Christiantoday.com sides with UMC against the DI / ID.

Here’s the article in full:

Christian Today Article

The best bit?:

….However, the UMC has taken the view – expressed though it is in dusty legalese – that in allowing the promotion of intelligent design at its conference would to connive at something which is, not to put too fine a point upon it, not true.

In this respect, it is surely right. It’s always possible to find things about life and its development that evolutionary theory has not yet succeeded in explaining. To argue from this that the answer must be “God did it” is ultimately self-defeating. Science advances, the number of unknowns diminishes, and God is driven into a smaller and smaller space accordingly. This “God of the gaps” approach has long been discredited.

The UMC appears to have taken the view that giving a platform – no matter how small – to a view as mistaken as this undermines the credibility of the gospel because it encourages people to believe things that aren’t true. Building a faith around falsehood is putting people’s souls in peril. The Discovery Institute may not like it, but the UMC is surely right to stand its ground.

(format not the same as the original). Thoughts?

31 thoughts on “Christiantoday.com sides with UMC against the DI / ID.

  1. My favorite line from the article is this:

    Building a faith around falsehood is putting people’s souls in peril.

    We are fortunate, I think, that souls themselves are imaginary, and can’t possibly be in peril. Not to mention the whole pantheon of imaginary gods, imaginary demigods, and imaginary cosmologies.

    Our MINDS, now, that’s another story. These are, you know, the things we use to find amusement and irony at the territorial battles between competing sets of superstitions.

  2. Flint:
    My favorite line from the article is this:

    Building a faith around falsehood is putting people’s souls in peril.

    We are fortunate, I think, that souls themselves are imaginary, and can’t possibly be in peril. Not to mention the whole pantheon of imaginary gods, imaginary demigods, and imaginary cosmologies.

    Our MINDS, now, that’s another story. These are, you know, the things we use to find amusement and irony at the territorial battles between competing sets of superstitions.

    Course you’d say that, your soul is flopping around a tiny cubicle in Satan’s “to be torched” outbox.

    Lost souls just don’t get it.

    Glen Davidson

  3. As an ID proponent and creationism proponent, this is not surprising.

    ID and creationism didn’t come from the clergy, it came from the laity. Having been a church goer most of my life (Roman Catholic then Presbyterian), I’ve heard 2 sermons on creation in the last 20 years, the phrase “Intelligent Design” mentioned once from the pulpit.

    Next to nothing on Noah’s flood.

  4. Did that excite you, Richardthughes?

    Was it Christians agreeing with other Christians that caught your attention, or Christians disagreeing with the DI? Maybe both?

  5. What laughable statement to justify the censorship of a famous position.
    They are not evangelical Christians. Who are they?
    They are saying iD is not true. How do they know? They are rejection ID/YEC which is agreed to by Christians in their tens of millions. To say YOU ARE WRONG is a bigger statement then saying Islam is wrong. If they say that!

    Its not just they are saying ITS SETTLED that ID is wrong in its conclusions, and YEC probably too, its that they stifle a famous debate and especially from a religious group when ID/YEC is a thing backing up God in creation.
    Its absird for then to oppose it and anti freedom to oppose it.
    There is more behind this.
    Something is really dumb skrewy.
    Forget ’em. They are behind the times and probably have all wrong ideas on lots of things.

  6. Flint: Your mind on religion. A marvel to behold.

    This is precisely the sort of debate that Lizzie hoped for for this site. Worthy of at least one Lizzie-Star.

  7. Mung: This is precisely the sort of debate that Lizzie hoped for for this site.

    Bot.

    This is precisely the sort of debate that [% name %] hoped for for this site.

  8. Mung: This is precisely the sort of debate that Lizzie hoped for for this site. Worthy of at least one Lizzie-Star.

    Whose admiration to you expect, if you are defending Byers? His post is nearly incoherent – about all one can extract from it is mindless attacks wrapped around religious weirdness. About which, I notice, you find nothing objectionable. Could you possibly have an agenda?

  9. Incoherent is a kind way of putting it. I can tell that Byers is angry about something, but. That’s about all.

    That ID has replaced the late, lamented Time Cube in the pantheon of internet freak shows? Maybe that’s it.

  10. Why would DI, UD, Robert and Mung be so upset about DI not being allowed to have a table at a religious event? A bigger question should be why a scientific organization like DI (I almost gagged when I typed that) even want to present anything at a religious event. Surely it can’t because they can’t convince anyone with a knowledge of science about the validity of their “science”?

  11. Acartia: Why would DI, UD, Robert and Mung be so upset about DI not being allowed to have a table at a religious event?

