JPH's Skeptic Tanking!

Scoping on JP Holding's cite today, and thought I might take his online quiz for Skeptics. This should be a tough one, since its actually meant for mentally retarded Skeptics:

Being that many Skeptical sites seem fond of obnoxious "questionnaires" for believers, we decided that it was high time to do one of our own. Nearly all of the "bogus" answers (that are not obviously for entertainment purposes only) represent the sort that I have seen come from a variety of Skeptics of varying levels, ranging from the Acharya S crowd to C. Dennis McKinsey to Dan Barker. For extra challenge try to figure out which camp each answer came from. I've also added links to essays (where applicable) that expound on the correct answers, in case you want to learn more, or in case any enterprising Skeptic thinks he has the ability to write a refutation. Have fun and grade yourself at the end.

You walk into the home of a friend in the Ancient Near East. He says, "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." What do you do?
Burn down his house and kill his children, just like the man says.
Call the police and the mental hospital to pick up this obviously sick man.
Run screaming from the house.
Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home." Eh but of course :).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to know something about the social world of the New Testament. Who should you ask?
No one, because you don't plan on listening to what anyone has to say anyway.
Farrell Till Oh, lets just go straight to the Infidels! Real bright.:~)
One of your Skeptical friends who once attended a speech by Marcus Borg, and even helped set up his sound equipment
Bruce Malina or Richard Rohrbaugh Yeah, I think this is the right one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is evidence that the pagan deity Mithra was thought to have been crucified and resurrected, but the evidence dates around 400 AD. What does this mean?
Obviously, Mithra was an influence on the story of Jesus, and the Christians destroyed or tampered with all the evidence showing this.
You have to find a liberal professor of history who will date the evidence earlier. i.e. my History Professor Dr. Sellars (firm supporter of Israel Finkelstein and Bart "Erdman") :)
Christians must have been actually followers of Mithra at one time.
Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, if anything. Peter Kirby almost got this one right :).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 14:26 has Jesus saying we should hate our family. What is the meaning of this?
That's obvious. We're supposed to hate our family. Any other interpretation is an excuse for what the text plainly says. Maybe if I was a Muslim.
We're supposed to hate our family, but love God. That's kind of masochistic.
It's God's 'freebie' because it is the only commandment that I can keep.
It's extremist language typical of ancient writers like Poimanes, who said: "If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself." In other words, it's hyperbole. YUPPERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did God order the Amalekites exterminated?
Because if left to exist, the Amalekites would later provide scientists with genetic evidence of the 'missing link.' AHHHHH an Emo Evo would love this answer :).
Because Israel wanted their land (called "Amalekiteland"). "God" was just a sick excuse to take it. If I had a mental disorder, I'd chose this one.
Because God is a vengeful and spiteful idiot.
Because the Amalekites were ruthless warriors and had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What sort of religious practices did the Canaanites engage in for hundreds of years?
They didn't need to practice because they were already good enough.
It doesn't matter. Their religion was as good as anyone else's. (DERRR!)
They went to church, right? Ignorance exposed.
Orgiastic rites, incest, bestiality, and child sacrifices. yeah, all that bad stuff. Steve Angel (Super Scholar) of course taught my Young Adult group this one (well-equipped).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 2:15 cites Jesus fulfilling a verse in Hosea in his trip to Egypt. But Hosea was talking about Israel. What's up?
Hosea mistakenly called Israel God's son when he really should have said God's daughter Israel. Right, or his far off relative Israel Finkelstein. Of course.
Matthew obviously used the text dishonestly. Who could ever trust a tax collector anyways right?
Matthew was using Hosea carelessly.
Matthew was using a typical Jewish exegetical procedure. Ya think ;).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Gen. 30-31, what was the actual cause of Jacob's goats being striped or spotted?
Oil paint.
Sympathetic magic. (the liberal cure for everything, right? Life is but a dream.)
Stock market trends.
Direct divine intervention as a means of countering Laban's trickery against Jacob.
Thats the one :).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The OT law has a rule about having barriers around your roof. Why?
It was to prevent injury to would-be, sue-happy robbers.
Because it's just some stupid rule they thought up.
It was to make money for the priests, who had a roofing business on the side.
It was because ancient people went out on their roof for work and recreation; the barrier was like a balcony railing. right again :).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Matt. 6:19-34 Jesus talks about not storing up treasures on earth. This means:
Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist. (Ya hear that Dr. Sellars?)
Jesus irresponsibly encouraged us not to save for our retirement.
Benny Hinn is in big trouble.
Jesus was giving his contemporaries the same advice as other sages of the time, which was the only sensible alternative in an era prior to mutual funds and safe deposit boxes, and when the average lifespan was 35. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think of Luke 6:29-30? ("Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.")
I think it means I'm gonna find me a Christian and take all his money.
I think it's a little unreasonable.
I think passages like this make Benny Hinn very joyful.
I think it makes sense in a time when there were no police to administer justice for the average person and the only recourse would have initiated a cycle of violence. sure why not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lev. 11:19 says that the bat is a bird. This means:
The Bible is clearly in error. A bat is a mammal. Go on Panda's Thumb!
Bats are actually birds, or secretly want to be.
Jesus didn't exist. ( DR. SELLARS AGAIN!)
Translators have unwittingly anachronized by imposing a category of distinction upon the text that didn't exist at the time. There we go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was a primary source for language and concepts describing the doctrine of the Trinity?
Pagan religions.
Overactive imaginations. (Or the Greeks did it, right Dr. S?)
The Nicene Creed.
Pre-NT Jewish Wisdom traditions. Yes again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1999, a Biblical scholar wrote a paper for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal of Biblical studies in which he argued for a new and better understanding of a certain Hebrew word. How should we react?
Ignore it, because it is obviously impossible that anyone could have new linguistic insights into an ancient language. (oh....wow, and we can't know the object in itself right?)
Ignore it, because the 1611 KJV says what the word means, and that's good enough for me.
Check to see if the author teaches at a fundamentalist Bible college. Yeah thats relevant
Attempt to find contrary evidence if we can. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does Proverbs 26:4-5 tell us?
The writer was suffering from bipolar disorder (Or maybe he had Anti-Social Disorder like I did, right Dr. Sellars? Any Christian has to have!)
The writer was a mean-spirited person who called people fools
Proverbs was written by at least three sources: the Mind Your Own Business source, the Loud and Obnoxious source, and a later redactor, all dating to at least to after the Council at Carthage.
The passage is describing a dilemma, not two absolutes. Yes again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Bible, how big are stars?
It depends on the size of their egos.
About 2 foot by 4 foot.
They're tiny objects that could easily fall onto the ground of Earth.
Some of them are tiny objects that could fall to Earth, because the ancients also used the word for "stars" to refer to meteorites, but the Bible doesn't offer a detailed cosmology otherwise that shows it to be in error (though it does use non-literal, poetic imagery and language at times). Yes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Bible, when was Jesus born?
He wasn't. He didn't exist. (I'm just hearing those bells ringing again Dr. S).
0 A. D.
6 or 7 A. D.
8-4 B. C. (Of course, Josephus wouldn't steer us wrong now would he?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Gospel says that Heli was Joseph's father. The other says Jacob. What's the deal?
Obviously, these people can't keep simple facts straight.
It's like one of those "Heather has Two Mommies" things.
His Dad's name was "Jacob Heli Smith."
They are from different sides of the family and both are legimately used in accord with the proper ancient use of genealogies and other relevant social factors. yup

