WLC and Evolution derail

[rogue06]

I recognize it's a rhetorical question, but since you implied the answer, I'll respond. I don't think DI will do what the American Scientific Affiliation did. You know how entrenched Meyers is, and I'm sure you know Dembski pretty much recanted his OEC view. Dembski was the sort who mocked Judge Jones' decision with a cartoon and flatulence samples. His recantation of his anti-evo views isn't likely to come.

It might help if Behe admitted his mistakes and spoke out against the anti-evo entrenched within DI. Did he issue a PR or make an announcement of some kind?

In the case of the ASA, as they started to change the strict YECs split off from them. That could happen with folks like Meyers although I don't foresee this taking place until Phillip E. Johnson retires or passes (he is slightly over 76 years old). Then again, you might start seeing people like Behe leaving the DI greatly lessening their "prestige."

As for Dembski, it is fairly obvious that he was brow-beaten into backing away from his repeatedly expressed views. That would very likely change if he finds employment at somewhere else than the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (who were the ones that put pressure on him, not the DI).

[whag]

In the case of the ASA, as they started to change the strict YECs split off from them. That could happen with folks like Meyers although I don't foresee this taking place until Phillip E. Johnson retires or passes (he is slightly over 76 years old). Then again, you might start seeing people like Behe leaving the DI greatly lessening their "prestige."

As for Dembski, it is fairly obvious that he was brow-beaten into backing away from his repeatedly expressed views. That would very likely change if he finds employment at somewhere else than the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (who were the ones that put pressure on him, not the DI).

It's easy to be brow beaten when a paycheck is involved, however a man of principle doesn't get forced into saying something that he believes isn't true.

[Kbertsche]

... and I'm sure you know Dembski pretty much recanted his OEC view.

Nonsense! Don't rely on what non-Christians claim about the views of Christians; they don't understand the necessary distinctions that are being made. Instead, look at what Dembski himself says.. Dembski was and still is an OEC. He very carefully couched his statements about Noah's flood to sound acceptable to YEC's, but he remained OEC. (A "universal" flood is not the same as a "global" flood. Dembski has said that the flood was "universal", but has NEVER said that it was "global".). Dembski remains OEC, not YEC or TE.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense! Don't rely on what non-Christians claim about the views of Christians; they don't understand the necessary distinctions that are being made. Instead, look at what Dembski himself says.. Dembski was and still is an OEC. He very carefully couched his statements about Noah's flood to sound acceptable to YEC's, but he remained OEC. (A "universal" flood is not the same as a "global" flood. Dembski has said that the flood was "universal", but has NEVER said that it was "global".). Dembski remains OEC, not YEC or TE.

OEC remains problematic, and considering the earth old does not resolve the numerous conflicts between oEC and science, particularly between OEC and evolution.

Could you be more specific what Demski claims is a "universal flood"? I believe it is severely problematic that any such flood took place whether you consider it 'global' or universal. I personally do nt see the difference.

Over the years Demski has not been totally consistent about his views between YEC, OEC and the nature of the Biblical flood.



Than in 2010 he sets it in concrete;



Will the real cameleon Demski step forward and clarify his beliefs? Next post; What happened between 2009 and 2016?

[shunyadragon]

In review of the various interviews and other sources between 2009 and 2016 Demski appears to move back to OEC, condemns fundamentalism, but questions concerning the flood and evolution remain problematic. He left (voluntary or pushed) from Southwestern Seminary that apparently has the belief standard and faculty test of believing in YEC as do many Baptist Seminaries.

In an update of an interview at Bestschools.org Demski describes his 'Disillusion with Fundamentalism' has clarified his position as currently OEC, but still maintains a anti-science view of evolution, and remains unclear concerning the flood.

[Kbertsche]

Could you be more specific what Demski claims is a "universal flood"? I believe it is severely problematic that any such flood took place whether you consider it 'global' or universal. I personally do nt see the difference.

You won't "see the difference" without doing some research. Have you researched the phrases to see how they have been defined and used by OECs?

The phrase "universal flood" has been used by a number of OECs to refer to a flood which affected all humanity without necessarily affecting the entire globe. A "universal flood" is a large regional inundation, but not necessarily global. This view is held by Hugh Ross, among others.

Over the years Demski has not been totally consistent about his views between YEC, OEC and the nature of the Biblical flood.

Dembski has consistently denied that he is YEC and affirmed that he is OEC. Whether or not he describes himself as a "creationist" depends on the context. Technically he is a creationist (of the OEC variety). But since many equate "creationist" to YEC, he has sometimes denied or avoided the term.

So there you have it: Dembski

is a Biblical inerrantist,
accepts that Genesis 1-11 are historically true,

Yes, they got this right.

and thus that the universe, the earth and all life were created in six literal days

Wrong. This does not follow. This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier; non-Christians do not understand the distinctions that Christians make (and PandasThumb is especially bad at this!).
Correct, but the PandasThumb folks do not realize that "universal" is not the same as "global".

[Kbertsche]

In review of the various interviews and other sources between 2009 and 2016 Demski appears to move back to OEC,

No, he didn't "move back"; he had never moved away from OEC.

