, and your point? It's not *really* ecumenicism because . . .?
>
> The Protestant view of ecumenism is that the RCC cannot claim
> authority over them; that unity is to be achieved on the lines set
> out by Luther as quoted above - ie by recognition of the
> ministries of non-RCC churches as being equally valid as those of
> the RCC - the Pope as merely the Bishop of Rome and the RCC as one
> among many Christian churches.
Um, yes, and that isn't *really* ecumenicism because . . .?
(yawn)
And not *real* ecumenicism because . . .?
Nonsense, you shameless equivocator. They use the term identically, meaning
the establishment of the visible unity of all Christian believers. And Scot
Brantley sez that Ted Nugent isn't a deer hunter if a bow and arrow are
used.
>
> > Yet you regard these as
> > antithetical in Bethell's case, afaics.
>
> They are antithetical; unless ecumenism has no more meaning than a
> submission of the Protestant churches to the Roman Catholic will.
Ecumenicism is the movement to unify Christians. The fact that there is
more than one suggested means of achieving that end does not make any of the
suggested means non-ecumentical, much less antithetical to the ecumenical
movement.
Baloney. You are blatantly equivocating. Ecumenicism means exactly the
same thing to both groups; they simply offer different means of achieving
the ecumenical goal.
Don't bother posting any more on the topic if you can't come up with a
reasonable approach. It will be snipped should I choose to reply.
>
> >
> > > The latter is setting up his personal beliefs as a measure of
> the
> > > document; an the former means he is clearly anti-ecumenism
> other
> > > than as a means of getting the Protestants to return to the
> Roman
> > > communion - to "see the wisdom of Catholicism".
> >
> > 1) Nonsense. He's not measuring the document by his own
> beliefs, he's
> > offering his opinion that it is appropriate for the RCC to stand
> up for its
> > claim to authority.
>
> Exactly as I said - his opinion is agin ecumenism (in the
> Protestant sense)
Bzzt. More equivocation. He would presumably be against relinquishing of
the Roman church's claim to ecclesiastical authority. That, quite simply,
is not a stand against ecumenicism. You claimed that it was, and you are
wrong. End of story. Get on with your life.
and hence the RCC should continue to press for
> unity on its own terms, requiring the Protestant churches to
> return to the RCC communion.
>
> > I, as a Protestant, could say the same thing about the
> > RCC.
>
> A Protestant would not honestly hold the opinion that his church
> should simply be reabsorbed by the RCC.
Why not (not that I said anything of the kind)?
Is that bagpipes I hear?
>
> > The statement simply portrays Bethell as a proponent of
> either/or
> > logic rather than both/and logic.
>
> I disagree only with the word "simply". It also portrays Bethell
> as a supporter of the "RCC or bust" side of the dichotomy.
Not without additional evidence of his belief, which you had not provided at
the time (you still haven't, really, but to stop you from providing addional
k of nonsense I'll allow that Bethell is the Pope or close enough).
>
> > 2) How is it non-ecumenical to want to see one church under the
> RCC
> > hierarchy?
> > Have fun explaining *that* one (I'll continue to laugh at you,
> naturally).
> >
>
> To an RC - not at all. To a Protestant entirely;
Again, you're equivocating. The fact that most protestants would not accept
an ecumenicism including ultimate papal authority *is* a detriment to the
ecumenical movement to the exact same extent that the RC's insistance on
papal authority, and neither is an anti-ecumenical stance.
<snip more cereal fillers>
>
> > That, it need
> > > hardly be said, is not the way that the Protestant churches
> see
> > > ecumenism.
> >
> > Both see ecumenicism as the unification of the church, and
> that's what
> > ecumenicism is. The fact that the two sides have differring
> criteria as to
> > what is essential for unity accounts for the fact that the
> ecumenical
> > movement worked its way into what Francis Schaeffer termed
> > "co-belligerence".
>
> No argument here. But it seems to me that the fact that the RCC's
> insistence that there is soemthign inferior about the Protestant
> churches which required return to the RCC to remedy is rather more
> causative of that than the Portestant churches insistence that
> that was a unhelpful way to approach unity.
Generally speaking, Protestants regard the claims of the RC and LDS to
ultimate ecclesiastical authority as marks of inferiority, especially in
consideration of their flip-flops in exercise of authority. Both sides
regard the other as inferior, and both see a move toward unity as
potentially a good thing. It's still ecumenicism, whichever view is held.
He's not talking about the same document in the "relevant" quotation below
(from JPII), and "not yet in full communion with the Catholic church" was
nowhere established as being equivalent to lost.
>
> ""Those groups are "not yet in full communion with the Catholic
> Curch," the new Vatican document says, and in 1995 Pope John Paul
> II wrote that ecumenism "is directed precisely to making the
> partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full
> communion." That is a polite way of saying that non-Catholics are
> expected to see the wisdom of Catholicism, not vice versa.""
>
> and his reference to being reassured to find (from Dominus Iesus)
> that the RCC hierarchy does consider that there is something
> special about the RCC.
There's something special about Tina Turner, but that doesn't make her
essential to salvation.
>
>
> > Look at the title and subtitle of his article. The comments he
> makes are in
> > keeping with them.
> >
> > > "Dominus Iesus"
> > > also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not
> formally
> > > Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ, that is
> > > *not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the Apostolic
> > > Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of the
> > > Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
> >
> > So, Bethell wrote the "Dominus Iesus"? No? Then it is
> irrelevant to what
> > he actually believes unless he states so himself. Right?
>
> He clearly states his approval of what DI says.
And someday you'll quote him accurately to that effect?
I wholeheartedly agree that Bethell signals approval of the importance
placed on the historical RC view of the RC with respect to hierarchical
authority; you conclude more than that, and
you omit your evidence, seemingly imagining that the evidence you *do*
present is different than it is.
>
> > Btw, what you wrote just above (and the section of the DI that
> you drew it
> > from: the latter portion of part III) contradicts your previous
> claim
> > regarding the exclusivity of salvation through the RCC.
>
> No. As I see it, it is only insofar as the RCC recognises the
> validity of the church that the RCC considers that salvation is
> "available" through that church.
Aysi is irrelevant if you neglect rationale. As rationale, what you write
immediately above is irrelevant. It is not that other baptisms are
sufficient for salvation *because* the RCC allows it--at least you provide
no evidence in favor of such a view.
You're trying to obscure the example already given, and it won't work.
The "true church" doctrines adhered to by the RCC (and even more so by the
LDS) place line of succession in the hands of the church hierarchy. A court
ruling on that succession is a ruling on the practice of doctrine.
This should be obvious.
>
> >
> > Non-Catholic
> > > Christians tend not to describe the Catholic Church as the
> "one
> > > true church", or consider the RCC as the most authentic
> expression
> > > of Christianity - since they would be Catholics if they did.
> >
> > Similarly, the judge who ruled in favor of the Reorganized
> Church of Jesus
> > Christ of Latter-Day Saints must have been a member of that
> church (consider
> > that a fatal counterexample to your claim).
>
> I correct my claim - I should add "or non-Christian". A
> Protestant who views the RCC as the most authentic expression of
> Christianity is either in the wrong church or his self-description
> is awry.
Thanks for providing your own counterexample ("in the wrong church"), but I
could have provided it myself.
Beyond that, Protestants *could* allow the Roman Catholic Church its
apostolic succession without compromising their Protestantism in the least
*precisely because* they don't place the same importance on apostolic
succession that some sects do.
Those Protestants who *do* place great importance on that issue usually
either join the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.
