What’s up at Reasons to Believe?
| December 23, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross, who head up Reasons to Believe (RTB), have issued a press release in which they extol Judge Jone’s decision in the Dover case in coming down against ID: go here for the press release. I’ve already commented on RTB’s distancing itself from ID before on this blog (go here).
Rana and Ross seem happy enough to see ID guillotined by Judge Jones’s ruling, but seem not to appreciate that their own necks are equally in danger. Jones’s ruling canonizes methodological naturalism as the essence of science and thus rules out their “creation model” as much as it rules out intelligent design.
In their press release, Rana and Ross invoke Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, who died this fall. I had lunch with Smalley shortly before his death (I blogged his death here and our lunch conversation here). In our conversation Smalley remarked that he saw ID as being mainstreamed in the scientific community within the next five years. Note that in our conversation he referred specifically to ID being mainstreamed, not to Rana and Ross’s “creation model” being mainstreamed. (That conversation was witnessed by several people, so it’s easy enough to verify that I’m not making this up.)
They invoke the authority of so many people who support some form of ID on their site. Jonathan Wells here: http://www.reasons.org/resourc.....s_argument
Look at the 8 myths about RTB section, they mention William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (who favorably mention Dembski’s design inference in their 2003 book “Philosophical Foundations…”), and Craig used his model in one of his papers. I think they’re both fellows of the Discovery Institute actually (http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php). There’s also Norman Geisler, who I am pretty sure supports design arguments… as he brought them up somewhat in his 2004 book “Don’t Have Enough Faith…”). There’s Michael Denton’s book on there, and he’s a fellow of ISCID…I’m pretty sure he’d support ID over RTB’s model.
I’m sure there are many more examples.
One of the things we do too easily is infere too much,we get carried away.
ID is about detecting patterns that cannot be explaind in terms of a random process.
Young earth, old earth is that part of ID ?
As Mike Gene has stated in his blog you dont have to be a religous fundementalist to ask the initial question :
‘Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?’
We need allies from all beliefs and none -a broad approach is needed -detecting design doesn’t require a faith.
Happy Jesus’s Birthday too you all.
WormHerder out.
I support ID over RTB. But they share a common cause–destroy darwinian materialism.
Obviously many on this blog are OECs, so, like Takumi4G63, they wonder about Ross’s statements and his true relationship to ID.
I think Ross is clearly making an error here and it will likely come back and bite him. Also, I’m with Salvador regarding a young universe (and have worked with him in conjuction with the University of Virginia IDEA club). You see, science never rules that out. I’m a practicing design engineer, an adjuct professor of electrical engineering, and I became a Christian in 1993. I’ve read Ross’s arguments and bought all of his books since then, and I’m very well informed on both young or old earth assertions. Now consider the following regarding one of my hobbies, astronomy (to pick Ross’s specialty):
Science says…
1. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. That’s the current number.
2. The universe is made up of 96% dark energy and dark matter. We don’t know much about them, but the Big Bang needs them as well as inflation and other ideas to seemingly fit the data.
3. The size of the universe is 156 billion light-years wide. Do a google search on “156 billion light years” and read the articles back in May 2004 when this revelation was given the imprimatur of fact.
4. The speed of light is supposedly the speed limit for matter/energy. If this seems like a contradiction to the size and age (2 x 13.7 = 27.4) just mentioned, then read the articles you googled to see why it is not. Oh, please don’t think I understood them, I’m just an engineer who dabbles in theoretical astrophysics and can’t be expected to understand all the ramifications of space-time expansion which can apparently exceed light speed.
So, is this a strong indicator that “we know a lot about our universe and astronomy”? Well, I’m not convinced. In fact, since I’ve had to do considerable studies in complexities of electromagnetics, I’m a little concerned about astronomers’ assumptions about the electromagnetic data they gather.
As a YUC (young universe creationist – something of what my fellow professors like to remind me and that they prefer over the more common “YEC” term) and IDiot (another term of endearment a skeptical friend and mechanical engineer calls me since he knows I like Dembski and company), I can’t be expected to have an overabundance of brain cells.
