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.
RSS
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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 :)
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
Hi Ken,
Nice to have you come back. Hope your Christmas was pleasant.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
"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.
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.
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.
ifeelfine, so what is the starting point that started the process of the theory of evolution?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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'.
"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
"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
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?
That's funny. You're funny. But looks aren't everything.
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???"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
mathetes: No worries and apology accepted. I know on a couple of issues I am on the other side of many that post here and I know I certainly can be abrasive sometimes so I understand the confusion! :)
ifeelfine,
I sincerely apologize; my intent was not to insult you. I mixed up your post with those of pro-scienceyy,whose childish rants have made me tired. You obviously are not him. Mea culpa.
believer: Still interim + blessed at the church.
Merry Christmas to you all.
iff wrote: "forgivensinner: Evolution doesn't work that way. We are a part of the ape family but certainly didn't evolve from monkey's. In all actuality, we evolved from a common ancestor."
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.
But thanks anyway.
forgivensinner: Evolution doesn't work that way. We are a part of the ape family but certainly didn't evolve from monkey's. In all actuality, we evolved from a common ancestor.
Believer: Evolution is not nor has it ever been an attempt to do away with the supernatural. Science would get nowhere if it relied on the supernatural. That would be like saying "Well, God did it so I guess that's as far as our understanding can go" and yet, that's not what happens. One of the reasons I dislike ID so strongly is because it turns God into a God of the gaps and basically reduces Him. I hate that. God has no limits. Why place them on him?
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 and therefore are open to the possibility that creationism along with the other miracles recorded in the Bible are a real possibility. Evolution from the beginning has been an attempt to do away with the supernatural which in turn does away with the need for God and therefore indirectly if not directly affirms agnosticism and atheism.
iff wrote: "Moreover, evolution has been shown to be a very natural process - I personally believe in theistic evolution. God guided the entire process . . . through natural causes."
Okay, when I read evolution, I envision species changing from one to another, ie monkeys into humans as taught in my HS science class. Has this understanding of evolution changed?
forgivensinner: I don't want to speak for viking so I won't but no, the difference isn't between micro and macro. For the most part, scientists don't use that term very often. Micro and macro are pretty much the same to scientists. Scientists can only deal in the natural. not supernatural, so when the supernatural is injected, it breaks the boundaries of science. Moreover, evolution has been shown to be a very natural process - I personally believe in theistic evolution. God guided the entire process . . . through natural causes.
viking wrote: "If by ID we meant that some supernatural being/force/entity set in motion all of the natural processes and dynamics which Scientific investigation is progressively revealing then Science itself would have no objection to such a concept. It is only when advocates try to use the concept of a designer directly interfering with these processes (such as evolution)that a conflict between evidence and belief arises."
I'm not sure I understand. I am wondering if it is all in the definitions of evolution as understood by either side. It seems bizarre to me that Science says we'd concede to ID only if the conflict of evolution process did not arise? Is this conflict really between "micro" and "macro" evolution?
Steve,
Merry Christmas to you as well.
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?
Just curious.
Hi Viking
Thanks for the reply, I think that you to hit the preverable nail on the head when it comes to ID. Could I maybe, following on from what you wrote, suggest that ID is the God of the gaps in disguise, And not a very good one at that?
In some ways I feel that Ken Ham and his chums at AIG are being more honest (can't believe I wrote that) in that they come out and say exactly what they think, one is left in no doubt where they are coming from, but with ID there is a sense that they want it both ways almost like an intellectual smoke and mirrors.
BW
Steve
mathetes, I can see that and I know your church is benefitting greatly from what God is showing and teaching you. Take care and hope you have a blessed Christmas, believer.
Great post Viking.
mathetes: I dont insult you - please don't insult me. While I happen to agree with proscience on several things, the big difference is our belief in God - I have one and he doesn't. As for Kenneth Lawrence's credentials - I stated where I got them from, the jacket of his book. Anyway, I'm glad that you got some kind of education, my point was with someone who writes a book about evolution. Would you trust a book I wrote on Christian theology? Or better example would be proscience or agentorange, would you trust a book they wrote on Christian theology?
Hi Steve, Merry Christmas to you also.
Re ID's explanation for the origin of life. Great point piercing to the heart of the matter. Any concept of Intelligent design either is metaphysical (therefore non-scientific by definition)in nature or begs the question. If as an alternative to metaphysics ID proponents say that some "natural" intelligent agent (i.e. ETs) seeded life on earth then the question is just pushed back to who designed them (sort of like the old hindu cosmology problem).
