Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design

Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,"

the media often portrays advocates of intelligent design as anything but intelligent.

What media is Hensarling referring to? The media I'm familiar with portrays advocates of intelligent design as "determined" foes of a "perceived scientific orthodoxy" who feel that their "worldview" and "religion" is "marginalized" and "under attack" by an "increasingly secular" society.

I don't think I've heard the usual media sources refer to creationist peddlers as "charlatans", "promoters of ignorance," "stooges," or "professional liars" yet. I'm looking forward to that day, though!

Ross:

But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can't prove that Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, our faith has no basis,

What verse do you suppose he's referring to?

What verse do you suppose he's referring to?

"Television makes them look like dimwitted people.

Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design By Cary McMullen Ledger Religion Editor

"We compare the biblical model with the evolutionary model and ask which better explains the record of nature as we see it today. Which has better success at making predictions?" Ross said

What more needs to be said?

They just don't get it.

Incredible.

Instead of fixing the hole in the roof:-
Their faulty literal reading

They are hell bent on changing the sky.
It's so laughable its sad.

The only thing they are going to achieve by "Questioning God"
is the slow destruction of their reality removed faith.

They don't have a creative bone in their body, they completely lack imagination.(are they human?)

God help us!

Yeats again.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Remember, this may seem laughable to many but Ross argues quite convincingly that his ideas are far more scientific than those of the Intelligent Design Creationist movement.
While I agree that it is all about relative merrits here, Ross's comments show that

1. He considers most of the Intelligent Design arguments to be scientifically vacuous
2. He is very forthcoming that Intelligent Design is all about religion

At least Ross has a 'theory' of intelligent design, founded in biblical roots, but it's far more than Intelligent Design proponents at large can claim.

And since the ID movement is one big tent, I am sure that it will invite Ross and his theory into it...

Just putting them on tv makes them look dimwitted.

indeed

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

May I ask the participants to please refrain from using ad hominems and either add to the thread or use the bathroom wall.

I mean it. At this moment I have but three options

a. Edit the posting (too much work)
b. Add it to our spam filter (effectively removing the ability of the author to further post) (too drastic)
c. Delete the posting (by elimination the best option)

Until the 'move to bathroom wall' option has been restored, I would like to ask all to please focus on the topic. There is so much good to discuss here...

Please, please, please

Plus they lack any common sense.

If he is able to see the error of the logic in ID thus some
logical ability proven, however
why is there not the same level of intelligence applied to scripture.

That requires something much more than simple logic it requires intuition, research and good old common sense.

So certain is Ross that he's right, he's willing to risk more than his theory. He's willing to stake his faith on it. "If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ," he said.

he came to the Christian faith as a young adult and decided that not only is there no conflict between science and faith, science can actually prove faith's claims

So certain is Ross that he's right, he's willing to risk more than his theory. He's willing to stake his faith on it. "If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ," he said. He acknowledges it's a risk not all churchgoers are willing to make.

Ross said: But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can't prove that Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, our faith has no basis...

St. Paul wrote: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

PvM:

I'm still unsure which specific aspects of this you wish to address?

Is it the fact that this appears to be a new tactic that would require different strategies?

The "science" involved appears to be no better than any other "science" presented by creationists, but i can only base that on the second hand information presented in the article. Do you have more direct access to the specifics of Ross' "model"?

It would appear that Dr. Ross is not very popular among the fundies, Answersingenesis.com, christiananswers.net and trueorgins.org all have rather harsh criticisms of his work. They appear to be upset that he rejects young earth. So, he gets brownie points for that. He's also a former minister of evangelism, so he loses said brownie points, and has unfortunately found himself in the negatives.

The key point here is
"
And if Christ has not been raised
"

to where ? in your heart ?

Making Schools Their Business Why would dozens of busy business people be inclined to volunteer time and money to get involved with the local school system? Because the products the school system is churning out will one day be used by local businesses in the form of employees.

@Tiax:

have you found any better elucidation of his model anywhere?

His web site is reasonstobelieve.org - no idea if it has what you're looking for, though.

Why is it IDiots always parrot back the arguments made against them without actually DOING ANY OF THE THINGS THEY CLAIM?

@Tiax: have you found any better elucidation of his model anywhere?

— Sir_Toejam

I think that we're looking at the wrong hypotheses to test to refute creationism. From a political standpoint, I think that the following hypothesis seems better:

ID/Creationism advocates appear to believe that the Bible, a book written by nomadic goat herders living in tents, is the best scientific text available, and should take precedence over books written by 21st century scientists using modern laboratories.

If the ID/Creationist hypothesis were correct, shouldn't the Bedouins have conquered the world by now? Or for that matter, shouldn't the Taliban, living in a fairly goat-based system, have been able to hold off the US military and their useless "scientific" GPS weaponry?

Most importantly, I don't recall the Bible saying anything about "computers" or the "internet." Since I presume that the ID/Creationism advocates would prefer to use only Biblically correct "science," why the hell do they have their own webpages?

i looked all over the reasons.org site, and can find no specific model listed anywhere. perhaps it is in one of his popular press books?

I have to throw this back to PvM.

If you want us to take Ross seriously, and foster discussion about his ideas, I personally need to see a 1sthand source of those arguments, hopefully in the form of whatever specific "model" he has developed.

All in all, it would appear that he is quite devoutly Christian, and is more correctly categorized as an apologeticist than a scientist

note that that is NOT saying he is not now still a scientist.

He has a decent set of publications, including at least one in Nature (1970).

I don't see why necessarily that he couldn't be both. Science has strict rules, but anybody can play so long as they follow them.

I've a hard time respecting a theory that is initially presented in a popular science book. Certainly, such books are quite capable of holding valuable information, and I am a big fan of numerous such books, especially those by Hawking and Dawkins. However, it is absurd to ask the scientific community to take a theory seriously when it has bypassed the criticism of that same community by not participating in the peer-review process, and has gone straight to book print. Although it is certainly possible to enlist reviewers for a book, there is gaurantee of their quality, as was seen with Behe's unfortunate attempts to claim peer-review status.

If Dr. Ross's primary concern was getting word out about this model of his, we all would've managed to find a very clear explanation by now. Instead, I've found a thorough regurgitation of every creation-apologetics claim in the books through this website of his.

At least Ross has a 'theory' of intelligent design, founded in biblical roots, but it's far more than Intelligent Design proponents at large can claim.

I've a hard time respecting a theory that is initially presented in a popular science book

Ross said: But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can't prove that Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, our faith has no basis...

St. Paul wrote: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

well, unless PvM comes back with something specific, maybe we could analyze Ross' arguments in one of the papers he presents as "evidence of design" in the section that Tiax pointed out:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe

perhaps we should go through each one, and figure out what his arguments are based on the "evidence" he presents in those?

I still would prefer to see some sort of overarching synthesis, but I can settle for that if anybody else is game.

Remember, this may seem laughable to many but Ross argues quite convincingly that his ideas are far more scientific than those of the Intelligent Design Creationist movement.

While I agree that it is all about relative merrits here, Ross's comments show that 1. He considers most of the Intelligent Design arguments to be scientifically vacuous 2. He is very forthcoming that Intelligent Design is all about religion

in general his MO appears to be subjective analysis of improbable events as miracles, and refers to biblical text in context of said improbable events to support his subjective viewpoints.

circular in the extreme. However, again i haven't gone into any detail.

I'd bet i could get passages from "Dianetics" to fit just as well with many of the observed phenomena he comments on.

hell, that's how "Dianetics" got turned into a psuedo-religion to begin with, didn't it?

I think PvM's point here is that--and this is hard for me to say--Hugh Ross is a good thing for evolution. While Ross doesn't acknowledge it, he is one of the ID people, at least as we see it. Yet he is standing up to them, and rejects their arguments. His role is one of whistle blower. He is a self-inflicted wedge in Philip Johnson's master plan, forming a rift within Johnson's creationist tent. Ross isn't buying into it, and good for him. At least he is honest about his intentions.

How can this possibly be anything but good for evolution? The thing that WE need to do is undertake efforts to widen that rift, and encourage the various creationist factions to harden their individual positions. If enough steadfast creationists yank on the stakes of the Big Tent, it will collapse. Ross could very well be the canary in the ID coal mine.

even harder to say, in theory i personally care less about cheerleaders for evolution than i do about folks understanding how real science actually works. If after careful analysis of his "model" he shows a genuinely scientific approach, hey, we can welcome another scientist who also believes in god.

however, i find the argument that we should support him simply because he is an "enemy" of ID to be exactly the same argument the republicans used to get in bed with the fundies to begin with, and I worry about the same thing coming back to bite us in the *ss that it has done for them.

I'm just perpetually amazed by people who outright say that believing in God is impossible unless you also believe in the special creation of man by God. Phillip Johnson is quoted over and over as saying more or less that. This Ross guy says it here. I think a lot of IDers are thinking the same thing but not saying it out loud.

How weak are these people's faith, that it can't stand up to removing a small handful of random magic tricks from their personal conception of natural history? If someone seriously believes that forcibly changing what science, public schools and the world think about the origin of life, is easier than basing their own personal faith in Christ rather than in the first four pages in Genesis... man, I don't even know what that says.

well, unless PvM comes back with something specific, maybe we could analyze Ross' arguments in one of the papers he presents as "evidence of design" in the section that Tiax pointed out: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/ind...

A study of gypsy moth parasites demonstrates that the creation of a diverse array of specialized parasites indeed is consistent with an all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving Creator.

I don't recommend supporting him. I do recommend recognizing him for what he represents within the ID movement, and to think about where this could go.

Russell

Not being a believer myself, I'm a little reluctant to wade into this. But I have to ask: the quoted scripture says nothing about being able to prove Christ rose from the dead. Did Paul write nothing more supportive of Ross's position than that?

No. And I knew that the support for Ross' bizarre claim about Paul's teaching was weak at best (non-existent, really) when I asked my question. If Paul had said what Ross had claimed, then evangelical creationist types would be even more annoying than they already are!

It's useful to know some of this Bible stuff for one reason: to understand how preachers operate.

