Why Darwinist cafeteria Christians are "implacable foes" of ID
William Dembski wrote,
Here are some reasons why Darwinist cafeteria Christians -- people who take the gospel literally but do not take the bible's creation story literally -- are "implacable foes" of ID:
(1) They are bending over backwards to try to appease the atheistic Darwinist establishment.
(2) They try to justify their inconsistency -- i.e., the inconsistency of accepting the gospel while rejecting the creation story -- by claiming that they are obliged to reject the creation story because the scientific evidence for evolution is airtight. With this position, they cannot afford to admit that evolution has any scientific weaknesses at all.
Howard Van Till’s review of my book No Free Lunch exemplifies perfectly why theistic evolution remains intelligent design’s most implacable foe. Not only does theistic evolution sign off on the naturalism that pervades so much of contemporary science, but it justifies that naturalism theologically -- as though it were unworthy of God to create by any means other than an evolutionary process that carefully conceals God’s tracks.
Here are some reasons why Darwinist cafeteria Christians -- people who take the gospel literally but do not take the bible's creation story literally -- are "implacable foes" of ID:
(1) They are bending over backwards to try to appease the atheistic Darwinist establishment.
(2) They try to justify their inconsistency -- i.e., the inconsistency of accepting the gospel while rejecting the creation story -- by claiming that they are obliged to reject the creation story because the scientific evidence for evolution is airtight. With this position, they cannot afford to admit that evolution has any scientific weaknesses at all.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/21/2009 08:14:00 PM
9 Comments:
Since when did Cafeteria Christians take the gospel literally? I guess some might do so and still be Cafeteria Christians, but it certainly isn't a defining feature.
>>>>> Since when did Cafeteria Christians take the gospel literally? I guess some might do so and still be Cafeteria Christians, but it certainly isn't a defining feature. <<<<<<
There is no reason why the term "Cafeteria Christian" cannot include those who take the gospel literally. For example, a "Cafeteria Christian" Catholic can be someone who takes the gospel literally but rejects the Catholic church's doctrine on abortion. There are different kinds of Cafeteria Christians -- that is why I used the term "Darwinist" Cafeteria Christians. Wikipedia defines "Cafeteria Christianity" as follows:
"Cafeteria Christianity" is a derogatory term used by some Christians to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations of selecting which Christian doctrines they will follow, and which they will not.
Cafeteria-style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line. The term implies that an individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than an acceptance of Christian doctrine. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth of Jesus), or attitudes to moral and ethical issues (for example abortion, homosexuality, or idolatry) and is sometimes associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.
>>>>>>There is no reason why the term "Cafeteria Christian" cannot include those who take the gospel literally.<<<<<<<
Glad you agree with me. Now, is there any reason why the term "Cafeteria Christian" should exclude those who do not take the gospel literally? For example, a "Cafeteria Christian" Catholic can be someone who doesn't take the gospel literally but adopts the Catholic church's doctrine on abortion.
>>>>>>>There are different kinds of Cafeteria Christians -- that is why I used the term "Darwinist" Cafeteria Christians.<<<<<<<
Hmm... there can be different types of Cafeteria Christians, you say? Maybe, just maybe, there can be different types of creationists, too. Like biblical creationists, or scientific creationists, or (dare I say it) intelligent design creationists?
>>>>>> Now, is there any reason why the term "Cafeteria Christian" should exclude those who do not take the gospel literally? <<<<<<
I never said that the term "Cafeteria Christian" should exclude those who do not take the gospel literally. I only said that the kind of Cafeteria Christian that I am talking about takes the gospel literally.
>>>>>> Maybe, just maybe, there can be different types of creationists, too. Like biblical creationists, or scientific creationists, or (dare I say it) intelligent design creationists? <<<<<<
I never said that an ID proponent cannot also be a creationist.
You are making straw-man arguments.
Okay, it just seems odd that you would define "Darwinist Cafeteria Christians" so narrowly as to exclude most theistic evolutionists. People like Collins and Ken Miller, who don't take the gospel literally. What is it in your mind that ties "Darwinist" with taking the gospel literally?
>>>>>>I never said that an ID proponent cannot also be a creationist.<<<<<<
I never claimed you did. I merely pointed out that ID is a form of creationism, just like Darwinist Cafeteria Christianity is a form of Cafeteria Christianity. The existence of biblical creationism doesn't prevent IDC from being a form of creationism, just like Catholic Cafeteria Christianity doesn't prevent Darwinist Cafeteria Christiainity from being a form of Cafeteria Christianity.
>>>>>> Okay, it just seems odd that you would define "Darwinist Cafeteria Christians" so narrowly as to exclude most theistic evolutionists. <<<<<<<
It is not a matter of "excluding" or "including" people -- it is just that the term "Darwinist Cafeteria Christian" describes people who take the gospel literally but do not take the bible's creation story literally. The term "Cafeteria" refers to picking and choosing, and these people are picking and choosing which parts of the bible they take literally. And I have no idea whether "most" theistic evolutionists don't take the gospel literally.
>>>>> People like Collins and Ken Miller, who don't take the gospel literally. <<<<<<<
This is the first time I have heard that.
>>>>>> What is it in your mind that ties "Darwinist" with taking the gospel literally? <<<<<<
What is it in YOUR mind that ties "intelligent design" with "creationism" so intimately that ID cannot or should not be mentioned without also mentioning creationism in the same breath?
>>>>>> The existence of biblical creationism doesn't prevent IDC from being a form of creationism, just like Catholic Cafeteria Christianity doesn't prevent Darwinist Cafeteria Christiainity from being a form of Cafeteria Christianity. <<<<<<<
And just as there are kinds of Cafeteria Christianity that are not Darwinist, there are kinds of Intelligent Design that are not creationist. As I said, to me, "intelligent design" means the study of whether things in nature give the appearance of being designed instead of arising from chance -- in biology, I see ID as the study of the probability that living things could have arisen solely from natural genetic variation and natural selection. I don't like the term "intelligent design" because it implies the existence of an intelligent designer. There are things in language called "idioms" that don't actually mean what they appear to literally mean, and to me, "ID" is an idiom. However, what counts are ideas, not definitions. I would prefer to use some term other than "ID" to describe what ID represents to me, but I am afraid if I use some other term, people won't know what I ,am talking about.
I would prefer to use some term other than "ID" ...
Perhaps you would prefer Maya?
The big difference Larry between rational thinkers and proponents of ID is this: Evolution is the conclusion inexorably reached by following facts (whether you like them or not). It was a surprise to the world. "Wow look what we are learning." It was a Conclusion that was Reached without aiming for it. Conversely ID is a Conclusion that was not Reached by any means other than somebody wishing for it. It's a conclusion which irrational "thinkers" are forever trying to finagle a case, absent any evidence whatsoever. That is why we scoff. Any argument made that way has absolutely no rational merit. You could decide that your Conclusion is that life was created by a giant talking shoe, or when the sun had sex with the moon, and here is the kicker... NONE of your arguments would be any different. You would still attack evolution while producing not even a hint of evidence to support your "theory". That's why it's not a theory, it's a Wish. It does sound nice I'll give you that.
I always wonder why ID folks don't argue so vehemently against the Theory of Gravity. It's a much less developed theory with only a few bits of evidence in comparison to evolution. We haven't developed much new technology by applying that theory like we have evolution. So why aren't you arguing that it's God's Will that keeps us from floating away, and the whole idea of Gravity is unsubstantiated? It would be the same argument, for the same reasons.
If you answer this post, answer that last question for me if you would? Why pick on evolution instead of gravity?
>>>>>> The big difference Larry between rational thinkers and proponents of ID is this: Evolution is the conclusion inexorably reached by following facts <<<<<<
That's absurd. Both supporters and critics of evolution can either be objective or engaging in wishful thinking. You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
>>>>>>> If you answer this post, answer that last question for me if you would? Why pick on evolution instead of gravity? <<<<<<<
Why change the subject? If people are picking on the abortion issue, why not ask them why they don't pick on the gay marriage issue instead?
Post a Comment
<< Home