Discovery Institute Demands that Ball State University Investigate Class for Teaching that "Science Must Destroy Religion"
Discovery Institute, the nation's leading intelligent design think tank, is demanding that Indiana's Ball State University (BSU) investigate one of its honors seminars for promoting atheism and bashing intelligent design. The demand follows the decision by BSU President Jo Ann Gora to ban all faculty from endorsing intelligent design in their classes, and to ban science faculty from even raising the topic.
"If Ball State is going to ban faculty speech favoring intelligent design by claiming that it would violate the separation of church and state, then it must apply the same ban to faculty speech that promotes atheism or attacks intelligent design in the classroom," said Dr. John West, Vice President of Discovery Institute.
Discovery Institute is asking BSU to investigate its honors seminar "Dangerous Ideas." The sole textbook used in the course is an anthology edited by a prominent atheist in...
did not Christ live a perfect life in human form? did he not die on the cross, sacrificing his body, shedding his blood for us?
they are interchangeable at times but not synonymous. greed, for instance, begins in the heart -- not the physical heart, the soul.... that is the flesh.
the body is meant to be used in ways that honor God. that is.... being the temple of the Holy Spirit. do you think the Holy Spirit indwells the evil body or the submitted redeemed sanctified person? is there a war, as Paul talks about within him between the flesh and the spirit.... the body will convey which it is that wins..... if the flesh towards debauchery, if the spirit, towards love and service of others.
1 Corinthians 1 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God.---[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
Mike wrote: What I'd like to know is why shouldn't they infer it's the God of Scripture? For them to infer it could be some other deity, would they not have to assume there are other gods?
Yes, while also denying the God of Scripture. For it could be some other monotheistic deity, like Allah, or the Deists' god, who created the universe then went "offline," or even a polytheistic one like the Demiurge, who was supposed to have created the cosmos in Platonic philosophy, leaving other roles to other gods. There is no rational basis for excluding all these as possible creators in favor of YHWH merely on the grounds of empirical natural data, which was Paley's error. The Tetragrammaton isn't written on it, you know.
So Psalm 19 is not a license to formulate horribly complicated proofs of God's existence or enlist astronomers to aid theologians. That is a waste of time; we already know He exists because we were created that way. People deny God because they're fools, not because they're ignorant Blank Slates.
oar wrote: Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. 19 Now the works of the flesh 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,)
Oar, flesh does not equal body. the body can be honoring to God. we were created in His image, although fallen, our bodies can be used for honor or dishonor. even my neighbor's dog can tell the difference between man and a woman.
Plato believed the spirit was good and the flesh was bad. Many Greeks went to extremes, feeding the flesh with debauchery, figuring they would shed it at the end of life, or going the other way and trying to beat it into submission by withholding needs, or marriage, etc.
Christians believe that Christ came to redeem all things (and to judge all things) To abuse our bodies, our land, each other's bodies is a hatred of God's Provision. Would a wife not cook a meal that brings nourishment for her husband? Is this not spiritual work to do so?
Natural should not be a dirty to us postmodernists. despite the industrial revolution, we did come from the dust of the earth, an apple fits right into the hand, it was made that way, for us.
Neil, you asked how does Creation tell us that God exists, and also asked why should men infer it's the God of Scripture and not some other deity. What I'd like to know is why shouldn't they infer it's the God of Scripture? For them to infer it could be some other deity, would they not have to assume there are other gods?
Martin, when God makes unconditional promises, He actually does tie His hands. Since He made no such promises regarding the "regularity" of Creation (whatever that means), I see no reason to speculate about what He *can* do. So analogies about human traffic laws tell me nothing.
But this occurred to me: even if I grant your loose sense of "regular," the occurrence of comets, natural disasters, crop failures, droughts, diseases, etc., all suggest that nature ain't so regular. Fallen men often infer from these that God, or rather gods, are capricious. It is not an apologetic problem however, for such irregularities are consistent with the Fall of Man. God didn't Promise Us a Rose Garden.
BTW, according to researchers, c isn't constant, so it's a bad example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light Some Creationists even argue it has decayed over time, which I don't think is worth debating because it, like Big Bang cosmology, depends on subjective interpretations of data.
