Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Painting themselves into a corner? started by Woodbine


Posted by: Woodbine on April 01 2012,22:01

It's no secret that Dembski and O'Leary are co-authoring a book on the evils of 'Christian Darwinism'. It will be fun to watch Dembski further marginalise himself from respectable academia but I wonder if they've thought out the broader implications.

The tack I assume they are going to take is that the idea that humans arose naturally and contingently is incompatible with God's fall/salvation/redemption project that Christianity espouses.

However, if Christianity in their eyes demands the appearance of humans as a deliberate act of crea....design, then so too must the Earth. For surely God is not going to leave his Great Plan at the mercy of natural law; hoping to himself that just the right kind of planet forms? No, just like humanity the Earth must have also been a special creation.

So it follows that Dembski and O'Leary are not only explicitly opposing common ancestry, but also the current and increasingly well supported nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation!

If you can't be a Christian and believe in a natural origin to humankind then you sure as hell can't be a Christian and hold to a naturalistic and contingent account of one of the necessary conditions of our existence - i.e. the Earth.

Thus, according to Dembski and O'Leary creationism is the only valid stance for a 'true' Christian.
Posted by: Seversky on April 01 2012,22:36

Quote (Woodbine @ April 01 2012,22:01)
It's no secret that Dembski and O'Leary are co-authoring a book on the evils of 'Christian Darwinism'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Dembski and DeNews railing against "Christian Darwinism"!  That should shake the faith to its very core.

And now that UD has been cleansed of impure thoughts and heresy - and most signs of intellectual life -  sales should run into the - oh - dozens, easily
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 02 2012,05:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it follows that Dembski and O'Leary are not only explicitly opposing common ancestry, but also the current and increasingly well supported nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And if the nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Posted by: deOmair on Dec. 12 2014,01:29

The tack I assume they are going to take is that the idea that humans arose naturally and contingently is incompatible with God's fall/salvation/redemption project that Christianity espouses.........
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2014,07:54

So, will Dembski come out of the closet as a full blown YEC or will he try to piss everyone off by still trying to justify an old Earth, but with design?

They so desperately want the implicit power of scientific support, but can't go all the way and just use what is scientifically supportable.
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 12 2014,08:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2014,15:54)
So, will Dembski come out of the closet as a full blown YEC or will he try to piss everyone off by still trying to justify an old Earth, but with design?

They so desperately want the implicit power of scientific support, but can't go all the way and just use what is scientifically supportable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well he already tried Da Flud ™ Light before recanting so I'm guessing it will be full blown Gospel of Noah with Ham on teh side.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 10 2015,13:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 02 2012,03:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it follows that Dembski and O'Leary are not only explicitly opposing common ancestry, but also the current and increasingly well supported nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And if the nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW  :D
Posted by: anosh on April 13 2015,23:46

with Seti and every other subject that deals with finding "design", we are able to pinpoint a location of the source of design.  With Seti we would be able to name a star system and a time frame of when the intelligent message was sent, and while we may not be capable of finding out who sent it, it's still a physical possibility that we could.
___
anosh g
Posted by: sparc on April 14 2015,01:21

Is this the same book DO'L announced for November 2011 back in < August 2010 >?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thursday, August 26, 2010
New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O'Leary slam "Christian Darwinism" - O'Leary


In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian ("survival of the fittest") evolution.

This trend includes "Evolution Sundays" at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins.

Dembski and O'Leary say it all just doesn't work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with "altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!" How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church - for which he gave himself up - with "The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!"?

In the authors' view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution - or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.

Dembski and O'Leary insist that this conflict has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Darwinism is, as they will show, the increasingly implausible creation story of atheism, which diverges at just about every point from the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.

Yet Darwinism is publicly funded, and taught, in many jurisdictions, without any criticism permitted.

Reactions - not only praise but criticism - are expected and much appreciated! Regular updates will be provided at www.uncommondescent.com, so persons who wish to comment on the project can post there.

Contact: Denyse O'Leary oleary@sympatico.ca

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Posted by Denyse at 8/26/2010 08:36:00 am
Labels: new book announcement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the authors has a history of slow writing, though.
Posted by: Texas Teach on April 14 2015,08:55

Quote (sparc @ April 14 2015,01:21)
Is this the same book DO'L announced for November 2011 back in < August 2010 >?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thursday, August 26, 2010
New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O'Leary slam "Christian Darwinism" - O'Leary


In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian ("survival of the fittest") evolution.

This trend includes "Evolution Sundays" at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins.

Dembski and O'Leary say it all just doesn't work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with "altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!" How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church - for which he gave himself up - with "The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!"?

In the authors' view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution - or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.

Dembski and O'Leary insist that this conflict has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Darwinism is, as they will show, the increasingly implausible creation story of atheism, which diverges at just about every point from the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.

Yet Darwinism is publicly funded, and taught, in many jurisdictions, without any criticism permitted.

Reactions - not only praise but criticism - are expected and much appreciated! Regular updates will be provided at www.uncommondescent.com, so persons who wish to comment on the project can post there.

Contact: Denyse O'Leary oleary@sympatico.ca

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Posted by Denyse at 8/26/2010 08:36:00 am
Labels: new book announcement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the authors has a history of slow writing, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the authors has a history of slow thinking.
Posted by: sparc on April 14 2015,09:18

His speed doesn't help the other one. The outcome of his thinking remains wrong.
Posted by: Woodbine on April 14 2015,10:03

Quote (sparc @ April 14 2015,07:21)
Is this the same book DO'L announced for November 2011 back in < August 2010 >?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I think that's the book I had in mind.

If I remember rightly.... ???

....so long ago....the darkness creeps in.....


Posted by: Quack on April 15 2015,05:35

With ID indistuingishable from evolution (sans abiogenesis) except for just a couple of designer interventions like the debunked Behe argument about the bacterial flagellum, is TE all they've got left to write about?

ID makes strange bedfellows.
Posted by: adeena on Feb. 03 2016,02:30

His speed doesn't help the other one. The outcome of his thinking remains wrong.
Posted by: anosh on Feb. 03 2016,02:38

His speed doesn't help the other one. The outcome of his thinking remains wrong.




Anosh
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.