Home » Evolution, Intelligent Design » What’s up at Reasons to Believe?

What’s up at Reasons to Believe?

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.)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

59 Responses to What’s up at Reasons to Believe?

  1. He may think both ideas have merit…of course. I don’t get Ross and why his group tries to attack others so easily. Nor do I get many of the YEC groups who attack Ross for doing what he does- they claim he’s throwing out the Bible and making it fit evolutionary time lines. Of course, the timelines are based on geology in big ways, and the old age timelines were around with Christians well before Darwin came around based on this geology.

    These groups need to try better to get along with others who don’t follow their exact premise. Clearly ID is friendly to theism…and NDE is clearly friendly to atheism (ask Richard Dawkins). So, why some want to alienate others with attacks is beyond me.

  2. Josh

    Some children evidently didn’t learn to play well with their peers and it continued as adults. ;-)

  3. Nice. :)

    AIG attacks Reasons, Reasons attacks AIG. AIG and Reasons attack ID, but sometimes they use the phrase “intelligently designed” themselves. ICR attacks one, joins the other in partnership. Reasons attacks the new partner. I can hardly keep up.

  4. The North Carolina Baptists at Biblical Reporter likewise praise Judge Jones.
    http://journal.biblicalrecorde...../10192/595

    There’s something terribly flawed in a theology that fawns in the face of judicial abuse.

  5. Too bad the writer of that article makes the same absurd argument others love to make:

    If it is true, as ID advocates say, that highly complex systems like the eye or the immune system could not have come into being without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer, then how does one explain the existence of so-said designer?

    Could a power as complex as the Intelligent Designer have come into being without the intervention of an even more Intelligent Designer?” The chain could go on ad infinitum.

    One cannot ultimately argue the existence of God without appealing to faith. Our belief in God is a religious matter. The theory of Intelligent Design is but a step removed: it is also a matter of faith. Matters of faith should be taught at home and in church, not in the public school classroom.

    I believe the judge made an intelligent decision.

    So, faith means to turn your brain off and just believe without proof? Without evidence at all? I’d love to understand why he sees it that way! That’s absurd. I could say I believe the tooth fairy gives kids quarters, when I know from the evidence that it’s the parents of each kid who put money under their pillows!

    And the whole endless chain of designers argument. If God, as it is for some, the designer…does that mean that there would have to be an infinite chain of Gods to create the next one and the next one? That’s silly, and surely he wouldn’t argue that God needs a God above him and another God and another… I suspect this guy doesn’t understand that Darwinism means that humans are a complete accident, a cosmic mishap and nothing more…too few understand this.

    In the end…he must ask the same question of himself and his religious ideas (which he says one can only come thru via faith itself- not evidence)- if the universe started and life came about, how does one explain the existence of God? I doubt he even understands that his argument against ID also kills his argument for God.

  6. wont let me post. weird.

  7. I suspect my comment didn’t go thru because it doesn’t even show it for me.

    What I commented was that this argument from the link above is flawed. The infinite chain of designers argument is silly. If one needs an endless chain for that, one also needs an unending chain of accidents to cause each next accident, and the next, and the next to accidentally give rise to the universe, life, species, humans, etc.

    And who bases their belief in God on faith alone? Faith is great, sure…but evidence, facts, knowlede, and study benefit greatly. You can hardly reach the intellectuals among us if you just say “have faith, the end”. Why he has something against evidence of design, which to him would probably mean a designer who is God- I’ve no idea. It’s mind boggling.

    He says:

    If it is true, as ID advocates say, that highly complex systems like the eye or the immune system could not have come into being without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer, then how does one explain the existence of so-said designer?

    Could a power as complex as the Intelligent Designer have come into being without the intervention of an even more Intelligent Designer?” The chain could go on ad infinitum.

    This makes no sense at all. If the universe was created and life somehow formed (from non-life) and all this gave rise to humans who have the built in ability to ask these questions, how does one explain the existence of God then?

    For many, the design would mean a designer and the designer would be God (I asssume this writer would be in this camp)…if he says you can’t explain the existence of such a powerful designer, how on earth can you explain the existence of a God who created the universe itself? Would not God be more powerful than ANY designer, which means he would require an infinite chain of Gods to create him?!?

    I’m thinking this guy is really confused and seems unaware that his particular argument also kills the argument for God himself.

