Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • WordPress.com Banned in Turkey

    It appears that WordPress.com has been banned in Turkey because of criticisms of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar. Oktar appears to be an unusually warped version of creationist, and may well be using creationism to foster Muslim fundamentalism.

    The reason I’m linking to this is that it is a free speech issue. As a number of commentators have pointed out on the official wordpress.com blog, if folks violate a TOS, it’s appropriate that they be removed, but not for their opinions.

    I hope this will all be resolved in favor of free speech.

  • More on Atheism and Autism

    Bruce Alderman has written some very cogent comments on the earlier post by Joe Carter on this topic and my response. Bruce looks at this from a somewhat different angle. Carter has also written an additional post which Bruce calls a strategic retreat.

    Bruce’s posts are:

    Carter’s follow-up post is Atheism, Autism, and Other Minds (A Clarification) [Note that McAfee Site Advisor continues to report problems with this site, though I continue to use it.].

    I have asked a friend of mine who is a psychologist and an atheist to write a response. Assuming he gets to it (it’s the beginning of the year and he’s a college teacher), I’ll post it here. In his initial comments to me he also focused on what he called serious misunderstanding of autism, rather than misunderstandings of atheism.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 6

    This past week seems to have been a good week for me reading St. John Chrysostom. It started from my reading of the book Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, and then looking up further contents for the selections. This is the second selection from the same author I’m quoting.

    I have written previously on Hebrews 6 and the possibility for those who have fallen away to repent and be restored. I want to quote Chrysostom, who takes a somewhat different angle, especially with the increased emphasis on baptism. In general, however, I found this very good reading. You can find the whole book on Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a wonderful resource page which I encourage you to visit.

    [8.] What then (you say)? Is there no repentance? There is repentance, but there is no second baptism: but repentance there is, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his sins, if he will, even him that hath been baptized much in sins, and to establish in safety him who is in danger, even though he should have come unto the very depth of wickedness. And this is evident from many places. “For,” says one, “doth not he that falleth rise again? or he that turneth away, doth not he turn back to [God]?” (Jer. viii. 4.) It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again: for hear Paul saying, “My little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. iv. 19.) Only let us lay hold on repentance.

    For behold the love of God to man! We ought on every ground to have been punished at the first; in that having received the natural law, and enjoyed innumerable blessings, we have not acknowledged our Master, and have lived an unclean life. Yet He not only has not punished is, but has even made us partakers of countless blessings, just as if we had accomplished great things.

    Again we fell away, and not even so does He punish us, but has given medicine of repentance, which is sufficient to put away and blot out all our sins; only if we knew the nature of the medicine, and how we ought to apply it.

    What then is the medicine of Repentance and how is it made up? First, of the condemnation of our own sins; “For” (it is said) “mine iniquity have I not hid” (Ps. xxxii. 5); and again, “I will confess against myself my lawlessness unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart.” And “Declare thou at the first thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. xliii. 26.) And, “The righteous man is an accuser of himself at the first speaking.” (Prov. xviii. 17.)

    Secondly, of great humbleness of mind: For it is like a golden chain; if one have hold of the beginning, all will follow. Because if thou confess thy sin as one ought to confess, the soul is humbled. For conscience turning it on itself causeth it to be subdued.

    Other things too must be added to humbleness of mind if it be such as the blessed David knew, when he said, “A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise.” (Ps. li. 17.) For that which is broken does not rise up, does not strike, but is ready to be ill-treated and itself riseth not up. Such is contrition of heart: though it be insulted, though it be evil entreated, it is quiet, and is not eager for vengeance.

    And after humbleness of mind, there is need of intense prayers, of many tears, tears by day, and tears by night: for, he says, “every night, will I wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears. I am weary with my groaning.” (Ps. vi. 6.) And again, “For I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.” (Ps. cii. 9.)

    And after prayer thus intense, there is need of much almsgiving: for this it is which especially gives strength to the medicine of repentance. And as there is a medicine among the physicians’ helps which receives many herbs, but one is the essential, so also in case of repentance this is the essential herb, yea, it may be everything. For hear what the Divine Scripture says, “Give alms, and all things shall be clean.” (Luke xi. 41.) And again, “By alms-giving and acts of faithfulness sins are purged away.” (Prov. xvi. 6.) And, “Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms will do away with great sins.” (Ecclus. iii. 30.)

