´óÏó´«Ã½

You're famous William!

You certainly came off better than Dawkins from that interview.

Good luck to you.

SG

Stephen G #1; what you said makes no sense and seems to point to a common source of confusion among ´óÏó´«Ã½'s audience and especially its talk show hosts. The purpose of an interview is to elicit the point of view of the interviewee and those aspects of his views which distinguishes him from others with differing views. When those who disagree with the interviewee are quoted by the interviewer, he is trying to get the guest to explain why he thinks his opponents are wrong. When the host becomes an advocate for those differing views, the exchange ceases to be an interview and becomes a debate. It is unfair to a guest on a radio or TV show to lead them to believe that they will be interviewed only to find themselves debating the host. For one thing the guests are not expecting a confrontation and for another, the host has control over who may talk and when. The guest's advantage is that he is often expert in the area under discussion while the host is not, usually having to deal with many different topics from one show to another. The host often interrupts his guest's strongest arguments and comes off as a bully. The trapping of guests expecting to be interviewed and then finding themselves in sharp confrontations with the supposed interviewers right in the middle of the exchange is a common tactic ´óÏó´«Ã½ hosts use to unfairly skew its reporting of the news and becoming an advocate. It is bad journalism and is entirely unethical in my view. It was not so much in evidence in this particular broadcast as I recall but I only listened to it once and I was more focused on what Dawkins had to say than on how the exchange went. Perhaps I'll give it a second hearing to see if it seems unfair to me.

Mark I agree. I thought the best part about the interview was that it was a decent conversation between two people who respected each other. It wasn't a sily spat like we're used to on tv.

What would be really interesting is to have Will moderate a discussion between Dawkins and Plantinga.

When can that be set up?

Anyone else want to cast a vote for this proposal?

Regards,
Michael

What would be interesting would be a debate between Andrew McIntosh and someone expert in the field of the thermodynamics of biochemical reactions. My hunch is that McIntosh would be made to look like mincemeat. Unfortunately, even if McIntosh agreed to such a debate, it wouldn't be of much interest to a general audience because it would be far too technical for them to follow. Pseudoscientists like McIntosh only can claim to hold an audience when they are targeting the technically untrained telling them what they wanted to hear all along. Leeds University is still to be condemned for its unacceptably inadequate standards of academic excellence in its instructors, deliberately sitting on the fence hoping the controversy will go away by itself. For me it hasn't.

God is sitting up in heaven when Richard Dawkins flies up and says:

'God, we don't need to believe in you any more. Science has worked out a way to create life out of nothing. We can now do what you did in the beginning.'

'Really?' replies God. 'What exactly do you mean?'

'Well,' replies Dawkins, 'We can take dirt, form it into your likeness and make it live.'

'That's something I'd like to see,' says God. 'Why don't you show me?'

So Dawkins bends down and starts to mould the dirt into the shape of a woman. God grabs hold of his arm and pulls him back.

'Hey, not so fast,' he says. 'Go and get your own dirt.'

Mark:

You missed my point. I wasn#t saying William came off better because he "won" the debate or anythign like that. William came off remarkably well because he did a very fine job of the interview. Dawkins on the other hand didn't come off well, to my mind. That's all I was saying.

SG

William,

I thought the interview with Dawkins was good. It highlighted his frequent use of strawmen and generalisations and I believe that you were more than fair with him.

On a slightly different note - surely your programme being uploaded to youtube is in breach of copyright? Are the ´óÏó´«Ã½ happy with programmes being uploaded?

Michael:

I would second that proposal. I'd love to see Dawkins having to face someone like Plantinga. The problem is Dawkins is rarely, if ever, available to take on such types. Now, if William offered him the chance to speak with a fundamentalist nutter - he'd undoubtedly jump at the chance - because Dawkins wants to give the impression that all theists are like that. It's part of his Project Polemics.

SG

I agree with Michael N. Hull.

rubberduckie- The ´óÏó´«Ã½ just made a landmark deal with YouTube for programming online, which is great since YouTube is a much better codec than the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own videoplayer, and it looks like the deal will finally allow poor expats like me to see all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ shows I've been missing out on. (Besides, a programme paid for by 'public' funds surely should yield a 'public' copyright, don't you think?)

Michael- I third and fourth that suggestion. But it would have to be a debate. It won't work with a producer that wants to keep it 'lite' for all audiences; Plantinga and Dawkins would have to be allowed to get right into the matter without any holds barred by the fact that it's a broadcast debate. The interest that's been shown on this blog about such matters clearly demonstrates the public interest there'd be in such a debate in any case.

Re 4, 9, 10, 11.

William:

The ball is in your court!

Regards,
Michael

John,

I thought the youtube deal was for clips of ´óÏó´«Ã½ material to be uploaded, not full programmes. You may have to wait a while before we get full programmes appearing with consent.

Whatever and however a programme was available, I'd also like Dawkins to engage in a debate - William Lane Craig appeared game on Sunday Sequence past.

Glad to see the debate is back online! I've heard that Dawkins has agreed to a public debate with Alister McGrath, the Oxford theologian who has authored two books challenging Dawkins on theology and science. McGrath has doctorates in both theology and microbiology. He's also a former head boy of Belfast's Methodist College. Game on, I'd say. I'll get more details and let you know.

I'd certainly enjoy hearing a debate between Plantinga and Dawkins. I once wrote a PhD dissertation on Plantinga's epistemology and -- contrary to those on the Dawkins website trying to portray Plantinga as an intellectual backwoodsman -- I regard him (as do many others) as one of the most brilliant minds in contemporary philosophy. He's absolutely top of his profession. Whether anyone in a general audience would be able to follow the dabate is another matter.

I'm glad to hear such positive comments here about William Lane Craig. He was extremely impressive on Sunday morning; and he has written some very influential papers and books in philosophy (particularly the philosophy of time) and deserves a wider audience. I'd like to have him back on the programme soon.

It seems to me there is an incongruent asymetry in any debate between a philosopher and a scientist. Perhaps it's as though they exist on separate planes which only intersect at a single line. Science deals with the concrete tangeable and testable whose conclusions are always tentative subject to debate, challenge, and change while philosophy deals with the purely abstract, theology being particularly rigid and uncompromising. When philosophers like Aristotle tried to explain the natural world by extrapolating their philosophies, scientists came along centuries later and proved them dead wrong every single time, often embarassingly so. And once again when McIntosh tries to reconcile his own philosophy with science, he inevitably embarasses himself as well, going down in flames in the process. The really clever theologians stay as far away from this as they can knowing that they can never win. This was evidenced by the interviews conducted with representatives of other religions after the Mcintosh Dawkins debate in which those theologians, I think one Catholic and one Moslem said that their religious dogma had no issue with the theory of evolution. Strangely, the scientists often agree about that with them. As for me personally, I'm from Missouri, the "show me" state.