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You find a Hebrew manuscript showing a discrepancy in the number of horse stalls Solomon had between the Kings and Chronicles accounts. The obvious conclusion is:
Christianity has been thoroughly refuted. In fact, Jesus did not exist. (Dr. Sellout rises again)
This only proves Solomon did not exist.
This proves writers were beefing up Solomon's accomplishments, since having so many horse stalls shows what a great king he was and they were trying to make him look better by adding a zero.
There was a minor scribal error, in which the evidence suggests an extra zero was added. This does not affect critical doctrines. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What shape is the Earth, according to the Bible?
Flat as a pancake. Hey Glenny boy! (Glenn Morton of course). Wasn't that Earth flat in Zion Illinois too?
Square as Farrell Till.
Hexagonal as the Pentagon.
The Bible's language is equivocal and non-specific about such things, as we would expect. yup. it wasn't a Science textbook, geeez!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hypothetical group of self-styled scholars forms a seminar of sorts and, beginning with the assumption that Jesus could not have said anything eschatological in nature, uses colored beads to sift through the gospels and declare which passages are probably not the actual words of Jesus. In the end, they are left with a thoroughly non-eschatological Jesus. They are:
Gods whose word is not to be doubted under any circumstances. (Dr. Sell"out"'s friends!)
Brilliant, mainstream scholars who dispassionately and objectively glean the truth of the Bible. (Kelli, help me out with this one would ya?!)
A brave, minority voice for rational tolerance in our modern era, making contributions to the quest of finding the historical Jesus.
Probably still in kindergarten. yes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Bible, how are we saved?
In little plastic baggies.
Faith alone. (Right, its all in our hearts).
Works. Yeah if I was a Jehovah's Witness.
A real faith that produces works, expressed in line with the Semitic Totality Concept. Hmmm, right on (I need to go back and review that one JP).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christmas celebrations include trees. Which of the following is true?
Jesus was crucified on a Christmas tree, just like Odin and Krishna.
Christmas is a thoroughly pagan holiday, proving that Christianity copied all of its ideas from a pagan religion. DERRRRRRRREEEEE!
Jeremiah prophesied about the use of the trees, proving it was written long after Constantine. Are you sure Constantine didn't issue the writing of this extra canonical writing as well?
This is completely irrelevant to any discussion of Christian beliefs. of course. Where do we care about Christmas trees anyways?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enuma Elish provides a creation account of Apsu and Tiamat giving birth to Anshar and Kishar, who bears Anu, who bears Ea, but Ea kills Apsu, Marduk is born, Tiamat takes Kingu as husband, Ea loses to Tiamat, as does Anu, and Marduk cuts Tiamat's body in half, forming the sky and earth. Which of the following is true?
Obviously, the entire Genesis account is copied from it.
In fact, the name Marduk spelled sideways in some ancient language is Yahweh.
Indeed, there is no way anyone could have written a creation story without copying it from somewhere.
Genesis is nothing like this story and may have even been written to counter the false notions of its contemporary pagan creation myths. I would hope so!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hume noted that a savage who had never seen ice would be rational not to believe its existence. Which conclusion is true?
Relativism is absolute truth. WHOA! That hurt my head.
Empirical truth always leads to proper conclusions. Except....when it doesn't.
Experience is a great teacher. Uhh....when its self interpreted (which its not)?
Maybe we should reevaluate his definition of "rational". Yeah...kinda. Whats rational about Hume anyways?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians must all be wrong because they cannot agree on something like the procedures for and recipients of baptism. Applying this same standard, which conclusion is produced?
Fish cannot exist because we cannot decide whether to use English or Latin names for them.
The weather does not exist because we cannot agree on accurate prediction of it.
Chocolate cake does not exist because no one can agree on how many cups of flour to use.
Evolution cannot be right because scientists do not agree on the mechanism for natural selection and ancestry of various species. Yes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 7:1 says it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This means:
Paul did approve of men touching other men.
We should stone men who accidentally touch women.
As they say in kindergarten, "Keep your hands to yourself."
It is a figure of speech for sexual intercourse. okay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Samuel 20:41 says, "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they (i.e., Jonathan and David) kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded..." This means:
David and Jonathan were gay lovers. In Hollywood perhaps.
David and Jonathan were talking about the latest episode of The Young and the Restless.
David and Jonathan were weirdos who cried in public.
David and Jonathan were expressing the sort of intense emotion typical of Easterners even today. hmmm sure why not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man on the street is running around with a sign that says, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!" The obvious conclusion is that:
All Christians run around with signs that say, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!" Yeah, I do this all the time! Of course !
Some law in the Bible requires people to type with all capital letters.
If Jesus does not come in the next 5 minutes, Christianity must be false.
One should stay a few hundred feet away from this individual, whose eschatology is not particularly sophisticated anyway. hmmm, well JPH, I kinda gotta agree with you on this one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A skeptic remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of religions and is applauded for his rationalism. A Christian remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of skepticism and is:
Mentally ill.
A judgmental, intolerant, hateful fanatic.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Contending for rational faith. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In one place Jesus says the disciples can take a staff (Mark 6:8); elsewhere he says they can't (Matt. 10:10, Luke 9:1-6). The obvious conclusion:
These people can't even keep something this simple straight.
Staves were out of fashion when Matt and Luke wrote.
Someone had stolen all of the Christians' staves at Mark's time.
We need to look more closely at the linguistic data. okay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Christian tells you that willful sin is open rebellion that will lead to eternal damnation unless you repent. Your response is:
"Good. I plan on breaking each one of the Ten Commandments."
"Phooey! Sin is an artificial construct created by authority figures to keep the masses in line."
"Why can't God just forgive sin?"
"Well, that makes sense, because any sin is infinitely evil before an infinitely holy and just God, though at least the punishment will be according to deeds done in life." yup.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A spacecraft, clearly not from earth, is found on the moon. Some claim that it must have been designed by aliens. You respond by saying:
"That is not a scientific explanation, since there is no scientific evidence that aliens exist. That aliens exist is just some people's unverifiable belief. Science cannot comment on what is not verifiable."
"If we accept that aliens exist, then any unexplained phenomenon can be attributed to aliens and scientific progress will stop. It will literally be alien-of-the-gaps."
"Aliens are just something you imagine as a psychological crutch."
"Only aliens could have designed this, so obviously aliens exist." I suppose so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is a 'straw man'?
A good accusation to make when you become confused during a debate.
A farmer who sells it.
A man without a brain.
Something frequently burned by Skeptics. Ching!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much of a skeptic are you? When you suddenly smell smoke, you...
Doubt that there is a fire, and to avoid dealing with the conclusion that there is one, hypothesize that you suddenly have a rare disease.
Tell the fireman who informs you that your house is on fire, "Yeah, right," and return to your TV program.
Accuse the fireman of threatening you with the fire because he told you that you will burn unless you vacate.
Assume that your wife is done cooking dinner. (Our special thanks to the woman who contributed this answer. ) not married yet, but hey...sure!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you consider sufficient proof of evolution?
It's so obvious that some animals look like other animals. That's all the proof I need.
All the scientists say that's what happened and I doubt that they could be wrong about such a thing.
The fossil record.
A fast forward videotape of Australopithecus evolving into my next-door neighbor. (Hey, thats really giving the benefit of the doubt there :))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you consider sufficient proof of Christ's resurrection?
No amount of evidence would be sufficient because everyone knows that dead people never come back to life. (sadly my dad said this).
A videotape that recorded the event.
All the Christians believe in it and I doubt that many people could be wrong about such a thing.
The gospel accounts, which were written within the lifespan of those who would easily be able to dispute such an extraordinary claim and which would have been seriously challenged in the social world of the NT, had it not occurred. yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Numbers 31, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females, but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. This means:
Moses was a perverted sicko, and so is God, and so are you for believing this stuff.
Israel was letting little girls join the army.
The Israelites needed someone to cook dinner for them after 40 years of manna.
The Israelites were mercifully absorbing these young girls into their population. yes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You live in a world with multitudes of vastly different belief systems with many different kinds of beliefs within those systems, one of which happens to be evangelical Christianity. What does this mean?
Atheism, by its rational existence, automatically renders all other worldviews false and irrational.
We should throw our hands up in the air and say, Why bother? We'll never know what is really true and what isn't.
It is only truth if you can feel it. (Argh, I heard this one a few months ago...silly Existential Christians)
We should systematically investigate the claims of each worldview, from the monotheistic religions to atheism to eastern religions and others, and deduce from the evidence which belief system is most logical and has the "ring of truth" to it.
I concur--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since there is no classical historian at all that believes Jesus Christ was a myth, which of the following is true?
Skeptic philosophers and professors of German are more qualified to comment on history than those who have spent almost a decade learning history and the methodology of assessing historical claims
Degrees in historical studies must be written on toilet paper
Christmas trees prove that Christianity is a pagan mythology!
This is a valid appeal to authority, so they are probably right that there was a historical Jesus yup.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hume taught that anything that it is irrational to believe in something that doesn't conform to personal experience. Your reaction should be:
Preach on, brutha Hume!
Hume is a god!
I certainly can't disagree with that
The "uniform experience" Hume decided on was based on circular reasoning, since in order to establish it, he had to assume a priori that miracle eyewitness testimonies where false. YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You find that, so far, Theoretical Physicists are unable to reconcile Quantum Physics and Relativity. What do you do?
You decide all science is bogus, and join a New Age, pantheistic cult.
You decide that science is really only a social construct designed to keep straight, white, European males in power as an excuse to oppress everyone else. uhhh okay sure :).
Look for an essay by Isaac Asimov on the subject
You decide that more research by scientists will eventually find the deeper truths underlying both theories. sure..okay!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What is the proper course of action?
Quote this site's mission statement. That proves everything on it is worthless.
Note that this site solicits financial support. That proves everything on it is worthless.
Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,000 items on this site as much as you can.
All of the above, because you can't refute actually refute any of it. In the words of George Bush Sr....."Not gonna do it, not gonna do it!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scoring: Award yourself 1 point for each A answer, 2 points for each B answer, 3 points for each C answer, and 10 points for each D answer.

