The Truth Project, Science, Critique

This is a review and a look at the fifth part of The Truth Project. This section is on science.

I have delayed writing this for several reasons. The first and foremost is that the truth project is frustrating me.

Del Tackett thesis is G-d made the universe and bad people try to say that it is not true. Do not listen to the bad people.

Once again Tackett moves into the us verses them arguments. What is true? Well a person who is philosophically minded will have one answer whereas the (evil music here) atheistic god hating scientist has a differing view.

This is where Tackett really runs into problems. He brings up philosophical naturalism. We use philosophy to understand reality. When we use philosophy we have to come the realization that something bigger then myself exists out there in the world. This thing made everything we see. Why do we say this? Because it would be silly say that I found this item and I came to the conclusion that given billions of years and rain and weather gave me this rock.




Of course it would be silly assume that this item, an arrowhead, just sprung into existence. Of course it was man made.

Therefore . . . how silly is it to assume that the next item is just sprung through a pattern of random factories.



After all a giraffe has a complex set vessels that go with the long neck so the head does not pop when it bends down for the drink. Here are some problems with the giraffe.



Which came first?
The long neck or the long legs? Both are needed for balance
The long neck or the long tongue?
The long tongue or the dark tongue?
The complex circulatory system or the long neck?

To give the thousands of generations that would be required to have the long neck to get to the high trees it would have starved. The first long neck giraffe would have popped its head at the first drink.


Philosophical naturalism can answer these question easily. However, Scientific naturalism cannot answer these questions.

Scientific naturalism is that we can only comment on what we can see and observe. This is most of science. Hence, science only concerns itself with what is, not what maybe.

Tackett’s other big idea is that Darwin has influenced everything. To this I agree. Darwin has influenced just about every field of study. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not. However, there are questions by some about ditching Darwin because of the problems with Darwin.

The largest hole in Tackett’s approach is that all he says is evolution is wrong. Not so much why creation is right. Not to mention, Tackett never give scientific proof for his reasons, on a section of science.

In conclusion: Tackett again messes up with philosophical and scientific naturalism by overlapping the two. Second, the us against them is everywhere. Lastly, he does nothing to prove from a scientific basis that evolution is wrong.



Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Science, Church, Philosophy

The Truth Project, Part 5, History

This is part four of my critique and review of The Truth Project. This is part five of the Truth Project which deals with History. As it turns out history is one of my prime subjects.

I wonder sometime where I start on these commentaries. As one of my favorite quotes says,

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.
'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.' - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

This week, Dr. Del Tackett, DM (Doctor of Management, Colorado Technical University) looks at history.

Let me say that this will seem like some serious nitpicking on certain items. To a point I agree. However, one of my problems that I have is that of believability. If there is a subject which I know something about, as an example, history, Christianity, Bible, theology, Judaism, Biblical languages, as well as a few other subjects, and you are wrong on something I know, why should I trust you in something else.

As far as I am concerned The Truth Project has a higher standard of burden based on their claims of presenting truth and defining truth for Christianity, or at least evangelical Christianity. I consider the same burden for all, including myself. I try to be extremely accurate and mostly fair in all my studies and critique. I have to confess that I sometimes I do go over the top.

Now that I have set the burden high for myself, I shall proceed.

Dr. Tackett looks at the perception of things through numbers in particular 911. This is a good demonstration of how things change. He also brings out the bogeyman of Darwin.

The first thing that screamed out at me was slide number 12. This slide talks about misusing history. The quote on the slide is “Whether her book, is true, I’ don’t care . . .” My note on this was, one professor? What kind (of professor)? What else was said?

In the group we had afterward, I asked the question is this indicative of historians? Is it one? As usual was kicked down by feel goodism and not by truth. My question was dismissed as obvious there are many historians who feel this way. Being a historian I questioned the comment. So now, let’s look at the reality.

