Here’s the article in full:
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?
Is the UMC stopping them from doing ID research?
Because I haven’t seen any (involving actual ID entailments, that is), and there must be some reason.
Glen Davidson
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
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.
Did that excite you, Richardthughes?
Was it Christians agreeing with other Christians that caught your attention, or Christians disagreeing with the DI? Maybe both?
Mung,
Nice to see reasonable Christians dealing with their loony fringe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit
And it’s Jewish, not Christian.
Sheesh.
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.
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.
*points and laughs*
Those who invested the most in ID have lost the most.
Moved a couple of comments to guano.
Bot.
This is precisely the sort of debate that [% name %] hoped for for this site.
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?
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.
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”?
That was the first question that popped into my head.
Why not at a lawyer’s conference, or a brain surgeon’s?
Oh, they fully explained it here. The final two paragraphs:
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
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?
fixed
Glen Davidson
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.
Oh that was an enjoyable read. Watching John West juggle and walk a tightrope at the same time.
Uh, you didn’t read carefully. I think most of their funds are spent raising more funds.
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.
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.
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.
My take on this made-up controversy:
OMG – The Discovery Institute is Comitting Censorship!!!11!!1!
DiEb,
Your link seems to have got truncated. This works:
OMG – The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1!
Thank you very much!
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.