Plus, here’s a snippet from the Nobel Prize celebration I use to irritate my “smarter-than-god” friends:
Begin
David J. Gross, one of the three winners of the physics prize, wondered whether such lavish celebrations could be sustained. “Fortunately, nature is a generous with its problems as Nobel was with his forture. The more we know, the more we are aware of what we know not. Indeed, the most important product of knowledge is ignorance,” Gross said. “I am happy to report that there is no evidence that we are running out of our most important resource–ignorance. How lucky for science. How lucky for scientists. And how lucky for the Nobel Foundation.”
End
This came from Science News, Vol. 167, 22 Jan 05, “Nobel Celebrations,” page 60.
So, if it’s okay for people like R. Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, Danny Akin, Paige Patterson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, the late Adrian Rogers, and my dear theologian friend at Liberty University, Harold Willmington, then, based on this thoroughly fallacious argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), it’s okay for me!
By the way, couldn’t God simply have said it took a lot of time? He seems to have gone out of his way to indicate it was like, 6-days. But, I digress…
Merry CHRIST-mas!
It’s Chrismahanukwanzaka… everybody out of here and spend time with your families.
Love,
Bombadillo
Bombadill- is that the Glenn Beck thing…? I used to listen to him when we had two talk stations, but they shut down. He had some long name that put together all the holidays…maybe someone else made it up but he just used it all the time.
Takumi4G63 :
I used to believe in an old earth and a young mankind. However, as I started to examine what the Bible actually said, I started to go towards young earth (note, however, that young earth is actually a bit of a misnomer — you are still a YEC as long as you believe that the geologic column is young — there are many YECs who believe in an old universe or an old physical rock of earth).
Here are some issues to ponder:
1) Was the flood global? The language certainly indicates it. For them to be on a boat for an entire year without hitting land certainly indicates it. The size of the boat certainly indicates that they did in fact get all of the created kinds on there. This wasn’t a gigantic local flood. This was truly a global flood. But where in the geologic column is there evidence of a global flood? The answer is the paleozoic and mesozoic, where you have continental-wide sedimentation, and continental-wide paleocurrent indicators. If these parts of the geologic column are young, then there’s no reason to think of an old earth.
2) Was there carnivory before the fall? The Bible indicates that there was not. The geologic column indicates carnivory early in the column. This means that it is post-fall.
3) Many people are confused about the use of “day” in Genesis. The fact is that the Hebrew clearly indicates a single day. Context is key. In Hebrew, day always means day when used with a number, and when used in conjunction with evening and morning. It can mean “period of time”, but only when used in specific constructions, such as “in the day of”. Some think that Genesis is meant to be poetry, but in fact it doesn’t contain any of the main markers of Hebrew poetry. In addition, Exodus 20:11 makes it very clear what the period is. Note that most Hebrew scholars, including ones that believe that the Earth is old, believe that a young earth is the clear teaching of Genesis.
“You say you believe the earth is young because you trust Him. Well, I am far more confident in the evidence that the universe/earth is old than that a young earth theological interpreation of Genesis is the only possible interpretation.”
Historically, it has been the only interpretation. It has only been old-earth ideas that has caused people to think that Genesis doesn’t indicate a young-earth (with a small exception of some groups who took the entire Old Testament as allegory).
“And that is why I (and many old-earthers) reject young-earth Creationism. It’s not that they doubt the Bible, it’s that they doubt the theology that has been set up.”
The only theology is the historical-critical method of interpretation.
“I don’t know what you mean when you say the starting point for science should be the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book.”
Noone claims that it is. It is, however, a historical book. And when examining historical claims (which is what origins research does), then the Bible does give a starting point from which to go further.
“It makes some empirical claims, but very few that could serve to make a rich and fruitful scientific research program.”
It makes many empirical claims. In a less controversial example, Steve Austin used a combination of the Bible and physical evidence to determine when and what magnitude an earthquake was in the time of Amos the prophet. This was published in the secular International Geology Review. The Young-Earth methodology is exactly the same, only using Genesis as the book in question.
“The other problem is that theology, like science, works by inference to the best explanation. Do you think that science can correct theology about science?”
