Creationist "propaganda" true or false?

[easyboy201]

I just wanted to say hi! It's great to have a little section, just for us.
Especially when there's so much confusion and adversity out there perpetrated by those who are fighting against God (it's really all a spiritual war, isn't it?).

Anyway, I've found with debating that if I source any creationist work - like from ICR for example that it is falliciously discredited as being false and "propaganda" before people will even give a chance what the argument is.
Has anyone else come across this?
Does anyone else think that this tactic of abusing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority means that creationists aren't allowed to cite their own material and have it taken at face value?
Do you think this means evolutionists really just don't want to listen, the way they discredit something before giving it a chance?
Don't you think it's incredibly ad hominem for them to call Creationists and their materials "lies"?

*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

[KBertsche]

Anyway, I've found with debating that if I source any creationist work - like from ICR for example that it is falliciously discredited as being false and "propaganda" before people will even give a chance what the argument is.
Has anyone else come across this?
Does anyone else think that this tactic of abusing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority means that creationists aren't allowed to cite their own material and have it taken at face value?
Do you think this means evolutionists really just don't want to listen, the way they discredit something before giving it a chance?
Don't you think it's incredibly ad hominem for them to call Creationists and their materials "lies"?

*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

Just a few comments:

1) You are engaging in ad-hominem yourself, in that you are assuming that those who are not YEC are "evolutionists". You leave out OEC.

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.

In an ideal world, maybe ICR's opponents should examine each new ICR argument afresh. But based on their track record, the chance that ICR will stumble across a valid YEC argument is slim to none. There is not enough time for busy scientists to examine all of the kooky arguments that people put forth, hence the reaction that you notice.

Kirk

[easyboy201]

Just a few comments:

1) You are engaging in ad-hominem yourself, in that you are assuming that those who are not YEC are "evolutionists". You leave out OEC.

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.

In an ideal world, maybe ICR's opponents should examine each new ICR argument afresh. But based on their track record, the chance that ICR will stumble across a valid YEC argument is slim to none. There is not enough time for busy scientists to examine all of the kooky arguments that people put forth, hence the reaction that you notice.

Kirk

1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.

2) I keep hearing this but I am yet to see an example from anyone of it.

[KBertsche]

1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.

2) I keep hearing this but I am yet to see an example from anyone of it.

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.

There are LOTS of disproofs of poor YEC "science"! Have you actually tried to find or study any of them?

For starters, go to the library (or Amazon) and find the book "Science Held Hostage" by Van Till, Young, and Menninga. They've got three chapters which examine three young-earth arguments (I believe they are dust on moon, salinity of ocean, and shrinking of sun).

Kirk

[KBertsche]

[QUOTE=easyboy201;1888025]1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.[QUOTE]

Another comment: if you're not trying to argue age of the earth, why not quote from real, accepted, peer-reviewed science rather than ICR's material? You would be starting from a basis which your opponents would more readily accept. The ID and OEC communities have been doing this with varying levels of success. For example, Hugh Ross' arguments for the extreme fine tuning of the cosmos are fairly strong, IMO.

Kirk

[easyboy201]

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.

There are LOTS of disproofs of poor YEC "science"! Have you actually tried to find or study any of them?

For starters, go to the library (or Amazon) and find the book "Science Held Hostage" by Van Till, Young, and Menninga. They've got three chapters which examine three young-earth arguments (I believe they are dust on moon, salinity of ocean, and shrinking of sun).

Kirk


Actually, the comments do make sense - don't be fooled - I mentioned ICR because it was the first thing that came to mind - I could have quite as easily put a OEC reference in there.

I actually have seen some material disputing YEC material, but the fact of it is that YECs can easily attribute that information as God having already made the earth "mature" like Adam was, when it was made.

[easyboy201]

[QUOTE=easyboy201;1888025]1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.[QUOTE]

Another comment: if you're not trying to argue age of the earth, why not quote from real, accepted, peer-reviewed science rather than ICR's material? You would be starting from a basis which your opponents would more readily accept. The ID and OEC communities have been doing this with varying levels of success. For example, Hugh Ross' arguments for the extreme fine tuning of the cosmos are fairly strong, IMO.

Kirk

Isn't Hugh Ross also deemed as biased because of his creationist standpoint? Do people really accept him more readily than ICR?
And yes... I find the biggest deal to be special creation, not the age of the earth.
Christians squabble too much between themselves.
Let's focus on taking out the others first so THEN we can squabble amoungst ourselves, huh? :D

[KBertsche]

Isn't Hugh Ross also deemed as biased because of his creationist standpoint? Do people really accept him more readily than ICR?
And yes... I find the biggest deal to be special creation, not the age of the earth.
Christians squabble too much between themselves.
Let's focus on taking out the others first so THEN we can squabble amoungst ourselves, huh? :D

His science is sound and mainstream, so is generally accepted. What naturalists don't like are the implications that he draws from the science (the existence of a designer controlling all of the fine tuning of the cosmos). So they try to find loopholes and to come up with speculative ways of explaining away the design implications.

[Weboh2]

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.
I wouldn't doubt that OEC does exactly that.

[rogue06]

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.



Admittedly I have a negative knee-jerk reaction when someone quotes something from ICR, AiG... Not just because of their low quality science but also, at least in the case of ICR, because they require that their members and staff sign oaths that require them to disregard any evidence that contradicts their YEC views. That hardly constitutes science. Still, I try to make a point of reading their stuff whenever I come across it.

[burgy]

I just wanted to say hi! It's great to have a little section, just for us.
Especially when there's so much confusion and adversity out there perpetrated by those who are fighting against God (it's really all a spiritual war, isn't it?).
*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

Let's focus on this "fighting against God" idea.

A person who rejects ICR's arguments is not in that category (at least not for that reason).
A person who holds that evolution really happened is not in that category (at least not for that reason).

I'm not really sure just who IS in that category, unless it is a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

[easyboy201]

Let's focus on this "fighting against God" idea.

A person who rejects ICR's arguments is not in that category (at least not for that reason).
A person who holds that evolution really happened is not in that category (at least not for that reason).

I'm not really sure just who IS in that category, unless it is a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

Depends on what god they're fighting against... ;)
Personally, I'd stack the Word of God in with my usage of the word God. ;)
:eek:

[KBertsche]

Depends on what god they're fighting against... ;)
Personally, I'd stack the Word of God in with my usage of the word God. ;)
:eek:

I'm fairly new to this site, but I notice that Easyboy and most of the YEC folks here like to argue in circles, ignoring the difference between the "Word of God" and their interpretation of it.

Personally, I believe in the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures, in the standard conservative Evangelical sense. OEC opposition to supposed "scientific" arguments for a young earth is in no way fighting against God or His Word. Rather, it is fighting against terrible science coupled with (as I'm recently realizing) poor theology.

[Alucard]

I'm fairly new to this site, but I notice that Easyboy and most of the YEC folks here like to argue in circles, ignoring the difference between the "Word of God" and their interpretation of it.

Personally, I believe in the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures, in the standard conservative Evangelical sense. OEC opposition to supposed "scientific" arguments for a young earth is in no way fighting against God or His Word. Rather, it is fighting against terrible science coupled with (as I'm recently realizing) poor theology.

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?

[KBertsche]

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?
One simple example:

A typical YEC claim is that:
a) the original Creation was perfect, with no decay
b) it fell and began to decay as a result of Adam's sin
c) God will restore the Creation to its original state someday

The Bible teaches:
a) the original Creation was good, but not necessarily perfect
b) Adam's sin primarily affected him and his offspring, but did not necessarily change the operation of the Creation in any fundamental way. (Man does abuse nature as a result of sin, though.)
c) God will not restore this Creation; He will destroy it and create an entirely new heaven and earth.

Theologically, God's work with nature parallels God's work with man. The future state of man is not simply restoration to the state of Adam. When man is saved he is given a completely new nature which Adam didn't have, and promised a future in heaven with a resurrection body; this is much better than the original state of Adam in the Garden. Likewise, Creation will not be simply restored to its original state, but will be destroyed and recreated much better than the original.

Kirk

[Vertetuesi]

According to Gen. 1, weren't people and animals originall vegetarian, and acc. Gen. 3, didn't man's fall affect the ground, plant and animal kingdoms too?

[KBertsche]

According to Gen. 1, weren't people and animals originall vegetarian, and acc. Gen. 3, didn't man's fall affect the ground, plant and animal kingdoms too?
There are some hints that man and animals were vegetarian in the Garden, but it is not very clear. Man's body seems designed to eat meat (and carnivorous animals even more obviously obviously are so designed). I see no suggestion in Scripture that any of this changed at the Fall. It would seem that this is the original design that God created, preparing them to eat meat after the Fall.

The ground and the serpent were "cursed", but it is not clear that they changed immediately in any way. It may be that the curse would be the result of man not properly caring for them, due to his own sin and disobedience to God.

[KBertsche]

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?
I already mentioned that the YEC's have a deficient view of the future of Creation. The other glaring theological error is that in practice they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)

Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.

This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.

To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.

Kirk

[oxmixmudd]

I already mentioned that the YEC's have a deficient view of the future of Creation. The other glaring theological error is that in practice they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)

Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.

This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.

To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.

Kirk

This expresses my view almost perfectly. Hence however God caused creation to become what it is today, it is all His work. There is no way to remove God from the creation story by simply attempting to discover the sequence of events or fill in the details of the Genesis account. And what we call a miracle is His choice to operate diferently than normal, so as to announce His presence to those who ordinarily ignore it.


Jim

[AngelDragon]

As a former YEC, I believe it is my obligation to tell you that a creationist paper like the ones from IRC are definitley propoganda. While you are correct that it shouldn't be assumed as such off the bat, there are absolutely no YEC papers that have any merit. None at all.

[burgy]

None? I hold no brief for ICR and AIG, and MOST of their stuff is pretty poor science and/or logic. But not all of it.

[Weboh2]

....they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)
This contradicted by the later quote.


Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.
This seems to be the opposite of deism.


This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.
I really don't get your point here. The one theistic evolutionist you quoted is highly dependent on a non-deist god. And theological errors are only in the eye of the beholder.


To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.
Are you admitting that both YECs and TEs have a non-deist view of the God?

Kirk[/QUOTE]

[KBertsche]

This contradicted by the later quote.


This seems to be the opposite of deism.


I really don't get your point here. The one theistic evolutionist you quoted is highly dependent on a non-deist god. And theological errors are only in the eye of the beholder.


Are you admitting that both YECs and TEs have a non-deist view of the God?


I don't think you understand the meaning of deism, so you don't understand what I wrote in response to it. Take a look at some theological dictionaries or encyclopedias and then re-read my post again.

Kirk

[Weboh2]

I don't think you understand the meaning of deism, so you don't understand what I wrote in response to it. Take a look at some theological dictionaries or encyclopedias and then re-read my post again.

de·ism /ˈdiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

And as it stands your post is gibberish.

[KBertsche]

de·ism /?di?z?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Yes. Deism views nature as self-sustaining. God created it, but it now runs on its own like a clock, without needing Him. This "self-sustaining" view of nature is held by the militant atheists like Dawkins, who claim that God is unnecessary. It has also been unwittingly accepted by many evangelicals (especially YEC's). Rather than seeing God as imminent in His universe, controlling its normal day-to-day operation, they view Him as only transcendent, only involved in the miracles. The day-to-day operation is seen as the universe running by itself, with no involvement of God. They have lost the biblical balance of God as both transcendent and imminent.


And as it stands your post is gibberish.
This statement says more about your maturity and comprehension ability than it does about my post.

Kirk

[Weboh2]

Kirk, I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. You object to deism in YECs. I thought you worded that YECs believed that God is needed in the everday operations of nature, and your parochial school theology just turns me off. Further, I disagree with your belief that this is the working premise of the christian scriptures.

Secondly, how is a unitarian deist god any less transcendent than "the trinitarian theist god"?

[KBertsche]

... your parochial school theology just turns me off.
What do you mean by this?? (Since I have never attended a parochial school, I don't have any idea what you're getting at.)

Further, I disagree with your belief that this is the working premise of the christian scriptures.
Then take a look at Colossians 1:17, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. God is the one who "does" the normal things in nature, according to the Bible. He has not given nature the power to do these things, He does them Himself.


Secondly, how is a unitarian deist god any less transcendent than "the trinitarian theist god"?
I don't know if He is. The issue is not transcendence, but imminence.

[Weboh2]

Then take a look at Colossians 1:17, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. God is the one who "does" the normal things in nature, according to the Bible. He has not given nature the power to do these things, He does them Himself.
Colossians 1:17 is an interesting example to start with, how it is mistranslated to give diety to christ; and Psalm 104 is also interesting in that the qal active particle is translated as being the action of Yahweh rather then result of the action in the preceding verb; and much of Job 38-42 is certainly poor translation. These are interesting examples of anti-deist bias in the translation of scriptures. I am glad you pointed them out though, because I should refute them.


I don't know if He is. The issue is not transcendence, but imminence.
I think lack of imminence is a sign that the human race is seperated from the God. No matter how much you pray or make offers to the God, it doesn't care. It seems to only to care about the dead.

The concept of the God having imminence seems nothing more than a religious scam used to deceive people out of deistic thinking. I prefer claims of sovereignty over claims of imminence. It's more satisfying.

[Thedonhopeless]

Well, this is odd, a TE saying YECs are deists lol.

It would seem to me, that an evolutionary perspective, would have God creating a self sustaining system ( a horrible one at that) in which God isn't even needed whatsoever. How can God be imminent in a system that is all about death, decay and the strong ruling the weak? These are all thigns caused by the fall of man, not by God. Sin does these things, so evolution, a very sinful paradigm, is logically absent of a non sinning God.

Yec's perspective is more logical, since it is a self sustaining system yes, however, while in evolution, creation is creating itself, creating "new" species (or so they claim), in a YEc paradigm, all the species ( as to their kind) were created by God and God alone. For instance, God created a dog, while the world created a poodle, but its still a dog. The world will work off of God's creation but it will not be God to create. In this way, God is imminent in all things in the YEC presupposition.

[KBertsche]

Well, this is odd, a TE saying YECs are deists lol.
I don't know who you are responding to; there shouldn't be any TE's in this forum.


It would seem to me, that an evolutionary perspective, would have God creating a self sustaining system ( a horrible one at that) in which God isn't even needed whatsoever.
This is a good description of an atheistic or deistic worldview. However, a theistic worldview says that nature is not self-sustaining. (Such a theistic wordview is shared by theologically-astute TE's, BTW.) I think you may be confusing evolution as a science with atheistic evolutionism as a worldview.


How can God be imminent in a system that is all about death, decay and the strong ruling the weak?
Why not? According to Scripture, God is imminent in such a system. Psalm 104:21 says that God feeds prey (=live animals) to lions.


These are all thigns caused by the fall of man, not by God.
I disagree.

[Captain America]

Concerning easyboy's original comments, I would largely agree. I have seen Hugh Ross' research treated with the same contempt (even in the same context) as that from ICR. What did others think of Ben Stein's assertions in the movie "Expelled"? There does seem to be a "anti-God" bias among the educational elite. Dawkins may be the most vocal, but there seems to be a disdain of anything that implies that the laws of nature may not always be followed or that anything supernatural has ever occurred, unless these acts are performed by interplanetary aliens.

[Rational Gaze]

How good is the Science of the Discovery Institute and other ID propenents? Atheist Evolutionists seem to treat it with equal disdain as they do for ICR.

[Rational Gaze]

unless these acts are performed by interplanetary aliens.Yeah. Francis Crick says aliens seeded life on earth and that's okay, but as soon as anybody says God is responsible, then they are pounced upon by the scientific community like a ton of bricks.

[DuraGizer]

Yeah. Francis Crick says aliens seeded life on earth and that's okay, but as soon as anybody says God is responsible, then they are pounced upon by the scientific community like a ton of bricks.

The scientific community does not prosecute individuals if they believe in God. Truth is many mainstream scientists are professing Christians.

It only when someone creates a psuedoscientific theory based on their faith and passes it off as accurate science where conflict occurs. The existence of deities - and intelligent design in the universe - cannot be falsified through scientific means, therefore theories created to prove those points are not scientific and do not belong in a science classroom. This is why we have the seperate schools of metaphysics and philosophy to deal with these things.

I guarantee that if Crick had tried to cook up some "scientific" theory of extraterrestrial creationism and pass it off as science he would have been lambasted for it.

This area is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only