Larry King and creationism/intelligent design

| | Comments (5)

Larry King had a number of guests discussing what he called "creationism or as it's now called intelligent design versus evolution" last night. I missed it, but am now reading the transcript (scroll down). For those who saw it, what were your impressions?

Right off the bat, I noticed that Larry King thinks creationism and intelligent design are equivalent (see the quote above). I know this is what evolutionists typically claim (i.e. "intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo"), but I don't buy it.

It's interesting to note that Larry King had planned on including all of the guests except the one who actually represents intelligent design (Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute); Richards was able to get included at the last minute after hearing about the program and noticing they didn't have anyone representing intelligent design. This seems to fit well with King's identification of intelligent design as creationism -- his representative of "intelligent design" (before the inclusion of Richards) appeared to be MacArthur, a theologian.

Here's a bit from the transcript that strikes me as funny:

KING: As someone who learned (ph) in religion, though, you can't prove Adam and Eve, can you?

MACARTHUR: I don't think you can prove Adam and Eve, except that you know somebody was there to begin.

KING: So you believe it? You believe it?

MACARTHUR: Well, we're talking about two different things. Intelligent design is the only rational way to view the universe. Somebody intelligent made it. Religion answers who that intelligence is.

KING: Does it ponder you who made the intelligence, who created the creator?

MACARTHUR: I accept the Bible as the source, the authoritative source that tells me it was God, and something or someone has to be eternal, and the Bible says it is God who is the eternal one.

CHOPRA: See, when he says that, he's denying all of biology, all of anthropology, all of geology, all of astronomy, all of cosmology, all of evolution, it's -- all of physics, all of chemistry, and everything that we know, that we have learned.

It's really not clear to me how Chopra thinks MacArthur is denying all of science by believing that God designed the universe and is eternal, so it strikes me as funny. (Anybody know what he's driving at?)

And then there's this exchange:

KING: Do you want to impose it in our schools, John?

MACARTHUR: No, I just want to say that the Bible defines and describes creation. God created the entire universe in six 24-hour days.

CHOPRA: In mythological terms.

MACARTHUR: It's not in mythological anything.

"In mythological terms"? Heh. Either God did create the entire universe in six 24-hour days, or he didn't. Chopra's remark strikes me as funny, because he seems to be sort of agreeing with MacArthur, but saying that it's mythology. But if it's mythology, then it's not true. And if it's not true then he's actually disagreeing with MacArthur, who is making a statement of fact.

Anyway, I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts on the debate, as I missed it.

5 Comments

I'm suprised, the proper definition of myth in philosophical/religious circles is a story which serves an understanding of the world. Historicity is of no concern to a myth.

However, because of the modern connotation of the word, MacArthur was correct in rebutting him.

It's weird because the mythology label is slapped on anything that has God as a player/actor. God formed the worlds by his word: Myth. The worlds were formed by {X} where {X}≠A Theistic source making the statement scientific. Kind of weird.

CHOPRA employed a tactict that is quite normal for discussions like this: trying to equate a defense of creation with some 16th Century round-earth proponent being burned at the stake. It is not a debate tactict; it is the refutation that any debate can take place.

Many scientist have become like journalists: they start out with a premise and ignore all evidence except that which fits their beliefs.

Myth means "believed by people, to the point they change their lives to reflect that belief."

It doesn't mean "false."

Well, according to Merriam-Webster, here's what it is to be a myth:

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

On definition 3, it most definitely implies falsity. Sometimes people mean falsity when they use it according to definition 1. Sometimes they don't.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04