Ben Stein as ID Apologist

Friday, August 24, 2007

Ben Stein as ID Apologist

I am cautiously optimistic...

4 comments:

Becky said...: Not sure what the skepticism is about. As a believer in Jesus Christ and a public high school teacher (truly fighting the "good fight"), I applaud any attempt to question Darwinism. I live it up close and personal what today's youth are up against.
Maybe as believers we should spend more time supporting folks/movements that cause people to question status quo. Instead of casting a jaundice eye at a perfect opportunity to question and witness.; Friday, April 4, 2008 at 2:15:00 PM PDT
panta dokimazete said...: Actually - this was a post from when the movie was first being publicized - not real skepticism, but cautious optimism that this will be a true witness...and it looks like it just may be.

On another note - my brother in Christ, keep up the good work! :); Friday, April 4, 2008 at 2:18:00 PM PDT
sfcgragg said...: As a Christian Apologist, I (for one) am ecstatic that someone of Ben’s profile has the intestinal fortitude, drive and intelligence to take on this sorry excuse for one sided opinion. Like business, debate flourishes under competition, and the truth rises to the top. But the materialistic/atheistic/humanistic Darwinists are afraid of allowing the creation opinion into the debate, because every time there was a Creation vs. Darwinist debate, the evolutionists went down like the Titanic…. The truth hurts the weak argument!

And have you ever noticed that the evolutionists always leave the second half of the Darwin work “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection
or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”…. Have you ever wondered why? Most likely because Eugenics is the next logical step. Just ask Adolph Hitler and Planned Parenthood.; Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 4:01:00 PM PDT
sfcgragg said...: Oh, and by the way. My son and I went to see Expelled a week ago yesterday! Excellent movie. And I thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins pack peddling, And admitting design in a backhanded way.. And what’s up with life piggybacking on crystals :-D; Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 4:05:00 PM PDT

Post a Comment

The Rules

Plagarized...uhhh...adapted from here...

Comments are moderated

Don't expect us to reply to your comments. If one of us feels strongly, he might reply in a blog entry. Though we occasionally even post comments of our own, we make no promise (implied or explicit) that we will reply to other posts. Don't look for us to mud-wrestle with critics in our own blog-comments.

Say what you like about us; disagree as strongly as you like; beat us up or slap us around verbally with near-total impunity. But keep within the parameters of Christian civility. We'll automatically delete comments with profane or unwholesome words, including abbreviated or otherwise disguised ones.

On-topic comments only. If you have other stuff to say to one of us, send an e-mail.

Don't feed the trolls.

Break these rules three times and the moderators will automatically delete any further comments you post.

Quoteable

It is a battle between worldviews, and we are looking to see which worldview can account for itself best. In that battle, there is no neutrality or default position. (August: Circular Reasoning; July 07)

While many in the church today, who having bitten off the principles of the world rather than swallowing the word of God, fail to recognize it, the truth remains that CHRISTIAN SKEPTICISM is not only our great heritage and long standing tradition, but also our Christian calling! (Swordbearer: Christian Skepticism – Our Great Heritage and Calling; July 07)

The key is how the different schools of thought withstand internal critique. Naturalism struggles with internal critique, because it is inductive by nature. Any of its conclusions can be viewed with skepticism, because we can never examine all the evidence in all relationships in all senses. It further refuses to admit to its own metaphysical components. For example, how can the naturalist prove the laws of logic by use of the scientific method, without being viciously circular? It is a metaphysical assumption held to by a groundless faith. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)

If you say that God is “unnecessary in everything we know about”, how do you know that? Do you know “everything we know about”? Who are “we”? How did you come to know the meaning of the word “be”? You said that you don’t know where the universe comes from. How does that remove the necessity for God? At the very least, it is equally an explanation as any other if you don’t know. So then God is not removed from everything we know about, since the universe had to come into existence in order to exist. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)

You mean to say that you actually have evidence that the universe wasn’t created? That would be monumental. Can you point us to this evidence? (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)

Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

Skeptical Insights

Links we like

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

Friday, August 24, 2007