Biola to Feature Leading Christian Apologist, 'Godfather' of Intelligent Design

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Biola University will conclude its centennial year Friday with a fall commencement that will feature renowned apologist Lee Strobel and the “godfather” of the Intelligent Design movement, retired UC Berkeley professor Philip E. Johnson.

According to the La Miranda, Calif.-based biblical institution, Strobel will serve as the keynote speaker while Johnson will be awarded with an Honorary Doctor of Laws for distinction in public service.

“Strobel’s like-mindedness to Biola’s mission of impacting the world made him an excellent choice as the keynote speaker for this fall’s commencement,” expressed the university in a statement Wednesday.

Once an atheist, Strobel is today one of the evangelical community’s most popular apologists as well as a New York Times best-selling author of nearly 20 award-winning books. His ministry experience has included serving as a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., and at Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif.

“Strobel encourages Christians to be culturally relevant,” Biola noted.

Johnson, meanwhile, is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

The idea of intelligent design, which critics view as a variation of creationism, has led to heated debates, a number of court battles, and the dismissal of several highly respected professors. It was also a key part in the highly successful documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which featured actor Ben Stein.

According to Biola, Johnson will be awarded for having “a clear evangelical Christian testimony” and having demonstrated “significant service and achievement over an extended period of time, which is national or international in nature” and is relevant to the mission of the university.

Johnson will be awarded the honor at the undergraduate commencement ceremony, which will begin at 7 p.m. PT.

Starting from 2 p.m., Biola University President Barry H. Corey will confer degrees upon 121 graduate students, and 95 students who completed Biola’s adult-degree-learning program, BOLD. At the 7 p.m. ceremony, 196 undergraduates will be conferred degrees.

Next Story : Many Americans Say Christianity Not the Only Way to Eternal Life

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3

KennethLawrence »

Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agentorganex, viking, I didn't expect accolades for my book from believers in evolution, be they Christian or not. But I do suggest reading the whole book before judging it. For example, I do cover archeopteryx in the book, as you would know if you had read it all. Not that I expect it to change your minds (the evolution delusion is a very hard one to break because it is so culturally ingrained in our time), but reading it all would give you both a less delusional perspective on the subject, as well as helping you to not write misinformative comments on it. Not that I expect that to change in any case, at least not in the short term. But I will be praying. KL :)
viking »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Ken lawrence, I have had the opportunity to preview your book unfortunately before even getting to your discussion of the issues of evolution I find that your discussions of "paradigms" "cosmology" and "einstein" display a tendency to hyperbole, fuzzy thinking, and a willingness to misrepresent either intentionally or through lack of information many factual issues. You were right about one thing Einstein did reject the big bang. Not because of the issue of evidence he admitted that the evidence fit the theory he just could not accept it. So to make the math fit the evidence he invented a "cosmological constant" for which he had no evidence in order to make his equations work with the evidence at hand. Just because someone is brilliant in one case (and that is somewhat more legend than fact when you check out the fact that his first wife whom he abandoned probably contributed significantly to his initial breakthrough physics)doesn't mean they get everything right. Interestingly it you checked you would find that the big bang was first postulated by a person of faith as an alternative to the "Godless" steady state theories. While you admit to not being a scientist even a layperson with a general familiarity with the history of science and the topics you address would not make the basic errors in statements that you made completely aside from the issues of evolution. Fortunately for you due to the validity of the P.T. Barnum paradigm you must be doing quite well in book sales.
viking »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agentorangex, thanks for the link re lawrence's book. regarding your recent post when you state.
"You can't handle the notion of a god creating the natural laws and devising them to bring forth life. "
This statement implies that you can "handle" this notion as a possibility. So to explode the possibility that this is a straw dog argument let me ask you are you saying that you accept this possibility and acknowledge that there is nothing in science which argues against the existence of such a creator. This is a sincere question.
agentorangex »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Wow, really, really bad. Pg 124,

"did huamn evolution proceed in straight line, or was it more like a branching tree, with some dead ends?"

This coming from a guy who said he understood evolution is strange. The notion of 'descent w/ modification' implies not a ladder or step by step fashion. But a series of levels of speciation events in time, further widening the relationships between ancestral & descendant species. Or, you could have just looked at 'Origns' for the only picture of a branching tree diagram. Just Saying. Even the overly simplified 'tree' isn't the best accurate representation, it would be more like a heavily bushy tree. 'dead ends' are also implicit to evolution, as the 'fittest' are deemed as such relative the rivals they compete with for resources, & as such, the less relatively fit ones go extinct.

