Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(300)
-
▼
March
(21)
- Jesus on Hell
- Reporting on an Evening with Atheists
- Discussion after "The God Who Wasn't There"
- "The God Who Wasn't There"
- Frank Flunked: Francis Beckwith Denied Tenure at B...
- Against Personality Stereotyping
- "I am the Slime"
- TV Turn Off Week
- Letter to the White House
- A Bad Poem About a Tough Class
- Tribute to my Father, Harold Fred Groothuis
- Revised Tribute to Harold Fred Groothuis, My Father
- Dr. Ronald Nash has died
- What is Truth?
- Over 500 Scientists Who Question Darwinism
- Bitter-sweet
- Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons...
- Poetry Reading by Constructive Curmudgeon
- Movie review of "Whatever Happened to Kerouac?"
- Groothuis ID article translated into Finnish
- New essay on the supremacy of Jesus
-
▼
March
(21)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher. My most recent of my twenty books is Beyond the Wager. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus.
3 comments:
The article is posted elsewhere on the blog. It was originally in "The Rocky Mountain News" last December, I think.
Mr. Stockwell gives the stock response of poisening the well (fallacy): only scientists can speak of scientific theories and evidence. This is also known as closing the ranks to keep out alternative voices. Moreover, I am not a "theologian," but a Christian philosopher. I have no theological degrees, but three in philosophy.
I could adduce any number of quotes that make clear that evolutionary biology will admit no explanation outside of chance and necessity. See the famous book by J. Monod of that title. This is the philosophical commitment. A very (in)famouse pronouncement was made by Richard Lewontin in "The New York Times" about a decade ago while reviewing a book by Carl Sagan. No matter how forced or strange naturalistic arguments seem, we must accept them since the alternative is theism. The commitment is to naturalism, come what may.
ID is a fledging movement, but the naturalistic establishment would like to kill it in the crib as opposed to letting it find its legs and compete in a fair manner. Even NPR ran a story a few months ago about how anti-Darwinists are persecuted by Darwinists. ID has produced a several peer-revied articles and several hundred scientists have signed a statement rejecting Darwinism. This can be found at www.discovery.org.
Mr. Stockwell is wrong: the list of scientists that question Darwinism lists their credentials.
Post a Comment