1. Comment #403815 by j.mills on August 9, 2009 at 2:53 am

This is a joke, right? Tell me this is a joke.

Other Comments by j.mills

2. Comment #403817 by Fil on August 9, 2009 at 3:08 am

Reading that lightweight excuse for an edumication, I almost wish we could sic the Spanish Inquisition onto them...

Honestly, the thought of that dumbass institution instilling yet more christian bullshit and scientific ignorance onto students, who will spread it ever further, is deeply annoying.

"(4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade)."

Bring it on, I say. Oh, except what's the point of arguing and engaging with these people, as if their views are in any way realistic? It's impossible to argue with "magic" and it only gives these dills their points for class.

Sheesh.

Other Comments by Fil

3. Comment #403819 by steveroot on August 9, 2009 at 3:25 am

@ J. Mills:
If it's a joke, someone has way too much time on their hands!

From the "Final Exam" in PHILO 4373, Christian Apologetics Place: In cyberspace...

3. According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident (sic). By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles).
Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

Richard Dawkins makes the Final Exam!! This is what I call major impact! ;-)
I would love to see some of the answers to #4... both "good" answers and the "dim-bulb" ones. :-)
Steve

Edit: Isn't it a "Dumbski" exam?

Other Comments by steveroot

4. Comment #403824 by BPerryman on August 9, 2009 at 3:53 am

I love how they use the word "mercy" to get extra credit. It proves that what they are doing to the students is torture.

Other Comments by BPerryman

5. Comment #403838 by mordacious1 on August 9, 2009 at 6:10 am

Un-fucking-believable.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #403841 by DamnDirtyApe on August 9, 2009 at 6:45 am

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles).
Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

Answer: By backing away quietly and refusing to answer the question.

I'm serious, that's happened to me when I once brought it up.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

7. Comment #403843 by ridelo on August 9, 2009 at 6:49 am

In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

If only that was the only sanctioning in my student times!

Other Comments by ridelo

8. Comment #403845 by DamnDirtyApe on August 9, 2009 at 6:52 am

Good grief... It looks to me like the Templeton's are SO DESPERATE for inspiration they're employing child labour to get it.

I think we should be ready for the ultimate flame war. These guys are probably going to be firing off every known cliche in the debates.

...Are they all written down somewhere? I'm sure I remember seeing a big page of them. Shoulda bookmarked it.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

9. Comment #403846 by MikeV on August 9, 2009 at 6:53 am

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles).
Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

Ugh....

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. - Matthew 17:20

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. - Matthew 21:21

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. - Mark 11:24

So yeah... why doesn't he heal amputees?

Other Comments by MikeV

10. Comment #403848 by Hominidae on August 9, 2009 at 7:07 am

Well fuck my ozone.

Other Comments by Hominidae

11. Comment #403850 by nalfeshnee on August 9, 2009 at 7:15 am

It would be an amusing endeavor if we all had a go at the final exam -- remember, no "cruising" the Internet in search of answers!! -- and posted our results somewhere.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

12. Comment #403854 by Enlightenme.. on August 9, 2009 at 7:29 am

Presumably the usual rules on plagiarism have to be ditched!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

13. Comment #403856 by Roland_F on August 9, 2009 at 8:02 am

Even Templeton is not supporting this IDiots and Cretinists and prevented Cretinist speaking in the Vatican on Templeton sponsored "Christian science" event.
And these IDiots attack even "Mr. Frozen waterfall" bible thumping F. Collins as he is not YEC.

So we see how fast and utter unqualified someone can get his University master and PHD titles and then they can sign on list and blogs as PHD’s to give their inanity worldview more weight.

Other Comments by Roland_F

14. Comment #403863 by Animavore on August 9, 2009 at 9:23 am

The irony of creationists is incredible.
I remember watching Ken Ham give a 'lecture' on the evils of 'evilution' (face palm). At the start of the lecture he said that according to 'Darwin' (said with emphasis as if stressing his evil) you, me, that tree and pond scum are all the same, that he devalues human life. He then goes on to talk about how Darwin lends credence to Nazis.. etc because they claim that they are 'more evolved' as if 'Aryans' are higher up the evolutionary ladder.
Well.. which way is it?
Are they (white Nazis although you can also have the opposite, the Nation of Islam, a black group who claim that they are the most evolved and that every other race are inferior branches which sprang form them)no more than toads and sea squirts or; are they 'more evolved' than Jews, Africans and Gillian McKeith?
The glaring contradiction in the first 5 minutes (I didn't/couldn't watch past 7) is ridiculous. And yet no one in the congregation picked up on this.
I know they're not stupid, they just don't care. And that's the sad part.

Other Comments by Animavore

15. Comment #403869 by Calilasseia on August 9, 2009 at 9:49 am

Why does it not surprise me that Dembski force-feeds his students with these tired old canards? And trains them to be yet more pieces of ideological cannon fodder, in his war to see mythology anachronistically re-asserted over valid, evidence-based science?

I've long suspected that this is his revenge for being incompetent in the world of real science. It's all a huge hissy fit arising from intellectual penis envy.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

16. Comment #403871 by beebhack on August 9, 2009 at 10:08 am

If this is a spoof site, it's brilliant, and it deserves to throw egg in my face. However, assuming it's kosher, can anyone explain why the words "Defend the Vincentian Canon to a 21st century skeptic of Christianity." have me in gales of helpless laughter? I mean, the Vincentian Canon is the talk of our local snug ... people attacking it, some defending it, it suffers a setback then mounts a valorous rearguard action...

Sorry, lazy Sunday morning. Off to mow the lawn.

Other Comments by beebhack

17. Comment #403873 by Mr DArcy on August 9, 2009 at 10:27 am

Fil says:

Bring it on, I say. Oh, except what's the point of arguing and engaging with these people, as if their views are in any way realistic? It's impossible to argue with "magic" and it only gives these dills their points for class.

But the point is their view should be countered at all opportunities. Not all people contribute to message boards such as this one. There are a lot of "lurkers" out there! Perhaps Dembski can explain how God needed a rest after working only 6 days, after all He is omnipotent isn't He?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

18. Comment #403875 by Roger Stanyard on August 9, 2009 at 10:34 am

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary = bible studies school for outright bigots.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

19. Comment #403882 by wovwI\' on August 9, 2009 at 11:32 am

The kind of intellectual dishonesty Dembski is revealing is not only disgusting but deeply disturbing.

Other Comments by wovwI\'

20. Comment #403888 by Flapjack on August 9, 2009 at 12:02 pm

A mischeivous thought occurs...
"...there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites!"
Does this mean that if we immediately flag their posts their final exam grade automatically drops 20%?
While I'm normally in favour of free speech, if they want exploit us by gaining better grades for successful trolling on RD net we can easily hoist them by their own petard...
Imagine an exam where the top grade you can get is 80%!
But then I doubt if proof of a successful post is high on their agenda, just as proof of anything they say seems pretty low on their agenda.

Other Comments by Flapjack

21. Comment #403890 by Rich Wiltshir on August 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm

There's no integrity in this, so I'm puzzled that they consider plagarism as being a fault (especially when their's no chance of avoiding it when vomiting up the donsense they've been fed).

Other Comments by Rich Wiltshir

22. Comment #403894 by j.mills on August 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm

In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

How reassuring it must be for the examiners to know that god endorses their marking scheme and will consign to the eternal torments of hell any student who copies off his neighbour. Arrogant much?

Other Comments by j.mills

23. Comment #403900 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal?

Because there is a recession, for goodness sake. It used to be that one could spend a productive afternoon shopping around for one's evil attributes, but no longer....

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #403904 by Baron Scarpia on August 9, 2009 at 1:19 pm

I still can't get over the requirement to make posts on 'hostile' websites!

I suspect one of the reasons is that creationism intelligent design gets free advertising this way.

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

25. Comment #403905 by Stafford Gordon on August 9, 2009 at 1:23 pm

How on earth do you attempt to debate with or disabuse individuals whose mentality allows them to even contemplate addressing propositions such as those contained in these "examination" papers?

