Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Some Thoughts on Intelligent Design

    . . . by Bruce Alderman

  • Something is Wrong in Florida

    Hmmm! I would guess nobody is surprised about that. We seem to draw more than our share of attention down in these parts.

    But I’m seeing three interesting things:

    1. We passed a property tax reform bill with the support of our governor. Though I generally like Governor Crist, I voted against it, because I agreed with analyses that showed we would be having revenue problems for things like schools.
    2. For some silly reason our county school board is trying to figure out how many teachers they’ll have to let go next year. Yes, they’re cutting administrative staff as well, though mostly staff that supports the teachers.
    3. Our legislature is busy with such likely activities as a so-called Academic Freedom bill for our high school teachers. I’m sure this is only taking up a small amount of legislative time, considering the silly wording of some of the bills and proposed amendments, but I’d suggest that any time spent on this is wasted.

    Why do I connect these things? No, the time factor isn’t it. I doubt if the legislators took the time they’ve devoted to this “academic freedom” debate and worked on educational funding, they’d solve much of anything. The connection is that these legislators are busy pandering to the stupid and selfish side of the voters. The property tax bill passed because it would reduce the property taxes of enough people, and because the old system was so bad. But nobody wanted to admit what just about everybody knew–our schools would be paying for it afterward.

    It doesn’t bother the folks in Tallahassee that cuts are being made, because it’s local school board officials who have to try to figure out how to live with it.

    Some folks dislike teaching evolution, so the legislators again pretend to be doing something, in this case largely throwing the responsibility onto individual teachers, who would be policed by the courts. Can you say “lawsuit?” Alternatively some versions would make the school boards responsible for something that should have been settled by the curriculum drafters. The curriculum drafters did an excellent job, but some legislators want to pretend to solve the voters problems.

    Until we demand that our politicians at all levels tell it like it is, we’re going to see much of our time wasted on this type of activity. When a politician says he can make something work, but he’s not going to have to pay for it in some other way, he’s lying. Everything costs. You have to make sure you’re willing to pay those costs.

  • Is Come or Has Come in 1 John 4:2

    It’s probably a sin, but I simply couldn’t resist. I recorded a video response to a YouTube KJV Only video.

  • Comparing 1 Peter 3:13

    Yesterday I commended the HCSB translation of this verse. Today let me give a couple of other options:

    • HCSB: “And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good?”
    • REB: “Who is going to do your harm if you are devoted to what is good?” [Doesn’t read well, in my view, even though I love the REB]
    • TNIV: “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” [Excellent, though I like “passionate” for this context]

    Not of these are horrible, nor are a number of others I read. I still like the HCSB best on this one.

  • Revisiting Acts 17:26

    Yesterday I blogged about the HCSB of Acts 17:26, and in particular the portion that reads something like “made of one ______”. The KJV reads “blood” which is one of the textual variants, while the HCSB says “man” which apparently does not occur in any of the ancient manuscripts.

    Since I read these lectionary texts daily for two weeks, today I encountered it in a different version, this time the TNIV, surely not one that could be accused of supporting anything like “male representation”, and it also read “man” in this case.

    I’m not at home right now, so just looking at the immediately available Bible versions, I see the following:

    • REB reads “from one stock”
    • NRSV reads “from one ancestor”
    • CEV reads “from one person”
    • ESV reads “from one man”
    • TEV reads “from one human being”
    • God’s Word (GW) reads “from one man”
    • ISV reads “from one man”

    I think that’s enough to see that most of the versions break where I would expect, with the exception of the TNIV. I wonder what their justification is here. It seems to me that since a number of ancient scribes appear to have provided options, but none thought of “man” here, it is unlikely that ancient readers would have understood this to refer specifically to the one man as human ancestor.

    I’d be interested in comments on the reasoning behind the use of “man” in this verse.

  • Another View on Christians, Creation, and Evolution

    . . . from Lingamish. Speaking of creationists who aren’t stupid. 🙂

  • Are Creationists Stupid?

    Many people get the idea from my posts on evolution that I believe all creationists are stupid or at least irremediably ignorant. In today’s atmosphere, that may be a reasonable view to take from the posts, but I don’t mean it that way, and I don’t intend to accept the current atmosphere.

    In current American culture we are frequently urged to treat everyone’s ideas as essentially equal. They’re just someone’s opinions, and how can one be so arrogant as to suppose his own opinions are better than anyone else’s? I reject that view. If I’ve studied an issue and taken a position, I do so because I think that position is superior to the alternatives. If you want me to change it, don’t explain to me that your view is just as good because all views as “just opinions”; tell my why your view is superior to mine and sound like you mean it. I’ll argue with you, but I won’t be offended.

    There are even certain arguments based on authority that has merit. I believe my opinion on an issue of Biblical Greek or Hebrew is superior to someone who either does not know those languages or has only the basic seminary introductory class in them. Why? Because I have spent years both in formal study and in continued personal study, with daily reading of the Bible in its source languages, and regular study of grammars, lexicons, and other relevant literature. There are those whose opinion is more valuable than mine. That doesn’t mean that the “most superior person” is always right, but it gives them an edge.

    In the creation and evolution controversy, I have taken a position. I’m a theistic evolutionist, or I would prefer to say I am a Christian theist who accepts the theory of evolution in the form of the neo-Darwinian synthesis more or less. I’m going to defend that position with vigor. I have repeatedly stated that I do not question whether those who disagree with me are true Christians. I would be happy to have them in fellowship with me in the same church. I would be happy to have them challenge me. But I’m not going to pretend that I think their position is as correct as the one I’ve accepted. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have accepted it!

