O.k. by 'prediction of apocalypse,' I meant someone making a statement that it would happen on such and such a day in 2003, 2004 or 2005. If you have never done such a thing, then fine, let's drop it.

I have never done such a thing. (I am the same Douglas as the Douglas at ARN, in case you were wondering.)

I had been out of the game of thinking about science/philosophy/theology for many years, when I discovered the ID movement. My biology training which prepared me for an applied science/medical career was taught in a state university, called colleges at the time, by a very nice Christian fellow who, when he came to evolution, simply said to the class that he believed that this was the way God created mankind and then went on to teach evolution. No big deal.

From my perspective, ID is a worldview/cultural movement which tried to use the science class as an entry point. Though I am intrigued by Mike's coming book, it's the worldview aspect of the movement that interests me-the pushback against strict materialism. However, ID's intermingling of "new science", metaphysics and spin tactics in the culture war make it almost incomprehensible. If it could be teased apart (rending the Big Tent) then perhaps a remnant could carry on trying to achieve a more balanced and open environment within which all worldviews could have a place at the table in this country.

The platform suits well - I make it a policy to refrain from arguing about YEC theology either. Mike and Krauze are kind to keep their corner of the tent open for you, if you should walk into their camp from your own.

"If there is a polarization, why is it that a push for atheism/secularism is not at the center of the action?" - MG

Surely Mike is on the mark here; it will come into central spaces of the action, if it hasn't already. R.D.'s extreme position is fueling extremism of another type. And when the ID tent does someday split or reduce its proclamations of 'revolution' in the 'science and theology' discourse, then those who are marignalized by science, philosophy and/or theology will be encouraged to rearrange their views.

Do you think you could try to be just a little bit more off-topic and irrelevant? Thanks.

Anyway, before I answer, please define "prediction". And, explain how this in any way has anything to do with my conversation with bj, and his claims that a "young Earth" and a "global Flood" are "inaccurate". Thanks again.

Please help this topic with a reminder: when was the last time you predicted the end times, i.e. apocalyse was going to happen? In reality, of course, we are still here (which only a few anti-existential philosophers would argue against). Do explain please, whether that prediction was based on science or your personal theology. Was it an example of Douglas Bender being an emotional scientist?

Thanks,

Gregory

p.s. Nice balance so far bj (with the same qualification about 'the nature of' phrase preceding 'science')!

No, your commenting was not offensive. Just wrong, and in need of correction, which I was most happy to do.

If I was inclined I would certainly stand corrected. Seriously, my apologies if the manner of my commenting offended.

bj

I make it a policy to refrain from arguing about YEC theology. But, I do really hope your worldview is working for you. I mean that. For me, I trust the discipline of professional geologists on this. Old earth. No global flood.

Let the following be noted, for the record:

1) You were the one to first bring up the issue of a young Earth and a global Flood (in the context of painting them as "inaccurate");

2) The issues of whether the Earth is "young", and whether there was a global Flood, are NOT theological issues primarily - rather, they are scientific issues, ones which have scientific implications, and which can be scientifically tested/examined;

3) I stated that the EVIDENCE indicates a young Earth, and a global Flood - and this evidence has been gathered, analyzed, and explained by professional geologists, physicists, and other scientists.

Now, you are free to remain on topic, as I have addressed your off-topic, misunderstood or misrepresented, views regarding a young Earth and a global Flood. Thanks for bringing it up.

"Do you actually want to address the substance of my comment above or not?"

The substance? You mean the "old saying"

HIV denial and evolution denial. It's funny how, now matter where it starts from, fanaticism always ends up looking the same.

Do you actually want to address the substance of my comment above or not?