IDeisti William Dembskin kreationismi

Älykkään suunnittelun tähtipelaajaksi ylistetty teologi, filosofi ja matemaatikko William Dembski on aikaisemmin ollut melko sitoutumaton luonnontieteellisiin faktoihin. Hän on joskus ilmoittanut, ettei hyväksy yhteistä polveutumista biologiassa (toisin kuin Michael Behe). Yleensä älykkään suunnittelun ja kreationismin välillä on läpinäkyvä kaapu, jonka läpi kreationistit ja IDeistit hiipivät yleisön mukaan. Kirjoittaessaan The End of Christianity kirjaansa William Dembski sitoutui kreationismiin. Vanhan maailman kreationismiin. Vastatessaan kirjan kritiikkiin Dembski ilmoitti maailmankuvansa muille krisityille:

In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1– 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors. (William A. Dembski)"

Vanha testamentti on historiallisesti tarkka taltiointi, jopa 1. Mooseksen kirjan tapahtumissa. Dembskin kristinuskossa on kovin vähän tulkintaa ja vertauskuvia.

The End of Christianity aiheutti pientä skismaa muiden etelän baptistien parissa, sillä Dembski kirjoitti Ainoasta Oikeasta Opista aavistuksen verran poikkeavalla tavalla.

“The young earth-solution to reconciling the order of creation with natural history makes good exegetical and theological sense,” wrote Dembski, who holds Ph.D. degrees in both philosophy and mathematics and is a leading proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. “Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of theologians up through the Reformation held to this view. I myself would adopt it in a heartbeat except that nature seems to present such strong evidence against it.”

Ja Nooan vedenpaisumuksesta:

He also argued that Noah’s flood likely was limited to the Middle East rather than being global in scope. However, he later retracted that claim in a statement released by Southwestern.

Omat purivat Demsbkiä, sillä IDeisti näytti kumartavan enemmän tieteen kuin uskon suuntaan. Dembski tarkensi kantaansa vedenpaisumuksesta.

“In a brief section on Genesis 4–11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part,” Dembski wrote. “Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. 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.”

Eli vedenpaisumus oli maailmanlaajuinen, sillä Raamatussa sanotaan sen olleen maailmanlaajuinen. Lopulta selviää, että kriitikko oli vain tulkinnut väärin Dembskin kirjaa. Dembski tarkoitti vain sitä, että vallitseva tulkinta oli paikallisen vedenpaisumuksen puolella. Kunnollisena uskovaisena Dembski kuitenkin on globaalin version puolella.

Onneksi baptistit ovat armollisempia kuin darwinistien vainokampanjointi.