Not really.
“I think so – this has happened in the past with the Copernican revolution, and other cases.”
I would be interested in the other cases. The Copernican revolution was against Ptolemaic science, not the Bible.
“If you admit that science can correct theology, then you can’t say that science should begin with the Bible.”
I believe that the claims of the Bible should be taken as they are presented. If the Bible is attempting to make a scientific claim, we should trust it scientifically (there are relatively few if any of these). If the Bible is attempting to make a historical claim, we should trust it historically. If the Bible is making an observational claim, we should trust it observationally. If we don’t yet have the science to understand the history or the observation, that should be taken as simply meaning we need to learn more.
As a member of the Washington D.C. chapter of RTB, I have some sympathy with “teleologist” (comment 20). I don’t agree that ID is “not science” and I have called Dr. Ross directly on it at Q&A at their 2003 “Who is the Designer” conference. I agree that Dr. Dembski’s rigorous specified complexity criterion will reliably detect after-the-fact design.
I tried posting this yesterday in response to Ken Miller’s comment about YEC being “more honest” than ID. There is a conflation here of several (largely) independent questions:
1) Should ID be taught in public schools?
2) Is ID legitimate science?
3) Does God exist?
RTB is interested primarily in question 3 (as is YEC). The ID movement is primarily interested in question 2. The movements have different goals because they do different things. I don’t see a problem here in ID’s outlook as well as their Big Tent approach with respect to question 2. (The judge’s problem was that he conflated all three questions when he should have limited his comments to question 1)
What I believe Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana are worried about (from their public and private comments) is that, with respect to question 3, ID is more likely to reinforce people who have a vague spirituality as their outlook as opposed to helping people toward Christianity. Polling data already shows this to be a problem. Some 95% of Americans will profess to believing in God. But a much smaller percentage are orthodox Christians.
That said, I personally am inclined to the view that taking on the naturalist establishment is a more critical goal at this point even with respect to question 3. I am inclined to support Big Tent ID even within an RTB context. I agree with William Lane Craig’s thesis in Reasonable Faith. If the whole society thinks of Christianity as nothing but a harmless superstition, we will attract only a few stragglers. We must fight for the public square as well as the individual believer.
Josh,
The attacks that the YECs make towards ID is not one based on lack of scientifical suport, but lack of a worldview/model where they can fit all of it. In other words, to use Henry Morris’ own words, ID is minimalist, and from a Christian point of view, it is not enough to give them a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Sure, nature does display many jaw dropping bioogical machines, but how do you explain the deformities? Are the deformities a result of “bad design” ? If so, then is the Designer a “bad” Designer”?
The YEC worldview, which has many common points with ID, does say WHY there are biological machines that are born with deformities.
As for Ross: I don’t quite understand why he attacks ID.
I like RTB. Hugh Ross and “Fuz” Rana are smart guys, and from the best I can tell, their Creation model seems strong. My guess is that they’re trying to distance themselves from ID as a tactical maneuver in order to avoid the vicious attacks it and its proponents are getting. Mainstream scientists don’t feel threatened by Creationism because it’s rooted in faith-based doctrine; ID, on the other hand, hits Darwinism right where it hurts, exposing it as the secular religion that it is. ID has the Darwinian Sanhedrin’s feathers ruffled, and RTB doesn’t want to deal with that right now.
David
johnnyb writes:
“I believe that the claims of the Bible should be taken as they are presented. If the Bible is attempting to make a scientific claim, we should trust it scientifically (there are relatively few if any of these). If the Bible is attempting to make a historical claim, we should trust it historically. If the Bible is making an observational claim, we should trust it observationally. If we don’t yet have the science to understand the history or the observation, that should be taken as simply meaning we need to learn more.”
Johnny,
I’m struck by the amount of trust you place in the Bible, and very curious to know why you are so certain it is the absolute word of God, meant to be read literally. If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell us what it is about the Bible that convinces you of its absolute truth?
I won’t argue with you over it (unless you want me to). I’m just very curious. As you may or may not know, I was a Biblical literalist until about age 14, as I’ve explained elsewhere on this blog, so I can relate to your position.