Grade:

43-90 points: Not bad, if you're trying to earn membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
91-170 points: You used a cheat sheet on a few, didn't you? Maybe you Christmas-treed it?
171-230 points:: Well, there's some hope for you. Get your nose out of that Robert Miller stuff and try a little Ben Witherington.
231-330 points: Now THAT is an open mind. Good show!
331-430 points: You're way too intelligent to be a Skeptic. Consider converting.
http://tektonics.org/parody/whowants.html

Wickedpedia

Once again, we have a problem with Wickedpedia, otherwise known as www.wikipedia.org. They argue against a well documented system of origins known as the Russell Humphreys white hole model, but the argument is dated in 1998, and is basically worthless at this point. However, for sport, I have addressed this issue with CMI and am awaiting some feedback regarding it. This will be interesting, as I have finally discovered a very well documented alternative to the Big Bang model of origins (and at this time, have decided to abandon this model altogether).

SkepticTank

Oh no...has someone actually found a way to refute the highly intelligent and one of my most trusted sources Glenn Miller?

http://www.skeptictank.com/






























Haha...yeah right. Just joking :). Though I'd say this would be just about as relevant to the information as infidels.org and various other skeptic websites supply us with.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled JP Holding name bashing episode, indeed the most intelligible argument that any skeptic could possibly think up against the Christian Apologetics Scholar Scene....perhaps the use of some genetic fallacies and strawmen would get your point across as well.

Casey Powell

Experiencing Jesus Christ Spiritually

I have a confession to make. The title of this article is something I have been neglecting lately. I have been really consumed by logic and thought...as well as Philosophy, and this has bogged me down to where I have not really truthfully experienced Christ. Now granted, I was born and raised a Christian, but I can honestly state, that most of what I knew about Christ was based on Psychological aspects and not what I know now about Christ. I am not a Christian based on my upbringing in any means shape or form today. In fact, most of the past 10 months have been a search process of extreme cynicism, skepticism, doubt, guilt, and desperation and depression to find God in my life. I thank all of the friends who have stood by my side through these rough times here, because I probably would not be here without them. Okay, so where am I going with all of this? Why am I here talking about this? Basically to share my story of why I'm a Christian today. It is not your usual, "I was raised and thats the way mommy and daddy raised me to be, so I had a religious experience in a church" story by no means whatsoever. Lets start from the beginning. It was January, and I'm happily strolling through life, with a wonderful girlfriend, when I notice things starting to go wrong. Of course the story goes, we break up, my heart is broken and I'm distraught. I end up getting drunk that weekend, and feeling even worse afterwards. Well, that was bad enough, but I started spinning out of control. I went into a stage of strong Skepticism based off of some teachings in History from a guy I thought to be an intelligent PHD. While my faith is spiraling out of control, I'm contacting every minister I know in town. One a PHD in Philosophy and another a PHD in Religious Studies and a Masters in Psychology. I carried a very cynical attitude all along the way, but was determined to conquer these problems myself, along with the help of my friends. I ended up doing research daily for about 2 months. This helped tremendously after I read "The Case for Christ" and "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." In fact, I was so convinced of the evidence, I talked to my father, who is not a Christian, about the evidence just knowing he would convert after I told him. Well needless to say, this didn't work. It buried my head in a quicksand of Naturalistic thought, and after talking to a few other Liberals, I was totally convinced that reality was a created concept (existentialism). My discernment skills were literally moot at this point. This new viewpoint did not work out to say the least, and led to a near suicide attempt. In the end, I ended up seeking some help from a Psychologist. This helped my Psyche a bit, but did not help me in the areas I needed help in. Then came Josh McDowell's book "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." I will never forget having my "eureka" moment on a cruise, in which I discovered the new concepts for finding the truth, known as logic. This led to some intense studies within the next 8 months and a 1085 page book in the process. With the help also of JP Holding and several other Apologists, I can now proudly proclaim I am closer to Christ now and much stronger in my knowledge discernment than ever before. I can honestly say after reviewing now, the greatest sites for Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Bahai, Muslim, Judaism, Humanism, Existentialism (often labelled with Humanism, and basically the same thing), different cultish groups, a ton of other religions, Postmodernism, Modernism, Relativism sites, and of course finally the Orthodox Christian viewpoints, I know that Orthodox Christianity wins out in the end. There is seriously no comparison on the Theological and Philosophical scale. The Historical viewpoint also favors Christianity, and believe it or not, Creation Science wins out when you honestly look at the arguments for Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Progress Creationism and Creation Science. I believe ironically enough that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Psychological of course this viewpoint makes sense, but even more great is that many who don't have their logic together fall into some of these other viewpoints I mentioned above. Without logic, you are trying to hit a pinata thats about 600 yards away from you with a blindfold on. Logic is the key to all of this, and it helps you determine what is wrong with viewpoints like Naturalism, Materialism and the rest as we go. However, the truth is, I'm on my way back home. I most certainly am not exactly where I want to be on my spiritual journey, but that will come in time. Proofs of God abound, so the viewpoint I once held that God could not be proved or disproved seems to shatter, as its more likely God can be proven than not so. I will provide a future post on these arguments for God's existence. There are at least 24 total that I'm aware of. None of them have been refuted or even touched.

Now, what I'm here to do today is to invite anyone who has never heard of Christ before, or is simply looking for him to make a personal confession of faith. This includes also people who would like to share their stories of how they became Christians with other nonChristians. With permission, I will post your stories on this site for encouragement and hope of the viewers. You may send e-mails to jesusjustforyou22@yahoo.com. God bless you all.

Casey Powell

Goofy Logic

I was looking on the internet today, oddly enough, for counters to Cynicism, and I found something...much worse. It is an argument for Cognitive Relativism. It is stuff like this that is confusing the youth of today. I found it to be quite humorous though, so lets take a look at it:

"Cognitive relativism asserts the relativity of truth. Because of the close connections between the concept of truth and concepts such as knowledge, rationality, and justification, cognitive relativism is often taken to encompass, or imply, the relativity of these other notions also. Thus, epistemological relativism, which asserts the relativity of knowledge, may be understood as a version of cognitive relativism, or at least as entailed by it.
This kind of relativism can take different forms depending on the nature of the standpoint or framework to which truth is relativized. If truth is relativized to the individual subject, for instance, the result is a form of subjectivism. If the standpoint is an entire culture, the result is some form of cultural relativism. Other possible frameworks include languages, historical periods, and conceptual schemes. These frameworks do not exclude one another, of course, and in the positions developed by thinkers such as Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault (both generally regarded as holding relativistic views of truth) they are presented as interwoven.

