Pity you spent almost zero of that time studying the real sciences supporting evolutionary biology. Then you might understand just how bad ID-Creation pseudoscience is despite the DI’s bombastic rhetoric.
2 Likes
Yeah, I guess all that time spent reading Darwin, Wallace, Gaylord Simpson, Gould, Dawkins, Ayala, etc. was a complete waste of time.
Based on what you post in your knee-jerk defense of all things concerning ID-Creationism here I must agree.
2 Likes
I know exactly what he concluded, and have pointed it out, many times, certainly on BioLogos and doubtless here, too. (I have trouble remembering what I said on BioLogos and what I said here, because there is a such a carryover of the same atheists and near-atheistic Christians, making the same arguments, in the same aggressive and unpleasant tones.)
Jones concluded:
1 – The Dover school board was motivated primarily by religious intent, and therefore in violation of the constitutions of Pennsylvania and of the the USA.
2 – Intelligent design is in its very essence creationist and could never, even in principle, be taught in any science class, for that reason.
Judge Jones was entirely right on Point 1; the motivation of the Dover board was documented, and testimony brought that out.
He was wrong on Point 2. ID is not creationism. (The people who wrote Of Pandas and People were creationists, but ID theory is not, per se, creationist, as I have shown in great detail here.)
The good part of his judgment is where he focuses on the law. The bad part of his judgment is where he wanders into subjects such as the nature of science, the relation between religion and science, and so on, and embarrasses himself as a philosopher, theologian, historian of science, etc. In those areas, he was incompetent. But this is not surprising, given that he chose to let himself become a parrot for the views of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, all of whom were equally incompetent in these areas.
That the Dover school board was motivated by creationism is not in doubt. But that has nothing at all to do with the question whether ID, not as mangled, misunderstood and misused by the barely literate Dover trustees but as a serious theoretical investigation into design in nature, is creationist. Judge Jones was not at the theoretical level required to decide that question.
ID as presented now is indeed a form of Creationism as has been demonstrated ad nauseum. No one can present a single example of ID which does not involve the de novo creation by an omnipotent supernatural Entity of some biological feature, from new genes to entire species.
Attempts to justify the denial of ID being a form of Creationism by citing the claims of professional ID-Creationist authors is just silly. Kinda like citing Philip Morris claiming tobacco usage is harmless shows medical science is all wrong about the dangers of smoking.
1 Like
Say what now?
1 Like
Could you explain what this means?
Well, given your entirely inept and unconvincing efforts to argue this point here, I’m going to with the obvious conclusion that Jones knew exactly what he was doing when concluding that ID is creationism.
But I do thank for you not making a video of Jones making fart noises as part of your argument, as your heroes of the ID Creationist movement did after hey lost the case.
https://uncommondescent.com/education/flatulence-removed-from-the-judge-jones-school-of-law/
1 Like
By my reading, “near-atheistic Christian” means something along the lines of “race traitor.” Just my educated guess.
1 Like
Does anyone know if Dembski’s original “Farting Judge Jones” animation is archived online anywhere? To me that remains the absolute high point of the ID-Creationist movement. 
1 Like
I’ll leave it cryptic. It only concerns those whom it concerns. No one who doesn’t fall into that category needs to think about it.
Looks like I nailed it.
?!?!?!?!
I’m completely lost, but I don’t suppose I was supposed to understand this remark.
No, you were meant to understand it. You don’t, of course, but that seems to be the way things go in our discussions.
I’ll let the folks who were the target of your smear take it further if they wish. Not my battle.
Would those folks even know who they are? How many people consider themselves “near-atheistic Christians”?
1 Like
Probably none; but if (speaking hypothetically) there existed people who represented themselves as Christian, but whose lines of argument again and again seemed to have an atheistic flavor, might a third party not be inclined to think that such a person’s position was verging closely upon atheism? And would such hypothetical people not be aware of the gap between their own position and that of traditional Christian belief? If such hypothetical people exist here, they probably know who they are. And if they don’t, well, I guess my memory has failed me, and I must have encountered such people on BioLogos rather than here.
To your knowledge, are there any True Scotsmen here?
Example of appropriate comment which adds value to the conversation.
5 Likes
Yes. It’s a slur typically leveled by fundamentalist Christians at non-fundamentalists. It’s symptomatic of pre-modern thinking. Throughout history, certain interpretations of Scripture made by Christians based on scientific discoveries about the natural creation, have been cited as support for atheism by other Christians. Today most of us would find these accusations laughable.
When scientific arguments were used against the doctrine of the immortal soul, theologians claimed this was atheism. [1] Descartes’ belief that God instituted laws of motion at the beginning of the universe, which then operated without divine assistance, drew accusations of atheism from fellow Christian and philosopher Blaise Pascal. [2] Newton’s laws of physics (which were scientifically superior to those of Descartes), also provoked suspicion of atheism by fellow Christians. [3]
Pre-modern doctors such as Symphorien Champier (1471-1538), and Pierre Pigray (1589), denied demon possession and witches on the basis of science, [4] which was later cited as evidence for atheism [5]. Christians who believe in a supernatural evil devil and demons/evil spirits/fallen angels, typically see rejection of these beliefs as equivalent to atheism, or at least deism. It’s difficult to over-state the extent to which their theology is dependent on the existence of supernatural evil. If satan and demons didn’t exist, their theology would fall apart. That’s why they’re terrified of challenges to this belief; you see them freak out whenever someone raises an argument against it.
