Religiocentricism?

We all know about political correctness. Is there such a thing as theological correctness? 

Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Founder, The Clergy Letter Project

Posted: November 10, 2010 02:47 PM

In the Creationist Universe, Religious Dogma Trumps Scientific Inquiry

While the results of the midterm elections provided some evidence on the state of the economy, there's a far clearer indicator of just how bad things are. William Dembski, one of the main proponents of intelligent design, has recanted his scientific views in an attempt to keep his job. As philosopher Michael Ruse has said, explaining but not condoning Dembski's actions, "here he is with a wife and kids to support and the threat of the sack."

The issue is as clear as any could be and demonstrates the kind of litmus test that proponents of religious fundamentalism impose on their adherents -- even on their stars. And make no mistake about it, William Dembski is a first order star in the intelligent design firmament. He is a prolific author who has earned both a Ph.D. in mathematics as well as a Masters of Divinity degree. He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and a professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Indeed, you can't read anything about intelligent design without encountering Dembski's arguments in support of this version of creationism.

And yet, according to an article in Florida Baptist Witness, even his stellar creationist credentials were not enough to keep the inquisitors from his door. As the article describes it, Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, called Dembski into his office along with "several high-ranking administrators at the seminary."

At issue were two of Dembski's beliefs, as expressed in his latest book The End of Christianity and elsewhere: that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 14 billion years, and that Noah's flood was regional rather than worldwide.

Again, according to the article in Florida Baptist Witness, "At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said."

Patterson went on to say, "Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school."

Prior to the meeting but in response to growing criticism (and in direct contradiction to what he said in The End of Christianity), Dembski wrote, "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."

This simple admission, an acknowledgement that he "bow[s] to the text" on issues of science, removes Dembski from any consideration as a real scientist. Consider his statement of faith in light of the motto adopted in the 1600s by the Royal Society of London, the oldest extant scientific society in the world. Their motto, a translation and a paraphrase of a line from Horace's Epistulae, reads as follows:

I am not bound to swear allegiance to any master.

Where the storm carries me, I put into port and make myself at home.

Real scientists let the evidence lead them to their conclusions. The pseudoscientists known as creationists use the Bible to generate their conclusions and twist the data to conform. What is so very sad, if not surprising, is that previously Dembski claimed to rely on science for part of his work. For example:

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. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts.

To be fair to those who have forced Dembski to walk away from his scientific principles, at this point some, but certainly not all, are willing to turn a blind eye to his old earth views if not his views on Noah's Flood. The Florida Baptist Witness notes that Patterson "believes that proper exegesis of the early chapters in Genesis requires a young earth. But he also said that young- and old-earth creationists banding together to combat evolution is more important than internal debates among creationists."

So, while Patterson would fire Dembski over his views on the Flood, when it comes to the age of the earth, he takes the position that any enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Not everyone agrees with that view, though. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said, "Theologically, the historical Adam as the common ancestor of the human race is the most important issue. But the question is, how in the world do you end up with an historical Adam if you have an old earth? It's becoming increasingly clear that an old earth implies something other than an historical Adam." Kurt Wise, yet another prominent creationist and a professor of biology at Truett-McConnell College said, "it is impossible to consistently believe in both an old earth and inerrant Scripture."

Although the news of Dembski's retractions appeared a few weeks back, I waited to write about it to see how the creationist community would respond. Surely, those who vigorously promoted Ben Stein's movieExpelled (a film that famously pretended that a scientific orthodoxy relentlessly fired world class scientists who held dissenting views) would come to his defense. Not surprisingly, not a peep of protest has been heard.

Ben Stein meet Paige Patterson, apparently the most moderate of the fundamentalist inquisitors: "Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school."

 

Comments

[Chris Caldwell]

Seeing this article bothers me. A person is threatened to get fired just because he makes decisions based on evidence? I agree that faith plays a strong role in decision making when discussing the bible. I also believe however that a person should be allowed to discuss their beliefs that are based on the facts. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how I stand on this article at the moment...I'm somewhat on the fence about it.