On the other hand if we resort to a supernatural designer then by definition we are beyond the realm of science.
The problem I see is that most ID proponents want to use metaphysical concepts to dispute scientific discoveries.
In my view Theistic Evolution is one example of an elegant and rational synthesis of two human modes of understanding reality.
If by ID we meant that some supernatural being/force/entity set in motion all of the natural processes and dynamics which Scientific investigation is progressively revealing then Science itself would have no objection to such a concept. It is only when advocates try to use the concept of a designer directly interfering with these processes (such as evolution)that a conflict between evidence and belief arises. I believe this is equally true in your field. Most ID falacies are akin for example to the idea that since in the 1950's there was not perfect knowledge of how fossil fuels formed in geological strata that a designer must have reached down into creation and put them in place. On the other hand nothing in science disputes the idea that the astrophysical and geological processes that led to the formation of fossil fuels were originally set into motion by a designer.
believer,
Hardly. Just shows I love learning. B)
First of all , many thanks to those who have passed on their christmas greetings to me, I return them all to you in the the same spirit.
I'm happy to admit that I don't know how life started (though I am going through a hydrothemal vent stage at the moment, but it will pass I'm sure). What I'd like to know and it has never been explained to me is the actual origin of life according to ID? How did it occur? Certainly I have read here that a greater intelligence must have caused life to originate , but never a how. Here's your chance, tell me how ID explains how life started, thats not the same as replying to me life is so complex it must have been designed, The answer should be very simple and there should be evidence to.
Maybe somebody would also like to define the term, life?
Could I add that a natural explanation for the origin of life, for me, has no bearing on whether God exists or not , though I appreciate for some it does.
Consider it your christmas present to me
Great chatting to you all
mathetes, does that mean you're pretty near a genuis?:)
Sorry, I seem to have conflated proscience + ifeelfine. Sorry, gents, too many similarities.
Ifeelfine,
1975 Bell Science Award winner. Then life took a turn, I followed a different path. Did get 3 masters en route to PhD.
Will you show your cards (degrees) now?
ifeeline, never said you did have one plus once again if a book is based on research what difference does it make if the author has a PhD or not?
proscienceyy,
You ridiculed KL's science background, writing: "the closest thing he has to actual scientific credentials is an 'intense interest in science most of his life'." How is that worse than yours: "Science is not my career, but I've been studying evolutionary biology every day for several years"? Do you understand the definition of hypocrisy?
Still waiting for your academic credentials. As you demanded of KL below, "Answer the question."
believer: Show me where I claimed to have one and for the record, I happen to like agentorange but he is not my mentor. Kenneth is writing a book proclaiming evolution to be a "delusion" don't you think he should have a PhD in biological science? Would you trust a Christian theology book written by AgentOrange or Proscience?
My dad had 2 Ph.D's. I don't remember seeing him use the one in the garage except maybe once. :D
ifeelfine, do you have a Phd, I've got one and in fact I had two at one time, but the one I kept in the garage we sold in a garage sale, I think I got $10.00 for it. In other words what's your point since neither of your mentors agent or pro-science have one?
"Delusion" would quite literally be a good word to apply to Kenneth Lawrence as he seems to deny the actual facts of evolution.
mathetes: Would you like to tell me your qualifications in science? Or how about kenneth lawrence's scientific qualifications? Does he have a PhD? I didn't think so (or if he does, I couldn't find reference to it in either his book or online). In fact, as near as I could tell, the closest thing he has to actual scientific credentials is an "intense interest in science most of his life" (quoted from his book)
I see some cowardly Christians are deleting comments again.
KennethLawrence, are any scientists buying your worthless book?
Answer my question.
KennethLawrence: "Actually, the more such comments I read, the more I feel that creation is on very safe intellectual ground compared to evolution."
Translation: the more I feel that MAGIC is on very safe intellectual ground compared to SCIENCE."
KennethLawrence: "As well as a lot of gratuitous personal insults, as you will notice if you read some of the evolutionist comments on this article."
KennethLawrence, It's not my fault you're so scientifically illiterate you don't even know what science is. Why don't you educate yourself instead of hiding behind your Bible? What are you afraid of?
KennethLawrence: "This must be terribly frustrating for them, which I suppose is why some of them end up resorting to gratuitous character attacks on their intellectual opponents."
Intellectual opponent? You have the intelligence of a brainwashed child. Again I ask, why don't you educate yourself? Studying science is much more rewarding than lying about it.
KennethLawrence: "So their claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact is just so much bluster to hide the fact that they have no clue how their own theory is supposed to explain life."
Wow, you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology. Why don't you study science instead of being a compulsive liar?
KennethLawrence: "The fact is that they can't explain how it would happen without intelligent input and they have no clue how it did supposedly happen."
You don't have a clue about anything. You know nothing about modern scientific discoveries because you spend all your time reading the Bible and spreading lies about science.
KennethLawrence: "Or for that matter, even for simple biological molecules to do the same with no intelligent input."
Translation: I don't understand therefore THE MAGIC FAIRY DID IT.
KennethLawrence: "But essentially, Scienceyy fails to see the very extensive "magic" required for simple non-biological molecules to self-oganize into a very complex reproducing cell."
Now you're calling science "magic". You're the one who invokes magic for everything you don't understand. You need to grow up mister. You're making a fool out of yourself and you're disgracing your religion. Any intelligent young person reading your ignorant comments is going to think all Christians know nothing about science.
farout wrote: "I can't believe this just happened to evolve that way."
I'm with you on this!
BIOLA is Fundamentalist in their theoligy, which is good, but not quite where I am theologicaly, none the less I do take the Bible literally. I approve of both speakers and give my whole support to BIOLA!
Personally I do not have enough faith to accept eveloution. How could any male and female be that of human or animal come from a source develope so reproduction could take place? And this all took place in all life forms so perfectly? I can't believe this just happened to evolve that way. If eveloution is intellegent, please someone show me the intellegent in believing this all just happened on it's own!
To those who won't believe that the Almighty Lord God created man and woman as it says in Scripture, there will never be enough evidence to convience them.
Thank you, forgivensinner (as am I), very much appreciated. I'll keep that in mind when I pass this way again, which may be a while. Lot of irons in the fire. Best wishes, KL :)
Ken,
I find it easier to use my Notepad option. Works will not copy and paste, but the simple Notepad (or Wordpad) works. I simply write out my response on the Notepad then copy and paste that to the CP message box. Hope that will help you. ~Forgivensinner
And kind regards to you also, Steve. Nice to be able to chat in civility with you. Have a great rest of the day and a great life. KL :)
So I hope that answers your question Steve, but if not, please let me know and I'll give it another shot. Nice chatting, have a nice day. KL :)
Actually, the more such comments I read, the more I feel that creation is on very safe intellectual ground compared to evolution.
As well as a lot of gratuitous personal insults, as you will notice if you read some of the evolutionist comments on this article.
This must be terribly frustrating for them, which I suppose is why some of them end up resorting to gratuitous character attacks on their intellectual opponents.
So their claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact is just so much bluster to hide the fact that they have no clue how their own theory is supposed to explain life.
The fact is that they can't explain how it would happen without intelligent input and they have no clue how it did supposedly happen.
Or for that matter, even for simple biological molecules to do the same with no intelligent input.
But essentially, Scienceyy fails to see the very extensive "maigc" required for simple non-biological molecules to self-oganize into a very complex reproducing cell.
Unfortunately, to do justice to your question, I need about three minutes minimum, so I'll try again later. KL
Okay, got that one posted because it was so short. I get dumped about a minute after I start writing.
HI Steve, I've been trying to reply but keep getting dumped before I can post. IF I can get this posted, perhaps the webmaster can advise me of the problem.
Hi steve,
Perhaps, the difference is in scientists vs evolutionists? Most evolutionists do claim, though, that evolution is not about how life began and therefore continue to study how it "evolves". I am be no means literate enough in science/evolution to argue to what some scientists are claiming or not claiming, so I'll concede.
I'm sticking by science only helps us understand better how God created His Creation, though.
Merry Christmas to you!
Steve,
Glad to see your online. I ran across a quote and thought of you. American geologist William Davis, in The National Geographic Magazine, 1889, 1, pp.23: "The meaning of geography is as much a sealed book to the person of ordinary intelligence and education as the meaning of a great cathedral would be to a backwoodsman, and yet no cathedral can be more suggestive of past history in its many architectural forms than is the land about us, with its innumerable and marvellously significant geographic forms. It makes one grieve to think of opportunity for mental enjoyment that is lost because of the failure of education in this respect."
Thanks for sharing with me the fruits of your education. Merry Christmas, friend.
Brian
Hello forgivensinner
Puting aside the origin of life question for the moment I have to take issue with your statement that scientists who don't accept ID evade the question. Having studied astrobiology for the past nine months I am happy to assure you that this is far from the truth. Whilst scientists are of course unsure of what occured for life to start, much serious thought is given to the question in hand. It is of course your right to disagree with them but it is not your right to misrepresnt them , please keep the playing field level.
That said, best wishes,
Steve
I see the only difference here is the question of "the origin of life". Scientists either lean toward the belief of ID or scientists simply evade the question. Scientists on both sides study "life" while some stand completely on "evolution is not the study of how life began, it studies how it evolved". The only other difference is the arguement of "micro" and "macro" evolution. Simply because a scientist has determined the evidence as ID and "micro" evolution does not render them any less significant (or in some minds insignificant) in the scientific field.
Sorry pro, I know you'll probably jump all over me. Science is an amazing study, but as I have stated before it helps us understand better how God created His Creation.
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."
Translation: THE MAGIC FAIRY DID IT.
No idea could more childish. Philip E. Johnson is a worthless old man who never grew up.
How hard is it for Philip E. Johnson, or any other flat-earther who denies the facts of evolution, to google "evidence evolution" and spend a few months studying it? Nothing could be easier than studying science in the 21st century, but all creationists refuse to even look at the evidence for evolution. They're afraid of something. It's fair to say all creationists are cowards.
What evidence does Philip E. Johnson have for his childish insane intelligent design magic? He doesn't have shred of evidence for his abracadabra magic. All he has is his constant lying about science, his total ignorance of science, and his childish wish that a magic fairy created people out of nothing. Ignorant compulsive liars like Philip E. Johnson have disgraced our country.
Science is not my career, but I've been studying evolutionary biology every day for several years. I know it's a fact. I know the Christians who prefer magical creation are willfully ignorant and too cowardly to grow up.
Christians who deny evolution are scientifically illiterate. I don't care how many degrees they have, if they don't understand the basic facts of evolution they don't deserve the right to call themselves educated. If they deny the facts of evolution, they don't deserve the right to call themselves sane.
This is the 21st century but the brain-dead creationists will be forever be living in the Dark Ages. They should be ashamed of themselves. They're a disgrace to their religion, they're a disgrace to their country, and they're a disgrace to the human race.
proscienceyy,
Sure smells like evading the question to me, a little like sour grapes.
Ok, what are your credentials or qualifications for calling well published PhDs childish + cowardly?
A Ph.D. does not make a person educated, especially if he or she continues to have a childish medieval belief in magical creation. Anyone who doesn't understand the basic facts of evolution is still a child, too cowardly to grow up and face facts.
Hello Kenneth
I was intrested by your comment about life evolving from non living molecules. It strikes me that all molecules(which are merely collections of non living atoms),even today, are non living, within us. As I sit and write this I can't think of a single molecule that is "alive" within me, I can though , reconise that I am a collection of non living molecules(and atoms) acting together to create certain processes, an example would be water of which I am partly composed, and yet that molecule is not living. So whilst, how life arose is an intrestng question the thought about non living molecules,seems to me to miss the point, its what they do when they come together in particular arrangements.
Kind regards
Steve
proscienceyy,
You wrote: "Uneducated non-scientists might disagree about the facts of evolution, but their opinion doesn't matter, for the same reason what a garbage man thinks about brain surgery doesn't matter."
Since you feel "uneducated non-scientists" should keep quiet, please tell what your credentials are. M.S.? Ph.D.?
KennethLawrence, you're so scientifically illiterate you don't even know what science is.
Unless all religious origins beliefs are allowed to be taught in public schools either as science (as is the case now with evolutionism, which is a religious origins belief) or in some other designation, none should be allowed, including evolutionism. There is no debate among evolutionist scientists as to the validity of their religious origins beliefs being science and truth, but the truth is that there is a great deal of debate among scientists as a whole over this question, as anyone involved in this ongoing debate knows. The situation now is that one religious origins belief system (evolutionism)has won the favor of the authorities who decide these matters bydressing up their belief in scientific jargon and passing it off as science. Thus, they have been able to establish a tyranny of exclusivity by law for the teaching of their religious belief in the public schools. Christians need to challenge this in every possible forum or else watch as their children are indoctrinated in a pagan religious belief that goes back thousands of years.
