Re: Both YEC and OEC can exist only through willful ignorance.
God of course considers those who deny the Flood to be the willfully ignorant:
2 Peter 3:5-6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Sorry but that does not support your assertion, only that the author of that passage was ignorant of much that we now know is true.
We have learned a few things in the last couple thousand years.
2 Peter is another great example of trying to compensate and make up excuses for other factual errors like the Biblical Flood stories or Exodus found in the Bible stories, particularly in this case the errors that were attributed to Jesus himself.
2 Peter was written at least thirty and perhaps as much as a century after Jesus death and it was necessary to try to market a possible even if not really plausible excuse for the absolute failure of Jesus promise to return during the lifetime of those who heard his prophecy. It's one of the earliest known examples of Apologetics.
It is important to remember that 2 Peter is a great example of reality over scripture; of recognizing that the Bible stories are not without error and so some excuse must be created to explain the contradiction (in this case what Jesus said and the reality that He did not come back within the lifetime of those who heard Him say that) in some way that might almost stand up to examination or at least could be adopted by those who really wanted to maintain such a belief.
Reality is and always, when reality conflicts with what is written in the Bible stories it is reality that wins.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Let's try to stay close to the topic, Dembski's views of fundamentalism. I'm asking for all posts to explain their tie-in to Dembski's views when not self-evidently about them.
One other thing: the topic is not Christian willful ignorance. Too many threads are being diverted onto this topic, and so I'm asking that all discussion involving Christian ignorance be confined to a single thread and am barring its discussion from all other threads from now on. If someone proposes a thread about Christian ignorance over at Proposed New Topics I'll get to it as quick as I can.
there has been little pushback from the ID movement or calls for academic freedom
Dembski is of course OEC. But isn't the ID movement pretty much YEC? Perhaps the explanation is that academic freedom as well as most of the ID movement is a sham as science; it is thinly veiled creationism with just enough methodology to enable writing a journal paper or two about peripheral topics.
I was looking up articles on Dembski, and I came across this article on the Discovery Institute website. DI was very defensive of Dembski when he was having his issues at Baylor:
Plenty of complaining about the lack of academic freedom and even some expressions about compatibility with evolution from the DI folk. Perhaps their silence this time around is noteworthy.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
The ID leadership seems to be more OEC, but very tolerant of YEC. They do, I think, rely on YEC support which is why they tend not to push old Earth beliefs much.
The main reason the difference cones up is when they insist that the term "Creationist" means YEC (blaming the "Darwinists" of course) so they can deny being Creationists. Richard Sternberg used that gambit, expressly denying that he was a Young Earther as "proof" that he wasn't a Creationist despite his association with the YEC "Baraminology" group.
Dembski is of course OEC. But isn't the ID movement pretty much YEC?
Not really. Phillip Johnson is arguably the father of the modern ID movement, and he is OEC. His idea was for the ID movement to be a "big tent" which would accommodate both YECs and OECs.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger