1

"In a recent policy report ("The dangers of creationism in education") The Council of Europe implies that creationism, intelligent design theory, and even theistic evolution, are all examples of “religious extremism"...This report, one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time, is yet another example of Europe's continued slide into irrational dogmatism and anti-intellectualism."

The irony here is delicious.

2

15. The Heritage Foundation has put together an interactive map that tells you the price of gasoline in your state in 2016 if the Senate energy bill is enacted. (HT: Bluey Blog)

Before I look at it can you tell me do they tell me what the price of gas will be in 2016 if the bill is not enacted (I won't demand that they tell me gas prices by state in 2016)? I'd be curious to know how they know this information. I don't doubt for a second they have discontinued their fund raising. If they know this information no doubt they have used their endowment to place bets in the futures markets.

3

Why exactly is the report one of the dumbest things you read in a long time? It's hardly unreasonable to call hard core creationism dogmatic. It's entire structure is based on dogma (assume literal truth of Biblical account then collect evidence to support it and ignore or try to reason away evidence that contradicts it).

Maybe at some point intelligent design deserved a hearing but we've long gone past the point where ID advocates revealed themselves to be nothing more than creationists ignoring the same old problem; selecting evidence based on dogma and trying to ignore or obscure contradicting evidence likewise for dogmatic reasons. The report is no more stupid for calling this a danger to science education than it would be stupid to call astrology or numerology a danger to scientific education.

4

Joe, just so you know, the quantum theory link you posted actually links to an article reviewing an offensive opera.

5

how evangelicals "soften sin and sidestep guilt"

I mis-read this as "soften skin", and all I could think was, "Now, what?"

6

On Number 2 "Soften sin and sidestep guilt" I looked up the definition of Struggle.
noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to contend with an adversary or opposing force.

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME struglen, stroglen, freq. v. (see -le) formed on a base of obscure orig.]
It seems to me it would be perfectly okay to use "Struggle with sin." That's not sidestepping guilt. That, in fact, is entering the fray, the battle to overcome the sin within us all.

I struggle with anger. Jesus said not only can we not murder, we can't even get angry. John backed him up in saying becoming angry would lead us away from the Kingdom of Heaven. I lose my temper...how can one lose something when you don't even know where it resides to begin with...but that's another blog.

Jesus Christ struggled in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he sweated drops of blood asking God to take this cup from his lips. He knew better but there was that struggle. You can see it.

We all struggle with sin. To NOT struggle with sin would be to sidestep guilt.

Love
David

ps. Keven T. Keith said above "to soften skin" I love that. That is so clever and funny. I know Jesus had a sense of humor and I bet he's laughing at that very good joke.

7

Adam Joe, just so you know, the quantum theory link you posted actually links to an article reviewing an offensive opera.

Oops. Sorry about that. It's fixed now.

8

As Adam pointed out, the quantum theory link is wrong. I wish I could have back the 15 seconds I spent reading that first paragraph and trying to understand how it fit with Quantum Theory...
Here is the correct link

9

Re: Item number 3
Only 25 years ago I was allowed to roam all over the neighbourhood and hills. And so was everyone else...
Now I wouldn't let my kids do the same, but I have to wonder if there are actually more predators out there or if the increased risk simply comes from the fact that because no-one lets their kids out, neighbours aren't looking out for one another anymore.

10

when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely.

And speeding its eventual death as it consumes its remaining fuel at a faster rate.

I'm not sure the analogy holds very well, but at any rate I don't know why this would be a good thing, for society or for the churches as institutions, as Jenkins seems to believe.

The prediction holds that the churches will dwindle to become small, insular groups with tightly-held ideologies and little internal dissent. Presumably most will be extremist or at least relatively out of the mainstream (the mainstream is no longer attending church, so churches will only attract those who are at odds with the cultural consensus). Inevitably, the direction of that dissent is conservative - harking back to the faded glory of the churches' former size and power, and regretting the rise of the secularism that drove it away. So what we will see in Europe is a large secular culture harboring - and protecting, through its civil liberties guarantees - small pockets of agitated, culturally isolated and reactionary malcontents using their political liberties to demand fewer such liberties for everyone else: essentially what we see in America, except that the religious groups will be smaller and even more extremist.

However angry and motivated the groups become (note that it's Jenkins who describes them burning with white heat), growing smaller will make it harder for them to be influential (hence the increasing extremism and divisiveness of their tactics, as seen among religious terrorist groups in the US and elsewhere). Their persistent dissent and increasing desperation will create social turmoil for everyone else - again, a pattern we already see. This can't be good for anybody.

I don't know the details of Jenkins's argument, but in general I suspect that the loss of size in any organization is what it seems to be: an indication that the organization is dying. It may be true, as the quote above suggests, that such groups become more congenial places for relatively few like-minded individuals to pursue their personal visions, but they inevitably become less influential externally. If the churches of Europe (and, increasingly, America) are content to retreat to their proper role as shelters for seekers with an internal focus (like, say, Buddhism has done), they could last a long time at a low level; if they continue to insist on commanding the culture from an ever-smaller and more-extremist base, they will simply embroil everyone in their messy death struggle.

11

retreat to their proper role as shelters for seekers with an internal focus (like, say, Buddhism has done)

You have it so wrong. That is not the proper role of the Church. It is merely a single facet of the overall presence of Christ's bride in the world... and she is very much alive despite rumors to the contrary.

12

What's the reference on the Habermas quote?

