RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,18:05   

Oops. Dembski did that, not O'Leary. So not a Popeish move, this time round. But still a common one. And always funny.

And here's me without an edit button.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,18:16   

Little reminder here, it got snowed under (someone else brought it up, too lazy to look it up at this hour), but I would like to say that the original UD thread is worth being stickied. Too much history and gems are in there to let it sink down into the sewers of this site under all the other stuff.

  
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,18:34   

The page with that God Delusion review also mentions the suggestions that surfaced a while back, that there might've been anything fishy going on behind the writing of There is a God, the book which had Anthony Flew's name in the author's spot.

It's instructive to compare bethinking.org's breezy dismissal of such things with Richard Carrier's detailed report here.

I'm a philosophy graduate, and I'll admit to having a particular bee in my bonnet about whole Anthony Flew saga. It's just depressing.

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,19:22   

By sexing up UD, Dembski has found a new avenue for relieving tension. The vise strategy just wasn’t enough I suppose.
[/IMG]

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 327
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,19:48   

I posted the following over at UD, on the Olivia Judson thread, and it was immediately deleted.

Quote
Dembski writes,

Quote
Could we please dispense with any patronizing nonsense about Darwin being less than the messiah of a materialistic religion that pretends to find its justification in science.


This is a bizarre position, in my opinion - more overblown rhetoric trying to dichotomize us into warring camps.  Darwin is not a messiah, and there is nothing religious about his role and place in the history of science. And, as has been pointed out countless times (consider the Clergy Project for one source), millions of people who are not materialists accept evolutionary theory.  Even if we accept "Darwinism" to mean modern evolutionary theory, the fact that, more or less, all materialists are "Darwinists" does not mean that all "Darwinists" are materialists.  This is simple logic.

And of course, even for the materialists, it is silly to say that Darwin is a "messiah" of a religion.


I would have been happy to defend my post, and my choice of language (bizarre and silly) was surely no worse than Dembski's ("patronizing nonsense" and "pretending to be science").

What is Dembski afraid of? - a little dialog about the controversy?

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,21:29   


Never mind, Jack.  Bill is cranky tonight.  He is so pissed at Olivia Judson that he changed the original caption to the photo ("Olivia Judson, as Dr Tatiana, dispenses sex advice") to "Olivia Judson busy at her research."  

Whatsamatta, Bill?  Didn't get a new sweater for birfday?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,22:09   

Quote (silverspoon @ July 19 2008,17:22)

For those who were wondering, "Where do I find my wonderful wife?"

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,22:53   

WAD comments upon Stephen Jay Gould and "Darwinism":
       
Quote
Coyne, of course, is here merely echoing Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. But if Judson remains unconvinced by Coyne, she might want to summon up the departed spirit of Stephen Jay Gould. In his STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, Gould admitted that anything Dawkins really cares about regarding biological structures–their origin, function, complexity, adaptive significance–is the product of natural selection [see ch. 3 of THE DESIGN OF LIFE]. Gould was as much a Darwinist as Dawkins.

Gould's book also throws the fatuousness of WAD's post into sharp relief - which he would know, had he actually read it.

Gould argued throughout The Structure of Evolutionary Theory that, while retaining its essential Darwinian core, evolutionary theory has markedly advanced since Darwin, resulting in significant revisions of our view of the causal agency, creative potency and scope of Darwin's mechanism. Throughout the entire 1,400 pages of SOET Gould both argued for the importance and the retention Darwin's essential insights (hence his acknowledgement of the creative role of natural selection among individual organisms in building complex adaptations, as WAD notes above) and argued that considerable new theoretical superstructure has been built upon them, augmenting the essential Darwinian core with several more contemporary insights. These include the role of historical and developmental constraints, the role of contingency, evo-devo, the reality of levels of selection, and so forth -  levels of explanation that account for facts regarding the large scale patterning of the history of life on earth that selection alone cannot. And, of course, these were central interests of Gould's that distinguished him from Dawkins and Dennett and indeed engendered friction with them.

The cover illustration of SOET (a painting of the branching structure of a fossil coral) depicts this sense of both retaining an essential Darwinian core while both pruning and grafting the theory in several directions. Gould both embraced Darwin and rebuilt his vision of evolutionary theory to include factors that go far beyond Darwin - as well one would expect of a a living science. This is exactly what Judson stated:
     
Quote
[Darwinism] suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.” He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology…

She's right. Darwin is properly revered because his core insights remain at the center of evolutionary theory, yet evolutionary theory has gone far beyond Darwin. And that was the essence of Gould's book. Count on WAD to get it wrong. Such are the hazards of motivated reading.