>
> As to the judgment mentioned - would you provide a reference
> please? Was he ruling on doctrinal matters,or corporate status?
Both.
---
In 1880, an Ohio court declared the CofC to be the legal owner of Joseph
Smith's property, including the Kirkland Temple and the temple lot. During
the 1970s the LDS church initiated suits against the RLDS church, asking the
courts for title to some of its land, personal property, and a change of the
RLDS name. The courts denied their claim of being the original church.
---
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rlds.htm
>
> >
> > > Many non-Catholic Christians reject the Apostolic Succession.
> >
> > Correct, and irrelevant.
> >
> > >
> > > > Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian
> belief
> > > on Bethell's
> > > > part" or what?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not at all. The links were posted to illustrate Bethell's
> > > opposition to ecumenism, with which the articles are shot
> through.
> >
> > Incorrect. You have presented nothing which suggests that
> Bethell opposes
> > unification of Christendom.
>
> OK - he opposes any version of ecumenism that invovles anything
> other than reassertion of RCC primacy over the Protestant
> churches.
You could have conceded the point without making yet another claim that you
will find impossible to support, I would think.
Shall I credit you with hyperbole rather than criticize you for
recklessness?
>
> >
> > > His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on the
> > > Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles linked
> > > here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic
> Church
> > > quoted above.
> >
> > No, it isn't. If he states flatly elsewhere that he's a Roman
> Catholic,
> > then it would behoove you to bookmark the page should you be
> required to
> > substantiate your claim that he is a RC.
>
> Already provided in another post; see
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213530E2.
He admits going to Catholic school (like you), and going to RCC services (as
have I).
Combine the two of us, and we're a Roman Catholic, I guess.
And he quotes non-Catholic C.S. Lewis approvingly. I'm surprised that you
didn't jump all over that, since Bethell is so vehemently anti-ecumenical.
;-)
1) Again, you're failing to note the important distinction between the
Reformed (effectively Protestant) view of the one true church and that of
the Roman Catholics themselves.
2) What Luther thought of the Pope is irrelevant. The reformers considered
themselves Christians while part of the RCC no less than they did afterwards
(generally speaking). The "true church" is simply Christians to a
Protestant, and for most this includes members of the RCC.
>
> > . . . and the DI itself
> > allows for non-RC Christians sects to be "true" churches.
> >
>
> ...insofar as they are considered by the RCC as accepting the
> Apostolic succession.
Insofar as they accept transubstantiation and a few other key doctrines
apart from Apostolic succession, iirc; but feel free to quote the portion
that supports what you say.
No, it's not.
:-)
>
> > Oh - and my central claim regarding Denton was that
> > > he is not agnostic, and was not (to Dembski's certain
> knowledge)
> > > at the time Dembksi was describing him as such in the present
> > > tense.
> >
> > So, you are interpreting Dembski to be claiming that Denton was,
> at the time
> > of his speaking, an agnostic *despite* the fact that the context
> explicitly
> > favors the view that Denton was an agnostic when he wrote
> "Evolution: A
> > Theory in Crisis"?
>
> The context does not explicitly favour that view. The context
> favours the view that Denton "is" an agnostic, and therefore "was"
> an agnostic when he wrote the book.
Baloney. Dembski is plainly making the point that one need not be a
Christian or even believe in god in order to criticize evolution. That's
the context, Chumley. You're trying to pawn off a tunnel-vison "context" as
the real thing. That's the same thing as taking it out-of-context, btw.
>
> > Thanks for making your position clear and unambiguous. Your
> position is,
> > otoh, irresponsible.
>
> No; Dembski's is.
You're the one ignoring Dembski's context and running down more
rabbit-trails than a millipede has legs.
>
> >
> > > Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
> > > Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a Christian)
> > > accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having
> been
> > > stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't accept
> the
> > > full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
> > >
> >
> > lol
> > No other comment necessary. I trust anybody with an inkling
> concerning
> > logic to see the fallacy.
>
> Conclusive argument? No, but I didn't claim that it was. In that
> context, explain the fallacy?
Hasty generalization. Look it up.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
(Bethell thinks that only Roman Catholics are the real Christians, so if he
and Behe talked about Denton believing in "God" without commenting on the
fact that he was a lost non-Catholic (or the like), then Denton is probably
a Christian).
It's almost too much of a non-sequitur to even qualify as hasty
generalization, since you're implicitly equivocating on "belief in God" as
equivalent to Christianity.
Robin Levett
The counterexample has still to be shown to be so. I await a
cite - see well below.
> >
> > >
> > > > His
> > > > Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
> > > > description of the Catholic Church as the one true church,
> > going
> > > > back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles,
> > quoted
> > > > below.
> > >
> > > Not really. Anybody could make that statement whether Roman
> > Catholic or
> > > not, just as the U.S. courts could rule on which branch of
> > Joseph Smith's
> > > followers was the original and which was the splinter.
> >
> > No. Ask, for instance, "Dr" Ian Paisley whether the Roman
> > Catholic Church is the "one true church".
>
> You have attacked the counterexample by initial contradiction
("No"), and by
> providing an example that does not contradict your claim.
It wasn't intended to - it was intended to contradict your claim
that "*Anybody* could make that statement, whether Roman Catholic
or not." (that is, that the RCC is the "one true church").
And it did - Paisley would not make the statement that the RCC was
either the "one" or even a "true" church; so somebody wouldn't
make that claim, therefore the statement that "anybody".... is
refuted.
> My counterexample remains unscathed,
Unestablished, rather.
No. Read again, this time for comprehension. He states that the
original church, the true church, was Presbyterian and Protestant;
that RCCism ("prelacy and popery") was a corruption of that
original ideal state. There is therefore no historical link
between Christ and apostles and the RCC.
> You continue to manifest a difficulty in relating your
conclusions to the
> evidence offered in favor of your conclusions.
You continue to manifest an inability to read for comprehension -
as we shall see further below.
If all churches (of any set greater than one) are equally true,
which is the *one* true church. You continue to ignore the word
"one", when applied exclusively to the RCC..
>
> >
> > Luther holds that the Pope is merely the bishop and pastor of
> > Rome, and has no primacy above other bishops; from which it
> > necessarily follows that his church cannot be the *one* true
> > church.
>
> Actually, you're slipping into a fallacy of ambiguity here, imo;
No - this part of the argument addresses the *one* bit of the term
(as applied exclusively to the RCC) - I deal with the *true* bit
below.
> and I don't
> expect that the labor of disabusing you of your deluded notions
is anywhere
> near the effort. RC and LDS have a particular view of "one true
church"
> that differs markedly from that of historical Protestants.
While the words are a concession of my point - that non-Catholics
do not accept that the RCC is "the *one* *true* church", I've got
a feeling you don't mean them to be...
> In Luther,
> you're simply demonstrating the absence of the RC/LDS view (that
divine
> authority is granted to the ecclesiastical hierarchy).
No; the quote is demonstrating the presence of the Protestant view
that, whether it is a "true church" or not (and many Protestant
sects deny even that) the RCC is not the *one* (sc only) true
church.
>
> Even if it is "true" - and he describes the Pope as the
> > Antichrist later in this article, so even this is in
question - it
> > is not uniquely so.
>
> Exactly, and this would not at all stop the Roman Church from
being
> hierarchically original and "true" in that historical sense,
which is what
> you were supposed to demonstrate (last I checked).
No - I was seeking to demonstrate that someone who describes the
RCC as the "one true church" was likely to be a Catholic, since
Protestants dispute at least the the "one" bit, and non-Christians
wouldn't accept the "true" bit, whatever their view of Christian
unity. And again you have apparently accepted the point, while
not meaning to...
