Here's an online interview with Kirk Durston on canadianchristianity.com for those who want to know more about his views on Intelligent Design Creationism [Evolution under fire? -- Part 1]. By all accounts Kirk seems to be a Young Earth Creationist in the sense that he prefers the literal interpretation of the Bible until it has been proven wrong.Here's a part of the interview that seems unblievable.
I have been doing a great deal of work in ID over the past few years -- and have given presentations of my work in universities, both in Canada and the USA, that are well attended by both students and faculty. I have been very surprised by the fact that no significant objections to the evidence I present are being raised in these venues. I never bash Darwinism, I simply show them the positive evidence for ID -- and it goes over very well indeed.I'm surprised that he has never heard any significant objections to the evidence he presents in his talk. I didn't have any trouble recognizing several lies and distortions and I wasn't the only one on Tuesday night.
I am currently working on a paper dealing with functional information, under the guidance of a professor in bioinformatics who wants to see my work published. It will be very low-key, mentioning nothing about ID, yet laying the groundwork for some major advances in this field -- if it is, by some miracle, accepted for publication.
Maybe he gives a different talk in other venues? In any case, we'll see whether the experts on protein folding hear at the University of Toronto will be as gullible when they hear the "positive evidence for ID" next Spring [A Scientific Test for the Intelligent Designer].
Oh, I almost forgot, in his Tuesday evening presentation he did bash "Darwinism." I guess that's one more difference between what I heard and his normal talks to students and faculty. Either that or .....
My impression from his comments in the threads below is that Kirk is some kind of OEC/Behe type Christian (e.g. he talk about need for a designer early on and maybe for some more recent protein stuff - this suggests a fair bit left for evolution). I certainly get the feeling that he accepts an old earth. Could be wrong though.
ReplyDeleteThis would be great, a shoot-out at the U.T. corral?
ReplyDelete> By all accounts Kirk seems to be a Young Earth Creationist in the sense that he prefers the literal interpretation of the Bible until it has been proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteI should mention that considering the Bible reliable need not mean you believe in 6 24-hour days. I note that Augustine thought creation occurred all in a split second, though he was one to consider the account in Genesis a reliable description of real events.
Obviously, even IDiots don't appreciate Durston's "groundbreaking" work: You won't find his name at uncommondescent or evolution news & views
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Man, what is the deal with comments and HTML tags today? One more time ...)
ReplyDeleteMy on the topic.
'Young earth creationist'? 'lies and distortions'? 'Darwin bashing' I get that feeling that the ground under my feet is begining to slip and slide already. Am I in one of those bad dream where the object I'm looking for never really materialises?
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of calling everything these people say lies, one should give the reasons why they are lies. When one side gives an argument and proceeds to say that no major objection to it has yet been encountered, lets not call his perhaps valid arguments "lies" and instead give the reason why they are so.
ReplyDeletedxiglm says,
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of calling everything these people say lies, one should give the reasons why they are lies.
I already did that.
His recent talk at the U. of Guelph certainly did generate critical questions from the audience, myself included. The website of theconflict.ca has audio and video for some of the events and Q&A.
ReplyDelete