Science and Christianity: insulation or integration?

Is it just me or is Dawkins a bit of a Bigot?

Ha ha - that from someone who calls themselves "righteousHolyknight"! Nice one.

Actually, I'm sorry I'll be missing this, because it's an interesting topic. I think the old "some of the greatest scientists were Christians" line is well past its Use-By date - certainly the composition of the highest echelons of modern science would suggest that it is very much on the wane (or, rather, that theistic *belief* is on the wane - what people choose to self-identify as is another matter as we all know).

Personally, I don't think I would be an atheist now if I hadn't been a committed evangelical Christian previously. And I sometimes self-identify as a Christian atheist (sorry to re-tread old ground), largely for cultural reasons.

So you could say that Christianity leads to good atheists. Maybe the intellectual honesty that is *supposed* to be a hallmark of Christianity makes for good scientists, but it would be a mistake to confuse this with some sort of specific influence Christianity has on science in general.

Will - you'll report back?

-H

Heliopolitan --

I plan to publish Roddy's entire speech here after the event.

You make an interesting point about the 'some of the greatest scientists were Christians' claim. I think you are right to be careful about just what one can conclude from this fact. It's plainly the case that those scientists who are religious see no contradiction in their commitments. Dawkins accuses them of compartmentalisation, but it is logically possible (and this is all I am claiming) to be both Christian and a scientist without doing intellectual harm to either of those identities.

There is another claim sometimes made, and Roddy may get into this area: that the philosophical basis of modern science was shaped by religious commitments. In other words, without various religious worldviews, but particularly the Christian worldview, modern science would not have developed in the same way. That is a more interesting claim, and correspondingly more difficult to defend. Even if it were true, of course, a religious sceptic could say, 'So what? Arguably a scientists false religious ideas may have triggered an interest in alchemy, and out of that fumbling effort to turn lead into gold some useful scientific discoveries were made. The existence today of the science of chemistry cannot then be offered as evidence for the legitimacy of those earlier religious beliefs.'

It will be interesting to explore some of this with Roddy, and to find more about what he means by 'reintegration'. What would the 'reintegration' of science and religion look like? To an ID theorist it is pretty clear: the open deployment of theological terms and ideas in the context of scientific papers and discussions. That deployment would challenge the methodological naturalism that characterises contemporary science. Would Roddy Cowie wish to go that far? We'll see.

Can a human being be rational one moment and irrational the next? Yes. When a scientist talks about his work, his scientific discoveries, his theories based on data, he is in a purely analytical mode and his conclusions can be refuted or supported on their own merits. When the next moment he gazes off into space wondering what life is all about, why he exists, what will happen to him after he dies, he can be as loony a goose as it gets. When they try to marry the two, you get Andy McIntosh or even worse, Wilder-Smith. These people come across as fools to anyone who knows what their specialized area of scientific expertise is about. BTW, I have to wonder if in that 90 minute spectacle of Wilder-Smith's I was persuaded to endure, he was smashed, certifiable or both. He'd have looked right at home on the corner of Broadway and 42nd in Times Square with the other pontificating escaped loonies from mental institutions with that tirade. Definitely certifiable. What was his thesis, his bottom line? If you don't go out and preach to everyone you meet that biochemical reactions are thermodynamically reversible or irreversible or some such blather, you are going to hell. Guess everyone who lived in the 14th and 15th century before the world heard of such things went to hell according to his thinking.

There is a natural tendency in my experience for people to think that if someone is an expert or has insight in one field, they are experts in all others too. And so while Aristotle may have had insight into human nature, when it came to the physical world, he was an ignoramus. He knew nothing. His theories are laughable. There was no scientific knowledge about the true nature of the world or the universe when he lived and his views were no exception, he was dead wrong. The simplest fact about it for instance, that the earth is a sphere known to many a three year old today was beyond his knowledge. But this is the kind of nonsense the Catholic Church pinned its theology on and built a pyramid on top of it claiming exclusive possession of truth. As these intellectually worthless underpinnings fell one after another, its credibility retreated until now it is reduced to accepting pretty much whatever scientists come up with including evolution and relegating itself to whatever remains. It would do well as would all religions to stick with the unknowable and leave the merely unknown to people who have the ability to find out or its viabiliity will erode even more.

The worst of course are those who try so desperately to refute real science. McIntosh for instance is a pathetic wretch. Utterly discredited, he brings shame not only upon himself and those who spent their best effort training him but on Leeds University which has lost all credibility with me by not firing him on the spot when he came out with his unforgivable gaff.

H
You want to see unreasonable bigotry? Read post 6 on the "IRA" thread. Scary stuff.

GV

Kepler: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".


Lord Kelvin, creator of TSLOT, quotes the bible three times as his authorities on thermodynamics;-



"Thus we have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall 'wax old as doth a garment,' and that this slow progress must gradually, by natural agencies which we see going on under fixed laws, bring about circumstances in which 'the elements shall melt with fervent heat.' With such views forced upon us by the contemplation of dynamical energy and its laws of transformation of dead matter, dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unillumined by that light which reveals 'new heavens and a new earth.'" [Good Words, 1862]

Cowie seems to make a lot of sense to me.

"We should not forget that Christianity is the ground that science grew from."

he wants to see science reintegrate with its Christian roots.

Will's question of whether "religious doctrines should play a role in explaining scientific theories" perhaps misses a major implication of what Cowie is saying.

ie he is saying that these (religion and science) are only very recent distinctions between fields of knowledge that were not there in the day of the scientific revolution which made the major breakthroughs we now classify as "science".


It was the enlightenment philosophy that convinced us that the inspiration of science (God) had to be removed as a given from a newly compartmentalised field of knowledge.

But on what grounds? It wasnt scientific that is for sure. It was this assumption (God) that gave us the scientiifc revolution. (see above post on Kepler and Kelvin).

According to the recent Teachers TV Poll, 90 per cent of teachers surveyed appear to want this barrier removed again ie they want to discuss ID in science classes if pupils raise the matter.

So it does seem that culturally we are moving back in the general direction Cowie advocates. (I am presuming he is anti-ID though or he would not have got the platform here that he did!

;-)


Of course we could also question who arbitrates on what qualifies as a scientific theory and by what standards. There seems to be much imagination allowed in certain fields with little evidence when it suits a secular agenda.

memes anyone?



There is another possibility for Christians who feel there is conflict in any particular field of science and religion which Roddy appears not to have thought of.

It is possible to withhold judgement if you are not convinced by the variety of arguments on either side.

This is not only an option but perhaps a sensible one on occasion, bearing in mind the reality of regular radical theory change in science.

interesting post William!

OT

Thanks Will - I'll look forward to that. To expand a bit on what I was saying, I think an important requirement for a scientist is a healthy disrespect for authority, and I suppose it could be argued that a lot of the advances in science arose when people were prepared to think for themselves about god, the universe, and everything - essentially it's freedom of thought.

The great scientists of Old had a significant disadvantage, compared with their modern counterparts - we can stand on their shoulders, but they were further down the pile, and simply did not have the vista that we do. So, nowadays, although a certain proportion of scientists continue to be religiously observant, and even believe in a god, there are very few (?vanishingly few) who would state that their science *leads* them to a belief in a god (and they certainly don't say it to other scientists!). If anything, it's the Jonathan Edwards effect - belief in god's purpose for our lives might act as a stimulus - a powerful placebo - but that's as far as it goes. That is very questionable, though - there is no evidence that I can see that "believers" make better scientists than "non-believers", and the counter-examples are too numerous to mention.

Would science be better off without religion? I'm not sure. Would it be better off without belief in a deity? I think the answer is likely to be yes. I separate those two, because it is not entirely clear that religion (even Christianity) really requires that one *believe* in silly things, despite the Impostle Paul's protestations to the contrary.

Me, I'd be happy with straight inquisitive honesty, but would be very resistant to any notion to appropriate that as some sort of exclusively "theistic" virtue. It's a virtue of freethought, and Christians can do that too.

[Graham - I actually *don't* want to see any unreasonable bigotry!]

-H

To the writer of m6

Lets not forget that Christians supported geocentricism, based on the Bible of course and woe betide anyone who contradicted their opinion. This opinion is still held by some Christians today, who quote the Bible so therefore must be right :-/

https://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

https://www.geocentricity.com/

https://www.atlbible.org/astronomy.htm

etc

The great Lord Kelvin(our very own Bill Thompson) did of course show that literal Biblical creationism is complete and utter twaddle.

"Of course we could also question who arbitrates on what qualifies as a scientific theory and by what standards."

It is very *simple* -it is what works and produces results-the theory of evolution produces results, pseudo-scientific crud like Biblical/Islamic/Hindu/ID creationism do not-*simple* as that. Further the explanations that creationists offer that they want taught in the classrooms are that stupid and useless that they do not use them!The reason is that it is of course that it is religious fundamentalist dogma that they wish to pervert our children with.

Why no sci revolution ever outside christian culture will?

OT, Muslim culture made some promising starts, and Greek culture made some massive progress, before Christianity. Indeed, you could argue that Christianity induced stultifying stasis - what really kicked things off was the Reformation. And that also led to free thought, and, ultimately, an intellectually complete atheism. Any comments on that hypothesis, PB?

Thanks h but my q still stands. Leaning on the reformation only confirms my argument.

No - it undermines it. Scientific progress is made when authority and dogma are degraded. Science is one symptom of the slow death of theistic belief. Some scientists are just taking longer getting there. No?

-H

OT:
It really started with the Renaissance. Writers like Erasmus and artists like Michelangelo defied OT and paved the way for the Reformation.

To look at it politically, after Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and for another thousand years there was a fusion of church and state that was not challenged until the Renaissance and Reformation. It was the Dark Ages, as Petrarch suggested.

The concept of church-state separation did not become a practical reality until the Founding Fathers of the United States, most of whom - like Jefferson, Franklin and Madison - were Deists highly critical of Christianity, embedded it in the Constitution.

According to Jefferson, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty”. It was Jefferson who also said: “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature”. To Benjamin Franklin, “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches". James Madison wrote: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise”. John Adams, the second President, referred to Christianity as “the most bloody religion that ever existed", and he also wrote that “this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

To argue that these men or indeed the leaders of the French Enlightenment owed any of their political views to Christianity at all is to remain blind to the historical reality.

As Helio suggests, in the wide span of history, movements like the Renaissance and Reformation were stages on the road to a liberal, secular world.

brian are you planning to attend the christians in science lecture on Monday night then? if you go, i'll go!

Hi again Helio

ie I do agree that science is often necessarily subversive against "dogma" and I also agree that there is plenty of Christian religion without God. (the dogma could be religious, political, cultural or indeed wrong science, or a combination of them all).

I think it is still a very key question as to why we had no equivalents fo these scientific revolution figures Will mentions, but outside the Christan culture.

( Oppenheimer said the revolution would not have happened without the Christian faith.)

As Roddie says above, the islamic and greek learning periods were minor in comparison to the scientific revolution.

that is not to degrade them, because the sci rev used their learning as a foundation.

but these periods were also theistic or monotheistic, and the islamic tradition would seem to be such that it also considered such science as worship ( i stand to be corrected).

The greek period was polytheistic, but again held the paradigm of studying the uniformity of natural causes in an open system (or supernatural world) ie before the very recent demarcation between these areas of knowledge.

So some sort of belief in God is arguably better than none in making world-history magnitude breakthroughs in science.

It may be impossible to "prove" that the scientific revolution would not have happened without the Christian faith.

but it seems credulous to suggest it was a cooincidence - look at the quotes from kepler and kelvin i included above, whose science grew organically out of their worship with no artifical demarcation.

i ask again, why was there never an equivalent of the scientific revolution outside christian culture?

To answer that, as you did, that there were two much lesser scale periods of growth outside of this (greek and islamic) only harms the argument for scientific fertility of athiesm because these periods were also antithetical to this worldview.

It is arguable that the closer you come to judeo-christian thinking the better your science, on the basis of history. this is qualified in saying that history proves that chirstian thinking does not have a monopoly on science revolutions. But again, in saying that we recognise that all the scientific heritage of the west today is arguable creditable to the Christians of the scientific revolution.


The New Testament IMHO is quite clear that Godless Christianity and hierarchical religion is not what God intended so I have no problems with anyone critiquing these BTW.


I also have to say that it seems a little presumptious to suggest this generation of scientists are wiser than those of the scientific revolution. Wouldnt it be saner to judge todays scientists on the actual scale of quantum leap breakthroughs they make rather than on second guessing the giants of the scientific revolution with the benefit of hindsight.

And with that I have to affirm I cannot take any sort of vicarious credit for the scientific revolution, but rather defend that its glory goes largely to the Christ whom Kepler attributed his science to.


Lastly I would ask you to give some sort of evidence for the assertion than scientists of faith are vanishingly rare.

Francis Collins said have his colleagues in his field were devout Christians (theistic evolutionists).

Will's text above links to an organisation for christians in science; the teachers TV poll Will blogged on recently found in a survey of teachers that 1/3 were creationists and 90% roughly supported the "teach the controversy" viewpoint.