"When, how, & why did humans become bipedal?"

Seriously? A. Afarnesis would be a good starting point, some 3.5 MYA. Other much earlier ones suggest it could've been even further back, some 6 MYA. The 'how' would be the whole 'natural selection' bit, the 'why' would be related to the growth of Savannah grassland in the area as compared with the previously tropical forests.
agentorangex »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Kenneth Lawrence, you're book is bunk, I bothered to read the section on bird evolution & you not once mentioned archeopteryx, maniraptor or any others which fit nicely as intermediates.
agentorangex »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

All, specifically Viking,

I found Lawrence's book 'evolution delusion' online, *limited preview only*. Google the name of the book, then look for the following to review:

' books.google.com/books?isbn=1606471031...'

The Evolution Delusion: How 21St Century Science and Logic Prove ... - Google Books Result
by Kenneth Lawrence - 2008 - Religion - 244 pages

Full link below...

http://books.google.com/books?id=bLE7dHddmn0C&dq=The+Evolution+Delusion&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=p99Xago3UI&sig=NVajF3pW4fwSrhhTWS5lGwwYbGM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPR7,M1
agentorangex »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,

"forgiven, your initial understanding of evolution being a godless theory for the existence of life is still 100% correct."

As is Gravity, Atomic matter theory, Quantum Mechanics, cell theory, etc. ALL are entirely devoid of 'god did this, that, & that over there too'. They are naturalistic cause & effect explanations & the scientific method doesn't allow the supernatural as part of the explanation as it's not falsifiable, among other objections.

For some (odd) reason, you & others like you, have absolutely no problem understanding that gravity & other processes as described via science never once mentions gods direct intervention or supervision, but for whatever reason you can't handle one in which it explains the diversity of life devoid of a string pulling god. You can't handle the notion of a god creating the natural laws and devising them to bring forth life.
agentorangex »

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul,

"When would that be? "Billions of years ago" is the scientific version of "Once upon a time..."

But it's the empirically supported time line.

"as far as the question "where did I come from" evolution has no answer nor a starting point."

The starting point would be those 3.85 billion years ago, since the first replicating cells.

"To a Christian the fact that God created us is enough."

This is the most simplified version, & generally for some such a 'god did it' is enough. Thankfully, others look deeper. It tells us from who, but not by what means, processes, God used.
viking »

Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:49 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

kenneth lawrence,
thank you for your kind response to my inquiry. As I understand your statement you disagree with the scientific majority regarding the evidence related to the theory of evolution and biodiversity. While I can not say that I agree with your position I respect you approaching the science question as distinct from the faith question. I have not had the opportunity to review your material or the others mentioned here. Previous intelligent design material I have reviewed I have found to be lacking in scientific rigor and ignorant of or misrepresenting data. Nevertheless with an open but skeptical mind (great claims demand great proof) I will attempt to review some of the materials mentioned.
Forgivensinner »

Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Ken wrote: "(I believe it got rolled into a pagan Roman holiday long ago)"

Yes and from what I understand the Christians shanghied the holiday and Christianized (word?) it.
KennethLawrence »

Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi viking,

That is a good question. I was a theistic evolutionist for a number of years after I became a Christian, as I was carrying evolutionist baggage from my previous life as an evolutionist atheist, which is what I was raised as. But to answer your question, (I don't know if you are a Christian or not), I would suggest you get hold of my book "The Evolution Delusion" (just Google it to find where to get it) because I reject theistic evolution on the same basis that I reject atheistic evolution, namely on the basis of the mountain of scientific evidence and logic that refutes the various current theories of evolution (i.e. classic Darwinian, gradualist neo-Darwinian, punctuated equilibrium and hopeful monster evolution, all of which claim to be the true evolution and deny the validity of the others). But I can't rewrite my whole book here. I have a lot of "irons in the fire", so to speak, and I just don't have the time to go into it all here. But if you want to know, just get my book, and I would also recommend a book by Mike Oard entitled "Flood by Design" that you can get from icr.org, I think, and it is an excellent book on the geomorphological (i.e. landscapes of the earth) evidence for a recent global flood which explains the current surface configuration of the Earth including the billions of fossils in sedimentary rock all over the earth today. Also get a book called "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown or Google "Hyroplate theory" (without the quotation marks) to get the author's website, because his book is on it. Once you understand that this flood did happen and that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for it, you will see through evolution like X-rays see through flesh. Well, gotta go for now, I hope you get these books and get past theistic evolution as I did a few years ago. Best wishes, KL :)
KennethLawrence »

Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi Forgivensinner,

Thanks for the greeting, I hope you had a good Christmas too. I had a quiet, Christian Christmas. I have given up completely on the pagan Christmas (Santa Claus, elves, Boxing Day madness etc.) Christmas for me is about God's Son Jesus Christ coming into the world to save sinners. I actually don't think it happened in December (I believe it got rolled into a pagan Roman holiday long ago), but I do try to devote December 25 in any case to the Lord. KL :)
viking »

Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

kenneth lawrence,
Hello we have not conversed before. In reading your last post as well as some previous it seems to me you propose a false dichotomy between the processes of evolution and faith in an original designer. Theistic evolution of course resolves the seeming conflict between a creatore/designer and the processes of evolution. Please explain any logical objection you have to theistic evolution without relying on OT as refutation through biblical authority. Thanks
Forgivensinner »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi Ken,
Nice to have you come back. Hope your Christmas was pleasant.
KennethLawrence »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Evolutionists who accuse creationist Christians of believing in magic have it backwards. Christians see a universe and biological life brimming over with sophisticated design and logically conclude that there is a Master Designer behind it, that it didn't just happen. Evolutionists, on the othr hand, believer it did just happen. Such sublime design as the universe and biological life exhibit without a Designer equals magic.
believer »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Viking, I hear you completely and while I know we do disagree on Creation vs. Evolution I do not in any way consider theistic evolutionists second class Christians, but I personally have a problem buying into a belief system that is totally contrary to the Word of God and used by a majority of its opponents to show that there is either no God or no need for God and who can't or are unwilling to offer an explanation to where life began.
believer »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

DP, once again a great post with regard to vertical evolution as opposed to lateral evolution and like you I have no problem with lateral evolution what so ever. Plus, lateral evolution in no way conflicts with the Creation Account recorded in Genesis.
Forgivensinner »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:57 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

viking,
Thanks again to you as well. Although, I am still unbelieving to evolution either way, I do appreciate your dialogue. I was not aware of a new understanding to evolution.

I hope your Christmas was enjoyable as well!
Forgivensinner »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,
I do not know enough about atheist or theist evolution enough to argue it intelligently. Although, I do not believe in evolution either atheisticly or theisticly (word?); I do find it interesting enough that evolution is being understood differently these days (perhaps only to some, though).
Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"However it is also a valid point that evolution is the study of what happened after the start of life not an explanation for that life."

I don't think you will get too much of an arguement that lateral evolution exists. It is vertical evolution which creates the arguement. Lateral evolution is change and adaptation within a species. Vertical evolution is the concept of change from species into another species (man came from ape and so on).

If evolutionists would quit using science as an anti-God religion I think they would get further in the field.
viking »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

DP,
As you know my view on evolution is that it is a manifestation of the awesome majesty of the creator. This is why I must agree with your rebuttal of IFF's comment. Contrary to IFF's assertion evolutions starting point is by definition the starting point of life. (Which I of course came about through some other process not evolution that was also part of God's ""Design"" in his creation of the universe) However it is also a valid point that evolution is the study of what happened after the start of life not an explanation for that life. Lets say for example that I studied the growth and development of a human child from birth onwards and accurately described the processes involved but had no idea how conception occurred this would not invalidate my understanding of development.

Forgivensinner,
thanks for your response. I am glad if I can add light rather than heat to this discussion. I must warn you however that there are those on both sides who wish to maintain the idea that the theory of evolution if valid somehow proves there is no god. Atheists which to promote this idea in order to use science improperly to support their lack of faith and some believers promote it as a straw dog argument against the scientific understanding of biodiversity.

Believer,
Hi while your last post was not to me I feel compelled to respond since it references my post indirectly. I agree with you that atheistic individuals who use evolution (improperly from a science point of view) to support a non belief in god "tolerate theistic evolution at best" (and I would add some probably laugh up their sleeves at us). However I would contend that such low and base behavior has no bearing either on my beliefs nor on the validity of the theory of evolution. If an atheist believes in the theory of gravity this does not make the theory of universal gravitational attraction wrong. To judge Theistic evolution on the conduct of atheistic evolutionists would be as valid as judging Christianity on the basis of racist christians. (note I use this example for the purpose of displaying the illogic of the premise only not to equate Christianity on any even plane with evolution nor to imply that any poster on this site is racist).

