Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Of Sheep and Clothing
Oh! Lookie here:
A founder of an intelligent design movement warns parents that as their sons and daughters head off to college, they may be in danger of undergoing a "faith-ectomy" within the first couple of years of alleged "higher learning."Alleged higher learning? And Christianity is a "fragile worldview"? My, my ... who knew?
According to the Discovery Institute's Dr. Stephen Meyer, when Christian students enter college, a majority of them are in danger of losing their faith, as their fragile worldview and Christian upbringing are seriously challenged.
As always, it is the theistic evolutionists who are the real danger as far as creationists are concerned:
[Meyer] laments that students entering Christian colleges and universities are not necessarily immune.So, what is the solution?
"It can be very disorienting if you have biologists who are Christians but Darwinists, or psychologists who are Christians but behaviorists who think that all human behavior is determined by genes and environment," Dr. Meyer notes.
Dr. Meyer has helped develop the TrueU series -- worldview training sessions that can help prepare those students who will soon be entering college, as well as those who have already enrolled.What might TrueU be?
Many Christians are failing to keep their faith after they begin college or enter the workforce. Focus on the Family's TrueU curriculum offers an introduction to apologetics (a defense of belief in God) that aims to help reverse this trend.Say it ain't so! A founder of the science of ID (that "intelligent design movement" is surely just a typo), engaged in apologetics and a defense of belief in God with, of all groups, Focus on the Family? No way!
Well ... way. Under a section entitled "Does God Exist?" we find "Biology: Is There Evidence for Intelligently Designed Life?" by ... wait for it ... Dr. Stephen Meyer! And what does it hold? Well, we can look to the "Leader's Guide to TrueU Lesson 5: DNA by Design, Part 1—Biological Information" for starters:
How does this lesson strengthen the argument for the intelligent design of life (and by implication, God's existence)? Why do you think many people seem determined to explain life's origin without reference to the kind of intelligent designer whom theists worship, namely a God who interacts in special ways with humans?And again:
Review the evidence that points to theism as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life.And:
How are tiny bacterial rotary engines and many other molecular devices found in living cells best described as "functionally integrated high tech systems"? How does this evidence, alongside the scientific discoveries discussed earlier, call for a highly reasonable "return of the God hypothesis" in our time—echoing, with amplification, the confident voices of early modern scientists who believed in God?But my personal favorite is this:
A further irony here is that design theorists, as scientists, only infer the operation of intelligence, not the identity of the designing intelligence. Many design theorists go further than this, but only by using additional fields of knowledge beyond science, such as human history (e.g., evidence for Jesus' resurrection). Methodological naturalism artificially limits a scientist's ability to find the truth about origins.Um ... the "historical" evidence for Jesus' resurrection is a scientific reason to propose a God hypothesis?
And, of course, ID has nothing at all to do with religion!
How about using additional fields of knowledge beyond science, such as human movies (e.g., evidence for Neo's resurrection)?
This could be fun. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Anakin Skywalker all showed up after dying in Return of the Jedi. The Force must be scientifically true!
It even rewrites history. In the digitally remastered version of Return of the Jedi the Padewan Learner version of Anakin from the prequels was airbrushed into that scene. It's almost as much of a sacrilege as revising some religious text to accommodate revelations about the past.
Perhaps he means something like this: Is the Bible Reliable?
The next two paragraphs are cross-posted from PT:
Note especially the beginning, where he says “The worldview of scientific naturalism has not only affected our view of of [sic] nature, it’s also affected our view of theology and the Bible.” It’s a promo for “Is the Bible reliable?”
Yes, treating the Bible like it arose “naturally” is every bit as evil as understanding life as “natural.” As if they could ever do anything but attack all honest scholarship, along with science. Their intentions are extremely obvious, only slightly muffled before secular audiences, not at all in front of Xian audiences. Btw, this course seems to be nothing but finding later parts of the Bible that accord fairly well with history, ergo the Bible is true. Never mind where it fails historically, let alone scientifically…
Yes, you can't hold Meyer to a course he made a couple of years ago. He's moved on, to attacking the "naturalism" in honest philology and archaeology. Indeed, science is just plain evil.