KennethLawrence, are any scientists buying your worthless book? I didn't think so.
Just because you are not able to understand how the first simple living cells developed doesn't mean your magic god fairy had anything to do with it.
If you want to see the progress scientists have made to explain how life got a foothold on earth, check out this video:
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
"No real scientist uses magic to sovle scientific problems". Really? How about evolutionist scientists, the ones who have given us evolution magic? You know, the kind of magic "science" that claims it's a fact that life evolved from non-living molecules without being able to even offer a detailed scientific explanation for the origin of the first DNA molecule or almost any other biological molecule above the level of a simple amino acid, or produce a DNA molecule from scratch in the lab? Some "powerful evidence" from molecular biology for the "strongest facts of science". As I point out in my new book "The Evolution Delusion", the truth is that evolutionists really have nothing more than a religious origins belief dressed up in some bad science, pseudoscience, and fraudulent science. It's all bluster, no real science. What they are teaching students in America is religion, not science. It's time Chistians challenged this teaching of religion in public schools.
Odd...my comment was truncated AGAIN!...trying again:
Eric Young reported: "(Philip) Johnson, meanwhile, is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement...which critics view as a variation of creationism... According to Biola, Johnson will be awarded for having "a clear evangelical Christian testimont and having demonstrated "significant service and achievement over an extended period of time, which...is relevant to the mission of the university.
The mission of Biola University, a "biblical institution," is clear. This award thus helps make it even more clear that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science, as a Federal Court judge ruled in 2005: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Thanks, Biola.
didymus,
You just caught me before I got out the door. I would be happy to reference my source. Take a look at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html. Though a few on the list of 3000 people are not scientists, most of them are PhDs in their fields. Before you get through the names that start with "A" you'll see that many are prestigious scientists, like a Ph.D. in Genetics from Edinburgh University and the former Vice-President of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Medical Sciences.
I hope that helps. Have a great weekend and a merry Christmas!
mathetes,
You said, "It doesn't matter to you that a growing number of scientists, including biologists, question evolution and agree with the tenets of ID"
Can you please reference the source for this statistic here, I'd like to see it for myself. Thank you.
How sad: proscience and his twin, ranting at the world. What happened, proscienceyy: CP kick you off again, so you added more letters to your handle? Jerry/cccc/dddd, etc: we would recognize you by your rhetoric, whatever you want to call yourself.
"The experts are the biologists, and the biologists laugh at intelligent design magic, because it's not science and because it's just plain wrong."
It doesn't matter to you that a growing number of scientists, including biologists, question evolution and agree with the tenets of ID; don't let the evidence get in the way of your rant.
Obviously the way to go for any real theological education these days are Catholic, or Episcopal seminaries, maybe an Orthodox one, but Evangelical seminaries seem to be passing into the Middle Ages. Sad.
"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."
The proponents of the religious belief in intelligent design, also known as magical creation, have zero evidence for their ideas. All they have is their complaints against evolutionary biology.
There is NO debate in the scientific community about the basic facts of biological evolution. Every biologist who has contributed something important to biology agrees there is more than enough powerful evidence, especially evidence from molecular biology, to call the facts of evolution the strongest facts of science.
The religious alternative, intelligent design magic, is not scientific, and no real scientist uses magic to solve scientific problems.
Uneducated non-scientists might disagree about the facts of evolution, but their opinion doesn't matter, for the same reason what a garbage man thinks about brain surgery doesn't matter. People who know nothing about science, and that includes all intelligent design creationists, are not qualified to say anything about science. The experts are the biologists, and the biologists laugh at intelligent design magic, because it's not science and because it's just plain wrong.
I noticed UC Berkeley professor Philip E. Johnson is not a biologist, not a scientist, and not scientifically literate. The same for Ben Stein. Stein is dishonest and he knows nothing about evolutionary biology.
The lawyers, other non-scientists, and fake scientists of the Christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute, who have never discovered anything in their entire lives, have a list 700 incompetent scientists who invoke magic to solve scientific problems. Virtually none of them are biologists so they are not qualified to talk about evolutionary biology. All of them are a disgrace to their profession, because no respectable scientist would ever invoke magic in the lab.