Mike, I don't understand your question, please rephrase. Perhaps you have too many negatives.
God can establish a certain "law" (a designated pattern of behavior, conduct, motion, operation that created objects follow generally) without having His hands tied from setting aside that law at will. We can like this to traffic laws. The highway department places traffic signs that establish a designated pattern for the flow of traffic (laws), but a traffic cop can set aside that pattern at will in order to direct traffic to flow contrary to what the signs say. That's what I mean by 'law'-- a regular pattern of motion, etc., to which created objects generally conform in their ordinary operation. Such laws are descriptive, however, not prescriptive apart from God, who is free to set them aside at His pleasure whenever He chooses to do so. I have no problem with the terms law in this 'descriptive' sense. If you don't like that term, however, I won't argue with you over an issue of semantics. We both agree that God establishes regular patterns in the natural world that created objects generally follow-- for example, a beam of light generally travels at the same speed, but God can set aside that pattern at will. The existence of regularities makes the universe a livable place and bears witness to the wisdom of God. But natural 'laws' are subject to God's sovereign will.
You put your finger on it: If it's really a law, God would not violate it to perform miracles (e.g. Law of Buoyancy vs. Jesus walking on water), or else He is changeable, contrary to special revelation as you said. But if it's not a law, then calling it a "regularity" or "general rule" is merely a linguistic evasion, except in a very colloquial sense. For I must ask, how many exceptions must there be before a rule collapses? You create an interminable numbers game.
Denying natural laws follows from the logical fallacies inherent in empirical science, while fully allowing for Biblical miracles. Just because God is rational & we are (sometimes) rational, does not imply the universe fits our conceptions derived from our faulty, limited senses coupled with malfunctioning minds (due to Original Sin). The only problem is, it's a hard pill for modern minds to swallow.
Job 38 has a few things to say about man's knowledge of nature.
By order, I mean evidence of design, purpose, rationality in the natural world, and that obviously includes "regularities" in nature that make it possible for us to function in the world, to develop technologies, etc. I know that if I want to go through a door, I have to turn the doorknob and push or pull. Unless the door is locked or stuck, it will open, as a general rule. Our experience of the world around us leads us to expect future regularity corresponding to past regularity. These regularities are often called laws, and I have no trouble with the concept of natural law, if we understand that term in the Christian sense of being descriptive, not prescriptive-- as describing what DOES occur in our experience, not what MUST occur because miracles are deemed impossible. Deists believe even God Himself cannot set aside so-called 'natural law" because they view the universe as a 'closed,' not an 'open' system. I believe the regularities we experience are evidence of a rational ordered mind behind the universe, but they are not evidence that the universe is 'closed' to God's miraculous activity, (which is what the Deist believes, and the secularist who embraces materialistic naturalism.) They have no warrant to regard natural laws as immutable. Only God is immutable.
Neil Wrote: "...And how does Creation tell us that God exists? And why should men infer it's the God of Scripture, & not some other deity?"
Man, you guys blow me away. I enjoy this kind of topic and comprehend the the more technical sides of science pretty well, and can discuss the issues, but not in the intellectual manner that you guys do. You make me sound like an idiot with one of those little helicopter hats.
Martin, I point out that Aristotelian Natural Law is Catholic to put us on guard, for that is how they sideline Sola Scriptura almost entirely. Is Scripture really sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16), or must we put Nature on an equal footing so we can intellectually strong-arm the skeptics? Now I don't know what Luther & Calvin meant by "natural law," but the science you use (admittedly or not) is not likely science as they understood it; in their day, the Humoral Theory, Geocentrism (Luther & Calvin denied Heliocentrism), the Great Chain of Being, & even astrology were popular among educated people. Unless you believe that stuff too, you can't claim they're your fellows in Natural Law, for it meant something very different then.
Please read my posts; I originally asked about a blind AND DEAF man. And what do birds singing really tell me? That's romantic nonsense; music has no propositional content w/o words.
But you're not answering my charge that you're trying to have it both ways: Do you admit that by order you mean natural laws? That was my original definition which you vehemently denied, then tacitly used.
jpw wrote: Here's some natural law. Homosexuals work against the nature of their own bodies.