    So do I believe all creationists are stupid? Of course that would cover a lot of ground, even with my more limited definition of the word “creationist” as those who believe God has repeatedly intervened in the process. But the answer, even for young earth creationists, is no. Are there some stupid creationists? Yes. But intelligent people can disagree on things. Dr. Kurt Wise, for example, is clearly an intelligent man, but I find his position on this issue totally untenable. He’s a good man, an honest man, and an intelligent man, yet of those adjectives I can apply only “honest” to his position and also be honest myself. So I have to say that I believe his position is fatally flawed. Many will see “fatally flawed” as a weaselly way of saying “stupid.”

    But besides the possibility of simply evaluating the evidence differently, we may encounter self-deception. I think that many creationists have deceived themselves either by avoiding encounters with the evidence (reading only one side, for example) or via the use of conspiracy theories (that’s just those atheist scientists trying to destroy my faith). These people I could not call liars, but nonetheless they present misinformation that has been repeatedly and definitively refuted. It’s hard to keep just the right tone, especially when I think such a person should know better, yet I know that they don’t.

    Intelligent Design (ID) advocates actually get on my nerves in a special way, because they’re chorus of claims that ID has nothing to do with God or religion is simply so obviously phony. The spin is so clear and obvious, and yet they will try to claim that they are misunderstood or that straw man versions of their views are attacked. Yet given a moment of relaxation and they will bring God into the picture.

    Now this whole post could be labeled “arrogant” and “condescending”. Go ahead. I am arrogant enough to believe that my view is superior to other views, condescending enough to tell you so, and stubborn enough not to change them unless you can prove to me that your view is better. I would suggest that Christians especially, as we have truth claims in our religion, should be very careful in using the claim that all ideas are equal.

    Obviously, that is my opinion, to be held until I am convinced by superior evidence and arguments.

  • Joe Carter’s 10 Ways Darwinists Help ID

    I found these 10 ways rather amusing (part 1, part 2, part 3. Perhaps we should all take advice from the opposition and say just the things they’d like us to say. Here’s my response, briefer than my usual!

    1. Well, if ID advocates would just define an actual theory and quit trying to disguise the religious intent, perhaps people’s perception of your work would match yours. I’m not required to be deceived, however, and thus I represent it as I see it rather than as you would like me to see it.
    2. It is stealth creationism. It’s religiously driven. ID advocates must be delusional if they think their activities would be driven by scientific concerns. It’s that large body of creationists out there that keep ID going. Just look at the efforts to market “Expelled!” to churchgoers–an open admission of the religious nature of the controversy if I ever saw one.
    3. “Science in the gaps” is almost cute, but unfortunately completely lacks validity. You see, the “God of the gaps” is constantly receding, while science keeps advancing. The fact that we find ever more complex stuff and then come to understand it is a positive thing about the power of scientific investigation. You’ll have a parallel when you find science retreating and God filling in the space. It’s not going to happen. In reality God is never retreating. He’s unthreatened by natural explanations and science will continue to grow. There’s always going to be something more, at least “always” from a limited human perspective.
    4. Produce some science and scientists will publish it. Until then, quit complaining! Oh, and by the way, it’s not science because–wait for it–it’s not science–not because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed science journals.
    5. Sexual selection is a topic of controversy in evolution. Why not provide some scientific discussion if you think that helps ID. The reason ID advocates won’t do that is that if you adjust the factors a bit you’ll still have evolution.
    6. Learn how words are defined and used in different contexts. In other words, instead of trying to plug your idea of design into a scientific discussion, use the author’s definition.
    7. I’m not an atheist. But I neither want to regulate who gets to be vocal, nor do I want to. If you’re not sufficiently perceptive to hear the many religious voices in favor of the theory of evolution, such as Francis Collins, John Haught, Richard Colling, Kenneth Miller, and many others, perhaps you have a discernment problem.
    8. Where you divide the questions is an interesting point. Richard Colling, in his book Random Designer, deals quite directly with origin of life issues, but the fact is that they are logically somewhat different. Common descent, an old earth, and the mechanism of variation+natural selection are not dependent on explaining the origin of life. The reason creationists want to combine them is that common descent has been largely explained in broad terms, while the origin of life has not. Combining them makes a better target. Scientists, on the other hand, have to investigate the topics, and the different states of the science suggest they need to be looked at separately.
    9. Pot, kettle, black. Oh, and many creationists are liars, especially young earth creationists. That’s not an argument against creationism, but it sure does complicate things. It’s annoying having to hunt for the honest creationist so you can argue with him.
    10. You started by accusing us of attacking a strawman, then you end with a strawman yourself.

    My suggestion to other defenders of evolutionary theory: Don’t take Joe Carter’s advice.

  • Becoming a Pensacola Pelicans Fan

    I very rarely post personal stuff here, but you’re going to have to put up with just a little bit. My son John Webb is a professional pitcher. He has portions of two seasons at the big league level, and a considerable amount of AAA time. He didn’t get that big league contract this year, which was disappointing, but from a parents’ point of view, the consolation prize was pretty good.

    He’s coming to pitch for the home town Pensacola Pelicans, and he’ll be living here. My occasional visits to the ballpark for our American Association team will have to become regular attendance!

    Obviously we still hope for that major league call, but for the moment, we’ll take playing right here at home and be happy.

    You’ll have to live with the updates, a few pictures, and a bit of cheering. I won’t be able to resist.

  • Good Review of Expelled

    … at Higgaion.