<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Peter Enns gently confronted, exposed, he punts

I confronted Peter Enns on his blog using a fake name asking what I think is the central question he has to answer:

Frederick Santal says:
November 12, 2011 at 12:51 am

>That’s the whole point of this debate— evolution is a new factor we have to address.

You’re not being thorough in all this until you tell us why you believe in macro evolution. Acting like it is settled science is disingenuous, or naive.

peteenns says:
November 12, 2011 at 9:45 am

Frederick, I accept macro evolution because it has been demonstrated to be sufficiently true to an overwhelming majority of practicing scientists who work in the relevant fields. I certain allow for–in fact, assume to be the case–that scientific models continue to change, be refined, etc. I dont think, however, that the “unsettled” (as you put it) nature of science will open the back door to a literalist reading of Genesis, if that is what you are implying.

Frederick Santal says:
November 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm

There’s a difference between macro evolution and micro evolution. There is a constant bait and switch between the two when such statements are being made such as “[macro evolution] has been demonstrated to be sufficiently true to an overwhelming majority of practicing scientists.”

When pro-macro-evolution scientists conflate micro with macro evolution they are engaging in wild ad hoc speculation that has nothing to do with the scientific enterprise as we know it. They’ve left the empirical realm, and indeed often start speaking of space aliens (see Richard Dawkins) to explain their theory.

I’m sure you’re aware that the scientific community today is a rather controlled and well-policed environment; certainly as it’s presented to the public through its academic spokesmen/women and the media.

The fact is, though, that *macro* evolution has been rather successfully challenged by its lack of evidence in the fossil record and more recently by micro biology. Micro evolution, and the laboratory work we associate with it is really nothing new, except for its being done at ever smaller scale. That is not macro evolution though.

Again, you will be well-served in this enterprise if you make it clear just why you accept *macro* evolution to be reality. And anyway, creation of the heavens and the Earth was a supernatural event. You can take Adam out of the supernatural creation category, but you still have a problem with the very heavens and the Earth.

peteenns says:
November 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Frederick, are you a practicing scientist of any sort?

Frederick Santal says:
November 13, 2011 at 12:46 am

If questions can be fallacious, that is a fallacious question. The claims of historical science are hardly coded for only a closed society to understand or evaluate. Don’t tell me you accept macro evolution as fact because you unquestionably accept what some scientists claim for that theory (and as if there are no scientists who challenge the theory).

You see, he punted. The last comment by 'Frederick' was not let through.

Enns is like an amateur investor putting all his money on a stock after that stock has already had its big, historic run in the market and is pretty much set on being a flat to down stock from here on out.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading you is normally a guilty pleasure, since you are generally a rageaholic and an occultist, but you carried yourself well there. Enns is a joke.

November 13, 2011 at 11:43 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Frederick Santal is my most level-headed nom de plume. I think he's a professor in Brazil or something.

The word occult doesn't carry value type meaning. It just means hidden. Occult influence, sources, material, knowledge that is on-the-mark (true) can though be hiding right under your nose.

It's generally not for everybody, but it's available to anybody.

It's also offered generally with palm half-opened.

Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide' meaning from those outside the circle of his immediate disciples. Though there were always cropping up an individual here and there 'in the crowd' who would show understanding of what He was saying, and Jesus would recognize them and their understanding.

On rageaholic... When I re-read many of my posts after some time I often say, "Oh, my... Calm down..." Also I say: "You can say the exact same thing, with the same force, using less crude language. You don't have to water anything down, but language is such that it will accomodate and deliver the same thing in less crude language." Then I forget...

November 14, 2011 at 12:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should be level headed all the time.

To quote Reese from "Malcolm in The Middle," the voices in your head are not your friends.

I've never heard of any sort of Christian having this much trouble avoiding crude language. I know you didn't just drop out of a biker gang, so what gives?

Nor have I seen a Calvinist trying to boost his spirituality by adopting occult flim-flam. Plenty of Roman Catholics, but no Calvinists. We are not a tolerant bunch. The Puritans would have you jailed.

November 14, 2011 at 2:19 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Actually it's the Puritans I'm most in line with. And the Second Reformation Dutch. They are the ones that most took the faith to the practical level.

My language is partly due to my distaste for moralism which is so prevalent among Christians.

Back to occult flim-flam. Another commentator called it "oogie boogie stuff".

Most everything's lame, but not everything is lame. Renaissance Mass is not lame, for instance, yet it's not Protestant either. Practices of the faith associated with more Eastern Orthodox sources (the Philokalia for instance) are not lame, in total anyway, yet they are not Protestant. Not all mystics were lame. Desiring the practical level of the faith is not lame. Wanting to understand more deeply what watchfulness means. That would be Jesus' teaching on watchfulness. Just for instance. And again 'occult' just means hidden. Like one of Jesus' parables. I can hear the crowd surrounding Jesus and His disciples now yelling, "Occult!!" at them.

November 14, 2011 at 3:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home