HARRISBURG, Pa. - A high school biology teacher testified Thursday that she and her colleagues refused to read a statement on "intelligent design" in class because they questioned the concept's scientific validity.
In a landmark trial over the Dover Area School Board's decision to include reference to intelligent design in its biology curriculum, teacher Jennifer Miller testified she didn't see the concept as a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.
"It would misrepresent the importance of the theory of evolution to our students," said Miller, one of a group of teachers who presented a memo to the district asking to be excused from reading the statement on intelligent design....
Jim Lincoln wrote: The evolution News and Views site gives a variety of arguments. How effective John Ankerberg has been over the years in trying to argue logically for Christianity may be up for debate, but I still think it's good that he made a stab at it. I welcome the people who try to make a rational stand for intelligent design. Some at least of the IDers in the beginning were not Christian even.
Well Jim, I didn't read the article, but I will make a comment regarding Ankerberg. Ankerberg believes and teaches what is called an Old Earth Creation. He believes life and death happened for billions of years prior Adam and Eve and the fall in the Garden. His idea of intelligent design is simply theistic evolution dressed up so Christians won't be thought of as ignorant.
And to make matters worse, his group twists scripture to coincide with so-called scientific findings.
1 Corinthians 1:27-31 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord. ---ESV
Neil, I take the above as a given. All Christians are IDers, but certainly not all IDers are Christian
I don't think the teacher in the article had a leg to stand on, and at least the IDers have that. So she shouldn't have rejected every IDer support, though I assume she's an atheist and that is the reason she rejects Intelligent Design, because it's against her religion.ðŸ‘Ž
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I would hope the following lecture would satisfy you?
You're changing the subject from ID to general apologetics. The Pascal quote implies natural "evidences" go nowhere with unbelievers, which I say too. Christians look at the stars and praise God, while unbelievers look at the stars and think, like Carl Sagan, "Wow! All that from nothing, billions of years ago." Same evidence, different beliefs depending upon presuppositions. Neither can be substantiated from science, which has nothing true to report.
Neil, I would hope the following lecture would satisfy you?
Blaise Pascal wrote: .... Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition....
excerpt from: "The Evidence for Christianity"
[ https://tinyurl.com/ya86792n ]
Wow, the things i can find when i'm looking for something else! I was looking around for a John Ankerberg comment and found this one which included blaise pascal's comment. by Professor William Lane Craig.
While the transcript is quite good, you can listen to the entire lecture with a question and answer section in it besides which no doubt contains a lot more material.
Jim Lincoln wrote: But, this a secular world, and at times a secular argument is something we are forced to use
I risk talking over your head here, but it's foolish to use an argument that was refuted centuries ago (see Hume). An informed opponent will make you look like an idiot. Do you want to risk that?
And appeals to empirical evidence (as most scientists use) are fallacious, whether they are for or against Creation. All scientists can offer are speculative models of how nature works, which can never be certain. This is why it keeps changing.
Here is a series of more recent articles on intelligent design.
Now, these articles can be of varying quality, and more or less of use to the Christian. A Christian needs no arguments for Intelligent Design, it is a given for us--
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasnâ€™t overcome it.
But, this a secular world, and at times a secular argument is something we are forced to use
Jim wrote: I understand the following books are good on this idea. (Locke, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution", A Review of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" & Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box").
While his book is a good read, it reflects his Catholic upbringing in attempting to argue for a Christian belief by appealing to Nature, not Scripture, which was Aquinas's approach. It's another variant of the Teleological Argument: this or that is complex, therefore there must be a god who created it.
Problem is, even if true, it doesn't logically follow that it's the God of the Bible. Avoid bad arguments for good things. We know something because the Bible Told Us So, not because of debatable empirical evidence.
John L I am a little confused by your message. You say that...
"The theory of evolution is that man orginated in the slim and evolved into human beings. If you believe this, than there is no God and you are accountable for your own actions. Another words, you become your own god. "
At this point I believe you are accurate, but then you end you letter with this...
"Humans are the only animal ashamed of their nakedness, but evolutionists become "as gods, knowing good and evil".
Here you are saying that a human is in fact an animal.
Naturalism only came to predominate in the Sciences post-Darwin. Most Christians were rather content with this, as they were concerned only with the "spirtual" and not the "physical" which is the same problem we see today in liberal Christian circles--where Christianity is a a "private" belief which should be expressed in the "public" domain.
It is rather interestng that in general Science is the pursuit of truth, yet most practioners completely ignore God. Theology was once considered the Queen of the Sciences!
Chris, I don't know if Naturalists suddenly took away any definition to science, says the rules the science, do exclude the supernatural from the very beginning. However, scientists have pointed out that the Darwinist's position is seriously flawed. Scientists, many of them, should start realizing by now the human mind is not capable of understanding everything -- even if there was no "supernatural" inventor of the universe. Personally, I would think you would even be logical to assume there is a God, but then I'm a Christian -- so I am biased also.
I understand the following books are good on this idea.
(Locke, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution", A Review of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" & Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box").
The problem is that Christians have allowed Natrualists to define Science. So by the current definition of Science any theory that involves God is automatically impossible. The intelligent design movement not only critisizes the Science of Evolution, but the inherant Natrualism in most of Science.