    Next not being angry with any one, not bearing malice; the forgiving all their trespasses. For, it is said, “Man retaineth wrath against man, and yet seeketh healing from the Lord.” (Ecclus. xxviii. 3.) “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” (Mark xi. 25.)

    Also, the converting our brethren from their wandering. For, it is said, “Go thou, and convert thy brethren, that thy sins may be forgiven thee.” And from one’s being in close relations with the priests, “and if,” it is said, “a man hath committed sins it shall be forgiven him.” (Jas. v. 15.) To stand forward in defense of those who are wronged. Not to retain anger: to bear all things meekly.

    There are a couple of key points that I know would seem odd to my United Methodist congregation, though they aren’t contrary to Wesleyan theology.

    First, as I already mentioned, the strong emphasis on baptism and its character. One can repent, but cannot be rebaptized. Many modern church members see baptism as nothing more than a celebration of a life experience, rather than the deep spiritual reality reflected here and elsewhere in patristic literature.

    Second, the description of the nature of repentance and the activities and attitudes that go with it will be foreign to many modern Christians. Repentance often means to us that we say “I’m sorry” and express determination not to continue, with a level of determination that will keep us on the straight and narrow until nightfall.

    I might think some of the intensity reflected in this passage is perhaps slightly overdone, but then again, perhaps it is a necessary expression. Are we not more likely to treat our sin more lightly than it deserves than we are to treat it too harshly?

  • Is Rudeness a Christian Value?

    The Minutemen United web site provides the following purpose:

    Minutemen United is a group of men and women dedicated to creating an environment where Christian thoughts, ideals and leaders can get traction in the marketplace of ideas. We hail from New York to California and are headquartered in Ohio ” the heart of it all”.

    But according to the Columbus Dispatch, their way of getting “traction in the marketplace” for their particular brand of “Christian” ideas is to be rude and to disrupt other folks’ church services.

    On one of the first Sundays, six people came to the church’s 11 a.m. service and addressed the congregation during a time designated for prayer requests and comments.

    Hurt said a man, who introduced himself as a minister from the New Beginnings Church in Warsaw, Ohio, started to give a sermon about how the church was acting against God’s word by accepting homosexuals.

    Members of Minutemen United also visited King Avenue United Methodist Church in Columbus that same morning, said the Rev. John Keeny.

    “They rebuked me as a pastor for preaching that God’s love is for everyone,” Keeny said.

    Interesting approach. I note that their is named “New Beginnings” and is thus neither First Baptist nor King Avenue United Methodist Church, a point they seem to have missed when deciding where to park their sermons.

    The churches would have every right to have the police throw these trespassers out. I congratulate both congregations for displaying a more Christ-like attitude than I likely would have.

    HT: Pandagon.

  • Random Mutations and God

    JuliaL, in a comment to my previous post, Don McLeroy and his Big Creationist Tent . I’m going to copy the comment here and reply, because I think it brings up an important point that deserves a post of its own.

    Here’s the part that mystifies me:


    Consider natural selection of random mutations. If they’re random mutations, they can’t be God-directed, and if they’re naturally selected, you can’t hav, quote, “God-selecteds.”

    Is the claim being made that there is no such thing as a mathematically random process, such as the choosing of the winning number in a lottery? Or, is McLeroy saying that a process can indeed be mathematically random, but in some magical fashion then God is incapable of being any part of it? So God is completely excluded from lotteries? And if we want to cut God out of any issue, we need only introduce randomness (like “Russian roulette” with a gun before pulling the trigger), and God is forced to stand by helpless? I’ve seen people pick a Bible verse to read by closing their eyes, letting the Bible fall open, and then putting their finger to the page to pick a random verse to mediatate on. Does this process mean that God is now excluded from the event and must stand around looking incompetent?

    As for natural selection, is the claim here that anything selected for/against by nature thereby excludes God from any role? Nature pretty much destroys certain kinds of plants I attempt to put in my yard; the heat, humidity, and alternate drought and flood kills them off. Does installing such plants mean that I have managed to ban God from my yard?

    This seems a strange view of God, not as the ground of all being or as the wholeness of which everything else is a part, but as a separate, discrete individual who can be pushed aside through math and nature processes that we all normally acknowledge exist.