Hope all have had a joyus Christmas celebration as I have.
believer »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:31 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

forgiven, your initial understanding of evolution being a godless theory for the existence of life is still 100% correct. Evolutionists only tolerate theistic evolutionists at best and most if not all of them agree that it was and is not necessary for there to be a God for evolution to take place so although some may not care with regards to the existence of God, this God was at best a bystander with regards to the evolutionary process taking place.
believer »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, so what is the starting point that started the process of the theory of evolution?
believer »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

DP, a loud and hardy AMEN!! to your response to ifeelfine who claims evolution has a starting point, but then either refuses or cannot tell us where that starting point is.
Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:44 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Evolution has a starting point - its just not the point you necessarily want."

When would that be? "Billions of years ago" is the scientific version of "Once upon a time...". Since evolution does not state when life began it does not have a starting point for life.

So, as far as the question "where did I come from" evolution has no answer nor a starting point. I think it is you who do not want to accept this.

To a Christian the fact that God created us is enough. The fact that He created us and he loves us answers the question.
Forgivensinner »

Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi viking,

You wrote: "the idea of a creator who established the universe and all its processes with anything in science including the theory of evolution."

It has been my understanding for years and years now that evolution was the study of life absent of God/a Creator. Evolution has seemed changed its stance over the last decade or so. Many folks a little older than I do not know this about evolution and continue to stand on misinformation.

I do find it somewhat promising that folks like yourself are helping to bridge a gap between evolution as now understood and folks of faith. Thank you for your efforts.
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:45 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

believer: Evolution has a starting point - its just not the point you necessarily want. The theory explains biodiversity - that's it. It doesn't explain how life began only how it proliferated.
believer »

Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

viking, thanks for your response to my post to you, but for me personally I struggle with the idea of a belief system that has no specific beginning. We had a lady in our last church who was different in that she would start a conversation with herself before she talked to anyone else, so when she spoke with you, you first had to figure out the first part of the conversation so you could carry on a logical conversation with her, I feel that way with evolutionists they have no known beginning to there view yet were supposed to take that for granted and then enter into a logical discussion or debate with them about life even though their view has no starting point.
Daniel Paul »

Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:10 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"You haven't said one unkind thing towards me "

You're quite welcome. Billy Graham once said the only difference between him and Charles Manson was the grace of God. If God had chosen otherwise it would be the Charles Manson Evangelistic Association and the name Billy Graham would be synonomus with being just plain nuts. Guess what...we would never know the difference.

In short, if God shows mercy then a person reaches a point in their lives when you realize that if you really understand the grace of God then you will show it to others. My best friend in high school once told me I was as tactful as a Sherman tank (and I think he was being kind!). I still deal with the issue of tact every now and again but at least now I actually deal with it.

We are way more alike then one would think. We all are. This is what Christmas is all about. When I realize that Jesus wanted to be born into this mess to die for people like us it really gives me pause. He spent 3 years with a dozen men who were more concerned with who would be the greatest while Jesus had already become the least. When I read the Gospels it reminds me we are all the same. Our natural interests are not His.

He was born to die. We die to live. We learn to live a bit more every day. Merry Christmas!
viking »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Proscience,
Of course Ann must have overlooked the fact that other scientists had already had the concept. The difference is that he observed the evidence and formulated the concept into a basic working theory.
thelordismylight »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel-

God bless you. You haven't said one unkind thing towards me and I've been a bit of a peave to you the whole time.
viking »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi believer thanks for the comment,
You write:
viking, in conflict with observed evidence or their interpretation of that evidence?
Well your right the interpretation of observed evidence is involved in science. Of course there are rules that have been developed for such interpretation (like Ocam's razor). One of the most basic rules is that the explanation which covers all the observed facts without having to invent other facts not in evidence is the one that should be used until other observed evidence shows it to be inadequate or incorrect. The fact of the matter is that no theory of science in any field completely and totaly explains all phenomena. In the arena of the biodiversity of life the theory of evolution is the only explanation that fits the observed phenomena. Every discovery of new observed evidence related to this field over the past century has added further support and allowed a more robust and thorough understanding of the specific processes that underly the general idea of evolution developed over a century ago.

