Opposing ID endangers your soul?

[rogue06]

The conservative blogger “Little Green Footballs” has been critical of creationism and Intelligent Design in recent months. Apparently the Australian YEC geologist Tas Walker has been flooding him with emails every time he does this expressing concern for his eternal soul. After LGFs wrote a critique yesterday of an article claiming that ID isn’t creationism, Walker wrote him warning that:


“You need to think about your future, long term. The Bible says everyone of us will be judged by our Creator and required to give an account of our lives, of the deeds we have done in our bodies. The Bible also makes it clear that we are without excuse.”



Source (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33568_We_Got_Burn_in_Hell_Mail!)

My question is if Intelligent Design isn’t a religious philosophy or warmed over creationism but a legitimate scientific explanation, why is Walker cautioning LGFs that his soul may be at stake for not supporting it?

The answer of course is that Intelligent Design is a form of creationism as its founder, Phillip Johnson, has made clear:

“This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.”

--Phillip Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996

And

“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”

--Phillip Johnson, in the forward of Creation, Evolution & Modern Science (2000)

[Tiggy]

LOL! Looks like Tas Walker didn't get the memo:

FROM: Intelligent Design Headquarters
TO: All True Foot Solders of ID

IXSNAY on the ODGAY!


:lol::lol::lol:

- T

[Dr.GH]

I see that “Little Green Footballs” gave me a plug. The first piece I ever wrote debunking a creationist's claim was "A Response to a Dubious Diluvium: A Tas Walker Creationist Fantasy." (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_dump_on_aig%27s_tas_walker.htm)

I would like to think that I could do much better now.

[Jorge]

The conservative blogger “Little Green Footballs” has been critical of creationism and Intelligent Design in recent months. Apparently the Australian YEC geologist Tas Walker has been flooding him with emails every time he does this expressing concern for his eternal soul. After LGFs wrote a critique yesterday of an article claiming that ID isn’t creationism, Walker wrote him warning that:


“You need to think about your future, long term. The Bible says everyone of us will be judged by our Creator and required to give an account of our lives, of the deeds we have done in our bodies. The Bible also makes it clear that we are without excuse.”



Source (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33568_We_Got_Burn_in_Hell_Mail%21)

My question is if Intelligent Design isn’t a religious philosophy or warmed over creationism but a legitimate scientific explanation, why is Walker cautioning LGFs that his soul may be at stake for not supporting it?

The answer of course is that Intelligent Design is a form of creationism as its founder, Phillip Johnson, has made clear:

“This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.”

--Phillip Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996


And

“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”

--Phillip Johnson, in the forward of Creation, Evolution & Modern Science (2000)


**************************************************************************************

I just have one simple question for all you 'geniuses' (some with a PhD!) here :

If ID is "Creationism in disguise" (as you people keep parroting with the mind of a ...
well ... with the mind of a parrot), then how is it that ID promoters such as Berlinski
aren't even theists, much less Creationists and even less Biblical Creationists?

You people need to apply the meaning of the word 'consistent' -- 'cause ya ain't. :no:

Jorge

[Dr.GH]

Guys like Berlinski, or Steve Fuller are merely contrarians. Fuller thinks that there is nothing that distinguishes the scientific "way of knowing," from any other "way of knowing." Even if it is "the way of just making things up." (Oh, and Berlinsky hates academics and he really needed the paycheck).

It is very interesting to re-read Berlinksi's 1996 Commentary (Vol. 101, No. 6) article "The Deniable Darwin." (http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm)

[rogue06]

**************************************************************************************

I just have one simple question for all you 'geniuses' (some with a PhD!) here :

If ID is "Creationism in disguise" (as you people keep parroting with the mind of a ...
well ... with the mind of a parrot), then how is it that ID promoters such as Berlinski
aren't even theists, much less Creationists and even less Biblical Creationists?