So to suggest people of faith are very rare in science seems to need some standing up.

nice chatting to you,

OT

sorry, should have said that Francis Collins said that HALF his coilleagues in his field were devout Christians.

OT

"but these periods were also theistic or monotheistic"

Re:The Greeks-see the atomists/materialists such as Thales, Parmenides,Anaxagoras,Democritus,Epicurus. This was of course pointed out to you before so there is no excuse for your ignorance.

"It is arguable that the closer you come to judeo-christian thinking the better your science, on the basis of history"

Like geo-centrism? Biblical creationism and ID!?

"Lastly I would ask you to give some sort of evidence for the assertion than scientists of faith are vanishingly rare."

Well PeterK kept trying to give you this link

https://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20%26%20religion.htm

But you kept hitting the complain button simply because PeterK was giving an opposing view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/one_third_of_teachers_support.html

and here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/science_and_belief_duel_or_due.html

But you of course ran away. Please try and conduct yourself in a civil manner on these threads and try not to let your fundamentalist mindset spoil this blog-people are allowed to have opinions that differ from your won-aren't they?

"the teachers TV poll Will blogged on recently found in a survey of teachers that 1/3 were creationists and 90% roughly supported the "teach the controversy" viewpoint."The evidence shows that amongst scientists working in related fields the amount in favour of science/evolution is 99.95%(the rest being religious fundamentalists).

It didn't say they were creationist as such and we know the "teach the controversy" viewpoint." is of course garbage. It is nothing more than trying to get fundamentalist religious dogma into the science class.

On the same matter OT-how would you teach creationism? since say Biblical creationism is only supported by Protestant fundamentalists and is religious dogma. Further you are going to be up the creek without a paddle if a student were to ask for the positive evidence for creationism(as this exceedingly *simple* question is beyond creationists)? In short how do you propose to teach something that is that stupid and useless that no one uses-least of all creationists-in what the rest of us like to call the real world.

DD

Hello Graham,

Well, if you read the last few posts in this thread, you should get a pretty clear impression of the dodging and distorting that our non-favourite pastor Othodox-tradition is into. In fact on the other thread he was up to one of his older tactics we hadn't seen from him for a while: mis-quoting others in support of him. He is now chastising you for not answering a post I had addressed to you:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/theological_navelgazing.html

Later in that same thread, he is quoting you in support of him:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/theological_navelgazing.html

While I don't think you ignored my post in that thread intentionally, it might make for an entry to some interesting discussion. And do you feel OT is accurately representing your position?

greets,
Peter

So OT, while you are losing support of fellow christians left and right of you, let me add another dose of debunking of your distortions. You said

"I think it is still a very key question as to why we had no equivalents fo these scientific revolution figures Will mentions, but outside the Christan culture."

"i ask again, why was there never an equivalent of the scientific revolution outside christian culture?"

What was done in ancient Greece was by the standards of that time nothing short of spectacular. The latest period of great advances in science has come from the west. But who knows how some Asian countries will develop and exceed all that Europeans and Americans ever did. Ancient Greece was at the forefront of science for a while, so was the islamic world for a while, then the christian world, now it's mostly western non-believers who advance science, with some Asian countries talking an increasing share of the pie. Christianity had it's time, like the Islam and ancient Greece. And its time is mostly over now. It's historic ignorance not to see the pattern, and think of christianity as somehow exceptional.

"So some sort of belief in God is arguably better than none in making world-history magnitude breakthroughs in science."

Phffffrt! How many times has Graham corrected you on this now? His question about most scientists in the past being sexist is a good one: does sexism lead to good science, seeing how many great scientists in the past were sexist?

And so it goes on and on, repeating the same tired non-arguments. Keep posting OT, your services to atheism are greatly appreciated.

Peter

This one looks even better than this Monday:

Prof. Patton Taylor
(Union Theological College, Belfast)
Provisional title: Interpreting Genesis - Strategies and Current Trends
Provisional date: 26 January in Belfast

I'd love to ask someone in authority in Union Thological College why so many Presbyterian ministers are now young Earth creationist (a movement that is clearly ant-science). What exactly are they teaching them in the college ? None of the other main denominations have had YEC speakers. Given what I've been told by several ministers and the PCin I's press officer they shouldn't be either (the YEC's are very dogmatic on what a Christian can and can't believe when it comes to creation). Yet, more and more presbyterian churches are now hosting AiG, CMI, events.

I'd love to know what the answer to my question would be.

OT, even if what you say is true - that theism fertilised the scientific revolution and atheism, there is still a difference between cow5h1t and rhubarb.

-H

Helio

I concede what William and yourself are saying, if I have got you right.

It is no doubt difficult to *prove* that modern science would not have developed without the Christian faith ( a position no less that Oppenheimer held if I am not mistaken ).

However the gravity of what has been asserted in this thread up until now is substantial enough without having to speculate on this;-

* Christian faith and science need present no conflicts in the minds of scientists (William Crawley post 3)

* "Christianity is the ground that science grew from". (Cowie, above).


The implications of those two assertions are massibe enough without me taking them any further.

And I am not alluding to any ID / evolution debate either.

OT


PS DD, in several postings previously on this I made it quite clear I was proposing a rule of thumb idea that would still be true despite minor exceptions. Cowie above obviously puts the scientific revolution far above the greek or islamic period, PK, and William considers him credible enough to quote.

It is also worth noting the scientific achievements of the Babylonians and ancient Indians, which have been suggested as influences on the Greeks.

I also made it quite clear previously that it would not make sense to suggest that people of no faith cannot make scientific discoveries.

But if you look at these scientific periods from Babylonians until today, I think we are on pretty safe grounds to say that "athiestic" scientists would be a rather small group on the round to say the least.

some food for thought on the demarcation problem between science and religion;-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

OT

Of course great science emerged from the Christian tradition - after all, Charles Darwin was originally going to train as a vicar.

Still not addressing points OT-yawn!

A fascinating talk - my concord with and dissent from the Professor's ideas balanced in just about perfect equilibrium and that always makes for interest.

Rather a pity that the question and answer session afterwards was somewhat confrontational rather than exploratory. I would have loved to have heard teased out Cowie's thoughts on how what we feel relates to what we think and how intuition interacts with reason. That whole area, only glossed over, was potentially the most intriguing area of the whole speech.

I would also have loved to have explored to what extent he might have considered any functional religious myth of a 'Good God' imbuing the universe with meaning/purpose and fostering love as the preferred dynamic of human interaction would work in just the same way as Christianity.

