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!

Evolutionists Confounded That Creationism and ID Will Not Die

Militant evolutionists have worked hard in attempt to get rid of creationism and intelligent design and they so naively thought that the Dover case back in 2005, was the nail on the coffin. But this has not been the case rather it has confounded them to the utter most with great concern.

For those who are not familiar with the Dover case, the whole point was not about teaching alternative theories in the classroom but instead it was about allowing students to hear a brief message that other material supporting intelligent design was available in case they were interested. By the way, intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Those there some areas of agreement but overall it’s not the same. A critical analysis of it was written here.

New Scientist, John Farrell puts points his finger at the Discovery Institute which he gives most of the blame…

“None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of “academic freedom”.

Really John? Where in the school’s textbooks are you seeing this? Is the school teaching about intelligent agents providing information to DNA for the origin of life? Barbara Forrest, philosopher who is a long-time activist with the NCSE makes an absurd claim that Louisiana is going to start teaching intelligent design next year. All this means is, Forest is very worried that children will have access to creationist materials (if they desire them) and the focus of her troops that normally fight for her cause have shifted elsewhere in a troubling year popular wise for her preferred political party.

This same Barbara Forrest believes that self-organization and self-assembly which are non-Darwinian mechanisms with naturalistic origins would lead the public towards creationism or intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, the American public is already there! This is the same Barbara Forrest who believes showing weaknesses in evolutionary theories is intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, science theories have weaknesses and it depends upon the pattern of those weaknesses and how that affects the theory. The establishment is stacked and under the influence of grant money which holds to faith in evolutionary theory.

A friend of mine son who is in his first year of college, who has been home schooled prior to that, who was also given evolutionary biology as an easy “A” class by his counsellor has found out that his University biology textbook the previous year was openly making anti-religion comments. So much so that students complained about the textbook which prompt the school to replace it this year with a more traditional textbook which claims evolution is an indisputable fact.

So creationism and intelligent design have confounded evolutionists who thought or were hoping that creationism and intelligent design would have died at the hands of a state judge who ruled what was science and what was not, and what the students could be told and what they couldn’t be told. In the end, both are alive and well!