You people need to apply the meaning of the word 'consistent' -- 'cause ya ain't. :no:

Jorge
No one said that you must be a creationist to support ID, just that the “father of Intelligent Design,” Phillip Johnson has made it abundantly clear that the movement he started “isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” Here are two more quotes from Johnson that I didn’t include in the OP:

"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”

--P Johnson, describing the Wedge strategy

And again

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

--P Johnson on the Wedge strategy

And then there is this from one of Intelligent Design’s leading proponents:

“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

--William Dembski

And of course there is the Discover Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document,” that despite being labeled “TOP SECRET” and “NOT OR DISTRIBUTION” still managed to get leaked to the public. In it you find such gems as this (among others):

"...replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

—Wedge Document

And of course there is the notorious “Of Panda’s and People” that provides the “missing link” between creationism and ID when it was reedited from a creationist screed into an ID one merely by changing a few words such as “creationists” to “design proponents.” Unfortunately for the ID crowd their editing is as sloppy as the very, very little science they do and in at least one spot they left the tell-tale “cdesign proponentsists.”

So who should I believe? The founder of the movement along with its most famous proponent? The internal documents that wasn’t supposed to be seen by those they are trying to convince? The smoking gun seen in “Of Panda’s and People”? Or Jorge.:ponder:

[Cyrus Johnson]

No one said that you must be a creationist to support ID, just that the “father of Intelligent Design,” Phillip Johnson has made it abundantly clear that the movement he started “isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” Here are two more quotes from Johnson that I didn’t include in the OP:

"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”

--P Johnson, describing the Wedge strategy

And again

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

--P Johnson on the Wedge strategy

And then there is this from one of Intelligent Design’s leading proponents:

“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

--William Dembski

And of course there is the Discover Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document,” that despite being labeled “TOP SECRET” and “NOT OR DISTRIBUTION” still managed to get leaked to the public. In it you find such gems as this (among others):

"...replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

—Wedge Document

And of course there is the notorious “Of Panda’s and People” that provides the “missing link” between creationism and ID when it was reedited from a creationist screed into an ID one merely by changing a few words such as “creationists” to “design proponents.” Unfortunately for the ID crowd their editing is as sloppy as the very, very little science they do and in at least one spot they left the tell-tale “cdesign proponentsists.”

So who should I believe? The founder of the movement along with its most famous proponent? The internal documents that wasn’t supposed to be seen by those they are trying to convince? The smoking gun seen in “Of Panda’s and People”? Or Jorge.:ponder:

Absolutely. One could go on all day both with the words of the cdesign proponentsists themselves who make it clear that ID is just "the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory", as stated by Dembski. That, and the fact that their arguments are nothing more than standard Creationist arguments with the overt bits mentioning the Bible chopped off, made it plain as day that ID is indeed nothing more than Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. In addition to be impotent as science, it's apparently really bad theology too.

And let's not forget the helpful definitions from Pandas:

1986 draft: Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

Edwards v. Aguillard decision, and suddenly, evolution happens!!

1987 draft: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

I mean c'mon, those are obviously totally different definitions. Why can't we just trust Casey Luskin when he swears on a stack of Bibles that they are different? :smile:

[Jorge]

No one said that you must be a creationist to support ID, just that the “father of Intelligent Design,” Phillip Johnson has made it abundantly clear that the movement he started ID / anti-ID debate “isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” Here are two more quotes from Johnson that I didn’t include in the OP:

"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”

--P Johnson, describing the Wedge strategy


And again

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

--P Johnson on the Wedge strategy



Huh??? :huh: Look at the title of your thread combined with your OP. Have you been drinking again?
Or are you merely moving the goalposts -- again! -- as is a common practice of you people?

You may recognize the words that I've highlighted above (with a slight modification)
-- I've been stating them for years here at TWeb.

Johnson is absolutely correct. If you people would learn that lesson then we could
finally start making progress but the simple fact is that doing so wouldn't benefit
the agenda (certainly not for Naturalists).



And then there is this from one of Intelligent Design’s leading proponents:

“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

--William Dembski


Could you please, please PLEASE practice a bit of integrity? You people do this all the
time --- you mix one aspect with another so as to promote your agenda. True, Dembski
said the above and he meant it. But you have to separate Dembski 'the man with his religious
beliefs' from Dembski 'the man promoting ID' when the separation is required (as in this quote).

There is overlap between ID and Christianity -- this cannot be avoided. However, this
does not mean that ID has no scientific merit. You people are are either dumb, dumb,
DUMB or you are purposefully by design refusing to acknowledge so simple a point.




And of course there is the Discover Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document,” that despite being labeled “TOP SECRET” and “NOT OR DISTRIBUTION” still managed to get leaked to the public. In it you find such gems as this (among others):

"...replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

—Wedge Document


And of course there is the notorious “Of Panda’s and People” that provides the “missing link” between creationism and ID when it was reedited from a creationist screed into an ID one merely by changing a few words such as “creationists” to “design proponents.” Unfortunately for the ID crowd their editing is as sloppy as the very, very little science they do and in at least one spot they left the tell-tale “cdesign proponentsists.”

