Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

Thanks but it wasn't that I had anything to say, just wanted to hear more from him about it and perhaps an exchange with the atheists on board. I doubt I'd agree with him about a whole lot in general but his coming on here to post an opinion against evolutionistic atheism was certainly an intriguing thing to do.And dinosaurs are always interesting, if that should be touched on.To Arach, apparently one and the same, at least others here have assumed so.I saw his name up on the board earlier this morning too so he'll probably check in yet again.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 11:11 AM

In post #217 on the moderation thread Percy has confirmed that he is *the* Robert T. Bakker everybody is talking about, and says he seems just to post previously published material but doesn't stay around to discuss it.However, he reappeared on the board twice yesterday after his post, and then again this morning, so I'm not so sure he wouldn't join in discussion.The third link that Percy posted on the moderation thread brings out more clearly Dr. Bakker's support of Bible-believing Christianity than his post here does, though apparently with room allowed for an ancient earth. So perhaps he himself is an IDer?This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 12:04 PM

OK. I have trouble keeping all the categories straight. Still don't exactly know what ID is trying to say.

Sure describes certain EvC evolutionists when faced with creationist arguments.And did you mean to say the following or did you leave out a "not?"

Theistic evolutionist is the term WK came up with to explain the fact that he appears to be a Bible believer of some sort. But I'm a YECist who isn't for promoting YECism in the public schools either, so it isn't all that cut-and-dried who believes what.

I'm not, only what was posted here and at the links Percy gave on the mod thread. So how about Theistic Evolutionist?

OK, that's the crucial distinction. It's not just an old-earth theological interpretation of Genesis, it claims to be science. Yes, that's pretty much what I meant when I said I'd probably disagree with him about many things.

Good points. As I said somewhere, having a "name" evo on the Bible-believing side of the argument would make a difference somehow, even though strictly speaking we should all pretend we're above such things. It was FUN to see a supposedly well known evo criticizing an atheist evo, childish though that may be.And by the way, the argument from authority is perfectly valid, but there are more and less valid versions of it. I mean, you should appeal to a relevant authority.

As I said, there is such a thing as a valid argument from authority

quote:

---

Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority

​

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

​

The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.

​

The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.

​

The authority must be interpreted correctly.

​

Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.

​

The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always ilegitimate.

​

The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).

​

A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.

---

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 04:23 PM

As I already said, I don't expect to agree with him about much. And perhaps you are right, I would only be disappointed in him anyway. Maybe he's just like the other evos around here who claim to believe in the Bible but don't really believe in much of it. Except he SOUNDS different.

I've noticed the mentions of that but I must have missed the source. Can you point me to it?

So you knew about his being a pentecostal preacher before he posted here? Are you the source of that information then or did somebody post a link about it somewhere? I'm curious to read more about him.

Criticism accepted.

Truly, I don't take "evo" or "creo" to be insults, just shorthand, and I even accept "fundy" as shorthand to describe my own beliefs. But IIRC (I'll have to check) I was also being sarcastic in the post you criticized or offensive in some other way, and I accept the criticism for that. Also, if it really is true that people find the shorthand words offensive, I'm happy to stop them also.

I got to know Canadian Steve on a political message board (I invited him and some others to come to EvC to post on political topics and he's the only one who was interested), and he's no fundy. He says he used to be a strong liberal, as many Jews are, but has shifted more to the conservative side in the last few years. Nevertheless he still has many liberal views. He started out pro-Palestinian and against Israel and the thread he started here on the conflicts within Islam is the fruit of much study he did that shifted his perspective on the Middle Eastern situation. Religion-wise he is Reform, which is far from fundy, and he is an evolutionist, not a creationist. I also have an Orthodox Jewish correspondent who is much more of a conservative AND a fundy than CS is, although he doesn't share my literalist view of Genesis.