>
> >
> > As I comment below, US Courts, so far as I am aware, do not
> > generally rule on church doctrine, but on corporate status.
>
> Corporate status stems from the decisions of the
hierarchy--which would seem
> inseparable from church doctrine in the case of churches who
trace their
> authority through their historical hierarchical structure.
> That should be obvious.
Non-sequitur. The ruling is still on the corporate status;
insofar as doctrine impinges on the issue, it would be a question
of continuity, not truth, of doctrine. The Protestant attack, at
its extreme in writers like Dabney or Paisley hmself, is that
Popery is a perversion of true doctrine, and that whether or not
there is continuity of succession from the origin of the RCC, that
origin does not commence with Jesus Christ and the apostles - not
if the Popes are a succession of Antichrists, as Paisley believes;
the original church was, in their view, emphatically not RCC, but
was Presbyterian and Protestant - see the Dabney quote above..
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean,
and
> > that
> > > > the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon
conversion of
> > > > nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles.
> > >
> > > Apparently you're basing that on an erroneous conception of
> > "ecumenicism".
> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenical
> > > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
> > >
> >
> > That ecumenism is the movement towards Christian unity isn't
the
> > issue; it is the means to that end and the final state that is
> > relevant.
>
> lol
> Do tell. Explain why certain plans for achieving church unity
aren't
> *really* ecumenical.
>
Explain why Hitler's plans for conquering Europe amounted to a
blueprint for the European Union.
The Protestants see ecumenism as a unity of equals, each
recognising the validity of the other's ministries. The RCC view,
challenged in the CofE paper referred to below, is manifest in the
view that the only way CofE holy orders can be validated is by the
authority of the Pope. They are two different views of unity -
and one is a very different animal from the other.
> >
> > The hardline RCC view of ecumenism, to which Bethell appears
to
> > subscribe, is that it means the regathering of the Protestant
> > churches under the authority of the RCC - see the quotes I
have
> > taken from his articles and Dominus Iesu.
>
> Yes, and your point? It's not *really* ecumenicism because . .
.?
It is annexation rather than partnership.
>
> >
> > The Protestant view of ecumenism is that the RCC cannot claim
> > authority over them; that unity is to be achieved on the lines
set
> > out by Luther as quoted above - ie by recognition of the
> > ministries of non-RCC churches as being equally valid as those
of
> > the RCC - the Pope as merely the Bishop of Rome and the RCC as
one
> > among many Christian churches.
>
> Um, yes, and that isn't *really* ecumenicism because . . .?
>
Seems to me closer to true ecumenism than the RCC view.
Annexation != partnership
He is not favouring the Protestant version of ecumenism, which
requires inter alia mutual recognition of full validity of
ministries (full interchangeability of ministries" in the CofE
phrase).
> And Scot
> Brantley sez that Ted Nugent isn't a deer hunter if a bow and
arrow are
> used.
Who's Scot Brantley - indeed who's Ted Nugent?
>
> >
> > > Yet you regard these as
> > > antithetical in Bethell's case, afaics.
> >
> > They are antithetical; unless ecumenism has no more meaning
than a
> > submission of the Protestant churches to the Roman Catholic
will.
>
> Ecumenicism is the movement to unify Christians. The fact that
there is
> more than one suggested means of achieving that end does not
make any of the
> suggested means non-ecumentical, much less antithetical to the
ecumenical
> movement.
Rubbish; the "means" is important, and if you are truly unable to
see that, you are more one-eyed than I thought at the start.
The means are important - indeed it is the RCC insistence upon
annexation that is the major stumbling block at present. To te
RCC hardline, ecumenism = establishment of full visible unity of a
Roman Catholic Christianity by way of reassertion of papal
authority over the Protestant churches. To the Protestant
ecumenism = establishment of full visible unity of an ecumenical
Christianity by partnership between all Christian churches and
recognition of the validity of one another's ministries. That is
not exactly the same thing.
> Don't bother posting any more on the topic if you can't come up
with a
> reasonable approach. It will be snipped should I choose to
reply.
>
La la la la I'm not listening... (Tichy's fingers in his ears)
> >
> > >
> > > > The latter is setting up his personal beliefs as a measure
of
> > the
> > > > document; an the former means he is clearly anti-ecumenism
> > other
> > > > than as a means of getting the Protestants to return to
the
> > Roman
> > > > communion - to "see the wisdom of Catholicism".
> > >
> > > 1) Nonsense. He's not measuring the document by his own
> > beliefs, he's
> > > offering his opinion that it is appropriate for the RCC to
stand
> > up for its
> > > claim to authority.
> >
> > Exactly as I said - his opinion is agin ecumenism (in the
> > Protestant sense)
>
> Bzzt. More equivocation. He would presumably be against
relinquishing of
> the Roman church's claim to ecclesiastical authority. That,
quite simply,
> is not a stand against ecumenicism. You claimed that it was,
and you are
> wrong. End of story. Get on with your life.
La la la...
>
> and hence the RCC should continue to press for
> > unity on its own terms, requiring the Protestant churches to
> > return to the RCC communion.
> >
> > > I, as a Protestant, could say the same thing about the
> > > RCC.
> >
> > A Protestant would not honestly hold the opinion that his
church
> > should simply be reabsorbed by the RCC.
>
> Why not (not that I said anything of the kind)?
Because a Protestant is a member of a church which believes that
the RCC as it stands is not the prime - the "one true" - church.
> Is that bagpipes I hear?
If you are, they're not coming from this direction.
>
> >
> > > The statement simply portrays Bethell as a proponent of
> > either/or
> > > logic rather than both/and logic.
> >
> > I disagree only with the word "simply". It also portrays
Bethell
> > as a supporter of the "RCC or bust" side of the dichotomy.
>
> Not without additional evidence of his belief, which you had not
provided at
> the time (you still haven't, really, but to stop you from
providing addional
> k of nonsense I'll allow that Bethell is the Pope or close
enough).
>
The article approves of the retreat from dialogue with the
Protestants into reassertion of supreme Papal authority, and sod
the Prods if they don't like it..
> >
> > > 2) How is it non-ecumenical to want to see one church under
the
> > RCC
> > > hierarchy?
> > > Have fun explaining *that* one (I'll continue to laugh at
you,
> > naturally).
> > >
> >
> > To an RC - not at all. To a Protestant entirely;
>
> Again, you're equivocating. The fact that most protestants
would not accept
> an ecumenicism including ultimate papal authority *is* a
detriment to the
> ecumenical movement to the exact same extent that the RC's
insistance on
> papal authority, and neither is an anti-ecumenical stance.
Rubbish. Ecumenism is at root about partnership; the Protestant
stance is one of partnership, the catholic one is about
reassertion of Papal authority.
No. For example, the CofE doesn't challenge the validty of RCC
holy orders; the opposite isn't true. The CofE doesn't consider
the RCC inferior because of its claims of ultimate ecclesiastical
authroity - it regards the claims as arrogant and mistaken, which
is somewhat different.
> especially in
> consideration of their flip-flops in exercise of authority.
Both sides
> regard the other as inferior,
Simply untrue - I'd ask for a cite, but i'd only get the same BS I
got when I asked for a cite below.
Do you want to deal with the rest of the point before I answer?
>
> >
> >
> > > Look at the title and subtitle of his article. The comments
he
> > makes are in
> > > keeping with them.