Recall that according to the same holy book, the big cheese himself got on the apostle Thomas' case when Thomas started complaining about the feasibility of the resurrection: "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

I can only think of one compelling reason why certain preachers ignore relatively clear teaching in their holy book about what 'faith' is and how the life and resurrection of Jesus exists in a realm outside of 'evidence' and 'fact'. The reason is that demonizing scientists who have thus far not been able to corroborate the stranger claims in the Holy Bible has proven to be a useful recruiting tool, particularly among the ever-growing pool of scientifically illiterate Americans.

Are there any other reasons that I'm missing?

Not being a believer myself, I'm a little reluctant to wade into this. But I have to ask: the quoted scripture says nothing about being able to prove Christ rose from the dead. Did Paul write nothing more supportive of Ross's position than that?

Now, since our message is that Christ has been raised from death, how can some of you say that the dead will not be raised to life? If that is true, it means that Christ was not raised; and if Christ has not been raised from death, then we have nothing to preach and you have nothing to believe. More than that, we are shown to be lying about God, because we said that he raised Christ from death - but if it is true that the dead are not raised to life, then he did not raise Christ. For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is a delusion and you are still lost in your sins. It would also mean that the believers in Christ who have died are lost. If our hope in Christ is good for this life only and no more, then we deserve more pity than anyone else in all the world. But the truth is that Christ has been raised from death, as the guarantee that those who sleep in death will also be raised.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml

Could this be something? It's 1 Am, so I'll wait until the morning to give it a read, but an initial skimming seems promising for being a presentation of his theory.

I think PvM's point here is that---and this is hard for me to say---Hugh Ross is a good thing for evolution. While Ross doesn't acknowledge it, he is one of the ID people, at least as we see it. Yet he is standing up to them, and rejects their arguments. His role is one of whistle blower. He is a self-inflicted wedge in Philip Johnson's master plan, forming a rift within Johnson's creationist tent. Ross isn't buying into it, and good for him. At least he is honest about his intentions.

How weak are these people's faith, that it can't stand up to removing a small handful of random magic tricks from their personal conception of natural history

"... Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective."

Ummm... Why doesn't the fact that we have a 90 plus percent similarity in our DNA to chimps and the existance of humanoid primate fossils not already prove we are not "specially created"?

He's right about one thing -- I do think those facts are fatal to all Abrahamic traditional religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). You really have to do some creative interpretation of the old holy books to wrap them around those concepts. You pretty much have to loose the concept of original sin when you've got ancestors like ours.

Could this be something? It's 1 Am, so I'll wait until the morning to give it a read, but an initial skimming seems promising for being a presentation of his theory.

The triumph of special relativity gave Einstein the boldness to extend his theory beyond velocity effects and on to the acceleration effects between observers.13, 14 The results were the ten field equations of general relativity. Subtracting one set of these equations from another yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon which expands and decelerates at the same time is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. There must have been a moment at which the explosion began. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner.

Could this be something?

I don't recommend supporting him. I do recommend recognizing him for what he represents within the ID movement, and to think about where this could go.

I'm just perpetually amazed by people who outright say that believing in God is impossible unless you also believe in the special creation of man by God.

And that's just the beginning! If you don't believe in God, then (according to Phil Johnson and the rest of the Modern Creationist Posse) you have no "basis" on which to "ground" your "morals" and no "basis" for "rational" decision-making. Why? Because (according to these brilliant philosopher/preachers) the "necessary alternative" to a purpose-filled universe is one in which "we" (meaning, everything in the universe, including the chemicals in our brains) are "meaningless" chance collisions of atoms.

And yes, this "argument" is intended to frighten simple-minded people into believing that if they abandon their religion, they are more likely to become criminals or drug addicts or (gulp!) queer.

And lo and behold: the argument works like a charm. It's especially persuasive if the person making the argument cuts a striking figure, has a great speaking voice, great hair, and is speaking through a state-of-the-art sound system from behind a crystal podium with spotlights blazing and 200 robed singers standing behind him or her.

Oh yeah, and there's this second "argument" about the possibility of having your skin peeled off slowly for all eternity in a vat of boiling oil if you spend too much time thinking about the first argument.

But I digress.

How weak are these people's faith, that it can't stand up to removing a small handful of random magic tricks from their personal conception of natural history? If someone seriously believes that forcibly changing what science, public schools and the world think about the origin of life, is easier than basing their own personal faith in Christ rather than in the first four pages in Genesis... man, I don't even know what that says.

well, I'm bowing out until we hear back from PvM. I'll read some of Ross' musings in the meantime.

cheers

And that's just the beginning! If you don't believe in God, then (according to Phil Johnson and the rest of the Modern Creationist Posse) you have no "basis" on which to "ground" your "morals" and no "basis" for "rational" decision-making. Why? Because (according to these brilliant philosopher/preachers) the "necessary alternative" to a purpose-filled universe is one in which "we" (meaning, everything in the universe, including the chemicals in our brains) are "meaningless" chance collisions of atoms.

But I digress.

For a rather detailed critique of Ross's output, see, for example here and here.

Correction: the correct URL's for the critique of Ross are this and this.

RU.... you crack me up.

One of the simple reasons behind Darwin's and T. Huxley's very early, practically instant success was they applied their brilliant minds not just to Science but the Humanities and had an equal grasp of the scriptures as the Bishops. Huxley had the energy and yes cunning demonstrated by modern Evangelicals, I'm sure he would have been more than a match for them even today. Something they acknowledge. Their weak point is not just their hopeless grasp of science as well as their pure envy of science but their weak theology best characterized as bibliolatry.

Ross adheres to the position of the Bible's inerrancy, according to which everything in the Bible is consistent and absolutely true. In promoting and defending this position, Ross fights against skeptics who see many contradictions between various parts of the Bible, as well as between the Bible and science. In particular, Ross and his fellow "old universe creationists" assert that the biblical story as told in the Book of Genesis is absolutely true, and its apparent incompatibility with scientific data is only due to misinterpretation of the Bible's text. On the other front, Ross also fights against the so-called "young universe creationists" who reject any attempt to interpret the Bible in any manner other than literally.

— Mark Perakh

The "young universe creationists" maintain that every word of the Bible must be accepted in its simple literal meaning, and if it contradicts science, that is just too bad for the science. For example, the modern astronomical data, together with the facts established by physics (such as the value of the speed of light) indicate the enormous dimensions of the universe and correspondingly give its age as about fifteen billion years. This does not deter the young universe creationists who shrug off the scientific data and claim that the large size of the universe is just an illusion. Likewise, according to the young universe creationists, the fossils found in various strata of the Earth crust have been deposited by God to create an illusion of billions of years of the earth' history. Of course, the young universe creationists are not in the least baffled by the question as to why God would indulge in the deception of scientists. The ways of God are unfathomable, and the word of the Bible is not to be doubted in any manner - that is the unshakable conviction of the young universe creationists. Of course, the denial of the scientific data by the young universe creationists means the extreme obscurantism, but their position, however absurd, is fully consistent and hence logically unassailable. Ross is of the opinion that sticking to the position of the young universe creationists can only discredit the Bible and make it susceptible to ridicule. Therefore he fights against young universe creationism in order to redeem the creationists in general by proving that this viewpoint can be reconciled with the scientific data. In doing so, Ross resorts to semantic acrobatics, attempting to interpret this or that expression in the Bible in a way allegedly proving the compatibility between the Bible and science. In doing so, he steps out from the pit of the extreme (but logically consistent) obscurantism only to fall into a pit of arbitrary assertions running contrary to common sense, and thus promotes merely another version of obscurantism, one which is, moreover, utterly inconsistent and void of reason.

Morbious
To give the CC credit they are well and truly on the side of wisdom over ignorance and see Fundamentalism as a major threat to our future, it also is a "broad/universal" church and moves no faster than the congregation(from my outside obsevation I'm not an apologist). A wise man once said "that in the absence of good beliefs people will believe bad beliefs"
The "flock" will follow good leaders as well as bad ones. Many of course are lucky enough to "blessed" without that need, or whatever it is, in such cases tolerance to those not hostile to you, is a handy Allie.

Meant to say
moves no faster than the LOCAL congregation

To give the CC credit

[Richard] Thompson[, executive director and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, ] gave the keynote address and an additional speech Oct. 15 at the Gospel of Life Conference at the John Paul II Center's Bonfils Hall. ... "Once government is the source of your rights, government can take them away," Thompson said. "That's why the ACLU wants the Ten Commandments removed from public view, because the Ten Commandments remind us that our rights come from God and not from government. Without a higher authority, the law is the law and you have no reason to refuse to obey it and then we are able to be subjected to government and we can then have what happened to Terry Shiavo. Society will stand back and watch as this woman --- who was not terminally ill, who was not dead, who was not dying --- gets dehydrated and deprived of nutrition until she dies because one person decided she was a life not worthy to be lived." ... "Our children are slowly being brought along into a philosophy of materialism and atheism or secular humanism," Thompson said, explaining that the conditioning of children moves forward with every ACLU victory. "In a speech in 1933, Hitler said: 'I don't care about what the old people think, I've got the children.'" ...

If our hope in Christ is good for this life only and no more, then we deserve more pity than anyone else in all the world.

The "young universe creationists" maintain that every word of the Bible must be accepted in its simple literal meaning, and if it contradicts science, that is just too bad for the science.

I have some experience with Ross and his sidekick "Fuz" Rana. They came to UC Davis back in February touting their "biblical creation model."

First, when asked what would prove their claims about biology wrong, Fuz Rana said that he hadn't much thought about that. Fuz also undercuts ID, saying that they don't have a testable model, when that's exactly what they don't have either. Rana may use Fuz-zy logic, but he's not crazy.

Ross, however, is a nutcase. First, here is his scientific evidence that aliens don't exist - that Jesus came in only ONE place for ALL sinners. That means that aliens don't exist, because then the bible would have said that he also visited the alien planets. However, maybe the aliens didn't rebel against god!

Ross has also made other utterances that are just plain stupid - try and see if you can get them out of him. For example, he says that this universe has the "optimal physics for combating evil." He has never explained to me what the hell that means, and I'd really like him to demonstrate it with an equation, I mean, with ACTUAL PHYSICS!

Also, during the UCD presentation that they made, they skipped over it but it was in their powerpoint: "Jesus with error-bars." Some of the things that they will present are likely to have more in common with the wacky stuff that drunk science majors joke about at 4 AM than actual scientific ideas worth investigating.

Ross goes around saying that the bible has predicted modern theories in physics - of course, only by re-interpreting biblical passages so that they seem to metaphorically describe the theories. My suggestion is this, for whomever might decide to ask him questions during his appearance:
Come up with a list of essential equations in physics that describe (at least in part) the major discoveries in physics. Ask him if any of them came from the bible. Of course, the answer is no - he only has metaphors that he squeezed out of the bible - so therefore science as it is is a better way of discovering knowledge than the bible - despite how they strain the interpretations. Beware, though, he will answer simple questions with looooong answers and eat up time, so get in line fast!

Here are a couple op-ed columns that I wrote when Reasons to Believe came to UCD:

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7300

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7433

For anyone with a subscription to the Wall Street Journal;
http://online.wsj.com/public/us?mod=OHP2OSM01
Scroll down to page one.
Paul

In particular, Ross and his fellow "old universe creationists" assert that the biblical story as told in the Book of Genesis is absolutely true, and its apparent incompatibility with scientific data is only due to misinterpretation of the Bible's text.

The link you want is probably this one.

It would appear that Dr. Ross is not very popular among the fundies, Answersingenesis.com, christiananswers.net and trueorgins.org all have rather harsh criticisms of his work.

Crude mathematical models indicate that a species capable of significant evolutionary advance rather than doomed to eventual extinction, must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations. Genesis offers this explanation for the survival of large animals: God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases, the new species were different from the previous ones because God was changing Earth's geology, biodeposits, and biology, step by step, in preparation for His ultimate creation on Earth---the human race.

"science can actually prove faith's claims"

Turning salvation into a question of intelligence? If you thought the idea that some people would go to hell because they were too rich or too arrogant to accept Christ was bad, how about the idea that some people go to hell because they are not smart enough to understand Ross' proof.

Too bad for our brothers and sisters with Down's syndrome, eh?

1. transcendent creation event 2. cosmic fine-tuning 3. fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics 4. rapidity of life's origin 5. lack of inorganic kerogen 6. extreme biomolecular complexity 7. Cambrian explosion 8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record 9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record 10. fossil record reversal 11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions 12. recovery from mass extinctions 13. duration of time windows for different species 14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis 15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism 16. speciation and extinction rates 17. recent origin of humanity 18. huge biodeposits 19. Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record 20. molecular clock rates

morbius
I don't think Thompson speaks for the CC
buddha would have to explain that one (giggle)
Miller of Dover fame and and the recent warning from the Vatican on the danger of Fundamentalism(ignorance) to science and religion (wisdom) is more what I had in Mind.
There are plenty of other things I don't agree with re. the CC I am just picking one small example where there is no conflict between religion and evolution.

Ah, so Hugh Ross is The Judean Popular People's Front.

— budha

Dembski couldn't come "he has a bad back"

"The results were the ten field equations of general relativity. Subtracting one set of these equations from another yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon which expands and decelerates at the same time is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. There must have been a moment at which the explosion began. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner."

This is backwards isn't it? I thought the latest observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - hence "dark energy".

Latest news... the beginner is the time before time began

Did anyone ask Dr Ross about the flying saucers?

Ross's recent book (co-authored with two other fundie kooks) is
entitled "Lights In the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational
Christian Look at UFO's and Extraterrestrials" (NavPress, Colorado
Springs CO, 2002).

Over several chapters, Ross dismisses, on scientific and Biblical
grounds, the existence of any life other than terrestrial. But, he
declares, there are so many reliable UFO reports that they can't all
be mistakes or hoaxes (he calls the remaining reliable reports
(Residual UFO's"). His "rational Christian" conclusion is something
he calls the "trans-dimensional hypothesis"---flying sacuers are
actually entities that come from "beyond out space and time
dimensions" and which, although real entities, are not physical
beings. OK, so what ARE the flying saucers, then? Hear the
gospel according to Ross: "It can now be determined who is
behind the RUFO experiences. Only one kind of being favors the
dead of night and lonely roads. Only one is real but nonphysical,
animate, powerful, deceptive, ubiquitous throughout human history,
culture, and geography, and bent on wreaking psychological and
physical harm. Only one entity selectively approaches those
humans involved in cultic, occultic or New Age activities. It seems
apparent that residual UFO's, in one or more ways, must be
associated with the activities of demons." (pages 122-123).

Want to see how Ross's "UFO's come from the Devil" hypothesis
can be scientifically tested? Well, we flip to page 124 and find:
"The conlcusion that demons are behind the residual UFO
phenomenon is a testible one." Ross points out that "according to
the Bible" demons only can attack people who dip into the occult
and make themsleves vulnerable. Ross declares, "All that is
necessary to further prove the conclusions of demonic involvement,
therefore, is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has
encounters with residual UFO's and who does not. If the demonic
idenficiation of the RUFO phenomenon is correct, researchers
should continue to observe a correlation between the degree of
invitations in a person's life to demonic attacks (for example,
participation inseances, Uija games, astrology, spiritualism,
witchcraft, palm reading, and psychicreading) and the proximity of
their residual UFO encounters." (Ross of course neglects to
mention another possible reason for these "correlations" --- people
who believe one goofy thing are more prone to believe other goofy
things as well.)

And why is that scientists and other researchers decline to study
Ross's, uh, "theory"? Why, because they're all ATHEISTS, silly:
"One reason why research scientists and others may be reluctant to
say that demons exist behind residual UFO's is because such an
answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the
problem." (page 125)

(Does this sound familiar to anybody? Is there some other topic
that Ross thinks involves the supernatural, but nobody takes
seriously because they are all atheists . . . . ?)

Believe it or not, though, Ross isn't the first creationut to yammer
about flying saucers and the Devil. Creationist theologian Norman
Geisler was one of the witnesses at the Arkansas creationism trial
back in 1982. During his pre-trial deposition, Geisler was asked if
he believed in a real Devil. Yes, he replied, he did, and cited some
Biblical verses as confirmation. The conversation then went:

"Q. Are there, sir, any other evidences for that belief besides
certain passages of Scripture?

GEISLER: Oh, yes. I have known personally at least 12 persons
who were clearly possessed by the Devil. And then there are the
UFOs.

Q. The UFOs? Why are they relevant to the existence of the Devil?

GEISLER: Well, you see, they represent the Devil's major, in fact,
final attack on the earth.

Q. Oh. And sir, may I ask how you know, as you seem to know, that
there are UFOs?

GEISLER: I read it in the Readers Digest."

At trial, Geisler testified under oath (apparently with a straight
face) that flying saucers were "Satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception".

Hey Heddle, do you think that flying saucers come from the Devil, too?

I don't think Thompson speaks for the CC

Miller of Dover fame and and the recent warning from the Vatican on the danger of Fundamentalism(ignorance) to science and religion (wisdom) is more what I had in Mind.

If you don't believe in God, then (according to Phil Johnson and the rest of the Modern Creationist Posse) you have no "basis" on which to "ground" your "morals" and no "basis" for "rational" decision-making. Why? Because (according to these brilliant philosopher/preachers) the "necessary alternative" to a purpose-filled universe is one in which "we" (meaning, everything in the universe, including the chemicals in our brains) are "meaningless" chance collisions of atoms.

Morbius
Conceded, I'm not a CC apologist. There was a thread on this matter last week where buddha ( I think) went thru the org. chart. I can't do the same. I look for evidence I can identify from any major mainstream religion that supports knowledge over ignorance.

Morbius
On your next post
"
If you don't believe in [what you are told etc.etc.]
"
I Ask:- Then why do we need Priest's?
That normally fixes them.
The establishment can't keeps its fingers off the sheep.
But there are a lot of sheep.
A good part of that establishment have very faulty theology and the ability to point out those flaws is useful.
Do I need to be more clear?

Ross is trying to sell books and book lectures. I believe he is "bashing" other ID proponents solely for the publicity. I doubt that about faith or science. It's all about the money.

About Ross. Once again, someone who should know better is making an ass of himself for religious reasons. One doesn't even have to point to the leap to the "beginner" in his argument to show how silly it is. His is an example of something I may have mentioned before: he assumes that the big bang is the beginning of the universe when all that is warranted is that the big bang is the beginning of the expansion of the local hubble volume. An astronomer should definitely know better!

"This is backwards isn't it? I thought the latest observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - hence "dark energy"."

You see, this is what really frosts those creationists' shorts about science. Scientists keep *revising their theories* when new data comes in! So, if they want to keep up, they've got to keep revising their interpretations to show how, when they used to say that the Bible said A (when that was the best-supported scientific hypothesis), now they realize it actually says not-A (which is the better-supported hypothesis now). Unfortunately, since the Bible doesn't change, this can get pretty challenging ...

Remember, this may seem laughable to many but Ross argues quite convincingly that his ideas are far more scientific than those of the Intelligent Design Creationist movement.

— PvM

While I agree that it is all about relative merits here, Ross's comments show that 1. He considers most of the Intelligent Design arguments to be scientifically vacuous 2. He is very forthcoming that Intelligent Design is all about religion.

..at one point Dr. Ross said that this universe "has the optimal physics for combating evil."

Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,"

— Hugh Ross

laughable. reminds me of Hovind's offer. I'm sure that the only thing Ross is REALLY sure of is that nobody will ever be able to prove to HIM that humans were not specially created.

— Sir_Toejam

It would appear that Dr. Ross's 'science' is only science under his own personal definition of term, much in the same way that ID is only a theory in Behe's own personal definition of that term. All I know is they're both idiots in my personal definition of the term.

I have a question....If God were, ...you know, God...Why would he have to do things in steps???

I mean, being all powerfull and such, why couldn't he just snap his noodley appendage and have it just appear?

• Intelligent Design
• Ross's Old Earth
• AIG's Young Earth

Seems to me the test is simple. Ross can either go where the evidence takes him and put his "model" through its paces via empirical investigation and peer review -- thereby running the risk of being proven wrong -- or he can take the time-honored ID/creationist tack of starting with a foregone conclusion, selectively picking out data that "support" that conclusion, ignoring/dismissing contradictory data, and pitching his ideas to the general public.

After all is said and done, nothing I've seen so far indicates that he's doing anything but the latter.

Graham Douglas wrote: "... remind anyone else of some of Vorbis's more sinister rationalisations in Small Gods?"

Are you talking about one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels titled "Small Gods" or is there another book with that title?

"... one of the finest polemics against fundamentalism that I've ever read..."

It's a polemic?
I thought it was a sci-fi/fantasy comedy. Pratchett satirises religion is that the same as a polemic?

Rana&Ross have a book "Origins of Life : Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" where they presented their "model."

The book looks superficially like a popular science work, but with many more footnotes and references than editors of popular boofs like to see.

Their first error is on the first page where they equate "evolution" with the origin of life. Their second error is on the first page also; that "Evolution" is a derivative of "naturalism."

On page 25, I was very surprised to 'learn' that "Currently, scientists are no closer to understanding life's beginning than they did when Stanley Miller conducted his first experiments fifty years ago."

But the basic intellectual dishonesty of these two men was not obvious until they claim (pg 26) that "... scientists are keeping quiet and searching for new directions in which to proceed." Further, "... at both these ISSOL events,{1999, 2002 gh} a grim mood laced with desperation prevailed."

A weird feature of the Rana&Ross book is exposed in their bibliography, if one is the sort of person who carefully reads footnotes, and knows the origin of life research. These men frequently site articles in support of their arguments in the reverse of their appearance in the scientific literature.

An example is the famous creationist book on the origin of life, "The Mystery of Life's Origin" Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, 1984 (New York: Philosophical Library) which is cited as a current work in refutation to a much later one. And, the publication date of "The Mystery ..." was not given in the footnote.

Another example is Rana&Ross citing Miller and Bada (1998) as if it were written in challenge to Rushdi and Simon (2002).

The most common distortion is simply misrepresenting what the scientific literature actually contains. The typical form is to take the framing question of a paper (eg. "A long standing problem in ...") as an admission of error, and ignore the offered solution. The classic example found in creationist writting and sermons is Darwin's comment regarding the evolution of the eye.

I read Rana&Ross when their book first came out. I made about 40 notes on errors of fact, and the errors of inference were nearly overwheming. I began writting a review several times, but the effort to stay within the standard 1,200 word limit was too difficult.

Rana, Fazale, Hugh Ross
2004 "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off." (Colorado Springs: NavPress)

I also don't believe for one instant that Ross is even capable of rejecting his faith over contradictary scientific evidence. If he were, he'd have become an atheist/agnostic years ago.

— Mike Walker

Norman Doering: I am indeed referring to the Pratchett novel. Dictionary.com defines polemic as: "A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.", and that's pretty much how I read Small Gods (well, maybe not controversial, but certainly attacking that sort of mindset).

well, based on PvM's original post, i still feel unsure as to exactly what point he wished to discuss. I'm surprised, since he IS around, that he has not popped in to at least make a comment or clarify what he wanted to discuss specifically.

whatever.

That said, I'm not so sure that Ross can't be --- or isn't already --- convinced that humans were "not specially created," as in "are biologically related to other species." What I am sure of, is that if so, he simply won't admit it.

It seems apparent that residual UFO's, in one or more ways, must be associated with the activities of demons." (pages 122-123).

The link you want is probably this one.

Hey Heddle, do you expect me to take this seriously?

Sir_Toejam,

You are correct, I did not offer an opinion. My last two opinions were mangled by PZ. I have asked the PT management to delete those two posts, but so far they have not. In my view, PT has no right assuming the high-road in regards to other sites deleting comments if they allow comments to be mangled. In fact, deleting comments is more in line with standard practice; newspapers decide not to print letters to the editor, but they never print them with all the vowels removed. Since my name is still attached to those two comments, and they no longer reflect what I intended, I have, as I mentioned, asked PT to delete them. In my opinion it is highly unprofessional to mangle someone's posting, although it generates a nice juvenile guffaw that no doubt strokes the ego of the mangler.

My only recourse is to stop offering opinion, since I don't want it mangled. Now that is obviously impotent as a threat, and may indeed be a cause for celebration, given I often get into long exchanges resulting in threads wandering off target. You can decide whether you feel good that a "troll" has been silenced or bad that PT resorts to such tactics.

What would be interesting would be to poll Creationists about which version of Creationism they believe. Given a choice between: Intelligent Design Ross's Old Earth AIG's Young Earth I suspect that AIG would win, Ross would come second, and a small minority would plump for ID. Sure the IDists would argue that the poll was invalid, since ID is a "big tent" containing both of the others, but I doubt that very many creationists really understand that concept, and even if they do, they're would not very comfortable about claiming "Designer Agnosticism".

— Mike Walker

"If you could prove there is no beginning to the universe, that would be fatal. Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective," he said.

So certain is Ross that he's right, he's willing to risk more than his theory. He's willing to stake his faith on it.

"If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ," he said.

The poor guy. Someone please introduce him to Thomas Aquinas...

:)

Heddle is given an inch, and decides to use it for a grandstanding oratory.

congrats, whatever small credibility i had given you personally has been uterlly eliminated.

I saw the posts you made that were disemvoweled. aside from the nature of their content, which was quite rank and offensive, the "argument" you presented was irrelevant and capricious.

remember that unlike dembski, it's up to each thread poster to decide what they themselves feel should be the rules of that thread. It's not hard to read your posts, even when disemvoweled, and the thread moderator made his opnion known about your posts quite clearly by doing so.

even folks who don't know your past history of posting behavior can see that.

I personally welcome any substantive content you wish to contribute wrt to Ross' model (if you think that the link you posted is in fact, representative of it), but using your freedom to post to whine about your treatment in another thread will i'm sure only encourage the moderator of this thread to do the same thing to you here.

grow up, would ya?

Russell wrote: Being, myself, an alumnus of UCD (can't say "proud" alumnus, in this context) I note that Ross joins Behe and Dembski as speakers recently honored by speaking engagements there. What I haven't been able to figure out, though, is who keeps inviting these clowns to pollute the groves of academe with their pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism?

STJ,

Give me a break, the content was not "rank and offensive," it used the word "Gestapo" (bit did not call anyone Gestapo). How many have been called on here (by name--including me) Taliban, child abuser, etc. without the comment being mangled.

The thread moderator cowardly mangled my posts rather than deleting them, effectively publishing something I didn't write, and left my name on the post. If Dembski deletes comments he doesn't like--well that is more honest and more ethical. If you had a letter to the paper published without vowels would you feel satisfied that people could still read it?

And I can't complain on that thread, or PZ will just do the same thing.

and you still commit the same error here. don't be surprised when PvM does the same thing to you here.

again, if it were me, i would have laready disemvoweled your second grandstanding post.

do you actually have anything substantive to say on topic?

if not, why don't you just go whine somewhere else?

you and Dave Scott can have fun whining together over at Dembski's blog; it seems very appropriate there.

you had a letter to the paper published without vowels would you feel satisfied that people could still read it

Ken Ham said something very similar to Hugh Ross in an interview with the BBC when he was in Belfast last March. The interviewer (William Crawley) asked Ham what was at stake if it was proved beyond doubt that evolution was true. Ham stated that all the major christian doctrines were founded in Genesis 1-11. "So if evolution were true then the whole of Christianity would collapse" asked Crawley. "Absolutely" replied Ham. I think all Christians should be alarmed when so called leaders of the evangelical church make statements like this. I wonder where the church would be now if they had staked everything on a geo-centric solar system or on a flat Earth ?

uh, i don't think heddle provided an opinion, one way or the other (for once, anyway), and he merely tried to answer the request to locate Ross' 'model' as mentioned in the press article.

so.. having said that, do folks think this is the best representation of a synthesis of Ross' model?

I also don't believe for one instant that Ross is even capable of rejecting his faith over contradictary scientific evidence. If he were, he'd have become an atheist/agnostic years ago. Mike, Are you sure that you meant to say that? Does science disprove god?

My only recourse is to stop offering opinion

I had initially intended to show up the vacuity of each of these twenty "tests", but then I thought "why bother" if nobody actually swallows this crap, anyway.

There is so much good to discuss here...

"The most ubiquitous complaint from scientists is that evolution-bashers don't have the courage to say what their model of the origin of life is. Frankly, I have to agree. All they're doing is making negative arguments," Ross said from his office in California.

Hey Heddle, do you agree with Ross about the flying saucers?

Ten years ago when I was in college I was in the youth group at Sierra Madre Congregational, where Ross works as a pastor. He spoke to about 20 of us at a weekend retreat. He was explaining why God had to kill every living creature (except insects and really small things?) during the flood. Apparently, even a dog owned by a wicked person was tainted by the wickedness and needed to be wiped from the earth. He told a modern day story of a friend who'd received a shirt from some kind of witch. The friend became bothered about having the shirt and threw it in the fire. When he did, he heard tiny little screams. I'm not making this up. The friend, and Ross, were convinced the shirt had become possessed or evil on its own and needed to be destroyed.

hahahahha
The ancient Myths are full of these stories.
It takes some real effort to decode these "symbols"
and understand them in the "subject sense"
That man need to see an Exorcist/Psychiatrist/ Priest /Pastor in that order..
Then do a course in "Understanding Myth"

Ross is a true idolater

Bah...
and understand them in the "subjective sense"

"Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Why does everyone here like that poem so much. It's very relevant, if you ask me, to the present time. I wouldn't be suprised if there is some enormous rethinking of values soon to occur ( though I doubt it's the Nietzschean-Yeats thing.)

"ID/Creationism advocates appear to believe that the Bible, a book written by nomadic goat herders living in tents, is the best scientific text available, and should take precedence over books written by 21st century scientists using modern laboratories."

Your arguement is circular, it only works if I didn't help write the bible, that's one of the things your arguement is trying to establish.

"And that's just the beginning! If you don't believe in God, then (according to Phil Johnson and the rest of the Modern Creationist Posse) you have no "basis" on which to "ground" your "morals" and no "basis" for "rational" decision-making. Why? Because (according to these brilliant philosopher/preachers) the "necessary alternative" to a purpose-filled universe is one in which "we" (meaning, everything in the universe, including the chemicals in our brains) are "meaningless" chance collisions of atoms.
"science can actually prove faith's claims"

That's similar to Alvin's evolutionary arugement against naturalism.

"Turning salvation into a question of intelligence? If you thought the idea that some people would go to hell because they were too rich or too arrogant to accept Christ was bad, how about the idea that some people go to hell because they are not smart enough to understand Ross' proof.
Too bad for our brothers and sisters with Down's syndrome, eh?"

That's a really, really good point, I might have to change my policies.