Re 14:

Alister McGrath: Born in Belfast, attended Methody, First Class Honours in Chemistry, First Class Honours in Theology - He'll do!

From Wikipedia:

McGrath has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology", and accusing him of mischaracterising religious people in general. McGrath asserted that Dawkins has become better known for his rhetoric than for his argument, and that Dawkins' hostility towards religion lacks empirical support.

He has wanted to have a public discussion with Dawkins but Dawkins has declined. His book The Dawkins Delusion? – a critical response to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion – was published by SPCK in February 2007. When asked for his opinion of McGrath, Dawkins responded, "Alister McGrath has now written two books with my name in the title. The poet W B Yeats, when asked to say something about bad poets who made a living by parasitizing him, wrote the splendid line: 'Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?'"

With a line like that the dog may end up with more than an itch.

Regards,
Michael

No doubt McGrath can inundate us with "Empirical Support" for whatever brand of theism he adheres to....

Interesting that Dawkins should be characterised as a scientist and thus dealing with "... the concrete tangeable and testable whose conclusions are always tentative subject to debate, challenge, and change". Especially bearing in mind his own repeated use of the 'myth principle' to back up assumptions that he cannot prove.

Alan Davison #18; And what assumptions might those be, that there is no credible proof or even evidence that god or an afterlife exists? Those are not an assumptions, they're facts. Why do you think belief in them is called "faith?"

As a ministry that takes a very keen interest in the 'Creation v Evolution' debate I have just posted an article to our ministry website relating to William's recently broadcast interview with Richard Dawkins. The article can be accessed on

Cecil Andrews
'Take Heed' Ministries
www.takeheed.net

William:

Does the above qualify as spam?

SG

Dont know about spam (I hate the stuff) but it's a very interesting read.

Cecil Andrews, read your article and have the following comments;

Do a small number of scientists or a large number belive in god? I wouldn't know. The more important question is for those who do, why do they believe in god? I think Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the compartmentalization of the mind. The way I read Freud, he divided the mind into three components, the Id or primative mind which is the expression of primitive urges and inborn instincts, the ego which is the rational critical thinking mind and seat of consciousness, and the superego which is the super critical self which sets standards of behavior and thought and punishes the ego for violating them. Neurosis results from the conflict between the three compartments of the mind.

Religion tries to take control of the superego by instilling in it the belief in an omniscient omnipotent authority which expresses itself in a holy book and is interpreted by the religion's priests. The priests are there to reinforce the superego's constant effort to force the ego to conform to its dictates. The effective inculcation of religious dogma in the superego at an early age before the ego has a chance do develop its ability to think critically and question, challenge, and reject authority is key to turning people into lifelong believers. It's a defeat the ego never really fully recovers from. In my own person life, I am eternally grateful to my parents for never having had me indoctrinated. I wasn't able to find the exact quote of Saint Thomas Acquinas where he said words to the effect that if you give me a five year old child, I will return to you a good Christian for life but that makes sense to me in light of what I've said. It is this inability for scientists who are trained to observe and think critically during the development of their rational mind in their ego, to think deductively and reject those ideas which do not stand up to this test to overcome the prior dominance of their superego which leads them to believe irrationally in god. Is the propensity for irrational thought the same as insanity? Not until it becomes obsessive and destructive of the self or of others. But it is the mental illness of neuroses.

The ultimate enemy of the superego is the id. All of the seven deadly sins and their derivitaves appeal to the id, alcoholism, drug addiction, gluttony. Not only do they damage the superego, they also often damage the ego and the physical body as well. Besides, the superego is also the power which forces the ego to act in conformance to social norms including obeying the law. When drunk, people are far more likely to commit crimes or act self destructively without consideration of the consequences than when sober.

For religion to say that the rejection of god after it has been rationally analyzed and found deductively unacceptable as the work of the devil is its ultimate defense to keep control over the superego. When all else fails, the notion that not believing in god will condemn the ego to eternal damnation in hell is religion's most compelling argument because it appeals to fear which is also usually beyond the control of the rational mind. In this sense, it has also taken cotrol over the id. For these reasons I regard the indoctrination of children into religion as nothing less than criminal. You don't believe it? Go vist a Madrassa in Pakistan where children are taught to become terrorists and trained to commit murder in the service of their god. I'll bet it wasn't very different in the European schools of the dark ages during the crusades.

It is an interesting read but unfortuantely it's the same old creationist twaddle.

I agree with Stephen ... take heed ministries is theological SPAM!

yes how mature, a creationist's sincerely held views dismissed as "spam".

where did all that liberal tolerance evaporate to DD and HAS?

Anyway, Will

I am not just so quick to assume that few could follow a debate between Plantinga and Dawkins.

I heard Plantinga on your show and while he obviously has a well developed vocabulary (and espistemology) it wasnt hard to follow him.

I dont think it is necessarily a credit to an academic to unncessarily veil his ideas in technical language.

Many professions rely on such a cloak to protect their prestige and income but I reckon any academic really worth his salt could easily translate his ideas into common English.

It could just be a form of professional arrogance. Just look at how Christ used agricultural parables to explain the mysteries of the universe...

PB

Nothing to do with "liberal intolerance",I am just expressing the view that Biblical creationism is utter twaddle-it is certainly not science-not in any sense of the word. It is not objective, credible, verifiable, falsifiable or peer-reviewed, indeed it has not the slightest shred of evidence to back it up-nor for that matter does Hindu, Chinese etc etc creationism.

It is a religious/political movement abd I do wish that the followers would be open about this, but then again try to find an honest creationist...

DD

We have been over this ground many times before.

It IS intolerance for anyone to dismiss somone's sincerely held religious views in derogatory terms.

DD, you know very well we discussed this at length on this blog before and there were two other secular evolutionists in the discussion who described evolution as "unproven but probable" and "the best theory available" or very similar terms.

Neither of them were Christians but but agreed that evolution cannot even be considered by current science because current science cannot begin to seriously consider whether God exists or not; ie science cannot consider the question because it precludes it with an untested assumption.