Regards,
Keith S.
What Dr. Ross says is that the ID approach won’t get a hearing (with respect to Question 2: Is ID legitimate science?) because it is perceived as being purely negative argumentation. This is the “God of the Gaps” problem. His claim is that the RTB creation model does include positive argumentation and is hence able to deal with this criticism.
I believe that both the perception exists and yet it has been adequately addressed in the ID literature. An obvious case of this is the multiple and ongoing finding that “junk” DNA is nothing of the sort. A Design paradigm would have rooted out this misconception ages ago. Instead we had to stumble into it.
With regard to the RTB creation model, I believe that Dr. Ross does get a hearing, even before a hardheaded PhD audience, when he addresses Question 3 (Does God Exist; what does science have to say about it). I don’t believe we (RTB) will get a hearing with respect to Question 2 in this day and age. I think that bringing the Bible into the issue (with respect to doing something like getting grant money for a study or publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a journal like Nature) is too prejudicial. The attention span of the audience goes straight to zero; it doesn’t matter if you are right.
So what is the best relationship of ID and RTB in the present day? To use a military metaphor (I am a Navy combat analyst by trade) ID should hold the center of the line, absorbing the blows of the opponent and increasing the intellectual respectability of teleology in the public square (focus on question 2). RTB should probe the flank; using its science based apologetic in a ministry mission; reach the unbeliever for Christianity (focus on question 3).
I, for one, intend to be involved in both efforts.
“Mainstream scientists don’t feel threatened by Creationism because it’s rooted in faith-based doctrine” (Crandaddy)
Actually, despite the fact that Biblical Creationism starts from the Bible, it has amassed a wide range of well trained scientists, and gathered a large amount of very compelling evidence in favor for a young earth worldview, refuting evolutionism right where it hurts: time. If there is no time, then there was no evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
The fact that Darwinists are threatened by Biblical Creationism can be seen by the fact that even Darwinist Eugenie Scott advises her followers to “avoid debating Creationists” in order to prevent “confusion around evolution”.
- “Don’t bother defending evolution. Evolution is a state of the art science, taught at every decent college and university in this country . . . Tell your audience that there is plenty of information on evolution in the library, in university courses, and in scores of scientific journals – (Scott, “Debates and the Globetrotters”)
In other words “go and find yourself the evidence”.
- “Because organized “debates” on college campuses are such a central part of the creationist strategy for mobilizing large numbers of supporters, our strategy to defeat them must be careful and well-thought out. And the opinion of most of the experienced creation-fighters (such as the National Center for Science Education) can be summed up in one short sentence: don’t debate creationists
Keith:
Before I answer, I need to make a clarification. You say “meant to be read literally”, and, while in a lay sense that is true, it does not mean that I’m talking about literal in a logical positivistic sense. I mean that I believe it is true in what it proposes to be true. In parables, this isn’t historical fact, but an analogy about the truth of God, because that’s what the passage indicates. Those that indicate historical truth, I believe is historical truth. And Genesis is clearly attempting to communicate historical truth.
As to why, I could try to explain it myself, but I think Todd Wood (a Creationist Geneticist who is well-published secularly) made a much, much better explanation than I ever could in the Introduction to the Proceedings of the 4th BSG conference.
You can view the proceedings here:
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/005.pdf
As I said, read the Introduction (it’s only a page), and it communicates it far better than I ever could say.
Dave Barry once wrote that you can tell a good neighborhood from a bad one by the names of the street signs. Good: “Jasmine View Court Terrace”. Bad: “Interstate-95″.
I was reminded of this in looking at the conference program linked by Johnny. The home institutions of the “scholars” represented –
Cedarville University, Bryan College, The Master’s College, Van Andel Creation Research Center, etc. — does not inspire confidence. (There were also a number of “independent scholars.”) This is a parody of science. You might as well justify cutting off the heads of infidels by citing the legal writings of “scholars” from various Islamic madrassas.
johnnyb writes:
“I believe that the claims of the Bible should be taken as they are presented.”
johnnyb, I agree with you. There is not just one reason to trust the Bible: there are many.
