11 thoughts on “Modification

  1. Maybe it’s just because I’ve just got done dealing with the rash of distortions of evolution and evolution arguments over at Pullman, but this one struck me as half-true. Indeed with the appeal to un-revealed miracles to make the Bible make sense, it seemed like they had no problem to make up extras to argue their case.

    But on the other end they seem to have no problem exchanging evolution evidence and arguments with their own depictions of what it says. A good example is their final chapter review of Dawkins. He argues that Dawkins actually argued for embracing the cruel indifference of animals or accepting such a thing.

    His defense of that invents hominids evolved to be humans but without empathy and expounds on the horrors of a lack of absolute morality, which not even Christianity has among its own interpretations.

    Another recent example with themysteryof, when he argued that evolution includes abiogenesis theories. They seem quite content on distorting both towards their ends, imo.

    1. I’m glad you are pushing Mark Tetzlaff. I went and took a look at your comments, which made me read his “review.”

      Based on our responses to Tetzlaff, I second guess my reviews, because I criticize Dr. Werner quite a bit. Are my reviews any different for their criticisms of the book from my “conditioned worldview” as Justin so frequently accuses us of?

      I can’t help but think that criticizing Dr. Werner for inexcusably bad scholarship is more validated than criticizing Dawkins’ “worldview”. It boggles my mind that Tetzlaff reduces Dawkins’ “worldview” to “terrifying.”

      He calls for revulsion against it. Is it really reviling? How is it more reviling than a godly worldview?

      Let me know when I can stop beating my head against the wall.

      I find the reviews a trainwrecky pleasure trove of amazingly bizarre thoughts.

      1. The difference in the review styles from my perspective is that from yours I get the impression you actually read the material and then attacked his arguments and explained why they weren’t compelling in a way that could make sense to any reader, theist, atheist, YEC, etc.

        From his reviews one immediately sees him relying on the YEC views of the issues raised in the book instead of the book itself to castigate Dawkins for even bringing it up. He doesn’t address Dawkins arguments, he addresses the arguments against the topics from his camp. If he hadn’t quoted the book from time to time, it would have been impossible to know if he actually read any of it.

        Whereas you dismissed the specifics with reason, he generally dismissed the topics with regurgitated YEC biases on what those topics “really” mean while ignoring pretty much everything Dawkins actually said and argued.

        The most recent post is more about his own views about what a lack of absolute morality would mean for the world, not Dawkins arguments on ethics or morals, which he doesn’t even bring up, let alone argue against, in his entire review.

      2. Of course its different, Jeremy. 😀

        Depending on your politics, MSNBC, CNN, CBS news, ABC news, NBC news are either REAL news organizations or biased. Not to mention FOX. Again depending on your politics, FOXNEWS is either, what was the phrase, oh yes, fair and balanced — either that or they are FAUXNEWS organization.

        So, yes don’t let your conditioning slip. 😀 You’re fair and balanced Jeremy.

      3. Justin… you’d have a hard time even getting a conservative to call Fox News fair and balanced these days. What little actual news shows they have during the days might usually fit the category (as they certainly tackle the typical news stories but with more airtime for conservative issues than left-leaning media)… but when it comes to pundit shows like Fox ‘n Friends, Beck’s Unintentional Comedy Hour, The O’RLY Factor, Hannity (now without Colmes!), etc… the odd ball liberal guest hardly does much to interrupt the constant conservative slant.

        It would be like trying to call Maddow’s show “fair and balanced” because she does sometimes have conservative interviewees that she’ll be cordial with.

        And for the reviews it was quite obvious that Jeremy was addressing the arguments made in the book, not simply regurgitating the atheist view of the topics and expanding on what those mean to atheists. Mark’s reviews took the topic of the chapters, regurgitated the YEC view of those topics, expanded on them to say why Dawkins was wrong, and rarely even touched on Dawkins’ actual arguments and presented evidence.

        His latest review is all about how he’s terrified at the thought of people not having absolute morality and being terrified at Dawkins supporting things he never actually supported in the book. It’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

        Sometimes a spade is a spade, and there just isn’t much room to argue it’s actually a club (at least with any honesty).

  2. I’m not arguing politics, I just brought it up to make a point. 😀

    By the way, I could say the same thing about this review:


    In fact, explains Van Til, if you and I argue over whether or not air exists, the entire time we are arguing, we are breathing air. So if we’re talking about god, you and I are talking about something that exists whether both or one of us is convinced. That’s the early 1900s illustration he has come up with.

    We know that oxygen is measurable and is a definitive resource necessary for existence. God is not measurable. He is not necessary for existence. If he were, I’d have been dead 10 years ago when I let him go.

    Jeremy isn’t addressing the argument. I understand the argument, and it has nothing to do with oxygen. And it isn’t refuted by merely stating that God is not necessary for existence, with the proof that Jeremy would have been dead 10 years ago.

    I’m sure he read the book. But he totally failed to even address the argument, or even show he comprehended the argument in the first place.

    Reminds of Stein vs. Bahnsen (Van Til’s student).

    Click to access Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

    That debate was a disaster for Stein.

    1. I took it to mean that Van Til’s argument was that god exists whether we both agree or not. I took it a step further and issued an argument against his argument.

      What did I not communicate?

      By all means, enlighten us, Justin. What is Van Til’s point?

      1. Not here. 😀 If you care to, you can read the debate I linked. You might understand it better afterward. I’ve been planning to write a blog post on your review for sometime now. 😀

      2. You say I’m guilty of misunderstanding Van Til by submitting a transcript of an entire debate?

        Van Til made his argument plain. If he meant something else, perhaps he should have included this PDF himself. Now Van Til is ALSO subject to interpretation and only Christians have the “ability” to interpret it correctly?

        For those who want to see, it’s in the fourth paragraph of this link.


        That’s all you need to read, but please, by all means, it’s not a long book. Maybe you guys can show me how I was wrong.

      3. You say I’m guilty of misunderstanding Van Til by submitting a transcript of an entire debate.

        I never said that.

        I posted the debate because Stein didn’t have a clue as to what the argument was.

  3. Okay, I concede that you didn’t say that.

    You said that I misunderstood the argument, and you understood it. You said it has nothing to do with air.

    I said, Van Til argued that God exists whether we agree or not. He made his point simple.

    If I am missing the argument, by all means, write your blog post. I’m dying to know how wrong I was in plain communication.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s