Cognitive relativism is not so widely held as moral relativism. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments (those employing concepts like good, bad, right or wrong) should only be assessed relative to a particular, limited standpoint (usually that of a specific culture). This doctrine became a commonplace for many growing up in modernized societies in the second half of the twentieth century and is virtually the default position encountered among undergraduates by countless philosophy instructors today. One major reason for its popularity is the importance attached by so many thinkers to the distinction between facts and values. Factual judgments are generally thought to be objective and provable; value judgments, by contrast, are commonly held to express subjective attitudes and to be unprovable, rather like judgments of taste.

Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in credibility as the sharp logical dichotomy between facts ands values has been increasingly questioned. Instead of a dichotomy, many now argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them. Moreover, these components themselves may not be seen as radically different; they may, for instance, simply reflect the degree to which a judgment is controversial within a particular community, with what we call factual judgments being the least disputed. From this point of view, cognitive relativism is broader and more fundamental than moral relativism, for it asserts that the truth value of all judgments, not just moral ones, is relative.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of this article)
1. Ancient relativism
2. The emergence of relativism in modern times
3. The definition of relativism
4. Arguments for relativism
5. Objections to relativism
a. Relativism is Self-Refuting
b. Relativism has Pernicious Consequences
6. Conclusion
7. References and Further Reading


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Ancient relativism
In Western philosophy, relativism first appears as a philosophical outlook associated with the Sophists in fifth century Greece. Cosmopolitan and skeptically inclined, these traveling intellectuals were struck by the variations in law, mores, practices and beliefs found in different communities. They drew the conclusion that much of what is commonly regarded as natural is in fact a matter of convention. There is thus no objectively right way to worship the gods or organize society, any more than there is an objectively correct way to dress or to prepare food. The main critical thrust of this way of thinking was directed against traditional moral and political values, but the relativity of truth itself seems to be implicated in Protagoras' famous assertion that "man is the measure of all things--of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not." The fact that the sophists taught rhetoric, and in stressing the value of persuasion appeared indifferent to questions of truth, reinforced this attitude.

The first great critic of relativism was Plato. In the Theatetus, he links Protagorean relativism to the view that knowledge should be identified with sense perception, and also to the Heracleitean doctrine that reality is in a continual state of flux. Plato's criticisms of Protagoras' position prefigures arguments advanced against relativism by its critics ever since. One objection he raises is that relativism collapses the distinction between truth and falsity; for if each individual is really the "measure" of what is, then everyone would be infallible, which is absurd. The implausibility of the Protagorean thesis is especially obvious, Plato argues, when we consider two people making incompatible predictions about the future. Events will prove that one of them, at least, was not a good measure of what is true. His other main objection is that relativism is self-refuting. If Protagoras is right, then whatever a person thinks is true, is true. But in that case, Protagoras must concede that those who think relativism is false are correct. So if Protagorean relativism is true, it must also be false (first problem right here, this defies the 2nd law of noncontradiction, as Protagorean logic does, and is already self refuting).

Although skepticism about the possibility of knowledge became part of the mainstream of ancient philosophy, relativism did not. Socrates and Plato may be willing to concede that human understanding, in this life at least, is very limited, but they do not doubt the existence of an ideal vantage point from which the objective truth about the world could be known. Also, Aristotle appears fairly confident that such a vantage point is accessible to human reason properly employed.


Back to Table of Contents

2. The emergence of relativism in modern times
Between Aristotle and Kant there are no major Western philosophers who one could plausibly describe as cognitive relativists. Montaigne and Hume certainly stressed the importance of custom in shaping peoples' beliefs, especially on moral matters; but this led them towards skepticism rather than relativism. The door to modern relativism was unlocked by Kant's claim in the Critique of Pure Reason that the only world we can know or talk about meaningfully is one that has been shaped by the human mind. On Kant's view, the concept of "objective reality" is employed speculatively and hence illegitimately if it is taken to refer to reality as it is independent of our experience of it. This obviously has implications for the traditional notion of objective truth. The judgments we call true are true for us and of our world; but to claim they are true in the sense of describing an independently existing reality is to go beyond what we can meaningfully or justifiably assert.

Kant is not generally considered a relativist since he held that the forms our mind imposes on the world are common to all human beings. Truths like the truths of geometry or the statement that every event is caused are thus universally accepted and constitute a priori knowledge. The forms we impose on experience also give the world a certain necessary character that is independent of our beliefs and wishes. For instance, causes must precede their effect, and time can only flow in one direction. In this sense, the forms confer objectivity on the world we experience, and our well-founded judgments about that world can be called objectively true. Later thinkers, however, took Kant's ideas further down the road toward fully-fledged relativism. Hegel, while upholding a concept of "absolute knowledge", allows every stage that human consciousness has passed through in the historical development of civilization to express an outlook that is true in a partial way. Marx highlights the influence of the mode of production along with class and economic interests in shaping the way people understand their world; and although he appears to recognize the epistemic authority of science in some areas, he rejects the idea of a neutral standpoint from which to adjudicate between different views of social reality. Nietzsche is explicitly relativistic about both moral values and truth, preferring to evaluate claims according to what sort of will to power the claims express rather than according to their objective truth-value.

In the twentieth century, a relativistic view of truth can be found in or inferred from the work of many major philosophers, including James, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Quine, Kuhn, Gadamer, Foucault, Rorty, and most of those commonly labeled "postmodernists". Numerous others, including some who regard themselves as staunch opponents of relativism, have been accused of harbouring relativistic tendencies. There is thus a general consensus that modern philosophy has shifted in a relativistic direction. Even fierce critics of relativism like Allan Bloom (author of The Closing of the American Mind) concede this. Indeed, it is this trend, along with its trickle down effect on the outlook of rising generations, that occasions lamentations such as his.


Back to Table of Contents

3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. (Then why are we here? What are your points? It is still something even though not generally agreed upon, and your lack of defining the terms makes it hard for us to argue. However, we will continue on.) Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

"Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be". (What would this be? How do we know this?) What if its not whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be. Would it still then be whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be? Obviously, this is false. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)

"The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth." (And this is an objective truth within itself, one that is self refuting.) (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)

"There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality" (Is this unique and objective? Its certainly unique to me and appears pretty objective if you ask me as well, thats for sure). (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)

"There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable" (Thanks for then providing one). (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)

"There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry" (Then why are you saying something about them?) (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)
Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. (OOOO no, strawman times infinitum here!) Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label "relativist" to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a "pragmatist", an "ironist" and an "ethnocentrist". (Complementery terms perhaps? More details would certainly help us here, at least for those considering Cognitive Relativism to be true).

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint; (What about the standpoint that is not always relative?)

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others. (Except for this one of course)

The first of these claims asserts the relativity of truth, obviously an essential element in this form of relativism. Oddly, though, this is not the most controversial part of the doctrine. After all, even committed realists might be willing to conceive of objective truth as equivalent to "true from a God's eye point of view" or "true from the standpoint of the cosmos". It is this second claim, the denial of any metaphysically privileged standpoint, that most provokes relativism's critics. A brief look at the role of this thesis in the thought of three leading relativists--Kuhn, Rorty, and Foucault—will help reveal why it should be so controversial. (Strawman again, obviously studying the Objectivist point of view might help this argument a bit).

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argues that science progresses by means of what he calls paradigm shifts. A paradigm theory is an overarching theory like Dalton's atomic theory or the theory of evolution. These provide the background conceptual scheme within which what Kuhn calls "normal science" occurs. On Kuhn's account, a paradigm shift such as that by which Copernican astronomy displaced the Ptoemeic view of the universe should not be thought of as a shift between two different ways of looking at an independent reality. Rather, theory and observation are so intertwined that the shift amounts to a change in the reality the scientists inhabit. Consequently, there is no independent standpoint from which a paradigm shift can be judged to take us closer to a true picture of the way things really are. (Again, except for this "independent standpoint). Kuhn likens debates over paradigms to political controversies, saying that "as in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice—there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community." (What about the standard that would be higher than this? Who's to say that the relevant community makes this choice? What then would confine the relevant community to this choice?) (p. 110)

Richard Rorty extends what Kuhn says about science to every other sphere of culture, particularly politics. The traditional view--call it Platonist, absolutist, objectivist or realist--is that when we do something like abolish slavery we move closer to an independent ideal and we bring our way of thinking closer to the One Right Way, the way dictated by reason or by our essential human nature. Rorty thinks this sort of thinking has been valuable in the past; but in more recent times it has become constraining rather than liberating. He therefore urges us to see intellectual and cultural progress as simply consisting in our exchanging one vocabulary for another. Descriptions of human beings that view them as entitled to equal rights before the law, and descriptions of the solar system that views it as heliocentric are both preferable to the descriptions they replaced; but not because they are closer to the truth. In both cases, we should prefer the newer descriptions on pragmatic grounds; they better enable us to achieve our purposes.

Michel Foucault's relativism is similar to Kuhn's in being based on and justified by historical researches. The domain of his studies is different, however. In works like Madness and Civilization, The Order of Things, and Discipline and Punish, Foucault tries to show how what we call "reason", "science", "knowledge" and "truth" are socially constituted and shaped by political forces. He argues that in order to pass muster as "scientific" or as "rational", a discourse must satisfy certain conditions, and these conditions are socially and historically relative, reflecting the needs and interests of existing power structures. This relativity is more obvious in the case of classifications based on distinctions such as normal-perverted, natural-unnatural, rational-insane, or healthy-sick. But Foucault suggests that it applies also to other, more epistemologically central distinctions such as scientific-unscientific, knowledge-error, and true-false. The ideal of a neutral standpoint transcending epochs and interests is thus a chimera. (Reductio ad absurdum. Also violates the law of excluded middle.)


Back to Table of Contents

4. Arguments for relativism
Relativism is the radical offspring of non-realism, which is itself descended from the idealism of Berkeley and Kant. Non-realism holds that we cannot meaningfully talk about they way things are independent of our experience of them: to use Michael Dummett's formulation, what makes a statement true is not independent of our procedures for deciding it is true. The main argument in favour of non-realism is essentially negative: it avoids the difficulties endemic to metaphysical realism (a.k.a. "objectivism" or "absolutism"). (And you can't prove a negative. Please show us how your objective assertion of this avoids the "difficulties endemic to metaphysical realism.")

Realists hold that our judgments are true when they accurately describe or correspond to a reality that exists independently of our perceptions, conceptions, theories or desires. On this view, a true statement such as "water contains oxygen" describes a fact about this independent reality. It rests on a scientific model that may be said to "carve nature at the joints". But an obvious question arises: how can we determine that our judgments are true in this sense? (Because maybe they are?) The obvious answer is that we test them by making experiments and observations. I say it will snow today, and I test this by watching the sky. I say water contains oxygen and I confirm this by showing that one of the elements separated out by electrolysis supports combustion. When our assertions are decisively confuted by experience, we conclude that they are false—i.e. they describe a state of affairs that does not obtain.

Relativists accept that this is how we normally conceive of truth and falsity—in ordinary usage, the word "true" means something like "corresponds to the facts"--and as an account of our everyday epistemic procedures it is unobjectionable. But they argue that it loses coherence if it is elevated to the metaphysical level. (How so by lifting your own position to a metaphysical position within itself?) For what is really happening, even when we are confirming the most mundane belief about the empirical world, is that we are satisfying ourselves that this belief coheres with our other beliefs. (Wow...objectively so is it not?) We confirm that the sea is salty by tasting it or by conducting a chemical analysis of seawater. But these procedures only confirm our belief about sea water in the sense of showing it to be compatible with or even entailed by a host of other beliefs: for instance, that the sample we are examining is typical; that nothing else tastes quite like salt; that our sensory faculties are trustworthy on this occasion; that salt tastes roughly the same at different times. (Equivocation on the word belief, and a false notion that experience is self interpreting.). What we can never do, argue relativists and other non-realists, is check the degree of correspondence between our judgments and reality as it is independent of our experience of it (Double standard! invalid position). To do this we would have to take a "sideways on" view of the cognitive relation between subject and object. But this is impossible since any vantage point we adopt will necessarily be that of the subject. For the same reason, we cannot compare our overall conceptual scheme or theoretical model of reality with reality as it is "in itself." (Begging the question). However, this is exactly what you do, in what you say you do not!

The driving idea behind empiricism and the upshot of Kant's critique of speculative metaphysics is thus that concepts must be tied to experience if they are to have legitimate employment in science or philosophy. (No, they must be tied to knowledge. Experience is not self interpreting). Relativists argue that the metaphysical realist's concept of truth fails this test, for it takes the notion of "correspondence with reality" out of its everyday employment, where it is genuinely useful, and tries to press it into metaphysical service, where it is neither useful nor legitimate. (So its genuinely useful within reality, which is a metaphysical term, but no good from a metaphysical service, and not useful.....self contradiction). So even if, in its normal usage, "truth" means something like correspondence with reality, the ultimate criterion of truth turns out to be coherence with other beliefs. (No, Psychologists have actually determined that truth does NOT correspond to feelings or beliefs. I'd say we're a bit behind the times here.) To put it another way: our philosophical conception of truth cannot simply be an expanded version of our commonsense notion of truth as correspondence. (Who's arguing this?) And this implies that truth must always be relative to some belief system, to some particular epistemic standpoint. (And of course, this would be assumed to be absolutely true to this particular belief system). This is the first of the two theses identified above as constituting the doctrinal kernel of relativism. Numerous philosophers have affirmed it. (You mean reasserted, right? Affirmed might be a bit too strong of a metaphysical word for you to use here). Yet many of these have sought to avoid relativism by rejecting the second thesis—that no standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

This second thesis is what gives relativism its bad name. Critics commonly reduce it to the claim that any point of view is as good as any other and then attack it with some variation of Plato's arguments against Protagoras. (Okay, you just argued that it was earlier within your argument, why the change). But virtually no well-known philosophers actually hold that all standpoints are of equal worth. Richard Rorty, for instance, who is widely regarded as a relativist, dismisses that position as "silly." (Obviously Rorty is not a Cognitive Relativist then.......he could perhaps believe in Absolute Truth and still be a Moral Relativist). (Richard Rorty, Objectivism, Relativism, and Truth, p. 89). Rorty, Kuhn and most other relativists accept that one can have cogent reasons for preferring one standpoint to another; the preferred point of view may, for instance, exhibit greater logical consistency or greater predictive power than other available perspectives. But they argue that such reasons cannot confer any special metaphysical status on the standpoint in question. They cannot, for instance, show it to be the one favoured by God, or dictated by Reason, or most in accord with human nature (exccept for where it applies to your position).

Relativists typically justify this conclusion along the following lines. Any proof of a standpoint's superiority must rest on premises that express fundamental assumptions and basic values. (Something the author has failed to do thus far). For instance, arguments for the superiority of the standpoint of modern science over that of religion will presuppose the value of consistency, of solving theoretical puzzles, and of being able to manipulate one's environment. (Okay?) A person who defends the literal truth of the bible but shares these values is likely to be persuaded fairly quickly by these arguments. But a person who holds that truth appears to humans as paradoxical, and who values tradition and religious faith over experimental evidence and predictive power will not be persuaded. (Is this necessarily true? I would think you'd believe absolutely so) An argument can only be convincing to one who accepts its premises. Some premises, though, like those just mentioned, are so fundamental that they are not usually argued for at all. Rather, they are constitutive of a particular outlook. (Nice play on words, what you really mean is that its assumed a priori).

The relativists' thesis is not that one cannot support standpoints with arguments; it is that in the end all such arguments must be circular since they inevitably rest on premises that are themselves part of the standpoint. (A good one certainly won't, but it does not follow that yours has not done so already, nor that this claim is exclusively the Relativist Thesis in the first place. :)). Critics will here point out that there is a difference between denying that the superiority of one standpoint over all others can be proved and denying that such a standpoint exists. In reply, relativists are likely to claim that this distinction is an abstract one that no consistent empiricist or pragmatist would make. (AHHH, so no reason to accept it!) To insist that one standpoint is objectively superior to all others, they argue, even though there is no way of proving this, is dogmatic and pointless; to claim that one's own standpoint enjoys this unique but undemonstrable superiority is dogmatic and implausible. (Yet, your argument does just that!)
A critic might also object that what relativists call "cogent" reasons for preferring one standpoint to another are not epistemically relevant: that is, they do provide grounds for thinking that the standpoint generates or ensures beliefs that are objectively true. But this is clearly a point most relativists would be willing to concede. The notion of objective truth referred to here is not a concept for which they have a use, preferring instead something like William James' conception of truth as "what is good in the way of belief." (Oh...so Relativists are inconsistent in their thinking. Okay......)


Back to Table of Contents

5. Objections to relativism
Critics of relativism are legion, but the objections leveled against it are usually of two kinds, both pioneered by Plato in his critique of Protagoras. One line of attack tries to show that relativism is incoherent because it is self-refuting. The other common objection is that relativism, if taken seriously, would have bad practical consequences. Let us consider both of these in turn.


Back to Table of Contents

a. Relativism is Self-Refuting
A doctrine is self-refuting if its truth implies its falsehood. Relativism asserts that the truth-value of a statement is always relative to some particular standpoint. This implies that the same statement can be both true and false. The qualification that the statement is true relative to standpoint A but false relative to standpoint B may save relativism from the charge of embracing gross contradictions. (No, this does nothing to preserve the statement, it is still self refuting, since what is true for point A can potentially lead to a situation where the statement isn't really true and if it IS true, then an objective truth has been established and vice versa). But it still clearly implies that relativism itself is false, at least relative to some standpoints. One might say that it is just as much false as it is true, in which case there seems to be no good reason to prefer relativism to alternative positions such as realism. (Ching Ching, you're on to something author, keep on going!).

One possible response to this objection would be to modify the theory and hold that all truths are relative except for the truth that all truths are relative. (This is self-refuted by the 2nd law of noncontradiction). On this view, the relativist thesis enjoys a unique status, being true in some non-relativistic sense. (Ooo,, no no no, this can't happen at all). This position may be coherent, but it is rather implausible. (masquerading a lie as truth...nothing new here). It is hard to see what could justify granting the thesis of relativism this exceptional status. A more plausible option is for relativists to concede that their view is false relative to at least some non-relativistic theoretical frameworks but to deny that this admission is damaging. (In Psychology, we call this denial folks!) Relativism, they can claim, is simply in the same situation as any other theory. The theory of evolution is true from the perspective of modern science and false from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism. (Ahhh, but are we not assuming that perspective is not objective a priori. And is this always the case? What can be said for Theistic Evolutionists?) Relativists deny that one of these perspectives is demonstrably better than the other. (But agrees that its own is superior to all others). But this does not mean that they cannot affirm the scientific perspective, and do so for cogent reasons. (Explain why please). In the same way, they can acknowledge that relativism is false from the standpoint of metaphysical realism; but they can do this without inconsistency or incoherence since they are not metaphysical realists, and they have reasons for preferring relativism to realism. (No, lets just make a jump instead...forget point A here).
A variation on the charge that relativism is self-refuting is the argument that it is somehow self-refuting for relativists to assert or to argue for their position. This line of attack has been pressed forcefully by Hilary Putnam and others. Putnam's argument is that ordinary rational discourse presupposes a non-relativistic notion of truth. Jûrgen Habermas offers a similar sort of argument in his critique of postmodernists like Foucault and Derrida, claiming that a commitment to truth, like a commitment to sincerity, is a necessary condition of successful communication. (Nice educational lesson whats your point here?)

Relativists, however, are likely to remain skeptical about these alleged presuppositions and implicit commitments. It may be true that when we engage in rational discourse we implicitly commit ourselves to the truth of what we are saying. But it is not at all obvious that we implicitly commit ourselves to a non-relativistic conception of truth. (Ah, so its an absolute truth). And even if this were the case, it is not clear why this supposed presupposition of everyday communication should be accorded so much respect and made the basis for a philosophical account of truth. Our everyday notions of space and time may also be non-relativistic, but we do not demand that physicists' theories of space and time conform to our pre-scientific ideas (Okay? whats the point? You are living in a delusional perceptive error ideology you call reality?).


Back to Table of Contents

b. Relativism has Pernicious Consequences
This criticism also was first ventured by Plato and continues to be endorsed by many. Cognitive relativism is thought to undermine our commitment to improving our ways of thinking rather as moral relativism is thought to undermine our belief in the possibility of moral progress. Several reasons have been given to support this anxiety. To some, the fact that relativism countenances the possibility of multiple true but incompatible points of view entails a kind of epistemic nihilism. If creationism and the theory of evolution, Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, astrology and modern psychology are all equally true, then what purpose is served by developing new scientific theories? All views are of equal value, so why not just rest content with whatever happens to be "true for us"?

Against this, relativists can offer two responses. First, truth is not the only epistemic value. We can also prefer theories on the basis of such values as coherence with our other beliefs, predictive power, and practical fruitfulness (All which contain truth value implicitly within themselves, EXCEPT for beliefs, which we have already determined do not imply truth at all, but of course, if we remember the author's statement earlier, he did state that beliefs implied truth. Now he is stating that beliefs do not imply truth. Another self contradiction). Second, by endorsing relativism one does not lose the right to judge beliefs according to their truth or falsity (Well, if we use your standard, you have just stated in the previous statement that beliefs are not truth, and now you are stating that beliefs are of truth, once again, self contradiction). Modern relativists will believe that the earth orbits the sun and that Copernicus' discovery represented scientific progress over earlier astronomy. But their philosophical account of the status of these beliefs will be relativistic (It'd be nice to see how that works). The Copernican theory is true and its acceptance represents progress according to the values and concerns that constitute the modern scientific standpoint—a standpoint shared by both relativists and non-relativists. (OOO, just avoid the issue and now concede an absolute truth). The difference between them is that the relativists do not believe this standpoint can be proved superior to others except by arguments that are essentially circular and question-begging (Examples? Is it possible that just because they believe this, that it does not necessarily follow that they are true?)

Hillary Putnam presses a slightly different version of the above objection. Relativism, he argues, tries to "naturalize" the concept of reason. What he means is that relativists try to discuss questions of truth, knowledge, and rationality in a thoroughly descriptive, non-normative way (No, I'd say more like you take a lie and try to make it a truth). Like social scientists afraid of allowing value-judgments to creep into their work, they take a detached stance and simply report the epistemic customs and practices of different cultures, eschewing any impulse to endorse or criticize them. And this amounts, in Putnam's words, to "mental suicide". For, while particular norms of rationality will be entrenched within a particular culture, reason has an inalienable critical or transcendent function which can be used to criticize existing epistemic norms. Relativism can thus be accused of encouraging a certain kind of intellectual passivity.

Relativists have also been accused of embracing determinism, and certainly thinkers like Nietzsche and Foucault sometimes invite this charge. The epistemic norms of a culture or a period are taken to be shaped by non-rational forces such as class interests, technology, or the will to power of a group or individual. And what people then come to believe is seen as a function of these norms. For example, Foucault suggests that the classification of homosexuality as a disease results from employing a certain kind of theoretical framework, one that posits a sharp distinction between the natural and the unnatural and correlates the former with the healthy, the latter with the sick. And this framework becomes established because it serves certain interests. So truth is identified with what is believed to be true, and what is believed to be true is determined by larger social forces operating within a culture or historical epoch.