See
http://www.christiananswers.ne.....-t003.html
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html
http://www.rbc.org/ds/q0402/point1.html#1
http://www.av1611.org/genesis.html
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n21994.asp
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/ex.....ble_01.htm
http://www.absolutetruth.net/bible/page13.html
What is obvious, after examining the Bible’s honesty, accuracy, its claims about itself, its unity and its historical power to change lives, the Bible, written by over 40 authors over hundreds of years is an example of a specified complexity transcending any one author. In my opinion, such specified complexity is evidence of intelligent design.
Correction: In my opinion, such specified complexity COULD BE evidence of intelligent design.
johnnyb-
Thanks for your comments, I will try to be brief. This is by no means a discussion to be briefly had, though….
I don’t know of ANY young-earth creationist (classified as such) who believe that the universe is also 14 billion years old. Are you going to then take some of the “days” as figurative and some as literal?
1) The word “local” is misunderstood. I believe that the flood took care of all mankind in existence at that time. For such, it would be a huge flood (hundreds of miles in length easily), but it wouldn’t extend all the way to the bottom of South America, for example. Why would this make it any more unlikely that they would not hit land for a year? Do you have some insight on the tides and winds at that time?
2) The Bible does not talk about “carnivory” before the Creation of Adam and Eve. And if you mean was there death before the fall? Yes – they ate fruit.
3) The word “day” is flexible, as you admit. And it is not the case that it ALWAYS is used in the sense that you say. *Other* passages that you talk about are not in the same context as Genesis 1, they are a different context. I cannot rely 100% confidently in a completely distinct passage (out of context of Genesis 1) for my interpreation of yom in Genesis 1. Your argument is just based on either probability, or some kind of induction or generalization from other passages.
As I said before, I am far more confident in the evidence for an old earth/universe (and more confident that God would not deceive everybody empirically) than I am in your interpretation of this passage.
Eh…to add to #1 above, did you notice that when the flood ended they didn’t end up halfway across the world? That should indicate that your argument doesn’t really hold weight. They could not have moved very far.
Keith wrote: “I’m struck by the amount of trust you place in the Bible, and very curious to know why you are so certain it is the absolute word of God, meant to be read literally. If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell us what it is about the Bible that convinces you of its absolute truth?”
I don’t know if you were referring just to the “science” parts of the Bible, but there are reasons to put confidence in other aspects of the Bible, that might lend credibility to its creation aspects. For one thing, the Bible urges believers to treat their opponents and enemies in very counter-intuitive ways. As a Christian you are instructed to “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who mistreat you.” and “If your enemy takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic as well.”
This kind of teaching does not seem human in origin. It is unnatural. And it can actually be self-destructive. It is the opposite of “survival of the fittest” and might be the worst possible method of passing on one’s genes! In fact, Christianity should be extinct by Darwinian logic, since it urges its adherents to put the interests of Darwinists ahead of their own!
Takumi:
“I don’t know of ANY young-earth creationist (classified as such) who believe that the universe is also 14 billion years old. Are you going to then take some of the “days†as figurative and some as literal?”
No, it would occur _before_ the days. Several outlines of such possibilities are in Ariel Roth’s Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Also, Jason Lisle gives this as a possibility as well. This is different from the Gap theory, which is used to explain the geological column.
“The word “local†is misunderstood. I believe that the flood took care of all mankind in existence at that time. For such, it would be a huge flood (hundreds of miles in length easily), but it wouldn’t extend all the way to the bottom of South America, for example. Why would this make it any more unlikely that they would not hit land for a year? Do you have some insight on the tides and winds at that time?”
First of all, the flood would have had to be above the land for a full year. That in itself prevents it from only being hundreds of miles. In addition, sailing 100 miles taking a year in _any_ condition? Especially in catastrophic conditions such as a flood. Finally, the text indicates that it was a global flood, and they had to take two or seven of every kind of land animal.
“The Bible does not talk about “carnivory†before the Creation of Adam and Eve. And if you mean was there death before the fall? Yes – they ate fruit.”
The Bible discusses Nephesh life as being different from other kinds of life. I believe Nephesh refers to animals that breath through their nostrils. This is the kind of carnivory I am talking about. The animals and Adam and Eve were ONLY given plants to eat (and this is irrespective of whether or not death occurred before the fall — the fact is before the fall they were all vegetarian).
“3) The word “day†is flexible, as you admit.”
No, it isn’t. It is context-dependent, which is different. If I said “I went back to get a backpack to put on my back”, is there any confusion as to which meaning of back is used in any of the three instances? No, there isn’t, because context dictates it. Likewise, as I said, when yom is used with a number, it indicates a literal day. It is only certain constructions such as “in the day” that allow for a time period.
“And it is not the case that it ALWAYS is used in the sense that you say. *Other* passages that you talk about are not in the same context as Genesis 1, they are a different context.”
Name one passage (or any ancient Hebrew text at all) which uses yom with a number and indicates more than a single day.
“or some kind of induction or generalization from other passages.”
That’s called “linguistics”. The only determination of a meaning of any word in any language is its usage. How else would you determine the meaning of a word?
“(and more confident that God would not deceive everybody empirically)”
I don’t think he deceives anyone empirically, either. However, historical extrapolation is not empiricism. If a car is driving forward at 10MPH, I cannot deduce from that where it was 500 years ago. Even if I know how much gas he has, I can’t deduce where it was 10 minutes ago.
johnnyb…even some very famous exegetes disagree with you and think that day can mean long periods of time even in genesis. here’s what JP Moreland has to say on the subject:
Fact is- there are many experts out there in the various fields that see the days as being indefinite periods. Heck- the sun, which creates the very concept of a day as we know it, wasn’t around for the first couple of days (God created light, but not the sun- God probably WAS the light.)
So, arguing this matter is pointless, I think- various experts in many fields disagree, so I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty “no- it HAS to be a 24 hr period” or “no- it can be a longer period of time.”
On another note- I’m always confused by people like this professor, a devout conservative Christian who attacks ID (he falsely claims it invokes God…as does the author of the article [this is the archived version as the page is no longer on the paper’s website- http://web.archive.org/web/200.....435989.htm
I haven’t heard of this guy before today while looking thru some sites, and I haven’t read his book–but from a look at his theory, God, in his view, is a “random designer” (what on earth is a random designer- the two words contradict each other!)…and he claims that IC with the BF has been solved (not!) His idea would be very close to ID- tho he’s fine with lifeless chemicals into life, common descent, all of it random…that contradicts with the very idea of a “designer”. Like I said, I haven’t read the book- but the idea from his site, from the little info. he has, makes no sense on the face of it.
Oops- I didn’t realize that link being so long would move the page over the way it did. My apologies!
Btw- here are the quotes from the two scholars JP mentions.
Funny thing- these are actually FROM RTB’s website.
Not sure why they’re attacking ID, and I think it’s pretty silly to do so, but this is what some well known Biblical scholars have to say on the subject that has come up in this thread, so I thought I’d mention it all…
johnnyb,
Thanks for the BSG reference. I noticed there were no ICR folks at the conference. Is the BSG on good terms with the ICR?
russ writes:
“I don’t know if you were referring just to the “science†parts of the Bible, but there are reasons to put confidence in other aspects of the Bible, that might lend credibility to its creation aspects. For one thing, the Bible urges believers to treat their opponents and enemies in very counter-intuitive ways. As a Christian you are instructed to “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who mistreat you.†and “If your enemy takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic as well.†This kind of teaching does not seem human in origin.”
Russ,
Like you, I used to think that “love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek” were unique to the Bible, but they actually show up in religious texts from all over the world.
Here are some examples taken from the web and from “World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts”:
Sikhism:
Those who beat you with fists,
Do not pay them in the same coin,
But go to their house and kiss their feet.
Buddhism:
‘He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!’
In those who harbor such thoughts hatred is not appeased.
‘He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!’
In those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred is appeased.
Jainism:
My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.
Taoism:
Do good to him who has done you an injury.