[edits for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2008,23:55   

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,14:44)
BarryA responds to the question "What would happen to your faith if you found out that Jesus had died and not risen?"  His answer's bottom line:
 
Quote
It is a little difficult to discuss this issue, because it is like discussing the question “what would you do if you found out green is really red?” Well, green isn’t red and it is impossible for it to be red. Similarly, Christ has risen, and it is impossible for me to believe he has not.

Barry has chosen a bad counterexample.  About 6% of men and some women have the red-green colorblindness.  
 
Quote


The Creamer Color Chart is an easy to use test to screen for red-green colorblindness. Two easily recognized symbols are presented to the child. Difficulty recognizing  the red star indicates the need for further testing. The orange circle is seen by all.
http://www.colorblindtest.com/

Yes, Barry, sometimes green is red.

Has anyone tried colorblindness as an example of profoundly unintelligent design in an educational setting?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8879
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,01:03   

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,15:44)
BarryA responds to the question "What would happen to your faith if you found out that Jesus had died and not risen?"  His answer's bottom line:
 
Quote
It is a little difficult to discuss this issue, because it is like discussing the question “what would you do if you found out green is really red?” Well, green isn’t red and it is impossible for it to be red. Similarly, Christ has risen, and it is impossible for me to believe he has not.

Barry has chosen a bad counterexample.  About 6% of men and some women have the red-green colorblindness.  
 
Quote


The Creamer Color Chart is an easy to use test to screen for red-green colorblindness. Two easily recognized symbols are presented to the child. Difficulty recognizing  the red star indicates the need for further testing. The orange circle is seen by all.
http://www.colorblindtest.com/

Yes, Barry, sometimes green is red.

Link!

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1014
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,01:49   

Quote (JAM @ July 19 2008,23:55)
Has anyone tried colorblindness as an example of profoundly unintelligent design in an educational setting?

I think Walt Brown explained it as having something to do with the Flood.  ;)

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,01:58   

I may be way out in left field about this, but there may be a good evolutionary explanation for red-green color blindness in humans.  My thinking is that it may be a visual variance that allows for other, more acute, vision in one's field of view.  I write this because, just the other day, a Viet Nam vet and I were talking, and he told me that when he was "in country" his unit used to select snipers with red-green color blindness because of their enhanced ability to spot enemy snipers in the thick, green foliage native to SE Asia.

Anyway, maybe off-topic, too; but my 2c.

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,01:59   

Linky!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,02:02   

D'OL
Quote
I am a machine. No, I am a tree. Here’s the problem with analogy …
Isn't analogy with machines one of the central arguments put forward by Dembski, Behe et al.?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,02:15   

Last OT post on this, but this appears to explain the APS's strong reaction to Monckton's piece, and I thought Olegt might find it interesting:

Quote
...an organization that Monckton served as "chief policy advisor" for issued a press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/provednoclimate_crisis.html) whose first sentence says: "Mathematical proof that there is no 'climate crisis' appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports"

That "mathematical proof" bit fits right into creationist claims regarding evolutionary biology ... denialists of all stripes seem to share a common playbook.

Anyway, three lies in one sentence, not bad, two of which probably pissed off the APS:

1. He provided no such "mathematical proof"
2. It's not "peer-reviewed"
3. It's not a "learned journal", it's a newsletter

I don't think the APS overreacted a bit in aggressively distancing themselves from this glorified opinion piece ...

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,02:51   

Quote (jeffox @ July 19 2008,23:58)
I write this because, just the other day, a Viet Nam vet and I were talking, and he told me that when he was "in country" his unit used to select snipers with red-green color blindness because of their enhanced ability to spot enemy snipers in the thick, green foliage native to SE Asia.

Along the same lines, I've read that during WWII, the Army Air Corps selected color-blind crewmen as bombardiers because they were less likely to be fooled by camouflaged targets.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,07:06   

Quote (sparc @ July 20 2008,03:02)
D'OL      
Quote
I am a machine. No, I am a tree. Here’s the problem with analogy …
Isn't analogy with machines one of the central arguments put forward by Dembski, Behe et al.?

In Granny's case, the machine analogy may be perfectly appropriate.

   
Quote (matar_hm @ Jul 18, 10:01 AM)
canada passport office cassie ft. dons me movie summary of john q vfnfiberglass turfgrass producers

   
Quote (feechka-kf @ Jul 19, 3:53 AM)
1997 peter fonda movie cassandra seland 2004 jamaican olympics the governorship of harold stassen pa


Those are spambot comments from UDoJ's filter.  How are O'Dreary's writings any different than that, really?  They too just mindlessly string together words from a list that's fed to them.

Samey same.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1967
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,07:39   

Dear me.  I go off for two weeks for some serious de-tarding and look what you've done.  I felt quite lost when I returned.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1662
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,07:42   

Quote (Aardvark @ July 19 2008,13:53)
Dembski links to something Anthony Flew supposedly wrote.

There's some fluff about Flew, then it starts out:

       
Quote
Professor Antony Flew writes:


But it gets a bit strange:

       
Quote
What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew...

Then there's this at the end:

       
Quote
Note on Lord Gifford (Adam)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Lord Gifford as ‘judge and benefactor’. He endowed lectureships at four Scottish universities ‘for promoting, advancing and diffusing natural theology, in the widest sense of that term, in other words the knowledge of God’ and ‘of the foundation of ethics.’


Am I just imagining the puppet strings?


???

More strangeness:    
Quote
Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.
I've seen a lot of quotes from Einstein on God and religion, but never one like that.  Can anybody provide a link for a quote that supports this view?

Here are a few quotes from Einstein on God:  
Quote
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134. )

“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.


Many more on a similar vein are available at that site.  From what I've read, Einstein's "God" was the universe and its laws, with no hint of a conscious Being involved at any point.  I don't know what's going on in Flew's head, but I don't think he's firing on all of his cylinders any more.

"Am I just imagining the puppet strings?"
I don't think so.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,07:58   

Quote (olegt @ July 20 2008,02:59)
Linky!

 
Quote
I believe the God the practitioners of these other religions believe in is the God revealed in the Bible, the “specific revelation” of the Christian faith. Because I believe the Bible, I have placed all of my hope in Christ and Christ alone, and if I were presented with irrefutable proof the resurrection did not occur, my faith would be crushed and I would despair. After reflecting on the matter, I would despair not because the materialists are right, but because I would know my faith has been in vain.

It is a little difficult to discuss this issue, because it is like discussing the question “what would you do if you found out green is really red?” Well, green isn’t red and it is impossible for it to be red. Similarly, Christ has risen, and it is impossible for me to believe he has not.

Forgot so soon, Barry?

You could be a brain in a beaker. Stuck in the matrix. Or a Boltzman brain. And everything you believe an illusion.

If you want that argument to have any force against "materialists," you've got to accept it for yourself. Unless what you are saying is that you know that this concern was bullshit from the start, and fails to put the "faith of materialism" on equal footing with your own.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1662
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,08:06   

More Flew weirdness, from the same article:      
Quote
In that monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book – The God Delusion – Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding Institution is Biola, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first class academic work in every department – not a thesis which would be acceptable in either my own university or Oxford or in Harvard.
This is sad for a philosopher.  Biola isn't Oxford, Harvard or whatever University Flew is currently affiliated with.  If you publish a book refuting Christianity, it would scarcely cause a ripple at any of those universities.  At Biola - watch out, something is going to hit the fan!  Dawkin's real assumption is that Biola never has and never will produce anything first class in philosophy or theology, which is the conservative position.
   
Quote
Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University. If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used then I can only express my regret that at the age of 85 I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution.
Another non-sequiter.  Yes, Professor Flew, I'm sure they treated you royally at Biola.  You're a great prize for them.  A person with an actual intellectual reputation saying something that they agree with is a great rarity indeed, scarcer than hen's teeth and definitely something to be gloated over.  I'm sure they pampered you to the max - while using you in your old age.

One other oddity: At the top of the page there's a small box with a picture of Flew and this text in it:  
Quote
Antony Flew was a lecturer at the Universities of Oxford and Aberdeen, before posts as Professor of Philosophy at the Universities of Keele and of Reading. He has now retired. He is renowned for his 1950 essay "Theology and Falsification" and his atheistic work, before announcing in 2004 his belief in a Creator God. View all resources by Antony Flew
If you click on the link, it only produces the article it's at the top of.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,08:15   

GilDodgen is having a conniption fit over there.      
Quote

The Coyne quote is a gold mine of speculation presented as fact, and the invocation of consensus, which is only resorted to when a theory is in trouble with the evidence.
     