Remember, yes, there is a sample of 400 phds or above on Answers in Gensesis Wesbite who believe in creationism and I reckon any one of them outclasses you scientifically.

There are of course other similar lists on the web; nobody knows the true breakdown of the scientific community worldwide; what proportion are evolutionary believers, evolutionary sceptics or creationists.

There are also people of no faith who are sceptical of evolution eg

It appears to me the people using derogatory language against creationists may have got personal insecurity issues, but certainly no liberal tolerance.

PB

PLEASE IGNORE PREVIOUS

DD

We have been over this ground many times before.

It IS intolerance for anyone to dismiss somone's sincerely held religious views in derogatory terms.

DD, you know very well we discussed this at length on this blog before and there were two other secular evolutionists in the discussion who described evolution as "unproven but probable" and "the best theory available" or very similar terms.

Neither of them were Christians but but both agreed that creationism cannot even be considered by current science because current science cannot begin to seriously consider whether God exists or not; ie science cannot consider the question because it precludes it with an untested assumption; science cannot accept the existence of God.

Remember, yes, there is a sample of 400 phds or above on Answers in Gensesis Wesbite who believe in creationism and I reckon any one of them outclasses you scientifically many times over.

There are of course other similar lists on the web; nobody knows the true breakdown of the scientific community worldwide; what proportion are evolutionary believers, non-faith evolutionary sceptics or creationists from whatever faith; nobody!

One potentially huge constituency is people of no faith who are sceptical of evolution but keep their heads down in the scientific community for fear of persecution, ie such as you are displaying in this blog.

Non-faith sceptic author;-

It appears to me the people using derogatory language against creationists may have got personal insecurity issues, but certainly no liberal tolerance.

PB

"We have been over this ground many times before."

Yes and you never got it.

"It IS intolerance for anyone to dismiss somone's sincerely held religious views in derogatory terms."

Glad you admit that it is a religious position you are taking and not science-personally I have no problem with your religious beliefs, the problem that I have is when they are falsely passed off as science.

"DD, you know very well we discussed this at length on this blog before and there were two other secular evolutionists in the discussion who described evolution as "unproven but probable" and "the best theory available" or very similar terms."

Yawn, yes we did discuss it before and I agreed umpteen times with the position taken by those 2 posters and I will say it again I AGREE WITH THEM 100%(can I make it any more clearer?). The problem was (even though I did post links and try to explain) is that evolution is both fact AND theory, we are talking about the theory(explanation) of evolution. Whether you like it or not evolution is a fact(and even your fellow creationists agree with me).

(please try and read them this time)

"Neither of them were Christians but but both agreed that creationism cannot even be considered by current science because current science cannot begin to seriously consider whether God exists or not; ie science cannot consider the question because it precludes it with an untested assumption; science cannot accept the existence of God."

It has nothing to do with the existence of your god or not, it was to do with Biblical creationism and is it science and it plainly is not.

"Remember, yes, there is a sample of 400 phds or above on Answers in Gensesis Wesbite who believe in creationism and I reckon any one of them outclasses you scientifically many times over."

Not that again! well looking at the list they include dentists!, engineers!! etc what do they have to do with Life Sciences? Also everyone is a fundamentalist-now I would be impressed if you could find me a Hindu, atheist, Sikh etc etc Biblical creationist...? Because (as I was sick saying the last time) if it is indeed science the evince should be standalone but plainly it is not. Further of course all these "scientists" have to sign a statement of faith that they MUST agree with Ken Ham's interpretation of the Bible-this is simply not science and if you believe that it is so please find that the equivelant statement that that world scientific community have to sign. Also that list represents a miniscule minority, the figure for the US is 0.15% and for Europe and the rest of the world it is even lower. Btw AIG is that bad it is like a parody.

"There are of course other similar lists on the web; nobody knows the true breakdown of the scientific community worldwide; what proportion are evolutionary believers, non-faith evolutionary sceptics or creationists from whatever faith; nobody!"

There are surveys out there.

"One potentially huge constituency is people of no faith who are sceptical of evolution but keep their heads down in the scientific community for fear of persecution, ie such as you are displaying in this blog.

Non-faith sceptic author;-

Whose book has been ripped to shreds and also btw is NOT a Biblical creationist.

"It appears to me the people using derogatory language against creationists may have got personal insecurity issues, but certainly no liberal tolerance."

Well the derogatory language usually comes from the creationist camp ie., evilution etc, and they are the ones who are deeply insecure as there "faith" forces them into double-think. I am expressing an opinion PB, aplogies if you do not like it but Biblical creationism(as science not religion) is complete and utter twaddle...like Hindu creationism, flat-earthers, geo-centrists etc etc

I am not really sure if I can be bothered to get into this again with you and it proved to futile and frustrating the last time. I am NOT trying to destroy yor faith but please look at these sites

I do not have the time to get into a debate with you, but please have a look at the sites and a (sincere) all the best...

DD

pb #31
"It Is intolerance for anyone to dismiss someone's sincerely held religous views in derogatory terms."

Sounds rather funny coming from a blog site in Northern Ireleand where the dispute over which is the correct view of existance, vinalla Catholicism or chocolate Anglicanism has been widely held as justification enough for four hundred years of killing.

DD

Either you have a bad memory or you are trying to fudge what was acutally said.

You did not agree with the the other two participants in our converstation because they did not pose that evolution was "theory and fact", just theory, albeit they felt the evidence made it "most probable".

You refused to challenge them as to why they disagreed with you on this and instead put all your energy into attacking me, remember?

Are you trying to misrepresent me?

The Dover trial in the US could not consider the science from the creationists because that would require an assumption that God existed and started creation; science is not able to prove or disprove this happened because of its limitations, therefore it assumes it did not happen and the creationist case was thrown out of court.

That much is fact but it does not prove creationism is incorrect; it just shows that science cannot currently assess the theory properly because it cannot begin to assess the God part of the theory.

That is why there are no peer reviewed papers for creationism, as I understand it.

You might be able to divide religion from science on paper but I suggest they are simply two different lenses or disciplines for studying the real world; they are not so easily divided in real world.

Yes that list of 400 phds is a real pain isnt it? but you are using strawman propoganda to dismiss it and it does not do the integrity of your argument any favours;

There are plenty of palentologists, biologists, geneticists, geologists and physicists in the list, as you well know. catch yourself on, why only pull out engineers and dentists to attack my argument? struggling?

So you say Denton's critique of evolution has been "ripped to shreds".

