Focus on the Family. Whose Comfortable Myth?

[Evoken]

Whose Comfortable Myth?
by Mark Hartwig, Ph.D.

As early as the fourth century A.D., the intellectual elite of the Roman world were Christians. And Christianity retained its dominant position in the West until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, aided by Darwin's theory of evolution, gained the upper hand.

Since then, secularists have dismissed Christianity as a serious intellectual option.
...........

That may soon change. Christian thinkers, such as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Baylor University, have seen "promising signs that the intellectual vitality is shifting back to the Christians."

...........

This is particularly true in the area of biology. For decades, Darwin's theory of evolution has ruled supreme. But its reign is now threatened by a growing band of scholars promoting an alternative view called "intelligent design." Despite vigorous opposition, they are gaining ground and panicking Darwin's defenders.

...........

Darwinists dismiss the reasoning behind the intelligent-design movement, contending that living organisms were produced by the mindless processes of random mutation and natural selection. But advances in molecular biology are shredding that claim.

...........

That implication has Darwinists alarmed. And their opposition to intelligent design has taken on a desperate tone. In 1999, for example, Darwinists launched a vicious campaign of threats and ridicule when the Kansas State Board of Education refused to require that Darwinism be taught as the sole explanation for life's diversity. (They did not ban the teaching of evolution, as the media widely misreported.)

...........

As of this writing, Darwinist rhetoric is already white-hot. A statement distributed by Ohio Citizens for Science, a pro-evolutionist organization, accused intelligent-design advocates of "legalized church terrorism" and branded them as "our local Ohio Taliban."

...........


The myths of evolution are sincerely believed by many people only because they've never been taught otherwise. Most students are taught only a superficial view of biology when it comes to evolution, never hearing that a good deal of scientific evidence contradicts the Darwinian explanation of origins.

...........

To learn more about intelligent design and the flaws of Darwinian theory, request the Icons of Evolution and Unlocking the Mystery of Life set at our online resource center.

From here. (http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0021018.cfm)


All those lies to sell you a book and video. :rolleyes:


Valz

[Philosoft]

Don't forget, though, that ID has nothing to do with Christianity.

[GarColga]

"Focus On The Family" probably takes in a good deal of money telling credulous Christians what they want to hear.

"Darwinists" are "alarmed"!! Oh please. As if a scientific theory depends on public sentiment for it's validity.

[Kosh]

"Focus On The Family" probably takes in a good deal of money telling credulous Christians what they want to hear.

"Darwinists" are "alarmed"!! Oh please. As if a scientific theory depends on public sentiment for it's validity.

I think the only thing "Darwinists" are alarmed about it is when the Fundies will come for the science books....

[Kotter]

That article would make even the hard-core YEC's proud! It's smell still lingers in my nostrils!

[profplum]

"Focus On The Family" probably takes in a good deal of money telling credulous Christians what they want to hear.

My ex was (and maybe still is) a big fan of James Dobson. She owned a copy of his book Dare to Discipline, which advocated judicious use of spanking and very firmly described the father as the head of the family. I think that might qualify as telling Fundamentalists what they want to hear ("Spare the rod, spoil the child").

"Darwinists" are "alarmed"!!

More like "Scientists are annoyed."

Oh please. As if a scientific theory depends on public sentiment for it's validity.

True, but it might depend on public sentiment for its funding.

BTW, this is another front of what the author of What's the Matter with Kansas calls "backlash politics." He includes the campaign against the teaching of evolution among several populist attacks on scientific, medical, and technical expertise.

[glyptodon]

As early as the fourth century A.D., the intellectual elite of the Roman world were Christians. And Christianity retained its dominant position in the West until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, aided by Darwin's theory of evolution, gained the upper hand.

Since then, secularists have dismissed Christianity as a serious intellectual option.

Urgh. What vast ignorance of intellectual and scientific history! Well, I'll charitably assume it's ignorance, rather than deliberate misrepresentation.

That may soon change. Christian thinkers, such as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Baylor University, have seen "promising signs that the intellectual vitality is shifting back to the Christians."

What's that quote from Dembski where he admits that IDers are a wee bit lacking in the actual "produced research" department, as compared to the philosophical expostulation one? I think it was Dembski, at least. Not that you need a quote from him to demonstrate this, but it would be a nice contrast.

This is particularly true in the area of biology. For decades, Darwin's theory of evolution has ruled supreme.

Yes, because it explained things far better than previous theories as to the origin of living things. Previous theories which are absolutely identical to current ID arguments, except with different trappings.