Quote
…natural selection, which builds complex bodies…

Natural selection does not "build" anything…
     
Quote
…by saving the most adaptive mutations…

…it just throws stuff out.

Is he being deliberately obtuse, or accidentally obtuse?
 
Quote
There is absolutely no evidence that random mutation and natural selection "build complex bodies."

Hey Gil babe, from that special place in your heart, could I recommend a full length mirror on the back of your bedroom door?  What you'll find in that might be considered "a complex body".
 
Quote
This unending, evidentially unfounded, logically absurd, mathematically ridiculous speculation presented as established scientific fact really annoys me, especially because so many people buy it without even thinking about it.

Yeah, them damned biologists, always spending all those years in the lab and in the field, never thinkin' 'bout nuthin'.  They should spend more time reading UD and DI press releases.
 
Quote
There is a very good reason why so many mathematicians, computer programmers, and engineers are skeptical of Coyne's claims. Coyne lives in the ever-changing ether of speculation based on a pre-assigned assumption. Mathematicians, computer programmers, and engineers must figure out how stuff really works, and demonstrate that they know what they are talking about with hard evidence and results.

Hmm.. what about the biologists though, Gil?  Have you asked them what they think on the matter?  I'm thinking their take might be important in this context.  And how 'bout some of that hard evidence and results?  Could you post a link to some of that?  I'd appreciate it.
 
Quote
Once I applied my hard-science, mathematical, engineering background to "evolutionary theory," I slapped myself in the forehead

Gil, I have to tell you.  You're turning me on here.  That's kind of got this porn undercurrent to it...
 
Quote
and asked: Are these guys nuts, just out of contact with reality, or insufficiently educated in basic logic, mathematics, and the method of logical inference to the best explanation based on what is known?

Funny that.  That question, in reference to biology, is often asked and debated about you guys.  Why do you keep leaving biology and biologists out of a discussion about... y'know.. biology?
 
Quote
The answer is that they are philosophically committed to a universe without design or purpose, and that explains their unwillingness to think logically or consider the evidence impartially.

Geez, really Gil?  C'mon.  We've been over the theistic scientist / clergy letter project thing a bajillion times.  Please pay attention.

... or quit lying, whichever is the case here.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1662
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,08:18   

Okay, one more on Flew and Biola:  Professor Flew, Biola may have lionized you on your visit, but unless you agree one hundred percent with the following Doctrinal Statement, you will never get a job there:  
Quote
The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

There is one God, eternally existing and manifesting Himself to us in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Our Lord Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin Mary, a lineal descendant of David. He lived and taught and wrought mighty works and wonders and signs exactly as is recorded in the four Gospels. He was put to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. God raised from the dead the body that had been nailed to the cross. The Lord Jesus after His crucifixion showed Himself to be alive to His disciples, appearing unto them by the space of 40 days. After this, the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, and the Father caused Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church.

The Lord Jesus, before His incarnation, existed in the form of God and of His own choice laid aside His divine glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. In His pre-existent state, He was with God and was God. He is a divine person possessed of all the attributes of Deity, and should be worshiped as God by angels and man. "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." All the words that He spoke during His earthly life were the words of God. There is absolutely no error of any kind in them, and by the words of Jesus Christ the words of all other teachers must be tested.

The Lord Jesus became in every respect a real man, possessed of all the essential characteristics of human nature.

By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The Lord Jesus is coming again to his earth, personally, bodily, and visibly. The return of our Lord is the blessed hope of the believer, and in it God's purposes of grace toward mankind will find their consummation.

The Holy Spirit is a person, and is possessed of all the distinctively divine attributes. He is God.

Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.

Men are justified on the simple and single ground of the shed blood of Christ and upon the simple and single condition of faith in Him who shed the blood, and are born again by the quickening, renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Word of God.

All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.

The Church consists of all those who, in this present dispensation, truly believe in Jesus Christ. It is the body and bride of Christ, which Christ loves and for which He has given Himself.

There is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power: "The prince of the power of the air," "The prince of this world," "The god of this age." He can exert vast power only so far as God suffers him to do so. He shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.