> > >
> > > > "Dominus Iesus"
> > > > also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not
> > formally
> > > > Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ,
that is
> > > > *not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the
Apostolic
> > > > Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of
the
> > > > Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
> > >
> > > So, Bethell wrote the "Dominus Iesus"? No? Then it is
> > irrelevant to what
> > > he actually believes unless he states so himself. Right?
> >
> > He clearly states his approval of what DI says.
>
> And someday you'll quote him accurately to that effect?
Done - read the article cited, as you accept immediately below.
> I wholeheartedly agree that Bethell signals approval of the
importance
> placed on the historical RC view of the RC with respect to
hierarchical
> authority;
as expressed in DI.
Stiill awaiting cite of the relevant ruling. In any event, this
is a non-sequitur. A ruling on succession where, according to
doctrine, the succession is determined by the heirarchy, is not a
ruling on the truth, but upon the presence, of the doctrine -
insofar as it relates to doctrine at all. My statement was that,
so far as I am aware, US courts don't rule on doctrinal truth.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Non-Catholic
> > > > Christians tend not to describe the Catholic Church as the
> > "one
> > > > true church", or consider the RCC as the most authentic
> > expression
> > > > of Christianity - since they would be Catholics if they
did.
> > >
> > > Similarly, the judge who ruled in favor of the Reorganized
> > Church of Jesus
> > > Christ of Latter-Day Saints must have been a member of that
> > church (consider
> > > that a fatal counterexample to your claim).
> >
> > I correct my claim - I should add "or non-Christian". A
> > Protestant who views the RCC as the most authentic expression
of
> > Christianity is either in the wrong church or his
self-description
> > is awry.
>
> Thanks for providing your own counterexample ("in the wrong
church"), but I
> could have provided it myself.
> Beyond that, Protestants *could* allow the Roman Catholic Church
its
> apostolic succession
...but not its uniqueness (remember the term "one true church" -
you keep ignoring either the uniqueness or the trueness, or both,
depending upon context)...
Not a cite of either judgment referred to. Please cite the
judgments themselves, so I can see what was decided. The page
doesn't show whether the Court considered the truth of the
doctrines. I'll make no further comment on the quality of your
supporting material.
> >
> > >
> > > > Many non-Catholic Christians reject the Apostolic
Succession.
> > >
> > > Correct, and irrelevant.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Do you need to review the meaning of "specific Christian
> > belief
> > > > on Bethell's
> > > > > part" or what?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. The links were posted to illustrate Bethell's
> > > > opposition to ecumenism, with which the articles are shot
> > through.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. You have presented nothing which suggests that
> > Bethell opposes
> > > unification of Christendom.
> >
> > OK - he opposes any version of ecumenism that invovles
anything
> > other than reassertion of RCC primacy over the Protestant
> > churches.
>
> You could have conceded the point without making yet another
claim that you
> will find impossible to support, I would think.
> Shall I credit you with hyperbole rather than criticize you for
> recklessness?
No, just accepting my point would do.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on
the
> > > > Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles
linked
> > > > here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic
> > Church
> > > > quoted above.
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. If he states flatly elsewhere that he's a
Roman
> > Catholic,
> > > then it would behoove you to bookmark the page should you be
> > required to
> > > substantiate your claim that he is a RC.
> >
> > Already provided in another post; see
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213530E2.
>
> He admits going to Catholic school
...and going to Mass weekly...(and see also below)
> (like you),
There's your reading comprehension problem. Where have I said
that?
> and going to RCC services (as
> have I).
> Combine the two of us, and we're a Roman Catholic, I guess.
Unlikely.
Bu if I had spent my childhood going to Mass, then ceased being a
practising Catholic *for 20 years*, nearly 60 years ago, I would
probably be a practising Catholic now, wouldn't I? Simple
arithmetic shows that - as does his reference to the flame of his
faith having never gone out; his feeling that *because he had
never really lost the faith*, he was broadly excused from its
obligations; and to starting to go to Mass again and realising
that that feeling was wrong, that the obligations were required.
If you really want more than that, you could tell me whether
someone who says "But as we know as Catholics, the Holy Spirit
ever guides the church, so all we can do is keep a prayerful,
hopeful watch" is likely to be Catholic?
No; it's my precise point - once you use all three words in the
expression at once.
> 2) What Luther thought of the Pope is irrelevant. The
reformers considered
> themselves Christians while part of the RCC no less than they
did afterwards
> (generally speaking). The "true church" is simply Christians to
a
> Protestant, and for most this includes members of the RCC.
Ignoring the "one" again.
>
> >
> > > . . . and the DI itself
> > > allows for non-RC Christians sects to be "true" churches.
> > >
> >
> > ...insofar as they are considered by the RCC as accepting the
> > Apostolic succession.
>
> Insofar as they accept transubstantiation and a few other key
...explicitly Catholic (I understand the Orthodox don't actually
accept transsubstantiation)...
> doctrines
> apart from Apostolic succession, iirc;
...OK, conceded with the comment above...
> but feel free to quote the portion
> that supports what you say.
>
> >
<snippage - but it is so>
> > > Oh - and my central claim regarding Denton was that
> > > > he is not agnostic, and was not (to Dembski's certain
> > knowledge)
> > > > at the time Dembksi was describing him as such in the
present
> > > > tense.
> > >
> > > So, you are interpreting Dembski to be claiming that Denton
was,
> > at the time
> > > of his speaking, an agnostic *despite* the fact that the
context
> > explicitly
> > > favors the view that Denton was an agnostic when he wrote
> > "Evolution: A
> > > Theory in Crisis"?
> >
> > The context does not explicitly favour that view. The context
> > favours the view that Denton "is" an agnostic, and therefore
"was"
> > an agnostic when he wrote the book.
>
> Baloney. Dembski is plainly making the point that one need not
be a
> Christian or even believe in god in order to criticize
evolution.
A point that is weakened if the supposed "then" agnostic is "now"
a full-fledged Christian - or even a theist of any description.
So the status of Denton's belief at the time of the discussion is
highly relevant, and Dembki misrepresents that status.
> That's
> the context, Chumley. You're trying to pawn off a tunnel-vison
"context" as
> the real thing.
Sorry? *I'm* trying to "pawn off a tunnel vision context"? Try
again, Cholmondely.
> That's the same thing as taking it out-of-context, btw.
>
> >
> > > Thanks for making your position clear and unambiguous. Your
> > position is,
> > > otoh, irresponsible.
> >
> > No; Dembski's is.
>
> You're the one ignoring Dembski's context
No - I'm the one considering the entire context.
> and running down more
> rabbit-trails than a millipede has legs.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
> > > > Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a
Christian)
> > > > accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having
> > been
> > > > stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't
accept
> > the
> > > > full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > lol
> > > No other comment necessary. I trust anybody with an inkling
> > concerning
> > > logic to see the fallacy.
> >
> > Conclusive argument? No, but I didn't claim that it was. In
that
> > context, explain the fallacy?
>
> Hasty generalization. Look it up.
>
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
Done - sample size is irrelevant here.
> (Bethell thinks that only Roman Catholics are the real
Christians, so if he
> and Behe talked about Denton believing in "God" without
commenting on the
> fact that he was a lost non-Catholic (or the like), then Denton
is probably
> a Christian).
Not quite. The argument starts with the proposition that to most
Christians, "God" means the Christian God, or at a stretch,
Yahweh. Behe and Bethell are both Christians, and Bethell at
least is a somewhat conservative one; his writings on Beliefnet
(go and read them yourself, the overall impression is what counts
here) make clear that he isn't one for wishy washy CofE-type
near-agnosticism. At a dinner with those two, someone (Denton)
states that he believes in God. It is likely that that would have
been the subject of more than a chance remark (the degree of
likeleihood affects the strength of the argument, I recognise).
One of those two (Behe) then in a subsequent discussion affirms
that Denton does indeed believe in God - with no qualification.
That probably means that Behe understood from the conversation
that Denton was indeed Christian.
What it certainly does not mean, of course, is that Denton
remained agnostic.
> It's almost too much of a non-sequitur to even qualify as hasty
> generalization, since you're implicitly equivocating on "belief
in God" as
> equivalent to Christianity.
No; I'm distinguishing between belief in God and belief in Vishnu;
I agree that a belief in a god is not the preserve of
Christianity, as even Christians will recognise - but to a
Christian, a statement of a belief in God, without more, is a
statement of acceptance of an explicitly Judaeo-Christian faith.
Tichy
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gG7T9.48580$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
You want court records mailed to you?
:-)
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > His
> > > > > Catholicism, while not directly stated, is implicit in his
> > > > > description of the Catholic Church as the one true church,
> > > going
> > > > > back in an unbroken line to Jesus Christ and his apostles,
> > > quoted
> > > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. Anybody could make that statement whether Roman
> > > Catholic or
> > > > not, just as the U.S. courts could rule on which branch of
> > > Joseph Smith's
> > > > followers was the original and which was the splinter.
> > >
> > > No. Ask, for instance, "Dr" Ian Paisley whether the Roman
> > > Catholic Church is the "one true church".
> >
> > You have attacked the counterexample by initial contradiction
> ("No"), and by
> > providing an example that does not contradict your claim.
>
> It wasn't intended to - it was intended to contradict your claim
> that "*Anybody* could make that statement, whether Roman Catholic
> or not." (that is, that the RCC is the "one true church").
Ahem, my typo aside, that's the very claimt that you failed to establish
with your example. Paisley *could* make the claim (without being RC) you
think he can't via your offer of his opposite claim; he simply doesn't.
You're standing logic on its head.
>
> And it did - Paisley would not make the statement that the RCC was
> either the "one" or even a "true" church; so somebody wouldn't
> make that claim, therefore the statement that "anybody".... is
> refuted.
lol--no, it's not refuted. You have blatantly changed the terms. Paisley
*could* make the claim in question without being a RC, whether he actually
does or not is irrelevant.
You're just flapping your arms. I could make the "one true church" claim of
the RCC myself to provide the counterexample, but you would simply insist
that I must therefore be a Roman Catholic!
>
> > My counterexample remains unscathed,
>
> Unestablished, rather.
In your mind, perhaps.
You mean this:
"and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community and
steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation."?
Corresponds nicely to: "evolutionary change began to speedily work in the
bosom of the pre-human hominid community and steadily wrought its corruption
to the total extirpation of the ancestral race."
And your "reasoned" answer?
"No."
lol
He states that the
> original church, the true church, was Presbyterian and Protestant;
> that RCCism ("prelacy and popery") was a corruption of that
> original ideal state. There is therefore no historical link
> between Christ and apostles and the RCC.
Non sequitur. Look again, Boy Wonder.
Changes in doctrine and ritualism crept in "speedily in that community".
Which community? Did you decide on one subsequent to the first generation,
without support from the text you're quoting?
>
> > You continue to manifest a difficulty in relating your
> conclusions to the
> > evidence offered in favor of your conclusions.
>
> You continue to manifest an inability to read for comprehension -
> as we shall see further below.
That's nice, since you don't have an example above.
:-)
1) Who says that all are equally true? You're engaged in more ambiguity of
terminology. "Church" literally means "assembly" in NT terms, and that
sense is preserved in the typical Protestant understanding. Those sects
which hold to a special notion of ecclesiastical authority have a different
view of what the "church" is.
2) No, I'm not ignoring the word "one" with respect to anything. I'm
simply clearing up, as possible, your errors of ambiguity.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Luther holds that the Pope is merely the bishop and pastor of
> > > Rome, and has no primacy above other bishops; from which it
> > > necessarily follows that his church cannot be the *one* true
> > > church.
> >
> > Actually, you're slipping into a fallacy of ambiguity here, imo;
>
> No - this part of the argument addresses the *one* bit of the term
> (as applied exclusively to the RCC)
The "one" bit with respect to the RCC is a non-issue with respect to
Protestants (save Mormons, who shouldn't count as Protestants anyway).
- I deal with the *true* bit
> below.
Yeah, we'll see.
>
> > and I don't
> > expect that the labor of disabusing you of your deluded notions
> is anywhere
> > near the effort. RC and LDS have a particular view of "one true
> church"
> > that differs markedly from that of historical Protestants.
>
> While the words are a concession of my point - that non-Catholics
> do not accept that the RCC is "the *one* *true* church", I've got
> a feeling you don't mean them to be...
It's not a concession of your point at all. Since Protestants typically
have a different conception of "one true church" they typically regard the
RCC as *part* of the one true church but *apart* from its ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
Seemingly you don't get it, which may account for a cognitive dissonance
leading to your taking my statements as a concession.
>
> > In Luther,
> > you're simply demonstrating the absence of the RC/LDS view (that
> divine
> > authority is granted to the ecclesiastical hierarchy).
>
> No; the quote is demonstrating the presence of the Protestant view
> that, whether it is a "true church" or not (and many Protestant
> sects deny even that) the RCC is not the *one* (sc only) true
> church.
The RCC itself doesn't claim to the the "only" true church according to the
document you cited elsewhere.
Apparently you mean to say that "one true church" in this context in fact
means acceptance of the absolute ecclesiastical authority of the RCC.
IIRC, the RCC doesn't place itself above entirely above error, either.
>
> >
> > Even if it is "true" - and he describes the Pope as the
> > > Antichrist later in this article, so even this is in
> question - it
> > > is not uniquely so.
> >
> > Exactly, and this would not at all stop the Roman Church from
> being
> > hierarchically original and "true" in that historical sense,
> which is what
> > you were supposed to demonstrate (last I checked).
>
> No - I was seeking to demonstrate that someone who describes the
> RCC as the "one true church" was likely to be a Catholic, since
> Protestants dispute at least the the "one" bit, and non-Christians
> wouldn't accept the "true" bit, whatever their view of Christian
> unity. And again you have apparently accepted the point, while
> not meaning to...
What I have demonstrated, I think, is that the Protestant will tend to have
a sufficiently different view of what is meant by "one true church" such
that such a description of the RCC is entirely possible (apostolic
succession) from the Protestant pov. You wish to add in the distinctive
view of ecclesiastical authority to the term, hence the ambiguity (which you
continue to deny, afaics).
>
> >
> > >
> > > As I comment below, US Courts, so far as I am aware, do not
> > > generally rule on church doctrine, but on corporate status.
> >
> > Corporate status stems from the decisions of the
> hierarchy--which would seem
> > inseparable from church doctrine in the case of churches who
> trace their
> > authority through their historical hierarchical structure.
> > That should be obvious.
>
> Non-sequitur. The ruling is still on the corporate status;
> insofar as doctrine impinges on the issue, it would be a question
> of continuity, not truth, of doctrine.
Where continuity (apostolic succession) is doctrine, the overlap is both
inevitable and obvious--unless you *reeeeeeeelly* squeeze your eyes shut
very tightly.
The Protestant attack, at
> its extreme in writers like Dabney or Paisley hmself, is that
> Popery is a perversion of true doctrine, and that whether or not
> there is continuity of succession from the origin of the RCC, that
> origin does not commence with Jesus Christ and the apostles - not
> if the Popes are a succession of Antichrists, as Paisley believes;
> the original church was, in their view, emphatically not RCC, but
> was Presbyterian and Protestant - see the Dabney quote above..
As noted before, Paisley and Dabney are not *prevented* in their
Protestantism from regarding the RCC as a true church, they simply do not do
so. You're mistaking example for counterexample, afaics. Your example has
no logical function in the debate.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > His personal belief, that ecumenism isn't worth a bean,
> and
> > > that
> > > > > the Catholic Church should be concentrating upon
> conversion of
> > > > > nominal Christians, is clearly stated in the articles.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently you're basing that on an erroneous conception of
> > > "ecumenicism".
> > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenical
> > > > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > > That ecumenism is the movement towards Christian unity isn't
> the
> > > issue; it is the means to that end and the final state that is
> > > relevant.
> >
> > lol
> > Do tell. Explain why certain plans for achieving church unity
> aren't
> > *really* ecumenical.
> >
>
> Explain why Hitler's plans for conquering Europe amounted to a
> blueprint for the European Union.
Red herring (with a subtext of shifting the BoP).
Hitler did unify most of Europe (albeit he didn't achieve a peacetime
state). Shifting your evasion to another topic won't help.
>
> The Protestants see ecumenism as a unity of equals, each
> recognising the validity of the other's ministries.
Citation? If the mainline denominations who got the ball rolling on the
ecumenical movement saw no other denomination as better or worse than
another, then why don't they unify themselves under one ecclesiastical
hierarchy instead of seeking unity with Rome?
The RCC view,
> challenged in the CofE paper referred to below, is manifest in the
> view that the only way CofE holy orders can be validated is by the
> authority of the Pope. They are two different views of unity -
> and one is a very different animal from the other.
You are indeed a dogged equivicator. The views of unity itself are the
same. The results of the different schemes as to how unity ought to be
achieved differ.
You're stretched the definition of ecumenicism enough so that neither side
of the ecumenical movement is interested in unity. How's that for irony?
>
> > >
> > > The hardline RCC view of ecumenism, to which Bethell appears
> to
> > > subscribe, is that it means the regathering of the Protestant
> > > churches under the authority of the RCC - see the quotes I
> have
> > > taken from his articles and Dominus Iesu.
> >
> > Yes, and your point? It's not *really* ecumenicism because . .
> .?
>
> It is annexation rather than partnership.
So, annexation is not a viable means of attaining unity? That's what you're
flatly claiming, and it would appear to be flatly incorrect. When the
unincorporated portions of my county are annexed by a city, they are unified
with the city. The fact that the city now exercises governmental authority
over that former bit of the county does not mean that unity hasn't been
achieved.
Should I brace myself for another round of your equivocation?
>
> >
> > >
> > > The Protestant view of ecumenism is that the RCC cannot claim
> > > authority over them; that unity is to be achieved on the lines
> set
> > > out by Luther as quoted above - ie by recognition of the
> > > ministries of non-RCC churches as being equally valid as those
> of
> > > the RCC - the Pope as merely the Bishop of Rome and the RCC as
> one
> > > among many Christian churches.
> >
> > Um, yes, and that isn't *really* ecumenicism because . . .?
> >
>
> Seems to me closer to true ecumenism than the RCC view.
<cue sound of bagpipes>
How do you figure? Is the RCC *forcing* the Protestants to accept RCC
ecclesiastical authority against their will? In the RCC view, if the
Protestants want unity, that's what it will take. How is it *not* a
partnership if the Protestants simply say "Howdy, partner! We'll do it your
way."?
We've got the bagpipers ready to go again, btw.
So what? The Protestant view of ecumenicism is "true" ecumenicism?
(bagpipes still at ready)
>
> > And Scot
> > Brantley sez that Ted Nugent isn't a deer hunter if a bow and
> arrow are
> > used.
>
> Who's Scot Brantley - indeed who's Ted Nugent?
Miss the point, much?
(Who's Ted Nugent?!?!? You *must* be a moron.
;-)
)
http://www.tednugent.com/
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Yet you regard these as
> > > > antithetical in Bethell's case, afaics.
> > >
> > > They are antithetical; unless ecumenism has no more meaning
> than a
> > > submission of the Protestant churches to the Roman Catholic
> will.
> >
> > Ecumenicism is the movement to unify Christians. The fact that
> there is
> > more than one suggested means of achieving that end does not
> make any of the
> > suggested means non-ecumentical, much less antithetical to the
> ecumenical
> > movement.
>
> Rubbish; the "means" is important, and if you are truly unable to
> see that, you are more one-eyed than I thought at the start.
Red herring. Of course the means is important, but any means of achieving
unity is ecumenical, particularly in consideration of our particular
context.
Dodge, shimmy, shake.
lol--you *sure* that it isn't the impertinent request that the RCC give up
its distinctive claim of ecclesiastical authority that is the main
stumbling-block?
To te
> RCC hardline, ecumenism = establishment of full visible unity of a
> Roman Catholic Christianity by way of reassertion of papal
> authority over the Protestant churches. To the Protestant
> ecumenism = establishment of full visible unity of an ecumenical
> Christianity by partnership between all Christian churches and
> recognition of the validity of one another's ministries. That is
> not exactly the same thing.
(yawn)
Indeed, the *plans* for achieving unity differ. You're just doing yet more
dancing around the fact that both plans are fundamentally ecumenical.
>
> > Don't bother posting any more on the topic if you can't come up
> with a
> > reasonable approach. It will be snipped should I choose to
> reply.
> >
>
> La la la la I'm not listening... (Tichy's fingers in his ears)
No fingers in my ears, you're just posting the same crap over and over.
It's argument by repetition, and it's a waste of bandwidth.
<snip Robin's non-response in the same vein>
> >
> > and hence the RCC should continue to press for
> > > unity on its own terms, requiring the Protestant churches to
> > > return to the RCC communion.
> > >
> > > > I, as a Protestant, could say the same thing about the
> > > > RCC.
> > >
> > > A Protestant would not honestly hold the opinion that his
> church
> > > should simply be reabsorbed by the RCC.
> >
> > Why not (not that I said anything of the kind)?
>
> Because a Protestant is a member of a church which believes that
> the RCC as it stands is not the prime - the "one true" - church.
Oh, and all members of churches subscribe fully to the set of doctrines
described by their denomination or local church? Do tell.
>
> > Is that bagpipes I hear?
>
> If you are, they're not coming from this direction.
See above, where a member of a Protestant church isn't a "true" Protestant
if they think that the RCC is the one true church. Now, he's not a member
of the RCC, so--what is he?
(cue bagpipe crescendo)
<snip some older stuff followed by a redundant comment from Robin>
> > >
> > > > 2) How is it non-ecumenical to want to see one church under
> the
> > > RCC
> > > > hierarchy?
> > > > Have fun explaining *that* one (I'll continue to laugh at
> you,
> > > naturally).
> > > >
> > >
> > > To an RC - not at all. To a Protestant entirely;
> >
> > Again, you're equivocating. The fact that most protestants
> would not accept
> > an ecumenicism including ultimate papal authority *is* a
> detriment to the
> > ecumenical movement to the exact same extent that the RC's
> insistance on
> > papal authority, and neither is an anti-ecumenical stance.