My mum used to say "If you ask a silly question you get a silly answer."

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

26. Comment #403912 by SaintStephen on August 9, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Dembski and Sam Harris in a virtual death match to decide this ID thing once and for all. If Sam wins, he gets to hook Willie up to his fMRI machine and figure out what went wrong.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

27. Comment #403914 by Naturalist1 on August 9, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Good Morning all. The first link provided takes you to a list of course descriptions. Contained in one of them is the following rambling diatribe critique of TGD...it is long and venomous. It truely gives a taste for what this educational institution is all about.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html
Oh and Steve...your comment on the Ressession...thanks for the good laugh on a sunday morning...split a gut on that one!

Other Comments by Naturalist1

28. Comment #403915 by Border Collie on August 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm

SWBTS is like the Vatican of Fort Worth or maybe Texas. I think that Dan Brown is going to write the redneck version of the DaVinci Code about it. He's going to call it the Dembski Code.

Other Comments by Border Collie

29. Comment #403916 by SaintStephen on August 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm

From link provided by Naturalist1 on August 9, 2009 at 1:59 pm

So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.

I don't think I've seen a more juvenile argument. "According to classical theism..." Bah.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

30. Comment #403918 by gruebait on August 9, 2009 at 2:51 pm

This is a great post.

Laid out for all is virtually every argument in their entire arsenal. Now, any interested middle-school kid with an actual education can be prepared to answer all of the stupid arguments they're likely to hear.

Other Comments by gruebait

31. Comment #403921 by gruebait on August 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm

@ Naturalist1 (27),
I was only able to read the first page (of eight!) of Plantinga's whine, but I have acquired a new word:

'atheology'.

A perfectly cromulent word. Thankyou, Alvin Plantinga.

Other Comments by gruebait

32. Comment #403927 by Paula Kirby on August 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Tsk. 31 comments before mine already, and no one has pointed out the side-splitting irony of Dembski offering a module on Critical Thinking ...

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

33. Comment #403928 by Alter_GX on August 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I had to Laugh at this "test" -- I mean one of the first questions requires them to define "information" in regards to the "course" which of course they never do, because we'd nail them for it once it has a rigid definition.

Though you know what they are fishing for with questions like this
"Make your best argument against intelligent design. In other words, if you were in a debate situation
and had to argue against intelligent design, how would you do it?"

Or this one
"Have advances in the natural sciences over the last 40 years made it easier or harder to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist? Explain."

It seems less a test and more a Where do we go from here survey, A find the next evolution of ID if you would.

:)

Other Comments by Alter_GX

34. Comment #403930 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Comment #403927 by Paula Kirby

"Critical" can also mean about to blow up.

For example "The nuclear reactor is going critical."

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #403933 by Naturalist1 on August 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Good point Paula..I took a look at this "Critical Thinking" course and found Part1 of the final exam...what a joke. The test is out of 200...1/4 of the exam consists of the follwing question...

13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian
businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches
you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again
to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign
work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to
institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible
world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a
zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

Other Comments by Naturalist1

36. Comment #403936 by Baron Scarpia on August 9, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Yes, it's a pretty weird critical thinking course.

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

37. Comment #403937 by sekrit agent on August 9, 2009 at 5:03 pm

"you will notice that, at both undergrad and masters level, there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites! This could explain a lot."

It certainly does! Could explain a lot of the posts I've seen at places like Infidel Guy and littlegreenfootballs.com.

btw I'm new here - how do you go about formatting quotes here? Thanks.

Other Comments by sekrit agent

38. Comment #403939 by Naturalist1 on August 9, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Sekrit..once you are logged in and writing your post you will see just above the text box," [Comment Posting Guidelines]". Click on it..It is here you will find the formatting protocals.

Other Comments by Naturalist1

39. Comment #403941 by Mr DArcy on August 9, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Those taking AP 510 and AP 810 for credit will be writing a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God.

Poor old Collins! He gets a drubbing wherever his name pops up! Haven't these YE creationists heard of the triune nature of the frozen waterfall? I mean surely that kind of evidence for the Almighty beats Noah and his ark anyday? Why mess around in blind faith when you can see it with your own eyes? BTW I've seen frozen sea, and it made me a firm believer in Dionysus!

Goes to pour another glass..........

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

40. Comment #403946 by lkeithlu on August 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm

I checked this site; as an educator (and the spouse of an undergraduate professor) I am appalled at the lack of substance for this course! No wonder higher education is catching so much grief among some groups. My high school course has more intellectual rigor.

Other Comments by lkeithlu

41. Comment #403950 by Bueller_007 on August 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm

4. You’ve been assigned to teach six Sunday school lessons on intelligent design over six
consecutive Sundays. Each lesson is an hour and fifteen minutes. Outline how you would
conduct these lessons. What would you have people read? In what order? What would
you present? What would you want participants to take away at the end of the six weeks?

What would you have people read?

Bible.

In what order?

Beginning to end.

What would you present?

Bible.

What would you want participants to take away at the end of the six weeks?

Goddidit.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

42. Comment #403955 by MikeTheInfidel on August 9, 2009 at 6:51 pm

DEFINITELY not a satire. This is his real site.

Registrant:
William Dembski
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: DESIGNINFERENCE.COM
Created on: 02-Jul-01
Expires on: 02-Jul-11
Last Updated on: 02-Jul-09

Administrative Contact:
Dembski, William wdembski@designinference.com
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States
2548962188 Fax --

Googling that phone number gives you this:

Phonebook results for 2548962188

William Dembski (254) 896-2188 538 Post Oak Ln, Riesel, TX 76682

This is the real deal. Holy crap, what a loony.

Other Comments by MikeTheInfidel

43. Comment #403961 by Michael.B on August 9, 2009 at 7:25 pm

You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered ...

Nice to see the mission statement of the Templeton Foundation put in such clear terms. Their own website for some reasons is much more vague...

Other Comments by Michael.B

44. Comment #403967 by Naturalist1 on August 9, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Michael.B...good point. I went into Dembski's website from the info provided by Mike The Infidel above. Specifically: DESIGNINFERENCE.COM
This guy is prolific...read the synopsis of the book he published this year: "Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information". Here is the link for the thing:
http://www.evoinfo.org/Publications/Life.html
The last two sentences are the real ripper:

Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms.

Were this to be proven true I'm sure this guy would be awarded the Nobel prize...sarcastic smirk...

Other Comments by Naturalist1

45. Comment #403968 by sirmailbox on August 9, 2009 at 8:00 pm

This is obviously a joke. A good one, too.

Other Comments by sirmailbox

46. Comment #403970 by MsG on August 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm

God, this really is the same old racket for the past century, whether it's creationists or new agers. Why else would students be asked to define Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem, a result frequently misrepresented by the New Age /Po-Mo crowd as apparently proving that maths is all made up (by God, presumably, in Dembski's view)?

And here's a gem at the top - "You must limit yourself to the six books read in class" - because Dembski doesn't want any of those annoying "refutations" coming along spoiling his fun as usual. And again later on "argue for a nonmaterialist neuroscience".

Other Comments by MsG

47. Comment #403973 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Comment #403967 by Naturalist1

Were this to be proven true I'm sure this guy would be awarded the Nobel prize...sarcastic smirk...

It is already known to be false. There is no such thing as a 'Law of Conservation of Information'. Far from it; we know that in a universe like ours, new information can be generated all the time.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #403974 by Diacanu on August 9, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Steve Zara-

There is no such thing as a 'Law of Conservation of Information'. Far from it; we know that in a universe like ours, new information can be generated all the time.

Dammit, you just stole that right out of my head.
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #403977 by seqenenre on August 9, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Look what is required reading for one of Dembski's courses in the next year. Follow the first link, PHILO 2483 and look into the syllabus

Other Comments by seqenenre

50. Comment #403978 by Follow Peter Egan on August 9, 2009 at 8:30 pm

...there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites!

What's the use of half a wing£ How could something as complex as the human eye have sprung up by chance£

Right, where's my degree££

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan