Reflectorites
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:56:26 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>Further, since you don't even try to persuade people that your version
>might be true, the dogmatic, theistic-creationist ID folks, like Phillip
>Johnson and Stephen Jones,
Webster's dictionary defines "dogmatic" as:
"1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism"
(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogmatic
and "dogmatism" as:
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
arrogant 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently
examined premises".
(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogmatism)
Now leaving aside Chris' personal judgment on whether Johnson and I are
"arrogant", both Johnson and I are quite prepared to provide reasons that
warrant out opinions and we are both have "examined" and are prepared to
examine any time our "premises".
Moreover we do this in good humour and with patience. We do not need
to call those who disagree with us "idiots" as Chris regularly does.
Here is a test of "dogmatism". I have in the past stated that I am prepared
to admit that I could be completely wrong about theism, Christianity, ID
and/or creationism and that atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
evolution could be completely right.
I have invited Chris and other atheists to similarly state publicly that they
could be completely wrong about atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
evolution and that theism, Christianity, ID and/or creationism could be
completely right.
To date, AFAIK, no atheist has been willing to admit this. Until they can
bring themselves to examine openly their fundamental premises underlying
their atheistic "viewpoint or system of ideas" then their position would
come under the above definition of "dogmatism: ... 2 : a viewpoint or
system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises".
CC>ill continue to dominate the "movement" for a
>long time, because *they* are the ones who create or diligently recycle
>both new propaganda and much of the old creationist propaganda. They
>are "Old Earth Creationists," so any of the old arguments that do not
>depend on glossing over the Grand Canyon's age and such are still usable on
>the same unknowledgeable and intellectually too-casual people. They *do*
>use these same arguments, precisely because they *are* creationists, of a
>slightly modified sort.
>
>Perhaps you didn't notice.
It is *Chris* who still doesn't "notice" the fallacy behind his argument that
one cannot be an "Old Earth Creationist" (or a young-Earth one for that
matter), and put aside those arguments based on the Bible to argue for
design based only on *nature*.
There are plenty of people like Berthajane who believe there is design in
nature without believing that there is a designer or that the designer is the
Christian God.
Gallup polls consistently reveal that about 85% of the *public* (not
Christians) believe in either direct creation or God-guided evolution. Less
than 10% believe in atheistic evolution.
Atheists like Chris have been able to exploit by a `divide-and-conquer'
strategy (no conspiracy is implied or needed) the divisions among this
majority over who the Creator is and how He worked. This has enabled the
more cohesive 10% to gain control of the government, law, science and the
media to have their view prevail over the 80% who at least would all agree
that there is evidence of real design in nature.
The ID movement's counter-strategy is to unpack the separate questions:
1) is there empirically detectable evidence for intelligent design in nature?
and 2) who is the designer?
Those IDers who are "creationists" are not being dishonest in this. It is
perfectly possible to have a "creationist" position that is based primarily on:
1) nature alone (I had this before I was a Christian); 2) Scripture alone
(many [if not most] Christians would hold this); and 3) nature and
Scripture mutually supporting each other (which is my position and I
presume Johnson's).
Agnostics like Berthajane would be relatively close to, if not identical with,
position 1) above. In fact when I was convinced by the evidence of design
in the universe and ceased being an atheist, I was a type of "agnostic-theist-
creationist". That is I believed that there was a God who created the
universe but I had no idea how one could ever know anything more about
Him.
Chris' atheist strategy would try to maintain that 1) and 3) don't really exist
and it is all 2).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 18:19:43 EDT