Really? well you would say that wouldnt you, but you havent shown any evidence for your claims.

And your analytical skills come up short when you point out that he is not a biblical creationist - if you read my post again you will see I labelled him "a non-faith sceptic author [on evolution]".

I was doing this to illustrate that it is not just faith oriented scientists who have problems with evolutionary theory; point made.

You claim there are surveys on this subject which back up your point of view, but fail to cite any, again.

And again, contrary to what you claim, I cannot recall ONE Christian on this site EVER using derogatory language to an evolutionist.

And finally, the term "evilution" you try to ascribe to the Christians was carried over to Will and Testament by the Flying Spaghetti Monster crew from their website to incorrectly parody Christian views on evolution. google it for yourself.

I would suggest your intolerance and insecurity are now showing even more than before you tried to defend your claims DD.

PB

"Either you have a bad memory or you are trying to fudge what was acutally said.

You did not agree with the the other two participants in our converstation because they did not pose that evolution was "theory and fact", just theory, albeit they felt the evidence made it "most probable".

You refused to challenge them as to why they disagreed with you on this and instead put all your energy into attacking me, remember?

Are you trying to misrepresent me?"

Is there something seriously wrong with you? Have a look at the thread again and please stop telling lies! For goodness sake do I have to go through it again? They were talking about the THEORY of evolution and I repeat again! I AGREE 100% WITH WHAT THEY SAY! can I make it any clearer? do you want me to draw a picture? Evolution is fact and theory, whether you like it or not and I did post the links but again you have not read them. They did not disagree with, evolution is an observable fact, it is in the news every day oh what is the point having a debate with a fundamentalist like you...

The Dover trial in the US could not consider the science from the creationists because that would require an assumption that God existed and started creation; science is not able to prove or disprove this happened because of its limitations, therefore it assumes it did not happen and the creationist case was thrown out of court.

You are extremely slow on the uptake. Dover was about ID NOT Biblical creationism. The main argument about ID(and you should read up on it and stop revealing your ignorance) was if there was a designer who kicked everything thing off, the main proponents of ID like Behe have no problem with evolution as such nor the Earth being billions of years old-which invalidates Biblical creationism-they are mutually exclusive positions! Whereas Biblical creationism calls itself science and claims that it is backed up by empirical evidence(unlike ID)i.e., rocks, fossils, geology, cosmology so all of these CAN be tested(it really is very simple!) and when they are tested they have been shown to be complete twaddle.

"That much is fact but it does not prove creationism is incorrect; it just shows that science cannot currently assess the theory properly because it cannot begin to assess the God part of the theory."

Ditto above

"That is why there are no peer reviewed papers for creationism, as I understand it."

No it is because it's twaddle.

"Yes that list of 400 phds is a real pain isnt it? but you are using strawman propoganda to dismiss it and it does not do the integrity of your argument any favours;
There are plenty of palentologists, biologists, geneticists, geologists and physicists in the list, as you well know. catch yourself on, why only pull out engineers and dentists to attack my argument? struggling?"

Ha ha! not a pain at all!Not a strawman at all! again this is a very , very simple concept which seems to be beyond you, let me start again(yawn) now if Biblical creationism is science as it claims then it is a reasonable proposition to make that there would be Hindu, atheist, Sikh etc etc Biblical creationists (not going too fast am I?) but there are not, the reason is that the Biblical creationist position is religious not science(as I said it is a VERY simple concept).As far as I can see all of these "Phd,s" are all Biblical fundamentalists amd ALL had to sign the statement that they MUST agree with Ken ham's version of the BIble-simply NOT science! Me catch myself on!!! well they are the ones who are obviously struggling if they have to include dentists!!!engineers!!!medical doctors!!!! how in the name of Sam Hill is that related to the Life sciences? I suugest you look integrity up in the dictionary and you will find that creationists do not have any.

"So you say Denton's critique of evolution has been "ripped to shreds".

Really? well you would say that wouldnt you, but you havent shown any evidence for your claims."

"And your analytical skills come up short when you point out that he is not a biblical creationist - if you read my post again you will see I labelled him "a non-faith sceptic author [on evolution]".

I was doing this to illustrate that it is not just faith oriented scientists who have problems with evolutionary theory; point made."

Yeesss of course he is not a biblical creationist! he comes across as being intelligent. Of course there are objections! thats the free inquiry of science!

"You claim there are surveys on this subject which back up your point of view, but fail to cite any, again."

"And again, contrary to what you claim, I cannot recall ONE Christian on this site EVER using derogatory language to an evolutionist.

And finally, the term "evilution" you try to ascribe to the Christians was carried over to Will and Testament by the Flying Spaghetti Monster crew from their website to incorrectly parody Christian views on evolution. google it for yourself."

I have heard "evilutionist" on other forums and been called everything under the sun.

"would suggest your intolerance and insecurity are now showing even more than before you tried to defend your claims DD."

Not at all! ha ha! look if you are right then please present evidence (just one) that would back up your claims and make it objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed-go-on knock yourself out!

Again nothing to do with intolerance or insecurity just stating the fact that creationism is twaddle and other (intelligent) Christians agree with me(see you didn't read the links...oh well thats par for the course for you...

Good day!

DD

ps. thank you for making me proud to be me!

PB,

I apologise if my tone has upset you. The reason that you annoy me(and others) is that you don't listen. I had a look at the other thread(took ages to load) and I fail to see where exactly the 2 posters "disagreed" with me

(if anyone can be bothered the link is here)

/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html

I state AGAIN I agree 100% with what they say, we were talking about the theory of natural selection not the fact. I did post links but you choose again not to read them. The worrying thing is that your fellow Biblical creationists acknowledge evolution to be a fact-they call it "micro"-evolution, they accept the lab work that you so readily dismissed, youknow bird-flu, super-bugs etc thats all evolution.

Again I am relectant to enter a debate with you as the last one was fruitless(I was not the only one to think so).

I would love to know how I am being intolerant as nowhere did I ask for creationism to be banned etc I am simply stating my opinion which I can back up with evidence that is objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed and in my opinion Biblical creationism is twaddle-aplogies if you don't like it but there you go. I have gave my reasons mainly because as you admitted your beliefs are based on your religion not on science-because if they were science you would expect there to be Hindu, atheist Biblical creationists but... there are not-think hard why that is.