    That was the first question that popped into my head.

    Why not at a lawyer’s conference, or a brain surgeon’s?

  12. Acartia:
    Why would DI, UD, Robert and Mung be so upset about DI not being allowed to have a table at a religious event? A bigger question should be why a scientific organization like DI (I almost gagged when I typed that) even want to present anything at a religious event. Surely it can’t because they can’t convince anyone with a knowledge of science about the validity of their “science”?

    Oh, they fully explained it here. The final two paragraphs:

    As for why we have turned the spotlight on the United Methodist Church, the explanation is simple: We don’t like censorship. Like most independent-minded people, we take exception when those in power try to shut off the discussion before it starts, especially when they are using a double standard to do so.

    We’re not willing to let others silence us without pushing back. What about you?

    They said, on their blog which provides no opportunity for comments.

    No concerns about the ancient alien “theorists” being “censored,” though. Curious, their inability to concern themselves about the censorship of others.

    Glen Davidson

  13. Science is so expensive that the DI’s funding sources (religious donors, churches, etc.) have only been sufficient to fund their fund-raising efforts. If they are denied a table at a religious event, how can they ever support their scientific research?

  14. Flint:
    Science is so expensive that the DI’s funding sources (religious donors, churches, etc.) have only been sufficient to fund their fund-raising propaganda efforts. If they are denied a table at a religious event, how can they ever support their scientific research?

    fixed

    Glen Davidson

  15. Theories and hypotheses are expensive, and well beyond the means of the Discovery Institute.

    I’ve been told that it costs at least five million dollars just to type up an ID research proposal.

  16. Acartia:
    Why would DI, UD, Robert and Mung be so upset about DI not being allowed to have a table at a religious event? A bigger question should be why a scientific organization like DI (I almost gagged when I typed that) even want to present anything at a religious event. Surely it can’t because they can’t convince anyone with a knowledge of science about the validity of their “science”?

    its a religious event !! its a event that pushes a creator, seemingly a christian one, but then attacks scientific evidence that helps , in areas of natures evidence, to show their is a creator and a little bit questioning evolution etc.
    Its a attack on freedom and a rejection of ideas very common amongst the minority of people interested by religion.
    They don’t even allow the option for the event goers but DISMISS the whole concept of creationism(s).
    they have no moral or intellectual right and so it hints its weird types making the decisions. Not real Christianise types.
    They are not inclusive but i bet would claim to be inclusive about anyone else who wanted in.
    They are dictating conclusions MORE then evolutiondom.

  17. Robert Byers: Its a attack on freedom and a rejection of ideas very common amongst the minority of people interested by religion.

    Nonsense. It’s the UMC’s convention. They get to make the important decision.

    I’ve never attended a conference that did not tightly control who was allowed to exhibit. The DI can always rent a hall down the street, and put up their exhibit there.

    The DI is trying to restrict the freedom of the UMC to run their conference the way that they want.

  18. Neil Rickert: The DI is trying to restrict the freedom of the UMC to run their conference the way that they want.

    Exactly.

    The temper-tantrumming DI are trying to threaten the adults “if you don’t let me sit at your table, I’ll hold my breath until I turn blue” “if you don’t let me sit at your table, I’ll tell lies about how you’re censoring me”

    Have to admit, I don’t feel sorry for them at all (of course not! Do I ever?) but rather a bit of schadenfreude at the shock the DI reps must have experienced when their expected ally stood up to them.

    And if I were John West’s mom, I’d wash his mouth out with soap for the lies he’s telling.

    The good news is: he’s not winning any friends for his side amongst mainstream christians with his whiny baby act.

  19. The guy who wrote the article Mark Woods is a Baptist preacher.

    ID may have strong religious motivation, but it’s not coming from the clergy, but the laity.

    I’ve not liked a lot of preachers, I have loved the laity.

    This “Reverend”, imho, is an insult to his office. I almost have more regard for the writings of PZ Myers than statements like those of this preacher.

  20. stcordova:
    The guy who wrote the article Mark Woods is a Baptist preacher.

    ID may have strong religious motivation, but it’s not coming from the clergy, but the laity.

    I’ve not liked a lot of preachers, I have loved the laity.

    This “Reverend”, imho, is an insult to his office. I almost have more regard for the writings of PZ Myers than statements like those of this preacher.

    Baptists seem to be variable folks. For example, do you take Al Mohler to be a prominent Baptist? He is a young earth creationist and an ID proponent, as in this lecture/sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggJZz3WkTCI

    It seems to be a consistent feature that when you are a theist personalist, you tend to lend more credibility to intelligent design and young-earthism. Classical theists don’t.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.