Discovery Institute May Have Hit a New Low?

Absolutely. Engaging is a two-way street. There’s good science and bad science. Good theology and bad. Having discussions, patiently, with one another (while listening to one another) is the best way to work through it. Not listening and responding robotically to key-words is not the best way to handle it. Hearing sound evidence and dismissing it is not a good way.

We aren’t born pre-programmed with the facts, but we are born with the ability to listen and sort through the evidence suggested. This is the discourse that should take place in a forum like PS. But, even if people choose to not listen, or to take their ball and go home, there are other curious folks who are reading and wondering, and for their sake we should also continue the dialog.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, here! A tough call if the two issues at play are “science” and “theology.” If one doesn’t want to look (for now) at the evidence, and is currently unwilling to consider an alternate theological position (even if it is considered to be mainstream by the vast majority of theologians) then this kind of discussion won’t make much difference. Except, maybe, to the others who are reading but not participating in the discussion.


If one doesn’t want to look at the evidence, one should not claim that one’s position is supported by the evidence. It doesn’t make sense, particularly in the context of defending a religion that commands its adherents to not bear false witness.

IOW, if you claim that the evidence supports your position, you need to be a witness to that evidence, not merely what anyone says about that evidence.


I agree with you 100%. And, furthermore, it is disingenuous to engage in a supposed evidence-based discussion and continually deflect, rather than engaging. When a body of evidence (as with the Hawaii example) is presented, it is not one, single bit of evidence that points to an old earth. Rather it is hundreds of disparate bits of data (from several different domains) that are not only correlated to one another to show that the earth is clearly old, but also that do not, in any way allow that the earth is young.

What’s the response? “Oh, I’ve heard that one before. Is that all you have?” Or, “I simply don’t believe that science has solved all of the problems and so the jury is still out.” Every bit of “all we have” points to an old earth, and, NO, science will never have everything sorted out. So, does it make sense to step into an airliner, or will it simply fall from the sky? It surely doesn’t look flight-worthy. Has science sorted this out? Yes, there are tens of thousands of successful flights each day, but maybe they are all outliers? Maybe I should wait to be sure.

In 2,000 years since Christ, have theologians sorted it all out? Maybe we should wait to see what we believe. We certainly don’t want to commit before all of the evidence has been weighed.