Again I don't know how I am insecure, especially so when it is you clinging to that miniscule list of "Phd's" (all of which are Christian fundamentalists) when I can name 100's and 100's and 100's(!) of 1000's of sceintists working in relevant fields and those from all faiths and none who have no problem with evolution nor science, and it is science not only evolution that creationists have problems with it is ALL of science(also all those 100's of 1000's of scientists do NOT have to sign a statement that they MUST accept one persons literal view).

Anyway sincere apologies if my last post seemed rude, hopefully I have explained myself better above and why not read the links that I provided to Christians who are scientists who have no problem with evolution-shame you cannot do the same and provide me with links to Hindu etc Biblical creationists-oops couldn't resist that!). I will not be posting again on this topic with you and I must stress it is not because I am running away but because I think it is futile, so I will let you have the last word...

However if you want to continue I would recommed the ´óÏó´«Ã½ messageboards Christian topic the link is below, I believe that it is better suited to this type of discussion and there are Biblical creationists there so you will not be alone.

/dna/mbreligion/F2213235

Regards

DD

PB,

I apologise if my tone has upset you. The reason that you annoy me(and others) is that you don't listen. I had a look at the other thread(took ages to load) and I fail to see where exactly the 2 posters "disagreed" with me

(if anyone can be bothered the link is here)

/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html

I state AGAIN I agree 100% with what they say, we were talking about the theory of natural selection not the fact. I did post links but you choose again not to read them. The worrying thing is that your fellow Biblical creationists acknowledge evolution to be a fact-they call it "micro"-evolution, they accept the lab work that you so readily dismissed, youknow bird-flu, super-bugs etc thats all evolution.

Again I am relectant to enter a debate with you as the last one was fruitless(I was not the only one to think so).

I would love to know how I am being intolerant as nowhere did I ask for creationism to be banned etc I am simply stating my opinion which I can back up with evidence that is objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed and in my opinion Biblical creationism is twaddle-aplogies if you don't like it but there you go. I have gave my reasons mainly because as you admitted your beliefs are based on your religion not on science-because if they were science you would expect there to be Hindu, atheist Biblical creationists but... there are not-think hard why that is.

Again I don't know how I am insecure, especially so when it is you clinging to that miniscule list of "Phd's" (all of which are Christian fundamentalists) when I can name 100's and 100's and 100's(!) of 1000's of sceintists working in relevant fields and those from all faiths and none who have no problem with evolution nor science, and it is science not only evolution that creationists have problems with it is ALL of science(also all those 100's of 1000's of scientists do NOT have to sign a statement that they MUST accept one persons literal view).

Anyway sincere apologies if my last post seemed rude, hopefully I have explained myself better above and why not read the links that I provided to Christians who are scientists who have no problem with evolution-shame you cannot do the same and provide me with links to Hindu etc Biblical creationists-oops couldn't resist that!). I will not be posting again on this topic with you and I must stress it is not because I am running away but because I think it is futile, so I will let you have the last word...

However if you want to continue I would recommed the ´óÏó´«Ã½ messageboards Christian topic the link is below, I believe that it is better suited to this type of discussion and there are Biblical creationists there so you will not be alone.

/dna/mbreligion/F2213235

Regards

DD

PB,

I see we are getting a bit hot and heavy again, I did post a longer response yesterday but accidently put it up twice and looks like the blog had a bit of a clean-up and they were removed-basically I apologised for my tone and did see red because you mis-represnted me re: the 2 posters on the other thread-I had a look to see exactly where they disagreed with me and failed to see it, indeed the only relevant post is when one of the posters actually agreed with me! in that we are searching for the best explanation of the best explantion.

I would strongly urge you to actaully read the links that I provided re: evolution fact and theory-it is a given that evolution is a fact and as I said even your fellow YEC acknowledge it as a fact. If the theory of evolution was to be disproven today evolution would still be a fact, as I said please read the links or this article which I found useful

I do fail to see how I am intolerant and insecure I am only expressing an opinion at no point did I argu that creationism should be banned or question your right to free speech I only said that Biblical creationism is twaddle (as science not religion, but then again you did admit that it was religious)anyway...

I am going to leace the last word to you but if you do want to continue why not come over to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Christian Message board-btw I am not trying to trap or trick you! This is a Christian MB and has creationists on it indeed it has all faiths and is a fun and lively!and as I have stated before the blog format does not help a long discussion.

Here is the link

/dna/mbreligion/F2213235

All the best

DD

pb#29
It is you who misrepresented the Dover case. The court ruled that it would be illegal for public schools to teach ID in science classes because it is not science, it is religion in disguise. It does not meet any of the criteria of good science. It selectively discards those elements of the large and growing tapestry of scientific knowledge it finds inconveniently inconsistant with its own assumptions and conclusions. The clincher was evidence presented in court which proved beyond reasonable doubt that advocates of ID had merely taken their creationist theories and doctored them to make them appear as science. Their feeble attempts to disguise their product were pathetically laughable. Even I could have done a much better job of it had I wanted to.

I tried posting something like this a few days ago but ´óÏó´«Ã½'s web sites including this one are still having big problems, at least sporadically. The only solution for posters is to back up your postings at least until they are published unless you want to risk losing them. ´óÏó´«Ã½, get some IT people who know what they are doing already. This has been going on for over a month.

I know what you mean Mark, my post was up yesterday, dissappeared then came back today!

Something is skewhiff!

DD

Why is it that you and your likeminded friends find debates with me "fruitless"?

Why is the reality not that I find debates with you guys "fruitless"?

That is intolerant arrogance! It displays no respect whatsoever for my views.

It explicitly presumes I am wrong and you are right. The scary thing is you are totally oblivious to it.

Why should I not be frustrated with them for not listening to me and accepting my views?

You are also making incorrect assumptions that creationists accept micro evolution and a young earth.

Micro-evolution is certainly not accepted by creationists on that threat or on Answers in Genesis. Neither could I find it on wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Brittanica in ref to the discussion about antibodies on that thread.

I looked at post 360 on the link you gave and the other two posters described evoilution as "unproven" and "the most probable theory".

Unless you are going to use a Jedi mind trick on me, that is a long way from agreeing with you that it is fact as well as theory.

I would say you are intolerant and insecure because you get angry when I rest in my worldview despite your best efforts to get me out of it. And after that you are still trying to get me to accept that you are right.

That is intolerance, a fear of difference, a refusal to accept difference.

You dont see me having to make an apology to you for having been rude and that is ALWAYS the pattern when evoltionists and creationists debate on this blog; The Christians are always polite, a minority of the evolutionists are polite, but the majority of evolutionists are ignorant, based on their track record.

