Jack Krebs Conception of ID Proponent William Dembski

It’s been a mission for the likes of Jack Krebs to interpret Dembski as a “fundamentalist” christian who has been hiding in the closet for years about it until recently. In Panda’s Thumb, he quotes…

“Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old…”

According to Krebs, this was a diabolical plan, a mastermind who was trying to take over the public schools, a lie by Dembski who he thinks is really a young earth creationist. Here is his evidence of this.

He quotes…

“I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.”

“Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.”

“Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.”

Krebs then accuses Dembski (who responded to the accusation) of bowing to the text of the Bible and thus calls him a young earth creationist. But he is far from that, old earth creationists do the same thing, they claim to accept the Bible as historical and then add and subtract certain things to fit what the Bible says into billions of years. One doesn’t become a young earth creationist by believing that the Noah’s flood happened or believing that Noah’s flood happened 100 years or 4500 years ago. Because Dembski believes that the earth is old in terms of billions of years as an indisputable fact which he claims has no more interest in exploring. Nor is Dembski “bowing to the text” or to scientific evidence to the contrary because if he was, he would be a young earth creationist.

Krebs ends with “They’ve lost in the school systems, (for instance, Kansas) Dover in 2005…” What he failed to mention was the Texas Science Standards which he would rather forget than remember where it was a major setback for his camp while most if not all the major players in intelligent design and creationism praised it and declaring it a victory for science. Indeed it was!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Jack Krebs Conception of ID Proponent William Dembski

  1. Michael,

    Even if William Dembski does not believe in a 6,000 year old earth and doesn’t hold the book of Genesis as being a scientific text, that would not disqualify him from being a creationist, since there are many creationists that do not even believe in the Book of Genesis or a young earth at all. For example, there is a movement in Turkey of Creationists lead by Harun Yahya which are comprised of Muslims.. They accept the 4.5 billion year age of the earth and do not believe in the book of Genesis.

    Besides, a beleive in Adam and Eve being real people doesn’t necessarily disqualify someone from being an evolutionist…There are many Theistic Evolutionists that believe in a literal Adam and Eve, though some do not. (My personal position on that is that I do not care either way).

  2. Re “belief” in Genesis: The purpose of Genesis is to explain the world. Not according to physics or cosmology, but as to who we are and how we should act. It is highly symbolic, because that’s how peoplwe communicated then—not in peer-reviewed papers that proved theorems, but in narratives that embodied significant truths.

    Consider the original creation story, which is the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2.[1] Now consider this narrative as the creation, not of the physical universe, but of human consciousness. That is, the “creation” of the first humans was actually the point at which their minds became human. For example, they named all the beasts—that is, they invented language. For the first time, they became aware of themselves. I think it is significant that Genesis 2 formulates the human problem as “knowledge.” Knowledge that things could be different than they are (imagination), and that they could act contrary to their instincts (evil).[2] Specifically, they “knew death.” Animals know that other animals die, obviously. But only humans are aware that they themselves will someday cease to exist. That is, it was not death that originated with humanity, but the realization of their own mortality.

    This is my own febrile speculation. I don’t know that anyone else has broached it, although there are a lot of cockamamie ideas out there on the internet and in philosophy books. Enjoy.

    ============

    [1] Genesis 1 was written hundreds of years later, after the Babylonian captivity.

    [2] There are anthropologists who believe that the original purpose of language was for deception.

  3. Michael, I would tend to agree that William Dembski is not a young-earth creationst.

    But … tell me why you are so proud of this? You are a YEC. Do you not want the leading light of ID to share your views? If not, why not?

    I tend to think that Dembski made the pro-YEC state,ments in order to save his job at the Baptist seminary. in other words, he had to lie to keep his job.

    Dembski has always been out to sve his ownb hide first of all. Remember when he bugged out as a witness in the Dover trial, in order to prevent being demolished as Michael Behe was. (He did, however, keep his $20K witness fee.)

    Just one more reason why we call creationists liars for Jesus.

  4. Kriss,

    The point of the article is Dembski being accused as a YEC. What defines a creationist to you? Dembski’s beliefs in science are more in line with theistic evolution than with creationism. The only major difference is that he believes “intelligent agents” are responsible for the origin of information rather than certain mutations from an unthinking process which is later chosen by natural selection.

    In the modern intelligent design movement, how DNA eventually formed man is the same as evolution. The dispute is where the information came from. In creationism, there are no “intelligent agents” only one God neither did He design such “agents” to create information. In creationism, God is the origin of information, it comes from Him and creationism doesn’t propose the origin of life with the emergence of DNA. Therefore, it disqualifies him from being a creationist and certainly he doesn’t come close to being a young earth creationist.

  5. Micheal,

    The point of the article is Dembski being accused as a YEC.

    I understand that… But in your quote, Dembski takes it further and says he is not a creationist. — In your quote, he says “Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text.”

    He said he wasn’t one because he doesn’t regaurd Genesis as a scientific text…. Any MY counter point is that someone doesn’t have to accept Genesis as such in order to be a creationist, since there are many Creationists who do not even believe in Genesis at all.

    Dembski’s beliefs in science are more in line with theistic evolution than with creationism.

    First of all, “Theistic Evolution” makes just as much sense as saying “theistic gravity,” or “theistic genetics.”

    Second of all, if you mean that his view is in line with that of Jonothan Wells in that he accepts common descent, and an upward aim, then no. He really is not more in line with “theistic evolution.”

    In the modern intelligent design movement, how DNA eventually formed man is the same as evolution.

    Please, take a genetics course now!

    In creationism, God is the origin of information, it comes from Him and creationism doesn’t propose the origin of life with the emergence of DNA.

    Uhhhh, nobody suggests that the origin of life began with DNA. What are you talking about?!

    Therefore, it disqualifies him from being a creationist and certainly he doesn’t come close to being a young earth creationist.

    Uhhhhh, can you read? I never called him a Young Earth Creationist. All I said was his acceptance of of an old earth doesn’t mean his is not a creationist itself.

  6. Wow. Yet another change of web style.

    Tell us, Michael: Is there any point to these bimonthly changes? This format is somewhat less legible than the previous one. Was that the purpose?

  7. Hm. It seems that blockquote has been omitted from the list of available tags.

    You realize, of course, that this unformats all the block quotations in all previous posts and comments all the way back to 4004 BC, thus rendering many of them unintelligible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s