This deterministic tendency, like the attempt to naturalize reason, is held by critics to entail, or at least encourage, a renunciation of the longstanding project of using reason to criticize existing norms, beliefs, and practices in order to furnish ourselves with better ones. Relativism is thus associated with the counter-Enlightenment aspects of postmodernism. But association is not the same thing as logical entailment. It may well be true that some relativists are drawn towards determinism or feel they must eschew value judgments. But it is not clear that these tendencies must be part of a relativistic outlook. Other relativists will argue that the connection between relativism and determinism, say, is historical and contingent rather than logical and necessary. In their view, one can consistently endorse a relativistic view of truth while still being committed to the relative superiority of some views over others, to the value of critical reflection, and to the possibility of using reason as an instrument of scientific and social progress.


Back to Table of Contents

6. Conclusion
Cognitive relativism continues to be an important but controversial position that one encounters in contemporary debates about the nature of truth, knowledge, rationality, and science. These debates can sometimes be confusing because people neither agree about exactly what relativism affirms, nor about whose views should be described as a relativistic (Unless someone as smart, or perhaps smarter than myself would happen to be able to walk upon you sometime).

Critics of relativism sometimes seem to assume that relativists are denying that they believe—or denying themselves the right to believe—obvious truths. But the more sophisticated relativists do not deny that statements like "the earth is round" are true. They just favour a certain philosophical account of what is involved and implied when we describe such statements as "true". The situation here is reminiscent of the debate between idealists and some of their materialist critics. The critics charge idealists like Berkeley with holding that our sense perceptions are illusions, and they think they can refute this doctrine by doing things like kicking stones. But the idealists do not see themselves as holding or implying any such view (Okay?.....your point). They just think that the materialist explanation of our sense-experiences is philosophically problematic; so they offer what they take to be a more coherent alternative (I'm beginning to wonder at this point, think or feel?).

On the other hand, relativism is sometimes advanced quite crudely. Then, instead of being a philosophical view about the status of our beliefs and the limitations on how we might support these beliefs, it becomes an excuse for accepting uncritically one's own culture's assumptions and epistemic norms; or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions. Just as idealists still have to negotiate what we normally call the material world, so relativists have to make decisions about whether particular claims are true or false. Their philosophical relativism may incline them towards being more open-minded and tolerant than dyed-in-the-wool absolutists and objectivists. But they cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. At bottom, the debate over relativism is about whether it is possible for relativists to make these commitments consistently and sincerely. (Of course....it seems they haven't. And your points certainly don't provide proof that it does).


Back to Table of Contents

7. References and Further Reading
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Davidson, Donald. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (1974), 5-20.

Field, Hartry. "Realism and Relativism." Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 553-557.

Forster, Paul D. "What Is at Stake Between Putnam and Rorty?" Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LII, No. 3 (1992): 585-603.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Edited by Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.

Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Second revised edition. Translated and revised by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad, 1989.

Gellner, E.. Relativism and the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Goodman, Nelson. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Translated by Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1987.

Hollis, Martin and Lukes, Steven (eds). Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1982.

Jackson Ronald Lee. "Cultural Imperialism or Benign Relativism? A Putnam-Rorty Debate." International Philosophical Quarterly XXVIII, No. 4, Issue 112 (1988).

Jarvie, I. C. Rationality and Relativism: In search of a philosophy and history of anthropology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

Johnson Jeffery L. "Making Noises in Counterpoint or Chorus: Putnam's Rejection of Relativism." Erkenntnis 34 (1991): 323-345.

Kelly, Michael, ed. Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1994.

Krausz, Michael, and Meiland, Jack W., eds. Relativism: Cognitive and Moral. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.

Krausz, Michael. Relativism: Conflicts and confrontations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Kuhn Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. "Relativism, Power, and Philosophy." Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. Newark, Delaware: APA (1985): 5-22.

Plato, Theaetetus. Translated by M. J. Levett, revised by Myles Burnyeay. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990.

Preston, John. "On Some Objections to Relativism." Ratio 5, No. 1 (1992): 57-73.

Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Putnam, Hilary. Realism and Reason: Philoosophical Papers, Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Putnam, Hilary. The Many Faces of Realism. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1987.

Quine, Willard Van Orman. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Rorty, Richard. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

Rorty, Richard. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Rorty, Richard. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Rorty, Richard. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Scheffler, Israel. Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.

Solomon Miriam. "On Putnam's argument for the inconsistency of relativism." The Southern Journal of Philosophy XXVIII, No. 2 (1990): 213-220.

Throop, William M. "Relativism and Error: Putnam's Lessons for the Relativist." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (1989): 675-678.

Westacott, Emrys. "Relativism, Truth, and Implicit Commitments." International Studies in Philosophy 32:2 (2000(: 95-126.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1956.

Winch, Peter. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routeldge & Kegan Paul, 1958.

Wilson, Bryan. Rationality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953.


Back to Table of Contents"

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.htm#SH5a


That was a waste of time....

NEXT?

Setting the Record Straight

Hey guys. I'd like to introduce you to the real Casey Powell. No...not the one who's accused of lying over and over again on the internet (seems that people love to slander the names of the innocent). The real, genuine, and sincere Casey Powell. Now, I know this will be hard for me to introduce you to me personally, so I believe that the best way to do this is to post my personality type on the web so you can see who I am. I will also provide a picture of myself in the future. I must also wish to upfront address a secondary issue. Due to the recent spam and abuse of content on my website by certain individuals, I have now put a stop to any postings on my Blog site. I wish to still hear questions and concerns that you may have about certain articles, and nothing more than that. Any flaming or derogatory messages will be blocked from my e-mail however, so I will let you be aware of that in advance. My e-mail address is jesusjustforyou22@yahoo.com. Feel free to drop any questions that you may have in regards to this Blog.

Now, back to who the real Casey Powell is. Here is a portrait of what the ESTJ actually is from the web:

"Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
(Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Guardian

As an ESTJ, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is internal, where you take things in via your five senses in a literal, concrete fashion. Very accurate.....:).

ESTJs live in a world of facts and concrete needs. They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly and systematically. They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these systems. They value competence and efficiency, and like to see quick results for their efforts.

ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles. They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely straight-forward and honest.

The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the family, community, or work.

The ESTJ needs to watch out for the tendency to be too rigid, and to become overly detail-oriented. Since they put a lot of weight in their own beliefs, it's important that they remember to value other people's input and opinions. If they neglect their Feeling side, they may have a problem with fulfilling other's needs for intimacy, and may unknowingly hurt people's feelings by applying logic and reason to situations which demand more emotional sensitivity.

When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others. They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and communicating them to others.

ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals. They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to promote personal and social security.

The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do. They will do everything that they think should be done in their job, marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope. However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity and security.

Jungian functional preference ordering:

Dominant: Extraverted Thinking
Auxiliary: Introverted Sensing
Tertiary: Extraverted Intuition
Inferior: Introverted Feeling"

http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html

So this is who I am guys. I am probably one of the most HONEST guys you will ever meet, sometimes thats a good thing (if I like you) and sometimes it can be a realllly bad thing. So I'm going to set the record straight for everybody here and now regarding my character and claims made about me. I am an Apologist who is to be taken VERY seriously when it comes to my information, because I will not rely on it unless it is accurate and true.

Theologyweb: All of the characters that were alleged to your name are truly alleged to your name, since you have created the characters and accounts on T-Web.

This is simply untrue. I have created Newb, YeshuaMarine, and YeshuaFighter. Those are the only 3 I have created. The others alleged to my name, Jill Holloway22 and Robert Patrick and perhaps others, were not created by me.