Explanatory Note:

This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used, referring to the human race, it includes both genders. In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:

In fulfillment of God’s historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God’s kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10 Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with his saints on earth following his literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing the blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4, 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6, 3:19-21; Rev. 20:4-7). Following the millennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (I Cor. 15:22-28).

Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this “rapture” is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready.

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and © God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

Though there may be many fillings of the Holy Spirit, there is only one baptism which occurs at the time of regeneration. The gifts of the Spirit are given to believers according to the Will of God for the purpose of building up the Church. During the foundational era of the Church (i.e., the time of Christ and the Apostles) God gave special manifestations of the overtly supernatural and miraculous gifts (e.g., tongues, healings, miracles) as “signs” that witness to the validity of those bearing new canonical revelation (c.f. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). Beyond the foundational era, God in His sovereignty may grant any spiritual gift and work miraculously for the benefit of His Church at any time.

The Bible is clear in its teaching on the sanctity of human life. Life begins at conception. We abhor the destruction of innocent life through abortion-on-demand.
Link

Oh yeah, one more thing.  The last winner of the Phillip Johnson award was ... Ben Stein.  You're being used, Professor.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
fusilier



Posts: 208
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,11:59   

Quote (philbert @ July 19 2008,19:03)
In linking to the "Anthony Flew" piece on The God Delusion, O'Leary writes:

   
Quote
Antony Flew, formerly the most prominent atheist in the English speaking world, goes after Dawkins, his successor as head atheist


"Head atheist"? This trope has always amused me, and you do see it a lot. It seems that some Christians, especially the Popeish ones, simply cannot got their heads around the idea that we atheists might not roll in the authoritarian way that they do.

Philbert, I see you already corrected yourself - but it just makes your point more clearly.

It's the various Protestant* fundies who insist on there being a Head Atheist, analogous to the Bishop of Rome.  After all, the Pope is the anti-Christ, and the Church is the official Beast with Seven Heads from Revelations.

So Head Atheist = Pope of Atheists = Anti-Christ!



*There are fundie Catholics, to be sure, but they think the Pope is an OK guy, so the equation never occurs to them.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 327
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,21:37   

From the Olivia Judson thread, for whoever keeps track of these things:

Quote
jerry  07/20/2008  8:15 pm

Well it looks like Stephen Matheson has got his wish and got banned from here. While he seemed to be going out of his way to be negative, he did raise some interesting questions that would have been nice to debate with him.

For example, he suggested that everything that Olivia Judson said was right on and I went off to read the article and had some questions for him when I discovered his comments were deleted.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1967
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,01:53   

Naughty Reg!
Quote
5

Reg

07/20/2008

5:51 pm

Tard Alert!

@CrowsSupporter
Quote
If evolution isn’t Christian, is ID? This post seems to imply ID is Christian.

No. No no no, as both Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent make clear: ID is consistent with religion but is not a religion nor is it founded on religion, it is certainly not in any way related to creationism, and the designer is not necessarily God. This is entirely consistent with the “Discovery Institute’s persistent stress on humans being made in the image of God“.

We'll see how long that one lasts.

EDIT: let's get them there tags in the right place this time...

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,06:32   

Good god!  Dave Scot is on his knees, licking my boots, begging me to spank him.

Janie!  What did you do to that boy???

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,06:48   

DaveScot doesn't seem to appreciate irony of this...
 
Quote
They wouldn’t have much to talk about on their blogs if you take away their obsession over intelligent design (like my dog with his ball) and they get much of their source material from us.

...appearing in an otherwise empty 1000 word post that solely concerns a conversation conducted by PZ and ERV that, as Dave documents, primarily addressed topics with no relationship to ID, UD and creationism.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,07:26   

Quote
DaveScot: They wouldn’t have much to talk about on their blogs if you take away their obsession over intelligent design (like my dog with his ball) and they get much of their source material from us.

Well, other than science. From the front pages of ERV and Pharyngula:

Quote
ERV: This next installment of 'Intro to ERVs' is about the coolest protein on the planet*, Env.


Quote
Pharyngula: Pathological cephalopod... Here's one of those tantalizing cases: an octopus with branching tentacles.



--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,07:29   

Quote (ERV @ July 21 2008,06:32)
Good god!  Dave Scot is on his knees, licking my boots, begging me to spank him.

Janie!  What did you do to that boy???

It's Dembski's fault!  He posted a photo of that Judson chick!  Dave just had to respond!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]