That in itself says something about what impact the belief in God has on the human soul!

Lastly, creationism and evolution make equal and opposite religious assumptions that cannot be tested or proven; one assumes God exists and kicked off creation, the other assumes he does not and that life created itself.

Creationism is perfectly logically and tallys well with all the actual geological and biological evidence for evolution, as witnessed by the 400 phds listed for example (a small sample of creationist scientists worldwide).

However current science cannot begin to consider the existence of God, so creationism falls at the first hurdle in "proving" itself to evolutionists.

So both systems rely on a religious viewpoint to hold their worldviews together.

But currently "victor's justice" ensures that evolution has the upper hand.

Thanks for the links but you have to understand I dont have the time for much surfing at present.

good talking to you again....

pb

ps I believe William explored these opposite assumptions in his interview with Dawkins, though I havent seen it!

PB

Mark, DD

ref Dover

I stand over the main point I made and concede one other.

The first reason for rejecting ID/Creationism by the judge (he said they were the same thing DD!) was because they allowed for God to have created the universe (* see excerpt at bottom).

Remember, Will highlighted these equal and opposite assumptions in his interview with Dawkins above! Look again!

The point I concede is that the judge said ID/Creationism is "not science".

Personally I say that when so many phds and professors in genetics, palentology, geology and biology find creationism perfectly logical, I feel comfortable in concluding that the judge may just not be totally informed or knowledgeable in the entire field; he is not a scientist; I am in good scientific company; they are scientific heavyweights while DD and Mark are not...

At the Dover trial the judge found that ID "arguments may be true" and that evolution theory is "imperfect".

He also said in his findings that he was not saying that discussion research and debate on ID should stop.

* ref comments at top re God, he also said: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;"

full text at;-

PB

PB

Said I wouldn't reply but...

ID is the modern form that creationism has evolved into. Again I reiterate they are mutually exclusive positions as people like Behe have no problem with evolution as such nor with the Earth being billions of years old which invalidates Biblical creationism.

Have a look at your favourite site:

"Personally I say that when so many phds and professors in genetics, palentology, geology and biology find creationism perfectly logical, I feel comfortable in concluding that the judge may just not be totally informed or knowledgeable in the entire field; he is not a scientist; I am in good scientific company; they are scientific heavyweights while DD and Mark are not..."

What an incredibly insulting and patronising thing to say, you know nothing of mine or Marks background.

They are not "scientific heavyweights" in any sense of the word, and I am not sure if you are referring to IDers or creationists(as they are mutually excclusive). If you want heavyweights ok

Notice that it was signed by 67 national science academies

If the "company" that you refer to is that really short list of dentists, engineers, technicians(and there are a few proper scientists I do know that) from AIG then I do feel sorry for you as I can name the world scientific community-which includes those of all faiths and none(shame that you cannot do the same)and do not HAVE to sign a statement that they MUST agree with Ken Ham. Indeed all of those "scientists" that you name are Christian fundamntalists yet you claim "Creationism is perfectly logically and tallys well with all the actual geological and biological evidence for evolution" then it is rather strange that there are no Hindu, atheist, Sikh, etc etc Biblical creationists I mean if the evidence is that strong then you would expect there to be Hindu Biblical creationists. I suppose that it is the same reason why there are no Christian, atheist Hindu creationists...

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

----- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
----- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005

Re:Imperfect

this is what the judge said here

"To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

What is wrong with that?

Also

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

Also

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Yes the good Bible-believers on the board lied under oath.

That(and your arrogant comments) in itself says something about what impact the belief in God has on the human soul!-as someone once said...

My favourite quote from the trial was
""We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

----- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
says it all really

"He also said in his findings that he was not saying that discussion research and debate on ID should stop."

Of course not as that is not his remit.

RE: post 48 the first 5 lines could equally apply to you.

Indeed I would say you are intolerant and insecure because you get angry when I rest in my worldview despite your best efforts to get me out of it. And after that you are still trying to get me to accept that you are right.

That is intolerance, a fear of difference, a refusal to accept difference.

Since we are at it I don't know how mant times you want me to say but I agree 100% with those posters said and did have a look at thread and indeed one of the posters replied directly to me to agree with me!
You see evolution is both fact and theory(do read the links and glad that you admitted that you don't), it is given that it is a fact. That is the reason that you annoyed me but I though that I would turn the other cheek and forgive you...

Indeed on that other thread one of the creationists dissappered after he was exposed perverting evidence re: red blood cells in T. Rex's hardly model behaviour and you need to get out more and see what creationists are saying on other boards to see who is really being rude and disrespectful. Moreover some of the comments or slurs that Christains use against other Christians is diabolical.

Do try and look at the threads this time and please have a peek at the NNC Christian MB and if you like it join up-it is a better format than this(with no disrespect to William)

Maybe see you there

DD

Re: "Heavyweights"

Thats a bit heavier than your list of dentists...

Also I was going to leave this but I do dislike it when people tell lies and misrepresent me. You could have been more contrite in your reply.

I did not disagree with those 2 posters in questions(perhaps you would like this tattooed on your forehead), I agreed with them and looking through the thread one addressed a post to me and agreed with me and if they had disagreed do you not think they would have stated this? Again you are getting mixed up between the fact and theory of evolution, it would help if you would actually read the links provided.

Re: Microevolution

relevant quote

"Furthermore, creationists do believe microevolution is an observable fact"

"You dont see me having to make an apology to you for having been rude and that is ALWAYS the pattern when evoltionists and creationists debate on this blog; The Christians are always polite, a minority of the evolutionists are polite, but the majority of evolutionists are ignorant, based on their track record."

Well you should apologise, and you have a right cheek to accuse anyone of being ignorant. The problem was on the other thread that you were telling scientists their job! you did not read links or said you could not open them etc and you annoyed a lot of posters. You also accussed me of all manner of things like telling you were to post and you took a right hissy fit about it.

"So both systems rely on a religious viewpoint to hold their worldviews together."

However science is not religious in any sense of the word and Biblical Creationism is and is not scientific in any sense of the word.

DD

Re: ID/Creationism as I have already posted links from AIG stating why these positions are mutually exclusive here is another view from the IDers

I think you should learn the difference between these 2 movements and stop flip-flopping between the 2.

Regards

DD

DD

The Dover trial judge said he ID "might be true" and that the court took no position on whether or not that is the case.

Response?

Sadly, I know there are plenty of unpleasant and dishonest people who take the name of Christ and have met a fair few of them in my time.

But I repeat, I have never seen any of them on this blog discussing evolution and abusing evolutionists.

On the other hand, just take a look at the pejorative language you have personally aimed at me in your postings above, together with cynical and incorrect assumptions about my conduct and motives on this blog.

I just think it is immature and bad manners and, incidentally, nothing at all to do with evolution or a civil conversation about it.

And similarly, when two adults of whatever creed discourse on ANY matter I consider it quite bad manners for one to absolutely insist the other reads reams of information provided in favour of the former's argument.

To offer and invite with graciousness is fine, but to insist and sulk if the other declines is petulant.

PB

ps DD

I dont have a definite personal position on the age of the earth, nor do I subscribe to a definitive statement of faith.

My personal world does not rotate around AIG and I dont hang on every word they say.

PB

PB

"The Dover trial judge said he ID "might be true" and that the court took no position on whether or not that is the case."

I know and that was beyond his remit.

"Sadly, I know there are plenty of unpleasant and dishonest people who take the name of Christ and have met a fair few of them in my time.

But I repeat, I have never seen any of them on this blog discussing evolution and abusing evolutionists."

Hey we actually agree on something! there are some nasty people out there who do call themselves Christians but I have to say the majority of Christians that I have met have been great and genuine people.

On the other thread one of the creationists was quite abusive.

"On the other hand, just take a look at the pejorative language you have personally aimed at me in your postings above, together with cynical and incorrect assumptions about my conduct and motives on this blog.

I just think it is immature and bad manners and, incidentally, nothing at all to do with evolution or a civil conversation about it."

In my opinion it was because you kept flogging what the other 2 posters had to say, I said that I agreed with them and they did not disagree, I felt that you were misrepresenting me and somehow trying to show me as dishonest-now if I am wrong(and I often am!) I may not like it but I will admit it however if I feel that I have been accussed wrongly I will fight my case-and I am sure that you would do the same. That is where I am coming from, if my language upset you then again please accept my sincere apologies.

"And similarly, when two adults of whatever creed discourse on ANY matter I consider it quite bad manners for one to absolutely insist the other reads reams of information provided in favour of the former's argument.

To offer and invite with graciousness is fine, but to insist and sulk if the other declines is petulant."

PB, I put up links(as did you) and I am not insisting that you read them but I did assume that you did look at them, this is when confusion arises ie., I assume you have read, the conversation moves on and you say something that shows that you haven't read the links-which I find frustrating because it means going back and repeating myself.

"I dont have a definite personal position on the age of the earth, nor do I subscribe to a definitive statement of faith.

My personal world does not rotate around AIG and I dont hang on every word they say."

Good for you PB! why not look at other websites maybe look at why Christians have no problem with evolution(btw I am not trying to rock your faith!) and examine other Christian viewpoints other than AIG.

Anyway hope that I have explained myself a bit better and a sincere all the best.

Regards

DD

DD

Glad we have come to an amicable conclusion on this, while we both retain our views.

I honestly dont have time to go into all the links you have posted, I have too much on.

For me in a nutshell I think the Dover trial was useful because it clarified a few things;

Science cannot currently consider creationism because it cannot begin to consider God caused it (supernatual causation). It is not capable of this, but that does not mean it did not happen.

But the trial judge still said it "might be true" but it could not be currently taught as science because of the God factor.

That all makes sense to me and seems perfectly logical. It explains a lot about why there are no papers published on it.

But as the judge said, "it might be true". That is a big statement after having seen all the evidence he did as a neutral observer!

speak to you again.

and sorry, I actually feel I did get personal above myself.

PB

DD

Glad we have come to an amicable conclusion on this, while we both retain our views.

I honestly dont have time to go into all the links you have posted, I have too much on.

For me in a nutshell I think the Dover trial was useful because it clarified a few things;

Science cannot currently consider creationism because it cannot begin to consider God caused it (supernatual causation). It is not capable of this, but that does not mean it did not happen.

But the trial judge still said it "might be true" but it could not be currently taught as science because of the God factor.

That all makes sense to me and seems perfectly logical. It explains a lot about why there are no papers published on it.

But as the judge said, "it might be true". That is a big statement after having seen all the evidence he did as a neutral observer!

speak to you again.

and sorry, I actually feel I did get personal above myself.

PB

DD

Sorry, you know I think I was actually getting personal there myself.

But seriously, why is it such a problem to you that people believe in creationism?

You dont have any problem with people believing in God, apparently, but it really seems to get you excercised when they are creationists.

Your language suggests that you think Christians should only believe in evolution and that you have a very inflexible "fundamentalist" position on this, a "fundamentalist evolutionist"?

Why in such a big diverse world with people of so many faiths, non-faiths and worldviews does it matter so much to you what such an apparent minority think?

Why do you not just shrug your shoulders and say, well thats what they think, good luck to them?

I just dont get it.... do you actually even know the answer yourself?

IN all honesty, it does appear as though you feel this to be some sort of personal threat, even if that is at a subconscious level???

PB

Hey you guys, an interesting debate but ultimately pointless. I just feel that I need to point out that I know of Christians whose teaching has helped me who are theistic evolutionists, others who are old earth creationists, others who are young earth creationists, oters who are into ID. I am not a scientist and if I was I am not sure which camp I would be in. The point is that it doesn't matter one whit. The truth will in any case prove more astonishing that could possibly be contained within any of our paradigms. I am with William Lane Craig as regards the role and proper activity of science: acquiring as comprehensive understanding as possible of the natural world. How this natural world actually come into existence in the first place, and much less why and for what purpose, is quite clearly beyond its competence, much as certain materialistic scientists would like to have it otherwise. When someone says to me that evolution is self-evidently true I say, "well maybe you're right. So what? You're not trying to tell me that that presupposes the non-existence of a creator are you?"

Hey you guys, an interesting debate but ultimately pointless. I just feel that I need to point out that I know of Christians whose teaching has helped me who are theistic evolutionists, others who are old earth creationists, others who are young earth creationists, oters who are into ID. I am not a scientist and if I was I am not sure which camp I would be in. The point is that it doesn't matter one whit. The truth will in any case prove more astonishing that could possibly be contained within any of our paradigms. I am with William Lane Craig as regards the role and proper activity of science: acquiring as comprehensive understanding as possible of the natural world. How this natural world actually come into existence in the first place, and much less why and for what purpose, is quite clearly beyond its competence, much as certain materialistic scientists would like to have it otherwise. When someone says to me that evolution is self-evidently true I say, "well maybe you're right. So what? You're not trying to tell me that that presupposes the non-existence of a creator are you?"

Hey you guys, an interesting debate but ultimately pointless. I just feel that I need to point out that I know of Christians whose teaching has helped me who are theistic evolutionists, others who are old earth creationists, others who are young earth creationists, oters who are into ID. I am not a scientist and if I was I am not sure which camp I would be in. The point is that it doesn't matter one whit. The truth will in any case prove more astonishing that could possibly be contained within any of our paradigms. I am with William Lane Craig as regards the role and proper activity of science: acquiring as comprehensive understanding as possible of the natural world. How this natural world actually come into existence in the first place, and much less why and for what purpose, is quite clearly beyond its competence, much as certain materialistic scientists would like to have it otherwise. When someone says to me that evolution is self-evidently true I say, "well maybe you're right. So what? You're not trying to tell me that that presupposes the non-existence of a creator are you?"

PB

I too am glad that we have come to an amicable conclusion.

"Science cannot currently consider creationism because it cannot begin to consider God caused it (supernatual causation). It is not capable of this, but that does not mean it did not happen."

However Judge Jones said...

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator"

"But the trial judge still said it "might be true" but it could not be currently taught as science because of the God factor."

What he said was...

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

Yes ID may very well be true, I will admit that however the ID as preached at Dover is simply not science.

"That all makes sense to me and seems perfectly logical. It explains a lot about why there are no papers published on it."

It's because it is simply not science. ID(in the Dover sense) was mauled in the court.

"But as the judge said, "it might be true". That is a big statement after having seen all the evidence he did as a neutral observer!"

See the above full comment by Judge Jones, it was not his or the courts remit to say if the central premise of ID was true or not, his and the courts job was to examine if it could be admitted into a science class.

"and sorry, I actually feel I did get personal above myself."

No problem PB!

OK PB,onto your 2nd post...

We are posting on a public board with people of different opinions some of which people hold dearly, should we simply let one person post and withdraw the privelege of replying? Have you not challenged people?

"Your language suggests that you think Christians should only believe in evolution and that you have a very inflexible "fundamentalist" position on this, a "fundamentalist evolutionist"?"

Personally I do not care what you or your church believe or preach that is none of my business. However as I said you are on a public forum and if you make assertions you must be able to back them up with evidence not just say my beliefs are sacred, please don't critise.

"Why in such a big diverse world with people of so many faiths, non-faiths and worldviews does it matter so much to you what such an apparent minority think?

Why do you not just shrug your shoulders and say, well thats what they think, good luck to them?

I just dont get it.... do you actually even know the answer yourself?

IN all honesty, it does appear as though you feel this to be some sort of personal threat, even if that is at a subconscious level???"

Ditto above, I would add it is because some of this minority want to force their narrow world-view onto the rest of us by putting it into the classroom and passing it off as science which it plainly is not and has been found to be so in every court case since Scopes-I care passionately about what are children are taught. As I said I don't care what you believe, it is a free society, but you are on a public forum and you must expect your views to be challenged-I think that is fair enough!

Quite simply you made a number of very serious assertions about the world scientific community -would you not expect to be challenged? And could not the same assertions be made against yourself?

Anyway hope that I have explained myself better.

I don't really see much point in carrying this on PB, but I do hope that if our paths meet again we can now know a bit more about where we are coming from.

Anyway...

all the best!

DD

ps. you really should have a look at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ MB's (I posted the links in one of my posts above), why not have a look and maybe see you there?

PB

ps. I have no problem with ID or the various brands of creationism being taught/examined in RE or compartive religion.

Just to make myself clear

PB is it still only 400 PHD's??

It was 400 hundred before Christmas when you where on this tack - hasn't even one new one appeared since then???

Given that the average university has a coouple of hundred PhD's on it's staff, four hundred doesnt seem like a mind bending, staggering, incomprehensible number to me...I wonder what fraction of one percent this 400 - or as I like to call them, "PB's Cavalry" - actually represents as compared to the world pop of PhD's.

Any thoughts?

Ive just read Alister McGrath's book Dawkins God (I havent read dawkins) and I wasnt impressed at all. In fact, I was pretty annoyed that I bought it. he seemed to contantly say that Dawkins position is wrong and that Religion can provide answers BUT HE DIDNT ONCE DEMONSTRATE HOW RELIGION CAN DO PROVIDE THEM! has anyone else noticed this? I have listened to him debating as well and he does exactly the same thing. He seems to namedrop an aweful lot, mention C S Lewis a lot, say that religion has survived the onslaught of secularism and that this proves religion has a purpose. But he never gives any examples of what the purpose is or how it achieves its purpose?
After reading the book I came to the conclusion that McGrath doesnt actually truely believe what he is saying. his bit about religious people having a different conception of faith than non believers didnt make sense to me. He said it isnt belief without evidence, because the believer has experienced things that lead him to believe that God exists (or something along these lines). Therefore for the believer there is evidence. I mean McGrath is a scientist and so has a conception of what equates to scientific evidence. Thereofre I can only assume that the yardstick of what amounts to evidence changes when considering religion. I didnt think this was a very good point. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?

Ive just read Alister McGrath's book Dawkins God (I havent read dawkins) and I wasnt impressed at all. In fact, I was pretty annoyed that I bought it. he seemed to contantly say that Dawkins position is wrong and that Religion can provide answers BUT HE DIDNT ONCE DEMONSTRATE HOW RELIGION CAN DO PROVIDE THEM! has anyone else noticed this? I have listened to him debating as well and he does exactly the same thing. He seems to namedrop an aweful lot, mention C S Lewis a lot, say that religion has survived the onslaught of secularism and that this proves religion has a purpose. But he never gives any examples of what the purpose is or how it achieves its purpose?
After reading the book I came to the conclusion that McGrath doesnt actually truely believe what he is saying. his bit about religious people having a different conception of faith than non believers didnt make sense to me. He said it isnt belief without evidence, because the believer has experienced things that lead him to believe that God exists (or something along these lines). Therefore for the believer there is evidence. I mean McGrath is a scientist and so has a conception of what equates to scientific evidence. Thereofre I can only assume that the yardstick of what amounts to evidence changes when considering religion. I didnt think this was a very good point. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?