Islam:
Let there be no injury and no requital.
Judaism:
One should choose to be among the persecuted rather than the persecutors.
Confucianism:
Confucius said, “He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon Goodness will dislike no one.”
Zen Buddhism:
One evening as Shichiri Kojun was reciting sutras a thief with a sharp sword entered, demanding wither his money or his life.
Shichiri told him: “Do not disturb me. You can find the money in that drawer.” Then he resumed his recitation.
A little while afterwards he stopped and called: “Don’t take it all. I need some to pay taxes with tomorrow.”
The intruder gathered up most of the money and started to leave. “Thank a person when you receive a gift,” Shichiri added. The man thanked him and made off.
A few days afterwards the fellow was caught and confessed, among others, the offense against Shichiri. When Shichiri was called as a witness he said: “This man is no thief, at least as far as I am concerned. I gave him the money and he thanked me for it.”
After he had finished his prison term, the man went to Shichiri and became his disciple.
russ writes:
“In fact, Christianity should be extinct by Darwinian logic, since it urges its adherents to put the interests of Darwinists ahead of their own!”
I don’t think we need to worry about Christians going extinct. How many Christians do you know who actually take “love thine enemy” to heart, or heed Paul’s call to celibacy, or Jesus’ exhortation to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor?
Josh Bozeman writes:
“Oops- I didn’t realize that link being so long would move the page over the way it did. My apologies!”
You can use tinyurl.com to shorten long URLs in the future.
“Funny thing- these are actually FROM RTB’s website.”
Josh, RTB is an old-earth creationist ministry. Those quotes are quite in line with their beliefs. They have an ongoing feud with AIG and other young-earthers.
Oh, I’m aware of RTB and their OEC. I just thought it was sort of odd the discussion got into the issue where I was posting quotes from their site in a post talking about their attacks on ID.
I’ve seen the tiny url’s before, but have no idea how that’s done. Well, I didn’t…until now, since you just mentioned it.
In terms of Christianity- the OT teachings are Christianity, in a sense…Jesus clearly spoke of the OT often. The laws within it, the people mentioned in it, etc. I think the Judeo-Christian tradition was the earliest in regards to this sort of teaching…there were many things, at the time, about the teachings of Christ that were original and unique…no doubt- and this is why a penniless man who held no power on earth is still the most talked about man in the world.
Now, I need to go to that URL you mentioned and start shortening things more often. I just remembered a cpl months ago the site ‘bugmenot.com’ which I used to use ALL the time but totally forgot about…same thing with tiny url which I used yrs ago in various forms.
keiths:
There are probably two reasons why ICR was not at the BSG conference:
1) The ICR has lately been focused on geological issues, such as the effects of a worldwide flood, its mechanisms, and accelerated nuclear decay.
2) The ICR’s goal is apologetics. The BSG does not have apologetics as a goal. They make no attempt to debate creation/evolution, and in fact such papers (or even any paper that is primarily critical of evolution) are off-limits for their conference. They are people who just want to learn more about God’s creation, and use a Christian perspective doing it.
A good example of what the BSG does is in the book Understanding the Pattern of Life. It is not a creation/evolution book, but simply a book about biology from a creation perspective (it does occasionally compare creation to evolution, but simply as a means of describing the differences, not to make a case for one over the other).
sahendric writes:
“So, is this a strong indicator that “we know a lot about our universe and astronomyâ€Â? Well, I’m not convinced.”
sahendric,
Many aspects of YUC (young-universe creationism) seem hard to reconcile with modern science, but the astronomical data present one of the stiffest challenges to the YUC view, as acknowledged by many creationists. How do you personally reconcile your beliefs with the data? You mentioned some concerns about the EM assumptions astronomers are making.
“So, if it’s okay for people like R. Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, Danny Akin, Paige Patterson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, the late Adrian Rogers, and my dear theologian friend at Liberty University, Harold Willmington, then, based on this thoroughly fallacious argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), it’s okay for me!”
Well, at least you’re honest about the fallacy…
keiths:
For info on the YUC view, see http://media.gospelcom.net/aig.....rlisle.mp3