Agosin, Marjorie (1999). Cited in Robin Wilson, Anthropologist challenges veracity of multicultural icon. Chronicle of Higher Education (Online). [sic]

The footnote says that Marjorie Agosin was cited in an article by Robin Wilson. So I decided to find the original citation and look at the original work by Agosin. The good news is that I was actually able to find the original article entitled Anthropologist Challenges Veracity of Multicultural Icon. As it turns out it was a quote not a citation, which I found discouraging. Nonetheless, here is the original quote from the article.

"I think Rigoberta Menchu has been used by the right to negate the very important space that multiculturalism is providing in academia," says Marjorie Agosin, head of the Spanish department at Wellesley College. "Whether her book is true or not, I don't care. We should teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the U.S. financing of it."

As it turns out Dr. Agosin, is a Spanish professor who is also a human rights activist. Her whole point of this quote is the issue of human rights problems that occurred in Guatemala. To this end her quote is a good one. It is also worthy to note that there are many comments saying how bad her comment was. Now for the Tackett problems: Tackett intentionally misquotes and misleads with his comments. After all the original quote was there as a whole and he used exactly what he wanted to use. This makes Tackett at best a deceiver and at worst an out and out liar.

The Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact is told by Del Tackett to have what is called the “New School Version.” The NSV as written by Tackett as:

In the name of God, Amen.
___________________________________
We whose names are underwritten, . . .
having undertaken,
_________________________________
a voyage to plant the first colony . . . [sic]

The issue here is that it looks like and is said to be the version in school books across the country. Makes sense to me does it not? Once again, I will have to strip away gilding and point the problem.

The original version is:

“In the name of God, Amen. . . .
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia,”

The real question comes down to, is what he said true? There are admittedly 100s of US History textbooks published every year. I personally have a collection, or access to, about 25 differing US History textbooks used for American History by middle school and high school students over the last 30 or so years. I also have a smaller collection of college level textbooks. I decided to do a little test, did Tackett tell the truth?

The answer is, clearly a no. My current oldest textbook is from 1979. This particular books does not quote the Mayflower Compact at all. I have another printed in 1998 that has a single edited sentence from the text. This was the one that the group focused on, of course. The other 24 books had the Mayflower Compact complete and unedited. So once again, I am wondering how accurate Tackett’s statement is once again.

The next section, is a re-quote of Josh McDowell’s list of the New Testament compared to other ancient literature. Here is the problem with >24,000 texts of the Greek New Testament (GNT), dated from 25 years from the writing of the New Testament. The text that is within 25 years is p52. This fragment has small portion of John 8 (about 4 verses). Here is a copy of the fragment:



The 25 years is from the writing of the book of Revelation (about 90-95 AD) and the best dates from the fragment are 125CE to 160CE. Therefore the number can be as read as 70 years and as low as about 30 years.

The second problem that I must give credit to Tackett on is the number of manuscripts. He correctly identified that only about 19000 of the 24000 fragments to whole books are written in Greek. The other 5000 are written in other languages. What he fails to mention is that majority of the manuscripts are written after 500 CE. Which is 400 years after and many of those are written 700 years after the fact. McDowell does do a decent job of dealing with in his book. Which I will note is cited correctly.

Does the Bible deserve special treatment?

Does the Bible need to be treated differently then other pieces of literature. The answer is both yes and no. When reconstructing the text to be as close as to the autograph, the Bible cannot be beaten. The New Testament stands head and shoulders above every other book in antiquity. I am of the opinion that we are at about 98% of the autograph.

However, Cesar's commentaries on the Gaelic War all the other examples used, do not make the truth claims that the Bible makes. Hence, the Bible needs to be treated differently.

Here we have another problem with Tackett's lack of scholarship. There are people who doubt that Socrates existed. There are many many people who doubt that Homer existed. So complaining that the Bible is so different is a hollow argument.

Memorial Stones

Next is the discussion turns to the memorial stones of the Torah. Here occurs the best line so far: Our Problem, remembering what we should forget, forgetting what we should remember. Here is also notes that paradoxes in the Bible and the sovereignty of G-d.