    The thing that has mystified me for a long time is that so many people seem to view a natural process as something which separates something from design by God. From my theological point of view, the universe exists because God wills it so, therefore everything is designed. Supposing I create a machine that automatically produces some other device. Would that secondary device not be considered my design? God goes one better, and designs and elegant and simple algorithm that produces huge variety. It’s still God.

    Intelligent design creationists (IDC) are not satisfied to have God ordain laws and processes. They want God to intervene along the way, and see indications of that design. The Holy Grail of this idea is that one process or system that simply cannot have been produced by the simple combination of variation + natural selection. They keep claiming to have found it, but as knowledge of the evolutionary process advances, ways are discovered. IDC requires a severe deficit in imagination.

    The requirement for detectable intervention ties intelligent design to creationism. If that were not the case, they could embrace people like me who believe in God and believe that the universe itself exists by the will of God. That means everything we see is designed at some level or another. I’m not a metaphysical naturalist. But IDCs do not embrace people like me. Why? Because the simple statement that the universe is designed is not their real goal.

    Their goal is to prove elements of the Biblical story of creation, specifically that there are “kinds” that cannot produce one another, boundary lines that can only be crossed by special divine intervention. That’s the point of trying to find detectable footprints. It’s not design/non-design so much as it is the detectability of design, and even more specifically the detectability of limits that require divine intervention at particular points.

    On this young and old earth creationists can agree, because their understanding of the Genesis story, while not the same, agrees in hearing it as narrative history. They just disagree in the level of symbol involved. They both need divine intervention in a way that should be detectable. (There’s some discussion of this right now because IDCs want to deny part of their roots. This has been discussed recently by Nick Matzke, Ed Brayton, and from the IDC side by Rob Crowther.

    Now to the word “random.” That is largely a scare word, since evolution is not, in fact, a random process. Natural selection is quite directed. There are a number of definitions of the word random, but in this case non-mathematicians are generally thinking something like “lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern” (Merriam-Webster). Though this is not the mathematical definition, it will work for our purposes.

    In A Wonderful Life Gould suggested a thought experiment rolling back the movie of the history of life on earth from the time of the Cambrian explosion onward, and suggested that it might unroll in different ways because random events might occur differently. But there is a view of determinism that would say that everything that occurs is totally caused by previous events, thus if we had sufficient knowledge we could tie every event right back to be big band, down to movements of subatomic particles. With this level of determinism, someone with my view of evolution could claim that God did design not just human beings as such, but me in particular, by the way he “set off the big bang.” Everything would be determined by the arrangement of particles (and whatever) at the moment “cause” came to have any meaning. Thus intelligent design without that identifiable time of intervention.

    (For those who want to think more about this, let me link to two series by Peter Kirk at Speaker of Truth. I’m not specifically endorsing everything Peter says, and I gather that he isn’t either, but that’s not because I disagree with any substantial portion. I simply don’t understand the physics well enough for my agreement to make any difference. The important thing is that he is here working with concepts from physics, and relating them to theology and origins, and deals some with the issue of causation. The posts are Kingdom Dynamics Introduction, Beyond Causality, The Boundaries, and The Crunch, followed by The Beginning part 1 and part 2.)

    IDCs would like that, however, because it wouldn’t give them their “kinds” with boundaries between them. In the view of some of them, front-loading would come with the creation of the first life, which should have DNA capable of producing everything that happened later.

    But there is no necessity that absolute determinism is true. It’s just a possibility. There could be events that are not caused in our sense of the word at all. For example, we have no way to speak sensibly of the “cause” of the big bang. I have had people I regard as reliable tell me that quantum physics shows that the universe is truly deterministic, and others I regard as equally reliable tell me it proves that there is true randomness. I don’t understand their arguments so I cannot comment on who is right. But it’s interesting that it appears to be a debatable issue!

    Some other theists who are scientists, especially physicists, see the subatomic realm as a place where God could intervene, for example, to cause mutations at the appropriate moment, without us being able to detect that intervention at all. Again, this wouldn’t make IDCs happy, because they want to find God, and also, for the most part, to prove that he created the world in a way that can be related to Genesis. Don’t ever be deceived by the rhetoric–Genesis will show up sooner or later.

    I don’t really understand the how of it at all. I would be satisfied if God simply created the process, and the process produces everything else. I think variation + natural selection is a very powerful process. At the moment I don’t see any example of demonstrated intervention. I would simply say that as a theist I hold that even if the process is random in its input (variation) it is random because that is the way God ordains it to be. That is not a scientific conclusion, however. Science must simply observe whether it is random or not and report.