>
> Rubbish. Ecumenism is at root about partnership;
The RCC and Protestant denominations are involved in quite a bit of
cooperation (and co-belligerence), iirc. The only relevance of the papal
authority issue in with respect to ultimate unity, afaics.
the Protestant
> stance is one of partnership, the catholic one is about
> reassertion of Papal authority.
That's with respect to ultimate unity, is it not? Note how you tried to
cloud the issue, above.
Could be. You just tell me what you meant by "soemthign (sic) inferior"
above, and we'll check for a match.
>
> > especially in
> > consideration of their flip-flops in exercise of authority.
> Both sides
> > regard the other as inferior,
>
> Simply untrue - I'd ask for a cite, but i'd only get the same BS I
> got when I asked for a cite below.
Been talking to Madame Cleo, have you? When you figure out how the RCC
regards Protestant churches with respect to ecclesiastic issues ("soemthign
(sic) inferior") and post it, your goose is as good as cooked.
Gave up on that one, eh?
> >
> > >
> > > ""Those groups are "not yet in full communion with the
> Catholic
> > > Curch," the new Vatican document says, and in 1995 Pope John
> Paul
> > > II wrote that ecumenism "is directed precisely to making the
> > > partial communion existing between Christians grow towards
> full
> > > communion." That is a polite way of saying that non-Catholics
> are
> > > expected to see the wisdom of Catholicism, not vice versa.""
> > >
> > > and his reference to being reassured to find (from Dominus
> Iesus)
> > > that the RCC hierarchy does consider that there is something
> > > special about the RCC.
> >
> > There's something special about Tina Turner, but that doesn't
> make her
> > essential to salvation.
>
> Do you want to deal with the rest of the point before I answer?
No, because you don't have a point. Answer away.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Look at the title and subtitle of his article. The comments
> he
> > > makes are in
> > > > keeping with them.
> > > >
> > > > > "Dominus Iesus"
> > > > > also re-emphasises that while some chruches albeit not
> > > formally
> > > > > Catholic may still be members of the Church of Christ,
> that is
> > > > > *not* universal - for example, non-acceptance of the
> Apostolic
> > > > > Succession disqualifies any church from being a member of
> the
> > > > > Church of Christ constituted by the Catholic Church.
> > > >
> > > > So, Bethell wrote the "Dominus Iesus"? No? Then it is
> > > irrelevant to what
> > > > he actually believes unless he states so himself. Right?
> > >
> > > He clearly states his approval of what DI says.
> >
> > And someday you'll quote him accurately to that effect?
>
> Done - read the article cited, as you accept immediately below.
Nah, you're equivocating again.
>
> > I wholeheartedly agree that Bethell signals approval of the
> importance
> > placed on the historical RC view of the RC with respect to
> hierarchical
> > authority;
>
> as expressed in DI.
Did *he* say that, or did he need your help?
lol
>
> > you conclude more than that, and
> > you omit your evidence, seemingly imagining that the evidence
> you *do*
> > present is different than it is.
And in that, you persist.
> >
> > >
> > > > Btw, what you wrote just above (and the section of the DI
> that
> > > you drew it
> > > > from: the latter portion of part III) contradicts your
> previous
> > > claim
> > > > regarding the exclusivity of salvation through the RCC.
> > >
> > > No. As I see it, it is only insofar as the RCC recognises the
> > > validity of the church that the RCC considers that salvation
> is
> > > "available" through that church.
> >
> > Aysi is irrelevant if you neglect rationale. As rationale, what
> you write
> > immediately above is irrelevant. It is not that other baptisms
> are
> > sufficient for salvation *because* the RCC allows it--at least
> you provide
> > no evidence in favor of such a view.
And apparently none is forthcoming.
If you're not going to answer, please clip the portions of the text that you
won't be dealing with (preferably with an notation of the edit), to save
bandwidth.
That's a nice bit of word salad. Five commas in one sentence of 37 words?
Tell us what it's supposed to mean?
My statement was that,
> so far as I am aware, US courts don't rule on doctrinal truth.
Yes, and my statement was that
---
The "true church" doctrines adhered to by the RCC (and even more
> so by the
> > LDS) place line of succession in the hands of the church
> hierarchy. A court
> > ruling on that succession is a ruling on the practice of
> doctrine.
> > This should be obvious.
---
I'm ignoring the distinct authority of its ecclesiastical authority, if
that's what you mean, but "one true church" doesn't inevitably carry that
idea (hence the ambiguity that you persistently deny). You had earlier
focused on apostolic succession, and in terms of hierarchy that would be
leaning heavily toward the "unique" side.
No, thanks. You have enough information to see that my counterexample is
legitimate, unless you've got a problem with a citation from the religious
tolerance folks. If that's your problem speak up, otherwise deal with the
issue as is and stop sandbagging.
The page
> doesn't show whether the Court considered the truth of the
> doctrines.
Where legitimate succession of power is fundamental to a doctrine, a court
ruling on succession of power impacts doctrine directly. It's true in
principle even if you never see the court documents.
You're sandbagging.
Sorry, Boy Wonder, you'll just have to stick with being criticized for your
recklessness.
Support your claim above.
lol
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > His Catholicism is directly stated in another article on
> the
> > > > > Beliefnet site; it is clear, however, from the articles
> linked
> > > > > here, from, for instance, his description of the Catholic
> > > Church
> > > > > quoted above.
> > > >
> > > > No, it isn't. If he states flatly elsewhere that he's a
> Roman
> > > Catholic,
> > > > then it would behoove you to bookmark the page should you be
> > > required to
> > > > substantiate your claim that he is a RC.
> > >
> > > Already provided in another post; see
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213530E2.
> >
> > He admits going to Catholic school
>
> ...and going to Mass weekly...(and see also below)
I didn't know whether or not you went to Mass weekly, so that didn't belong
in my sentence. Were you the one who was all sensitive about being
interrupted? Yeah, I thought so.
lol
>
> > (like you),
>
> There's your reading comprehension problem. Where have I said
> that?
I'm not going to look it up, since it's not important to the point. I
recalled someone (you, iirc) admitting that not a few atheists went to
Catholic school and mentioning something along the lines of having attended,
himself. If you never went to Catholic school, then my apologies.
Oh, well, I stumbled across it:
"I went to a cathedral school myself."
Could be a Breatharian cathredral, for all I know.
>
> > and going to RCC services (as
> > have I).
> > Combine the two of us, and we're a Roman Catholic, I guess.
>
> Unlikely.
Exactly.
That's how you build a counterexample.
>
> Bu if I had spent my childhood going to Mass, then ceased being a
> practising Catholic *for 20 years*, nearly 60 years ago, I would
> probably be a practising Catholic now, wouldn't I?
No. How do you figure? Just assume that if he doesn't say that he stopped
being a practicing Catholic again that he *is* a practicing Catholic?
Simple
> arithmetic shows that - as does his reference to the flame of his
> faith having never gone out; his feeling that *because he had
> never really lost the faith*, he was broadly excused from its
> obligations; and to starting to go to Mass again and realising
> that that feeling was wrong, that the obligations were required.
And, what faith is he referring to?
>
> If you really want more than that, you could tell me whether
> someone who says "But as we know as Catholics, the Holy Spirit
> ever guides the church, so all we can do is keep a prayerful,
> hopeful watch" is likely to be Catholic?
I think that such a statement *would* be probabilistically indicative of
Roman Catholicism, actually. Where's the quotation from?
If you check what I wrote, you didn't need proof of Bethell's catholicism
except maybe to prove you could do it (see Bethell could be the Pope or
words to that effect). You've finally passed with a "C" grade.