You also state:
Plus, for me personally until evolutionists can explain the origin of life whether they choose to acknowledge it or not creationism is still a possibility.

Of course scientists studying the processes of evolution are not involved in the study of the origin of life since that is a completely different field of science. To reject evolution on that basis would be akin to rejecting the theory of gravity because a gravitational physicist could not explain string theory adequately. That aside if an Abiogensist were able to use biochemical processes to create a living organism from non living molecules would this reduce your belief in a creator. If not then how would the abscence of an explanation of this from evolutionary biologists reasonably affect you acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution.
For me as someone who believes in a creator who set in motion all of the natural processes of the universe and is great enough to have his creation proceed as he wished without resorting to intermittent physical intervention the unfolding of the mysteries of the natural world through scientific investigation far from diminishing the creator just increases my awe at the majesty of his creation.
viking »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi Forgivensinner
thanks for the response.
You ask.
Let's just suppose all agreed God set the natural process in order ~ how does this contradict understanding and logic in science? Real question.

In my opinion this does not in any way contradict evidence understanding or logic of science. In fact there is no disagreement between the idea of a creator who established the universe and all its processes with anything in science including the theory of evolution.
You also ask:
PS. Thanks for clarifying my earlier questions ~ the understanding of evolution has changed since what was taught in my HS science class. Though, has it changed in the ciriculum?

This is a tougher question. I can tell you that in my school I do not permit the teaching of misconceptions regarding evolution (such as apes turning into humans) but rather the valid evolutionary information that science has revealed. I would like to just comment that we do have students who as a matter of faith reject the science curriculum. This stems generally from the teachings of there church. Rather than engage in divisive battles over the science we take the position that we need to respect the faith positions of these students, and there parents and churches. When I came to this community I met with the clergy of the area to discuss several issues and to build partnerships. We discussed for example sex ed, evolution, substance use and abuse, promiscuity, post secondary enrollment, scholarships etc. In the discussion of evolution many of the churches had no issue with the curriculum. For those that did we came to an elegant solution for the students. All students complete the curriculum and learn what science has found in relation to biodiversity however in completing tests and assignments in this area the students simply state in their answers "scientists believe" or the "theory of evolution states". As a school we fulfill our responsibility to insure that the students have demonstrated knowledge of the science and the students maintain their faith position without compromise. So far we have had no problems with this area in our school. The clergy respect our duty to teach science and we respect theirs to lead in faith issues and neither tries to usurp the role of the other.
Daniel Paul »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"I don't know... like run into walls or something?"

So you've watched that show on TV. I think it's called 'Human Wrecking Ball'.
Daniel Paul »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"You're funny. But looks aren't everything. "

One of my best friends tells me the same thing! :)

My wife and I were in line at the Cafe at the church (to get some hot cocoa) and these two elementary age kids were in line behind us. My wife leaned forward and told me that one of the kids had asked the other "is that Santa?!" To which I, in a deep voice, gave the traditional Santa reply which this site will not let me post as the word can mean something else. :0
prosciencezz »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:12 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

"And I would celebrate Charles Darwin for having the most revolutionary concept in human history, the one idea that could completely dethrone the patriarchal chains that kept us from seeing who we really are and for his undoing of what is I think the most nefarious lie and that is that we were created separately from the rest of nature."

-- Ann Druyan

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/12/advent-podcasts-day-19-ann-druyan.html
thelordismylight »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

But yea seriously, we have better things to do than read long pages of the most useless facts ever. I don't know... like run into walls or something?
thelordismylight »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:01 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

That's funny. You're funny. But looks aren't everything.
Daniel Paul »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:46 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Why thank you! As I have posted on occasion, do you know why Webster wrote the dictionary? His wife kept asking him..."exactly what do you mean by that???"
thelordismylight »

Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:12 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul-

With the power vested in me, I hereby pronounce you and Webster's Dictionary, 2007 husband and wife. You may now read the copyright.
Daniel Paul »

Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"metaphysical (therefore non-scientific by definition)in "

Actually, any scientific approach which improperly includes or excludes God is not scientific.

Science:
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Based on the definition of the word even Hermeneutics would be considered to be science.