    Finally, I do believe that the IDCs come up with a bizarre idea of God, a God who is more active at some points than others, and one who designed a process to diversify life, but it didn’t work right, so he has to tinker. Somehow they think this is a positive think and work very hard to prove that it happened, at the same time proving, in my view, that God is incompetent. That’s not a conclusion I’d prefer to come to!

  • Looking at a Passage

    I’ve blogged here a few times about different ways of reading (here, for example). Lingamish has a series of posts on the topic as well that are well worth reading. They are:

    I have found many partisans amongst Bible students, especially of serious, detailed reading, outlining, diagramming, phrasing, and so forth. Others are partisans for reading large sections at a time. But all of these approaches have their benefits, and it is only by looking at the text from more than one angle that we get the whole. Someone might diagram an entire passage and provide extended exegetical arguments, but if the connection to the whole is not made, then something may well be missing.

    Lingamish has a “rubber meets the road” practical approach that is refreshing.

    One last link to Lingamish, Grasshopper Greek: Apocalyptic Rock, in which he puts a portion of Revelation to music. The player at the top of the post doesn’t seem to work, but the alternate link he provides does.

    As an occasional Greek teacher, normally of one or two students at a time, I take the opportunity both to read to them, and to have them read to me in Greek, before I ask them to translate. It takes a great deal of practice to smooth out one’s pronunciation and gain any ease in that process, but I find that students who do so can discuss the text and think about it more effectively. I’m guessing most of us who have studied Biblical languages remember a time early in our training when we would look at a word, but couldn’t really pronounce it, and then look it up in the lexicon. On failing to find it, we’d look back and realize that we weren’t looking for precisely the same word as was found in the text. Or was I the only one who ever made that mistake?

    Learning to pronounce the text comprehensibly helps with that process. I’ve been reading Syriac recently, trying to revive my knowledge of that language, which was never all that good in the first place. I made precisely that mistake just yesterday, because my pronunciation has become weak, and I don’t clearly remember the form and the sound together.

    I don’t know how many will take to rockin’ in Greek, but it’s an interesting idea!

  • Chrysostom Quote on Suffering

    Sufferings are a perfecting and a cause of salvation. Do you see that to suffer affliction is not the fate of those who are utterly forsaken, if indeed it was by leading him through sufferings that God first honored his Son? And truly his taking flesh to suffer what he suffered is a far greater thing than creating the world out of things that are not. This is indeed a token of his lovingkindness, but the other far more. — On the Epistle to the Hebrews 4-4, quoted from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews.

    This quote in my reading today relates wonderfully to the post I wrote for my wife’s devotional list.

  • Manly Dish-Doing

    As a dish-washing, laundry-doing, floor cleaning grandfather, this ridiculous answer caught my attention. No, not the one about the frozen embryos, the second one. Well, actually I required a hat tip from Pandagon.

    This is the ridiculous lengths to which the view of gender roles can go, and many times Christian complementarians head right off in that direction. I’m not saying everybody winds up with some ridiculous stereotype of male and female roles, but it’s easy to get there. My view is that each person should do what they are gifted to do, and I really doubt that anyone’s masculinity or femininity will be harmed by that.

    How does this work out in my family. Well, right now my wife has an outside job (she’s an RN), but I work at home running our business and writing. She’s also a writer, but she works that around the other job. Now think of this logically. Who in our home is best set to do the dishes, clean the house and do the laundry? I am, no question about it. I can make any of those activities a break in my day, lose remarkably little work time, and keep up with it. Since I am sitting in front of this monitor pounding this keyboard almost all day, or otherwise reading and researching, I’m not physically tired when I grab the vacuum cleaner or whatever else is necessary.

    She, on the other hand, comes home tired because her job involves being on her feet much of the time, running around the work place, and she comes home physically tired. Even if we started with an equal amount of time to put aside for housework, it just doesn’t make sense for her to be the one to do it. She needs that time to sit down, relax, and also do her writing, all of which get her off her feet.

    I note here that I don’t work less. People seem to think that because I work at home and have a small business, I don’t really have a job and should be available at all hours of the day or night for whatever anyone wants to do. In order to keep the business going I have had to put severe boundaries on my time. For example, I no longer answer the business line outside of business hours and generally ignore our personal line during business hours. Caller ID helps me sort that out a bit better.

    But back to the topic. I simply have to wonder if the people who make this type of pronouncements actually have real lives. Maybe they live insulated from the everyday world where you have to make things work together, where the house might not get cleaned if the man doesn’t step up to the plate and do it, not because the wife is shirking, but because she’s killing herself adding to the family budget.

    I don’t say every woman has to work outside the home; I’d leave that to individual couples. What I would suggest is that simply being practical makes a lot more sense than trying to rule your house by ideology.

  • Don McLeroy and his Big Creationist Tent

    I’ve written a great deal recently (here, here, and here) about the use of the term “worldview” to attempt to create a level playing field, particularly for young earth creationism. I don’t have a problem with the term “worldview” in a strictly limited sense. If we exclude particular possibilities a priori, and refuse to reexamine those assumptions, we can be locked into a worldview.

    One of my major problems with common use of the term “worldview” is that it tends to be used in a binary fashion. I don’t mean that there are only two worldviews, seen as mutually exclusive, but rather that each worldview is seen as totally exclusive of all others.

    Don McLeroy, newly named head of the Texas Board of Education (Hat Tip: NCSE, the Texas Freedom Network, and The Panda’s Thumb) gave a speech in 2005 that illulstrates some of my points very well, even better than I stated them. In a somewhat incoherent and disjointed speech, he managed to lay the boundaries of intelligent design creationism (IDC), to justify the inclusion of “creationism” in that label, to employ the scriptures extensively in support of his position, and to claim that it was all scientific.

    As a theistic evolutionist, I found his discussion interesting, and it affirms the most negative comments I have made about the intelligent design movement. There have been intelligent design advocates who have tried to include me in their camp, saying that theistic evolution is really a form of intelligent design. I disagree; so does McLeroy, thought it seems for different reasons.

    I want to focus just on McLeroy’s definition of the “big tent” of IDC, and just what it is he says they are in opposition to. Look at the following quotes from the speech:

    . . . And one other thing about these lessons, big tent, and this is, uh, in the big tent of evolution we all have disagreements, but we’re united in one thing, and we’re united in what we oppose. And you’ll see this later. This is the power of the deductive argument, but nature is all there is. We’re united against the fact that that’s a true statement.

    . . . and . . .

    . . . Actually, in intelligent design we are focused on a on a bigger target, and in the words of Phillip Johnson “the target is metaphysical naturalism, materialism or just plain old naturalism. The idea that nature is all there is.” Modern science today is totally based on naturalism, and all of intelligent design’s arguments against evolution and chemical origin of life it is the naturalistic base that is the target. . . .

    . . . and . . .

    Now I would like to talk a little bit about the big tent. Why is intelligent design the big tent? It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues. And that’s one thing that I really enjoyed about our group is that we’ve put that all in the big tent, we’re all working together.

    So what we have here is a big tend of IDC that includes just about everyone out there. Young earth creationists, old earth creationists, more general ID proponents, and one guesses even those who hold the gap theory. Thus on one side of the debate we are supposed to see people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and those who believe it is 4.5 billion years old. We are to combine people who believe there was a global flood and those who believe it was just a very large localized event. Within that range we have giant differences between the evidence required for each option.

    This is not the picture of a scientific movement. It is the picture of a political movement, involving a temporary religious alliance. I would warn the old earth creationists to beware. Should this “big tent” ever succeed in its goals, the young earth creationists who now accept IDC (and many of them do not) will be after you guys in a minute.

    But what is the goal of this diverse group? The defeat of naturalism, what else? Now notice that if naturalism is defeated, there will be some form of supernaturalism to take its place. In a philosophical sense, I’m fine with that. I’m a supernaturalist myself, on which more later. But let’s continue:

    So what is naturalism? It’s the idea that nature is all there is. . . .

    So now McLeroy makes it explicit. In his big tent belongs everyone who is opposed to naturalism, and he defines naturalism as the belief that nature is all there is. Now forgive me for being dense, but as a theist, I would think that I qualify as someone who does not believe that nature is all there is. In fact, every so often one of my atheist friends reminds me of that “weakness” in my thinking.

    So perhaps the main thing that keeps me out of McLeroy’s big tent is the fact that I have a hard time seeing how young earth creationists and old earth creationists belong in the same tent. From the scientific point of view, they don’t. At a minimum, one must recognize that different arguments are required against each one.

    But I would be wrong to think that’s the problem. Now let’s look at what is not included in the “big tent.”

    I’d like to make a quick comment about the option of theistic evolution, and it’s a very poor option. There’s not anybody in our group that’s advocating this. Because Darwinism doesn’t allow God to do anything. Consider natural selection of random mutations. If they’re random mutations, they can’t be God-directed, and if they’re naturally selected, you can’t hav, quote, “God-selecteds.” And so no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it. So, you know, there are some in the Christian camp that just say, “Well, I am a theistic evolutionist.” And there are some bright minds that are that way, but they aren’t part really of the intelligent design group. It just doesn’t fit.

    I hope you read that paragraph carefully. The problem is not whether God exists or not, or whether there is something other than nature–no matter how much someone tries to tell you other wise. The issue is about detecting and measuring God’s presence scientifically. If I say that the world exists because God brought the universe into existence, and that life appeared in accordance with God’s natural laws and then further diversified in accordance with those laws, I am not welcome in this big tent.

    The reason cannot be that I’m a naturalist. I just said God (something other than nature) is the cause of all of this. The reason is that I don’t believe that God’s fingerprints can be found where he tinkered with the processes. Unfortunately for my welcome into McLeroy’s big tent, I believe that the process God created to produce life and diversify it actually works, and doesn’t require periodic adjustments.

    This issue is not naturalism or not. The issue is whether the scientific method is to be called upon to measure the supernatural. I don’t think that will ever work. In fact, I would be unsurprised if in the scientific sense we ever found the point at which we say “God did it” because I believe that “God did it” in such a comprehensive and consistent way that we’re never going to find the seams or the fingerprints.

    One can wonder why I’m a theist, in that case, a point which I’ve discussed elsewhere, but in terms of science, “God did it” is never an answer, and should never be used as a stop sign for scientific effort.

    That’s why I totally agree with McLeroy that I belong outside his big tent, but I do so by disagreeing with the common element. It is not that they are supernaturalists. It is that they believe God must have left fingerprints on nature. They can’t agree on just what he left and where, but they’re willing to get together to push the rest of us out of the way.

    To me engaging naturalism does bring religion into the equation, though I think by bringing in scientific method some of the points – I hadn’t thought about that, so I really gotten a lot out of this discussion. That you can do it without bringing religion into it, so I think you can go both ways. . . .

    And this is simply ridiculous. Of course the intention is religious. The intent is to make sure that we get God into the equation. All this stuff about unidentified intelligent designers is a smokescreen, though the smoke is so transparent that everyone other than those generating the smoke are seeing through it. It is only the IDC folks who think that they have covered something up when they refer to an undetermined intelligent designer. The rest of us know who they’re talking about.

    McLeroy invokes the matrix in accusing evolutionary scientists of being hopelessly deceived by their worldview. But there is nothing about a methodological naturalism that prevents one from seeing any sort of evidence. I would suggest that the filter is much in evidence inside the big tent. It’s a filter that removes the abundant evidence of common descent. It also prevents people from seeing new evidence found regularly that advances our knowledge of evolutionary processes.

    I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, for someone to find God’s fingerprints showing his tinkering. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but I’m open to such evidence. Thus far, none has been forthcoming.

  • Boys Being Boys Should be Treated as Boys

    . . . or girls as girls.

    One of the things that makes me go “hmmmm” is that so many people are troubled by corporal punishment, but can somehow manage to accept the idea of a 13 year old tried and sentenced for a crime as an adult. To me that’s just weird. I do think occasionally crimes committed by juveniles need to get outside the juvenile justice system. But we also need to have effective, consistent discipline in schools and communities. My intention is not to propose draconian measures, but rather a consistent response to indiscipline.

    A good example of a reaction that is way out of proportion is this case in Oregon. I don’t normally agree with Michelle Malkin, but this, to me, is a clear case of something that should be handled as a juvenile issue, by school and hopefully parental discipline–serious discipline, needless to say, but not criminal.

    We have made it harder and harder to keep order in schools, while at the same time we have gotten more radical in juvenile justice. A measure of personal responsibility and good judgment all around would be useful.

    HT: Pursuing Holiness.