The end of Christianity

[whag]

Well, I think it is clearer than your statement that "It would seem William Lane Craig lied when he called Dembski an evolutionist". Craig didn't call him that. He called him "an ID advocate who believes ID is compatible with evolutionary biology".

If the context of the mission to win hearts and minds is evolution apologetics, Craig is smart enough to know why Dembski was excluded. It wouldn't make sense to hire Dembski to be an apologist if he is known only for opposing it and never for apologizing for it. Have you read any of Dembski's books or the history of the Dover trial?

Yes, that's the point that Craig is responding to: that Creationists would be better convinced on evolution if they hear it from TEs. He is surprised that IDers like Behe and Dembski who believe that ID and evolutionary biology are compatible aren't included for the same reason.

Dembski isn't TE. NCSE isn't looking for compatibalists but apologists.

In your view, who was Craig trying to confuse by mentioning Behe and Dembski in that context?

I'm not sure, but you seem to fit the bill. TE isn't just compatibalism but entails processing the evidence we have now, not imagined evidence that might come down the pike in the future.

[whag]

Craig goes on to say "[Dembski and Behe] are quietly sort of not mentioned [in Domning's list], oddly enough."

He selectively honors context. It's not odd in the slightest to exclude anti-evolution apologists from persuading people that God created fish, birds, and human beings through evolution.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't know, but if so, Craig then needs his own retraction. In any case, Craig's question is either intentionally misleading or misinformed, since Dembski's views stand in direct contradiction to NCSE's views. Obviously, the editorial meant TEs who accept speciation. Dembski never has accepted speciation.

It's hard to be a TE if you don't accept speciation. Might as well call Ham a TE for accepting microevolution.

I think you might have your terms wrong on this one. Even most YEC's I know of, especially the large organizations accept speciation. Just not beyond a certain point.

In fact, AiG, Ham's ministry, accepts rapid speciation. It's part of their model IIRC.

ETA: I don't really want to get into a discussion here, just wanted to point this out. Certain things like this get posted and I just can't resist putting up some kind of response.

[whag]

I think you might have your terms wrong on this one. Even most YEC's I know of, especially the large organizations accept speciation. Just not beyond a certain point.

In fact, AiG, Ham's ministry, accepts rapid speciation. It's part of their model IIRC.

ETA: I don't really want to get into a discussion here, just wanted to point this out. Certain things like this get posted and I just can't resist putting up some kind of response.

Dembski and AiG redefined the term by removing the evolutionary component. I'm using the word that evolutionists use, not a pet definition.

[NormATive]

I recently read Bill Dembski's "The End of Christianity," which is about theodicy. Dembski's book tries to explain theodicy retroactively and argues that natural evil was caused by human sin. The effect (natural evil) came before the cause (the fall).

A bit of a fracas ensued over the book at Dembski's place of employment, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A professor there named Tom Nettles wrote a critical review of the book. Some dude named David Allen wrote a response to that review in a white paper, with a foreward by Dembski's boss, Paige Patterson. In attempting to defend Dembski's views, Allen includes a striking retraction by Dembski that shows how deeply the controversy went:



http://www.baptisttheology.org/bapti...ristianity.pdf

Patterson couldn't afford any misunderstanding on these points risking the school's integrity and (probably) angering its patrons. In a meeting that preceded the white paper, Patterson asked for clarification from Dembski. As far as I know, that's the origin of the retraction.

Since then, Dembski has specifically rejected evolution, denying some of the weightiest evidence for it (e.g., hominid fossils and primate DNA).

The Jews have never really been troubled by the notion of evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil

After the Holocaust, the Reformed Community rejected G-d's innocence in the matter. We are on our own. The problem of evil is our problem, even though its source is G-d, as creator of ALL.

BTW, I recall when I asked the Baptist minister of our church at the time what the dinosaur bones I had just examined in a museum in Arizona meant, he said; "the Devil planted those bones in the desert to snare young minds and turn them away from Jesus."

How's that for Theodicy!

NORM

[whag]

The Jews have never really been troubled by the notion of evil:



After the Holocaust, the Reformed Community rejected G-d's innocence in the matter. We are on our own. The problem of evil is our problem, even though its source is G-d, as creator of ALL.

