Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

monergism.com

This site contains some of the most valuable God-centered resources a Christian Skeptic could ever want. Whether you peruse the copious free items or purchase something from their excellent online store, your worldview will never be the same!

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of the
Christian Religion
- an excellent online resource for the development of the
well-considered Christian worldview.

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

  • Colin Adams
  • Charlie Albright
  • Aletheuo
  • Scott Aniol
  • Tom Ascol
  • Derek Ashton (TheoParadox)
  • Zachary Bartels
  • Tim and David Bayly
  • Rick Beckman
  • Tyler Bennicke
  • Bible Geek
  • Big Orange Truck
  • Andy Bird
  • John Bird
  • Bob Bixby
  • Timmy Brister
  • Fred Butler
  • Calvin and Calvinism (Classic and moderate Calvinism)
  • Cal.vini.st
  • Bret Capranica
  • Nathan Casebolt
  • Lane Chaplin
  • Tim ("The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) Challies
  • The Conservative Intelligencer
  • The Contemporary Calvinist
  • The Conventicle
  • Craig's Blog
  • Deliver Detroit
  • Daniel (Doulogos)
  • William Dicks
  • The Doulos' Den
  • Martin Downes
  • Connie Dugas
  • Doug Eaton
  • Nicholas Edinger
  • Brother Eugene
  • Eusebeia
  • Stefan Ewing
  • Eddie Exposito
  • Expository Thoughts
  • Faces Like Flint
  • Reid Ferguson
  • Peter Farrell
  • Bill Fickett
  • Fide-o
  • Foolish Things
  • Chris Freeland
  • Travis Gilbert
  • Ron Gleason
  • Go Share Your Faith!
  • God is My Constant
  • Phil Gons
  • Joel Griffith (Solameanie)
  • Matt Gumm
  • Gregg Hanke
  • Jacob Hantla
  • Chris Harwood
  • J. D. Hatfield
  • Michael Haykin
  • Tony Hayling (Agonizomai)
  • Steve Hays and the amazing "Triablogue" team
  • Scott Head
  • Patrick Heaviside (Paths of Old)
  • Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio
  • Sean Higgins
  • Illumination (Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron)
  • Inverted Planet
  • Tim Jack
  • Jackhammer
  • Craig Johnson
  • Alex Jordan
  • The Journeymen
  • Justified
  • Lane Keister (Green Baggins)
  • John Killian
  • David Kjos
  • Ted Kluck
  • Patrick Lacson
  • A Little Leaven (Museum of Idolatry)
  • Janet Lee
  • Let My Lifesong Sing
  • Libbie, the English Muffin
  • Light and Heat
  • Greg Linscott
  • Bryan Maes
  • Brian McDaris
  • Doug McMasters
  • Allen Mickle
  • The incomparable Al Mohler
  • Jonathan Moorhead
  • Ryan Moran
  • Stephen Newell
  • Dean Olive
  • Dan Paden
  • Paleoevangelical
  • A Peculiar Pilgrim
  • Jim Pemberton
  • The Persecution Times
  • Bill Pershing
  • Kevin Pierpont
  • Matt Plett
  • Wes Porter
  • Postmortemism
  • The Red and Black Redneck
  • Reformata
  • Reformation 21
  • Reformation Theology (sponsored by Monergism.Com)
  • Reformed Evangelist
  • Remonstrans
  • Carla Rolfe
  • Tony Rose
  • Andrew Roycroft
  • Eric Rung
  • Said at Southern Seminary
  • Seeing Clearly
  • Sharper Iron
  • Kim Shay
  • Neil Shay
  • Brian Shealy
  • Ken Silva
  • Tom Slawson's "Tom in the Box"
  • Tom Slawson's other blog
  • Doug Smith
  • Richard Snoddy
  • Social Hazard
  • SolaFire
  • Rebecca Stark
  • Kevin Stilley
  • Cindy Swanson
  • Talking Out Of Turn
  • Justin Taylor's "Between Two Worlds"
  • Robert Tewart (StreetFishing)
  • TheoJunkie's Thoughts on Theology
  • Theology Bites
  • Through the Veil
  • Three Times a Mom
  • Voice of the Shepherd
  • Jared Wall
  • Adrian Warnock
  • David Wayne
  • Jeremy Weaver
  • Steve Weaver
  • Über-apologist James White's legendary "Pros Apologian" blog
  • Brad Williams
  • Doug Wilson
  • Writing and Living
  • Ryan Wood
  • Todd Young
  • Sunday, July 20, 2008

    Dawkin's Incredulous over Creationists and IDers

    from this over-fawning article:

    That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.”