  8. I can’t explain what’s up at RTB. I’m sorry they feel the way they do. I can however be grateful Smalley proclaimed that Rana and Ross’s book deals a death blow to naturalistic evolution. Even a YEC like me was delighted to promote Rana and Ross’s book to others.

    There has been some reason for regret at the Dover decision, but the war is not lost. The ruling affects only 250 9th graders, and they would have only gotten that 1 minute ID pronouncement at that.

    I’m pleased to say in contrast at one college in PA with a population of 2000, I’m aware ID is being taught to all the science students in a friendly way.

    Also, 500 students and faculty at various schools in Virginia have received hours worth or ID being taught right through the IDEA chapters, and future scientists, engineers, and scholars in science are being nurtured in the knowledge of the truth, and professors in the sciences friendly to ID are quietly positioned. Larger numbers of students being taught ID correctly, more of them than Judge Jones guillotine will ever reach.

    The anti-IDists are even raising the controversy in senior level and freshman level biology classes at one secular school. More students are being exposed through these classes alone than all those 9th graders in the district of Dover.

    See:
    http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Ejlawre.....esign.html

    The Darwinists are finding it necessary to mention us in their classes at GMU. The professors corralled 450 of their students into a room on December 1 at GMU to have them listen to Eugenie Scott for 90 minutes. If we were ignored, I would be worried.

    That same week we had a kiosk set up all week advertising ID, with a quote by Smalley trashing evolution and praising Ross and Rana’s book. Along with Smalley’s quote, we had ID friendly comments posted from other Nobel Laureates at our IDEA Kiosk. Quotes from Nobelists like Penzias, Townes, Wigner, Ernst Chain, and Anfinsen.

    We had displays honoring Caroline Crocker and 2 biology PhD’s from GMU who have not burned incense to Darwin.

    Whatever Rana and Ross have to quibble with IDists, I’m grateful they had influenced people like Smalley. I don’t think in the end Ross and Rana’s anti-IDism will cause IDists to turn from ID. Quite the opposite. I think their good scientific work will do far more to advance the ID cause than they realize. I’m sorry they feel it incumbent upon themselves to criticize ID, but on balance they are a powerful voice against Darwinism.

    Merry Christmas.

    Salvador

  9. Ross and Rana came to UC Davis back in February this year, and they were certainly an interesting pair. First, “Fuz” Rana proclaimed having a testable model, but when asked how to test and/or falsify it, he said that he didn’t know – he had not really thought about that. Those were his words, too.
    I think, though, that RTB wants to undercut ID by presenting a model for why particular things were designed in what order, for example, asserting that plants were made, grew, and buried so humans could have coal just in time for the industrial revolution.

    Ross was strange, though. In front of a thousand or more people, he claimed that the physics of this universe were “fine tuned for combating evil.” Dr. Albrecht, a physicist invited as a counter-panelist, said “I don’t know what physics you are talking about.” Ross couldn’t back it up. (and I have never read him anywhere actually attempt to go beyond that assertion.)

    And even stranger, though, is their stance on extra-terrestrial life. Rather than give a grim outlook on the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, they instead try to quote the bible saying that the entire universe is inhabited by only humans.

    What I thought was interesting about the two of them was that they were very firm in their stance on an old Earth – that the evidence was incontrovertible and that it was bad for creationists to even proclaim a belief that it was young. I think this is where their conflict with AIG arises.

    Personally, I applaude their attempts to get people who think similarly to themselves to accept the age of the Earth.

  10. It seems like this type of infighting reflects one of the problems with ID that Judge Jones pointed out in his decision. (I supported the decision.) He mentioned that the Dover school board members who were advocating that ID be taught didn’t even explain it themselves. I’m personally not religious – and since I don’t include supernatural entities in my model of how the universe works, Creationism and ID don’t make a whole lot of sense to me. But I love the Evolution-ID debate, and I find the idea of trying to understand the roots of complexity to be very intriguing.

    One of the problems that I have in trying to understand ID is just where exactly does the boundary that distinguishes it from old-fashioned Creationism lie. Until ID is defined in a more coherent manner, I don’t think there’s any hope for the movement. In reading through this blog over the last few days, I’m seeing people who say both that ID needs to be presented in a purely scientific manner, and others who speak of ID as a religious movement. This reflects the incoherent face of ID.

    I took an 11-week class on ID at a local church a few months ago. It was a great class, due to some very interesting discussions about philosophy, science, and the role of religion in society, but it didn’t convince me to believe in ID.
    A few others, who were religious, came away convinced. It’s almost as if the evidence is secondary – what matters the most is whether you have a world-view that includes supernatural entities like God. But anyway, one of the things I found disconcerting was the way the instructor – who I liked alot – presented ID as an idea that could stand-alone purely on it’s scientific merits, but then still couldn’t stop justifying ID by invoking Jesus and pointing to his nearby New Testament. One minute it’s about science, and the next it’s about religion. And while some ID advocates say a Deist type of Creator is fine, others insist that it needs to be along the lines of a personal Judeo-Christian-Islamic-type God. A clear, consistent message would be nice. I’m tempted to say ID needs to clearly disassociate itself with religious fundamentalists, but since they are the ones who are carrying the ID banner, I don’t know if that would do more harm than good.

  11. It’s too early in the morning. Please change the sentence that says – “He mentioned that the Dover school board members who were advocating that ID be taught DIDN’T even explain it themselves.” to “He mentioned that the Dover school board members who were advocating that ID be taught COULDN’T even explain it themselves.”

  12. Well, for one thing, Ross has a “not-invented-here” philosophy. That is, if he didn’t come up with the idea, he isn’t going to embrace it. Most everything coming out of his mouth is “and did you see what I wrote about it..” It’s mostly about ego I think.

    That being said, RTB does put forth very good materials, albeit mostly their own stuff. Ross is a good writer and makes complicated things understandable, and Fuzz is also quite good in his presentations. I just wish they would learn to play in the same sandbox as others.

    I find it interesting to see the “circling of the vultures” around this Dover decision. It will be interesting to see what other Christian groups say they “applaud” the decision too – because they are such intellectual purists. I think applauding the decision will be many organizations attempt to win favor with the Darwinian establishment.

    News flash guys: “they will still hate you, and mock you”

  13. To clarify for those on the outside who don’t know why some YEC groups don’t like ID.

    First of all, many if not most individual creationists are fully supportive of the arguments used by ID. In fact, the organizations such as AiG are supportive of the arguments as well. However, the problem that groups like AiG have is simply that they think that people who identify themselves as IDers, while not adhering to methodological naturalism, still don’t have the right perspective about where the starting point for scientific investigation should be for Christians. And thus, they think that ID is essentially a cop-out pseudo-Christian starting point. Their concern is that people will see ID and not know that just being ID doesn’t give one a Biblical worldview (which is really what AiG is all about — promoting a _Biblical_ worldview, not just a worldview that is theoretically compatible with some elements of generic theism).

    While I understand their concern, I think that ID is a first step in exposing the fallacies in materialism, and modern approaches to earth history. While I certainly think that there are other steps to take, I understand that not everyone is willing to take those steps with me, and I certainly encourage them in taking this first step.

    Personally, I think ID chose perhaps too big of a target to start with. I think the easy win first step is simply acknowledging choice as a real phenomena. That _automatically_ destroys materialism on its face, and is something that even the staunch Darwinists would not be willing to give up, and hopefully would lend credence to non-material explanations in general, and help the science of ID (describing and/or quantifying intelligent causation) become mainstream before tackling something big like Darwinism.

  14. johnnyb,

    It isn’t the role of ID to promote or give a Biblical worldview. Why can’t fundamentalist types understand that? If Christianity or the Bible are true, won’t there be truths that are big enough for all mankind, even if they haven’t converted to Christianity itself? Can they understand that there is an almost universal belief in God in this world and there always has been? Owning truth, do they own God also?

    Can you exlain what choice you were talking about? I didn’t get it at all.

  15. “I think the easy win first step is simply acknowledging choice as a real phenomena. That _automatically_ destroys materialism on its face,”

    The history of materialism in the philosophy of mind (which I think is the relevant discipline) shows that this destruction just doesn’t come about at all easily. people seem to think they can easily reconcile choice with materialism, despite the fact that (as I agree with many people) this is just not possible.

  16. Maybe we’re all just wrong. Merry Christmas everybody.

  17. 17

    I have to confess that I am no scientist by any means (my education is in business and accounting) and hence I do not have the deep understanding of these issues as you guys do but I also was perplexed and dismayed at the seeminly joy coming from Hugh Ross and co horts at this judgement this past week?? Are we not all on the same team here??

    I too really enjoy Hugh Ross and Mr. Dembski and others though Lord knows I don’t always understand what is being said…..

    I am a Old Earth Creationist though with leanings to ID…….I am working these things out so to speak….

    I believe, and this is rank heresy to some, that the Genesis account leaves open the possibility that the All Mighty God could have used Macro Evolution in making this world and creatures…..I personally do not believe that because I do not see the evidence in the Fossil record….BUT if it was ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Macro Evolution was correct, it wouldn’t touch or hurt the Biblical Narrative….

    Interesting stuff too be sure and a odd response from Mr. Ross and Co.!!!

  18. How does one score so hign in the Panda game?

  19. Benjii

    “How does one score so hign in the Panda game?”

    By shooting down lots of Pandas! :-)

  20. I read a book by Hugh Ross a few years ago. I forget which. At the time I thought, “This is great! It reconciles all problems.” But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it didn’t solve ANY problems. It is the “worst of both worlds”. To Darwinists, their theory is laughable; Darwinists don’t need God. To the Creationist, their theory does not meet scholarly standards of biblical translation of Genesis chapter 1 and cannot be trusted from the get-go.

    Though I think Miller’s assertion that he has more respect for YEC than ID is self-serving in essence accusing ID of dishonesty, I do agree with him that taking a side in the debate is more honorable that fence-sitting which is really the only thing RTB has accomplished.

  21. “…that fence-sitting which is really the only thing RTB has accomplished.” Color me cynical, but the outfit looks more to me like they’ve discovered a market niche.

  22. …their raison d etre from the get-go.

  23. Came across your blog from a mention in the Washingtonpost.com. I referred to it in an entry at Bloggin’ Outloud in an article responding to the ID article in the Post.
    http://blogginoutloud.blogspot.....again.html
    Thanks for visiting. lgp

  24. I’ve been a long time supporter of RTB and agree with many of their works. I am also very disappointed by Ross’s comments. He supports and promotes the evidence of ID but he disparages it for not having a model. What is most disappointing to Ross’s comments is that he trots out the same diatribe as the Darwinists calling ID as disguised Creationism. He of all people should understand Creationists are capable of separating the practice of science from their theological belief. After all his Creation model conflates theology and science.

    The problem he fails to recognize is that his criticism of ID will come back and harm his own effort. I think there is an element of jealousy from Ross of ID. He claims to have promoting ID long before the IDM. I would also guess that ID has siphoned some of his support. Ross admits that he wants to see people to recognize ID will fail and his Creation model is the answer to counter evolution. I think this is something he will regret saying. I think he will backtrack from this press release and claim that his criticism is of the Dover school board and not ID or DI. He did comment that even DI disagrees with what Dover is doing.

  25. There’s no way their model is going to get a fair hearing.

  26. avocationist:

    I think you were misunderstanding what I said.

    “It isn’t the role of ID to promote or give a Biblical worldview. Why can’t fundamentalist types understand that?”

    I think the issue is starting point. The starting point for a Christian should be the Bible, no matter what your occupation is. It’s not about promoting a Biblical world necessarily, but using the Bible as your lens for doing everything.

    “If Christianity or the Bible are true, won’t there be truths that are big enough for all mankind, even if they haven’t converted to Christianity itself?”

    Certainly. In fact the Bible itself talks very much about general revelation, and the things that people know before knowing Christ. In fact, when Paul argued before the gentiles, he quoted from their own writers, and talked about events in their history, as part of his points.

    However, Paul always started with the Bible as the foundation of truth. He never thought “well, I’ll believe as much as I find evidence for.” Instead he used it as the lens through which to see everything. Places like AiG aren’t worried so much that there is an obvious argument which the whole world can agree on as much as with Christians who are putting their faith in science rather than God, and by extension, scripture. Science does lead you to God, but it can only lead so far. Past that, you have to trust Him. AiG and other organizations think that ID is still wrong by pushing science as the primary access to knowledge, rather than promoting science as subservient to scripture.

    “Can they understand that there is an almost universal belief in God in this world and there always has been? Owning truth, do they own God also?”

    No, they just think that God is the correct starting point. Many people confuse the YEC belief by thinking that YECs are trying to tell God how He can and can’t create the world. However, what is actually happening is that they are letting God tell us how He did it. I don’t care one way or another if the world is old or young, but I believe it is young because I trust Him. As a Christian, my trust in Him is above everything. I wrote a little bit along these same lines here:

    http://crevobits.blogspot.com/.....-fish.html

    Hopefully that clears up some confusion.

  27. If it makes you feel any weirder I’ve heard them speak well of ID. And I’ve heard them speak well of your name. Unless my memory is really wrong.

    The only thing I thing I think they have problems with is that ID isn’t a full-fledge scientific model which can be tested. In other words, there is no end-to-end cosmology.

    Or something like that.

  28. Has anyone actually looked at their web site lately?

    Conference, COSMIC FINGERPRINTS. Stamped with “EVIDENCE OF DESIGN”

    There are dozens of articles that are pro ID on their site.

    On the left middle panel it says, “RTB Applauds ID ruling”, but on the right middle panel it says “Evidence for Design”.

    Weirdness…

    For me, hearing Hugh Ross slam miracles on their podcast a few weeks ago was enough for me, I’m not sure sure what camp he’s in anymore. Or maybe I am sure and I just don’t want to admit it. :(

  29. Brian Are you the Judean People’s Front?
    Reg F— off.
    Brian What?
    Reg Judean People’s Front. (scoffs) We’re the People’s Front of Judea. Judean People’s front, caw.
    Francis Wankers.
    Brian Can I join your group?
    Reg No. Piss off.
    Brian I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
    PFJ [nervously] Sssh! Ssssh, sssh, sssh, ssssh.
    Judith Are you sure?
    Brian Oh. Dead sure… I hate the Romans already.
    Reg Listen. If you really wanted to join the PFJ, you’d have to really hate the Romans.
    Brian I do.
    Reg Oh yeah? How much?
    Brian A lot!
    Reg Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f—ing Judean People’s Front
    PFJ [together, nodding in agreement] Yeah
    Judith [disgusted] Splitters
    Francis And the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
    PFJ Oh yeah. Splitters.
    Loretta And the peoples Front of Judea.
    PFJ Splitters.
    Reg What?
    Loretta The Peoples front of Judea. Splitters.
    Reg We’re the Peoples front of Judea.
    Loretta Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
    Reg Peoples Front! [scoffs]
    Francis Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
    Reg He’s over there.
    [A single old man sits on a lower seat.]
    PFJ [To the old man.] SPLITTER!

  30. johnnyb-

    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. 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.

    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. It makes some empirical claims, but very few that could serve to make a rich and fruitful scientific research program.

    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? I think so – this has happened in the past with the Copernican revolution, and other cases. If you admit that science can correct theology, then you can’t say that science should begin with the Bible. We seem to have the tools to work in science without needing to look at what the Bible says about it – look at how well secular scientists have done over the last couple centuries (looking past a few errors of course). Computers, all this knowledge in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. I’m just skeptical that the Bible could provide any more help for *scientific* questions than we have already.

    Of course, I could be wrong and I’m open to suggestions.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. I support ID over RTB. But they share a common cause–destroy darwinian materialism.

  34. 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!

  35. It’s Chrismahanukwanzaka… everybody out of here and spend time with your families.

    Love,

    Bombadillo

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. “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

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. Correction: In my opinion, such specified complexity COULD BE evidence of intelligent design.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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!

  51. 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.

  52. 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:

    Now…I’m not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are…vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days.

    Now…my view, then, is this: if all of the Old Testament scholars at our seminaries that I trust, that love the Bible and that I respect their credibility were saying that it’s required of us to believe these days are twenty-four hour days, I’d have a problem. But if there is enough of these men that I trust–I’m not talking about people that are trying to give up real estate here and are just bellying up; I’m talking about men that the community recognizes to be trustworthy authorities of that Hebrew exegesis are saying that this is an option–then I’m going to say in that case it’s permissible. So that would be my basic response.

    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.

  53. 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.

    Gleason Archer
    [Referring to God's Sabbath analogy in Exodus 20:10-11:]

    By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.
    Source: Book – Archer G., “A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,”, in Radmacher E.D., & Preus R.D., “Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible”, Academic Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1986, p329

    it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day.
    Source: Book – Archer G., “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp. 59-60

    Walter Kaiser
    I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day” according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine.
    Source: Book – Hard Sayings of the Bible page 104.

    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…

  54. 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?

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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).

  58. sahendric writes:
    “So, is this a strong indicator that “we know a lot about our universe and astronomy”? 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…

  59. keiths:

    For info on the YUC view, see http://media.gospelcom.net/aig.....rlisle.mp3