>
> > And he quotes non-Catholic C.S. Lewis approvingly. I'm
> surprised that you
> > didn't jump all over that, since Bethell is so vehemently
> anti-ecumenical.
> > ;-)
nyok nyok nyok
The point is that using all three words in the expression at once doesn't
typically carry the RCC connotations (ecclesiastical authority) unless
you're a Roman Catholic (or LDS). As proof of a person's affiliation with
the RCC it effectively begs the question.
>
> > 2) What Luther thought of the Pope is irrelevant. The
> reformers considered
> > themselves Christians while part of the RCC no less than they
> did afterwards
> > (generally speaking). The "true church" is simply Christians to
> a
> > Protestant, and for most this includes members of the RCC.
>
> Ignoring the "one" again.
Not at all, simply pointing out that "one" in Protestant thinking is outside
of denominational boundaries, unlike the view held by the RCC and the LDS.
I'm satisfied that you have a remarkable barrier against understanding that
point, however.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > . . . and the DI itself
> > > > allows for non-RC Christians sects to be "true" churches.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...insofar as they are considered by the RCC as accepting the
> > > Apostolic succession.
> >
> > Insofar as they accept transubstantiation and a few other key
>
> ...explicitly Catholic (I understand the Orthodox don't actually
> accept transsubstantiation)...
The RCC didn't either, officially, prior to the Middle Ages.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/transub.htm
Anyway, perhaps I erred in referring to transubstatiation, since the
document you originally referred to simply mentions "valid" eucharist.
>
> > doctrines
> > apart from Apostolic succession, iirc;
>
> ...OK, conceded with the comment above...
>
> > but feel free to quote the portion
> > that supports what you say.
> >
> > >
>
> <snippage - but it is so>
What is so?
8-)
Why would that weaken the point any, if at all?
> So the status of Denton's belief at the time of the discussion is
> highly relevant, and Dembki misrepresents that status.
1) No, it isn't highly relevant, nor relevant *at all* (pending your
rationale, which is doomed imo).
2) As noted immediately above, Dembski's claim regarding Denton's beliefs
when considered in context should restrict the understanding of that claim
specifically to the time when the book (EaTIC) was authored. Nice job of
skipping right over that point.
>
> > That's
> > the context, Chumley. You're trying to pawn off a tunnel-vison
> "context" as
> > the real thing.
>
> Sorry? *I'm* trying to "pawn off a tunnel vision context"? Try
> again, Cholmondely.
Work it out. Do you know what "tunnel-vision" is? Do you know what
"context" is? If so, you're well on your way.
>
> > That's the same thing as taking it out-of-context, btw.
lol--you tell me to "try again" when the translation is right below (above).
> >
> > >
> > > > Thanks for making your position clear and unambiguous. Your
> > > position is,
> > > > otoh, irresponsible.
> > >
> > > No; Dembski's is.
> >
> > You're the one ignoring Dembski's context
>
> No - I'm the one considering the entire context.
Belied by your actions.
>
> > and running down more
> > rabbit-trails than a millipede has legs.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Separately, I would also argue that he is clearly a
> > > > > Christian; the argument being that Behe (himself a
> Christian)
> > > > > accepted his claim to believe in "God", that belief having
> > > been
> > > > > stated at a dinner with Bethell (a catholic who doesn't
> accept
> > > the
> > > > > full Christianity of non-Catholic Christians) and himself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > lol
> > > > No other comment necessary. I trust anybody with an inkling
> > > concerning
> > > > logic to see the fallacy.
> > >
> > > Conclusive argument? No, but I didn't claim that it was. In
> that
> > > context, explain the fallacy?
> >
> > Hasty generalization. Look it up.
> >
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
>
> Done - sample size is irrelevant here.
Oh, really? Did you assert that a conversation between two Catholics who
mentioned a "theist" should be expected to have meant "Christian" in the
absence of additional comment? If your assertion wasn't based on an
undocumented sampling, then what *was* it based on (I'll gladly credit you
with argument by assertion instead of hasty generalization if you have no
evidence--rather than too little--in support of your rule of thumb).
>
> > (Bethell thinks that only Roman Catholics are the real
> Christians, so if he
> > and Behe talked about Denton believing in "God" without
> commenting on the
> > fact that he was a lost non-Catholic (or the like), then Denton
> is probably
> > a Christian).
>
> Not quite. The argument starts with the proposition that to most
> Christians, "God" means the Christian God, or at a stretch,
> Yahweh.
Thus you ignore the context of cosmology and origins, where most doctrinal
distinctions regarding the personal first cause are customarily laid aside.
Behe and Bethell are both Christians, and Bethell at
> least is a somewhat conservative one; his writings on Beliefnet
> (go and read them yourself, the overall impression is what counts
> here) make clear that he isn't one for wishy washy CofE-type
> near-agnosticism. At a dinner with those two, someone (Denton)
> states that he believes in God.
Enough. Look at the context of the article from which you drew that
comment, for cryin' out loud. Behe was *there* and he says:
"Maybe I'm reading things into the book, but I certainly got the strong
sense--perhaps Denton didn't state this explicitly, but he does so
implicitly--that he was arguing for the relevant choices being made by an
intelligence."
and he said
"So it seems pretty clear to me that Denton in fact sees the evidence for
design as pointing, ultimately, to a transcendent intelligence."
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm
If there was reason to make a stronger conclusion regarding Denton's beliefs
as a result of the dinner conversation, then Behe is in a good position to
shed light on it. Despite the fact that Behe's report is guarded (markedly
so), Robin jumps to conclusions fast enough to accuse Dembski of lying.
It is likely that that would have
> been the subject of more than a chance remark (the degree of
> likeleihood affects the strength of the argument, I recognise).
If it were more than a chance remark, then Behe would be in a position to
say something about it, and you'll need to come up with some rationale as to
why Behe would hide the fact that he knows Denton is a Christian for
purposes of the roundtable discussion.
> One of those two (Behe) then in a subsequent discussion affirms
> that Denton does indeed believe in God - with no qualification.
You are factually inaccurate. Behe reported that *Denton* stated that he
believes in (G)od; and the remark is qualified by its context. It's not a
theological doctrine they're discussing; rather, they're discussing the
early form of Denton's newer book, which (as Behe noted) was titled _An
Essay in Natural Theology_ despite a conspicuous lack of god-talk
..
> That probably means that Behe understood from the conversation
> that Denton was indeed Christian.
Just like it probably means that Bethell really is the Pope.
>
> What it certainly does not mean, of course, is that Denton
> remained agnostic.
Actually, there is a breadth of meaning to the word, so that uncertainty
about either the existence or nature of god is rightly termed agnosticism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism
Only if the early reports of Denton's agnosticism refer to a fundamental
doubt concerning the existence of God is a change in philosophy on Denton's
part indicated. I happen to think that this is likely, but it is purely
irrelevant to what Dembski wrote, if I'm correct in my opinion.
>
> > It's almost too much of a non-sequitur to even qualify as hasty
> > generalization, since you're implicitly equivocating on "belief
> in God" as
> > equivalent to Christianity.
>
> No; I'm distinguishing between belief in God and belief in Vishnu;
> I agree that a belief in a god is not the preserve of
> Christianity, as even Christians will recognise - but to a
> Christian, a statement of a belief in God, without more, is a
> statement of acceptance of an explicitly Judaeo-Christian faith.
You're attaching importance to the capitalization of something reported
secondhand at the dinner table? That is inadvisable, and even so the
capitalized English "God" only generally (and decreasingly) refers
exclusively to Yhwh (or Allah).