A certain writer over at Panda's Thumb, Jack Krebs, has made the common error of trying to equate Intelligent Design theorists and William Dembski (above) in particular, with those that advocate Young Earth Creationism (YEC). Dembski has come out with his rebuttal."As a matter of literary genre, I continue to think that the book of Genesis is not a science textbook. But I do think that the events referred to in the opening chapters of Genesis describe real events that took place in history (though God’s initial creation from nothing is, in a sense, the very initiation of history itself rather than “in” history). I am of the opinion that the days of Genesis 1 refer to God’s workweek rather than to six twenty-four hour days. I also know that orthodox Christians disagree on this question. That disagreement is not, however, a disagreement over the trustworthiness of Scripture, but rather, over its best interpretation.
Krebs seems to think that by saying that the creation events are historical I must be saying that God’s creation days are each twenty four hours long and took place sometime in the last few thousand years. I assume that more careful readers of my comments will not make the same mistake.
More importantly, and contrary to Krebs’ insinuation, nothing in my view of Scripture contradicts my belief that nature provides strong empirical evidence of intelligent design. As I have explained many times before, the design inference is not based on the Bible or any other sacred text. It is based on what can be logically ascertained from nature’s own data."
Krebs seems to think that by saying that the creation events are historical I must be saying that God’s creation days are each twenty four hours long and took place sometime in the last few thousand years. I assume that more careful readers of my comments will not make the same mistake.
More importantly, and contrary to Krebs’ insinuation, nothing in my view of Scripture contradicts my belief that nature provides strong empirical evidence of intelligent design. As I have explained many times before, the design inference is not based on the Bible or any other sacred text. It is based on what can be logically ascertained from nature’s own data."
Strictly speaking, Dr Dembski is right. Although there are examples of Biblical scientific foreknowledge that could be discussed, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
EDIT: It would appear that Mr. Krebs changed his wording in his article but only slightly so.
P.S. Tune into tomorrow, I'll start an election day thread where we can discuss the most interesting and hotly contested races.
6 comments:
Anyone that believes the earth is only six thousand years old is insane and should be euthanized, post haste.
Bloody hell, Froggie.
Anyway, I'm glad Dembski cleared that up because in distancing himself from young-earth he's finally and unambiguously owned up as an old-earth, or day-age, creationist using the de-godded ID hypothesis only as a means to an end. It's not where the evidence has led him, it's where he's trying to drag the evidence.
Nice Froggie.
I keed! I keed!
I sincerely wish that you WOULD create a thread where we can eviscerate, er, discuss Conservapedia's list of "Biblical scientific foreknowledge".
That aside, ID may have well-established roots in Christian creationism, but its tie to the YEC variety is too shaky to be credible.
Digestive System
It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.
Um... what?
Post a Comment