    How laughable - maybe it is because it is a non-falsifiable theory - a "just so" story that presupposes it's conclusions. A modern fairy tale built on a cosmic accident that reduces morality to brain chemistry and purposeless gene-passing.

    Don't be fooled, only the poseur is afraid of debating his adversaries for fear of exposure.

    20 comments:

    Puritan Lad said...

    Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, but needs to stay in is element. In the case of God, he is the ignorant one. To use his argument, it would be as though you knew nothing of theology and were passionately arguing against the existence of God.

    Sean said...

    "To use his argument, it would be as though you knew nothing of theology and were passionately arguing against the existence of God."

    And puritan lad just summed up most of Dawkins' books in one sentence.

    skeptimal said...

    PL,

    You *do* know that theology requires a presupposition that there is at least one god, right? Evolution does not require atheism before you can recognize its value as a scientific theory.

    Puritan Lad said...

    Sorry skeptimal, Darwinian Evolution is an atheistic theory, especially when espoused by Dawkins. Evolution has it's own absurd presuppositions like naturalistic abiogenesis, and requires one to ignore the observable limits of selective breeding.

    skeptimal said...

    "Darwinian Evolution is an atheistic theory,..."

    Then why do so many Christians, including the pope, believe it? And why do only fundamentalist Christians and Muslims believe in creationism?

    "Evolution has it's own absurd presuppositions like naturalistic abiogenesis"

    Plenty of Christians believe that god started the process and let evolution take it from there. ONLY Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

    "(Evolution) requires one to ignore the observable limits of selective breeding."

    Can you tell me where you've come by the impression that "selective breeding" is part of the theory of evolution?

    skeptimal said...

    BTW, where is Swordbearer? Is he on vacation or is something wrong?

    Puritan Lad said...

    Skeptimal: "Can you tell me where you've come by the impression that "selective breeding" is part of the theory of evolution?"

    Original Post: "That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.”"

    Unless you have a definition of "natural selection" that doesn't include breeding. That would be a new one to me...

    skeptimal said...

    Puritan Lad:"Evolution...requires one to ignore the observable limits of selective breeding."


    Skeptimal: "Can you tell me where you've come by the impression that "selective breeding" is part of the theory of evolution?"

    Puritan Lad: Unless you have a definition of "natural selection" that doesn't include breeding. That would be a new one to me...

    Natural selection involves periodic minor mutations to result in a desirable new genetic trait, the introduction that trait into the gene pool at large, and greater numbers of deaths on the part of those without the new genetic trait. It is a process that in larger animals and plants might take millions of years.

    Selective breeding is a short term process where you breed for certain traits within the same species. To write off evolution because of the limits of selective breeding is like writing off the stock market because your favorite stock dropped today.

    And I'll repeat my origional assertion: you don't have to be an atheist to accept the validity of evolution.

    August said...

    Skeptimal,

    "And I'll repeat my origional assertion: you don't have to be an atheist to accept the validity of evolution."

    Care to offer some proof? Of your own, I mean. Because if you are going to quote Christians who accept evolution as true, then you have to show what nuances they add to the theory to make it fit with Christianity. Or where they compromise on their Christianity to make it fit evolution.

    skeptimal said...

    August said: "Care to offer some proof? Of your own, I mean."

    That you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution? Sure.

    This is the most religious non-Muslim country on the planet, and yet less than half believe in creationism. According to Gallop in 2007, 49% of the population believes in evolution. The figures are higher if you take into account those who believe in theistic evolution. So unless you're saying that the country is more than 49% atheist, then you clearly don't have to be an atheist to acknowledge evolution.

    You also said: "if you are going to quote Christians who accept evolution as true, then you have to show what nuances they add to the theory to make it fit with Christianity. Or where they compromise on their Christianity to make it fit evolution."

    I'm trying to find a way to say this without sounding sarcastic, but why do I have to do that? Are you saying that 40% of the population is lying about being non-atheist?

    August said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    August said...

    Honestly skeptimal, did you even read past the first sentence?

    Do you really believe that the evolutionary theory as proposed by Dawkins, and the one accepted by the Pope, or some Christians in America is one and the same? I suggest you go read some more on the different polls and their questions.

    The more complete ones distinguish between "a guided evolutionary process" and "naturalistic evolution". Just 13% of respondents of a 2006 CBS poll believed in naturalistic evolution, the kind Dawkins promotes, while the 27% theistic evolutionists believe(roughly) that guided evolution is the method of creation, a world apart from you would have us believe.

    There are relatively few "pure" (holding onto the new synthesis of evolution as well as fundamentalist Christian beliefs) theistic evolutionists out there. As I pointed out, there is always a compromise involved, either on the side of their Christianity or on the side of evolutionary theory.

    The 2007 Gallup extremely poorly worded, because it allowed for none of that nuance. I would have had to decline to answer, or answer maybe, because I believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution.

    That is why I asked for your analysis comparing Christian belief to evolutionary theory, not some wishy-washy quoting of non-descript statistics. That proves nothing, because there is equivocating of terms.

    skeptimal said...

    August,

    You said: "Honestly skeptimal, did you even read past the first sentence?"

    It doesn't take a psychic to read a lot of frustration in the responses from you (and swordbearer and puritan lad). I'm not always the most patient person myself, which I'm sure shows in my posts. Frankly, I find the willingness of most people to accept faith-based claims without testing them to be extremely frustrating.

    Still, I don't post here because I'm trying to score points against you guys. I don't think belief in evolution or creationism is a matter of intelligence, and I don't think Christians are idiots. That would be kind of a stupid position, since historically, most western scientists have been Christians.

    I only have a few minutes right now, but I wanted to say that flat out. I also wanted to ask you to consider that I may not be a demonically angry follower of the anti-Christ.

    August said...

    skeptimal, sorry if I came across as frustrated. I did not mean to insult or belittle you in any way, and I apologize if I did. And I did not mean that sentence to show frustration, it was just as if you did not read what I asked in my first response to you.

    Thank you also for telling us more about your attitude towards Christians. I for one appreciate such an attitude, especially since the majority of those who differ from us cannot do so without becoming childish and insulting.

    Maybe you just misunderstood me, or I was not clear enough in getting across what I meant. But if you have been around these types of discussions for any amount of time, then you would have already known that your response was disingenuous, that there is a huge difference between naturalistic and theistic evolution. Trying to pass it off as the same thing does leave me a little frustrated, quite honestly.

    You also say:"Frankly, I find the willingness of most people to accept faith-based claims without testing them to be extremely frustrating."

    So are you open to test your own faith-based assumptions? Do you do so? How do you do it?

    skeptimal said...

    August said...
    “skeptimal, sorry if I came across as frustrated. I did not mean to insult or belittle you in any way, and I apologize if I did.”

    No apologies needed, and I mean that sincerely. I said what I said because I wanted to make clear that I’m a skeptic, but not a cynic. I’ve seen plenty of arrogant dogma from atheists and others, and while I can’t say I’m above that myself, it isn’t my intent.

    “Thank you also for telling us more about your attitude towards Christians. I for one appreciate such an attitude, especially since the majority of those who differ from us cannot do so without becoming childish and insulting. “

    I think people who feel confident in their point of view often reach the point where we can’t imagine anyone believing any other way. It’s hard work to remember that reasonable people of good conscience can believe differently, and a lot of times, it’s just easier to label the other side as stupid or evil (or both). That’s the way it is for me, any way.

    On the other hand, I’ve sometimes had the painful experience of discovering that the person I dismissed and/or ridiculed turned out to be right. I try to remember those times when I start acting like a jerk. (Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.)

    “if you have been around these types of discussions for any amount of time, then you would have already known that your response was disingenuous, that there is a huge difference between naturalistic and theistic evolution.“

    I did misunderstand you. It wasn’t my impression that puritan lad was making a distinction. My understanding was that this site supports only six-day creationism, and that anything else was “anti-christ.” Maybe I’m still not off base in that regard. Am I?

    “So are you open to test your own faith-based assumptions? Do you do so? How do you do it?”

    I try not to make faith-based assumptions, but I do try to stay open to testing my beliefs. It doesn’t mean I accept every challenge to “read this book” or follow up whenever someone says “explain this point, if you’re so smart,” but I value talking to people with whom I disagree. Occasionally, I’ll read a book that I know to be contrary to my views to see if I understand why others might disagree with me. It’s not a rigorous approach, but it has served me well so far.

    August said...

    Skeptimal,

    "I did misunderstand you. It wasn’t my impression that puritan lad was making a distinction. My understanding was that this site supports only six-day creationism, and that anything else was “anti-christ.” Maybe I’m still not off base in that regard. Am I?"

    I think we have a mixed bag of beliefs on this site. I don't speak for anyone else, but I do believe that both Puritan Lad and myself are not young earth (6-day)creationists. However, we are also not theistic evolutionists, but more progressive, or day-age, creationists. But some of our other members are 6-day creationists.

    "I try not to make faith-based assumptions, but I do try to stay open to testing my beliefs."

    It is unavoidable to have faith-based assumptions.

    skeptimal said...

    "...we are but more progressive, or day-age, creationists...."

    I'm not sure what that is. Do you mind saying?

    "It is unavoidable to have faith-based assumptions."

    I thing assumptions are unavoidable, but I'm not sure I agree that faith-based assumptions are. Once faith gets involved, you've closed the door on all alternatives that disagree with your view.

    Puritan Lad said...

    "Selective breeding is a short term process where you breed for certain traits within the same species. To write off evolution because of the limits of selective breeding is like writing off the stock market because your favorite stock dropped today."

    Skeptimal. is this an admission on your part that you don't know how different species came about?

    Either that, or you must be one superb stock broker.

    August said...

    Skeptimal, day-age creationism says that the "days" of creation are not necessarily six 24-hour days, but refers to longer periods, or ages, of creation.

    My own position is a lot more unsure than that (because of the relationship between God and time, and that time as we know it could only come into existence at the conclusion of certain creation events), but I prefer it over 6x24 creation.

    "I thing assumptions are unavoidable, but I'm not sure I agree that faith-based assumptions are. Once faith gets involved, you've closed the door on all alternatives that disagree with your view."

    It is indeed unavoidable. For example, do you trust the reliability of your senses? How would you prove that without being viciously circular?

    skeptimal said...

    August said: “It is indeed unavoidable. For example, do you trust the reliability of your senses? How would you prove that without being viciously circular?”

    If we really could trust our senses, then ventriloquists, magicians, psychics, and faith healers would be out of business. There are times, however, when you make an assumption that what you are seeing or hearing is the truth. I don’t see that as faith-based, though. For faith to be involved, you have to make a decision to believe, no matter what evidence you see (or hear, or feel, or smell) to the contrary.

    Puritan Lad said: “Skeptimal. is this an admission on your part that you don't know how different species came about?”

    No, it’s a statement that you can’t rule out evolution just because you can’t selectively breed cats out of cows in your lifetime. Evolution takes a looooong time.

    The fact is, though, that we do see evolution at work all the time. The viruses that cause influenz are changing all the time; that’s why they have such a hard time coming up with the right flu vaccine every year. Bird flu, in its present form, can’t pass from human to human. The fear is that it will “develop a strain” that *will* jump from person to person. That’s evolution taking place.

    The fears that many doctors have about anti-bacterial soaps and antibiotics are evolution-related. By using anti-bacterial soaps and antibiotics, we’re steering bacterial evolution in a direction that is immune to them.