The myths of evolution are sincerely believed by many people only because they've never been taught otherwise. Most students are taught only a superficial view of biology when it comes to evolution, never hearing that a good deal of scientific evidence contradicts the Darwinian explanation of origins.

Oh, it's certainly true that many people accept scientific facts because that's what they've been taught, not because they truly understand the principles. However, I can't think of one creationist--I mean, "Intelligent Design" advocate--who actually does seem to have a grasp on the theory of evolution.

Not that I need to preach to the choir.

Don't forget, though, that ID has nothing to do with Christianity.

Unless, that is, they're pitching it to Christians. Then, they're really quite open about it. Do they think no one will notice or something?

[llanitedave]

Dembski is their shining example of Christian intellectual superiority?

Like Osama Bin Laden represents a return to political populism...

[SpeedDemon]

Additionally, the Darwinists' struggle to exempt evolution from critical scrutiny is making it clear that their views are based, not on science, but on shaky assumptions.

Finally, a rational explanation for the complete lack of peer-reviewed journal articles dealing with evolution!

Oooh, wait a second....

SD

[Infinite_Rules]

Actually from what anecdotal evidence I can gather, James Dobson is very popular among the middle age folks here in Singapore. I suspect it's because he advocates a concept of the family that is more or less in line with eastern confucian thinking.

[Kosh]

Actually from what anecdotal evidence I can gather, James Dobson is very popular among the middle age folks here in Singapore. I suspect it's because he advocates a concept of the family that is more or less in line with eastern confucian thinking.

Of course, a Prophet is never appreciated in his hometown.... ;)

[Veovis]

Of course, a Prophet is never appreciated in his hometown.... ;)

That's because the people in his home town know him better.

[MrDarwin]

As early as the fourth century A.D., the intellectual elite of the Roman world were Christians. And Christianity retained its dominant position in the West until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, aided by Darwin's theory of evolution, gained the upper hand.


Wait a minute, what were the Dark Ages again??

[MrDarwin]

More like "Scientists are annoyed."

Oh no, make no mistake, scientists are alarmed: at how dismally ignorant most Americans are about science in general and biology and evolution in particular, at how much political clout these people have, at how readily the politicians pander to them, and at how it may affect not only the teaching of biology but the basic research that the teaching is based upon.

[ninewands]

As early as the fourth century A.D., the intellectual elite of the Roman world were Christians. And Christianity retained its dominant position in the West until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, aided by Darwin's theory of evolution, gained the upper hand.
Funny ... to the best of my knowledge I don't think I've ever heard of the Romans referred to as one of the great intellectual groups of the ancient world. Greeks, yes, Egyptians, yes, Persians, yes to a somewhat lesser degree, but never the Romans. The traits for which the Roman civilization was most well-known were their efficiency in public administration, their military conquests and their expertise in constructing huge public works projects (aqueducts, Hadrian's Wall, the road system, etc., etc.). While there were some rather capable intellectuals of Roman descent residing in Constantinople following the split into Eastern Empire and Western Empire, they self-identified as "Greeks," spoke and wrote in Greek and otherwise tried to disassociate themselves from Rome. I wonder why that would be if Roman civilization was such an enlightened intellectual society? :D

[buckshot23]

Funny ... to the best of my knowledge I don't think I've ever heard of the Romans referred to as one of the great intellectual groups of the ancient world. Greeks, yes, Egyptians, yes, Persians, yes to a somewhat lesser degree, but never the Romans. The traits for which the Roman civilization was most well-known were their efficiency in public administration, their military conquests and their expertise in constructing huge public works projects (aqueducts, Hadrian's Wall, the road system, etc., etc.). While there were some rather capable intellectuals of Roman descent residing in Constantinople following the split into Eastern Empire and Western Empire, they self-identified as "Greeks," spoke and wrote in Greek and otherwise tried to disassociate themselves from Rome. I wonder why that would be if Roman civilization was such an enlightened intellectual society? :D
The quote doesn't say Rome was "one of the great intellectual groups". :huh: How does that straw taste?

[flintknapper]

Didn't we get the "Senate" and the idea of a "republic" from the Romans?
Not to mention Roman meal bread and Roman candles.;)

[llanitedave]

The quote doesn't say Rome was "one of the great intellectual groups". :huh: How does that straw taste?

So what you're saying is that the early christians were the biggest fish in a pond of very small intellect.

[Mageth]

Since then, secularists have dismissed Christianity as a serious intellectual option.

Err...there were plenty before Darwin that similarly dismissed Christianity.

That may soon change. Christian thinkers, such as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Baylor University,

Since when has Dembski been a philosopher?

...have seen "promising signs that the intellectual vitality is shifting back to the Christians."

It's about time some of them developed intellects!

The myths of evolution are sincerely believed by many people only because they've never been taught otherwise. Most students are taught only a superficial view of biology when it comes to evolution, never hearing that a good deal of scientific evidence contradicts the Darwinian explanation of origins.

<Insert "Need another irony meter - mine just broke" line here>

<Insert rewording here: "The myths of creation are sincerely believed by many people only because they've never been taught otherwise. Most Christians are taught only a twisted view of biology when it comes to evolution, never hearing of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports the Darwinian explanation of origins.">

[Boro Nut]

I think that might qualify as telling Fundamentalists what they want to hear ("Spare the rod, spoil the child").

That's one of the things I miss most about being a fundamentalist. I can feel my rod throbbing just thinking about it.

Would you like to come and see some puppies?

Boro Nut

[Coragyps]

Boro, you are the friggin' BEST!

[buckshot23]

So what you're saying is that the early christians were the biggest fish in a pond of very small intellect.
I'm not saying anything but pointing out a strawman.

[profplum]

That's because the people in his home town know him better.

I've heard that the people in his current home town, Colorado Springs, rather appreciate him. I'm not sure what the people in his other home towns, Arcadia, California, where he started out, along with Monrovia and Pomona, where FotF moved after Arcadia, think of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family

[profplum]

That's one of the things I miss most about being a fundamentalist. I can feel my rod throbbing just thinking about it.

Would you like to come and see some puppies?

Boro Nut
:eek:

[RBH]

Mageth askedSince when has Dembski been a philosopher?Dembski has a philosophy Ph.D. and a math Ph.D. His philosophy dissertation was reworked to produce The Design Inference, his first book on his purported method of intelligent design detection.

RBH

[Gooch's dad]

A bit OT, but I was really saddened to see a "Focus on the Family" magazine on my sister's kitchen counter when I visited over the holidays. She and her husband seem to have raised up 3 little fundamentalists. They're nominally Presbyterians, I think, but they hold to a pretty fundy viewpoint on most things. I had to apologize to my sis last year after snapping at her about teaching "crap' to her youngest son, about how evolution is false.

Sigh. I think 9 out of my 14 nieces and nephews are fundies.

[llanitedave]

A bit OT, but I was really saddened to see a "Focus on the Family" magazine on my sister's kitchen counter when I visited over the holidays. She and her husband seem to have raised up 3 little fundamentalists. They're nominally Presbyterians, I think, but they hold to a pretty fundy viewpoint on most things. I had to apologize to my sis last year after snapping at her about teaching "crap' to her youngest son, about how evolution is false.

Sigh. I think 9 out of my 14 nieces and nephews are fundies.

It's a constant battle. Science is progressive, but our culture doesn't seem to be. Education is on the decline and superstition is on the increase. It affects my family as well, and probably most of us who are here.

[dmarker]

Whose Comfortable Myth?
by Mark Hartwig, Ph.D.

As early as the fourth century A.D., the intellectual elite of the Roman world were Christians. And Christianity retained its dominant position in the West until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, aided by Darwin's theory of evolution, gained the upper hand.

Since then, secularists have dismissed Christianity as a serious intellectual option.
...........



Didn't Rome fall about 40 years after the Christians took over? Not that I blame the Christian intellectual elite for the collapse of course.

I wonder what would have happened if Paul died from his closed brain injury and Rome stayed with their gods.

[gregor]

321 - purported acceptance of Xianity by Constantine (not the exclusive state religion, though - that would wait another 30 years)

325 - first council of Bishops to establish orthodoxy

410 - sack of Rome

I doubt the statement "as early as the fourth century the intellectual elite . . ." - Perhaps he meant to write "after 400 CE the state and the Church dominated society and many intellectuals for the next 1200 years had little chance for intellectual pursuits other than the outlet provided (or sanctioned) by the Church, as all heretical intellectual pursuits were either quashed or unfunded."


If Constantine lost the battle of the Milvan bridge, at some point some other leader might have claimed to have found Xianity, as it was a popular religion of the great unwashed and army.