Equally - was there any tension, perhaps a productive tension, between the rejection of the likelihood of an afterlife (and with it, one might suppose, rejection of the supernatural) and a view of Christ which seemed incarnational? What does incarnation mean for Cowie in the absence of the supernatural?

I devoutly hope there will be another opportunity to explore these ideas further.

portwyne can you describe the confrontational q&a you mention?

Do I sense a trap?

Well - even if it is, who cares? ;-)

Taking on the premise with a rather tired and over-hashed, if worthy, assertion of a secularist viewpoint rather than exploring the interesting specifics and intricacies of Cowie's thought...

That should do the trick Augustine, don't you think?

Happy to have a stab at Portwyne's questions.

Q to what extent he might have considered any functional religious myth of a 'Good God' imbuing the universe with meaning/purpose and fostering love as the preferred dynamic of human interaction would work in just the same way as Christianity

A there are very few genuinely functional religious myths, and that's surely significant. They have to mesh with a lot of facts about the world and features of the human mind. Those that pass that test deserve respect - there must be some sense in which they give a valid picture. What obviously distinguishes Christianity is the claim that the relationship between humanity and divinity is so intimate that a human could be - and was - indistinguishable from God. If that claim is true, then Christianity is a better picture than others: it includes something critical that they don't. I don't pretend I can prove the claim is true, but all in all, I think it is.


Q was there any tension, perhaps a productive tension, between the rejection of the likelihood of an afterlife (and with it, one might suppose, rejection of the supernatural) and a view of Christ which seemed incarnational?

A My starting point is that we already have eternal life in the sense that we are able - partially and fleetingly - to share a life which is eternal, i.e. God's. Perhaps he has more to give after death. If so, wonderful - but I am more than happy with what I am already given. I assume that Jesus shared the same life in a vastly deeper and steadier way - I don't presume to know the details.

Is that life supernatural? The question depends on a model of what 'natural' is, and I'm not at all persuaded by standard ideas in that area. Most obviously, they don't deal well with consciousness. I wish we'd suspend talk about the supernatural until we have a model of nature that deals satisfyingly with both the properties that physics describes and the fact of consciousness. Of course we won't, but it would be the logical thing to do.

PK
I've had a stab at an initial response on "Navel gazing". I'll try to type up something more coherent tonight (Xmas shopping permitting) and post here tomorrow or Thurs.

And I don't remember typing anything about "lies" anywhere. I'm not sure what OT is referring to. Or why he thinks I'm out to get him.

GV

PeterJHenderson

You've asked an excellent and very important question. What is the attraction of YEC to those who know that there are coherent alternatives for evangelicals?
(Speaking for myself there is no implied criticism here).

GV

portwyne, no trap, I promise. I wasn't at the meeting so I was keen to find out what happened. I thought from your description that I'd missed a fight!

You've asked an excellent and very important question. What is the attraction of YEC to those who know that there are coherent alternatives for evangelicals?
(Speaking for myself there is no implied criticism here).

Indeed Graham.

I've been told on at least four occasions (by both YEC ministers and the Presbyterians church's press officer) that "so long as a Christian believes that God created the heavens and the Earth how and when he did it is for you to decide". so that means (at least this is how I interpret the position), that a member of the Presbyterian Church in ireland can believe anything from flat Earthism through to Theistic Evolution.

However, each time I look at the AiG or CMI events for NI there's always a new PCinI congregation added to their list. Both AiG and CMI are extremely dogmatic on what a Christian can and can't believe when it comes to creation and evolutionary science.

For example, have a look at this vociferous attack by AiG (UK)'s Paul Taylor on Dr. Denis Alexander's attempt tread a middle path when it comes to science and Christianity:
https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/creation-evolution-yes-we-have-to-choose

There is little new in Alexander’s book. It consists of the usual diatribes against those who hold to biblical truth, while he tries to maintain that his is the biblical position. That is why his attitude toward biblical creationists comes out as so judgmental, yet he has himself undermined the very Bible he claims to uphold. Indeed, he has little time for those who disagree with him. “One of the deep mysteries of life . . . is why people spend their time going round churches telling people that they don’t believe evolutionary theory.” (p. 131). “Christians who make it their mission to attack evolution . . . are embarrassing and bring the gospel into disrepute.” (p. 352).

Since Alexander has made the accusation, perhaps I should point out that his treatment of the Fall (the reason we need the gospel!) is extraordinarily weak. He holds to the classic framework hypothesis, whereby the literature of Genesis is supposed to explain the theological fact of sin, while the science happened in a different way entirely. This is not good enough, nor is it a defensible position. His chapter on the Fall is needlessly convoluted and complex. The Bible is simple on the matter. Sin is disobedience of God’s Law. The penalty for sin is death. If Adam’s death was just figurative or “spiritual,” then why did Jesus have to die a real death? Jesus died a real death because there was a real Adam in a real Garden who committed a real sin against a real God. This sin is now imputed to you and me (and we continue to sin on our own), so we need a real Saviour to die a real death on a real cross.

Surely the above from Paul Taylor runs against the official position of the PCinI ? If I didn't know any better, I'd say that what Taylor is really stating is that unless a Christian accepts a literal Genesis he/she is not really a "born again" Christian at all.

Cowie advocates the "integration" of science and Christianity.

His main argument seems to be based on the fact that there is trust in science and trust in Christianity. A weak argument, surely. You might as well say that there are rules in football and rules in science (of methodology), so we should integrate science and football.

As for the claim that science has its origins in Christianity, I think that point has already been answered above: (a) that its also has its origins in Greek, Roman and Islamic cultures; (b) that rhubarb grows out of dung, but that does not make them identical. I would merely add the comment that astrology preceded astronomy. Some people still cling to the obsolete ideas of astrology and read their horoscopes daily. It clearly fills some emotional need. Something "intuitive", Cowie would say.

I hope no-one is going to give any credence to the notion that we should bring astrology into science in some programme of "integration". We don't want Russell Grant in charge of NASA.

I was surprised that Cowie ditched the traditonal Christian belief in life after death so quickly. He jumped ship from traditional Christianity to a Humanist rationalism and left his former faith-mates flat-footed. It would have been interesting to hear how he arrived at his current disbelief. What was it that convinced him that stories of the after-life are mere fictions? Has he been reading Humanist literature and found their outlook on death more credible than Christian fantasies? Or maybe it came to him in a dream?

PP - thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

I too am a practising Christian, an Anglican, and have no hesitation in saying that I daily experience the love of God whom I would claim to know.

I concur with the opinions expressed on an afterlife - they exactly mirror my own thoughts and, I imagine, those of many other thinking Christians.

I think the life, teachings and self-sacrifice of Christ connect with and fulfil many of the deepest needs and longings of the human heart. I would say that we can see God in Him but I am really curious to know whether you think we can go further than this, if you think there is more that can be said about the relationship between God and Jesus.

My Christian trust is intuitive. I must be honest and say that in terms of religion almost my only use of what rational faculties I possess is in the fraught attempt to verbalise (if I may paraphrase Wordsworth) thoughts that do often lie too deep for words. For me it is the need to communicate verbally which requires reason to interface with feeling.

Emotion has its own channels of communication: such things as the affective power of music, the engagement with embedded narrative in drama (including that of ritual and sacraments), enable a profound and meaning-filled sharing of many of the most important elements of human experience.

I tend to think the greatest difficulty in integrating Christianity (of the type I practise) and science is illustrated by the impossibility of conveying by verbal description or mathematical representation (a score) to someone who is tone-deaf anything approaching the experience of immersion in great music.

I suspect, if the intuitive and felt side of your religion is as significant as I believe it might be, then, if your project is to be realised, we need a functional vocabulary and grammar which bridges the gaps between the modes of expression of reason and intuition. If such exists I certainly do not possess it. Perhaps there is something to be said for the ancient idea of celestial harmonies - perhaps we can hope that one day somebody will write the appropriate tune.

Someone has given oldredeyes a terrible image of Christianity. I don’t suppose I’ll change it, but there are two points I’d like to make.
1. The major medieval Christian thinkers don’t fit his image either. I don’t think anyone who has actually read Anselm or Aquinas or Abelard would compare them to dung. For starters, do look at Anselm’s ‘Dialogue on Truth’. Chapter 1 starts: ‘we believe that God is truth’. That commitment to truth goes right through the movement that transformed inputs from Averroes and others into science as we know it. It is why I think Anselm’s successors should properly be concerned with science in a way that footballers and astrologers aren’t. I did try to make that point – sorry if it wasn’t clear.
2. There is a comment earlier in the blog that tries to explain more about my view of eternal life. I come to it by reading a notorious Humanist tract called the Bible. The Bible gives houseroom to a lot of different ideas about life after death. For instance, look at Ecclesiastes 3:19: “the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals”. Eternal life is hardly a big theme in the Synoptic Gospels: they only mention it two or three times each, and the mention that comes up in all of them is an outsider who wants Jesus to tell him how to get it. It is mentioned a lot in John, but it is very unclear what it involves. Sometimes it is something believers have already (John 3:36); sometimes it is something they will reach without dying (John 5:24); sometimes it will start when the dead are raised at the end of the world (John 6:40); sometimes it is an abstraction (John 17:3). There is a similar range in the Epistles.
I know that a lot of preachers are convinced that they know which of these is right. I guess that is the kind of Christian oldredeyes has in mind. But – as Bob Dylan said – it ain’t me, babe. And I don’t think it’s the Bible, either. One of the things I admire about the Bible is how consistently it gives recognition to different views (starting with two creation stories). If the Bible gives houseroom to various ideas on the subject of eternal life, who am I to argue?
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I’m not deferring mindlessly to Anselm or the Evangelists or anyone else. I make my own judgments. But since my judgments line up with the Bible writers and the great intellectuals of the Church, I think it’s hard to argue that my position isn’t Christian – whatever the strident preachers might say. I think it is well within the Christian tradition to be committed to truth and vague about eternal life.
I don’t imagine oldredeyes will be impressed. But it seems to me all wrong that people like him feel so alienated from Christianity. It underlines my feeling that people who call themselves Christians have a lot of work to do.

PP
Good to have you on board. Stick around.

Graham Veale

Peter Henderson

I agree that much YEC outpourings are far too judgmental - however the opposite is also very true of theistic evolutionists towards creationists also!

I see terms used to try and evaluate ID type views here as "attractive" or "extreme".

It makes me wonder what standards people use to try and determine truth.

Are we saying that ID/creationism is unattractive and extreme?

fair enough - but neither of those two judgements bear any relevance whatsoever as to whether it is true or not.


It seems theology has now completely abdicated to science in reading genesis but this is a dangerous precedent.

are we saying that a consensus of theology on any issue over 2000 years cannt be trusted unless "science" formally approves it?

big question nobody wants to discuss.




Peter - and anyone else - what of this passage - was marriage created at the start of creation or not? if so where was the time for evolution?


Matt 19;-

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

OT

"Are we saying that ID/creationism is unattractive and extreme?"

Yes! and stupid, useless and twaddle(points which you have given us marvellous examples off).

"however the opposite is also very true of theistic evolutionists towards creationists also!"

It is because creationists are idiots who are making Christianity a laughing stock.

"It makes me wonder what standards people use to try and determine truth."

Took the words right out of mouth OT!


"are we saying that a consensus of theology on any issue over 2000 years cannt be trusted unless "science" formally approves it?

big question nobody wants to discuss."

Genesis is a myth get over it and I want to discuss it.

Ok since you ask "anyone else" my immediate view of the passage you mention is... so what! It sounds like a lot of fundamentalist special pleading. As all the evidence points to evolution so of course there was time for evolution!

big questions nobody wants to discuss

I think the YECs would appear to have settled those big questions (especially the theological ones).

The church is going to lose this fight, and big time as well. It's happened in the past when they've opposed science and it'll happen this time.

At least a couple of hundred years ago the age of the Earth hadn't been agreed on by science. But that was long before the days of radiometric dating, Einstein, and Hubble etc. They're going to lose over biological evolution as well. The gaps will be slowly filled in and the church will just look foolish yet again.

Personally I feel that the evangelicals are making a big, big, mistake in adopting the YEC position. As I have said many times before, every evangelical denomination in the province ( and a huge proportion of the PCinI as well) are now exclusively Young Earth creationist without even allowing for any other views. This is madness. It'll severely damage the evangelical wing of the church in the long run, mark my words.

Hi PeterJH

Good to see you again the other night and hope all is well with you and yours!

DD

Peter H

I am unsure of your point - You said in post 35 that many in PCI were taking quite a broad line on origins and theology.

Which is it - narrow or broad?

I am unsure whether or not you are applying double standards here;-

should the same level of acceptance be given to ID/creationism/theistic evolution in the PCI or not?

I agree YECs are often dogmatic and even judgemental and insist they are 100% right with no equivocation.

how are theistic evolutionists going to lead them in better example on this?

simply by accusing them of being lunatics?

Even Dawkins accepts that evolution could be completely replaced by a better theory. However remote the possibility might appear to you, dont you accept that it is, like all theories, provisional, until a better one comes along?

And by that I am not disputing it is the majority view in science today, albeit with dissenters.

OT

PS Are you willing to comment on Matt 19 ref post 40.

I am also dissappointed that you dont appear to engage with the primacy of science or theology as applied throughout the bible.

What would the majority scientific view be on the resurrection?

My point is OT, that despite being told by the PCinI's hierarchy that a broand range of views are acceptable manny ministers of the denomination are strict YECs. YECs like this are expremely dogmatic on what you can and can't believe (just have a look through either AiG's or CMI's website on this issue). The Rev. Robin Greer is a good example of the type of minister I'm talking about. However, in my view the topic of origins runs along similar linesas infant baptism or Christ's return (another thorny issue). YECs generally do not accept theistic evolutionists.

My point OT is that science has shown beyond doubt that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The age of the Universe(13.7 billion years) is also beyond reproach now. The fact that the big bang happened is also now a fact (the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation confirms this event). Biological evolution has been tested time and time again and not been found wanting (we owe our present lifestyle to developements in evolutionary science, not miracles unfortunately)

Yet, when it comes to science the bible is extremely shakey. It constantly talks about a flat Earth, geocentrism, the Earth being creatied with light before the sun etc. etc. Even bats are described as birds. I'm not discounting the miracles regarding Christ as told in the bible (I wouldn't be a Christian otherwise). These were events recorded in history. I do think it's entirely possible to believe the miracles of the bible and still accept mainstream science. It's even possible to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and accept evolutionary theory (e.g. Francis Collins) This is my answer to your question re Matt. 19.

I think in light of what we currently know compromise must be reached, otherwise the church will just look extremely foolish(and become very marginalized). Insisting on belief in a young Earth, global flood (the flood can be interpreted as a local event by the way) as a prerequisite for salvation is madness as far as I'm concerned.

It'll get worse too. Modern cosmology for example, is just in it's infancy. The more we discover on this subject the more questions there. What we know about cosmology alone makes belief in a 6,000 year old Earth/Universe just plain silly, and turns the evangelical wing of the church into a laughing stock.

If I didn't know any better OT I would think that you hold to the YEC position (my apologies if I'm wrong) becuuse that's usually the first point that I get when encountering a young earth creationist i.e. if you think that death re. the fall was only spiritual then maybe you think Christ's death and resurection were spritual as well.

DD: It was nice talking to you the other evening and we must have another get together (OT it would be good to discuss this issues in a situation like the blogger's dinner in April). I did forget to tell you DD, that things have worked out exremely well re. Glencraig etc. Philip (our son) has been there a month now and has settled in really well. Certainly an answer to prayer as far as we're concerned

Hi Peter,

I see you are getting a load of creationist/fundamentalist special pleading from OT! Was good to see you again. If anything happens on the dinner front I will let you know but nothing has happened for ages and great to hear about Craig.

Peter what gets me about creationists/fundamentalists is that they keep tellin us what is wrong with evolution/science but still use it every day!they only use MB's like this to convey their message but don't actually test their ideas! do you think deep down they know their ideas are useless?

Regards

DD

Hi guys,
Just dipping in here briefly, but just to sound a wee note of caution (not disagreeing with PJH or anything!) - the *precise* age of the earth is going to be something that is difficult to tie down to an ever-increasing number of decimal points - the need for that sort of precision is more for fine-tuning well-established geological/astrophysical models, rather than sticking one to Ken Ham. As far as YECs are concerned, the basic principle is that the Earth is quite demonstrably several billion years old, not several thousand years old, and that's pretty much the end of the story.

The same logically goes for the Universe itself- whatever fine-tuning we are able to carry out, anything more recent than quite a few billion years is automatically excluded. In other words, you do not have to prove the precise age of something to disprove certain suggestions for its age. YEC is provably *wrong*, even in the absence of us having a precise and accurate age of the Earth.

Example: old man walking down the street. Will Crawley tells me that he's four years old because he has a certain ratio of helium isotopes in his Werther's Originals. Now, I don't know the old man's precise birthday, but he's clearly a lot more than four, and I tell Will as much, and I reject his assessment - I think he's in his 70s, give or take. Will "aha!s" me with "You can't say precisely how old he is - DD says he's 77. you say he's 73, PK says he's 78, OT says he's not even born yet - see? see? You're in disarray! How can we trust your assessment?!"

Assuming I stick around and don't immediately call a taxi to put some significant distance between me and the (clearly insane, in this little thought experiment) Mr Crawley, does Will have a point? Am I in no position to state that Will is wrong about the man's age, if I don't have his birth certificate or some such to hand?

thanks PJH

I take your points that YECs are often dogmatic to a fault on their believes and will not sit easily with thesitic evolutionists.

To me, while I do currently hold to a broad creationist ID outlook this is most certainly not my view.

I have no problems accepting a brother Christin who believes in evolution.

I think personally, I am more interested to see compassion, humility, integrity in people rather than their views on origins.

In fact I honestly dont know the views of most of the Christians I know on these matters...

more coming..

OT

PJH

That is interesting about Francis Collins thanks - must look that up.

I am certainly creationist/ID in outlook but I am not convinced by YEC arguments on radiometric dating.

I also think mainstream geology overstates its certainty about aging the earth too.

I had this conversation with a senior academic geologist recently who agrees with me on this - he is certainly not a YEC.

There are several apparently untestable articles of faith on which radiometric dating stands, I understand.

Also ref the global flood, the refs that I read do seem to me to mean a global flood.

But maybe we have a different attitude to interpretation of scripture????

I think you are wrong about miracles in recorded history though. Can you point to a mainstream history reference which affirms the resurrection?


Also ref Matt 19 - can you tell me how your viewpoint exactly refers to this. I hope you are not assuming you have sewn this question up without really considering the issues - and I am interested to see other views on it.


Can you actually articulate why historical theology comes first for the resurrection but second for creation after evolutionary science?
I get the impression that many people simply fudge this in their minds but am interested to hear?



Anyway, the bottom line I want to come to is this...

have you any biblical authority for calling other Christians to agree with your views on science. I can't see it.


But again, I sort of get the impression you are not looking to the New Testament for your authority.... glad to be corrected though.

I think the only grounds for unity are the risen Christ, compassion and holiness...

Awaiting your response with interest

sincerely
OT


PS Helio funny post - made me smile.
:-)
But you have been through the whole Christian thing. As I recall it was never the debate on the age of the earth that brought you to faith or saw you leave it. I can't imagine that if you got the answer you are asking for it would therefore change your direction again - it never did before.

PJH

I dont see creationism as "attractive".

I am interested to understand the historical consensus of Christians through history on various matters.

I think this puts "modernisn" or "fundamentalism" into an objective context.

That being the case, the historical view of the church for example, of the church fathers, was strongly creationist.

To me it seems to be an inconsistent principle for reading the bible to set aside almost 2000 years of scholarship on genesis because of what Darwin said compartively recently.

My view is also that the evidence eg in fossils shows huge gaps between species that is much more consistent with special creation that evolution.

This is also wholly consistent with the lifeforms we see in the world today.

There is simply not the physical evidence to support millions of years of macro evolution either in the animal world or in fossils. Ultimately that does not prove evolution is false, but it is certainly not evidence to support it.

My view is that in reality the primary evidence of the fossil record is much closer to special creation than you continuous evolution.

This is acutally very hard to practically disagree with. Other posters here have had to resort to genetics when they tried to overturn me on this, and lost.

sincerely
OT

"There are several apparently untestable articles of faith on which radiometric dating stands, I understand."

"articles of faith"!? Wow! maybe you should inform the world scientific community? Do you still believe that "only a few labs do radiometric dating"?


"Also ref the global flood, the refs that I read do seem to me to mean a global flood. "

Wow! what refs? who uses this information? Such refs would completely science as we know it! Could you reveal them?

I've sort of posted on the consciousness thingy on the "navel" thread. If anyone cares. I can't remember who I was replying to. PK, H or Bernard? In anycase there's a link to follow to my "argument".

GV

PeterHJ

I should warn you that these canards that OT raises have been dealt with again and again over the last two years. OT is of course an absolutist fundamentalist and as such is always right even when he is invariably always wrong.

In fact on a recent thread they were dealt with...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/one_third_of_teachers_support.html

OT

"My view is also that the evidence eg in fossils shows huge gaps between species that is much more consistent with special creation that evolution."

Well PeterK did try to give you this link

https://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html

Maybe you missed it because you complained about the post because it gave an opposing view to your own.

"This is also wholly consistent with the lifeforms we see in the world today."

Wow! does it? do you not think that you should inform the world scientific community about this stunning news? Who uses this info? which natural resource companies? why don't you tell them as you would make billions? Indeed why do creationists only post on MB's/post letters to local papers and not actually go out and test your ideas? are creationists stupid?by this I mean you don't actually do anything with your earth-shattering opinions-Ken Ham does not use Biblical creationism in the real world and neither do you.

"There is simply not the physical evidence to support millions of years of macro evolution either in the animal world or in fossils."

Wow! the world scientific community are stupid, incompetent and liars!? You should inform them!I did post plenty of links to dedicated science sites in which you could reveal this stunning info but...you never did-mmm wonder why that is?

"This is acutally very hard to practically disagree with."

Errr no it isn't because it's typical AIG garbage.

"Other posters here have had to resort to genetics when they tried to overturn me on this, and lost."

Really!? where did this happen? I am sorry OT but I missed this stunning news in the papers!?

DD


Your raised these same points here-were asked to back them up but...ran away

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

OT

Here are some very simple questions that you could answer to back up your stunning views-I (and others) have been asking them of you for over two years but you always run away. Perhaps since you raise your canards again you could maybe answer them?

What is the scientific evidence for creationism?

Could you name some aspect that is confirmed by independent experiment ?

A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the Biblical creationists. Why are the only people who will back up your opinion are Protestant fundamentalists?

I have set the bar very, very low. If you care to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution/science-just straight answers-The positive evidence *for* your brand of creationism-you would think it would be simple...but it appears it isn't!

Kindest regards

DD

Helio

Being a long term poster here do you remember when OT did this?

"Other posters here have had to resort to genetics when they tried to overturn me on this, and lost."

Regards

DD

My view is also that the evidence eg in fossils shows huge gaps between species that is much more consistent with special creation that evolution.

Again I profoundly disagree OT.

I assume you are talking about flood geology ? The major problem with this is geological sorting. Nowhere in the fossil record do dinosaur fossils occur above the KT boundary. This scenario occurs throughout the world and it's not just dinosaur fossils either. THe KT boundary marks the last major mass extinction of species. Hominid fossils are only ever found at the top of the fossil record and only ever above the KT boundary. One statement that Richard Dawkins has made that I entirely agree with is that we shouldn't really have fossils at all. Fossilisation is in reallity is a very rare event. Don't forget as well that certain animals don't fossilise (often due to the environment they lived in), hence the gaps.

Still, thanks for the warning DD. Wth some Christians (sadly, all evangelical denominations now) there is never going to be a compromise between mainstreem science and Christianity. Science has got it all wrong, plain and simple (according to them that is):

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/12/12/feedback-too-many-theories

I often feel that AiG make these feedback posts up for their own purposes (I wonder if they've been reading my posts both here and elsewhere ?). Certainly, in my opinion anyway, there's absolutely no mission of any compromise between the YECs and science.

err PJH


I'm afraid that is a complete load of distortion from Dylan Dog.

He has had dozens of posts removed in the past month for such things.

Can I ask the courtesy Peter that you judge me on what I actually say before your eyes rather than was I am slandered as saying please?


If I was an absolutist fundamentalist why would I be so happy to fellowship with theistic evolutionary Christians.

You can see a massive misrepesentation of my position right there before your eyes Peter.

Can you see anything in my post that was judgemental or intolerant of your views? On the contrary.


Graham Veale also swallowed this line from Dylan Dog on another thread and it is just now beginning to dawn on him how wrong he was;-

see post 122 here;-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/theological_navelgazing.html



Neither do I insist that only my truth is right on this issue.



Also Peter

You failed to address the most important point on my last post.

What biblical grounds do you have for calling for your terms of agreement?


sincerely

OT

also Peter

You seem to be of the opinion that this debate is bascially low brow Christians on one side and high brow scientists on the other. this would be a mistake.


There are many scientists and laypeople with no particualr faith position who are also sceptical about evolution.

eg Sir Fred Hoyle, Michael Denton (author of evolution a theory in crisis)


Here are 700 phds who dissent from Darwinism but take no position on creationism / ID;-

https://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/


I am not including these names to endorse their views or assert they are correct, simply to make the point that you would be mistaken to think that only YEC people dissent from evolution.

sincerely

OT

also Peter you have misunderstood my point on geology but I have no time now to detail it.

OT

Hi OT.

I assume you have heard of "Project Steve" ? This is in reponse to the tired old claim that more and more scientists are desenting from main stream science (Darwinism is not a term that proper scientists use as such, rather they refer to evolutionary theory). Scientists with the name Stephen (or Stephanie) represent a mere 2% of all scientists:

https://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

so that puts paid to that one.

Sir Fred Hoyle's theories were discredited in the 19860's by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (Hoyle believed in the steady state theory).

I assume you've also heard of the Dover trial ? The ID theorists didn't even appear and the hypothisis was completely discredited in the verdict. Here's a good explanation of the claims. I urge you to watch this (it's miles better than the X Factor):

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Behe didn't turn up for that one either by the way (Behe holds to the same theories as Denton by the way)

OT I apologise if I have missjudged you.

I'm sure you're not as judgemental as other YECs (if you are a YEC that is) .

However, I do feel that YECs in general are not interested in any accomodation with mainstream science (for reasons I've already mentioned)

I really do urge you to watch the Ken Miller talk. It is quite long even though it's very entertaining (he's a very listenable speaker. I certainly wouldn't be bored in his biology class). I have to look at it every so often, just to keep myself sane, especially when I encounter YECs !

Dear oh dear OT!

"I'm afraid that is a complete load of distortion from Dylan Dog.

He has had dozens of posts removed in the past month for such things."

Errr no it was because I and others had the temerity to disagree with you.

You were asked to explain yourself here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/11/one_third_of_teachers_support.html

and here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/science_and_belief_duel_or_due.html

but as ever you ran away....

As for Gveale not really! he certainly got a load of fundamentalist invective from you in m77 but thankfully you apologised for your behaviour and and he was gracious enough to accept it.

DD

OT

Biblical creationists are for the most part "low-brow" they do tend to come from the Protestant fundamentalist camp and we are talking about the level of Free Presbyterian here.

Goodness you pulling lists again!? reminds me of the days when you used to cite the "400 Phds from AIG"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html

But that was of course a position that you "never found convincing" :-/

Peter is of course correct to highlight "Project Steve" which was highlighted to you before but as ever...

This is of course the old argument from authority fallacy that you like so much.

I see that you cannot actually show any positive evidence to back up your ground-breaking opinions!

I feel that we are straight back at square one with you again!

Regards]

DD

Hi Peter

Notice how OT cannot actually back up his claims and instead resorts to the tired old creationist tactics that we both know so well! Thought you might like this link...

https://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm

Btw Peter myself and others have posted many links to OT re: Ken Millar so you may be wasting your time.

It is fun to remind creationists such as OT that the scientist who did more than any other to show that ID is a fraud was not a Dawkins but a Christian like Ken Millar.

Regards

and hope you are having a pleasant wekend

Harvey

Thanks Harvey.

I thought it might have been wasted (I do hope OT watches it this time though as it really is an excellent talk)

Here's another equally good series of lectures by Ed Brayton dealing with the legal aspects of the trial:

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DnsJGakj1io

Note that one of the witnesses, Bill Buckingham (supposedly an evangelical Christian) lies under oath (surely purgery. I'm surprised he didn't face a prisin sentance). Again, excellent entertainment and I do hope OT has a look.

Hi Peter,

Just thought I would have a quick look in before I get ready to head out.

OT is right in one regard in that you should judge him on what he says-I can only give you my opinion and that is though OT may deny that he is religiously a fundamentalist however I believe that his attitude is-unfortunately fundamentalism is not only confined to religion.

Many thanks for the link and when I get a moment(maybe tomorrow) I will give it a look as I do find Dover very interesting.

Talking about Dover...have you watched the excellent PBS documentary?

Here's the link

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Since you bring up Bill Buckingham he is quite prominent in the programme, he goes off on one about how can True Christians support evolution etc it's against (his) interpretation of the Bible etc yet he was named as a liar by Judge Jones!that's not very Biblical! Buckingham claimed he "mis-spoke"!? very funny and well worth a watch.

Re: the dissenters from Darwin

Wiki has a good article on it here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

With some good links. It appears all is not what it seems and the compilers of the report seem to have been underhand in their methods.

You have a good one Peter!

DD/Harvey

Thanks for the links Harvey.

Yes, I've seen the PBS docu. before (it was posted on the Panda's thumb a while ago) and it is very good. It's a pity the BBC don't broadcast these programmes (excellent BBC 2 or BBC 4 material, in my opinion). Another one for OT perhaps ?

Anyway, enjoy your evening out (I'm babysitting, unfortunately).

Peter

I have some time off this week and will try and get a look at the links you have given.

But can we take what I see as two issues seperately if poss please, ie

1) PCI politics on origins theory and
2) the merits of differing views.


With this in mind, could you possibly advise;-

1) What measures would you like to see taken by PCI to make you feel secure in your position?

2) Would you be happy for creationists of whatever ilk to be given similar protections in PCI?

3) Have you any first hand experience of being mistreated because of your views?

cheers
OT

PS wasnt CS Lewis a great asset to the church - and a theistic evolutionist? I have no probs with that at all.

DD here is a quite thought provoking article from the Sunday Times about scientific investigations of supernatural causation; the possible links with quantum mechanics and the possibilty of a consequent revolution in current science;-

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5324234.ece

Hi OT

It is indeed a thought-provoking article but I don't think that it is saying what you think it is saying.

Anyway I see that you have time and I don't at the moment(Christmas and all)-will maybe drop in at the weekend.

DD

Peter JH

I dont think you understood my point about the 700 phds.

I was not trying to argue for the veracity of ID at all ( for a change).

I was challenging your feeling that you have got to feel embarrassed or unscientific by an apparently increasing number of people in PCI believing in creationism or ID.


Teachers TV poll recently found that almost 90% of teachers surveyd agreed with Prof Reiss that ID should be discussed in science classes if pupils raise it.

About a third of the teachers felt ID should be taught as a valid theory.

A BBC survey three years ago found 48 per cent of Britons believed evolution and over 40 per cent some form of ID.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm


I have no doubt the figure will have increased in favour of ID since then, even if only because of Islam. I think Reiss' comments also pointed to this.

NOW we come in with those 700 phds again - I am not arguing that their numbers prove the theory, but the numbers do prove that there is some dissent in scientific circles.

I personally met one Oxbridge scientist who was a creationist but said he could not let it be known or it would wreck his career.

So how many scientists truly have ID sympathies may be very hard to gauge.

ID was the default position of many scientists going back to ancient times; only since Darwin has science become officially and completely secular.

So again Peter I have to ask if you have ever actually been discriminated against within PCI for your belief in evolution? Are your fears well founded?

Do you allow for Presbyterians to hold ID views or would you prefer some sort of doctrinal imposition or purge?

I find it difficult to see how you propose going forward on this but I am interested as I have not seen it discussed before.

anyway, Happy and peaceful Christmas

OT