Is 'sin' - *work* against the nature of the body(flesh)?
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
jpw wrote: --- Or when scientists start to take human DNA, alter it, and patent it, as they are doing, will they then be able to make test tube babies, with no mom or dad, and will they then be a slave class to be used for anything? This goes against natural law and is an abomination. ---
Sure is, and if humans were mere physical beings, instead of spirit beings in a physical body, needing God to make it so, perhaps scientists dabbling in DNA could make test tube babies.
Homosexuals work against the nature of their own bodies.
And creating genetically modified seed with a suicide gene or gay gene so that it cannot reproduce, forcing a farmer to have to rebuy seed every year at high cost goes against the natural order.
because God created all things to reproduce after their kind.
Or when scientists start to take human DNA, alter it, and patent it, as they are doing, will they then be able to make test tube babies, with no mom or dad, and will they then be a slave class to be used for anything?
This goes against natural law and is an abomination.
Or what of injecting heavy metals directly into the blood and thinking this will give some kind of health benefit?
Is the blood not sacred and meant to be left clean?
And when we break these natural laws, are we not rebelling against God Himself, has He set an order to the Universe of some kind, are we not made male and female (even though we see abnormalities at times)?
The Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther believed in natural law, which they equated with creational law. The fact Roman Catholics affirm the concept of natural law does not in itself make that concept unbiblical; by that standard, we would have to declare the doctrine of the Trinity or the virgin birth unbiblical, for they affirm those doctrines. There is nothing in Psalm 19 to say the heavens declare the glory of God only to the saved; the declarative power of the heavens is by no means limited only to the saved, but to the unsaved as well, as the context makes clear. Moreover, I never said "a man blind from birth cannot know God and is thus not accountable to him." That is putting words in my mouth. I said that a blind man cannot see the heavens and thus the testimony of the heavens does not reach him. But the heavens are not the only feature of creation that bears witness to the existence and glory of God. A blind man has other senses through which the testimony of creation to God's existence reaches him-- the sense of hearing, by which the sound of music or bird song can reach his ears-- as well as his own intelligence and conscience and mere existence, which are all in themselves an infallible, irrefutable testimony to the man of God's existence.
Tou have no exegetical evidence that "the things that are made" are necessarily visual. And the Psalm says nothing about the heavens' apologetic value in proving God's existence; they may only declare His glory to the saved. But at least you admit that a man blind from birth cannot know God & thus be accountable to Him.
Your claim that the atmosphere has the "exact quantity of components" to sustain life is based upon what? I surmise, the Atomic Theory & biological respiration, yet you earlier rejected my definition of order as such Laws of Nature. Likewise, you claim to know the distance from the Sun, another item straight out of secular scientific theories & measurement. So you're trying to have it BOTH WAYS. And men must learn these subjects before they can appreciate God's attributes, apparently.
And it does not logically follow that the ONLY purpose of sex organs is for reproduction, just because it's one thing they do. There could be other purposes as well. This is extrabiblical Natural Law thinking right out of Roman Catholicism.
Actually, Paul says that "God's invisible attributes are clearly SEEN, being understand through the things that are made. . ." The "things that are made" include such things as the visible heavens, according to Psalm 19. "The heavens declare the glory of God. . ." To a blind man, the heavens declare nothing, because he cannot see them. But to someone who has eyes and who sees the heavens, they do declare God's glory. How? By "showing" God's handiwork through the sense of sight. You cannot look at the heavens and not realize that they were made by a God of glory. The atmosphere does exhibit order, in fact, insofar as it contains the exact quantity of components to sustain life on our planet, in connection with other 'fine-tuned' features of the earth-- such its distance from the sun. All these features exhibit order-- and I stand by my claim that the two dictionary definitions of 'order' I gave are objective, clear, and easy to understand. How God reveals His moral standards to men through creation is not explained in Scripture, but it isn't hard to see how people through the light of reason and conscience would simply "know" that God's purpose for sex is heterosexual, simply by observing the self-evident design of the reproductive organs.