[Ax Dillingham]

"The text" they "bow down to" is not a science book. When will these people get that.

[Nicole Shannon]

It sounds to me like Dembski is trying to please everyone. He wants to be a scientist and research facts, but when confronted he will conform to what the religious nuts want to hear. It seems like a matter of what his priorities are: his job or his beliefs. The latter seems very muddled in this article.

[Ax Dillingham]

Even before he came under fire for accepting the evidence about the age of the Earth, he was denying evolution.

[Kailagh Powell]

If William Dembski is going to proclaim his views of theses matters so progressively, then he really needs to sit down and figure out what he believes and supports. By not having a firm hold on what he is willing to accept as true, he is unintentionally discrediting his name, not that there is anything he can do about that now.

[Taylor Britain]

If Mr. Dembski wants to make these problems for himself, then let him. It sounds like in the article that he is telling different people different things to make everybody happy.

[Cameron Haines]

Mr. Dembski, just like everyone has said, really needs to figure out what he believes and needs to stop going back and forth. He really is discrediting his name, like Kailagh said, and is showing everyone who follows him that he has no idea what he believes.

[Daniel Prohaska]

This is not only depressing and discouraging this is WRONG! I cannot emphasize enough that part of the government's job is to protect its people. If this point is agreeable to everyone, then we must stop ludicrous institutions run by people like Patterson. It is immoral to think that someone can lose their job over their conclusions reached by observations when they have support for those conclusions! These institutions need to be addressed on a national level and exposed for the frauds and dangers they are. Their idea of using a theological manuscript to justify archaic science would regress our society to the days when you could sell your children into slavery, stone your neighbors and friends for wearing clothes of different threads, and kill anyone you know to work on the Sabbath. I don't think anyone wants to go back to those times, yet that is what these institutions are arguing for. It is unacceptable and criminal that someone who had as well respected of a scientific opinion as Mr. Dembski should be forced to recant what they know to be true.

[Alex Oakes]

I have to agree with Chris...This article bothers me. I don’t agree with the fact that someone could be fired based on their opinion...especially if that opinion is supported by fact. Isn't that the whole point of thinking? Don’t we want to form opinions that can be supported by fact how is that a bad thing.

[Kevin Gaston]

This is really sad. The fact that the church is willingly standing behind
this. This is an complete outrage. It assumes that nothing is to be
questioned. Why in the owrld are we even livingl ife, if we will only be
pawns to a book that isn't even factual. I hate the fact that these
ill-informed people are controlling the world based on something they have
come to. It is impossible for me to even conjure the idea in my mind that
they were wiklling to fire this man for actually denouncing what they
believed. If he has found these things to be true, then why dont they look
into it. If they did not trust his judegement, they would not have hired
him in the first place. That is a load of crap. Hw the hell can they do
this with a straight face as if it is right, and what GOD would want. This
is the stuff that GOD gets upset about. The servent trying too hard to
please the mast, the premier suck-up, never gets noticed. However ,the
servent that will explore, question, and ask is the one who will be
rewarded in the end. This is crap. What is the point of even having
education. What is the point of living life, if we are only to be zombies
of a Higher Power that gave us a book that is not even factual. It just
seems that for this BIBLE to be so INFALLIBLE, it has a lot of quirks in
it.

[Megan Ashley]

I don't know if I could say that it is right for them to fire him based on his opinion but I can see where they are coming from. It's like he goes into the job knowing the viewpoints but yet he goes against them.

[Amy Salmond]

I agree with Nicole. More than Mr. Dembski's views on science and religion, it concerns me that this man doesn't know what he believes - or changes his view to fit whatever mold he needs to. This is supposed to be an educated man, a knowledgable authority on this matter, and yet he swish-sways back and forth on issues just as much as Obama.