Bill Dembski gives fascinating interview, bashes fundamentalism

[River Jordan]

Anyone who's interested should read through this interview given by ID creationist Bill Dembski: Disillusion with Fundamentalism. In it, he covers some extremely interesting topics, including:

1) How he reconciles an old earth with the arrival of evil. Basically, he believes that the universe, earth, and life are all billions of years old, but when Adam and Eve sinned for the first time, it had "retroactive effects" through history. IOW, their sin not only changed the course of history that was to come, but also changed the history that had already occurred.

2) His dislike for fundamentalism, which he describes as "[holding] one particular view so dogmatically that all others may not even be discussed, or their logical consequences considered", "a harsh, wooden-headed attitude that not only involves knowing one is right, but refuses to listen to, learn from, or understand other Christians, to say nothing of outsiders to the faith", "a brain-dead, soul-stifling attitude" and having an "impulse to simple, neat, pat answers".

3) His attempt to "move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old", and how rather than persuade, it generated a huge amount of backlash from fundamentalists (including Ken Ham) who called him a "heretic" and even tried to get him fired from his teaching position at Southwestern Seminary.

4) How intolerant fundamentalists are of any academic dissent. Specifically, he cites the reaction to his writing that Noah's flood was written for a theological purpose and based on a local flood in the Middle east:

At the meeting with president, provost, dean, and senior professor, the president made it clear to me from the start that my job was on the line. “Job on the line” in this context does not mean finishing out the academic year and giving me a chance to find another academic job. My questioning the universality of Noah’s flood meant I was a heretic, or at least not suitable for teaching at Southern Baptist seminaries, and thus I’d need to be clearing my desk immediately—unless my theological soundness could be quickly reestablished.

With a severely autistic son, debts, and a family still upset about my experience at Baylor, I wasn’t about to bare my soul and tell this second star chamber (my first being Baylor’s External Review Committee) what I really thought. I therefore finessed it. You can read the statement I wrote for yourself, especially paragraph three, where I said just enough to keep my job, and just enough to give me room to recant, as I’m doing here.

If I had been feeling less vulnerable, if I had independent financial means, I would have said goodbye to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary right then and there. This is one of the things I find most destructive about fundamentalism, the constant threat that at any moment one can run afoul of the orthodoxy du jour, and be thrown under the bus because that’s the proper place for heretics.

It's amazing how for all the rhetoric about academic freedom coming from creationists, it's the creationists who are so intolerant of differing views.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So now it's ok with you to teach your own way regardless of your employer.

How many pairs of flip flops do you own?

 

[River Jordan]

So now it's ok with you to teach your own way regardless of your employer.

Funny....I don't remember saying that.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

What are you saying? Ken Ham is a bully? I've said that on here at least once. Are you saying because several universities (Baptist mostly) are against academic freedom, then they all are? The organization I'm affiliated with has many universities where the faculty is mixed old earth/young earth and we are considered far more fundamental than Baylor.

Ham and others throw around the heretic title like changing their socks. It's ridiculous. It's because they are scared. The same reason why you dislike Expelled so much. It just hits too close to home. In matters of science, history, Genesis, etc. we should have a vast array of academic freedom. In matters of doctrine, (virgin birth, resurrection, deity of Christ, repentance,) we need to be somewhat more particular in my opinion.

 

[River Jordan]

What are you saying? Ken Ham is a bully?

Looks more like that's what Bill Dembski is saying.

Are you saying because several universities (Baptist mostly) are against academic freedom, then they all are?

Nope, never said anything like that at all.

The organization I'm affiliated with has many universities where the faculty is mixed old earth/young earth and we are considered far more fundamental than Baylor.

Ok.

Ham and others throw around the heretic title like changing their socks. It's ridiculous. It's because they are scared.

I'm sure that's part of what motivates all young-earth creationists in much of what they do. If their faith is significantly dependent on a very specific reading of Genesis, they should be scared.

The same reason why you dislike Expelled so much. It just hits too close to home.

No, it's because it's so dishonest. If they really had a legitimate case they wouldn't need to be so deceptive.

In matters of science, history, Genesis, etc. we should have a vast array of academic freedom. In matters of doctrine, (virgin birth, resurrection, deity of Christ, repentance,) we need to be somewhat more particular in my opinion.

Ok.

 

[shnarkle]

Anyone who's interested should read through this interview given by ID creationist Bill Dembski: Disillusion with Fundamentalism. In it, he covers some extremely interesting topics, including:

1) How he reconciles an old earth with the arrival of evil. Basically, he believes that the universe, earth, and life are all billions of years old, but when Adam and Eve sinned for the first time, it had "retroactive effects" through history. IOW, their sin not only changed the course of history that was to come, but also changed the history that had already occurred.

2) His dislike for fundamentalism, which he describes as "[holding] one particular view so dogmatically that all others may not even be discussed, or their logical consequences considered", "a harsh, wooden-headed attitude that not only involves knowing one is right, but refuses to listen to, learn from, or understand other Christians, to say nothing of outsiders to the faith", "a brain-dead, soul-stifling attitude" and having an "impulse to simple, neat, pat answers".

3) His attempt to "move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old", and how rather than persuade, it generated a huge amount of backlash from fundamentalists (including Ken Ham) who called him a "heretic" and even tried to get him fired from his teaching position at Southwestern Seminary.

4) How intolerant fundamentalists are of any academic dissent. Specifically, he cites the reaction to his writing that Noah's flood was written for a theological purpose and based on a local flood in the Middle east:




It's amazing how for all the rhetoric about academic freedom coming from creationists, it's the creationists who are so intolerant of differing views.

The views of fundamental creationist are effectively no different than that of the scientific seminaries with their fundamental perspectives that allow for no other discussion other than the authorized version of the universe, evolution etc. The evolutionary pot thinks that it is the only one that can see how black the creationist kettle really is. If only Science could just for once turn their microscopes from the speck in the creationist's eye, and take a good hard look at the I-beam in their own.