Venganza site: You wrote the Flying Spaghetti Monster hate mail. You then proceeded to hide yourself as Robert Patrick and Jim Breuwer, posted mailings on other people's sites under these names, and then tried to cover up and hide the fact that you wrote the letter.

Again all of this is untrue. I have done no such thing, and I have legitimately expressed this many and numerous times. Just because the IPs are the same, does not mean that they were written on the same terminals, nor by the same person.

Panda's Thumb site: You posted under different names, and this was why you were banned from Panda's Thumb.

Oh yeah, this is ALL very true, and you know why? Its because I could care less about Panda's Thumb. I had no desire to actually keep an account or a verified name on Panda's Thumb. I think they totally suck as a site and have no benefits to offer. My job was to basically try to make them all look like a bunch of Evolutionistic idiots, since it was basically just a group think site that misrepresented the Creation Scientist side of the debate. So yeah, I take full responsibility for this, and quite personally, I don't care.

Theologyweb: You posted an apology for things that you did that many people took offense to in the Natural Science department.

Yes, I did this. I felt it was necessary because, as my profile demonstrates, sensitivity is not one of my strong points at times, and I have been accused of focusing too much on winning the debate, when my focus should be entirely on winning the soul at times (and THAT is a problem I have been addressing). I'm new at Apologetics, so mistakes have come along the way. So I issued a formal apology for my behavior, and it is of my hope that this reached out to someone and perhaps causes someone to maybe respect Jesus Christ a little better, and promote a more positive image of what Christianity represents.

Mind you, I'm not into politics. Everyone could be totally against me, and the fight still goes on. Its not about people, its about Christ. Thats where my focus is and has always been. I'd rather be a martyr than a celebrity anyday. So lets put all of this behind us and move on here!

Thats the truth about Casey Powell. Anything else can be written off as true debauchery and nonsense.

God bless,

Casey Powell

More and More Emo Evolutionists

It has been my finding that More and More Emo Evolutionists have been resorting the behavior of Mr. Glenn Morton. Its interesting to notate that Glenn Morton loves to set up arguments that contain LOGICAL FALLACIES! Apparently some people have been focused so close to the tree, that they can't see the forest that lies beyond it. This, I hope my readers to find quite entertaining. My goal is to totally debunk this guy's argument and show you the "most credible argument" against Creation Science on the web today and how truly weak it is.

"In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.

Okay problem no. 1. Is it 40 years, or is it 178 years? This beginning statement really made absolutely no sense to me. Its either one or the other, it certainly can not be both here. When he makes up his mind, let me know. I'm glad to see however, that he has considered my statement regarding his red herring that he presented against Creation Science, which actually upon further research, we can find began in the 1960s, and not 1825. For this reason, we'll conclude that the statements before the 1960s are completely irrelevant to the argument.

1825

"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6

1840

Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:

"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38

For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.

Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:

"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi

1850

Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:

"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes." Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257

1871

“Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions.” Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89

1878

"There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
"Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187

1894

"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206


1895

"In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415

1903

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
"Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said. It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way. It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad. Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...


1904

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1905

Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983

1912

Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:

" It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
"When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v

Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright. Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1922

"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a report which says:

Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and

Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,

The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.

The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156
1924

"…I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

1929

"The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

1935

"The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114


( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.

1940

"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10

1961

"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

This right here is showing a slow decline in the Theory of Evolution as we know it here. This claim is the same types of claims you will find from Creation Scientists today. We don't believe Macro Evolution is fact, but some choose to believe in Variation, and by that we sometimes refer to Micro Evolution as fact. Nothing wrong with this quote, just not sure why we're including it here to prove his point. The same goes on and on for most of the other statements here. I'm not sure exactly what Glenn Morton is really driving at here at all by using these quotes.
1963

"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

Henry Morris was one of the big founders of this new revolution thats going on within Science. We can see over the years that the Scientific community of Creation Scientists is growing more and more stronger in number, and that is without a doubt. From here, we'll actually be able to notice that after Morris, there is no doubt that this argument actually works against Glenn Morton's premise from here on out.

"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970

"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14

1975

"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32


1976

"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm

1980

"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg


1983

Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,


1984

"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time." Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330

"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985

"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241

Apparently he likes to pick on Henry Morris. Again, none of these quotes are really working to Glenn Morton's advantage at all. We are simply seeing statements from Creation Scientists that have grown predominantly within the Scientific community. How we conclude this is false is beyond me, as we can see a growing trend from the 1960's to the 1980's with these Scientists within the community. Even members on Theology Web were forced to concede that there are many Creation Scientists within our community. Mainly we can see that the Creation Scientist community is a growing community. We also notice that more and more Creation Scientists are coming out of the Evolution community based on previous evidence that I supplied in an earlier debate against Morton. Who does this guy think he's kidding?
1987

"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987
I agree with this. Whats left standing, I'm not sure myself. I've done some heavy duty research and have come to this same conclusion. Operational Science is poor Science and for this matter..Evolution goes along with it. Its a conjecture that should be chucked, but somehow manages to stay within our classrooms, usually as a result of it being propagated by the Evolution community.
1988

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8

"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989

"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.
Yes indeed and Mr. Morris is right. Ever heard of the Chaos Theory? Yeah, Evolutionism is started to promote the Chaos theory within its house of falling cards. I'm not sure exactly when they are going to choose to fold the deck, but hopefully we can say it will be soon. I think this also speaks to the credibility of Evolution, that it is no more than just chaotic itself, and not worthy of much attention.
1990

"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i
This is pretty evidently true as well. Mark Looy is right on par.
1991

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.
Or we can just use the Big Bang Theory to refute Evolution and Naturalism too, either way works perfectly fine.
1993

"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67

Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64

"There are hopeful signs, however. Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
YES IT HAS. Logos incorporates Scientific scrutiny, and Evolution can not stand to it. Basically, what Evolutionists end up having to do is stating, after we win the Genetic, Geological, and the Age of the Earth argument, "How does this refute Evolution?" after we debunk its primary premises. So after it has already been refuted, and they run out of arguments to present, they simply go with this type of circular reasoning over and over again.

1994

"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121

"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45

1995

"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.

"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html

GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.

1996

"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33

"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.

1997

"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b

1998

“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29

"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93

Of Evolution:

"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453

“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448

1999

"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89

“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory. For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000

"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44

2001

"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm

"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i

2002

"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).

“As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19



“The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21
"Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution. There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35

In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath. Well it is now 2.5 years. I don't hear the wheezing:

Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
"Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner." http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php accessed 1-26-05

2003

“In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56



“However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,

‘There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.’

“In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
What on earth is Morton trying to get at here? I have no idea myself. So what, an Evolutionist who boldly goes where no man should ever go...and makes an obviously intellectually dishonest statement is shown to be absolutely wrong about the Biology community 12 years later. Thats what this tells me.
“What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. “Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p. 96

“As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwin’s theory.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168

“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004

“History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27

And so it seems more and more have today.
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28

“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50

[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn't be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]

"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years? What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?"

"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level -- will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004). "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design." Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.

World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.

"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp

From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.

"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp

Then of course there is this:

"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/203/8|14|21|28/4.htm

2006

Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006

Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14244463.htm?source=rss&channel=kentucky_state
accessed 4-2-06



Denyse O'Leary:

"It’s almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway." Denise O'Leary, "What I would tell the Catholic Church: re intelligent design and evolution," August 29, 2006, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=230270

Way to go Denyse. You have now joined a long line of failed prophets!
Failed prophets? Seems like their track record is pretty good to me. By my calculations, August 29th was 2 weeks ago. Quick to deny a prophecy are we not?


Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us? A reasonable answer I'll give. Why don't we look at your argument. If this is the best you have to offer, the demise of Evolution looks pretty apparent to me. And ignorantium elenchii is never a good argument to provide in any case. This is simply a goofy argument not worthy of my 20 minutes that I spent analyzing it, and darn it, I want those 20 minutes back...I could be playing Halo right now :)!

Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document." http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm published by Glenn Morton.

Back to DMD Publishing Home Page