Slide 38 is a fun slide to just pick on. This one slide is by far the worst slide so far out of the 300 or slides he has. This gives “The Providential View of History”. My question is simple: what does the right side tell us? Is G-d’s Providence 0% or 100% at Creation and then at the time of fulfillment is it 100% or 0%? Not to sure but the wrong graph was chosen for this visual.



The next segment is this overview of Biblical History. This mini movie was very good and I loved the design of the stills. Kudos to those who spent months working on this visual.

Tackett closes with a view of his story. Then quotes Bradford saying the pilgrims showed themselves as stepping stones.

One More Thing
Tackett is all concerned with historical revision and really proved there was none. However, he fails to mention Christian historical revisionism. Which is coming up and I will comment on that later.

Most examples of G-d being removed from society comes not from historians and textbooks but from politicians and monuments.



Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, History, Church, Philosophy

The Truth Project

This is for part five science.

I was not there and did not see it. Therefore, I cannot comment on it. I am supposed to be able to borrow the Truth Project disk so I can see the one on science.

Today is the one on History. What do you know, the one I know the most about. I have already read the notes for today and am reading to weep.

I will watch and see.

Have a happy day.

Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 4

This is part four in a review and discussion of The Truth Project.

Part IV is “Who is God”

The first part, which is good, tells people they should consider themselves theologians. I know most people hate the word and the idea of being a theologian. People do need to be to articulate about G-d and explain who and what he is.

Next, Tackett goes on a rampage that G-d cannot be known. That we only have the smallest understanding of who and what G-d is. To this I agree. The odd part is that he turns to the Westminster Confession, which has little if any standing among evangelical Christians, and says, these really smart guys did not understand.

That was the end of discussing who is G-d. It was really over in about 5 minutes. However, Tackett goes on for another 45 minutes. After rambling for a bit, he ended up on a journey of his own. Tackett answers, how is G-d a Jealous G-d or in the Hebrew El Qanna.

I am now convinced that Del Tackett has no real knowledge of Hebrew.
El Qanna is G-d(EL) Jealous(Qanna). Not to hard to figure out if one has the most basic understanding of Hebrew.

He gave a few examples of El Qanna. He said he was El Qanna. That we should all be El Qanna. Now, I realize I am picking on a small point. However, he is encouraging people to call themselves G-d or at least god. Tackett used the El as an indefinite article or a “the”. The indefinite article in Hebrew is Ha. So correctly if I was jealous I would be Ha Qanna. I know this is a minor point, yet irritating none the less.

Tackett then moves on to defend the Bible. He picks on The Jesus Seminar and Documentary Theory. The problem here is Tackett does not even explain what Documentary Theory (JDEP) other then to make it a boogeyman.

As far as the Jesus Seminar goes, I cannot believe I am going to defend them here, he misrepresents the findings. It is not a total misrepresentation, just enough of a slide that it sounds right. Hence the red and the pink. However, most teachers and pastors will argue, though never say, that the words of Jesus for the most part are vox Jesus or the voice of Jesus. Again, a light distinction, however it goes to scholarship again.

Tackett then takes a moment to flash on the screen Ezekiel 22:26-28:

Ezek. 22:26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Ezek. 22:27 Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain.
Ezek. 22:28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign L-RD says’ — when the L-RD has not spoken.

Now I read this and wonder . . . how does this apply. This to me applies not to Israel but to the Church. Does this not explain the Church in America?

Tackett moves to the next part which is explain a biblical problem. The funny is this answers a question which: 1. No one is asking. 2. He did not ask. 3. Does answer his question at the start.

He finishes with a rah-rah section at the end for the Bible.

That finishes the review. This section / tour / video was so far the worst. He asks questions, give no answers. He answers questions no asked.

I am ready to give up on this whole Truth Project thing.


Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy

Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 3

This is part three in a review, critique, and criticism of Focus on the Family the Truth Project.


What is evil?

The video starts with people trying to define evil. This is as usual rather funny. I have to admit I kinda feel bad for the Unitarian Universalist, as people in the group heavily picked on her.

This was a rather unfulfilling and somewhat confusing for some of the people I talked with. Which again, I had few if any problems with the whole thing.

There are serious problems with much of the logic and usage of terms that Dr. Tackett uses, as in other places, Tackett defines terms that he wants to use in the way he wants to use them. This of course is an issue about scholarship.

Let me take a minute and ask some questions on scholarship. One of the things, I was told about this study, this man is a great scholar. Tackett mentioned that while doing his doctorate work, in every class he came back to Maslow. Well this begs the question, what did he do for doctoral work?

Tackett received a Doctor of Management from Colorado Technical University. First, I have an earned degree from an online university as well as a brick and mortar college so I have no problem with non-traditional schools. The one problem is that CTU is not an accredited school. This does not mean much other then it does not have to meet certain standards of education. The degree is also not accepted by all other colleges. The degree is also a degree in management and not one in philosophy, religion, or anything else similar. Just a simple degree in management. According to his bio at Focus on the Family Institute, Tackett has never served as a professor or taught a classroom full of students at a college or a high school. He does teach a class at New Geneva Seminary (not accredited by ATS) called “The Church’s Ministry to its Culture.” He also has no professional memberships or Awards and Recognition (as of Jan. 31, 2009 at 16:16 CST). His articles include the non-peer reviewed articles in Focus on the Family magazines of various types. He has also published for the USAF. The funny thing is that Dr. Tackett would not qualify to be a chaplain in the Air Force. Dr. Tackett would seem to be more of a management trainer then a speaker for the church at large. So in my mind, Dr. Tackett is a spokesperson or an actor for The Truth Project rather then a researcher or a real professor. This is not an ad hominen attack. With this I am looking at the qualifications of the alleged expert.

Scholarship. Where do I start? Most of the quotes that are cited at second hand quotes. Rather then citing the original source, as in Maslow, he cites Summit Ministries, Understanding the Times book rather than the original sources. Why? This I have not figured out, other than basic laziness and poor scholarship. If Tackett knows the sources then he should provide them. If not, then do not claim with knowing all there is to know about Maslow.

The real question from the video is man evil? The answer has to be no. How can a person who is a ‘sinner’ do a selfless act, such as running into a burning building?

Many moons ago, I did something totally selfless, that was before I ever heard of the name of Jesus. So, how did I do something that was a good deed? Man has to be born at least mostly good. Hence, society may pervert man. Of course this leads to the “The Lord of the Flies” question. Remember though that these boys had already been corrupted by society.

I do believe that people, while not born evil, have the predisposition to evil and hence have the ‘evil inclination.’ Check on the link for the evil inclination also look here and here.

I would also suggest that Tackett define many of words for the average Christian sitting in the pew.

So what have I concluded from the study so far. It is still not at a decent level and moves way too fast for the average Christian. I would also question the qualifications of Del Tackett as the 'professor.'



This next week is Super Bowl, so no study and hence no review.



Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy

Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 2

This is part two of review / critique / criticism of the Truth Project by Focus on the Family. This section is on ethics and philosophy.

Philosophy the queen of the sciences, at least that was the case a century or so ago. One would not even study philosophy until there was an understanding of another discipline or two.

The Truth Project looks at philosophy and ethics.

My first criticism of the Truth Project is a leftover from last week. The amount of area that is covered is 1. to large and 2. too small. The amount of material covered fails to even scratch the surface. What I mean here is, the vast amount of territory to cover is so vast that given one hour to cover philosophy and ethics one cannot even make a dent in the most teeny tiny point. Everything said, he makes only two small points, first, non-Christians cannot think outside of the box; and the idea of particular as opposed to universals. Both of these will be looked at in more depth later on. But how is to small?