13

Richard H What's the reference on the Habermas quote?

It's from his 2004 essay, "A Time of Transition." (Phillip Jenkins quotes it in the story from item #2, which is how I found out about it.)

14

Kevin T. Keith:

The prediction holds that the churches will dwindle to become small, insular groups with tightly-held ideologies and little internal dissent. Presumably most will be extremist or at least relatively out of the mainstream (the mainstream is no longer attending church, so churches will only attract those who are at odds with the cultural consensus).

You always have a give and take between desiring to be a large organization versus the ability to be highly motivated and energetic. This doesn't just go for churches but any type of club, advocacy group, party etc.

It's easy to get into a funk where you idealize the small group and attack the large group. Large groups have more red tape, have to make more comprimises to accomodate their large membership roles etc. They are more likely to speak with less passion and a lot more boilerplate. It's easy to see how the small group can be romanticized because it's passionate, sincere etc.

But small groups have their drawbacks. The first is that they are more prone to cults of personality, radicalism etc. While the 'masses of humanity' may be boring and mundane they do provide weight that keeps the group from veering too far from reality. The second is that the small group, by definition, is ditching the bulk of people. Is it ok to write off 95% of the population? I suppose it is if your group is the "Silver Spoons Fanclub" but a church typically gives itself a universal mission. I'd watch out feeling too good about becomming a 'white dwarf'. It sounds to me like an easy way to get wrapped up in a lot of egotistical pride...feeling good about yourself while you look down at all those masses of unelightened people while you puff yourself up as one of the 'special ones'.

15

Kevin T. Keith:

The prediction holds that the churches will dwindle to become small, insular groups with tightly-held ideologies and little internal dissent. Presumably most will be extremist or at least relatively out of the mainstream (the mainstream is no longer attending church, so churches will only attract those who are at odds with the cultural consensus).

You always have a give and take between desiring to be a large organization versus the ability to be highly motivated and energetic. This doesn't just go for churches but any type of club, advocacy group, party etc.

It's easy to get into a funk where you idealize the small group and attack the large group. Large groups have more red tape, have to make more comprimises to accomodate their large membership roles etc. They are more likely to speak with less passion and a lot more boilerplate. It's easy to see how the small group can be romanticized because it's passionate, sincere etc.

But small groups have their drawbacks. The first is that they are more prone to cults of personality, radicalism etc. While the 'masses of humanity' may be boring and mundane they do provide weight that keeps the group from veering too far from reality. The second is that the small group, by definition, is ditching the bulk of people. Is it ok to write off 95% of the population? I suppose it is if your group is the "Silver Spoons Fanclub" but a church typically gives itself a universal mission. I'd watch out feeling too good about becomming a 'white dwarf'. It sounds to me like an easy way to get wrapped up in a lot of egotistical pride...feeling good about yourself while you look down at all those masses of unelightened people while you puff yourself up as one of the 'special ones'.

16

smmtheory, if we retreat to our proper little shelters, it's a little hard to storm the gates of hell.

17

smmtheory, if we retreat to our proper little shelters, it's a little hard to storm the gates of hell.

Well frankly, I'd rather not storm the gates of hell (might be too hard to get back out again). Instead, I'd rather be light to the world.

18

Yeah, a light to the world, at a retreat in the mountains where no one can see you.

Matthew 16:18

19

I don't see any indication the Church is heading toward retreating into the mountains Marie. Which Church have you been looking at? Or are you saying that is what you would prefer?

Yet, even if I were to be contemplating such a retreat, unless I were to be entirely alone, it would be possible to be light to the world.

John 13:20

20

Okay, help me out here. There's a scene in one of Hermann Hesse's books (and I believe it's "Journey to the East") but I can't find it. It has to do with some very smart man living in a cave, a retreat from the sinful world, with a hermit. And the hermit tells the man to go back into the world and share his gift. The hermit says something along the lines of "God will treat more harshly those who knew and yet retreated from the world over those who never had the capacity to know."

Help!
Love
David

21

The Heritage Foundation flouts a 106% increase in gas prices over 8 years as if that's huge and unprecedented. But gas prices in 1999 (8 years ago) averaged well under $1.50 per gallon, less than half of today's price. So it would seem that the energy bill isn't having that large of an impact, in the grand scheme of things; a 100+% increase over 8 years is to be expected in the modern economic climate. (It amounts to about a 9.5% increase in price per year.) Heck, in 2002 (post-9/11!) it only averaged about $1.25, so 9.5% per year would be an improvement over recent history.

22

Smmtheory, I am a bad comment reader, and was responding to Keith's plea that we retreat to Buddhist style monastaries. It was his idea, obviously, not yours - sorry 'bout that.

23

Marie, I thought it might be the case that you had misattributed Keith's comment to me, so no harm no foul, and all is forgiven.

24

Tgsirch,

I'm not sure about average prices but I know my history.

It's a silly thing but my wife recorded all sorts of dumb little facts when our children were born. My Daughter was born January 3rd 2001. The price of Gas on that day where we lived in San Diego was $1.89.

About two months ago (Give or take) we were driving up to my cousins house who lives approximately one hour north of of Seattle Wa, where we live now. We paid $2.25 to fill up the gas tank.

I wish I would have written down the price of gas every January 3rd since my daughter was born. Would be interesting to see what happened since Clinton was still in office then.

25

Apologize, that should have been $2.25 a gallon. Guess that means it's time for me to go to bed. Night!