As early as the 16th century, Leonardo Da Vinci [6] observed scientific evidence that the flood was local; [7] subsequently, such arguments for a local flood were denounced as a rejection of Scripture. [8]
[1] The 17th century English judge and lawyer Matthew Hale shared the common belief ‘that atheism was the product of materialism and was rooted in the denial that man had an immortal and immaterial soul .’, Bunn & Geis, ‘A Trial of Witches: A Seventeenth Century Witchcraft Prosecution’, p. 166 (1997).
[2] ‘This was enough evidence for Pascal that under it all, Descartes was an atheist .’, Watson, ‘Cogito, Ergo Sum: The Life of René Descartes’, p. 14 (2002).
[3] ‘Newton’s mechanics for example, suggested that God operated through fixed laws . Many saw this materialism (which was part of a developing liberal Anglicanism) as only a step away from atheism .’, Brown, ‘New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought’, p. 106 (2013); ‘The leading English scientists of the seventeenth century, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, both sought to defend mechanical science from charges of atheism and materialism .’, Styers, ‘Making Magic: Religion, Magic, and Science in the Modern World’, p. 49 (2004); Conversely, in his published sermon ‘A confutation of atheism from the origin and frame of the world, a sermon’ (1693), the English theologian Richard Bentley appealed to Newton’s laws as clear evidence for the existence of a divine creator and a refutation of atheism; in fact this was the typical response of both scientists and scientifically minded theologians (only the more literally minded and more conservative theologians feared Newton’s laws led to atheism).
[4] ‘Champier was a physician, who took the point of view that many of the reports of witchcraft could be explained medically .’, Hoyt, ‘Witchcraft’, p. 67 (1989); ‘The Parliament named four commissioners, Pierre Pigray, the King’s surgeon, and Messiuers Leroi, Renrad, and Falasieau, the King’s physicians , to visit and examine these witches ’, Mackay, ‘Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions’, volume 2, p. 294 (1841); ‘“We found them,” continues Pierre Pigray, " to be very poor, stupid people, and some of them insane ; many of them were quite indifferent about life, and one or two of them desired death as a relief for their sufferings. Our opinion was, that they stood more in need of medicine than of punishment , and so we reported to the Parliament.”’, ibid., p. 205; ‘Leading French doctors also appear to have been very sceptical about witchcraft and possession cases .’, Briggs, ‘Witches & Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft’, p. 214 (1996).
[5] ‘ among the Opinions which lead to Atheism, the denial of Dæmons and Witches , which of late hath so much prevailed, is none of the least. For besides that this is an open defiance to unquestionable history, Experience, and matter of fact, and so introduces the worst sort of Scepticism ( which is the high-way to Atheism ) it is evidence that this supplants the belief of Spiritual Beings or Substances for Witchcraft and all Diabolick Transactions are disbeliev’d on the account of the improbability, if not impossibility of Spirits . So that it is plain the rejecting of the being and commerce of Daemons or Infernal Spirits opens a door to the denial of the Deity , of which we can no otherwise conceive than that it is an Eternal Spirit .’, Edwards, ‘Some Thoughts concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism, Especially in the Present Age: with some brief reflections on Socinianism, and on a late book entitled, The reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures’, pp. 100-101 (1695).
[6] ‘Here a doubt arises, and that is: whether the deluge, which happened at the time of Noah, was universal or not. And it would seem not, for the reasons now to be given :’, Da Vinci quoted in Richter & Bell (eds.), ‘The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci’, volume 2, p. 136 (1971); he cited the lack of sufficient water in the earth and sky to cover the entire planet to a depth necessary to cover the highest mountains, the problem of where the water went afterwards, and the fossil record which was clearly inconsistent with a global flood.
[7] Over 1,300 years before Galileo, both Philo (contemporary with John the Baptist), and Josephus (contemporary with Paul and some of the apostles), had already interpreted the flood as local on textual grounds, and this view was held by some early Christians and Jews on the same basis; however Da Vinci appears to have been the first to reach the conclusion on a scientific basis.
[8] Writing in opposition to Isaac La Peyrère’s arguments for a local flood, English jurist Matthew Hale objected that La Peyrère’s arguments ‘if they were true would necessarily not only weaken but overthrow the Authority and Infallibility of the Sacred Scriptures ’, and that ‘If he durst have spoken out, [if he had dared to speak plainly] he would have told us roundly and plainly that the Eleven first Chapters of Genesis were but Fables ’, Hale, ‘The Primitive Origination of Mankind: Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature’, p. 185 (1677).
3 Likes
intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure
Charles Darwin, 1861
and
all has been intelligently designed
Charles Darwin, 1861