Hermeneutics
noun
1. the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures.
2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
believer »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:35 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

viking, in conflict with observed evidence or their interpretation of that evidence? Plus, for me personally until evolutionists can explain the origin of life whether they choose to acknowledge it or not creationism is still a possibility.
believer »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:25 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, the only one putting limits on God are theistic evolutionists who in order to appease the secular world have brought God's ability to create our universe to a standard that is acceptable to human understanding. And as I've stated before there are many in the evolution camp who have little regard for theistic evolution and at best tolerate those who hold that view simply because they see them as allies in rejecting the teaching of and theory of creationism.
Forgivensinner »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:00 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi viking, no offense taken.

You wrote: "If this is the case then the whole idea of understanding the evidence or the logic of science is a little pointless."

Let's just suppose all agreed God set the natural process in order ~ how does this contradict understanding and logic in science? Real question.

PS. Thanks for clarifying my earlier questions ~ the understanding of evolution has changed since what was taught in my HS science class. Though, has it changed in the ciriculum?
viking »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:17 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Forgivensinner,
Hi please do not take my next comment wrong I mean no offense and respect and defend your right to believe as you do.
That being said I will point out that you appear to use the literal OT stories as the fundamental test of validity when you consider an idea (like evolution)
example:
Monkeys/apes. I cannot seem to grasp this theory no matter how it is spun. God created animals and brought them to Adam. Adam (man) was set above animals.
If this is the case then the whole idea of understanding the evidence or the logic of science is a little pointless.
viking »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:07 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

forgivensinner,
you post
Okay, when I read evolution, I envision species changing from one to another, ie monkeys into humans as taught in my HS science class.

I think this is the source of a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution. The bottom line is if your science teacher taught you that he/she was giving you misinformation never espoused by the theory of evolution. This happens all the time unfortunately. This is not limited to the science of evolution. Many children are taught that "the seasons are a result of the earth tipping on its axis" as if it slowly tipped back and forth through the course of a year. I have had to routinely correct this misperception by students (fortunately it is easy and fun using the kids themselves in a model of the earth/sun system)
viking »

Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:58 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer you post.
ifeelfine, "scientists can only deal in the natural, not supernatural, so when the supernatural is injected, it breaks the boundaries of science." exactly and reputable scientists acknowledge that
This I agree with. Unlike the name calling people on this site who try to use science as a rationale for atheism honest, reputable scientists who follow the rules of science hold the position that Iff stated that from a scientific point of view they can have no position on the question of the existence of God.

However you go on to post.
and therefore are open to the possibility that creationism along with the other miracles recorded in the Bible are a real possibility.
This I do not think is true in the sense that I understand you meant it. Yes in theory scientist are always open in the abscence of evidence that phenomena might occur. However scientists are not open to explanations (i.e. biblical literal creationism) when those explanations are found to be directly in conflict with observed evidence. This is one of the foundations of science that explanations for reality (scientific theories) give way to evidence. This is contrary to the concept of biblical authority where any observed evidence that conflicts with a literal reading of the OT stories is rejected as invalid. This is fundamentally what those who reject the observed evidence regarding the development of biodiversity (20th century for Origin of species)propose.
Paul Burnett »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Abhodim asked Steve: "Stunned by your Ken Ham comment. Do you state that he makes an intelligent argument for creationism, or do you state that he is up front with his creationism without relying on an ID approach?

Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis properly condemn intelligent design creationism for its heretical removal of the Creator from Creation:

"However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement and "Templeton Award-winner Denies Intelligent Design. $1.6 million winner claims intelligent design is a "grave theological error" - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/14/catholic-priest-awardedpriest-awarded

Answers In Genesis openly advocates Young Earth Creationism, which a totally unscientific religious viewpoint (which by definition cannot support an intelligent argument that creationism is science). Intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience that tries to sound "sciency" but is not science, in that its anonymous supernatural designer cannot be observed, experimented upon or predicted. And its designers have taken all the good parts out of the Creation story: No Adam or Eve, no Noah or Ark, no Eden, no Creator. Intelligent design creationism is neither fish nor fowl - it cannot be science, and it claims it is not religion - it's nothing more than carping about strawman versions of evolution and biology and science.
steveh20 »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi abhodim

Please, let me put your mind at rest, I just mean that Ken Ham etc..are up front about their beliefs without relying on an ID approach, nothing else.

BW

Steve
ifeelfine72 »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:40 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

forgivensinner: If you wish to know, Google some information on it. I was like you and had no use for it but learned a little about it and found it didn't threaten my faith at all. Whatever you decide to do, God bless.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story