Does Monton refer to himself as the 'atheist' in the title of his book?
Here is his paper on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:
Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision - PhilSci-Archive
Why would an atheist attempt to make a case for the Christian god?
But since teaching ID doesn't constitute a "clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction", the point is moot. ID is religion, and as such has no place in the science classroom.The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teachers right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as Ill explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38He obviously doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest! Can't you tell?
"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as Ill explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38
This is one very confused theist.
I'm all for inclusive definitions, but an atheist who believes in God makes as much sense as a Christian who doesn'tNever in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:
they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy
Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:
they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy
Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:
they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy
Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:
they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy
We have all sorts of professing Christians that clearly don't believe in G-d. Then we get accused of the no true Scotsman fallacy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
So apparently thanks to this guy we need a new word for people who don´t believe in any god concepts.
"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as Ill explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38
He promotes the view that there is evidence for the existence of God. That's not an atheist, my dear.
Then of course he's going to find evidence - he's getting paid for it. But that's a huge bias, one untempered by peer-review, rendering him useless as an example of an atheist who believes in ID - chances are, he's just in it for a quick quid.oh he spends most of his time finding evidences for a designer. But He doensn't himself think they are conclusive. (thats why I think He is just in it for the money). But thats His prerogative.
Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.
So, according to you, the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a foolish thing to say, is sinful, and has nothing good to offer?Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Quoting the bible to back up your point is about as useful as quoting Captain Kirk.
And yes, you should study many different philosophies. Some you'll like, some you won't. But all of them will help enlighten you as to how different people and cultures live.