[Richard Forrest]

321 - purported acceptance of Xianity by Constantine (not the exclusive state religion, though - that would wait another 30 years)

325 - first council of Bishops to establish orthodoxy

410 - sack of Rome

I doubt the statement "as early as the fourth century the intellectual elite . . ." - Perhaps he meant to write "after 400 CE the state and the Church dominated society and many intellectuals for the next 1200 years had little chance for intellectual pursuits other than the outlet provided (or sanctioned) by the Church, as all heretical intellectual pursuits were either quashed or unfunded."


If Constantine lost the battle of the Milvan bridge, at some point some other leader might have claimed to have found Xianity, as it was a popular religion of the great unwashed and army.


More to the point, the Roman empire in the east remained a significant power under its Christian rule until the 15th century.

Richard Forrest

[gregor]

Rich

Thanks, but to the point of what?

I think Dobson's argument was that intellectualism florished under western Christiandom. I challenge this idea, and but for Jewish and Muslim intellectuals preserving Aristotle, Pythagorus, and other works, the dark ages would have been darker, longer.

I surely don't think Dobson argues that the orthodox church based in Istambul/Byzantium/Constantinople preserved a strong intellectual history.

[johno]

Whose Comfortable Myth?
by Mark Hartwig, Ph.D.


Whenever I see an author quoting his own degrees (except on his curriculum vitae applying for a job) I know that I am being confronted by a twonk. No point in reading any further.

johno, PhD, DSc

[Mageth]

Dembski has a philosophy Ph.D. and a math Ph.D. His philosophy dissertation was reworked to produce The Design Inference, his first book on his purported method of intelligent design detection.

RBH

Aah, yes, I forgot that Dembski had a Ph.D in Philosophy.

However, having a degree in Philosophy does not qualify someone to be referred to as a "Philosopher", IMO. (I once read a comment along the lines of "Most people with Philosophy degrees know quite a bit about Philosophy, can talk or write about Philosophy, can perhaps teach Philosophy, but can't actually do Philosophy.")

Do you think Dembski's work qualifies him as a Philosopher?

[TNorthover]

The quote doesn't say Rome was "one of the great intellectual groups". :huh: How does that straw taste?

No, but it does seem to be trying to give Christianity some extra prestige because the Roman "intellectual elite" accepted it. The piece was clearly written as rhetoric and associating Christianity with the top echelons of an empire generally known to be great is obviously part of that.

ninewands was simply pointing out that while the empire was renowned, it wasn't for its intellectual achievements so the statement is much less powerful than intended (or indeed perceived by the casual observer without much knowledge of history).

[RBH]

Aah, yes, I forgot that Dembski had a Ph.D in Philosophy.

However, having a degree in Philosophy does not qualify someone to be referred to as a "Philosopher", IMO. (I once read a comment along the lines of "Most people with Philosophy degrees know quite a bit about Philosophy, can talk or write about Philosophy, can perhaps teach Philosophy, but can't actually do Philosophy.")

Do you think Dembski's work qualifies him as a Philosopher?No. Nor does Wells's Ph.D. in cell biology qualify him as a "biologist", since essentially all he's done since his degree is work for the Discovery Institute as a paid propagandist. (shrug)

RBH

[glyptodon]

(I once read a comment along the lines of "Most people with Philosophy degrees know quite a bit about Philosophy, can talk or write about Philosophy, can perhaps teach Philosophy, but can't actually do Philosophy.")

Do you think Dembski's work qualifies him as a Philosopher?

I don't know; what does "doing" philosophy entail? (Creating sophisticated and cogent abstract frameworks for understanding things?) I would say that Dembski can certainly go on at length, but that his arguments are specious and logically flawed. Does that automatically mean that someone isn't "doing" philosophy?

[Mageth]

I don't know; what does "doing" philosophy entail? (Creating sophisticated and cogent abstract frameworks for understanding things?) I would say that Dembski can certainly go on at length, but that his arguments are specious and logically flawed. Does that automatically mean that someone isn't "doing" philosophy?

One question to ask is: is Dembski saying anything new or original? I doubt it.

The "quote" I provided was directed at those - I'm sure you've run into them - who have philosophy degrees or have studied philosophy extensively, but whose output is only the regurgitation of the work of others. They can quote philosophy, they can paraphrase philosophy, but they can't do philosophy. They provide nothing new, original, or useful. I.e., they do not "do" philosophy.

IMO, there are very few real Philosophers among us. Therefore, again IMO, the title "Philosopher" should be sparingly used. I doubt that Dembski qualifies. (I've read one or two of his books - they certainly don't qualify him as a "Philosopher" in my book).