The idea sometimes give by some is that this equal to semester of philosophy is absurd, what is given is not even equal to the second class of a semester long philosophy class. Hence, people are thinking they now know more than what they do. Of course my scary story at the discussion time should be an end to that myth.

The ‘lecture’ starts out with picking on everyone’s favorite kicking boy, Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan first comments from Cosmos are given saying that, “The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be,” uses assumptive language. Dr. Tackett went on to say how bas assumptive language is in speech. I lost count after 20 of the assumptive language used by Dr. Tackett. That was my first giggle of the night.

Let’s be real, we all use assumptive language. We have to or we have to explain everything every time. If we go by Dr. Tackett’s assumption conversation would become so cumbersome we would never talk again. Likewise, just because we ‘accept’ something, meaning not challenge it, we are not accepting the underlying premiss.

The bulk of the night was spent on the “Cosmic Cube.” This is the idea there are two differing ways of viewing the known universe. The first, is through the lens of this is all there is and there is nothing outside of the box. The second, of course, is there is G-d outside of the box. In this whole section, there is a cross between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.

Philosophical Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that there is.
Methodological Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that is accessible for scientific inquiry.

Within this debate, these two are crossed all the time and when that happens it is usually ugly. Hence, Will Provine also has the same problems, since he is a Historian by trade and not a scientist. For the record, I have always enjoyed listening and watching Will Provine in action.

Tackett moves on in his lecture to discuss philosophy and points how the questions that is asked: what is reality, how do I know I exists, et. el. To this end he places the problem of the Universals and the Particulars. Socrates, Confucius, Kant, and the Buddha always tried moved to understand the Universals that applied to people. While admittedly Aristotle tried to understand the Universals from the particulars. Tackett makes the assumption that one the Christian G-d can deal in universals. This of course is about Ethics.

Tackett rightly points out that morality and ethics have merged though they are quite separate looks at life. Ethics deals with, what out to be. And Morality deal with, what is. Hence he moves to Plato.

Plato asks the question, where an act is right because god wills it? or is that god wills it because he knows it is right. If you watch this, you will notice that Tackett does not deal with this question. Instead he points out William of Ockham, pointing out that G-d cannot change. However, this does not answer the question. He answers with a red herring. This in my mind was tossed out to show how smart Tackett is, by asking the question.

Perhaps there is a third option which was not discussed. G-d does not will much in particular actions other then what is found in special revelation, aka the Bible. just a thought.

Tackett spends the rest of the hour, chiding the Church that they have not taken the worldview thing with real desire or forthrightness.

Now for the scary story:
We were in discussion time, and the question of Universals and Particulars come up. The issue was lying. Is it wrong to ever lie? I point out Kant and my wife Corrie Ten Boom who tells the story of telling the truth to the Nazis about hidden Jews. Kant said, that telling the truth is separate from the consequences of telling the truthful statement.

One member said, well maybe you could lie, because G-d will forgive you and it will not be bad (a sin). I asked, rather tongue in cheek, therefore, we should lie so grace will increase? A paraphrase of Romans 6:1 So then, are we to say, “Let’s keep on sinning, so that there can be more grace”? He sat there and thought about it. I further inquired, should we sin more so that G-d can forgive us more? He thought more, and finally thought it might be a bad idea.

Dr. Tackett, the problem is not having a Christian Worldview, it is not understanding the Bible.


Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy

The Truth Project, part 1, Critique

Over the next 12 weeks, I will be presenting a critique of the Truth Project. I will be looking at this with my normally critical eye. The good news, since I have a vast amount of experience with the subject matter, I should not be overwhelmed.

You better not shout!
You better not waiver!
You had better believe!
The Truth Project is coming to town.

After trying to google for information on “The Truth Project” by Focus on the Family, I have found two type of articles. The first, was a whole bunch of stuff by Focus on the Family touting the greatness of Del Tackett and the Truth Project. The second was from churches and other groups announcing they are showing it and how great it is. However, the amount of a criticism or offering a critique of the program are quite scant.