So who should I believe? The founder of the movement along with its most famous proponent? The internal documents that wasn’t supposed to be seen by those they are trying to convince? The smoking gun seen in “Of Panda’s and People”? Or Jorge.You're doing it again -- no surprise here. In this case you are guilty of taking a
conclusion (a very logical conclusion) and saying that it was the premise.
In this you are either ignorant of the facts OR, if you do know the score, then you
are purposefully and maliciously distorting the truth. You decide which applies.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

There is overlap between ID and Christianity -- this cannot be avoided. However, this
does not mean that ID has no scientific merit. You people are are either dumb, dumb,
DUMB or you are purposefully by design refusing to acknowledge so simple a point.


Go on Jorge, since you've already got that big red clown's nose on: tell us the scientific merit of ID.

Tell us the value of "an unknown Designer at an unknown time with an unknown mechanism and for unknown reasons manufactured this".

This should be good. :lol:

- T

ETA: maybe you could write an article with your answer and post it on TrueOrigins. Your last one on impact craters went over so well.

[rogue06]

Huh??? :huh: Look at the title of your thread combined with your OP. Have you been drinking again?
Or are you merely moving the goalposts -- again! -- as is a common practice of you people?
Do you have a clue what “moving the goal posts” even means or is it just something you have heard and learned to parrot mindlessly?

My OP and title have to do with LGF being told by Tas Walker that opposition to ID could be putting him in danger of eternal damnation:

“You need to think about your future, long term. The Bible says everyone of us will be judged by our Creator and required to give an account of our lives, of the deeds we have done in our bodies. The Bible also makes it clear that we are without excuse.”

So I asked if ID isn’t creationism (religion) but is instead real science, how could this be so? My conclusion was the claim that ID isn’t religion or religion-based is false and I backed it up by quoting the so-called “Father of Intelligent Design (http://www.discovery.org/a/3469)” who undoubtedly considers ID to be “about religion and philosophy.” I have since then included more evidence from Dembski, the Discover Institute’s Wedge Document, and the book “Of Panda’s and People” to support this conclusion.



You may recognize the words that I've highlighted above (with a slight modification)
-- I've been stating them for years here at TWeb.

Johnson is absolutely correct. If you people would learn that lesson then we could
finally start making progress but the simple fact is that doing so wouldn't benefit
the agenda (certainly not for Naturalists).
Sorry Jorge, but the quotes I provided demonstrate he was referring to ID itself. Take a look at this one again:

“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”

Or this one

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

Johnson is unmistakably talking about ID itself here, not the “ID/anti-ID debate.” He is the one who sees the movement he started as not about science but “about religion and philosophy.”


Could you please, please PLEASE practice a bit of integrity? You people do this all the
time --- you mix one aspect with another so as to promote your agenda. True, Dembski
said the above and he meant it. But you have to separate Dembski 'the man with his religious
beliefs' from Dembski 'the man promoting ID' when the separation is required (as in this quote).

There is overlap between ID and Christianity -- this cannot be avoided. However, this
does not mean that ID has no scientific merit. You people are are either dumb, dumb,
DUMB or you are purposefully by design refusing to acknowledge so simple a point.
I never said that there ID “has no scientific merit” (though it would certainly be nice if they produced some science rather than concentrating all their efforts trying to end-run it), but rather it is clear, as Johnson acknowledges, that ID “never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” Scientific merit is merely incidental if it exists.


You're doing it again -- no surprise here. In this case you are guilty of taking a
conclusion (a very logical conclusion) and saying that it was the premise.
In this you are either ignorant of the facts OR, if you do know the score, then you
are purposefully and maliciously distorting the truth. You decide which applies.

Jorge
So which of the two separate things I mentioned do you claim is a conclusion, the quote from the Wedge Document or the sloppy editing in “Of Pandas and People”?

The first sounds like part of a plan to be implemented...

"replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

...rather than any conclusion. And I just don’t see how the sloppy editing of Pandas could be considered a “conclusion” unless you consider it something that ended ID as a truly viable option.

Perhaps you would like to clarify your accusation, or were you just slinging them out without need of any support as you so often do?