Did you see Good Will Hunting? If so, remember the pretentious male student in the bar that Will brought down to size when he tried to embarass Will's friend? I think he's a stereotypical example of what I'm getting at. Extremely smart, extremely well-educated, but completely unoriginal.

[llanitedave]

Aah, yes, I forgot that Dembski had a Ph.D in Philosophy.

However, having a degree in Philosophy does not qualify someone to be referred to as a "Philosopher", IMO. (I once read a comment along the lines of "Most people with Philosophy degrees know quite a bit about Philosophy, can talk or write about Philosophy, can perhaps teach Philosophy, but can't actually do Philosophy.")

Do you think Dembski's work qualifies him as a Philosopher?

Any of us are qualified to be a philosopher.

[Mageth]

Any of us are qualified to be a philosopher.

There's a difference between "qualified to be" and "qualified as".

And I would say that some of us are "qualified to be" philosophers. (And I'm not saying that I am). I certainly wouldn't say all humans are so qualified.

Being "qualified to be", however, does not make one a, or qualify one as a philosopher. Having a Ph.D. in Philosophy does not make one or qualify one as a philosopher.

And giving the title of "philosopher" to just anyone with a brain pretty much dilutes the term "philosopher" to meaninglessness.

[RBH]

TAnd giving the title of "philosopher" to just anyone with a brain pretty much dilutes the term "philosopher" to meaninglessness.Uh huh. :p

RBH

[ElectEngr]

I remember the scene in History of the World, Part 1 where Mel Brooks is trying to get unemplayment from Bea Aurther (during the Roman segment),

Bea ask

"What do you do for a living?"

Mel:

"I'm a standup Philosopher"

Bea:

"Ah...a bulls[censored]er"

Later,
ElectEngr

[buckshot23]

No, but it does seem to be trying to give Christianity some extra prestige because the Roman "intellectual elite" accepted it.
The article as far as I could tell was talking about losing control of the intellectual elite. Nothing about giving prestige to christianity. Strawman has been put safely away I hope by now.

[TNorthover]

Strawman has been put safely away I hope by now.

I don't quite know where you're getting this straw-man idea from. To my mind straw-men are intricately related to arguments, and distortions of them. All I see here is a phrase "intellectual elite of the Roman world" from the site; and someone commenting that it's not really saying much there.

You might be able to make a case for ninewand's post being irrelevant because it's really just a throw-away phrase in the original. In fact the part of your post I snipped would actually draw me to agree with you on that point.

But I don't see how you can claim straw-men; and I still think ninewand's post pointed out an interesting facet of the original article. That the author mentioned Rome's "intellectual elite" arguably shows he doesn't know much Roman history -- which while irrelevant is nice to know, and I probably wouldn't have noticed on my own.

[llanitedave]

There's a difference between "qualified to be" and "qualified as".

And I would say that some of us are "qualified to be" philosophers. (And I'm not saying that I am). I certainly wouldn't say all humans are so qualified.

Being "qualified to be", however, does not make one a, or qualify one as a philosopher. Having a Ph.D. in Philosophy does not make one or qualify one as a philosopher.

And giving the title of "philosopher" to just anyone with a brain pretty much dilutes the term "philosopher" to meaninglessness.

1. I never said anything about being a meaningful philosopher.
2. I never said anything about a brain being a necessary qualification.

It's just that philosohpy doesn't quite have the cachet that it used to.

[buckshot23]

I don't quite know where you're getting this straw-man idea from. To my mind straw-men are intricately related to arguments, and distortions of them. All I see here is a phrase "intellectual elite of the Roman world" from the site; and someone commenting that it's not really saying much there.
I think it is a strawman because nobody was claiming any status to the roman intellectual establishment. Then it was pointed out that that establishment wasn't that high. It is a distortion of the original statement and attacked. I think that is a perfect example of a strawman.

[Jennie]

Really? I felt it was implicit in the writing that we were supposed to be impressed. That's the connotation I got anyway.

[buckshot23]

Really? I felt it was implicit in the writing that we were supposed to be impressed. That's the connotation I got anyway.
I can't argue against your emotions. I didn't get that from the article especially given the context of the entire thing. Imagine that a creationist paying attention to context.:huh:

[TNorthover]

Really? I felt it was implicit in the writing that we were supposed to be impressed. That's the connotation I got anyway.

I agree, we've got to think why the author used the phrase in the first place (rather than "upper classes" or similar), and I think it was to evoke an impressive picture. Obviously I wasn't alone.