That's moral evil, not natural evil. Dembski's book is more an explanation of why there are black widows, earthquakes, and asteroids.

BTW, I recall when I asked the Baptist minister of our church at the time what the dinosaur bones I had just examined in a museum in Arizona meant, he said; "the Devil planted those bones in the desert to snare young minds and turn them away from Jesus."

How's that for Theodicy!

NORM

Views like Dembski's are more sophisticated. Most Christians would subscribe to Dembski's view and not the one where God plants dinosaur bones to deceive and test your faith. Instead, he deceives and tests your faith by making it look like landslides are natural rather than the direct result of the fall.

Though more sophisticated, the latter view falls just as hard.

[firstfloor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug

[RBerman]

Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc. But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story. I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

[whag]

Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc.

Not actually Christianity, but conservative evangelicalism and catholicism. And not for those reasons but for anti-evolution views, unsustainable views of abortion and reproductive control, and climate change denial. Their views on homosexuality are generally divorced from reality, as well, so that earns laughter, too. It's not really about sexual mores and miracles, especially.

But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story.

No, it's the same story as the US, especially in third world countries. Birth rates are even more unsustainable because of demonization of birth control.

I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

Shouldn't that be easy to determine?

[lilpixieofterror]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug

More of your hatred again FF?

[RBerman]

Not actually Christianity, but conservative evangelicalism and catholicism. And not for those reasons but for anti-evolution views, unsustainable views of abortion and reproductive control, and climate change denial. Their views on homosexuality are generally divorced from reality, as well, so that earns laughter, too. It's not really about sexual mores and miracles, especially.

The denominations with the most liberal social views have seen the sharpest declines in membership and funding.

No, it's the same story as the US, especially in third world countries. Birth rates are even more unsustainable because of demonization of birth control.

That depends on war, immigration, etc. Eventually, something will have to give.

Shouldn't that be easy to determine?

If it has been studied, yes.

[Carrikature]

I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

I'd suspect something drastically different given the lack of insistence on Western philosophical traditions. Paprika might be able to better elaborate, as would Pinoy.

[firstfloor]

Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc. But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story. I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

[firstfloor]

More of your hatred again FF?

Certainly not LPOT; there is definitely no hatred on my part. I really would like you to see my most modest and random contributions in a more positive light; at most, slightly challenging of the status quo.

[Paprika]

I'd suspect something drastically different given the lack of insistence on Western philosophical traditions. Paprika might be able to better elaborate, as would Pinoy.

I can only comment on Asia, and with a very broad brush. Unlike most Western countries, most Asian ones do not have a long history of Christendom (eg at least a thousand years for Europe and many hundreds for USA). Due to colonialism, post-colonialism, and the stranglehold of Western thought that still generally persists today not least due to English being the global lingua franca, the extent to which Western ideas are accepted, rejected, modified, undermined, adopted etc is very, very complex and difficult to determine, especially when "Western thought" is not a monolithic whole but itself consists of many, many different streams and variations.

Theologically, there has generally been an uncritical acceptance of the tradition of the one who brings you to faith. Most ecumenical quarrels, which aren't many, have been imported - we just don't seem to have the infighting that the Christians in the West have to such a great degree (which isn't terribly surprising, as one of the main reasons the ecumenical movement gained so much force was that the missionaries in the field found that they weren't so dissimilar after all.)

On the specific issues:
1) Creationism: controversy has mostly been imported. Not really a big deal here, as in most Christian countries other than the US of A. (You guys do realise that it's an obsession almost completely belonging to your country, and otherwise imported from yours? Same with dispensationalism and inerrancy.)

2) Sexual mores: the Western ones arising from the decadent movement (Europe) and the sexual revolution (USA) were completely alien to the Asian countries, but due to Western media, education, etc there's been a slow but steady acceptance of such ideas. Most Christians are conservative on such matters, which generally accords with the social consensus.

3) Work of Christ, miracles: we haven't had Hume. Again, any such ideas here are generally imported. Skepticism of miracles isn't very high because generally people haven't been educated to believe that miracles don't happen or that if God or gods, exist, they are far away and don't interact with people.