Is it a worthwhile project to dialogue with ID polemicists for the sake of local students?

That deism question from my friend mark (who believes EC is deism) creates a robust debate for which I am very thankful, and I will text him today about the nationwide discourse I have witnessed.

BioLogos at its best. Thank you.

I cannot begin to explain the networks ID overshadows here in the buckle of world creationism in Dallas.

Of course, creation science is here too, but it has almost zero impact among university student ministries.

As far ID, there is immense impact. Broad and deep. Student leaders lost as to what to say running toward the Discovery Institute network of science and theology and philosophy people all united.

I heard the polemics. The broadsides against any accommodation for what is taught in the university biology departments. And against the scientific consensus.

I spend a lot of time looking at small and invisible people watching these tensions on campus, affected by the national fracas.

The students that is. The carriers of the Gospel baton after we all are dead.

All I can think of given my limits is to invite local ID people including student leaders to lunch and talk about Darwin, Paley, and the Discovery Institute network and agenda.

Plus our common cause, the great commission especially among students and professors.

But we also need to be good neighbors to each other. Locally.

Think global, act local.

If you have anything to add to that strategy let me know. I am ready to act for the sake of the small and invisible leaders and those they socialize with locally.

1 Like

And yes it is. Mandatory.

Why not contact the National Center for Science Education ?
It is a religiously neutral organization dedicated to making sure children get a good education in evolution and climate change. They were instrumental in defeating the ID side in the Kitzmiller trial.

They will surely have some good ideas for you!

2 Likes

In my experience the majority of people who believe in ID essentially seems to believe the same thing as most people who believe in evolution without a religious overtones, or even more so as those who believe in theistic evolution like most of us here.

The biggest difference in my opinion is how we view probability of how everything came to be. For me it’s a point I mostly don’t worry about because the debate side does not seem to be scientific as much as philosophical. Even then the philosophical aspects are pretty blurry. Or we will place more faith in the concept of probability that life will be found in at least 1 out of a 1,000 or so galaxies , or what are the chances that another planet is within the realm of being able to support life and that it’s evolved there and so on.

Such as I don’t really have a reason to believe that there is life on another planet that meets similar conditions to ours but they are not advance enough to communicate to us or vice versa. But the probability of it exists and even just trying to reason through it you still conclude it’s probable because of the vastness of space. That faith in probability is not much more scientific than doubting that probability and so on.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.