[shunyadragon]

You won't "see the difference" without doing some research. Have you researched the phrases to see how they have been defined and used by OECs?

The phrase "universal flood" has been used by a number of OECs to refer to a flood which affected all humanity without necessarily affecting the entire globe. A "universal flood" is a large regional inundation, but not necessarily global. This view is held by Hugh Ross, among others.

A large 'universal regional flood' effecting all of humanity is equally problematic as a 'global' flood. There is no geologic evidence for either in the recent history. The only vague candidate for such a flood is the Black Sea flood ~5600 BCE involved only a limited extent around the Black Sea. The myths and legends of a global or universal regional flood are not likely related to local catastrophic floods in the major river valleys like the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers.

The elephant in the room remains the OEC and Demski's rejection of evolution and the ~190,000 plus years of human history.

[whag]

Nonsense! Don't rely on what non-Christians claim about the views of Christians; they don't understand the necessary distinctions that are being made. Instead, look at what Dembski himself says.. Dembski was and still is an OEC. He very carefully couched his statements about Noah's flood to sound acceptable to YEC's, but he remained OEC. (A "universal" flood is not the same as a "global" flood. Dembski has said that the flood was "universal", but has NEVER said that it was "global".). Dembski remains OEC, not YEC or TE.

Human beings had migrated to Australia, Asia, and Europe 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. The universal flood isn't a solution.

Dembski had intellectual tyranny imposed on him, and he refused to speak up about it.

[rogue06]

Human beings had migrated to Australia, Asia, and Europe 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. The universal flood isn't a solution.

Only if you're insisting on the YEC time line.

[shunyadragon]

Only if you're insisting on the YEC time line.

No, this is not the case. The flood from the perspective is a problem from both the YEC and OEC perspective. Bot versions of a 'global' or 'universal' flood make claims that there is absolutely no geologic nor historical evidence to support.

The phrase "universal flood" has been used by a number of OECs to refer to a flood which affected all humanity without necessarily affecting the entire globe. A "universal flood" is a large regional inundation, but not necessarily global. This view is held by Hugh Ross, among others.

The problem with science is compound by the OEC view of evolution.

[whag]

Only if you're insisting on the YEC time line.

The flood was meant to kill all human beings. Early Australians, Asians, and Europeans were human beings.

[whag]

I retract this statement:

"Dembski had intellectual tyranny imposed on him, and he refused to speak up about it."

He's speaking up about it now, and that's good enough for me. As for Craig, he's way too silent about DI still promoting anti-evo views when he admittedly knows evolution is "the only naturalistic explanation in town." God created human beings through nature, and there's no reason to doubt we evolved just like everything else.

The evidence for this is deep and dense, and Craig should just accept it on the basis of its epistemic weight alone. It's embarassing that he doesn't.

[shunyadragon]

I retract this statement:

"Dembski had intellectual tyranny imposed on him, and he refused to speak up about it."

He's speaking up about it now, and that's good enough for me. As for Craig, he's way too silent about DI still promoting anti-evo views when he admittedly knows evolution is "the only naturalistic explanation in town." God created human beings through nature, and there's no reason to doubt we evolved just like everything else.

The evidence for this is deep and dense, and Craig should just accept it on the basis of its epistemic weight alone. It's embarrassing that he doesn't.

After rereading the interviews and some other sources I find Demski in conflict over the alternatives for the interpretations of Genesis. He describes a philosophical atmosphere of seminaries as too liberal in the past, and enthusiastically supported a conservative trend back to a more fundamental Biblical philosophy, but when this trend continued to shift to an exclusive radical literal fundamentalist Theology in virtually all the Baptist seminaries he became increasingly alienated form the rigid anti-intellectual environment that rejected diversity of interpretations at least to include more options of a fundamentalist interpretations. It also should be noted that Demski does reject the more liberal interpretations of scriptures such as Theistic Evolution.

A large part of the reason for the justification for both the YEC and OEC views of the nature of our physical existence is that the writers, editors and redactors of the New Testament (NT), the apostles, and most of the church fathers believed i a literal interpretation of Genesis, and this is reflected in the NT, and the later development of the theology, doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church.

[whag]

After rereading the interviews and some other sources I find Demski in conflict over the alternatives for the interpretations of Genesis. He describes a philosophical atmosphere of seminaries as too liberal in the past, and enthusiastically supported a conservative trend back to a more fundamental Biblical philosophy, but when this trend continued to shift to an exclusive radical literal fundamentalist Theology in virtually all the Baptist seminaries he became increasingly alienated form the rigid anti-intellectual environment that rejected diversity of interpretations at least to include more options of a fundamentalist interpretations. It also should be noted that Demski does reject the more liberal interpretations of scriptures such as Theistic Evolution.

A large part of the reason for the justification for both the YEC and OEC views of the nature of our physical existence is that the writers, editors and redactors of the New Testament (NT), the apostles, and most of the church fathers believed i a literal interpretation of Genesis, and this is reflected in the NT, and the later development of the theology, doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church.

Yes, but I noticed in that recent interview that KBertsche posted, he sounds angry about the backlash he received from YEC Christian trolls. Expressing that anger is good given their number. It takes courage. He's coming around, I think.