I also found an article from Humanists of Florida writing how bad it is in a press release. That is bright, advertise for them!

I also found a small critique of The Truth Project from Hackman’s Musings.

I have only seen, so far, the first episode, and will be going back for more.

Before, the start the pastor/leader said three things that bothered me.

1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda.
2. You will be challenged
3. You will be changed.

Of course the problem is several deep. 1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda? Wow and to think I misunderstood James Dobson for 20 years. 2. I was not challenged. 3. I was not changed. So what does it mean if I was not changed or challenged? Not to sure.

The first problem, is the amount of territory superficially covered. I have a background in much of what was given and lectured on. I easily followed along with the lecture. Let’s be real this is close to two or three classes of what people would receive in a graduate level classroom environment. Here, the Truth Project tries to hit the common person with a high school education or a year of college.

Where are some of the problems?

First, is proof-texting. A proof text is a text that will back up what a person says regardless of context or original intent of the scripture. Most of the texts that were used were proof-texted. The easiest way to spot a proof-text is when a speaker is trying to make a point and they are skipping all over the place. What is proof-texting’s handmaiden?

The ugly twin sister of proof-texting is ripping a verse out of context. This is not a separate point because proof-texting relies on the lack of context. A prime example, using 2Thes 2:11 which says, “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (NIV)," Tackett wanted to point out that people will believe the lie. The problem is that this verse in context refers to end of times, when the BEAST will appear.

Second, what is the right answer? The question was asked, why did Jesus come? There are many verses that speak to the reasons why Jesus came to earth. Well Del was looking for a single answer that proved his point. Truth. Jesus came for truth.

Third, eisogesis, the speaker loves to use eisogesis, which is the reading into the text. Here on creation the devil was present and questioned G-d and the creation. Nowhere does the text suggest the mythical conversation that Del Tackett had suggested. Exegesis is reading out of the text. In other words the text can mean what it means. Del Tackett methods do not allow for good exegesis.


Fourth, is the division among people. Christians love dividing people up. There are Christians and non-Christians. Then there are real Christians and pretend Christians. Of course, it goes even further.

Another thing that drives me a little crazy is when people misuse things they know very little about. As an example, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap at McDonalds. The problem is that there was a liability issue involved as the coffee was to hot as compared to other companies. The other issue is the woman who spilled her coffee was not driving and was pulled over to the side. Liebeck (the burned woman) was found to be 20% responsible for the injury. I realize that a straw man is much easier to bash around than the truth.

One of the real problems was view of non-Christians. The people are thought to be ‘captives’ by the enemy, aka Satan. Of course I wonder how the analogy really works? Theologically, all people are in Satan’s camp through ordinal sin. In many was the Christian is the one that is captive.


Of course the odd part was that he asked the definition of truth. Which is of course defined, accepting reality as it actually is. In other words if you do not accept reality you are insane. Since Christians accept the reality and truth about Jesus, this makes non-Christians who do not accept the reality of Jesus, by definition, insane.

The last is of course logical fallacies involved. The straw man leads the back by creating a dichotomy of how the data is dealt with. Faulty appeal to authority was used, as was appeal to masses, and a few others. I counted at least a dozen logical fallacies that were present.

My favorite thing about the video was of course the wonderful staged set that was used. Almost perfect audio, and just do pretty looking. But what else would you expect for a staged set.


Edit: I just looked up how he used truth from the 1828 version of Webster. The creative use of . . . (ellipses) meaning that words are eliminated. He uses these to move from the first definition to the 11th definition.

Edit 2: I need to stop looking at my notes. Faith? Is faith like jumping off of diving board. I know this is a common view of most people. How man times have I heard a blind leap of faith. Faith, as I have viewed it, is taking of a step. A single step of faith not a blind jump into who knows what.


Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy